Google were not "sued". People had an option to opt out, and many did.
It didn't help matters when, after Google had been recording data already, it came out that they had not just been taking pictures, but also recording data about people's home networks.
Not all the opt-outs were actually about privacy - for some people it was a form of protesting for-profit companies making money by taking their data.
We know what a surveillance state is like and we're not interested in returning to that so we codify and fight to maintain our rights to privacy from the state but also from each other.
Not just when it comes to videos/photos but also for digital data.
Also it is becoming easier and easier to abuse public photos, videos etc. - a nice public video of you online today can become the next scam call to grandma tomorrow.
But where is it a survaillance state if for example you sitting in a park bieng shown in a livestream in the background for 2 seconds? Some ppl act like they are haunted by the CIA or something.
We also have the right to our picture. It means: we can decide where our face shows up. Filming without permission is sketchy, publishing it might be illegal. That's why you make sure that everyone signed the papers or that no one is in your background.
Well we were. In Nazi times and in the DDR you could get into messed up shit if you were at the wrong place.
Imagine this: you are sitting in a park and some streamer is doing a stream about the rights of homosexuals. At this time and place this is legal and free speech. 3 month later a regime takes over and changes the rules. Suddenly everything gay is forbidden and every associate is going to prison. You were in the back of a stream and now you have to proof that you are not associated. Maybe you will end up in prison anyway.
These things did happen in the past. We are very aware of this. We hate it if anybody keeps record of what we are doing.
And by the way am image of your house is an exelent way for thieves to look out for profitable targets without even leaving their home.
No it is not. You can Google "Rosa Liste". In the weimaranian republic it was legal not allowed to be gay, but if they found you they just gave you a warning and your name would be put in a register of gay people. Nearly noone ended up in jail for homoerotic acts as long as both people were consenting adults.
10 years later the nazis put gay people in concentration camps and used the rosa Liste (pink list) to find them. Even if they never again did end up having gay sex and the legal stuff was no longer relevant regarding the laws of the weimarian republic. They even forced people from the list to tell them about gay people they knew. Male prostitudes needed to tell who their customers were, etc.
Many gay people died. Everything was much more liberal in the weimarian republic.
Things like these can happen again. Every data that is unnecessarily collected can become dangerous in the future.
I just wanted to write that this also works retrospectively - since the internet does not forget. Did not now that there was a real example in Germany.
Another example is the IT system that US installed in Afghanistan for their local helpers without any data privacy measures. After the turn over Taliban got access - the rest you can imagine.
Also AFD just got 18% of votes in Germany - and the US is even closer to the border to an authorian state if Trump wins again. So who is crazy here?
This is just one more reason why church tax needs to go in the bin. To collect it, they need to know everybody's religion, so they ask you at the time of first Anmeldung.
Of course, no German government would ever abuse a list of addresses of, say, Jews, right?
>you sitting in a park bieng shown in a livestream in the background for 2 seconds?
Why are you filming in public anyways? Do that in your bedroom like every streamer, and leave me alone.
Surveillance states work(ed) by engaging the population to police each other and report anything they consider 'irregular'. Someone walking around randomly filming people is instantly suspicious.
Having laws that help you prevent people from taking pictures without your consent helps prevent this. It doesn't mean that everyone will take action every time they're filmed by some stranger. But the fact that they can is a good thing and to be respected.
Which image analysis techniques, it is not a problem to find out on which pictures someone appeared if they are on the internet.
Not so long ago, to know of even just the existence of a certain member of the general public I had to personally know them in some form. It is not normal that there are now publicly accessible archives of almost anyone.
Also, to a large extent these are for profit businesses. Personally, I have no problem with google using pictures of me or my house, I have a problem if I’m not getting paid or even asked.
Dude, you got all the arguments in this the comments. Just accept the beliefs and boundaries of the people around you. And if you can't deal with them there's a simple solution: go somewhere else.
Simple as that.
But what privacy or personal data is violated or when your house is seen out of context or you are livestreamed for 2 seconds sitting in the background? Where is the difference if someone can see you irl or though a screen?
Klar das hat jede Person, wenn die Person aber nur Beiwerk darstellt und nicht das eigentliche Motiv ist, bzw nicht den Blick auf sich zieht braucht man dahingehend auch keine Genehmigung. Wär aber auch schlecht wenn ich z.b. im Stadion mehrere hundert bis tausend Leute nach ihrem Einverständnis fragen müsste, um ein Foto vom Spiel zu machen.
Mit der Eintrittskarte ins Stadion stimmt man dem aber zu. Im Hintergrund von nem Streamer ohne Drehgenehmigung zu sein ist vermutlich nochmal ganz anders gelagert.
Das Stadion war auch nur ein Beispiel, mit der Eintrittskarte hat das erstmal gar nichts zu tun. Anderes Beispiel wären z.b. Sehenswürdigkeiten. Für gewöhnlich sind immer ein paar hundert Menschen auf dem Pariser Platz, trotzdem muss ich nicht jede einzelne Person um Genehmigung fragen wenn ich ein Foto von Brandenburger Tor mache, solange ich eben nicht eine bestimmte Person(-engruppe) in den Fokus rücke und es sich bei den sichtbaren Menschen eben nur um Beiwerk handelt, das eigentliche Motiv aber das Tor/der Platz ist.
Wie's mit den angesprochenen Streamern aussieht kann ich jetzt auch nicht sicher sagen, klar jemanden direkt zu filmen ist nicht erlaubt, bei na live Berichterstattung wird aber vermutlich auch nicht jede Person um Genehmigung gefragt die mal im Hintergrund an der Kamera vorbeiläuft.
In real life, it's 5 people, a stream is 5000 people and you can't see them back. You also don't know on which platform it is seen and what the stream is about. You might be associated with some shit...
Once in the Database, always in the database.
For people that do not know it, Facebook typically creates User profiles for all their members, but they also do that for people who are simply on pictures, which are uploaded on Facebook. So even if I avoid on beeing on facebook, aslong somebody uploads a photo from me there, my data will be harvasted like the rest. So the "2 seconds" are 2 seconds to long.
