General Discussion

MineralMan

(151,263 posts)

45. Dude, you specifically said photos of PEOPLE.

Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:47 PM

Feb 2014

Go read your post. You're being inconsistent. I quote you:

"I oftentimes will grab my camera, hop a trolley downtown, walk about and snap pictures of people that I see. is that to be considered voyeuristic now?"

{my emphasis}

That's what you wrote.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Worried about ever growing bans on Google Glass, Google publishes 'how not to be a Glasshole' FAQ. [View all] onehandle Feb 2014 OP

Explorers? upaloopa Feb 2014 #1

voyeurism? how so? frylock Feb 2014 #4

It's a camera you can share what you see upaloopa Feb 2014 #5

do you have this issue with photographers? frylock Feb 2014 #6

Really? And nobody has ever objected to that? MineralMan Feb 2014 #8

nope, nobody has ever objected.. frylock Feb 2014 #9

If someone were to object, how would you respond? Orrex Feb 2014 #12

i would respect their objection, and try to engage them in dialogue to better understand.. frylock Feb 2014 #14

If you a snapped a super-duper picture and someone objected to being in it... Orrex Feb 2014 #19

while that is true, i also record some of my rides on a GoPro.. frylock Feb 2014 #24

Probably not if it's inadvertent. Orrex Feb 2014 #46

When I have been aware, I have objected. MineralMan Feb 2014 #13

have you ever heard of this thing called art? frylock Feb 2014 #15

That's rather a famous photo, actually. MineralMan Feb 2014 #22

nice dodge. you can do better than that.. frylock Feb 2014 #26

No, that assessment is not correct. MineralMan Feb 2014 #32

why do i have to be doing ANYTHING with those shots? frylock Feb 2014 #37

Why would you take photos you will do nothing with? MineralMan Feb 2014 #39

Yes upaloopa Feb 2014 #10

vo�yeur frylock Feb 2014 #17

That definition is problematic Orrex Feb 2014 #21

and you're conflating innocent cityscape photographs with peeping toms frylock Feb 2014 #29

You said you liked to "snap" photos of people, not cityscapes. MineralMan Feb 2014 #42

holy fucking fuck.. frylock Feb 2014 #43

Dude, you specifically said photos of PEOPLE. MineralMan Feb 2014 #45

PEOPLE in the CITY frylock Feb 2014 #47

I won't give it another thought, I promise... MineralMan Feb 2014 #50

And why are you taking photos of individuals? That's my question. MineralMan Feb 2014 #23

i'd be curious to know what you THINK that i'm doing with those shots.. frylock Feb 2014 #35

No, you see, I'm not telling you what you're doing with them. MineralMan Feb 2014 #38

i've already stated i'm not selling the photographs.. frylock Feb 2014 #40

Are we good? Does that matter in some way? MineralMan Feb 2014 #44

tl;dr.. frylock Feb 2014 #49

LOL! MineralMan Feb 2014 #51

They don't have to be nude. upaloopa Feb 2014 #25

Taking surreptitious photos of strangers is an invasion of privacy. MineralMan Feb 2014 #28

I agree with you upaloopa Feb 2014 #30

Yes, and thanks. MineralMan Feb 2014 #33

look of anguish? i can say without equivocation that i have not.. frylock Feb 2014 #34

There's no fellow there. MineralMan Feb 2014 #48

The difference is that these things can be always on, recording in all situations. onehandle Feb 2014 #41

It's perfect for creeps jsr Feb 2014 #18

No no no. It's "art." Didn't you read up-thread? Orrex Feb 2014 #20

clearly you can't read.. frylock Feb 2014 #31

Nor did you distinguish Google Glass from art. Orrex Feb 2014 #52

Newsflash - enlightenment Feb 2014 #2

disagree The Green Manalishi Apr 2014 #56

How delightfully rude. enlightenment Apr 2014 #57

"rude"? The Green Manalishi Apr 2014 #58

Yes, rude. enlightenment Apr 2014 #59

better rude than a luddite. Better a 'glasshole' than having my head in the sand. The Green Manalishi Apr 2014 #61

You can give away your own privacy in any way you like. kiva Apr 2014 #60

Google Glass is a pox IMO whatchamacallit Feb 2014 #3

+1 cinnabonbon Feb 2014 #11

Oh christ... its a hands free camera, not the fucking Fourth Reich. phleshdef Feb 2014 #54

I suspect that it will mostly be "glassholes" who wear Google Glass. MineralMan Feb 2014 #7

More eyes and ears for the constant surveillance industrial complex jsr Feb 2014 #16

That's what I think. Feeding info to the borg on the micro level. El_Johns Feb 2014 #27

Other companies have made one too Ichingcarpenter Feb 2014 #36

Golden Tate just released a bunch he recorded through google glasses at the Super Bowel. icymist Feb 2014 #53

I guess there are somethings I'm to old to understand........... wandy Feb 2014 #55