Alec Baldwin: Good-bye, Public Life

[PrettySquareGal]

This really sums up well today's culture and loss of privacy:

I recall how, in a big city, many people had to play out private moments in public: a woman sobbing at a pay phone (remember pay phones?), someone studying their paperwork, undisturbed, at the Oyster Bar, before catching the train. We allowed people privacy, we left them alone. And now we don’t leave each other alone. Now we live in a digital arena, like some Roman Colosseum, with our thumbs up or thumbs down.

My uncle was a lifelong New Yorker. He said, “New York is the place where if you really are one in a million, there’s seven other people just like you right here in town!” And I used to laugh at that. He’d say, “New York, millionaires and whores shoulder to shoulder on 57th Street. Some of them millionaires and whores!”

There was a time the entire world didn’t have a camera in their pocket—the first thing that cell phones did was to kill the autograph business. Nobody cares about your autograph. There are cameras everywhere, and there are media outlets for them to “file their story.” They take your picture in line for coffee. They’re trying to get a picture of your baby. Everyone’s got a camera. When they’re done, they tweet it. It’s … unnatural.

http://www.vulture.com/2014/02/alec-baldwin-good-bye-public-life.html

Yes, he's famous, but we all are subjected to a loss of privacy and being judged harshly online, anonymously...

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yes, the proliferation of posting photographs of random people online and the comments they attract is disturbing.

Just look at silly sites like tubecrush. Very few of these people have given their permission to have their souls stolen. The modern way: You're in public? You're fair game. Let the trolling commence. That's what you get for existing.

 

[Fastuni]

Hardly a thing p*sses me more off than random strangers taking photos of me with their silly phones without even asking.
Happened shortly ago when I was merely waiting in front of a museum. Bah.
:rage: I guess I am a striking appearance when wearing a Ulster and a hat... but why not ask for permission? [huh]

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yes. I was photographed and used in an art exhibition, which pissed me off royally.

The assumption is that you will be flattered. Oh, look. Someone likes me enough to photograph me! Whoopdee-do!!!

 

[Edward]

Interesting area, privacy, and how its boundaries are constantly being threatened, or redrawn, by technology and shifts in popular culture. I've long said there are three generation to encounter the internet so far. There's those of us who were adults when it arrived, old enough to know better than to live too out loud online, and who are of an age where we can reasonably be expected to watch ourselves on there. Then there are the generation behind us, who were too young to think it through, and will have all thier drunken young exacapdes come back to haunt them many times over via the web. Behind them, there are a new generation of kids learning from their mistakes, and once more being careful what they put out there. Insofar as you can generalise, at least.

The proliferation of camera phones since 2005ish has made a big cultural impact on major news events - for instance, when we had the tube bombings in London on 7th July 2005, a very significant quantity of the foortage, of photographs and other material used in the mainstream news media came directly from ordinary member of the public. The concept of "citizen journalism" was effectively born then. (Beyond privacy, there are also major IP issues here, all sorts. Fascinating subject.)

Legally, under English law we efectively have a right to privacy if we are in a place where we have "a reasonable expectation of privacy". Of course, whereas defamation law can provide for the restoration of reputation, privacy law cannot return the once secret to that state. Tricky area, though the law does, imo, provide a reasonable balance for at least compensating those whose privacy was wrongly invaded, whatever their private behaviour (see Max Moseley), and turning away those who would seek to abuse privacy law for the purpose of reputation management (see John Terry).


It's often said in the legal community that "privacy is the new libel". I can only speculate as to how far that stateo f affairs is the result of everyone having a camera now and thus the Liberace gambit simply not being an option any longer.

There was a time the entire world didn’t have a camera in their pocket—the first thing that cell phones did was to kill the autograph business. Nobody cares about your autograph. There are cameras everywhere, and there are media outlets for them to “file their story.” They take your picture in line for coffee. They’re trying to get a picture of your baby. Everyone’s got a camera. When they’re done, they tweet it. It’s … unnatural.

Interesting notion about the autograph thing.... I'vbe never really thought of that - though tbh I'd infinitely rather have an autographed Playbill than a photogaph with the performer. No question about that.

Yes, the proliferation of posting photographs of random people online and the comments they attract is disturbing.

Just look at silly sites like tubecrush. Very few of these people have given their permission to have their souls stolen. The modern way: You're in public? You're fair game. Let the trolling commence. That's what you get for existing.

Very odd indeed. I remember feeling sorry for that guy who had his photo taken on the tube by a German lady tourist who decided when she got home that she was desperate to meet him. Metro msde a big thing of it - published the photo several days, ran a big campaign to find him, sent them out on a date.... I remember thinking that in the highly unlikely event they had similarly published my photograph, I'd have sent them a very stern letter via my solicitors.

Yes. I was photographed and used in an art exhibition, which pissed me off royally.

The assumption is that you will be flattered. Oh, look. Someone likes me enough to photograph me! Whoopdee-do!!!

Probably true. Though as you were in a public place, the law would give you no recourse here (undoubtedly some smart defence lawyer would also find some way to comment on the number of CCTV cameras you pass daily; as I recall the statistics, from that perspective the UK is the most surveillance-heavy nation in the world). There's an argument to be made, though, that taking an individual's photo and making a thing of it in an exhibition like that is invasive in a way that a random photo of a street scene that happens to capture them is not. The court commented on this in Joanne Rowling's case, though that was somewhat different again, as the case was taken in the name of her infant son who was not in any way 'public property".