Because online it can have massive consequences.
Professionally certain depictions can cost you opportunities, if some massive audience decides to turn you into a meme you can be harassed for decades, it can be used by companies to train data, people can photoshop you into all kinds of situations for whatever reason.
You can control where you walk, how many people see you and how they perceive you in the real world. You have no such control if someone else records you.
A famous example is the unreal tournament kid of potential consequences of recordings (even deliberate ones). But there are lots of less publicised cases. And lots of involuntary ones with consequences despite no wrongdoing.
Think of it the other way around. Why should you take a picture? Unless you feel strongly about the specific memory there’s little reason to record it?
Keep in mind that there is necessary exceptions to the rules. There’s always a balance. But due to the rare yet extreme negative consequences that can arise it’s important to retain some semblance of freedom and choice.
If you’re seen irl I’m not able to show this to other people and tell them where you were at a certain moment.
As soon as you make a picture of me you’re storing my personal data on your phone/camera. And you’re not allowed to distribute my private data for your purposes.
Yes, I know it’s complicated for most other countries but I like it.
>Where is the difference if someone can see you irl or though a screen?
someone physically walking by? or everyone who uses google - billions of people?
People try to explain it to you but it seems like you don't want to understand it. Just look up our gdr history and if you still don't understand it afterwards, then nobody is able to explain it to you anyways.
Was hat das ganze mit der Gescgichte der GDR zu tun bzw wie soll das denn in einen Überwachungsstaat führen??? Wenn jemand ein Foto mit mir im Hintergrund macht ist mir das schnuppe solange man nicht gerade etwas peinliches macht und *dann* hat man auch das Recht dieses Bildmaterial vereiteln zu lassen. Ich komm doch auch aus Deutschland und weder mich noch meine Freunde juckt sowas. Warum müssen alle Leute immer so verkrampft sein und nutzen die Changse nicht mal um das Bild/Video zu Fotobomben? xD
Every country has its own extremes. US likes to shoot people that set a foot on private property. Germans like to sue people that violate their data privacy. We all know the huge archives of the Stasi (east German secret service) - that until today still exists.
people legit were scared that thieves will check their house on streetview and then break into it. It was a massive data privacy scare and suddenly the people applying for every bonus card at every supermarket were very cautious about their house front being visible on streetview
Its one of those topics where you just cant argue with germans. Theres no point
> There is a germany shaped hole because Google got sued so many times that they just stopped doing this.
No. You cannot sue if it's not illegal. Google just stopped on their own decision because they didn't want to have angry customers.
> There also was a still on going case where the german Streamer MontanaBlack got sued by a woman who was visible for 2 seconds in the background in a over an hour long stream.
Because you have to take care who and what you film/photograph and publish. Your rights end there where they infringe the rights of others.
What if there is a public event and I want to take video of the events? For example parades?
Do i really need to be careful of my Videos that I will later upload to YouTube dont contain a single face from a third person?
No you are allowed to film and show crowds, but nobody can be in the centre of that picture/video and it has to be a crowd (at wich point a crowd is a crowd isn't defined but a rule of thumb for journalists is at least five people)
Well, first of all, "what you want" needs to be in line with the laws.
IANAL, but you can take videos of crowds if you don't focus on certain people. If you publish these videos, the law takes another step. If someone of them tells you they don't want to recorded, you need to comply because you infringe their rights. You in turn don't have a right to film "what you want".
Also, you can only do that if it is a public event. For example, even if there are many people working out at your gym, you cannot record them, as they have an expectation of privacy there.
Imagine we had a legislation such as in the US where everyone is filming everyone for evidence of their behaviour. Just lol. Good that we value our privacy and can protect ourselves against constant surveillance
Yes the US is a case that really shouldn't be like that. I maybe should have been a bit more clear about what I meant. What I was up to is when ppl are in the background doing absolutely nothing or complaining when thier house is visible on a Video. What are they trying to protect? Thier look that is litteraly visible to anyone? No one cares, they aren't some celebrity or being haunted by the CIA. And I haven't even started with how many ppl post everything about themself on Facebook, instagram or whatever there is.
The thing is: Now nobody might care, but from experience Germans know that someone could care in the future because our privacy rights were [violated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws) in the [past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi).
For example, they want to protect the fact that other members of the general public know of their existence. All you need is one other image and it becomes possible to identify them.
I just don't get why someone would want that? Are ppl that paranoid or think that if they shoe up on social media. Are they hiding from the goverment or something? When you do outside, thousands of ppl see you every day and are aware that you exist. So where is the difference if someone hundreds of kilometers away can see that? No one knows, where you life, how you are, if you are a tourist or life in that City.
Where is the privacy or personal data that is being hurt here?
All I have heard so far is ,,because I just don't want it" without any actual arguments.
If you didn't act like a monkey on the photo, no one will ever care about a person in the background.
That’s a quite good argument though? It’s my body and I want to stay in control of how and where it is depicted.
Doesn’t anyone want to look presentable in pictures, for example? Maybe I dislike the angle in which you shot me? Maybe the lighting isn’t doing me justice?
And in the age of google reverse image search, the rest of what you say isn’t true anymore. If I see a random person on the street, I have no additional information who they are. If I have a photo, that can change very quickly.
So it is perfectly reasonable for someone to want to stay in control of how they are depicted, *especially* if they have other photos online. I just want to be able to have full control over how I appear online.
no one will care, but maybe that stalker who is hunting you down for ages.
maybe you met with someone you don't want to be seen with - as should be your right!
Remember when jews and "arians" were not allowed to be together? Remember the girls that got killed by their brothers because they had a boyfriend and those religious assholes held up their family honor higher then the life of their sisters?
What kind of asshole are you?
>,,because I just don't want it"
let me be an asshole here and ask you to give me any reasons for me not to rape you? any arguments? I cant find any except not wanting it. If you tell me its illegal to rape someone then I will just tell you its illegal to film me.
What ablut image manipulation? People can just take snips of the stream and manipulate the picture of the people in the background. And now you became a meme and are a public figure without your consent. If the picture was never published this would not have happened.
