Originally Posted by firecracker
Facebook states in their user agreement that the pictures you upload may be used in advertisements shown to other people in your contact list with your knowledge or consent.
Flickr doesn't include that information unless told to---of course something like a "what's nearby" application is only going to see images that are geotagged, and many cameraphones with GPS include the geotag automatically. IMHO, if there's a problem, it's more with those phones than with Flickr itself.
Originally Posted by Curt
Personally, I'm not worried about it even with a small child and some valuables in the house. It's easy enough to figure out where I live from the geotags on my Flickr photos; but if you wanted to do something malicious with that information, it's not worth your while to try to get past the dogs and the various other eyes on the property. Unless you're after *me* specifically for some personal reason, in which case Flickr isn't really your easiest way to find out where I live.
They do, at least, have an unobjectionable rights policy about the images.
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
Pinko hippy communist perverts! I bet they eat their young.
I have a long standing personal policy to NEVER upload any pictures with recognizable faces, mine or anyone else, to public websites. While it is true everyone is being video taped everyday by security cameras, having photos I uploaded cataloged and pretty much at disposal to anyone with every intent, just scares me. Paranoid, perhaps, but technology have moved beyond most people's expectations without much regard to morality on possibly causing harm to others. With this kind of mind set rampant, I tend to want to protect myself.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The idea that some day we would become a surveillance society, with Big Brother watching over us, has faded. We are indeed a surveillance society, but we are being watched by each other, not by the state. Well, ok, yes the state watches us, but by far, the most persistent, dedicated, prolific snoops are ordinary citizens who watch each other. Many of us expose to the world our personal lives - quite literally - including every little emotion and mood, on a daily basis.
Concern over such things as children in public photographs is closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Go on to myspace or youtube and count the number of children who willingly and certainly without parents' permission post photographs (some quite immodest to say the least) and personal information about themselves.
With cell phone cameras, your every little move can be of interest to people you never met who can record you and circulate what you have done within minutes to an international audience of voyeurs. God help you if you have done something incriminating or even embarrassing in public. Furthermore, none of this is subject to scrutiny by any agency who would protect you so what you do can be edited entirely out of context and used for all sorts of purposes. "I will SUE" you shout. Ok, sue the originator then try to remove all instances from cyberspace. Good luck.
Now that's scary.
Much attention is given to the relationship between authorities and organizations on one hand and individual citizens on the other. Worldwide there are a multitude of laws concerning what information may be gathered and kept but these are not applicable if the citizen volontary surrenders the information.
Every user agreement of every service is very clear in the terms, but very few people tend to read them and even fewer understands.
Some years ago I read the user agreement for hotmail, and discovered that by agreeing I not only gave the company permission to use whatever material I sent throught the service but I also surrendered the copyright.
I have no idea why they thought it necessary to require the copyright, nor have I ever heard of any instance when it has been enforced but why was it considered necessary to go these lengths?
Today we have a situation where companies are protecting themselves by requiring users to agree to more extended rights than what is really necessary to make sure that they cannot be at fault should problems arise.
Technology is advancing faster than policies and the average user has absolutely no idea of what he/she has agreed to (the user may have joined to see, but didn't realise that the deal also was to be seen).
It is always easy to say that it is up to the user to understand an agreement before signing it, and this is legally true. Except of course with children (in most countries children are not allowed to sign deals, and should they manage to do so it is not valid).
Curt's story about his Flickr findings is typical of the Internet of today (both good and bad). Most people make information about themselves and their possesions available to an extent that would scare them had they known. Every piece of information that we provide the Internet about ourselves can be abused in at least as many ways as it can be used.
From a legal point of view everything is OK. It would be very strange if we suddenly had laws as to what information that we could share about ourselves and what we couldn't share. It would however be a good thing if people would actually understand what they agree to (and how the information could be used and abused) before signing a deal.
A lot of people did stupid things when they were young. It will be harder for them to forget, learn and move on, because what they did may be googled as long as they live. For example, a friend of mine ran naked and dead drunk around the church a winter night when he was a student. What if that was photographed and showed up when future bosses or girlfriends wanted to check him out?
The only images from high school I've put up on my FB page are of students registering to vote. (My graduating class road-tested the Twenty-sixth Amendment.) The way I looked at it was that this is both history, and by no stretch of the imagination defamatory.
Still in the queue, some shots of classmates watching Duke Ellington check out the school's piano. Think anyone would object?
Look, we have to accept that in this rush to technology and social networking, there is no privacy. Also, if you shop, buy gasoline or enter nearly any store, there are private security video cameras recording your image. While most of it will end up being erased, the only sure way to ensure your privacy is to wear sunglasses at all times and to never leave your house.
Even being on the Internet leaves an electronic trail in the form of IP addresses.
It also means no credit cards, no ATM machines, no checks and no forms of electronic payments. Use only cash. I don't know what to do about the banking system. I suppose you could demand to be paid in cash and pay all of your bills -- in person with cash.
By the way, the youth of today are probably most responsible for the proliferation of photos posted on social networking sites.
Last edited by SuzanneR; 12-02-2009 at 03:52 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: let's keep the tone cordial please.