 

[LizzieMaine]

One of the things we try to warn people about here at the Lounge is that once they post a photo of themselves, anyone could help themselves to it for any purpose whatsoever and there isn't a thing we can do about it. Such is the nature of the Internet, and such is the nature of the Internet Generation.

 

[Tomasso]

A few weeks ago I was dining alfresco with friends at a cafe on one of our local promenades. Adjacent to us was a fountain where a man lay sleeping on the steps. At one point a young couple strolled by and stopped to stare at the man. They conferred for a moment and then a camera appeared from the girls purse. She proceeded to take several photos of the man in his repose. I have seen this same scenario played out dozens of times in my neighborhood by visiting tourists, from all corners of the globe. I would sometimes ask them why they where photographing people sleeping on the streets and would never get an answer, just a slightly guilty kind of look like they'd been caught doing something naughty.

Well, this time something came over me and before I new it I was up and standing right in front of the couple, taking multiple pictures of them with my iPhone. The couple's reaction was one of stunned disbelief. Then there was the sound of applause coming from the cafe and I turned to see my dinner companions giving me a standing ovation. The couple slinked off and I returned to the table and enjoyed the rest of the evening. The man laying on the fountain steps slept through the whole event, unaware of what had transpired. Odd bit of business but there you have.

 

[Fastuni]

Well done. I think I'll from now on will carry a nice old camera with me... just in case.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yes. Does anyone recall the mysterious incident of the Art Fawcett photograph? A new member here had scoured a google search for an image of chap in white suit and panama hat. Posted photo here claiming "saw this nattily dressed guy in Milan airport last week", or something similar. It was in fact Art Fawcett in Pasadena or somesuch at a vintage expo, and the photo originated from FLounge.

I admit at the outset to an overwhelming terror of my image appearing in public, which certainly informs my opininons on random photography.

One of the things we try to warn people about here at the Lounge is that once they post a photo of themselves, anyone could help themselves to it for any purpose whatsoever and there isn't a thing we can do about it. Such is the nature of the Internet, and such is the nature of the Internet Generation.

 

[Atticus Finch]

One of the things we try to warn people about here at the Lounge is that once they post a photo of themselves, anyone could help themselves to it for any purpose whatsoever and there isn't a thing we can do about it. Such is the nature of the Internet, and such is the nature of the Internet Generation.

Yes. Being form Edward's first generation of internet users, I had to learn about image appropriation the hard way. Several years ago I googled up "A-1 flight jacket" and hit the images button. BAM! There…smiling back at me was....me. Not sure how the photos of me wearing an A-1 made the Google cut, but they did. Then, a year or so later, I made the "Fat Guy Wearing an Open Road" cut, too.

AF

 

[Gregg Axley]

Posting pictures of yourself on the internet, is also how someone can steal your identity for facebook.
How you ask?
I'm a moderator of one fb page (about a part of town I lived in), and I see requests (to join) coming in daily.
But when I see the person's picture, and check out their page, the two don't match.
And I'm pretty sure you didn't grow up in my town, or that particular part of it.
Say you have a college age boy/girl that wants to join this page.
If I see "just started using facebook in English) recently, along with dozens of groups that aren't in English, I get suspicious.
Asian, Indian, Russian, and Middle-Eastern groups, with a blonde haired blue eyed girl for their profile pic. Uh no.
This is a trend that's been going on for at least a year, and it's an attempt to use your photo to gain access to groups, with the intention of selling (spamming) shoes, sex toys, work from home pitches, etc.
Like Lizzie said, be careful about posting your picture on the internet, because someone else might just use it.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

be careful about posting your picture on the internet, because someone else might just use it.

Yet, with the advent of Google Glass, everyone snapping pics, security cams, Google maps photographing stuff, etc., it's almost quaint to simply be concerned about posting online photos. Soon there will be face recognition apps. There is no privacy.

 

[Feraud]

I saw a guy on the 7 train in Queens this morning wearing what looked like one of those silly looking Google eyepieces.
People will have to start wearing masks in public soon to opt-out of this intrusiveness.

 

[Fastuni]

Fedora, reflective glasses and a turned up coat collar also work.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Fedora, reflective glasses and a turned up coat collar also work.

And for the ladies?

 

[Fastuni]

A ladies hat, reflective glasses and turned up coat collar.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

A ladies hat, reflective glasses and turned up coat collar.

In the summer???

OK, I guess we all need to figure out a solution.

 

[Feraud]

I suggest a mask to make a statement! I don't want to hide and let these corporate creeps think it's alright to intrude on every aspect of our lives.
I understand we give up a certain amount of privacy when we're in public. That's more or less a given when in a public space.
What I object to is Big Advertising pushing the idea that it is acceptable to push cellphone cameras in people faces. Generations are being programmed by advertising to have to constantly update some form of social media.

I also dislike cellphone cameras because 99% of people are terrible photographers. It's an aesthetic objection.

Alec Baldwin cannot get far enough away from NYC as far as I am concerned. The anti-gay slurs he's been known to spew are sickening.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And it's a "vintage look" too.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Also practical in this day and age.