Are some things in your house more "private" than other things? (Privacy debate)

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
What I’m saying is that it doesn’t matter how upset an artist might get by having someone copy his work. You don’t get to outlaw things just because they hurt your precious feelings.

Your slippery spin is getting very tiresome.

Look–it’s obvious you don’t understand this, but people do things in their private life and in their private homes that do not concern you, me, or anyone else but them. This is called “private” stuff. If someone else were to publish their “private” activities (whatever they may be–embarrassing or not) people tend to get upset. You know, it’s a feeling—an emotion.

“Private” things don’t all have to be deeply intimate or potentially embarassing in nature to be “private.” Here, let me help you out:

pri·vate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prvt)
adj.

1.  1. Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others: a private hideaway.
    2. Designed or intended for one's exclusive use: a private room.
   

2.   1. Of or confined to the individual; personal: a private joke; private opinions.
     2. Undertaken on an individual basis: private studies; private research.
   

3. Of, relating to, or receiving special hospital services and privileges: a private patient.
   3. Not available for public use, control, or participation: a private club; a private party.

4.   1. Belonging to a particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or the government: private property.
     2. Of, relating to, or derived from nongovernment sources: private funding.
     3. Conducted and supported primarily by individuals or groups not affiliated with governmental agencies or corporations: a private college; a private sanatorium.
     4. Enrolled in or attending a private school: a private student.
   

5. Not holding an official or public position: a private citizen.

6.   1. Not for public knowledge or disclosure; secret: private papers; a private communication.
     2. Not appropriate for use or display in public; intimate: private behavior; a private tragedy.
     3. Placing a high value on personal privacy: a private person.
   

When people have something that was deemed “private” (like something in their home that was “private”) they tend to get upset when someone else goes ahead and publishes it against their will. This doesn’t merely apply to creative works, it’s just about anything.

It’s obvious that you don’t give any particular damn about us evil hoarding artists, but since this principle (privacy) applies to a lot of things that people have and do in their own homes, I thought perhaps you’d have a little perspective. But apparently when it comes to artists, you don’t. That’s too bad.

If she isn’t opposed to publishing the picture, then no legitimate privacy interest is being infringed. It’s her privacy on the line, not yours.

But the point is, who is she? I drew her from my memory and I can’t locate her (I don’t even know her name). Or, I sketched her in the park and never got her name. How can one contact her and ask her for her “permission” to have her portrait published?

Or is it too much to ask that you should actually have some evidence before restricting someone’s freedom of expression?

“Freedom of expression”? That’s a huge laugh.

“Freedom to exploit someone else’s privacy” is more like it. Or perhaps “Freedom to publicize someone else’s personal project against their will.” But please–do go on with the “freedom of expression” angle. It’s very entertaining. I expect you to bring up the Nazis next.

Here’s an interesting link about model releases, with an interesting quote from a court judgment that pretty much sums up a lot of our feelings:

that an individual has the right to decide whether that which is his shall be given to the public and not only to restrict and limit but also to withhold absolutely his talents, property, or other subjects of the right of privacy from all dissemination.

He has the right to withhold his “talents” and “property” from the public. His “talents” might be his writing, his music, his art, his photography. He gets to decide whether that which is his shall be given to the public. Since “talent” is not a phsyical thing (like a lamp) then one must assume that the sharing of the manifestation of the talent (publishing would be one manifestation) would be what was meant.

Now, of course, I fully expect you to spin, spin, spin this all out of proportion.

I can only assume that you don’t truly understand what “private” is to most people, or you are willfully pretending that it doesn’t or shouldn’t apply in the case of us greedy, hoarding artists.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
If someone else were to publish their “private” activities (whatever they may be–embarrassing or not) people tend to get upset. You know, it’s a feeling—an emotion.

Oh, an emotion! As in “appeal to emotion”. As in “I have no rational arguments, so all I can do is appeal to emotion.”

When people have something that was deemed “private” (like something in their home that was “private”) they tend to get upset when someone else goes ahead and publishes it against their will. This doesn’t merely apply to creative works, it’s just about anything.

Agreed. Now how exactly do you get from “action X makes someone upset” to “action X should be illegal”?

Go ahead, ignore the point once again. Prove you really aren’t interested in debating honestly or rationally.