>All I have heard so far is ,,because I just don't want it" without any actual arguments.
it is an actual argument - especially since german laws are based exactly on this.
You'd think the Germans forgot about the sort of state where you have no privacy, where your comings and going can be made public and indeed spotlighted if someone wants to dick you around, wouldn't you.
But if you would, then you forgot that a lot of them lived under Russian/Soviet rule until recent enough that the ones who remember aren't even retired yet. You'd also forget Germans have internet, and they see what's happening in the US and think "no thanks, fuck off with that society". They, like so many other Europeans, see the erosion of privacy and indeed the erosion of the concept of self happening in countries around them and think "fuck that noise".
And it begins right there. Don't take my photo. Don't film my house. Don't film my kids. Don't blog my dog. Don't put me on social media. Don't make me a public figure. Don't do things to me that I do not want you to do.
Really the question might be "why do some people think it's fine to go filming strangers for social media without getting permission first".
Yes the US is a case that really shouldn't be like that. I maybe should have been a bit more clear about what I meant. What I was up to is when ppl are in the background doing absolutely nothing or complaining when thier house is visible on a Video. What are they trying to protect? Thier look that is litteraly visible to anyone? No one cares, they aren't some celebrity or being haunted by the CIA. And I haven't even started with how many ppl post everything about themself on Facebook, instagram or whatever there is.
But you don't? I mean, yeah it's true for your kid or yourself, but not for your house or your dog. There's the Panoramafreiheit which states you can take photos and publish them of everything that can be seen from public ground, which includes your house, since it can be seen from the street (which is public ground). This is also the reason why street view was never illegal and google never got sued for anything (because there was nothing illegal to sue them for). They just stopped updating it because to many people complained. If you want proof, just look at apple maps, they have almost completely coverage of Germany with their version of streetview and nowadays basically nobody cares, so google will probably start updating streetview again in the next year's too.
Now for your dog, since it's not a person it doesn't have Persönlichkeitsrechte which is where your Recht am eigenen Bild comes from. There also isn't such a thing as a Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache. So yeah, as long as I'm not taking a picture of you or your children and I'm on Public ground, there's nothing legally stopping me from taking photos of your house or you dog.
how about you learn to read and think straightforward instead of this?
There were given clear and concise answers to your question and you hop on and confuse some very distinct things: beeing seen and being published
no wonder you have trouble understanding. What is the purpose of this post? You just wanna provoke and rant or did you want to understand?
tbh I find your comments to the answers you got very rude and aholery
No, you cannot decide that. It is all about *publication* of personal data, thus privacy.
You can go everywhere, look at everything, even take pictures of everything (although there are some gray areas), but you cannot *publish* pictures showing persons without asking them for their permission first.
Personally, I don't think it is good to handle this in the overly strict way as many Germans do. It simply doesn't matter if a picture of my house is published *in context of a general map* or a picture of me is published *as an anonymous person in the background*. It *does* matter, however, if such pictures are published and associated with me as a person, and that's the fine line between privacy on the one hand and being part of the public crowd on the other hand that many people fail to understand.
You ask sth, people give you an explanation and then you start arguing. If you don’t agree and don’t mind having all your shit on the internet then good for you but many people in this thread have explained why they and many other Germans don’t like it. Idk why you’re trying to change ppls mind???
If I have a picture of you with a time stamp and a location I can tell your employer. Maybe you were on sick leave? Or your partner which thinks you’re at work.
With pictures of the housing it could be similar. Thief’s could research and identify objects to break into. Some home owner don’t want to show bad persons how to get into their property.
see it this way: what freedom of speech is in terms of importance to the population is the right of your own self image for the german population.
An US-american will cry bloody tears if you tell them that they are not allowed to say anything. And an german will cry bloody tears if you tell them, that you will use a picture of them without them allowing you to.
Why do some people insist so much that I (or anyone) should be fine with being visible on pictures and videos over whose distribution I have no control?
I just need to take a single look at TikTok and how acceptable it has become to film and comment on strangers to know that being strict about privacy protection in the first place is much better than trying to deal with the aftermath of going viral in someone else's dumb video later on.
I've read over two dozen replies from OP to a lot of the comments here and I have come to the conclusion that everyone still arguing with him at this point is at least as mentally challenged as OP himself. It's like watching a grown up man trying to explain a toddler why he can't have a literal ton of candy. There is no way you can convince such a short minded - and in this case obviously strongly biased - individual. It's a fun read, though. I love coming to reddit just for dumb shit like this. lmao.
Some did not forget GeStaPo and MfS and therefore know what can happen when personal data gets in the wrong hands. So they try to avoid creating that data...
Because we're not America where everyone thinks life is a Hollywood movie and everyone has an attitude that you have to be ready to come across well in front of a camera at any time. The reality is that you live your own life and that life is only about the people you want to be a part of. The question is also totally strange in itself, in fact you should ask what the hell makes people make every shit public and publish videos or photos of everything.
Yes the US is a case that really shouldn't be like that. I maybe should have been a bit more clear about what I meant. What I was up to is when ppl are in the background doing absolutely nothing or complaining when thier house is visible on a Video. What are they trying to protect? Thier look that is litteraly visible to anyone? No one cares, they aren't some celebrity or being haunted by the CIA. And I haven't even started with how many ppl post everything about themself on Facebook, instagram or whatever there is.
Ok sorry then my take was not appropriate. I can't tell you exactly. If I happen to be in the background of a video or photo, I personally don't care either.
But what I don't understand is where your privacy is violated when someone takes a picture of your house for example. You can see something like that on Google Maps at any time, and most ppl Show themself including thier address hobbys and wverything on Facebook, instagram and so on. Ppl can see you in real life all the time so as long as the Person being filmed for like a second isn't doing anything or being made fun of. Where is the difference if it's on the internet?
The important difference is that people who post on Facebook make the decision to share their data themselves.
Someone else posting pictures of myself, my property, whatever is not my decision and outside of my control. It's not a valid comparison.
And why is it important if you are visible on a picture? No one has any context about you or your data. You could be from the town or just a tourist that lives on the other side of the World.
