Privacy for naked drunkards

[jspazzer.livejournal.com]

Following the discussion about Google Streetview vs. privacy, some may be interested in the haha brouing over at the Villeside Journal site.   One of the intrepid reporters took a video camera to the Tufts Naked Quad Run and posted it on Youtube.   Drunk streakers were not amused.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/fun/x805327507

Comments

Re: Never heard of rocketboom

[komos.livejournal.com]

There's no such thing as a "social right," friend. Rights are granted by and protected with laws, and there's nothing in place that promises that you won't have your picture taken if you run around naked in public.

Still going on about the implicitly and explicitly prohibition? Please explain why some of the participants were carrying cameras, and why no cameras were confiscated. The reporter in question states, "I was asked to cover this event and get photos and video - I did. I carried a big notebook, stood next to a Tufts police woman as I took the video and identified myself as a Journal reporter with everyone I spoke to that night, just as I would at any other event." Please do go on about how an "explicitly prohibited" camera was operated next to an official of the university?

Try a "your momma" joke next go

[komos.livejournal.com]

At least I've stayed on point. I'm sorry that you have proven incapable of grasping this, but actions have consequences.

Let's take a look at your interpretation of the analogy I suggested. Granted, I left it in broad terms because the one you kept going on about - the nude beach - was left in broad terms. You didn't specify where the beach was located, whether it was public or private, or whether there was any enforcement of either implicit or explicit rules. The SS# on a sign was more specific than that, but in order to make a true parallel, I would have to note that, like the Tufts campus, my backyard is technically private property, but certainly not sealed from the public. It is surrounded by a low fence, easily accessible, and viewable from the street if one chooses to look down the driveway. Additionally, a parallel situation would also require that I not only display my SS# on a sign in my back yard, but also inform all of the residents of my building that I would be doing it, make sure that it leaks out to my neighbors, AND not only fail to ensure that the uninvited stay away, but also put out hot chocolate and other refreshments for them.

Still think I have a "moral right" to be outraged if someone makes off with my info?

Re: Try a "your momma" joke next go

[komos.livejournal.com]

Do they not teach you to read on the Left Coast (http://community.livejournal.com/davis_square/1074250.html?thread=10159946#t10159946)? I don't think that the TQR constitutes "fringe behavior." On the other hand, I do think that it is a public event which has a demonstrable history of being documented by photographs, and that participants may reasonably expect to be photographed by participating in the event. "Warranting" is not my term. Instead, I have simply observed that there are consequences that are predictable associated with these actions.

On the other hand, you argue that the students have a right to expect that there be no consequences for participating in this event. When informed that no such right exists, you appealed to an ethical code which required one group to respect the wishes of the runners but did not engage the just as valid requirement that an individual take responsibility for his or her actions. When that was pointed out, you retreated to your initial emotional argument where you stated, effectively, that the participants have a right to be outraged because they have a right to be outraged.

Eh. You get the Go Rotterdam icon for clumsily arguments and for repeatedly resorting to ad hominem.

Aw jeez... you sure showed me. Shucks.

[komos.livejournal.com]

It's not whether it is legal or not to photograph something like this, it's not even a matter of privacy. It is simply uncivil to clearly disrespect the wishes of students as they participate in a tradition with the expectation that they will not be photographed in the nude. Maybe it's not illegal, but it's a shitty thing to do, and they're rightfully pissed in my opinion.

Read this statement carefully. The students have an expectation that they are to be free from being photographed. You state that they deserve to hold this expectation in spite of:

a) A demonstrable history of this event being photographed;

b) The clear presence of cameras at the event, handled by both spectators and the participants themselves; and

c) The knowledge that there is NO ENFORCEMENT of any no camera rule, however explicit or implicit.

Your entire argument is based on the presumed "right" of students to ignore any clues to the contrary that their expectations of safety and privacy are unfounded. There is no such right. As has been noted by others in this thread, participants are responsible for their actions and for the consequences of their actions, regardless of any expectations otherwise.

I've got to ask one thing, though. Since when does such an august concept as "human rights" extend protections to one's right to be naive?

Embarassed? Yes. Outraged? Only if you're the type of person who would be surprised that you didn't get a job because of something on your myspace page.