But the point is, who is she? I drew her from my memory and I can’t locate her (I don’t even know her name). Or, I sketched her in the park and never got her name. How can one contact her and ask her for her “permission” to have her portrait published?

That’s the beauty of it - you don’t have to ask her for permission. She must come forward and say she doesn’t want her picture distributed, since it’s her privacy at stake.

"Freedom of expression"? That’s a huge laugh.

Yes, we all know what you think about freedom of expression.

Here’s an interesting link about model releases, with an interesting quote from a court judgment that pretty much sums up a lot of our feelings:

Fantastic. Model releases are required under current law. Got any other breaking news?

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Oh, an emotion! As in “appeal to emotion”. As in “I have no rational arguments, so all I can do is appeal to emotion.”

What is privacy, but a feeling about one’s life and how information about it is distributed to the world? What is “embarrassment”? What do you think people feel when naked pictures of themselves are published against their will? “Embarrassment.” Yeah. A feeling. And privacy laws take into account “feelings” like embarrassment, or “none of your damned business.”

Go ahead, ignore the point once again. Prove you really aren’t interested in debating honestly or rationally.

What is “privacy,” anyway? That’s what we are talking about. Privacy. People have these feelings of privacy. What are they, and why are there laws protecting privacy? Could you tell me that? What the hell are you going on about? “Privacy” is mostly about feelings.

That’s the beauty of it - you don’t have to ask her for permission. She must come forward and say she doesn’t want her picture distributed, since it’s her privacy at stake.

What deluded, addled world are you living in that you think it works that way? That someone can go ahead and say, “Well, she doesn’t have any way of knowing that I’m going to publish this picture of her, so until she finds out, I guess it’s OK.” That’s not how it works, that’s not how it will ever work. No publisher will print a picture without the model’s consent. You don’t just go ahead and potentially violate someone’s privacy and never tell them that you’re planning on doing that. Not unless you want to have a jillion lawsuits. But I guess that’s what you want.

Yes, we all know what you think about freedom of expression.

Well, why do we even have privacy laws, pray tell, since they obviously hamper your precious “freedom of expression”?

Give me a freakin’ break.

Fantastic. Model releases are required under current law. Got any other breaking news?

Amazing. You are going to just pretend that the quote I gave from that court case just doesn’t exist. That what was clearly stated there doesn’t mean what it clearly means.

Hilarious.

[yosemite]

Upon further reflection, I believe that since this is GD, I should retract my “addled, deluded” comment. But I still don’t understand how you think it works that way.

On the other hand, if it does work that way, let’s just go ahead and release Mr2001’s credit card information and a photo of him wearing only his socks. The photo was developed at the photo lab so obviously we had legal “access” to it. And the credit card number was legally seen by someone working in a store. So it’s all legit “access.” And after all, it’s up to him to tell us (after he finds out about it, a while later) that he objects to use sharing this information with the world. We don’t need to ask him beforehand, or anything…

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
What is privacy, but a feeling about one’s life and how information about it is distributed to the world? What is “embarrassment”? What do you think people feel when naked pictures of themselves are published against their will? “Embarrassment.” Yeah. A feeling. And privacy laws take into account “feelings” like embarrassment, or "none of your damned business."

Some violations of privacy have an actual, objective impact on someone. For example, a damaged reputation doesn’t just make you sad, it diminishes the respect people have for you and your work, which can have tangible negative effects on the way you’re treated and whether you’re able to find work in the future.

Those are the violations that deserve legal protection. If you want someone to protect your feelings, you don’t need government, you need Mommy.

(BTW, you still haven’t answered the question: Now how exactly do you get from “action X makes someone upset” to “action X should be illegal”? If you think it should be illegal to hurt someone’s feelings, by all means, please start a thread on it. I think you’ll get some interesting replies.)

What deluded, addled world are you living in that you think it works that way? That someone can go ahead and say, "Well, she doesn’t have any way of knowing that I’m going to publish this picture of her, so until she finds out, I guess it’s OK."

Sigh. I guess that’s what I get for saying “you don’t have to ask her” instead of “under the hypothetical changed laws which we’ve been discussing all week, you wouldn’t have to ask her.”

Note to self: Try not to use any phrases that yosemitebabe can take out of context.

Well, why do we even have privacy laws, pray tell, since they obviously hamper your precious “freedom of expression”?