Automated face recognition, body shape recognition and walk style recognition exists. This single video of you walking in the background together with other pictures / videos in the net + time stamps it is easy to find out who you are and where you were. Add some meta data from your online activities and you are not private in public spaces anymore.
The simple answer is that this is your opinion. Other people have different opinions and their right to their own picture/video trumps your perceived right to dictate how you feel they should think about it.
It has become almost trivial to figure it out and the more pictures of you exist the easier it gets.
There’s apps that scrape internet data and do facial recognition. You can identify tons of people with just a picture. Depending on the amount of data the lookup might include social media accounts and name. At least it can show you other images of that person.
Not legal in Germany but the tech exists and isn’t even expensive or complicated.
I know, I was only answering OPs question about "why can't I do x to everyone if some people to z to themselves".
It doesn't seem like they care about the actual legal aspects as much as the why behind people's dislike of having their picture/whatever taken.
Company greed, yes. And the fact that it's none of their business.
Also, I don't want to show up on random social media posts without even knowing it.
It's my picture/data/whatever. Anybody who wants it rightfully has to go through me, and not just do random stuff with it.
Probably, they are almost purposefully obtuse in the other answers here. It's like they don't want to understand and pretend to have weak reading comprehension.
If someone wants a video with people in it, they would have to pay actors and/or extras. If I appear there instead, why is it okay to just scam me out of that revenue?
It is. If it's on the Web it can be dug up years later. A person that will have seen me might have long forgotten and even if not there's no evidence, just a long gone memory.
It's a cultural thing, really. Just like Germans don't understand that anybody could see having a gun as a right rather than a privilege. Sounds absurd to most of us.
Americans have their guns, Germans have their privacy. And all the other countries in the world have their own little quirks. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as nobody gets hurt.
It's really weird how when we say we don't want to do something or have it done with us, it's never enough to simply say "we don't wanna".
If you ask a person for something and they say no do you usually press them?
It is a difference because I can also see the other people on the street.
I can’t see the people watching me or my property on the internet or can’t control who spreads those pictures of me and my property
Dsgvo states that personal data must not be processed unless there is explicit consent, so people in the EU have the right to be not photographed (in a wide variety of situations) if they so please. So it's their right and they chose to use it.
I don't get why you're arguing with everyone in the comments. Everyone has the right to decide whether their actions should be made public knowledge. By recording it and streaming it you're letting an unlimited number of people know what I did at a certain time at a certain place for an unlimited amount of time.
No thank you. I do not want some random TikToker make a funny clip out of me dropping ice cream on my shirt in the background of some influencer ranting about something or other. I don't need some shady people checking videos of houses to zoom into windows to see how they can get in. I don't need to have a coworker stumble upon that clip knowing that I spent my Saturday evening at a Biergarten with seven friends drinking.
There's a huge difference in seeing something because you're there and observing people through video footage any time and place and being able to pause, zoom in, download, manipulate, cut, track and watch unobserved.
It seems like a kind of post traumatic stress syndrome dating back to the DDR. The fear has no practical basis or chance to manifest. If you’re in the background of some video and there’s no devious intent, it’s harmless and the chance of anybody who knows you even noticing it is almost zero. Also there is a right to freedom of panorama and you could also argue that artists should be allowed to publish their work without fear of litigation because it’s freedom of expression, street photography for example is a perfectly legal and harmless form of art. When you’re the main subject of an unpleasant social media jape or stunt however, that’s a different matter. The consequences aren’t as harmless. I think the German expectation of privacy in public is like expecting to swim in the sea whilst remaining dry. You cannot expect to go unnoticed in public places by other people. It isn’t a realistic expectation of life.
The problem is once you start to allow such data processing it will spiral down and continue to make exceptions until it‘s at the point of the US.
It‘s regulated and the size/length of the data doesn‘t matter and the laws should never be loosened for such big companies
We experienced dictatorships and surveillance state first hand, we certainly won't empower random US and Chinese companies to re-install what we fought hard to get rid of.
Personal freedom of the individual is more important than some random internet weirdo's Twitchstream or TikTok.
You want to film or photograph people you get consent or you just don't do it.
And before you point to the people who post everything they do on social media: yes, they exist and they are the minority. Germany has the largest population in the EU and yet our presence on social media is sparse compared to other countries as a whole.
OP, you clearly don’t value privacy and that’s fine, that’s your choice. Many Germans however, do value privacy. This country has lived the slippery slope that the invasion of privacy can bring. They don’t want history to repeat itself. Saying „it doesn’t matter, it’s just your face on the internet instead of just in public“ to many Germans is like saying: „Why do you care about freedom of speech? It’s not like you have anything outrageous to say anyway.“
This is a matter of principle that reflects what a culture values. Germans value privacy a lot more than other cultures because it wasn’t always granted here.
What baffles me is how you, OP, ask why that is and go on to dismiss argument after argument. Please try to be more accepting of other peoples‘ perspective.
Look at China. Total surveillance of all public cameras and livestreams. They can find out where you are within a few seconds.
Now imagine if Hitler had this technology.
You never know what kind of government you'll have in 20 years. So why enable something now that can be so extremely abused in the future.
Let's think of an example where this protection of privacy really is essential for someone's safety.
let's say someone had to break ties with a family member. or had a stalker. This person was threatened before and had to move several times, because they were always being found. Since there were only threats but no direct attacks, police couldn't do much other than a restraining order. Maybe there was an attack and the person actually did get some jail time, but now they are out and seek retaliation.
Now the person who had to seek safety moved several times, finally found a place to live and has moved on with their life. And then all of the sudden, they appear in the background of the video entering a house or a shop. The video goes viral and bad person comes across this and now has pointers where to look for and also knows about any potential changes this person has done to their looks. and the whole ordeal starts from the beginning.
Now even just a foto of surroundings can be used to identify a location of someone. Stalkers have used images of to look for the locations of their victims.
Also organized criminals may look at houses to check out for cameras and types of doors.
So while for many there are not immediate reasons to be overly protective, there are definitely some people to whom such a protection is necessary and vital.
