Comment by lukan
1 year ago
"Those sentences are working against each other. "
Not when the topic is privacy. This is not someone walking in public, those are videos out of private homes. Just because someone uploaded something, does not mean he had
a) the rights to do so (I saw a clip where a women asked a bit angry, are you making a movie?)
B) was aware what he is doing
(Google and co do have a incentive to mislead people about who will be able to access data)
So it might be technical legal. It if is moral, is up to yourself to decide.
>This is not someone walking in public, those are videos out of private homes.
Yes, it's like someone watching a private video on their phone while on the train. You don't have a right to not have someone looking over your shoulder if you do that. While out in public you have implicit permission to look over someone else's shoulder because that's what "public" means. Public means the absence of privacy.
>a) the rights to do so (I saw a clip where a women asked a bit angry, are you making a movie?)
>B) was aware what he is doing
Both are the problem of whoever took the video and/or uploaded it, not of the person watching it later.
Erm, it depends. If you have to go out of your way, to look into my screen, than no, not ok.
But if I have my screen careless in the open, that is on me.
>If you have to go out of your way, to look into my screen, than no, not ok.
Well, I didn't talk about what is OK or not OK. What I said is you don't have a right to not have someone looking over your shoulder. Unless that person is touching you or following you to do it, there's nothing you can do to stop someone who's snooping at your screen in public if they don't want to stop.
If your issue is the unwitting use of people’s images for corporate profit I think we can agree that especially irksome when it’s children. But does it ruin your day or seeing especially exploitative to see a child at a petting zoo or celebrating their birthday like maybe one in a dozen clip show or is there room for nuance?