As I said, there are legitimate reasons to hamper freedom of expression. Protecting public safety is one of them. Protecting a real privacy interest, one that will have an objective impact on someone if it’s violated, is another. Protecting someone’s precious little feelings, however, is not.

Amazing. You are going to just pretend that the quote I gave from that court case just doesn’t exist. That what was clearly stated there doesn’t mean what it clearly means.

What it clearly means is that a judge recognizes an artist’s legal right “to withhold absolutely his talents, property, or other subjects of the right of privacy from all dissemination”. That’s nice. But it’s irrelevant to a discussion of changing the law, especially since the case where that quote came from wasn’t about distribution of works at all - it was about a doctor who took pictures of an unconscious patient and kept them for himself.

On the other hand, if it does work that way, let’s just go ahead and release Mr2001’s credit card information and a photo of him wearing only his socks. The photo was developed at the photo lab so obviously we had legal “access” to it. And the credit card number was legally seen by someone working in a store. So it’s all legit "access."

OK, this proves it. I thought you might have some intention of debating honestly, but obviously you prefer to ignore everything I’ve said that doesn’t fit your agenda. I’ve conceded that financial information deserves protection no less than three times in this thread, but you pretend that never happened so you can keep whipping your strawman.

My position is clear to anyone still reading, and you’re only making yourself look more desperate by pretending I’ve said something I haven’t - or not said something I have. If you’re going to keep misrepresenting instead of debating honestly and rationally, I’m done with this thread.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Some violations of privacy have an actual, objective impact on someone. For example, a damaged reputation doesn’t just make you sad, it diminishes the respect people have for you and your work, which can have tangible negative effects on the way you’re treated and whether you’re able to find work in the future.

I’m tired of this. I guess it’s beyond hope that you’ll grasp or concede that “privacy” is more than just a “damaged reputation” or some sort of financial harm or risk.

How was the patient in the case I cited before (who was photographed by his doctor) “harmed” by that? Who saw the photo? Only the doctor, and he kept it only for his files. So in what way was the patient “harmed”? Did he lose money? Did he get physically hurt in some way? Was he publicly humiliated? Was his reputation “damaged”?

Since I can’t think of any real substantive way that the patient was harmed, (since the doctor never intended to publish the photo) then why in the world should the court have found the doctor’s actions illegal?

Since we can’t allow the patient’s feelings or emotions about the issue into it, why in the world should he have sued and why in the world did he win that suit?

And on the same token, why is it illegal for a peeping tom to spy on a woman peeing in the bathroom, for instance? He didn’t hurt her, he didn’t touch a hair on her head. She didn’t know about it until afterwards. He didn’t ruin her reputation, because he didn’t tell anyone what he had done and took no photos of her. He didn’t cause her any financial loss. So why in the world should such a behavior be illegal? Her emotions and feelings about knowing that some creepy guy was peering at her while in an intimate moment should be immaterial, according to you.

Sigh. I guess that’s what I get for saying “you don’t have to ask her” instead of “under the hypothetical changed laws which we’ve been discussing all week, you wouldn’t have to ask her.”

Note to self: Try not to use any phrases that yosemitebabe can take out of context.

Oh, your sentiments were very clear. “That’s the beauty of it - you don’t have to ask her for permission. She must come forward and say she doesn’t want her picture distributed, since it’s her privacy at stake.” So she must “come forward,” right? But how does she “come foward” if no one knows who she is? (The artist drew her from memory, for instance.) So according to you, the “beauty” of it that one can publish the picture anyway, and then wait for someone to come forward and say that they mind?

That’s got to be the lamest thing.

What it clearly means is that a judge recognizes an artist’s legal right “to withhold absolutely his talents, property, or other subjects of the right of privacy from all dissemination”. That’s nice. But it’s irrelevant to a discussion of changing the law, especially since the case where that quote came from wasn’t about distribution of works at all - it was about a doctor who took pictures of an unconscious patient and kept them for himself.

IANAL (and neither are you) but what it clearly seems to mean is that the judge was making a decision on a privacy issue, and added a very telling comment about “talents” and “property,” and how one has a right to not “disseminate” them to the public. He didn’t have to bring up “talents” or “property” since all the case was about was the doctor taking a picture of the man’s face–not using his “talents” nor his “property.” But the judge did mention these other things, because he was making a general point about what privacy is.

