I appreciate the fact that the motivations and morality of street photography can be kept under constant scrutiny. Street photography can also be restricted by law if necessary easily . When I photograph in the street more often than not the person I am photographing knows or sees that I am taking the photograph. However, the myriads of security cams are recording my movement all day and I don't even know who is keeping those videos, what they are doing with it, how the are storing it and how securely storing it. I find that more unsettling when I think about it.
I haven't done street photography in decades, but have a body of work that I've published and showed over the years. Most of my images are of people photographed unaware, which as you point out, is kosher in public spaces. I shot candidly, because I wanted my images to show normal behavior, but organized visually to be pleasing or interesting. In a sense, I was "painting" with faces, bodies, lighting, and spaces. A posed picture is fine, but to my taste that's a portrait, not a street photo. My motto was: Always give your subjects their full dignity. Never ridicule, never make fun, never take a cheap shot. It would be sad if this sort of image-making were outlawed.
Jamie, you are by far my favourite creator on UA-cam. You've helped me out a lot with your videos... not just in my career but also my home life. Keep smashing it mate!
I think it’s important to consider that we are on a threshold where we’re guilting street photographers for the unscrupulous conscience of what *other* people reappropriate their images. And yes it might “potentially become harmful” if bad cops are photographed in the act. I think that’s where the case closes for me…street Photography uses the same privelige set as photojournalism and they can’t be separated.
Yes, they can be separated by means of holding correct ID press badge. However, just because I work for the press, it doesn't make me immune to police brutality.
Free to photograph in public. Free to photograph things in plain view. Free to photograph where there's not a natural expectation of privacy. That's the freedom I'm talking about. I do not think the plain-view photography freedom we enjoy in the USA is seprable from the 4th estate freedoms. In fact I don't have enough brain cells to even imagine who/how the 4th estate is supposed to get "I'm allowed to be here" credentials that actually mean much of anything
Excellent video Jamie, very well laid out and considered. There is a historic precedence here too as after the Paris commune in 1871 photography was widely used to recognise and punish those who were involved. The photographs had been originally created to celebrate the commune but the purpose of the images quickly changed after it was laid down. So I guess this was a historic example of how photography can be used, of course the scale to which this can be applied on now is a bit worrying.
Very true... and the victors then subsequently celebrated/compounded their bloody seizure of control with a gruesome portfolio of photos of the dead communards... designed to intimidate and stifle any future social upheavals.
Interesting comment on the historical perspective. Drone attached cameras in the UK now have to be registered in the UK (even below 250g weight). How long before this happens with ground based cameras I wonder?
Another brilliant video Jamie! The key point of privacy is that the “private” information is protected, so my face when walking down the street is not private nor is my presence in the street. My name and personal details however are private unless I choose to provide them. In many countries I can actually refuse to give my name even to law enforcement unless they have valid reason to ask for it. With that in mind services such as Pimeye or the services that they scrape the images from are the ones that are breaching the privacy divide. Pimeye can only provide their “service” using images and data which is owned and hosted by other organisations. I suspect that many of those organisations actually have terms and conditions of use which prohibit such use of those images. We are seeing this already with the AI systems that are scraping images from sources such as Getty Images to obtain the source material for their services and then, rightfully IMHO, being sued by Getty and others for doing so illegally.
What you said about the white family and black man is so interesting. As street photographers we are able to capture and tell stories that may or may not have happened, based on the cameras perspective and when we choose to press the shutter. With the increase of facial recognition, we may be creating evidence against someone, even though they are perfectly innocent. Very thought provoking 🙌
I enjoy street photography and always try to get a good, candid image of people’s faces. What I won’t post is anything that I judge might cause embarrassment or portrays somebody in a bad light. Yes, these people can be identified but what ramifications are there? I suppose there’s a possibility that someone might be somewhere they weren’t meant to be, or be with someone they wouldn’t want to be seen with. I can’t really imagine any other issues. Street photography really does act as a document of a time and a place, and the characters who inhabit them, and it would be a great shame to have to stop.
@@jjbailey01 It's an expression that's used when someone is made to look bad in a general sense not in a technical photography compositional way. Let's say you're walking down the street and you love toddlers. So you see a couple of them running around kicking a ball and when they run passed you, you raise your hand for a high five. Well, capturing a photo in that situation just when it could look like you are actually mad and about to slap that kid, would be considered portrayed in a bad light.
Your videos make me think, question and have conversation. I love them. I look forward to your work and feel in the photography genre is by far the best I've seen on UA-cam. Thanks.
A very interesting perspective (no pun intended) on the issue, Jamie. Thank you. The larger and more complex issue is why privacy is no longer valued. A generation growing up with the internet and "social" media seemingly don't understand or care about privacy. They provide websites with their personal information (and pictures) in exchange for a service or product and seemingly care little if at all about how this information is being used. The trite saying is that if you're not paying for a product - you are the product - is apt. Facial recognition software is just using this to identify individuals who have (likely) willingly put their personal information on the internet. Those having their images used for commercial purposes without their consent should have an available and appropriate form of recourse. In short, facial recognition software that scours the internet is in itself, privacy invading but can only exist if people allow images of themselves to be on the internet. A requirement for many (UA-cam creators?) but, often a voluntary decision made by individuals who have little regard for their own personal information or image.
Excellent video, as always. The quality of the information, thoughts and graphics is amazing. Anyone who has ever tried to do any sort of video can relate to the effort clearly put into yours. Thanks a lot.
The only problem with your channel is that you are making 5/6 videos a year. You are too good, intelligent, useful. You are a huge inspiration to me and many others. I'm not sure it's okay to have so little of you! _[I'm showing my real picture portrait account]_
I’ve got some serious medical stuff going on so this last year has been a bit tricky. Been in and out of hospital. I’m going to make a video addressing it soon.
@@jamiewindsor I am very sorry to read it. I send you a big virtual hug and my lay blessing. I wish you the best and thank you very much, see you soon. Greetings from Tuscany.
@@jamiewindsor Thoughts going out to you, Jamie. Hope everything is heading in the right direction and you're being mended. You're head and shoulders above any other YT photography channel / creator so take it easy and make what you can, when you can.
Very interesting Jamie, thanks for taking the effort! 1. I don't immediately think it's a concern. Most public situation don't contain sensitive information. Your phone permanently provides more to ??? 2. It might still be the right thing in a greater context of privacy and information/data rights. 3. Most interesting I found how our perception could change from "figures" to individuals that we refrain from judging/interpreting from a mere photograph
Great video as always. I'm a couple weeks late to the party but I think that anonymity is kind of a side issue here. The law as it is in the US (and as far as I know, in the UK where I hear paparazzi are known to be especially aggressive) doesn't really have anything to do with people being anonymous and everything to do with whether a the subject has an expectation of privacy in that situation. In a public place, such as on a public street, you have no expectation of privacy. Anyone can be in the street, and anyone in that street can see you, therefore you have no expectation of your actions being private. In the US the subject doesn't even have to be in a public place themselves -- if they can be seen from a public place, that is enough to say that they have no expectation of privacy. If it were about being anonymous then you would never be able to take a picture of a famous person in the street, and if that were the case, the paparazzi would never be able to operate. That's just the legality, though. The ethics of street photography are of course, a whole other ball of wax.
I watch your videos over and over again and google te photographers you mention - you give me lots of "work" and happiness. No problem if you produce fewer videos than other channels - yours are more inspiring to me. I virtual hug, get better my friend.
Dude. Been following your posts for while, and though your content remains as good as it’s always been, your production values is incredible. Like. Wow! I found myself deeply engaged with your points and questions and genuinely hope many people watch this episode. A truly profound subject represented and broken down fairly…and entertaining as hell.
Great video! I love a good upload to get me prepped for my day. I am always quite alarmed to see where our photos end up and can be found. I have made an active effort my whole digital life to keep every account private and to post minimally to websites like Facebook to try and lower their amount of data they have on me, though it can never be entirely eliminated. I do think this will have a large impact on street photography simply because no matter how much you will try from now on to capture the feeling or scene in that moment, if enough of someone's face is showing, they can be found. This has a *huge* impact on children in street photography too. I think many ethical street photographers steer clear of getting pictures of children's faces unless they get permission from the parent or it's incidental and far off in the background, but with many of these parents posting their kids all over social media we've created a perfect breeding ground for AI to grow with these kids and allow the program to become more capable of identifying someone as a small child all the way through to adulthood (given that they use social media in any way/shape/form). I think there are a lot of implications that come with facial recognition and I really don't like where it is going. Many people have this idea that "They already have all my data and I've got nothing to hide", and not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but they *don't* have all your data. Every time you accept the terms and conditions of a new app or site, you are giving more access to your information, and with it your facial data. It will become very difficult in the future to do street photography and publish these photos without AI scumming programs searching the web via future employers and such. The BLM was a really good example of this. Protestors were being located via facial recognition and famous photographs of these protestors taken legally and posted can get them into trouble in a way we couldn't forsee before. This is basically a novel at this point so I'll end it here, but I do think that this can be more damaging for POC and other marginalized groups because any sort of data that can be used against them by employers/land lords etc can cause serious damage to a persons' image. Overall, I am quite worried about the way things are going, so I hope everyone who reads this will head my warning: They don't have all your data and the belief that they do is detrimental to your own data privacy. Remember to stay safe and don't post something that you wouldn't want your dream job employer to see. Things put on the internet are next to impossible to scrub off. Stay safe friends! (:
Great video. To me, the greater issue is the widespread availability of facial recognition services. While there was never a significant expectation of privacy in public, there was also never a significant expectation of the possibility of widespread tracking of the masses in public. While the two are not closely tied, there is nonetheless a relationship. Being able to track everyone everywhere in public (regardless of who is doing the tracking), changes things from no significant expectation of privacy to an expectation of significant invasion of privacy. Street photography is really just a footnote in this case.