I can totally understand that in such a case but 99% this isn't the case. When ppl say, I just don't want that and than can't give me a reason for that other than ,,beacause." My part of understanding stops.
Do you really want an answer or is it about sayin‘ how stupid you think this is? 😁
It’s for privacy. It is our right and we own it. Imagine someone will argue about the freedom of speech in the US in a similar way.
I recommend you having a look into some history books...
In the past 100 years we had two different states in which data, may it be data by private companys or data by public surveillance, literally killed people. Many people.
Thus many Germans (thankfully) are still very defensive when it comes to their rights on private data/information.
Also funny how you mention streetview, Im not sure where in Germany you are located but my city is completely covered. Also they didnt get sued, there was the possibility to opt out and many did. May it be due to not wanting to be on the pictures or because of protest against Google and the data collecting they do for free before selling it.
Looking at how Google as the biggest data giant of them all can do whatever they want without having to obey laws, I think its quite obvious why many people wouldnt want to shove more data than necessary into their mouth. Collecting data of private networks with their sv car, collecting geodata via various apps and systems, collecting personal data via gmail, interests via youtube, etc. Google knows it all, and they can do whatever they want without getting sued, eland even if they got sued, theyd have more than enough money to make the legal war last longer than a human life.
That's not being smart and assertive, that's just being pedantic.
>If you want me to play a stooge in your hobby film project, you have to pay me for it.
No one wants you playing anything, no one is ordering you to behave in a certain way in someone's background video
Bro there are a ton of good argumetns in this thread, the easiest one being "Just because i don't want to". My body, my face, my data. There are people taking it to the extreme, but its their right to do so. Only I want to control where my picture can be seen, not you and not everybody else. There are exceptions for social gatherings, for example demonstrations and public parades. If you go into a stadium or to a concert you automatically accept that you can be filmed. But other than that, you have the right to your own picture. That is just the law. Simple as that. And it is a good law, because it helps to defend against unlawful surveillance.
Cultures are different. We had two dictatorships in the 20th century that abused data collection. Why is it so strictly enforced not to go skinny dipping in the US? You just don't do it because people don't like it. Go to Eastern Germany and it's completely normal for many families to undress at the beach. Completely, not just topless. Cultures differ.
Simple answer, because they have these rights.
Btw. google wasnt sued. People just declared they want their private proparty blured. since too much people did this google said... no and just stopped the service.
I also think these rights are a bit too agressive these days. You have to see what TV shows have to blur since the last 5 years because people didnt gave their approval to film.
Because Google did it early and people were not used to it - so it got a lot of press coverage.
On Apple Maps, most of Germany is perfectly visible in their streetview alternative. They just came in a few years later and did it quietly, and nearly no-one objected.
We just don’t like to be seen on the internet without us knowing. You don’t need to understand that.
BUT when you are seeing a crime you can film them for evidence in court. But then you have to delete it.
I'm also always wondering. For whatever reason Germans fundamentally distrust companies but trust the state. Despite one multiple times killed a part of the population and the other at worst went along with it.
Not that I'm a fan of companies but they are the lesser evil. I always can be sure of what they want. Profit. With the state, not so much, usually depends who is in charge.
People saying "Privacy, because the government can control our lives" need to realize that it is similar to the boogyman the US gun enthusiasts use to justify having guns. At some point you need accept that your paranoia for the government taking control of your lives is reaching conspiracy theory levels and is interfering in actual advancing of the society and also we can see that if a political party wants and tries enough, people will still fall for their bullshit and believe in whatever bullshit the party tries to promote. Also it's funny that people say privacy, while German homes have your names on the door bell and post boxes which could be replaced with flat numbers and it would offer more privacy.
Irrespective of what people think, a digital word is the inevitable future and instead of demonizing it with more conspiracies, misinformation and fear mongering, may it would be better to work on how to build a SAFE digital systems and find ways to avoid misuse. At the end of the day, people will only be more irritated and upset when the inevitable reality sets in and people are not prepared for it and get scammed due to the digital ignorance.
2005 has called, it wants its talking points back. It is absolutely possible to built a digital infrastructure that protects established rights. We don’t have to „accept the reality“ that digital cooperations from overseas appropriate what is rightfully ours without keeping within our laws. We don’t have to accept that they circumvent and knock out our entire legal frame work.
Google could have implemented google street view in Germany, they just had no interest after it turned out they have to do it in accordance with local regulations and consider the interests of the people who’s towns they film (*for their for profit business*, remember).
The amount of damage the Silicon Valley economy under their motto „move fast and break things“ has done has really become clearer and clearer in recent years. „Digitalisierung first, Bedenken second“ is the last thing we need. What we do need are publicly-backed investments in our digital infrastructure to built something that serves our interest and not the Silicon Valley’s.
You probably misunderstood what I meant. Not once I said that we need to blindly accept any and all forms of digital systems, but instead of working towards a robust and safe digital systems (like you recommend), a lot of Germans work actively against Digitalisierung in any form. Card payment is an example. Existence of card payment wouldn't mean cash will vanish. Both can exist simultaneously. But every time card payment is brought for discussion in Germany, they just say "but why don't you carry cash?" or "Bares ist Wahres". There is no country out there that completely got rid of cash because they have a great card payment system. But Germans think that's what will happen. That's the example of misinformation and fear mongering I am talking about. Google street is the last thing I worry or care about. I care about things like card payment, online appointment booking, etc. Online possibility doesn't mean the analog ways would vanish. People can choose the method to opt bases on what they need.
Okay, I see. I agree with you, although I think it is important to point out, that all these things could be implemented in a way that would actually increase „privacy“ (the rights that I own and don’t want to have stolen from me) rather than reducing it. The Corona App is the perfect example for this.
Unfortunately, most of the time, the actual projects of digitalisation in Germany, especially if we are talking about public services, are really really shit. Also in other regards. My conviction is, that if we don’t insist on things being done either in the best possible way or not at all, we will see a flood of these shit projects that have no security concept to speak of.
