--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:14:01 +0200, Dave Huth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This may be one area where the ethics and law-making on this subject is > > lagging behind > > the technology enabling it. (As usual!) > > Not really. There have been more cases than anyone can count. The camera > is not a new invention, these are not new questions. > >
Would you share with us what these answers are? My point is that digital tech and the Internet, as tools of reproduction and distribution, is the primary new technology here, not the camera. This is not a question of privacy, of recording private events. there have been plenty of privacy cases in the courts that have beat the question to death of who can recrd what and when, with all sorts of outcomes. In my opinion this is more a question of rights and ownership. Who has the ownership rights to my face? If a corporation can say that just because someone's ring tone is going off in a public place, that doesn't give just anyone the right to record and distribute that ring tone across the Net, then why don't i have the same rights to protect my face? just because i go out in public and touch a public phone, that doesn't give someone the right to lift my fingerpronts and do what they want with them, does it? or is it ok to widely distribute my retina pattern just because i look at a public atm machine? take a snip of my hair and collect my DNA for internet publishing, or any other intimate parts of my identity? If I'm in public having a personal converation with a friend and I say "I'd love a Coca Cola", is it Ok for Coke to record what i say and use it in a commercial, and defend the right to do so by claiming, "Well he was in public when he said it." This becomes especially complicated when what I actually said was "I'd love a coca cola executive to choke on his own secret recipe and vanish into the earth forever." These are the sorts of questions I'm talking about that i don't think the courts have addressed to our full legal satisfaction. I'm not even saying I know what the answers should be, I have no idea. In practice, I think this dilemma is rather new, without much legal precent. There is some legal precedent surely, but I'd be surprised to learn that we had figured this all out many years ago. i've never heard about it. Dave ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
