I don’t expect locker room privacy at a public library. I don’t expect library-level intimacy at a sporting event.

Having an audience is SUPPOSED to make us think about them,
and alter our presentation based on the audience. This is to give them a TRUER communication, not a distorted one.

Ask a politician a question, and they know they will be quoted. They choose carefully.

People stepping out of limos onto red carpets aren’t careless about their presentation.

Actors are well-rehearsed when they step into the footlights.

“Do you love me?” and “Is this flattering?” get edited responses, tailored for an audience of one.

Yes, there are people that have a facade they need to maintain. But let’s don’t be cynical and say it is only that, or mostly those people who alter their presentation.

Our family went to a lecture yesterday, and I think a photog blew 20-50 frames on crowd shots standing 5 feet away from us. (And maybe 200 frames total during the lecture.) I wasn’t paying much attention to her, so I don’t know how many shots were of our cute kids. My wife says there were many.

She didn’t display a press credential, even though she obviously had some kind of special permission to be shooting in the space in the museum where there was artwork on the walls. (We got tagged by a docent for taking a flash shot on a stupid stairway! Never can be too careful about UV damage on a wooden handrail, I guess.)

After the lecture, we asked if she was press. She said she was museum staff. She took no notes on our identities, and I do not recall any plausible consent to use of our likenesses. (It was free admission, so what contract did we enter?) So from her answer, the potential audience was probably the staff bulletin board or museum newsletter.

She could have been lying, but that would be a separate ethical question. Based on her response we had an idea
of audience and figured it was no big deal.

But is it ethical to publish the likeness of someone without their knowledge or consent to an unknown audience of unknown size of unknown longevity? How do you give someone knowledge of audience, size, longevity when you have no idea yourself? (As in the case of live streaming.)

The time is coming (soon!) when we will be able to google people’s faces across the web. We will be able to upload a snapshot instead of typing in search terms, and we’ll get back all the videos and pictures of that person — from even _before_ they were elected mayor!

I can’t think of any legitimate purpose for that ability. I can think of plenty of questionable and some disturbing ways some people would try to use that.

99.9999% of what is streamed live is too boring to attract an audience. But that .0001% that does attract an audience will be our moments that are superlative in some way: either best or worst.

I’m generally a good person, with few skeletons. But I’ve had my moments, in public even. If you sound-bite those moments and they get watched, while the banality that is the rest of my life does not get watched, it certainly isn’t balanced, so cannot be accurate, so can it be right? What is facade and what is true?

“Act completely natural” (as in “beige”, the non-attractive color) isn’t so easy when you know your kid’s superlative behavior at that moment really needs something with more “oomph” than beige.

Having an audience is SUPPOSED to make us think about them.
In everyday life, I’d rather not. Who is this Internet anyway, that they so easily and non-challantly intrude on the highest levels of self-awareness about how I carry myself, potentially looking over my shoulder 24/7?

Here’s my never humble opinionated take on your feelings of regret….

You violated a trust of library-level intimacy. Your penalty is to feel separated. Continue and carry this too far, you will be abandoned to yourself, and will be able to live stream all the empty rooms you care to.

I don’t believe what people say about “in 20 years” blah blah blah. Intimacy and trust are not optional in relationships. Abandon them and you don’t get changed relationships, you get NO relationships.

In the meantime, maybe you can wear a press credential. Then people will know when you are incapable of sharing their life, and instead are sharing their facade with random strangers.

I don’t expect locker room privacy at a public library. I don’t expect library-level intimacy at a sporting event.

Having an audience is SUPPOSED to make us think about them,
and alter our presentation based on the audience. This is to give them a TRUER communication, not a distorted one.

Ask a politician a question, and they know they will be quoted. They choose carefully.

People stepping out of limos onto red carpets aren’t careless about their presentation.

Actors are well-rehearsed when they step into the footlights.

“Do you love me?” and “Is this flattering?” get edited responses, tailored for an audience of one.

Yes, there are people that have a facade they need to maintain. But let’s don’t be cynical and say it is only that, or mostly those people who alter their presentation.

Our family went to a lecture yesterday, and I think a photog blew 20-50 frames on crowd shots standing 5 feet away from us. (And maybe 200 frames total during the lecture.) I wasn’t paying much attention to her, so I don’t know how many shots were of our cute kids. My wife says there were many.

She didn’t display a press credential, even though she obviously had some kind of special permission to be shooting in the space in the museum where there was artwork on the walls. (We got tagged by a docent for taking a flash shot on a stupid stairway! Never can be too careful about UV damage on a wooden handrail, I guess.)

After the lecture, we asked if she was press. She said she was museum staff. She took no notes on our identities, and I do not recall any plausible consent to use of our likenesses. (It was free admission, so what contract did we enter?) So from her answer, the potential audience was probably the staff bulletin board or museum newsletter.

She could have been lying, but that would be a separate ethical question. Based on her response we had an idea
of audience and figured it was no big deal.

But is it ethical to publish the likeness of someone without their knowledge or consent to an unknown audience of unknown size of unknown longevity? How do you give someone knowledge of audience, size, longevity when you have no idea yourself? (As in the case of live streaming.)

The time is coming (soon!) when we will be able to google people’s faces across the web. We will be able to upload a snapshot instead of typing in search terms, and we’ll get back all the videos and pictures of that person — from even _before_ they were elected mayor!

I can’t think of any legitimate purpose for that ability. I can think of plenty of questionable and some disturbing ways some people would try to use that.

99.9999% of what is streamed live is too boring to attract an audience. But that .0001% that does attract an audience will be our moments that are superlative in some way: either best or worst.