Great video man (as usual) and you're absolutely correct that this is an issue. Unfortunately as a society, we don't consider consequences of actions until we're facing said consequences. I've contemplated privacy issues for quite a while, but never applied to photography as i rarely photograph people. When i do, i ask for permission and usually explain why i want to photograph them. I do this because it's polite and right in my mind, BUT to my understanding of US law- i can photograph anything i want that is in public view and don't have to do this. I've only had one person refuse a photo, but i honestly could tell by their body language beforehand that they weren't willing and i actually said, 'you look busy, are you?' instead of even bothering with asking for a photo.
Great questions. I wonder if AI facial replacement could be a part of the solution? Regardless of any legal changes, I wonder if cultural practice might need to evolve around street photography, like when a tv show opens with "this is based on real events, names have been changed to protect the innocent". Maybe street photography needs to ethically morph into some kind of hybrid photo-illustration? Tools like GFPGAN or even Photoshop's neural filters replace the face of the subject with an AI-imagined face that closely matches, but isn't the same face. Maybe that's not a bug, but a feature - if we can capture the same emotion and same situation but change the specific identifiers of a subjects face, would that be an ethical thing to do, even if the nature of if it still counts as a "photograph" gets muddy? I thought about this even regarding selling micro-stock photos - currently anything with identifiable people must have a model release. But if the people in the photo aren't actually real people, but AI generated replacements - does that still count? I think it's an interesting can of worms.
I may be wrong, but I think there is actually technology available that subtly changes some of the aspects that facial recognition tech uses to build its biometric faceprint of you. You are still recognisable by humans, but not by tech. Although as technology develops, I don’t know how long that would work for.
Almost on the exact same day as this video got uploaded there was a fella by the name of Dries Depoorter who unveiled a project called ‘the follower’ where he’d managed to script an AI to find instagram photos being taken on CCTV using the EXIF of photos. Basically he recorded a ton of footage from publicly available webcams in touristy areas, found some instagram photos uploaded in those locations during the times of his recordings and let the program do its thing. It came back with a load of gifs of people taking the photos they uploaded. If a hobbyist can do this (and there’s no reason why it couldn’t be indexed and searchable) then imagine what governments can do.
Very thought provoking. Privacy is being eroded everyday. The face recognition algorithms of cameras and camera phones these days may well lead to changes in the law. The amount of information that can be uncovered from basic information is more than concerning!
Best channel on UA-cam Got into photography a year ago found your channel and watched every single video Me and the mrs have now set up a photography business and doing really well I’m buying your presets Keep up the fantastic work
This is a very good example of why we need to think very carefully before constantly advancing technology. It has always been the case that just because something "can" be done doesn't automatically mean that it "should" be done. Great video by the way 👍
Hi Jamie, really interesting subject matter. The ability to remain relatively private is becoming more and more complex and difficult in so many ways. It certainly feels we are getting closer and closer to “1984”. Its hard to say where this will lead but I will say already I avoid images of children in my photography and youtube channel where ever possible for fear of offending anyone and just to give kids a break from our surveillance society. 👍😀
We are all being photographed, filmed and monitored wherever we go anyway. Without our permission. Someone taking your picture in the street is the least of your worries.
Just discovered your channel, instant sub. I very rarely comment on socials, but just had to congratulate you on the smoothness and subtleness of edits & graphics. Fantastic work!
Anonymity is a luxury of modern (urban) society. I grew up in a village in Ukraine 🇺🇦 with population of a few thousand villagers… And everybody knew each other by name and “which family you belong to” 😅 And it was pre-AI and pre-internet era!
A very thought provoking video. As an amateur street photographer, I normally try to be sensitive to sharing any photos that disparage an individual, but I have not had any concerns about taking photos of people in public places as I was always told that it is legal, unless it is shot on private property. The facial recognition capabilities available today is concerning, and although it won't change my street photography at present, it does give me pause in regards to sharing anything personal on social websites.
Welcome back and thank you for this video. Echoing some of the other comments, there has always been a question of power relations in photography. This is true of street and documentary photography, journalism and, in a more complex way, portraiture. And few people understand or remember that a photograph is a construction, not the thing or person itself. The advent of facial recognition adds more and bigger mines to the field. The locus of power shifts further away from the human subject of a photograph. Ultimately, it seems to me, it lands-albeit diffuse-in the hands of capital and the state. For me, this raises questions about how and where to shoot? Do I need consent and participation for street portraits, for group street shots? There are artists deliberately seeking not just consent but participation for street portraiture. By extension, what about posting the images? Printing is ok? There are myriad ethical and political questions here. In the current context, clear answers are few. I’m always impressed by your videos. Thank you.
I'm from Romania and my heart stopped when that article about a criminal appeared. Don't worry, you can come here, I've never seen that man in news, you're safe
I haven’t watched Sean‘s video yet so I don’t know if it might change my mind. But I do struggle with the mindset of „freedom to photograph people“ even without the possibility of face recognition. I for myself (me not being a public figure) would like to know and control when and where I am being photographed and where those pictures are published. (This also summarises the restrictions of street photography in Germany). And although I admire many well shot images of street photographers I don’t really support the claim of there being a „higher artistic purpose“ to street photography which is supposedly overruling a persons right to privacy. The improving accuracy of face recognition is an even greater cause for concern and I think this will impact many more aspects of our lives than just art and media.
" I for myself would like to know and control when and where I am being photographed" you have no control over the countless CCTV's in operation,what then?
@@shedendman I think there’s a substantial difference between CCTV footage that’s not publicly accessible and art - something designed to convey a message or make you feel something. To dismiss photographic practice because of the amount of security surveillance in operation is relative privation.
Fantastic presentation! This is a powerful conversation that will, in time, get louder and more complex. I travel a lot for photography and by virtue of that engage in a lot of street photography - as do many, many others. This conversation alone, without laws, makes me - and perhaps others - think more deeply about what I/we are doing. Very well done.
Might we be worried about the subjects of street photography being searched or stalked, or misrepresented, or that the photographer could suffer repercussions from a subject who might chance to discover themselves and react badly? Either could ultimately lead to new privacy laws restricting the genre. Glad to see you back. Your inquisitive, thoughtfully philosophical style on photography is much needed.
Most of my videos are in natural settings. One recent video was a beach walk during a minus tide. Obviously there were reasonable number of people on beach, including children. I chose my path to either pass behind people or pass sufficiently far enough ahead that no one could be identified from standard image. But could enlargement and/or clothing identify someone? Another video I encountered another hiker and told them I was videoing but still turned camera away to not capture their image. However, our conversation is in my public video, so voice reconnection could also be another factor.
I went to Europe recently and did all the touristy things. So as much as I’ve always wanted to get into street photography, I never have because I feel uncomfortable being so invasive or, if you’re being more ethical, I feel uncomfortable asking a stranger if I may take their portrait. Any, in tourism hotspots like the entire city of Paris, it’s like impossible to take a photo that doesn’t have some human in it. So my waiting for a largely unidentifiable person to push a bicycle into a sunny spot or taking a picture of the crowded summer riverbanks didn’t feel invasive anymore. No one was going to look up and feel stalked. What I’m getting to is that at a certain distance or crowdedness street photography stops feeling like a portrait and it might be possible from a legal perspective to define that? But also, maybe we can use the technology, like we use some light photoshop retouching, to change the faces in photographs we sell (with some AI rendering software) so that they maybe convey the same emotion but they aren’t recognisable. Like if you’re a model for a stock image, maybe the photograph can be run through some software that changes it subtly - just enough that it can’t be reverse image searched to identify you as the person associated with some nasty meme or product or whatever. I think the tech is nearly there. The only people who I imagine would be unhappy with this become legally mandated is like paparazzi. Like you can sell a photo of a random person but not of a specific person without their explicit consent because everyone’s face should maybe be their own property
Weird a photographer would question if street photography should be legal or not because a website can tell you all the information about that person with that picture. You should be questioning if be that website should be legal or not.
Did you watch the whole video? I express a lot of concerns about the technology and its availability. But my opinion is ultimately irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if I like or don’t like it, that fact is that it exists. I’m just speculating as to what that could potentially mean.
In my continental European country, the image of my face is not necessarily public intellectual property. In line with the freedom of press and news-gathering, however, taking photos of anything that is visible from public roads ia allowed. So the "expectation of privacy" does not pertain to the moment I, as photographer, take a picture of someone in the street. Yet, the concept exists relative to publication. So I can publish such images without restraint except when I can assume that doing so results in harming a "reasonable interest" of a person in a photo. And fast-track court-cases have been started by parties trying to prevent publication. Most of them lost, some of them won. Over the past decades, one thing that has changed is photographs of kids below adult age. The thing you describe for that AI firm already worked as "reverse lookup" in Google search years ago. It worked so well that Google has tuned it down. In the meantime, our public spaces are full of cameras everywhere. The "red light and speeding" cameras of the past only took your car's snapshot when you ran through a red light or went too fast or both. Today these film cameras have been replaced by digital and they actually may record video all day. And these images are analyzed by the tax department to verify the honesty of claims that a car for business purpose is not also used for private purposes. There are so many moments when we are recorded that it has become a fact of life. If we want anonymity, we should not publish our portraits with our personal details and next trust the sheer volume of data going around in the interwebs to reduce the chance of being recognized to almost zero. Will the public's attitude to street photography change? It is happening. People don't know the rights of photographers. They could get angry - I hear someone proudly tell about that and feeling to have won a battle when the photographer erased shots with her in it. If "street" was my thing, I would print red cards for such people and yellow tickets for the less aggressive negative ones.
So nice to see a well put together video Jamie, and one that doesn't have these ridiculous jump cuts! Allows for so much more emotion to show in the video in my opinion, and left me hanging on to every word you were saying. Keep up the great work!