But of course, since you want to change privacy laws anyway, and since your idea of what privacy is seems to be at odds with most of the planet–feel free to ignore. :rolleyes:

OK, this proves it. I thought you might have some intention of debating honestly, but obviously you prefer to ignore everything I’ve said that doesn’t fit your agenda. I’ve conceded that financial information deserves protection no less than three times in this thread, but you pretend that never happened so you can keep whipping your strawman.

Oh no–let’s be clear about this–you conceded that certain things (financial information, medical information, photos of individuals) deserved special consideration. But hey–you think the beauty of it is that someone needs to “come forward” and say that they don’t want such things shared. So if you think that the “beauty” of it is that it’ll work that way with photographs, why not with medical or financial information too? Because that’s the beauty of it, after all.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
**How was the patient in the case I cited before (who was photographed by his doctor) “harmed” by that? Who saw the photo? Only the doctor, and he kept it only for his files. So in what way was the patient “harmed”? Did he lose money? Did he get physically hurt in some way? Was he publicly humiliated? Was his reputation “damaged”?

Since I can’t think of any real substantive way that the patient was harmed, (since the doctor never intended to publish the photo) then why in the world should the court have found the doctor’s actions illegal?**

I don’t think the patient was harmed. I presumed he sued under a privacy-related law, not a copyright law, so he wouldn’t be affected by any changes I’ve talked about.

Since we can’t allow the patient’s feelings or emotions about the issue into it, why in the world should he have sued and why in the world did he win that suit?

Speaking of feelings… you still haven’t answered the question: Now how exactly do you get from “action X makes someone upset” to “action X should be illegal”?

And on the same token, why is it illegal for a peeping tom to spy on a woman peeing in the bathroom, for instance?

Irrelevant. I thought we were talking about things you let people see but not copy, not things you don’t let anyone see in the first place.

Maybe peeping-tom laws are designed to coddle people’s precious feelings. :shrug: It’s not a great justification for a law, but peeping toms aren’t copying anything or exercising any free expression, so what does the law harm? OTOH, the “privacy” rights you suggest directly trade off one person’s free expression to protect another person’s fragile emotions.

So according to you, the “beauty” of it that one can publish the picture anyway, and then wait for someone to come forward and say that they mind?

Yes, they can do that - meaning they have the ability to publish a picture and hope nobody will sue, not that it would be legal to do so.

Of course, that’s no different from any other law. You have the ability to speed, to steal, to murder, or even to violate copyright, then hope no one will find out about it.

He didn’t have to bring up “talents” or “property” since all the case was about was the doctor taking a picture of the man’s face–not using his “talents” nor his “property.” But the judge did mention these other things, because he was making a general point about what privacy is.

He was expressing his opinions, which were irrelevant to the case.

**But of course, since you want to change privacy laws anyway, and since your idea of what privacy is seems to be at odds with most of the planet–feel free to ignore. **

Nope, I want to change copyright laws and add privacy laws. Unless you can point to a “privacy” law that makes it illegal to copy works you find in someone’s home… can you?

Oh no–let’s be clear about this–you conceded that certain things (financial information, medical information, photos of individuals) deserved special consideration. But hey–you think the beauty of it is that someone needs to “come forward” and say that they don’t want such things shared. So if you think that the “beauty” of it is that it’ll work that way with photographs, why not with medical or financial information too? Because that’s the beauty of it, after all.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really don’t know how laws work.

OK, here’s an example using today’s copyright law. Let’s suppose you have a painting that you don’t want me to copy. How does copyright law help you? First, the knowledge that it’s illegal to copy your painting serves as a deterrent. Second, if I’m not deterred, the law lets you take me to court, force me to stop distributing copies, and possibly collect damages.

Now how would it work with my proposed “privacy” laws? Suppose I have a bank statement containing a credit card number that I don’t want you to give away. How does a privacy law help me? First, the knowledge that it’s illegal to give away my financial information serves as a deterrent. Second, if you’re not deterred, the law lets me take you to court, force you to stop distributing the information, and possibly collect damages.

Is it legal for me to copy your painting today? No. Would it be legal for you to give away my credit card number? No. The actions are illegal whether or not we take each other to court. But I’ll only get caught if you see me selling your picture, and you’ll only get caught if I see you giving away my credit card number. Just like any other law.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
I don’t think the patient was harmed. I presumed he sued under a privacy-related law, not a copyright law, so he wouldn’t be affected by any changes I’ve talked about.

