It all started when Eisenhower let Billy Graham in the White House because, " what can a little prayer breakfast hurt?"

Also, he changed the official national motto from “E Pluribus Unum” (out of many, one) to “In God We Trust”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

The first postage stamps with the motto appeared in 1954. A law passed in July 1955 by a joint resolution of the 84th Congress (Pub. L. 84–140) and approved by President Dwight Eisenhower requires that “In God We Trust” appear on all American currency.

Yeah this. It’s reasonable if the companies are and the system is.

But for instance Ryde scooters in my city had most of their brakes set pretty friggin tight, so that pretty much any application of the rear bake lead to skidding.

I know kids do it on purpose, and I did enjoy skidding a corner or two, but tried doing it minimally. Couldn’t help myself though, especially because 50% at least were just useful accidents.

But my point is that if the rear brake wasn’t as tight, I wouldn’t have skidded at all.

It very much depends, actually. You can totally take a photograph of a single person walking on the street. Especially if their face isn’t clearly visible, like taking a photo from behind.

It would be determined on a case by case basis. Ofc even unrecognised is wrong if you actually follow a person instead of just taking a shot of a random person for art.

How is that interesting or news to anyone, honestly?

I seriously don’t understand in what sort of police state people thought they were living in that photography is banned in general public.

Until now I assumed without checking that they obviously would be.

Why, exactly? It’s a camera. Cameras aren’t illegal. You can do illegal things with cameras, but they’re not inherently illegal.

I don’t think they were trusted. It’s just one of those “pay-to-win” things. Can’t have people not graduating from Princeton or even getting bad grades. That would mean they’d need to improve something.

So just pretend like no-one is cheating, so you can have good grades to geta nice job with. Probably in politics. Or is that Eaton?

googles “how not to use AI”

“AI overview”

Yes yes you can use a better browser but Google pushing it that hard really does affect people more than any personal use.

You don’t even need the “late stage” words there tbh.

Fucking lol.

What you’re doing is “moving the goalposts”.

I’ll answer anyway; do you know what the resolution of an analog camera is, dipshit?

(edit, this is literally 90 years old)

creep defenders gonna defend creeps I guess.

How exactly did I defend anyone by showing you laws against “creeps” from prolly before you were born? You’re just pissy I proved you so thoroughly wrong. Those aren’t even the first privacy laws, they’re just one example.

To think that voyeurism as a problem has just arrived because of fking meta-glasses is so childish and you’re having a tantrum because you don’t want to admit to being wrong in public.

Yeah I believe it is a problem, but not a new one. It’s just made it tiny bit more convenient for the richer perverts, that’s all. (Although I noticed in my years of driving taxis a (spurious?) correlation between rich and perverted. And that definition for me does not include any of what the right would consider perverted, like most LGBTQ+ even in party getup)

It’s like saying I’m dismissing uber-drivers getting robbed, because taxing drivers were robbed for literacy centuries before the invention of uber. Except that’s a bad analogy, since uber needs your details whereas you can just hop into a taxi easily and anonymously.

But idk, porch pirates were a thing before amazon delivery was so popular, now they’re more plentiful, despite increase in doorbell cams.

I’m not dismissing privacy invasions casually. I’m pointing out that the problems isn’t new

In the 90’s and 00’s there was a “video voyeurism” panic even, because the huge shoulderheld cameras became smaller and in the early noughts you already had tiny spycam gadgets. Disney world upskirting, upskirting on the streets, definitely harassing masseuses, etc.

Because I think you’d agree that this was before smartphones or smartglasses, since it’s from 2003 and we all know congresses of any sort aren’t quick to do anything:

##Congress Criminalizes Video Voyeurism

On September 21, the House approved, by voice vote, a bill (S. 1301) aimed at preventing video voyeurism. The Senate approved the measure on September 25, 2003 (see The Source, 9/26/03). It will now go to the White House for President Bush’s signature.

Sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act would make it a federal crime to knowingly “capture,” by videotaping, filming, or photographing, an “improper image” of another individual, defined in the bill as “an image, captured without the consent of that individual, of the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual.” The term “broadcast” means electronically transmitting a visual image “with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.” In order to convict an offender of video voyeurism, prosecutors would have to show that the individual knowingly intended to capture the image.

Del. Donna Christensen (D-VI) said that video voyeurism “is a serious crime, the extent of which has been greatly exacerbated by the Internet. Because of Internet technology, the pictures that a voyeur captures can be disseminated to a worldwide audience in a matter of seconds. As a result, individuals in the victims’ rights community have labeled video voyeurism ‘the new frontier of stalking.’”

Stressing the need for a federal law criminalizing video voyeurism, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) explained that many states “have passed laws that target video voyeurism to protect those in private areas, but there are fewer protections for those who may be photographed in compromising positions in public places. S. 1301 makes the acts of video voyeurism illegal on Federal lands such as national parks and Federal buildings, using the well-accepted legal concept that individuals are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. It also serves as model legislation for States that have not yet enacted their own laws or need to update existing laws to account for the rapid spread of camera technology.”

https://www.wcpinst.org/source/congress-criminalizes-video-voyeurism/?hl=en-GB

It’s still a problem which needs to be addressed, but banning smart glasses is hardly the solution, because a) bans don’t really work that well and b) because it’s just an empty gesture for the most part, since the dedicated perverts still have their ways.

Lol, no. You’re just wrong. You think its not allowed to film on the street when you’re in Switzerland? That you’d need to stop every single person and ask for their permission? If you genuinely believe that, then you’re not the sharpest pen in the case.

Germany the same.

You need to ask for permission if you go up to someone’s face and make them the primary target of your filming. But for just general filming for personal use, nope, you’re wrong, it’s allowed in public.

Why don’t you google shit before being so incorrect publicly?

Or perhaps did some hardcore googling where you don’t actually look for info on the subject, but instead decide how a thing is and then google to find any random post on some forum agreeing with it, without sources.

It’s the same law I mentioned earlier. These have been accounted for decades before you were even born, and it honestly would’ve been really easy for you to figure that out instead of just trying to prove your delusions correct. Perhaps you asked an LLM with a prompt that already had it as an assumption and then it hallucinated a bunch of shit. But yeah, you’re wrong.

Tell me a place which does.

Places which you aren’t allowed to film on the street?

Because no matter how furiously you google, a majority of the world allows it. Who doesn’t are like Chinese and Russians, but even they only limit it in certain cities / landmarks. So in a country like North Korea, you’d have “reasonable expectation of privacy”, except ofc you don’t it’s a totalitarian dictatorship.

Every single photographer knows this. Or should know it at least, basic laws covering privacy.

In general, one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy for things put into a public space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy

“But that’s just America”

Yeah I’m not American. I most intimately know Finnish laws and while there’s a million Karens who get upset if they think they’re being filmed (especially cops, I went to the supreme court and won when they prevented me from filming in my phone).

And there’s nothing in the GDPR that would ban filming in public or say that in public one could reasonably expect privacy. The exception is you can’t use that material for commercial purposes without a permit. But it’s completely fine for personal use.

Hidden cameras and recordings have been things for like 100 years.

Edit and privacy law’s reflect that.

Also everyone is literally constantly pointing a camera at you in public with their phones. Public places don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Like, say, if esteemed Academy Award nominated character actress Margot Robbie was on social media, it’d be utterly brilliant to choose to be on Lemmy, as no-one would believe it even if she went by her real name.

Personally I would find that highly amusing, a testament to having the soul of a true thespian.