__________ is/are overrated.

[formulanone]

And yes, that is my postman delivering the mail for today. 

Did you ask him if he was ok with you taking that picture?

I don't know, isn't it allowed? 
I blurred his face out.

I wouldn't want a customer taking a picture of me doing my job, even if they promised me they were going to blur my face out. It's still a violation of my personal boundaries unless I actively consent to the picture being taken. (It's also just generally not a good idea—some people would take so much offense to unwanted picture-taking that they'd beat the shit out of you for it.)

We're getting photographed constantly nowadays.  Just embrace it.

That can fall under the concept of Freedom of Panorama; a public street is a public place, and that means you may be photographed. Whether you can have commercial gain from it and if the human subject almost entirely encompasses the photo, is where the line gets crossed. As it is a US public official in the course of their official duties (as opposed to having a sandwich), it's entirely justifiable.

Otherwise, a perpetual flow of lawsuits would prevent people from ever wanting to photograph an object because the side of someone's head is in 0.5% of the image. This is pretty much covered by the concept of "street photography", which is generally legal, as per "no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place". That's where you have to use a sense of ethics and self-control.

Or who knows...you might stir up a controversy that would have been unknown. Welcome to art.

[Scott5114]

In addition, my home is blurred due to privacy reasons set forth by my landlord. 

That just makes it more suspicious. You're probably safer having it visible just like every other house, and nobody would think twice about your house even when they do see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

We're getting photographed constantly nowadays.  Just embrace it.

no

The nice thing is now it's not entirely weird to wear a face mask in a place that has video surveillance.

That can fall under the concept of Freedom of Panorama; a public street is a public place, and that means you may be photographed. Whether you can have commercial gain from it and the human subject is almost entirely encompasses the photo is where the line gets crossed. As it is a US public official in the course of their official duties (as opposed to having a sandwich), it's entirely justifiable.

Otherwise, a perpetual flow of lawsuits would prevent people from ever wanting to photograph an object because the side of someone's head is in 0.5% of the image. This is pretty much covered by the concept of "street photography", which is generally legal, as per "no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place". That's where you have to use a sense of ethics and self-control.

Or who knows...you might stir up a controversy that would have been unknown. Welcome to art.

I think where the ethical line is, is between "do I happen to be an incidental part of a picture of a place I happen to be in"–that's probably fine, and I don't have much of a problem with that–and "did someone take a picture of me specifically, for some reason unknown to me"–that's what gives me the heebie jeebies. My rule is basically to never focus the lens on someone that hasn't explicitly given me consent to do so.

[Rothman]

In addition, my home is blurred due to privacy reasons set forth by my landlord. 

That just makes it more suspicious. You're probably safer having it visible just like every other house, and nobody would think twice about your house even when they do see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

We're getting photographed constantly nowadays.  Just embrace it.

no

The nice thing is now it's not entirely weird to wear a face mask in a place that has video surveillance.

We need a photo of Scott now.

[Scott5114]

In addition, my home is blurred due to privacy reasons set forth by my landlord. 

That just makes it more suspicious. You're probably safer having it visible just like every other house, and nobody would think twice about your house even when they do see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

We're getting photographed constantly nowadays.  Just embrace it.

no

The nice thing is now it's not entirely weird to wear a face mask in a place that has video surveillance.

We need a photo of Scott now.

Prepare to be disappointed.

[wxfree]

And yes, that is my postman delivering the mail for today. 

Did you ask him if he was ok with you taking that picture?

I don't know, isn't it allowed? 
I blurred his face out.

I wouldn't want a customer taking a picture of me doing my job, even if they promised me they were going to blur my face out. It's still a violation of my personal boundaries unless I actively consent to the picture being taken. (It's also just generally not a good idea–some people would take so much offense to unwanted picture-taking that they'd beat the shit out of you for it.)

We're getting photographed constantly nowadays.  Just embrace it.