Corporations and governments plant surveillance cameras all around public places. Individuals replace their door bells with Ring cameras and put up surveillance cameras that watch public spaces near their houses. Increasingly, corporations are trying to link all of these cameras together and have started to use machine learning to identify and potentially track people. Those are efforts I and others are working to stop. I really cannot worry about a street photographer taking photos of people in public places that may identify someone at a later date.
ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY!!! BLAH!!! BLAH!!! BLAH!!! 😡 😡 😡 Thought it might catch your eye. Lol. Excellent take on the subject and something I hadn’t considered. Good to see another video from you, I always enjoy your content. Keep it up.
I have to say I am highly dubious of the pimeyes search feature working facial recognition as I'm sure this just produces lots of false positives. I think it's most successful results are by performing a second search based on metadata from a good hit. For example if one of the photos led to a Facebook page with the name it would use that name to help it in its other results. It gives the illusion like it's found all of its results just purely from your face but i think that's only a little part of their algorithm.
I see street photography very critically. If the subject of a photo is a specific person, that person should always be asked for permission, unless that person is committing a crime. Street photographers often travel to poor districts and take photos of the people there as if those people are animals at the zoo. The dignity of a person demands that you at least speak to them. Especially if it is a homeless person. If you were homeless, would you be comfortable with a photo of you in the streets with dirty clothes going viral? Even without facial recognition a photo might always be seen so many people that some might recognize the person. Of course asking a person before you take a photo might make the photos appear staged, but you can still take a photo and ask the person afterwards. If that person does not agree, you just delete that photo. You also do not keep a private copy. Legally you may not be required to do that, but you should respect the will of the person. Keep in mind that in such a situation that person is your model, even if the person is not good looking. Models usually get paid money. So how can you expect a person to be your model for free? Photographers will not work for free either. They might even use that photo for a book or an exhibition. One photo that really made me angry is the photo of the nude girl whose clothes were burned by an American napalm bomb in Vietnam. That photo may have had an huge impact and perhaps even saved a lot of lives because it changed the sentiment towards a war. However it is still a photo of a nude girl taken without her consent. In any other circumstance that would be considered child pornography and land you in jail for a long time. Making a political statement can't be an excuse for publishing a photo of a nude girl. I know that that girl is now grown up and proud about that photo, but that does not make in retroactively right.
Someone else touched on this in a comment about the restrictions on street photography in Germany. It's strict and pretty much a no-go taking photos of strangers on the street without their permission. As a member of public, I like these restrictions because I know that nobody will bother me with a camera taking unwanted photos, and if they do, swift legal action can be taken, but as a photographer, especially doing photojournalism work, it can make life quite complicated, but I simply don't publish photos where there could be a potential issue. I always felt it was a gross invasion of privacy to take upclose photos of strangers without their permission anyway. However, I think that facial recognision is an extremely dangerous tool, especially given that it is supposedly being rolled out in public in parts of London (Putney is said to have these cameras already) for surveilence purposes. The oportunities and dangers of missuse far outweigh the benefits of "proper" use, (especially when in the hands of government authorities) in my opinion, and I feel like this technology needs to be curtailed before masive damage is done.
I think people grossly over estimate how much anyone cares about a random photo of their face. I would much rather live in a society that privileges transcendent artistic expression over the unfounded fears of narcissists. Facial recognition tech does complicate this calculation, though
What if the face is changed with AI? Photoshop can do it in 5sec: change eye, lip, nose, ear size, distance, even expression. Then it will be just a look a like and the atmosphere of the photo will not be touched.
Hope you don't look at anyone without their permission. Maybe wear a mask when you're out and about, you'll feel safer then. You're already tracked facially, by the registration of your car, by your phone, your payment card, pretty much everything you do. And you're worried someone might take your photo? People are strange.
@@cliveadams7629 > You're already tracked facially, by the registration of your car unfortunately in the EU car plates are considered PII and protected ,you have to blur them out in dashcam footage :/
I love your articles. I also admire a curious delivery much more than opinionated one. My feelings on the subject of image recognition affecting the society is that it is just a new version and not a new thing. If you remember post offices full of FBI's most wanted posters, they relied on you recognizing images. I think what is amazing is even people very involved in imaging may be surprised about the extent of the technology. Like you were about the blurred image. Cheers
I don't feel like doing street photography myself anyway, as I don't feel like there is a lot of social allowance left for it anyway, regardless of legality.
Just do it . I don’t know what country you’re in, but I find that the more I do it, the more I find out how to get away with it. And keep in mind, just about anybody can pull out a phone and snap without even the least bit of censure
That's why I prefer the approach that Sean Tucker has shown in many of his videos of making the person in the image unrecognizable. You can turn the person into a silhouette or you can take one of those pictures where the face is hidden behind an object like a newspaper or a balloon or something else. I find these pictures if done right are even more interesting and have something mysterious. And if someone is upset because you've taken a picture of him you can show him the image and that he is not recognizable and that might remove the worries that person has concerning his privacy.
Very interesting video. FYI in Quebec, Canada street photography of identifiable individuals is not allowed (unless they are part of a large crowd). So when I take shots of random individuals they are generally blurred or seen from behind. If someone is recognizable I wouldn’t post the photo on a public site. Makes composition a little more tricky but still possible to get compelling images.
Yep. If you take/make "street" pictures according to local laws, you're "protected". Probably most of the people on your shots share much more "sensitive" informations on their "social" sites. Main problems: - sites collecting/gathering data and showing them in on place as public data, even it could be right - my main problem is not collecting data, but how to use/publish them?!?!, and it seems hard to punish it.
What an absolute machine. Your videos make my day and have sparked many of the most interesting conversations I have had. Thanks and congratulations as always. Hope your health improves :)
Turn it on its head. The Street Photographer is not violating the person's right to privacy by taking and posting anonymous photos. However, the person searching the subject is either self-interested, stalking, surveilling, or pursuing state/national interests. If there are any laws that should be changed it should be in reference to that access and usage of "Facial Recognition" software and their applied usage. The moral obligation does not lie with the photographer, as the photographer has no control over downstream post-publication use or abuse of the image. My last point is a question: At what point, post-publication, can a street photographer, "reasonably" predict and control the loss of anonymity of the subject(s) in their photographs?
The base ethical question runs deeper and opens up other questions. As a governance manager in the biomedical industry, I find data protection and the public's perception of data privacy is often at a juxtaposition without them realising it. We actively choose to share our data with private industries and governments from around the world on a daily basis and yet most people remain blissfully unaware just what they are sharing and with whom. But when directly asked 'would you share your genetic information with a private biomedical company for research into X condition?' It's amazing how many get defensive, it rings alarm bells, yet they sign up to companies like 23 and me or DNA profiling with Ancestry without so much of a thought because it's just a bit of 'fun'. From my perspective, that bit of 'fun' carries far higher risks of abuse. There are parallels here with photos hosted online. People post up images of themselves as 'fun', but that fun carries higher risks of abuse than a street photographer posting up an anonymous picture, as the persons selfie has their personal data linked to it. In the biomedical industry we now acknowledge the difficulty in trying to truly anonymous data, and most of the time work on the definition of linked anonymised, where the public facing data is anonymised, but there is controlled key that links it back to the personal data. Within GDPR, the data handler that holds the link has the responsibility for ensuring the protection of that link. But that only works where the data is hosted by a country which has applicable laws to that protect data. Facial recognition software is only as powerful as the data it finds, if there are no links to personal data then it is useless. Ultimately, the responsibility of data protection shifts to the individual, if you choose to post your personal data on a public site hosted in a country with appropriate controls, providing the hosting site is still keeping the data they hold about you private, then that is your choice to make your information publicly available. If you choice to use a service hosted in a country of a despotic regime then again, it is the individual choice. Whilst there is work towards a more global unified approach to data protection, the most important thing is just educating people what, how, and where their information is stored and used. If there is a time when data protection would inhibit a photographer from posting an anonymised image of a person online, then the wrong protections have been put in place.
Great conversation starter, Jamie. Image and Face recognition softwares have been around for a while now. I guess the real question now is: is it ok to let anyone to have access to it? I mean, these types of softwares used to serve a specific purpose, usually for security and it was handled under security clearances by officials, etc.; but today any person can look up anyone, indeed it could be dangerous.
We definitely live in strange times, technology has become so powerful that it affects almost every aspect of our lives. I love street photography, most of my photos are taken sneakily.... ekhm, candid moments :) but I often ask myself what is the story behind this person, did they agree to have this photo taken? How will that person react if they find themselves on some random Instagram account photographed in the street, coming back from work.
I used to live in the US. I loved doing street photography, and knew that, as long as you were standing on public land, you could pretty much take a picture of anyone (very few exceptions), and be Ok with the law. Now I live once again in my home country of Portugal, and I have learned about right of ownership. This broadly means that if I take a nice picture out in a public place of another person, there is nothing I can do with that picture (except print it and look at it myself), without the express written consent of that person. I can see valid points in both points of view. But I have since given up street photography and concentrate on architectural photography.
I think the law should revolve around limiting cyber information available publicly or the other way around, having such technology like facial recognition / AI be inaccessible to unauthorized people. Think we should have a system where we regulate the access to it to prevent abuse? That's my viewpoint of it, focus on the regulation of the cyber / technology aspects rather than just affecting the photography / capture of photos.
I think that's a reasonable solution, but since the software is already available, it will be hard to overcome its momentum. In short, people who want to use it to exploit others will be able to steal it or find it on the black market somehow anyway, and then we're right where we started.
Interesting topic indeed. I've never really given it a thought but this made me scared tbh. Side note, I think your work is great and I really enjoy it. People who go and pick fights with others on the internet are not worth anyone's time.