Wait a minute. We’re talking about “harm” and “privacy.” So what is this bait and switch routine?

So you say that the patient who objected to the photo being taken was not harmed? So would you prefer that the privacy laws be changed so that someone in his position to not be able to sue? Because there was no “harm”? That his emotions and feelings about his privacy are “irrelevant” and not evidence of “harm”? Is that it? Are feelings and emotions relevant in privacy issues, or not?

Just getting this straight.

Speaking of feelings… you still haven’t answered the question: Now how exactly do you get from “action X makes someone upset” to “action X should be illegal”?

I am sure there is a fuzzy line, but some guidelines have been suggested. And I think that the judge who gave his “opinion” on privacy (that you are so eager to dismiss) summed it up.

Irrelevant. I thought we were talking about things you let people see but not copy, not things you don’t let anyone see in the first place.

Bullshit. You mean to say that this woman has never let anyone see her naked? For all you know this woman is a porn star who is paid to have people film her while she is doing “intimate” things. Should it be legal for a peeping tom to peer in on a porn star, without her permission?

Maybe peeping-tom laws are designed to coddle people’s precious feelings. :shrug: It’s not a great justification for a law, but peeping toms aren’t copying anything or exercising any free expression, so what does the law harm?

Bullshit.

It “harms” the peeping Tom, who dearly wants to see this woman naked and in an intimate moment. His wishes are thwarted by a petty law which values her precious feelings over his. How is this fair?

Of course, that’s no different from any other law. You have the ability to speed, to steal, to murder, or even to violate copyright, then hope no one will find out about it.

Bullshit.

Violating copyright, speeding and murder are illegal, whether or not someone comes forward after the fact and objects to them.

What you are proposing is that copying of someone else’s (unpublished) work, without their permission be legal, unless (and this is the “beauty” of it) the owner of that work steps forward (after the fact) and can prove that they have a “legal” reason to object. (That the thing was private enough.) Which in a lot of cases, they would not be able to prove (if you had your way). So a lot of people’s work would be published against their will, and they’d have no way to stop it.

So the default assumption would be that unless someone can prove it’s illegal, it’s legal. That’s not how it is with copyight violations, speeding, or murder.

Nope, I want to change copyright laws and add privacy laws. Unless you can point to a “privacy” law that makes it illegal to copy works you find in someone’s home… can you?

Why would there need to be an added privacy law that covers something that copyright does already? You knew this before you asked me.

However, that judge’s “opinion” that you so quickly dismissed does express a sentiment about privacy that would indicate that yeah–an individual should not have to share his “talents or property” with the world if he doesn’t want to.

But oh well, feel free to ignore. :rolleyes:

OK, here’s an example using today’s copyright law. Let’s suppose you have a painting that you don’t want me to copy. How does copyright law help you? First, the knowledge that it’s illegal to copy your painting serves as a deterrent. Second, if I’m not deterred, the law lets you take me to court, force me to stop distributing copies, and possibly collect damages.

Already been covered above, and other times before.

You want to make the default assumption to be that it is legal to copy stuff out of people’s homes without their permission. (With the exceptions of medical or financial information, yadda yadda.) That’s not near the deterrant as knowing ahead of time that it is illegal, unless they have a really good case indicating that it is, after all, legal. Which is how it is now.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
What you are proposing is that copying of someone else’s (unpublished) work, without their permission be legal, unless (and this is the “beauty” of it) the owner of that work steps forward (after the fact) and can prove that they have a “legal” reason to object.

You want to make the default assumption to be that it is legal to copy stuff out of people’s homes without their permission.

That’s a lie - I’ve said the opposite many times already. I spelled it out for you in my last post, but you chose to ignore that in favor of the same old strawman.

I gave you another chance but clearly you aren’t going to debate honestly. I’m done here.

[yosemite]

“Debate honestly”? Give me a freakin’ break. I’ve become increasingly weary of your constant spin and slippery “I didn’t really mean that” posts (when previous statements did mean exactly that) and your “bait and switch” tactics a long time ago.

So if you want to quit? Fine and dandy. There’s only so much spin I can stomach at one time anyway.