That's true, but it doesn't mean you have to contribute to it.  I'm a bit of a photographer.  I don't point a camera at people unless it's someone I know or someone participating in a public event, such that photography can be expected.  Still, if I point a camera at someone and they hide, I don't push the button.  That seems disrespectful.  To me, it isn't about rights, it's about wrongs.  I don't believe that rights should be used to justify intentional violations of a person, such as a clear and demonstrated wish not to be photographed.  Of course, I can apply this only to myself, because if something is your right, then it is your right.  But I believe that sometimes exercising a right can be wrong, and "because I can" is often not a good reason or justification for doing something.

[Rothman]

And yes, that is my postman delivering the mail for today. 

Did you ask him if he was ok with you taking that picture?

I don't know, isn't it allowed? 
I blurred his face out.

I wouldn't want a customer taking a picture of me doing my job, even if they promised me they were going to blur my face out. It's still a violation of my personal boundaries unless I actively consent to the picture being taken. (It's also just generally not a good idea–some people would take so much offense to unwanted picture-taking that they'd beat the shit out of you for it.)

We're getting photographed constantly nowadays.  Just embrace it.

That's true, but it doesn't mean you have to contribute to it.  I'm a bit of a photographer.  I don't point a camera at people unless it's someone I know or someone participating in a public event, such that photography can be expected.  Still, if I point a camera at someone and they hide, I don't push the button.  That seems disrespectful.  To me, it isn't about rights, it's about wrongs.  I don't believe that rights should be used to justify intentional violations of a person, such as a clear and demonstrated wish not to be photographed.  Of course, I can apply this only to myself, because if something is your right, then it is your right.  But I believe that sometimes exercising a right can be wrong, and "because I can" is often not a good reason or justification for doing something.

So, did the postal worker that started this discussion show a clear and demonstrated wish to not be photographed?  I'd bet most of the time in the public square you just aren't aware of when you're being photographed and 99.99% of the time, it really doesn't matter.

[Scott5114]

I personally find "he didn't say yes" to be the morally just piece of information, rather than "he didn't say no".

[hbelkins]

Facebook.
Disney World. You're paying hundreds per day for an artificial experience.
Any singer or band who started after 2000.
Starbucks.
Twilight (the book, not actual twilight).
My Little Pony.
Chick-fil-A.
Pickup trucks.
Wrestling and boxing. The former is entirely fake, and for the latter, who wants to watch people get hurt?
Four-way stops, by people outside this forum.

Boxing used to be pretty fantastic back in the 1980s.  I would venture a guess that a lot of people who watch sports in general find an appeal to potential injury.  It certainly was an attraction with crowds in auto racing and hockey.

And football, until they started discouraging hard hitting. I would agree that the dangerous elements were a large part of the appeal for many people. While NASCAR had been under fire over safety for some time before Dale Earnhardt's death forced NASCAR to act, I wonder if someone less prominent being killed would have resulted in more minimal change.

There is we several (three I believe) significant driver deaths in the time period shortly before Dale Earnhardt died.  Had Dale Earnhardt survived safety standards would have caught up with NASCAR eventually given they weren't adopting things like HANS devices and closed face helmets as mandatory equipment.  That said, as bad as NASCAR got grilled for that they generally had a better driver mortality record than other racing leagues before Dale Earnhardt's death.  Dale Earnhardt had his restraint system modified for personal comfort too which also contributed his death.

Kenny Irwin, Adam Petty, and John Nemechek. One of the first two fatalities resulted in one of the New Hampshire races being run with restrictor plates. Jeff Burton led every lap and won the race; it was one of the worst races I ever watched. Nemechek's death happened in the truck series at Miami and resulted in that speedway being reconfigured to eliminate some of the "square" corners. In his crash, his truck spun sideways and the driver's side hit the wall pretty flush. The safety net didn't keep his head from impacting the side of the wall.

Back to the original topic, getting intoxicated is overrated.