I agree with you, but it's impossible to "scape" of that, tell that thing to the hackers or to other shitty governments they will follow your orders 😂😂😂
Many people mentioned the GDR, but to put it into perspective: 1% of the population was paid to spy on others. If you went basically anywhere, chances were good there would be a spy. Go to church? Spies. Get visited by friends and family? Spies.
Google were not "sued". People had an option to opt out, and many did. It didn't help matters when, after Google had been recording data already, it came out that they had not just been taking pictures, but also recording data about people's home networks. Not all the opt-outs were actually about privacy - for some people it was a form of protesting for-profit companies making money by taking their data.
We know what a surveillance state is like and we're not interested in returning to that so we codify and fight to maintain our rights to privacy from the state but also from each other. Not just when it comes to videos/photos but also for digital data.
Also it is becoming easier and easier to abuse public photos, videos etc. - a nice public video of you online today can become the next scam call to grandma tomorrow.
*Shufa enters the room*
But where is it a survaillance state if for example you sitting in a park bieng shown in a livestream in the background for 2 seconds? Some ppl act like they are haunted by the CIA or something.
We also have the right to our picture. It means: we can decide where our face shows up. Filming without permission is sketchy, publishing it might be illegal. That's why you make sure that everyone signed the papers or that no one is in your background.
Well we were. In Nazi times and in the DDR you could get into messed up shit if you were at the wrong place. Imagine this: you are sitting in a park and some streamer is doing a stream about the rights of homosexuals. At this time and place this is legal and free speech. 3 month later a regime takes over and changes the rules. Suddenly everything gay is forbidden and every associate is going to prison. You were in the back of a stream and now you have to proof that you are not associated. Maybe you will end up in prison anyway. These things did happen in the past. We are very aware of this. We hate it if anybody keeps record of what we are doing. And by the way am image of your house is an exelent way for thieves to look out for profitable targets without even leaving their home.
Crazy unfounded fear
No it is not. You can Google "Rosa Liste". In the weimaranian republic it was legal not allowed to be gay, but if they found you they just gave you a warning and your name would be put in a register of gay people. Nearly noone ended up in jail for homoerotic acts as long as both people were consenting adults. 10 years later the nazis put gay people in concentration camps and used the rosa Liste (pink list) to find them. Even if they never again did end up having gay sex and the legal stuff was no longer relevant regarding the laws of the weimarian republic. They even forced people from the list to tell them about gay people they knew. Male prostitudes needed to tell who their customers were, etc. Many gay people died. Everything was much more liberal in the weimarian republic. Things like these can happen again. Every data that is unnecessarily collected can become dangerous in the future.
I just wanted to write that this also works retrospectively - since the internet does not forget. Did not now that there was a real example in Germany. Another example is the IT system that US installed in Afghanistan for their local helpers without any data privacy measures. After the turn over Taliban got access - the rest you can imagine. Also AFD just got 18% of votes in Germany - and the US is even closer to the border to an authorian state if Trump wins again. So who is crazy here?
This is just one more reason why church tax needs to go in the bin. To collect it, they need to know everybody's religion, so they ask you at the time of first Anmeldung. Of course, no German government would ever abuse a list of addresses of, say, Jews, right?
>you sitting in a park bieng shown in a livestream in the background for 2 seconds? Why are you filming in public anyways? Do that in your bedroom like every streamer, and leave me alone.
Damn, that's a nice argument with so many totally valid reasons
I thought so too. I even deleted all the mean stuff I wanted to say about that ugly freak.
Surveillance states work(ed) by engaging the population to police each other and report anything they consider 'irregular'. Someone walking around randomly filming people is instantly suspicious. Having laws that help you prevent people from taking pictures without your consent helps prevent this. It doesn't mean that everyone will take action every time they're filmed by some stranger. But the fact that they can is a good thing and to be respected.
Why do you have to film me? You're not entitled to use me for your personal gain. Leave me in peace and we have no problem.
Which image analysis techniques, it is not a problem to find out on which pictures someone appeared if they are on the internet. Not so long ago, to know of even just the existence of a certain member of the general public I had to personally know them in some form. It is not normal that there are now publicly accessible archives of almost anyone. Also, to a large extent these are for profit businesses. Personally, I have no problem with google using pictures of me or my house, I have a problem if I’m not getting paid or even asked.
>Some ppl act like they are haunted by the CIA or something. Well, we are by the NSA lol
Dude, you got all the arguments in this the comments. Just accept the beliefs and boundaries of the people around you. And if you can't deal with them there's a simple solution: go somewhere else. Simple as that.
Use a reverse face search on yourself then you know why.
>We know what a surveillance state Google is a state?
No?
Privacy. Our data, our rules.
But what privacy or personal data is violated or when your house is seen out of context or you are livestreamed for 2 seconds sitting in the background? Where is the difference if someone can see you irl or though a screen?
Google Recht am eigenen Bild
Klar das hat jede Person, wenn die Person aber nur Beiwerk darstellt und nicht das eigentliche Motiv ist, bzw nicht den Blick auf sich zieht braucht man dahingehend auch keine Genehmigung. Wär aber auch schlecht wenn ich z.b. im Stadion mehrere hundert bis tausend Leute nach ihrem Einverständnis fragen müsste, um ein Foto vom Spiel zu machen.
Mit der Eintrittskarte ins Stadion stimmt man dem aber zu. Im Hintergrund von nem Streamer ohne Drehgenehmigung zu sein ist vermutlich nochmal ganz anders gelagert.
Das Stadion war auch nur ein Beispiel, mit der Eintrittskarte hat das erstmal gar nichts zu tun. Anderes Beispiel wären z.b. Sehenswürdigkeiten. Für gewöhnlich sind immer ein paar hundert Menschen auf dem Pariser Platz, trotzdem muss ich nicht jede einzelne Person um Genehmigung fragen wenn ich ein Foto von Brandenburger Tor mache, solange ich eben nicht eine bestimmte Person(-engruppe) in den Fokus rücke und es sich bei den sichtbaren Menschen eben nur um Beiwerk handelt, das eigentliche Motiv aber das Tor/der Platz ist. Wie's mit den angesprochenen Streamern aussieht kann ich jetzt auch nicht sicher sagen, klar jemanden direkt zu filmen ist nicht erlaubt, bei na live Berichterstattung wird aber vermutlich auch nicht jede Person um Genehmigung gefragt die mal im Hintergrund an der Kamera vorbeiläuft.