Thank you for your thoughts on this issue and your food for thought. Am I concerned? Absolutely. Do I have a practicable solution? I'm afraid, I have not. As you hinted at, the singular use of facial recognition has been taken out of the hand of authorities (how they are to be dealt with, is another topic worth talking about) and has become available to basically anybody. Doxxing has become a favourite tool in political contexts, harrassments, evaluations when you want to enter new environments. And it's not about "I've got nothing to hide" anymore, because contexts can shift rapidly, motivations can shift rapidly, consequences can shift rapidly. Two easy examples? Maybe, you used to smoke weed when younger. Photos exist showing you accordingly during an open air concert a few years ago. You apply for a new job. Today's technical possibilities allow the employer to sift and select - even without you being aware of that (so you can't react properly). Same applies to social groups, you want to be a member of etc. Are you trustworthy? You are not in control of your data. You didn't even know those photos existed in the first place. Two: A couple of years ago, a photography of you (a woman, in this case) was taken in front of a hospital, you in a contemplative mood. The hospital offers, among many others, birth control and abortion services. Harmless back then, a politically charged issue today in some environments. Doxxing ensues, harrassment - and who knows what may happen in the future. Contexts have shifted. Facts are not at the forefront, simple suspicions may suffice. Contexts and purposes reign. Those aren't speculative cases. And they only scratch the surface. Solution? I do not know. Restraints we may employ today (such as the classical "Don't photograph people in situations in which you wouldn't want to be photographed yourself.") may age, consequences may change. I admit, I am not as comfortable as I have been when photographing people and thinking about publishing those photos electronically., and I have cut back somewhat. Certainly when environmental and situational photos are involved, documentary style. Without a rule framework in my mind about this, I admit. But I do not know.
Sounds like you’re basically where I am with it. I have definitely felt myself being less comfortable photographing strangers (and even at events like weddings where I am paid to literally be doing that). The ‘forever’ nature of the internet scares me. I’ve found comments I made on things back when I was in my early 20s that I don’t remember making. I don’t think what I thought back then anymore. I’m concerned about the discouragement of owning our flaws and mistakes, learning, and moving forward.
This is a very interesting topic of conversation. Although the initial intention is good, when companies like this use the term “criminals”, what do they actually mean? After learning about Yanis Varoufakis and his theory of “techno feudalism”, I can’t stop but wonder how much our lives are in the hands of these tech companies and how far their control of our lives goes. This conversation could also expand onto crypto and nfts, since there’s no regulation on what “crypto artists” can do in that area. Anyway, I digress
This is yet one more reminder that, in fact, we have no reasonable expectation of privacy anymore. There is practically no place in London, for example, that a person can walk and not be caught on CCTV.
There never was. It’s just the velocity of the information that has changed and government/pseudo governments’ willingness to Hoover up the images. (Pun intended on the Hoover)
Acutely insightful profoundly instructive video, as are all your videos. Thank you. Let's think carefully before we put a photograph our for public consumption. We need to ask questions like, "Does this photograph tell the truth?" or "Will this photograph needlessly embarrass the subject?" (ie "Would the subject be expected to laugh along with the people who view this funny photograph?") or "Will this photograph promote justice?"
Well my first impression based on the title of your video was that you were going to talk about the face tracking auto focus on your camera. 😆 Your topic is much better and thought provoking. It was good. Everyone needs to have on their critical thinking caps when considering these questions. It can be tough to know what to do in some situations. I think it comes down to the principles we live our life by. Respect, kindness, tolerance, consideration and others. The situation may become more murky to navigate but if you hold to good principles and have good intent you will be better off. I believe there is influence for good and evil around us. Opposition is important for our experience! Be good and learn how to protect yourself and others who you photograph from those who have evil or less than good intent. I liked your point about not know the context of a photograph. I think we are often too critical of others based on our limited understanding. I am a Christian. Members of my church have been and are still mistakenly called “Mormons” (Mormon was a prophet who followed Jesus Christ). There are plenty ready to shovel the dirt on my church by relaying misleading lies or twist facts by taking them out of context. This is not good for them and for those who listen. To any I invite you to learn about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a good source even if you have heard negative things before. Go to www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist or talk to a missionary. Learn how Christ (He lives!) directs His church today through living prophets!
What if the face is changed? Photoshop can change the eye size, distance, nose with AI slides. Takes only 2sec. Are we safe then? Would be amazing to have an online service like this that maybe does it better and faster.
You can still stay anonymous even with facial recognition. These A.I platforms only have access to what the general public has access to. In fact they are even more limited. If you private your account on any platform, they have zero ability to trace anything. It will be a problem. If you live on the internet. But then again, if you have open accounts everywhere with the purpose of wanting people to see, find, follow and grow your audience then an A.I is only accessing information people already have access to. The biggest issue in future is getting this in government hands. Or if its used to build 3d models of the subject for ... you know what kind of purposes. You can already do that if you know how to 3D model. But this allows automating the process to the general public. It's the same concept for generated art and photography. What happens when the general public has access to skills as a service without being skilled at anything themselves. This is why people should limit access to their accounts *TODAY* not 10 years from now when it's a problem and you've posed 2000 selfies for platforms to scrape from.
I think it’s always a good idea to remember that the laws for taking photos are separate from the laws for USING photos. And any new laws will have to think about which side they’ll best sit on. As to what new laws we’ll end up needing, that will depend on the new technologies and weighing their needs regarding convenience and utility against the potential negative uses. For example, if we end up with glasses that connect us to a meta verse that lives side by side us, and corresponds to reality, but necessitates us all having cameras that are always on? The utility of such unforeseen technology might end up being so great that all just decide to live in a world where everyone is known to everyone and our identity is never a secret.
I find your videos excellent and often thought provoking. I'm old and society's changing values are disturbing to me. Much as they were to my parents. The issue of personal privacy has been severely eroded by all forms of social media. Everyone has access to everyone. I believe western culture is on a very slippery path. I'm glad I'm old!!
I suspect what might reinforce change more than mere street photography are the amount of incidents that find themselves on UA-cam/SM. To clarify, imagine you’re getting arrested, or in altercation or have been in serious accident … as soon as this happens out come the mobile phones often behind the vague veil of ‘reportage’ or ‘human rights’ … however what is frequently ignored and never ceased to amaze me is the huge amount of collateral intrusion, lack of context or of course consent … It also hinder the due process, causes division, especially when taken out of context and arguably places people at unnecessary risk … it’s long overdue in my opinion …
Very interesting subject and a lot to think about. Perhaps in the further we’ll see less street photography as people or laws become more restrictive? I mean, no one dare take a photograph of kids playing in the streets nowadays, yet if one looks at the works by Don McCullen from the 70’s, you’ll find exactly that. I recall an article in a popular UK photography magazine, about 20 years ago now, on street photography and how in the future they predicted that you’ll probably need a permit or license to own a camera and use it in the street. Use an actual camera in the street and people will stare or stop you, but whip your phone out and no one bats an eye.
When you walk down the street, especially in many large cities, you are constantly caught on cameras operated by government authorities using facial recognition software. The potential for using this in a repressive manner is huge, and in places like China that's exactly what it's used for. The independent street photographer with his SLR is not the real threat here, but we have been conditioned to be afraid of him while ignoring the state-sanctioned privacy threat.
Big Thanks for addressing such a sensitive! It’s really important! You gave a very fine-differencing, thoughtful and enpathic way of talking about this. I am really amazed. I have been wishing there are more people who talk so thoughtful about data privacy concerns also in regards to Internet and facial recognition and photography. Max Schremm is is very engaged in the European Data privacy and also the treaties from Europe with the USA. The last treaty were cancelled by the European court. So technically it was illegal in Europe to transfer people data to servers in the US (Facebook, UA-cam, ect) without their consent. To the GDPR. Does the GDPR counts still in the UK? Since Brexit you aren’t mandatory bound to the laws of the EU? So I wondered if the GDPR is still valid? To the GDPR and street photography. I read a law-case a while ago. Regarding the GDPR and probably also other German data privacy and copyright laws. The conclusion is that street photography is allowed if the photos are published in a real life exhibition. If you publish it in the internet or upload it to UA-cam or somewhere else( with servers in the US), it technically and legally a felony according to German laws. What is really serious about this stuff are this videos on UA-cam making video where they walk through a big city and film things with sound in high definition. You hear words of people talking and see clear images of random faces. It’s not old VHS blurry, it’s high definition 4 K video. And with the facial recognition you also have lot of personal data and people not know about it. Also they film license plate of care and other vehicles, what is also against the GDPR in Germany. I contacted the German Berlin privacy agency and reported that. They looked over it and proofed that it’s actually illegal, but they can’t do something about it, probably because they habe to little people and resources. It’s a big urgent topic of our time. Especially with more and more sensitive data going online on worldwide servers. Thank you for addressing this!!!
I appreciate the fact that the motivations and morality of street photography can be kept under constant scrutiny. Street photography can also be restricted by law if necessary easily . When I photograph in the street more often than not the person I am photographing knows or sees that I am taking the photograph. However, the myriads of security cams are recording my movement all day and I don't even know who is keeping those videos, what they are doing with it, how the are storing it and how securely storing it. I find that more unsettling when I think about it.
You’re back!
I haven't done street photography in decades, but have a body of work that I've published and showed over the years. Most of my images are of people photographed unaware, which as you point out, is kosher in public spaces. I shot candidly, because I wanted my images to show normal behavior, but organized visually to be pleasing or interesting. In a sense, I was "painting" with faces, bodies, lighting, and spaces. A posed picture is fine, but to my taste that's a portrait, not a street photo. My motto was: Always give your subjects their full dignity. Never ridicule, never make fun, never take a cheap shot. It would be sad if this sort of image-making were outlawed.
I love that you always start with a question to convey a reflection, some thoughts and ideas from your own experience and work. Thank you!
Jamie, you are by far my favourite creator on UA-cam. You've helped me out a lot with your videos... not just in my career but also my home life. Keep smashing it mate!
I think it’s important to consider that we are on a threshold where we’re guilting street photographers for the unscrupulous conscience of what *other* people reappropriate their images. And yes it might “potentially become harmful” if bad cops are photographed in the act. I think that’s where the case closes for me…street Photography uses the same privelige set as photojournalism and they can’t be separated.