[Takumi]

Facebook.
Disney World. You're paying hundreds per day for an artificial experience.
Any singer or band who started after 2000.
Starbucks.
Twilight (the book, not actual twilight).
My Little Pony.
Chick-fil-A.
Pickup trucks.
Wrestling and boxing. The former is entirely fake, and for the latter, who wants to watch people get hurt?
Four-way stops, by people outside this forum.

Boxing used to be pretty fantastic back in the 1980s.  I would venture a guess that a lot of people who watch sports in general find an appeal to potential injury.  It certainly was an attraction with crowds in auto racing and hockey.

And football, until they started discouraging hard hitting. I would agree that the dangerous elements were a large part of the appeal for many people. While NASCAR had been under fire over safety for some time before Dale Earnhardt's death forced NASCAR to act, I wonder if someone less prominent being killed would have resulted in more minimal change.

There is we several (three I believe) significant driver deaths in the time period shortly before Dale Earnhardt died.  Had Dale Earnhardt survived safety standards would have caught up with NASCAR eventually given they weren't adopting things like HANS devices and closed face helmets as mandatory equipment.  That said, as bad as NASCAR got grilled for that they generally had a better driver mortality record than other racing leagues before Dale Earnhardt's death.  Dale Earnhardt had his restraint system modified for personal comfort too which also contributed his death.

Kenny Irwin, Adam Petty, and John Nemechek. One of the first two fatalities resulted in one of the New Hampshire races being run with restrictor plates. Jeff Burton led every lap and won the race; it was one of the worst races I ever watched. Nemechek's death happened in the truck series at Miami and resulted in that speedway being reconfigured to eliminate some of the "square" corners. In his crash, his truck spun sideways and the driver's side hit the wall pretty flush. The safety net didn't keep his head from impacting the side of the wall.

It wasn't until later in 2001, when Blaise Alexander died of the same injury in an ARCA race at Charlotte, that NASCAR mandated the devices, though at the time ARCA wasn't a NASCAR-owned series.

[snowc]

In addition, my home is blurred due to privacy reasons set forth by my landlord. 

That just makes it more suspicious. You're probably safer having it visible just like every other house, and nobody would think twice about your house even when they do see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

We're getting photographed constantly nowadays.  Just embrace it.

no

The nice thing is now it's not entirely weird to wear a face mask in a place that has video surveillance.

We need a photo of Scott now.

Prepare to be disappointed.

You got the long hair? That's cool! 

[Scott5114]

Heh, thanks. I actually need to get it cut now that it's warming up. (I usually cut it back to a little above my shoulders this time of year.)

[Rothman]

I personally find "he didn't say yes" to be the morally just piece of information, rather than "he didn't say no".

*shrug*

Do you stop and yell at everyone that may catch you in a photo as you drive by?  Or, if you're travelling to a crowded attraction and people are taking selfies, do you snag their phones and delete photos with you in them?

The sense of morality you're describing is pious given modern realities.

[Scott5114]

I personally find "he didn't say yes" to be the morally just piece of information, rather than "he didn't say no".

*shrug*

Do you stop and yell at everyone that may catch you in a photo as you drive by?  Or, if you're travelling to a crowded attraction and people are taking selfies, do you snag their phones and delete photos with you in them?

The sense of morality you're describing is pious given modern realities.

I think where the ethical line is, is between "do I happen to be an incidental part of a picture of a place I happen to be in"–that's probably fine, and I don't have much of a problem with that–and "did someone take a picture of me specifically, for some reason unknown to me"–that's what gives me the heebie jeebies. My rule is basically to never focus the lens on someone that hasn't explicitly given me consent to do so.

[JoePCool14]

Back to the original topic, getting intoxicated is overrated.

+1 to that. Almost nothing good comes out of getting drunk and yet a significant amount of people do it. It's when the stupidest decisions are made, and you feel like rubbish the morning after. I don't mind have a few drinks. I'm still trying to find my limit, but I've never gone really overboard so far.

I'm thankful to be graduating from university this month.