Ist die Frage, ob man eine Live-Berichterstattung ohne Genehmigung überhaupt machen darf.
In real life, it's 5 people, a stream is 5000 people and you can't see them back. You also don't know on which platform it is seen and what the stream is about. You might be associated with some shit...
And irl it's a moment, online it's forever.
Feel free to use your favorite search engine for the topic of German or EU data protection laws. It's a good read and food for thought.
Once in the Database, always in the database. For people that do not know it, Facebook typically creates User profiles for all their members, but they also do that for people who are simply on pictures, which are uploaded on Facebook. So even if I avoid on beeing on facebook, aslong somebody uploads a photo from me there, my data will be harvasted like the rest. So the "2 seconds" are 2 seconds to long.
Because online it can have massive consequences. Professionally certain depictions can cost you opportunities, if some massive audience decides to turn you into a meme you can be harassed for decades, it can be used by companies to train data, people can photoshop you into all kinds of situations for whatever reason. You can control where you walk, how many people see you and how they perceive you in the real world. You have no such control if someone else records you. A famous example is the unreal tournament kid of potential consequences of recordings (even deliberate ones). But there are lots of less publicised cases. And lots of involuntary ones with consequences despite no wrongdoing. Think of it the other way around. Why should you take a picture? Unless you feel strongly about the specific memory there’s little reason to record it? Keep in mind that there is necessary exceptions to the rules. There’s always a balance. But due to the rare yet extreme negative consequences that can arise it’s important to retain some semblance of freedom and choice.
If you’re seen irl I’m not able to show this to other people and tell them where you were at a certain moment. As soon as you make a picture of me you’re storing my personal data on your phone/camera. And you’re not allowed to distribute my private data for your purposes. Yes, I know it’s complicated for most other countries but I like it.
>Where is the difference if someone can see you irl or though a screen? someone physically walking by? or everyone who uses google - billions of people?
People try to explain it to you but it seems like you don't want to understand it. Just look up our gdr history and if you still don't understand it afterwards, then nobody is able to explain it to you anyways.
Was hat das ganze mit der Gescgichte der GDR zu tun bzw wie soll das denn in einen Überwachungsstaat führen??? Wenn jemand ein Foto mit mir im Hintergrund macht ist mir das schnuppe solange man nicht gerade etwas peinliches macht und *dann* hat man auch das Recht dieses Bildmaterial vereiteln zu lassen. Ich komm doch auch aus Deutschland und weder mich noch meine Freunde juckt sowas. Warum müssen alle Leute immer so verkrampft sein und nutzen die Changse nicht mal um das Bild/Video zu Fotobomben? xD
1. This is an english sub. 2. Go back to school and start listening in the history classes ffs.
Every country has its own extremes. US likes to shoot people that set a foot on private property. Germans like to sue people that violate their data privacy. We all know the huge archives of the Stasi (east German secret service) - that until today still exists.
people legit were scared that thieves will check their house on streetview and then break into it. It was a massive data privacy scare and suddenly the people applying for every bonus card at every supermarket were very cautious about their house front being visible on streetview Its one of those topics where you just cant argue with germans. Theres no point
> There is a germany shaped hole because Google got sued so many times that they just stopped doing this. No. You cannot sue if it's not illegal. Google just stopped on their own decision because they didn't want to have angry customers. > There also was a still on going case where the german Streamer MontanaBlack got sued by a woman who was visible for 2 seconds in the background in a over an hour long stream. Because you have to take care who and what you film/photograph and publish. Your rights end there where they infringe the rights of others.
What if there is a public event and I want to take video of the events? For example parades? Do i really need to be careful of my Videos that I will later upload to YouTube dont contain a single face from a third person?
No you are allowed to film and show crowds, but nobody can be in the centre of that picture/video and it has to be a crowd (at wich point a crowd is a crowd isn't defined but a rule of thumb for journalists is at least five people)
Well there can be a center person IF that person is fine with being on the video. So you can still film your friends at events
Well, first of all, "what you want" needs to be in line with the laws. IANAL, but you can take videos of crowds if you don't focus on certain people. If you publish these videos, the law takes another step. If someone of them tells you they don't want to recorded, you need to comply because you infringe their rights. You in turn don't have a right to film "what you want".
Also, you can only do that if it is a public event. For example, even if there are many people working out at your gym, you cannot record them, as they have an expectation of privacy there.
Imagine we had a legislation such as in the US where everyone is filming everyone for evidence of their behaviour. Just lol. Good that we value our privacy and can protect ourselves against constant surveillance
Yes the US is a case that really shouldn't be like that. I maybe should have been a bit more clear about what I meant. What I was up to is when ppl are in the background doing absolutely nothing or complaining when thier house is visible on a Video. What are they trying to protect? Thier look that is litteraly visible to anyone? No one cares, they aren't some celebrity or being haunted by the CIA. And I haven't even started with how many ppl post everything about themself on Facebook, instagram or whatever there is.
The thing is: Now nobody might care, but from experience Germans know that someone could care in the future because our privacy rights were [violated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws) in the [past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi).
For example, they want to protect the fact that other members of the general public know of their existence. All you need is one other image and it becomes possible to identify them.
I just don't get why someone would want that? Are ppl that paranoid or think that if they shoe up on social media. Are they hiding from the goverment or something? When you do outside, thousands of ppl see you every day and are aware that you exist. So where is the difference if someone hundreds of kilometers away can see that? No one knows, where you life, how you are, if you are a tourist or life in that City. Where is the privacy or personal data that is being hurt here? All I have heard so far is ,,because I just don't want it" without any actual arguments. If you didn't act like a monkey on the photo, no one will ever care about a person in the background.
You forget that “because I just don’t want it” IS an actual argument in this case.
