Expectation of privacy or INVASION of privacy?

[jwbryson1]

Interesting article. Nice take at $7,500 a pop.

My Way News - NYC artist's secret photos raise privacy issues

 

[runnah]

If photographing women bending over without them knowing is wrong, I don't wanna be right!

 

[Ysarex]

 

[baturn]

For 6 million dollars you'd think a glass apartment would come with curtains. just sayin'.

 

[kathyt]

If the subjects are unidentifiable, then I am not sure why it matters.

 

[vintagesnaps]

The property and/or people could be identifiable; it could show their clothing/belongings enough to be able to tell which apartment is being looked into and photographed.

It's one thing to look into an open window, especially one with floor to ceiling windows, but it's another to photograph into the property and have the photos published or make them publicly viewable without property/model releases.

Once you're above ground/sidewalk level the expectation would be that neighbors across the street could see from a distance into the apartment, but only with a telescope or telephoto lens could someone see up close into the neighbors's space.

I think this is a violation of personal space; it's the same as a person standing outside someone's windows and looking (peeping) into their home. If you think it's so funny Runnah maybe the guy should go stand with his camera outside the bedroom window of your wife/girlfriend or the home of your mother, sister, etc. - would it be funny then??

 

[KmH]

If the subjects are unidentifiable, then I am not sure why it matters.

Who decides they are unidentifiable? In a lot of cases it is the person in the photograph that decides.

Faces are not required to establish identity in a photograph. Scars, custom made cloths, tattoo's, and other things can suffice.

Glass walls and open curtains directly across from other buildings would seem to obviate the legal notion of having an expectation of privacy.

 

[Derrel]

This incident could make for a very interesting legal battle! Given the high percentage of affluent Dickensians that no doubt live in such a snooty chi-chi building, I'd expect at least one of them to try and get some revenge and a nice fat payday to go with it from a lawsuit.

 

[Steve5D]

I think it'll all hinge on this:

Civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel said that according to New York civil rights law, there may be a way for Svenson's subjects to challenge him in court but the case will depend entirely on context.


"The question for the person who's suing is, if you're not identifiable, then where's the loss of privacy?" he said.

 

[Steve5D]

Faces are not required to establish identity in a photograph. Scars, custom made cloths, tattoo's, and other things can suffice.

What if those scars and tattoos are normally hidden? It could be argued that a person could not be readily identified by it. I have a scar which is almost always covered. It's most certainly my scar, but almost no one has ever seen it. A coroner might use it for identification, but if you showed a picture of it to 100 of my friends, not a single one would identify it as me.

And custom clothes mean nothing. A plaintiff would have to prove that the custom clothes were never lent to someone else, and that would be damn near impossible to do...

 

[IByte]

Pffft if you find my picture on the net you got good taste.

 

[weepete]

The question is not as controversial as it seems. In the law of most western countries it comes down to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The people in these photos would have a resonable expectation of privacy in these circumstances therefore whither they are identifyable or not is irrelevant.

 

[Steve5D]

If you live on the ground floor of an apartment building which is ten feet from the street, and you keep your curtains open, can you reasonably have an expectation of privacy?

 

[timor]

The question is not as controversial as it seems. In the law of most western countries it comes down to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The people in these photos would have a resonable expectation of privacy in these circumstances therefore whither they are identifyable or not is irrelevant.

This is a B... Privacy is not God given, one has to take diligent care to have privacy. If someone leaves the window drapes open, he is extending street right into his bedroom. If the stupidity had wings, (some) tenants of that building would fly like pigeons. And now lawyers gonna make some monies on this. Well, it is era of lawyers now as common sens is rapidly disappearing from the face of the Earth.

 

[jwbryson1]

If you live on the ground floor of an apartment building which is ten feet from the street, and you keep your curtains open, can you reasonably have an expectation of privacy?

This is the correct question. It's a good one. You would like to believe that being in your home you have an expectation of privacy, but if your keep the curtains open, do you really have that expectation?

Let's change the facts. Let's say you have curtains but they are pulled shut to within 1" of each other so that in order to see into the room, you'd have to get up on the person's lawn right next to the house and peek through the 1" opening. Does that change the analysis?

Take it one step further -- let's say you have the curtains pulled 100% closed so there is no gap at all, but you only have sheers and not black out curtains. Assume further that you can see through the sheers if you get close enough, but from the street you cannot see through the sheers. How does that change the analysis?

What if you have black out curtains and they are pulled 100% closed so you cannot see into the room. Assume further that you have a baby monitor in that room, and somebody who sits out front of your house with a laptop computer can access that video stream. Reasonable expectation of privacy because the curtains were closed?

Query: Where does a "reasonable expectation of privacy" end?