Yes, they can be separated by means of holding correct ID press badge. However, just because I work for the press, it doesn't make me immune to police brutality.
Free to photograph in public. Free to photograph things in plain view. Free to photograph where there's not a natural expectation of privacy. That's the freedom I'm talking about.
I do not think the plain-view photography freedom we enjoy in the USA is seprable from the 4th estate freedoms. In fact I don't have enough brain cells to even imagine who/how the 4th estate is supposed to get "I'm allowed to be here" credentials that actually mean much of anything
Excellent video Jamie, very well laid out and considered. There is a historic precedence here too as after the Paris commune in 1871 photography was widely used to recognise and punish those who were involved. The photographs had been originally created to celebrate the commune but the purpose of the images quickly changed after it was laid down. So I guess this was a historic example of how photography can be used, of course the scale to which this can be applied on now is a bit worrying.
Very true... and the victors then subsequently celebrated/compounded their bloody seizure of control with a gruesome portfolio of photos of the dead communards... designed to intimidate and stifle any future social upheavals.
Interesting comment on the historical perspective.
Drone attached cameras in the UK now have to be registered in the UK (even below 250g weight).
How long before this happens with ground based cameras I wonder?
Another brilliant video Jamie! The key point of privacy is that the “private” information is protected, so my face when walking down the street is not private nor is my presence in the street. My name and personal details however are private unless I choose to provide them. In many countries I can actually refuse to give my name even to law enforcement unless they have valid reason to ask for it.
With that in mind services such as Pimeye or the services that they scrape the images from are the ones that are breaching the privacy divide. Pimeye can only provide their “service” using images and data which is owned and hosted by other organisations. I suspect that many of those organisations actually have terms and conditions of use which prohibit such use of those images. We are seeing this already with the AI systems that are scraping images from sources such as Getty Images to obtain the source material for their services and then, rightfully IMHO, being sued by Getty and others for doing so illegally.
What you said about the white family and black man is so interesting. As street photographers we are able to capture and tell stories that may or may not have happened, based on the cameras perspective and when we choose to press the shutter.
With the increase of facial recognition, we may be creating evidence against someone, even though they are perfectly innocent.
Very thought provoking 🙌
I enjoy street photography and always try to get a good, candid image of people’s faces. What I won’t post is anything that I judge might cause embarrassment or portrays somebody in a bad light. Yes, these people can be identified but what ramifications are there? I suppose there’s a possibility that someone might be somewhere they weren’t meant to be, or be with someone they wouldn’t want to be seen with. I can’t really imagine any other issues. Street photography really does act as a document of a time and a place, and the characters who inhabit them, and it would be a great shame to have to stop.
To the notion of portraying someone in bad light, is it not the literal job of the photographer to make do with the light available?
@@jjbailey01 It's an expression that's used when someone is made to look bad in a general sense not in a technical photography compositional way.
Let's say you're walking down the street and you love toddlers. So you see a couple of them running around kicking a ball and when they run passed you, you raise your hand for a high five.
Well, capturing a photo in that situation just when it could look like you are actually mad and about to slap that kid, would be considered portrayed in a bad light.
Your videos make me think, question and have conversation. I love them. I look forward to your work and feel in the photography genre is by far the best I've seen on UA-cam. Thanks.
A very interesting perspective (no pun intended) on the issue, Jamie. Thank you. The larger and more complex issue is why privacy is no longer valued. A generation growing up with the internet and "social" media seemingly don't understand or care about privacy. They provide websites with their personal information (and pictures) in exchange for a service or product and seemingly care little if at all about how this information is being used. The trite saying is that if you're not paying for a product - you are the product - is apt. Facial recognition software is just using this to identify individuals who have (likely) willingly put their personal information on the internet. Those having their images used for commercial purposes without their consent should have an available and appropriate form of recourse. In short, facial recognition software that scours the internet is in itself, privacy invading but can only exist if people allow images of themselves to be on the internet. A requirement for many (UA-cam creators?) but, often a voluntary decision made by individuals who have little regard for their own personal information or image.
Excellent video, as always. The quality of the information, thoughts and graphics is amazing. Anyone who has ever tried to do any sort of video can relate to the effort clearly put into yours. Thanks a lot.
The only problem with your channel is that you are making 5/6 videos a year. You are too good, intelligent, useful. You are a huge inspiration to me and many others.
I'm not sure it's okay to have so little of you!
_[I'm showing my real picture portrait account]_
I’ve got some serious medical stuff going on so this last year has been a bit tricky. Been in and out of hospital. I’m going to make a video addressing it soon.
@@jamiewindsor I am very sorry to read it. I send you a big virtual hug and my lay blessing. I wish you the best and thank you very much, see you soon. Greetings from Tuscany.
@@jamiewindsor Thoughts going out to you, Jamie. Hope everything is heading in the right direction and you're being mended. You're head and shoulders above any other YT photography channel / creator so take it easy and make what you can, when you can.
@@jamiewindsor Jamie, I sincerely hope that your medical issues get sorted. Feel better.
Wish you a quick recovery, Jamie ! Take care.
You' re back and it is good to hear from you. Take care. We like very much your channel.
So glad you are recording again
Very interesting Jamie, thanks for taking the effort!
1. I don't immediately think it's a concern. Most public situation don't contain sensitive information. Your phone permanently provides more to ???
2. It might still be the right thing in a greater context of privacy and information/data rights.
3. Most interesting I found how our perception could change from "figures" to individuals that we refrain from judging/interpreting from a mere photograph
was expecting more photography talk, but i'm glad that you also talk about security - people simply don't care and don't know the risks
Great video as always. I'm a couple weeks late to the party but I think that anonymity is kind of a side issue here. The law as it is in the US (and as far as I know, in the UK where I hear paparazzi are known to be especially aggressive) doesn't really have anything to do with people being anonymous and everything to do with whether a the subject has an expectation of privacy in that situation. In a public place, such as on a public street, you have no expectation of privacy. Anyone can be in the street, and anyone in that street can see you, therefore you have no expectation of your actions being private. In the US the subject doesn't even have to be in a public place themselves -- if they can be seen from a public place, that is enough to say that they have no expectation of privacy. If it were about being anonymous then you would never be able to take a picture of a famous person in the street, and if that were the case, the paparazzi would never be able to operate. That's just the legality, though. The ethics of street photography are of course, a whole other ball of wax.
I love how this video is both informative, and serves as a subtle warning to that person harassing you in the comments. Well done! 👍🏼
I watch your videos over and over again and google te photographers you mention - you give me lots of "work" and happiness.
No problem if you produce fewer videos than other channels - yours are more inspiring to me. I virtual hug, get better my friend.
Dude. Been following your posts for while, and though your content remains as good as it’s always been, your production values is incredible. Like. Wow! I found myself deeply engaged with your points and questions and genuinely hope many people watch this episode. A truly profound subject represented and broken down fairly…and entertaining as hell.
Good to see you out again with relevant topics with diff perspective. Shout out from South East Asia 🎉
Great video! I love a good upload to get me prepped for my day. I am always quite alarmed to see where our photos end up and can be found. I have made an active effort my whole digital life to keep every account private and to post minimally to websites like Facebook to try and lower their amount of data they have on me, though it can never be entirely eliminated.
I do think this will have a large impact on street photography simply because no matter how much you will try from now on to capture the feeling or scene in that moment, if enough of someone's face is showing, they can be found. This has a *huge* impact on children in street photography too. I think many ethical street photographers steer clear of getting pictures of children's faces unless they get permission from the parent or it's incidental and far off in the background, but with many of these parents posting their kids all over social media we've created a perfect breeding ground for AI to grow with these kids and allow the program to become more capable of identifying someone as a small child all the way through to adulthood (given that they use social media in any way/shape/form). I think there are a lot of implications that come with facial recognition and I really don't like where it is going.
Many people have this idea that "They already have all my data and I've got nothing to hide", and not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but they *don't* have all your data. Every time you accept the terms and conditions of a new app or site, you are giving more access to your information, and with it your facial data. It will become very difficult in the future to do street photography and publish these photos without AI scumming programs searching the web via future employers and such. The BLM was a really good example of this. Protestors were being located via facial recognition and famous photographs of these protestors taken legally and posted can get them into trouble in a way we couldn't forsee before.
This is basically a novel at this point so I'll end it here, but I do think that this can be more damaging for POC and other marginalized groups because any sort of data that can be used against them by employers/land lords etc can cause serious damage to a persons' image. Overall, I am quite worried about the way things are going, so I hope everyone who reads this will head my warning: They don't have all your data and the belief that they do is detrimental to your own data privacy. Remember to stay safe and don't post something that you wouldn't want your dream job employer to see. Things put on the internet are next to impossible to scrub off. Stay safe friends! (:
Great video. To me, the greater issue is the widespread availability of facial recognition services. While there was never a significant expectation of privacy in public, there was also never a significant expectation of the possibility of widespread tracking of the masses in public. While the two are not closely tied, there is nonetheless a relationship. Being able to track everyone everywhere in public (regardless of who is doing the tracking), changes things from no significant expectation of privacy to an expectation of significant invasion of privacy. Street photography is really just a footnote in this case.
To me this is the best photography channel out there no matter what haters say 🖤
Great video man (as usual) and you're absolutely correct that this is an issue. Unfortunately as a society, we don't consider consequences of actions until we're facing said consequences. I've contemplated privacy issues for quite a while, but never applied to photography as i rarely photograph people. When i do, i ask for permission and usually explain why i want to photograph them. I do this because it's polite and right in my mind, BUT to my understanding of US law- i can photograph anything i want that is in public view and don't have to do this. I've only had one person refuse a photo, but i honestly could tell by their body language beforehand that they weren't willing and i actually said, 'you look busy, are you?' instead of even bothering with asking for a photo.