[Rothman]

I personally find "he didn't say yes" to be the morally just piece of information, rather than "he didn't say no".

*shrug*

Do you stop and yell at everyone that may catch you in a photo as you drive by?  Or, if you're travelling to a crowded attraction and people are taking selfies, do you snag their phones and delete photos with you in them?

The sense of morality you're describing is pious given modern realities.

I think where the ethical line is, is between "do I happen to be an incidental part of a picture of a place I happen to be in"–that's probably fine, and I don't have much of a problem with that–and "did someone take a picture of me specifically, for some reason unknown to me"–that's what gives me the heebie jeebies. My rule is basically to never focus the lens on someone that hasn't explicitly given me consent to do so.

Excellent.

[jeffandnicole]

If someone was pointing a camera directly at me to take a picture, I would definitely be wondering why.  But you can also see if they're reacting in such a way where they may be taking a selfie.

That said, I could easily act like I'm taking a selfie, and really be taking a picture of you.  Or point the camera away from you, but in 0.5x (1/2x) mode, still easily get a picture of you.  Or put it in video mode and hold it or pan it around a bit, and eventually get you in the video.

If they want a pic of you, they'll get it and do whatever they want later.

[/stalker talk]

[Scott5114]

Just because someone else is being a piece of shit doesn't mean I have to be a piece of shit too...

[kkt]

Back to the original topic, getting intoxicated is overrated.

+1 to that. Almost nothing good comes out of getting drunk and yet a significant amount of people do it. It's when the stupidest decisions are made, and you feel like rubbish the morning after. I don't mind have a few drinks. I'm still trying to find my limit, but I've never gone really overboard so far.

I'm thankful to be graduating from university this month.

Yes.  I have been drunk, but not often.  I'm not happy when I get drunk.  Usually sad, missing people or things I'll never see again, completely out of proportion to the good people and things that are in my life.  So, while I have an occassional beer or shot of brandy, I don't get drunk.

[Max Rockatansky]

Back to the original topic, getting intoxicated is overrated.

+1 to that. Almost nothing good comes out of getting drunk and yet a significant amount of people do it. It's when the stupidest decisions are made, and you feel like rubbish the morning after. I don't mind have a few drinks. I'm still trying to find my limit, but I've never gone really overboard so far.

I'm thankful to be graduating from university this month.

Yes.  I have been drunk, but not often.  I'm not happy when I get drunk.  Usually sad, missing people or things I'll never see again, completely out of proportion to the good people and things that are in my life.  So, while I have an occassional beer or shot of brandy, I don't get drunk.

Being hammered and sloppy drunk is vastly overrated.  What is underrated is a couple relaxing drinks when nobody is around to bother you on a day off. 

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I haven't been buzzed in almost 4 years and actually drunk in who knows how long, but I did actually enjoy the feelings I had when drunk.

[snowc]

Back to the original topic, getting intoxicated is overrated.

I'm thankful to be graduating from university this month.

Right behind you, graduating December next year! 

[Takumi]

I like a nice buzz after a drink or two. Full on drunk starts to feel unpleasant, but I'll take it over a marijuana high any day of the week. Leading to my next "overrated"  choice...

[abefroman329]

Being a smug, self-righteous prude.

[kphoger]

If I were a delivery driver, and the customer took a picture of me by the truck, I'd probably assume the customer was unhappy with my service and was wanting to document my visit–whether as something to send to my boss or complain about on social media or whatever.  It might prompt me to go back up to the door and ask if I could right some wrong but, other than that, I'd assume that was just par for the course.

[snowc]

If I were a delivery driver, and the customer took a picture of me by the truck, I'd probably assume the customer was unhappy with my service and was wanting to document my visit–whether as something to send to my boss or complain about on social media or whatever.  It might prompt me to go back up to the door and ask if I could right some wrong but, other than that, I'd assume that was just par for the course.

I have had delivery orders sent to me where they require the driver to take a picture for delivery purposes. Sometimes my house or my face comes in the way.