I’m generally a good person, with few skeletons. But I’ve had my moments, in public even. If you sound-bite those moments and they get watched, while the banality that is the rest of my life does not get watched, it certainly isn’t balanced, so cannot be accurate, so can it be right? What is facade and what is true?

“Act completely natural” (as in “beige”, the non-attractive color) isn’t so easy when you know your kid’s superlative behavior at that moment really needs something with more “oomph” than beige.

Having an audience is SUPPOSED to make us think about them.
In everyday life, I’d rather not. Who is this Internet anyway, that they so easily and non-challantly intrude on the highest levels of self-awareness about how I carry myself, potentially looking over my shoulder 24/7?

Here’s my never humble opinionated take on your feelings of regret….

You violated a trust of library-level intimacy. Your penalty is to feel separated. Continue and carry this too far, you will be abandoned to yourself, and will be able to live stream all the empty rooms you care to.

I don’t believe what people say about “in 20 years” blah blah blah. Intimacy and trust are not optional in relationships. Abandon them and you don’t get changed relationships, you get NO relationships.

In the meantime, maybe you can wear a press credential. Then people will know when you are incapable of sharing their life, and instead are sharing their facade with random strangers.

Whether or not we “can,” is rarely as compelling social prerogative than what may be expected by average persons within the context of current culture. Would average persons view as courteous my action in the situation? How considerate of the actors would average persons deem my actions?

Perhaps a good question to ask ourselves is could we defend our decision in the presence of a jury of our peers (a group of citizens who live in the county in which the act occurred) under cross-examination in a court of law?

While the safe way is rarely progressive, progress must pace itself to consider the social impact and individual rights. If you realized one day you were Truman from the movie of the same name, how would you feel? Where is the line? What are people’s privacy needs? Are they in witness protection? Are they hoping a perpetrator doesn’t find out where they now live? Are there religious or psychological or other factors that might be in play that would prevent someone from granting consent to have their identities published?

This area I am sure will be a process of learning for all of us. I look forward to more on the subject, and Christine, I would particularly appreciate your thoughts after all these comments. Thank you for a situation in which I think most of us reading your blog, or who follow you on Twitter, or chat with you on Seesmic could imagine finding ourselves.

Whether or not we “can,” is rarely as compelling social prerogative than what may be expected by average persons within the context of current culture. Would average persons view as courteous my action in the situation? How considerate of the actors would average persons deem my actions?

Perhaps a good question to ask ourselves is could we defend our decision in the presence of a jury of our peers (a group of citizens who live in the county in which the act occurred) under cross-examination in a court of law?

While the safe way is rarely progressive, progress must pace itself to consider the social impact and individual rights. If you realized one day you were Truman from the movie of the same name, how would you feel? Where is the line? What are people’s privacy needs? Are they in witness protection? Are they hoping a perpetrator doesn’t find out where they now live? Are there religious or psychological or other factors that might be in play that would prevent someone from granting consent to have their identities published?

This area I am sure will be a process of learning for all of us. I look forward to more on the subject, and Christine, I would particularly appreciate your thoughts after all these comments. Thank you for a situation in which I think most of us reading your blog, or who follow you on Twitter, or chat with you on Seesmic could imagine finding ourselves.

I like Banannie’s “YouTube” sticker – what a great idea!

I like Banannie’s “YouTube” sticker – what a great idea!

(http://www.utterz.com/~u-NTA0NDA3Mg/utt.php#uttNTA0NDA3Mg)

“I’m pretty sure news orgs don’t need informed consent. But I know what you mean and have thought about it. I put a label on my Flip camera that says “Contents may be Youtubed”, since everyone knows what youtube is, but I really mean internet in general. It’s not an ideal solution to be sure! I’ve held back from posting images of other people without their consent- in fact at Christmas I took video of my family but had to leave out my brother’s kids at his request when I posted the edited vid to my blog.
I guess the answer is simply to be courteous and make it clear before you start recording that it will be streamed live, and what that means. I think most people (at least adults) will be fine with it.”

(http://www.utterz.com/~u-NTA0NDA3Mg/utt.php#uttNTA0NDA3Mg)

“I’m pretty sure news orgs don’t need informed consent. But I know what you mean and have thought about it. I put a label on my Flip camera that says “Contents may be Youtubed”, since everyone knows what youtube is, but I really mean internet in general. It’s not an ideal solution to be sure! I’ve held back from posting images of other people without their consent- in fact at Christmas I took video of my family but had to leave out my brother’s kids at his request when I posted the edited vid to my blog.
I guess the answer is simply to be courteous and make it clear before you start recording that it will be streamed live, and what that means. I think most people (at least adults) will be fine with it.”

With kids specifically, I feel that they have to be protected. I might be overprotective towards kids but that might be the media’s fault for creating an air of fear towards kids. Still, there are some rather terrible people in the world.

Then there’s another issue about recording in a public area. It’s public, are you required to ask everyone in a park for consent? What about still pictures where people are going to be in the background or on the sides of the frame?

I don’t think anyone would question that the intent was malicious, so I think that for now, nothing can come of it.

With kids specifically, I feel that they have to be protected. I might be overprotective towards kids but that might be the media’s fault for creating an air of fear towards kids. Still, there are some rather terrible people in the world.

Then there’s another issue about recording in a public area. It’s public, are you required to ask everyone in a park for consent? What about still pictures where people are going to be in the background or on the sides of the frame?

I don’t think anyone would question that the intent was malicious, so I think that for now, nothing can come of it.