Great questions. I wonder if AI facial replacement could be a part of the solution? Regardless of any legal changes, I wonder if cultural practice might need to evolve around street photography, like when a tv show opens with "this is based on real events, names have been changed to protect the innocent". Maybe street photography needs to ethically morph into some kind of hybrid photo-illustration? Tools like GFPGAN or even Photoshop's neural filters replace the face of the subject with an AI-imagined face that closely matches, but isn't the same face. Maybe that's not a bug, but a feature - if we can capture the same emotion and same situation but change the specific identifiers of a subjects face, would that be an ethical thing to do, even if the nature of if it still counts as a "photograph" gets muddy? I thought about this even regarding selling micro-stock photos - currently anything with identifiable people must have a model release. But if the people in the photo aren't actually real people, but AI generated replacements - does that still count? I think it's an interesting can of worms.
I may be wrong, but I think there is actually technology available that subtly changes some of the aspects that facial recognition tech uses to build its biometric faceprint of you. You are still recognisable by humans, but not by tech. Although as technology develops, I don’t know how long that would work for.
Almost on the exact same day as this video got uploaded there was a fella by the name of Dries Depoorter who unveiled a project called ‘the follower’ where he’d managed to script an AI to find instagram photos being taken on CCTV using the EXIF of photos. Basically he recorded a ton of footage from publicly available webcams in touristy areas, found some instagram photos uploaded in those locations during the times of his recordings and let the program do its thing. It came back with a load of gifs of people taking the photos they uploaded.
If a hobbyist can do this (and there’s no reason why it couldn’t be indexed and searchable) then imagine what governments can do.
Very thought provoking. Privacy is being eroded everyday. The face recognition algorithms of cameras and camera phones these days may well lead to changes in the law. The amount of information that can be uncovered from basic information is more than concerning!
Best channel on UA-cam
Got into photography a year ago found your channel and watched every single video
Me and the mrs have now set up a photography business and doing really well
I’m buying your presets
Keep up the fantastic work
Thank you. That’s really great to hear.
I’ve only started watching your videos very recently (the last two days!) and I love them. Beautiful things. Thank you.
This is a very good example of why we need to think very carefully before constantly advancing technology. It has always been the case that just because something "can" be done doesn't automatically mean that it "should" be done.
Great video by the way 👍
Thank you! I'll have to chew on this for a bit. As always, great content, well laid out and thought provoking! Carry On!
Man, your view and thought process amazes me every time you upload.
Hi Jamie, really interesting subject matter. The ability to remain relatively private is becoming more and more complex and difficult in so many ways. It certainly feels we are getting closer and closer to “1984”. Its hard to say where this will lead but I will say already I avoid images of children in my photography and youtube channel where ever possible for fear of offending anyone and just to give kids a break from our surveillance society. 👍😀
@@billybud6448 you mean we are already there ? Certainly China is in regards to its monitoring of its citizens and its “ social credit “ system.
We are all being photographed, filmed and monitored wherever we go anyway. Without our permission. Someone taking your picture in the street is the least of your worries.
Still have to say, as a photography channel, I feel like yours is one of the most important. Unlike most is doing *HOW,* you are doing *WHY.*
Just discovered your channel, instant sub. I very rarely comment on socials, but just had to congratulate you on the smoothness and subtleness of edits & graphics. Fantastic work!
@@RLR_Luchian Thank you.
Amazing to see you back, man! Also amazing video as usually. Brings up a much needed - and far late - question for us photographers.
Anonymity is a luxury of modern (urban) society. I grew up in a village in Ukraine 🇺🇦 with population of a few thousand villagers… And everybody knew each other by name and “which family you belong to” 😅 And it was pre-AI and pre-internet era!
A very thought provoking video. As an amateur street photographer, I normally try to be sensitive to sharing any photos that disparage an individual, but I have not had any concerns about taking photos of people in public places as I was always told that it is legal, unless it is shot on private property. The facial recognition capabilities available today is concerning, and although it won't change my street photography at present, it does give me pause in regards to sharing anything personal on social websites.
Welcome back and thank you for this video.
Echoing some of the other comments, there has always been a question of power relations in photography. This is true of street and documentary photography, journalism and, in a more complex way, portraiture. And few people understand or remember that a photograph is a construction, not the thing or person itself. The advent of facial recognition adds more and bigger mines to the field. The locus of power shifts further away from the human subject of a photograph. Ultimately, it seems to me, it lands-albeit diffuse-in the hands of capital and the state.
For me, this raises questions about how and where to shoot? Do I need consent and participation for street portraits, for group street shots? There are artists deliberately seeking not just consent but participation for street portraiture. By extension, what about posting the images? Printing is ok?
There are myriad ethical and political questions here. In the current context, clear answers are few.
I’m always impressed by your videos. Thank you.
YESSSSSSSS!!!! Sooooo happy to hear
Hear your voice!!!
I'm from Romania and my heart stopped when that article about a criminal appeared. Don't worry, you can come here, I've never seen that man in news, you're safe
I haven’t watched Sean‘s video yet so I don’t know if it might change my mind. But I do struggle with the mindset of „freedom to photograph people“ even without the possibility of face recognition. I for myself (me not being a public figure) would like to know and control when and where I am being photographed and where those pictures are published. (This also summarises the restrictions of street photography in Germany). And although I admire many well shot images of street photographers I don’t really support the claim of there being a „higher artistic purpose“ to street photography which is supposedly overruling a persons right to privacy.
The improving accuracy of face recognition is an even greater cause for concern and I think this will impact many more aspects of our lives than just art and media.
" I for myself would like to know and control when and where I am being photographed"
you have no control over the countless CCTV's in operation,what then?
@@shedendman I think there’s a substantial difference between CCTV footage that’s not publicly accessible and art - something designed to convey a message or make you feel something. To dismiss photographic practice because of the amount of security surveillance in operation is relative privation.
Fantastic presentation! This is a powerful conversation that will, in time, get louder and more complex. I travel a lot for photography and by virtue of that engage in a lot of street photography - as do many, many others. This conversation alone, without laws, makes me - and perhaps others - think more deeply about what I/we are doing. Very well done.
Might we be worried about the subjects of street photography being searched or stalked, or misrepresented, or that the photographer could suffer repercussions from a subject who might chance to discover themselves and react badly? Either could ultimately lead to new privacy laws restricting the genre.
Glad to see you back. Your inquisitive, thoughtfully philosophical style on photography is much needed.
Most of my videos are in natural settings. One recent video was a beach walk during a minus tide. Obviously there were reasonable number of people on beach, including children. I chose my path to either pass behind people or pass sufficiently far enough ahead that no one could be identified from standard image. But could enlargement and/or clothing identify someone? Another video I encountered another hiker and told them I was videoing but still turned camera away to not capture their image. However, our conversation is in my public video, so voice reconnection could also be another factor.
Why are mans videos soooo good 😤
I went to Europe recently and did all the touristy things. So as much as I’ve always wanted to get into street photography, I never have because I feel uncomfortable being so invasive or, if you’re being more ethical, I feel uncomfortable asking a stranger if I may take their portrait. Any, in tourism hotspots like the entire city of Paris, it’s like impossible to take a photo that doesn’t have some human in it. So my waiting for a largely unidentifiable person to push a bicycle into a sunny spot or taking a picture of the crowded summer riverbanks didn’t feel invasive anymore. No one was going to look up and feel stalked. What I’m getting to is that at a certain distance or crowdedness street photography stops feeling like a portrait and it might be possible from a legal perspective to define that?
But also, maybe we can use the technology, like we use some light photoshop retouching, to change the faces in photographs we sell (with some AI rendering software) so that they maybe convey the same emotion but they aren’t recognisable. Like if you’re a model for a stock image, maybe the photograph can be run through some software that changes it subtly - just enough that it can’t be reverse image searched to identify you as the person associated with some nasty meme or product or whatever.
I think the tech is nearly there. The only people who I imagine would be unhappy with this become legally mandated is like paparazzi. Like you can sell a photo of a random person but not of a specific person without their explicit consent because everyone’s face should maybe be their own property
Weird a photographer would question if street photography should be legal or not because a website can tell you all the information about that person with that picture. You should be questioning if be that website should be legal or not.
Did you watch the whole video? I express a lot of concerns about the technology and its availability. But my opinion is ultimately irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if I like or don’t like it, that fact is that it exists. I’m just speculating as to what that could potentially mean.
Nice to see you posting video's again dude. Hope you have been good.
In my continental European country, the image of my face is not necessarily public intellectual property. In line with the freedom of press and news-gathering, however, taking photos of anything that is visible from public roads ia allowed. So the "expectation of privacy" does not pertain to the moment I, as photographer, take a picture of someone in the street.
Yet, the concept exists relative to publication. So I can publish such images without restraint except when I can assume that doing so results in harming a "reasonable interest" of a person in a photo. And fast-track court-cases have been started by parties trying to prevent publication. Most of them lost, some of them won.
Over the past decades, one thing that has changed is photographs of kids below adult age.
The thing you describe for that AI firm already worked as "reverse lookup" in Google search years ago. It worked so well that Google has tuned it down.
In the meantime, our public spaces are full of cameras everywhere. The "red light and speeding" cameras of the past only took your car's snapshot when you ran through a red light or went too fast or both. Today these film cameras have been replaced by digital and they actually may record video all day. And these images are analyzed by the tax department to verify the honesty of claims that a car for business purpose is not also used for private purposes.
There are so many moments when we are recorded that it has become a fact of life. If we want anonymity, we should not publish our portraits with our personal details and next trust the sheer volume of data going around in the interwebs to reduce the chance of being recognized to almost zero.
Will the public's attitude to street photography change? It is happening. People don't know the rights of photographers. They could get angry - I hear someone proudly tell about that and feeling to have won a battle when the photographer erased shots with her in it.
If "street" was my thing, I would print red cards for such people and yellow tickets for the less aggressive negative ones.
So nice to see a well put together video Jamie, and one that doesn't have these ridiculous jump cuts! Allows for so much more emotion to show in the video in my opinion, and left me hanging on to every word you were saying. Keep up the great work!
Corporations and governments plant surveillance cameras all around public places. Individuals replace their door bells with Ring cameras and put up surveillance cameras that watch public spaces near their houses. Increasingly, corporations are trying to link all of these cameras together and have started to use machine learning to identify and potentially track people. Those are efforts I and others are working to stop. I really cannot worry about a street photographer taking photos of people in public places that may identify someone at a later date.
Great video, legitimate question and love the production value of the video (very professional). Keep up the amazing work and content!
ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY!!! BLAH!!! BLAH!!! BLAH!!! 😡 😡 😡
Thought it might catch your eye. Lol. Excellent take on the subject and something I hadn’t considered. Good to see another video from you, I always enjoy your content. Keep it up.
I have to say I am highly dubious of the pimeyes search feature working facial recognition as I'm sure this just produces lots of false positives. I think it's most successful results are by performing a second search based on metadata from a good hit. For example if one of the photos led to a Facebook page with the name it would use that name to help it in its other results. It gives the illusion like it's found all of its results just purely from your face but i think that's only a little part of their algorithm.
I see street photography very critically. If the subject of a photo is a specific person, that person should always be asked for permission, unless that person is committing a crime. Street photographers often travel to poor districts and take photos of the people there as if those people are animals at the zoo. The dignity of a person demands that you at least speak to them. Especially if it is a homeless person. If you were homeless, would you be comfortable with a photo of you in the streets with dirty clothes going viral?
Even without facial recognition a photo might always be seen so many people that some might recognize the person.
Of course asking a person before you take a photo might make the photos appear staged, but you can still take a photo and ask the person afterwards. If that person does not agree, you just delete that photo. You also do not keep a private copy. Legally you may not be required to do that, but you should respect the will of the person. Keep in mind that in such a situation that person is your model, even if the person is not good looking. Models usually get paid money. So how can you expect a person to be your model for free? Photographers will not work for free either. They might even use that photo for a book or an exhibition.
One photo that really made me angry is the photo of the nude girl whose clothes were burned by an American napalm bomb in Vietnam. That photo may have had an huge impact and perhaps even saved a lot of lives because it changed the sentiment towards a war. However it is still a photo of a nude girl taken without her consent. In any other circumstance that would be considered child pornography and land you in jail for a long time. Making a political statement can't be an excuse for publishing a photo of a nude girl. I know that that girl is now grown up and proud about that photo, but that does not make in retroactively right.
Good job Jamie....very complex issue...best of luck.
Someone else touched on this in a comment about the restrictions on street photography in Germany. It's strict and pretty much a no-go taking photos of strangers on the street without their permission. As a member of public, I like these restrictions because I know that nobody will bother me with a camera taking unwanted photos, and if they do, swift legal action can be taken, but as a photographer, especially doing photojournalism work, it can make life quite complicated, but I simply don't publish photos where there could be a potential issue. I always felt it was a gross invasion of privacy to take upclose photos of strangers without their permission anyway. However, I think that facial recognision is an extremely dangerous tool, especially given that it is supposedly being rolled out in public in parts of London (Putney is said to have these cameras already) for surveilence purposes. The oportunities and dangers of missuse far outweigh the benefits of "proper" use, (especially when in the hands of government authorities) in my opinion, and I feel like this technology needs to be curtailed before masive damage is done.
I think people grossly over estimate how much anyone cares about a random photo of their face. I would much rather live in a society that privileges transcendent artistic expression over the unfounded fears of narcissists. Facial recognition tech does complicate this calculation, though
@@NoahStephens people is not just narcissists. Profiling is also a fear. Migrants are constantly scared of getting photographed because of this.
What if the face is changed with AI? Photoshop can do it in 5sec: change eye, lip, nose, ear size, distance, even expression. Then it will be just a look a like and the atmosphere of the photo will not be touched.
Hope you don't look at anyone without their permission. Maybe wear a mask when you're out and about, you'll feel safer then. You're already tracked facially, by the registration of your car, by your phone, your payment card, pretty much everything you do. And you're worried someone might take your photo? People are strange.
@@cliveadams7629
> You're already tracked facially, by the registration of your car
unfortunately in the EU car plates are considered PII and protected ,you have to blur them out in dashcam footage :/
I love your articles.
I also admire a curious delivery much more than opinionated one. My feelings on the subject of image recognition affecting the society is that it is just a new version and not a new thing. If you remember post offices full of FBI's most wanted posters, they relied on you recognizing images.
I think what is amazing is even people very involved in imaging may be surprised about the extent of the technology. Like you were about the blurred image. Cheers
I don't feel like doing street photography myself anyway, as I don't feel like there is a lot of social allowance left for it anyway, regardless of legality.
Just do it .
I don’t know what country you’re in, but I find that the more I do it, the more I find out how to get away with it. And keep in mind, just about anybody can pull out a phone and snap without even the least bit of censure
Excellent content and what an absolutely superb editing you put on this video. Love it.
Another thought provoking essay Jamie. Lots to chew on.
That's why I prefer the approach that Sean Tucker has shown in many of his videos of making the person in the image unrecognizable. You can turn the person into a silhouette or you can take one of those pictures where the face is hidden behind an object like a newspaper or a balloon or something else. I find these pictures if done right are even more interesting and have something mysterious. And if someone is upset because you've taken a picture of him you can show him the image and that he is not recognizable and that might remove the worries that person has concerning his privacy.
Very interesting video. FYI in Quebec, Canada street photography of identifiable individuals is not allowed (unless they are part of a large crowd). So when I take shots of random individuals they are generally blurred or seen from behind. If someone is recognizable I wouldn’t post the photo on a public site. Makes composition a little more tricky but still possible to get compelling images.
Quebec is a dung heap anyway.
Hey you are back! Great video!
Hi, Jamie, again superb video! you are pointing out something that is very worrying..
Yep. If you take/make "street" pictures according to local laws, you're "protected". Probably most of the people on your shots share much more "sensitive" informations on their "social" sites.
Main problems:
- sites collecting/gathering data and showing them in on place as public data, even it could be right
- my main problem is not collecting data, but how to use/publish them?!?!, and it seems hard to punish it.
What an absolute machine.
Your videos make my day and have sparked many of the most interesting conversations I have had. Thanks and congratulations as always.
Hope your health improves :)
Turn it on its head. The Street Photographer is not violating the person's right to privacy by taking and posting anonymous photos. However, the person searching the subject is either self-interested, stalking, surveilling, or pursuing state/national interests. If there are any laws that should be changed it should be in reference to that access and usage of "Facial Recognition" software and their applied usage. The moral obligation does not lie with the photographer, as the photographer has no control over downstream post-publication use or abuse of the image. My last point is a question: At what point, post-publication, can a street photographer, "reasonably" predict and control the loss of anonymity of the subject(s) in their photographs?
What a fascinating discussion!
The base ethical question runs deeper and opens up other questions. As a governance manager in the biomedical industry, I find data protection and the public's perception of data privacy is often at a juxtaposition without them realising it. We actively choose to share our data with private industries and governments from around the world on a daily basis and yet most people remain blissfully unaware just what they are sharing and with whom. But when directly asked 'would you share your genetic information with a private biomedical company for research into X condition?' It's amazing how many get defensive, it rings alarm bells, yet they sign up to companies like 23 and me or DNA profiling with Ancestry without so much of a thought because it's just a bit of 'fun'. From my perspective, that bit of 'fun' carries far higher risks of abuse.
There are parallels here with photos hosted online. People post up images of themselves as 'fun', but that fun carries higher risks of abuse than a street photographer posting up an anonymous picture, as the persons selfie has their personal data linked to it. In the biomedical industry we now acknowledge the difficulty in trying to truly anonymous data, and most of the time work on the definition of linked anonymised, where the public facing data is anonymised, but there is controlled key that links it back to the personal data. Within GDPR, the data handler that holds the link has the responsibility for ensuring the protection of that link. But that only works where the data is hosted by a country which has applicable laws to that protect data.
Facial recognition software is only as powerful as the data it finds, if there are no links to personal data then it is useless. Ultimately, the responsibility of data protection shifts to the individual, if you choose to post your personal data on a public site hosted in a country with appropriate controls, providing the hosting site is still keeping the data they hold about you private, then that is your choice to make your information publicly available. If you choice to use a service hosted in a country of a despotic regime then again, it is the individual choice. Whilst there is work towards a more global unified approach to data protection, the most important thing is just educating people what, how, and where their information is stored and used. If there is a time when data protection would inhibit a photographer from posting an anonymised image of a person online, then the wrong protections have been put in place.
Great conversation starter, Jamie.
Image and Face recognition softwares have been around for a while now. I guess the real question now is: is it ok to let anyone to have access to it?
I mean, these types of softwares used to serve a specific purpose, usually for security and it was handled under security clearances by officials, etc.; but today any person can look up anyone, indeed it could be dangerous.
We definitely live in strange times, technology has become so powerful that it affects almost every aspect of our lives. I love street photography, most of my photos are taken sneakily.... ekhm, candid moments :) but I often ask myself what is the story behind this person, did they agree to have this photo taken? How will that person react if they find themselves on some random Instagram account photographed in the street, coming back from work.
Great work as always Jamie, really thought provoking stuff!
I always find your videos very well stated. Just wish there were more of them.
As always very thought provoking and insightful, thanks Jamie!
I used to live in the US. I loved doing street photography, and knew that, as long as you were standing on public land, you could pretty much take a picture of anyone (very few exceptions), and be Ok with the law. Now I live once again in my home country of Portugal, and I have learned about right of ownership. This broadly means that if I take a nice picture out in a public place of another person, there is nothing I can do with that picture (except print it and look at it myself), without the express written consent of that person. I can see valid points in both points of view. But I have since given up street photography and concentrate on architectural photography.
I think the law should revolve around limiting cyber information available publicly or the other way around, having such technology like facial recognition / AI be inaccessible to unauthorized people. Think we should have a system where we regulate the access to it to prevent abuse? That's my viewpoint of it, focus on the regulation of the cyber / technology aspects rather than just affecting the photography / capture of photos.
I think that's a reasonable solution, but since the software is already available, it will be hard to overcome its momentum. In short, people who want to use it to exploit others will be able to steal it or find it on the black market somehow anyway, and then we're right where we started.
Interesting topic indeed. I've never really given it a thought but this made me scared tbh.
Side note, I think your work is great and I really enjoy it. People who go and pick fights with others on the internet are not worth anyone's time.
Thank you for your thoughts on this issue and your food for thought.
Am I concerned? Absolutely. Do I have a practicable solution? I'm afraid, I have not.
As you hinted at, the singular use of facial recognition has been taken out of the hand of authorities (how they are to be dealt with, is another topic worth talking about) and has become available to basically anybody. Doxxing has become a favourite tool in political contexts, harrassments, evaluations when you want to enter new environments. And it's not about "I've got nothing to hide" anymore, because contexts can shift rapidly, motivations can shift rapidly, consequences can shift rapidly. Two easy examples?
Maybe, you used to smoke weed when younger. Photos exist showing you accordingly during an open air concert a few years ago. You apply for a new job. Today's technical possibilities allow the employer to sift and select - even without you being aware of that (so you can't react properly). Same applies to social groups, you want to be a member of etc. Are you trustworthy? You are not in control of your data. You didn't even know those photos existed in the first place.
Two: A couple of years ago, a photography of you (a woman, in this case) was taken in front of a hospital, you in a contemplative mood. The hospital offers, among many others, birth control and abortion services. Harmless back then, a politically charged issue today in some environments. Doxxing ensues, harrassment - and who knows what may happen in the future. Contexts have shifted. Facts are not at the forefront, simple suspicions may suffice. Contexts and purposes reign.
Those aren't speculative cases. And they only scratch the surface.
Solution? I do not know. Restraints we may employ today (such as the classical "Don't photograph people in situations in which you wouldn't want to be photographed yourself.") may age, consequences may change. I admit, I am not as comfortable as I have been when photographing people and thinking about publishing those photos electronically., and I have cut back somewhat. Certainly when environmental and situational photos are involved, documentary style. Without a rule framework in my mind about this, I admit. But I do not know.
Sounds like you’re basically where I am with it. I have definitely felt myself being less comfortable photographing strangers (and even at events like weddings where I am paid to literally be doing that). The ‘forever’ nature of the internet scares me. I’ve found comments I made on things back when I was in my early 20s that I don’t remember making. I don’t think what I thought back then anymore. I’m concerned about the discouragement of owning our flaws and mistakes, learning, and moving forward.
This is a very interesting topic of conversation. Although the initial intention is good, when companies like this use the term “criminals”, what do they actually mean? After learning about Yanis Varoufakis and his theory of “techno feudalism”, I can’t stop but wonder how much our lives are in the hands of these tech companies and how far their control of our lives goes. This conversation could also expand onto crypto and nfts, since there’s no regulation on what “crypto artists” can do in that area. Anyway, I digress
great question, great video
This is yet one more reminder that, in fact, we have no reasonable expectation of privacy anymore. There is practically no place in London, for example, that a person can walk and not be caught on CCTV.
There never was. It’s just the velocity of the information that has changed and government/pseudo governments’ willingness to Hoover up the images. (Pun intended on the Hoover)
Acutely insightful profoundly instructive video, as are all your videos. Thank you. Let's think carefully before we put a photograph our for public consumption. We need to ask questions like, "Does this photograph tell the truth?" or "Will this photograph needlessly embarrass the subject?" (ie "Would the subject be expected to laugh along with the people who view this funny photograph?") or "Will this photograph promote justice?"
Well my first impression based on the title of your video was that you were going to talk about the face tracking auto focus on your camera. 😆 Your topic is much better and thought provoking. It was good.
Everyone needs to have on their critical thinking caps when considering these questions. It can be tough to know what to do in some situations. I think it comes down to the principles we live our life by. Respect, kindness, tolerance, consideration and others. The situation may become more murky to navigate but if you hold to good principles and have good intent you will be better off. I believe there is influence for good and evil around us. Opposition is important for our experience! Be good and learn how to protect yourself and others who you photograph from those who have evil or less than good intent.
I liked your point about not know the context of a photograph. I think we are often too critical of others based on our limited understanding. I am a Christian. Members of my church have been and are still mistakenly called “Mormons” (Mormon was a prophet who followed Jesus Christ). There are plenty ready to shovel the dirt on my church by relaying misleading lies or twist facts by taking them out of context. This is not good for them and for those who listen.
To any I invite you to learn about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a good source even if you have heard negative things before. Go to www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist or talk to a missionary. Learn how Christ (He lives!) directs His church today through living prophets!
Missed you man! We need more videos from you :)
What if the face is changed? Photoshop can change the eye size, distance, nose with AI slides. Takes only 2sec. Are we safe then?
Would be amazing to have an online service like this that maybe does it better and faster.
You can still stay anonymous even with facial recognition.
These A.I platforms only have access to what the general public has access to. In fact they are even more limited.
If you private your account on any platform, they have zero ability to trace anything. It will be a problem. If you live on the internet.
But then again, if you have open accounts everywhere with the purpose of wanting people to see, find, follow and grow your audience then an A.I is only accessing information people already have access to.
The biggest issue in future is getting this in government hands. Or if its used to build 3d models of the subject for ... you know what kind of purposes. You can already do that if you know how to 3D model. But this allows automating the process to the general public.
It's the same concept for generated art and photography. What happens when the general public has access to skills as a service without being skilled at anything themselves. This is why people should limit access to their accounts *TODAY* not 10 years from now when it's a problem and you've posed 2000 selfies for platforms to scrape from.
this was an important discussion about the changing nature of technology and artistic licence...
I think it’s always a good idea to remember that the laws for taking photos are separate from the laws for USING photos. And any new laws will have to think about which side they’ll best sit on.
As to what new laws we’ll end up needing, that will depend on the new technologies and weighing their needs regarding convenience and utility against the potential negative uses. For example, if we end up with glasses that connect us to a meta verse that lives side by side us, and corresponds to reality, but necessitates us all having cameras that are always on? The utility of such unforeseen technology might end up being so great that all just decide to live in a world where everyone is known to everyone and our identity is never a secret.
👏👏👏jamie’s back
I find your videos excellent and often thought provoking. I'm old and society's changing values are disturbing to me. Much as they were to my parents. The issue of personal privacy has been severely eroded by all forms of social media. Everyone has access to everyone. I believe western culture is on a very slippery path. I'm glad I'm old!!
I suspect what might reinforce change more than mere street photography are the amount of incidents that find themselves on UA-cam/SM. To clarify, imagine you’re getting arrested, or in altercation or have been in serious accident … as soon as this happens out come the mobile phones often behind the vague veil of ‘reportage’ or ‘human rights’ … however what is frequently ignored and never ceased to amaze me is the huge amount of collateral intrusion, lack of context or of course consent … It also hinder the due process, causes division, especially when taken out of context and arguably places people at unnecessary risk … it’s long overdue in my opinion …
Very interesting subject and a lot to think about. Perhaps in the further we’ll see less street photography as people or laws become more restrictive? I mean, no one dare take a photograph of kids playing in the streets nowadays, yet if one looks at the works by Don McCullen from the 70’s, you’ll find exactly that.
I recall an article in a popular UK photography magazine, about 20 years ago now, on street photography and how in the future they predicted that you’ll probably need a permit or license to own a camera and use it in the street.
Use an actual camera in the street and people will stare or stop you, but whip your phone out and no one bats an eye.
When you walk down the street, especially in many large cities, you are constantly caught on cameras operated by government authorities using facial recognition software. The potential for using this in a repressive manner is huge, and in places like China that's exactly what it's used for. The independent street photographer with his SLR is not the real threat here, but we have been conditioned to be afraid of him while ignoring the state-sanctioned privacy threat.
Big Thanks for addressing such a sensitive! It’s really important! You gave a very fine-differencing, thoughtful and enpathic way of talking about this. I am really amazed. I have been wishing there are more people who talk so thoughtful about data privacy concerns also in regards to Internet and facial recognition and photography.
Max Schremm is is very engaged in the European Data privacy and also the treaties from Europe with the USA. The last treaty were cancelled by the European court. So technically it was illegal in Europe to transfer people data to servers in the US (Facebook, UA-cam, ect) without their consent.
To the GDPR. Does the GDPR counts still in the UK? Since Brexit you aren’t mandatory bound to the laws of the EU? So I wondered if the GDPR is still valid?
To the GDPR and street photography. I read a law-case a while ago. Regarding the GDPR and probably also other German data privacy and copyright laws. The conclusion is that street photography is allowed if the photos are published in a real life exhibition. If you publish it in the internet or upload it to UA-cam or somewhere else( with servers in the US), it technically and legally a felony according to German laws.
What is really serious about this stuff are this videos on UA-cam making video where they walk through a big city and film things with sound in high definition. You hear words of people talking and see clear images of random faces. It’s not old VHS blurry, it’s high definition 4 K video. And with the facial recognition you also have lot of personal data and people not know about it. Also they film license plate of care and other vehicles, what is also against the GDPR in Germany. I contacted the German Berlin privacy agency and reported that. They looked over it and proofed that it’s actually illegal, but they can’t do something about it, probably because they habe to little people and resources.
It’s a big urgent topic of our time. Especially with more and more sensitive data going online on worldwide servers.
Thank you for addressing this!!!
Facial recognition and data protection laws are huge issues. The legality of public photography is on the line.
So, organise and fight.