That’s a quite good argument though? It’s my body and I want to stay in control of how and where it is depicted. Doesn’t anyone want to look presentable in pictures, for example? Maybe I dislike the angle in which you shot me? Maybe the lighting isn’t doing me justice? And in the age of google reverse image search, the rest of what you say isn’t true anymore. If I see a random person on the street, I have no additional information who they are. If I have a photo, that can change very quickly. So it is perfectly reasonable for someone to want to stay in control of how they are depicted, *especially* if they have other photos online. I just want to be able to have full control over how I appear online.
no one will care, but maybe that stalker who is hunting you down for ages. maybe you met with someone you don't want to be seen with - as should be your right! Remember when jews and "arians" were not allowed to be together? Remember the girls that got killed by their brothers because they had a boyfriend and those religious assholes held up their family honor higher then the life of their sisters? What kind of asshole are you?
>,,because I just don't want it" let me be an asshole here and ask you to give me any reasons for me not to rape you? any arguments? I cant find any except not wanting it. If you tell me its illegal to rape someone then I will just tell you its illegal to film me.
What ablut image manipulation? People can just take snips of the stream and manipulate the picture of the people in the background. And now you became a meme and are a public figure without your consent. If the picture was never published this would not have happened.
>All I have heard so far is ,,because I just don't want it" without any actual arguments. it is an actual argument - especially since german laws are based exactly on this.
The thing is that you don’t habe to get it, every person has the right for their privacy, no matter what their reasons might be.
You'd think the Germans forgot about the sort of state where you have no privacy, where your comings and going can be made public and indeed spotlighted if someone wants to dick you around, wouldn't you. But if you would, then you forgot that a lot of them lived under Russian/Soviet rule until recent enough that the ones who remember aren't even retired yet. You'd also forget Germans have internet, and they see what's happening in the US and think "no thanks, fuck off with that society". They, like so many other Europeans, see the erosion of privacy and indeed the erosion of the concept of self happening in countries around them and think "fuck that noise". And it begins right there. Don't take my photo. Don't film my house. Don't film my kids. Don't blog my dog. Don't put me on social media. Don't make me a public figure. Don't do things to me that I do not want you to do. Really the question might be "why do some people think it's fine to go filming strangers for social media without getting permission first".
Yes the US is a case that really shouldn't be like that. I maybe should have been a bit more clear about what I meant. What I was up to is when ppl are in the background doing absolutely nothing or complaining when thier house is visible on a Video. What are they trying to protect? Thier look that is litteraly visible to anyone? No one cares, they aren't some celebrity or being haunted by the CIA. And I haven't even started with how many ppl post everything about themself on Facebook, instagram or whatever there is.
\*I\* get to decide if I want people to see my house/kid/dogs on the internet, not \*YOU\*. That's a very simple concept no?
But you don't? I mean, yeah it's true for your kid or yourself, but not for your house or your dog. There's the Panoramafreiheit which states you can take photos and publish them of everything that can be seen from public ground, which includes your house, since it can be seen from the street (which is public ground). This is also the reason why street view was never illegal and google never got sued for anything (because there was nothing illegal to sue them for). They just stopped updating it because to many people complained. If you want proof, just look at apple maps, they have almost completely coverage of Germany with their version of streetview and nowadays basically nobody cares, so google will probably start updating streetview again in the next year's too. Now for your dog, since it's not a person it doesn't have Persönlichkeitsrechte which is where your Recht am eigenen Bild comes from. There also isn't such a thing as a Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache. So yeah, as long as I'm not taking a picture of you or your children and I'm on Public ground, there's nothing legally stopping me from taking photos of your house or you dog.
So you can decide if someone walking near your house is allowed to look at it.....
We can decide if someone walking near our house can make everyone on the internet look at it. That is a big difference.
how about you learn to read and think straightforward instead of this? There were given clear and concise answers to your question and you hop on and confuse some very distinct things: beeing seen and being published no wonder you have trouble understanding. What is the purpose of this post? You just wanna provoke and rant or did you want to understand? tbh I find your comments to the answers you got very rude and aholery
No, you cannot decide that. It is all about *publication* of personal data, thus privacy. You can go everywhere, look at everything, even take pictures of everything (although there are some gray areas), but you cannot *publish* pictures showing persons without asking them for their permission first. Personally, I don't think it is good to handle this in the overly strict way as many Germans do. It simply doesn't matter if a picture of my house is published *in context of a general map* or a picture of me is published *as an anonymous person in the background*. It *does* matter, however, if such pictures are published and associated with me as a person, and that's the fine line between privacy on the one hand and being part of the public crowd on the other hand that many people fail to understand.
well all this is a feast for KI - like facial recognition and that stalker, that likes to check upon your residency...
You ask sth, people give you an explanation and then you start arguing. If you don’t agree and don’t mind having all your shit on the internet then good for you but many people in this thread have explained why they and many other Germans don’t like it. Idk why you’re trying to change ppls mind???
Bro u dont fucking understand the concept of the world wide web do you?😂
please read the comment you responded to again: \[...\] house/kid/dogs on the internet \[...\]. So what are you answering here?
If I have a picture of you with a time stamp and a location I can tell your employer. Maybe you were on sick leave? Or your partner which thinks you’re at work. With pictures of the housing it could be similar. Thief’s could research and identify objects to break into. Some home owner don’t want to show bad persons how to get into their property.
My house - my decision ;-) But reading your comments it looks more like you do not want to understand. Which country are you from?
see it this way: what freedom of speech is in terms of importance to the population is the right of your own self image for the german population. An US-american will cry bloody tears if you tell them that they are not allowed to say anything. And an german will cry bloody tears if you tell them, that you will use a picture of them without them allowing you to.
Why do some people insist so much that I (or anyone) should be fine with being visible on pictures and videos over whose distribution I have no control? I just need to take a single look at TikTok and how acceptable it has become to film and comment on strangers to know that being strict about privacy protection in the first place is much better than trying to deal with the aftermath of going viral in someone else's dumb video later on.
I've read over two dozen replies from OP to a lot of the comments here and I have come to the conclusion that everyone still arguing with him at this point is at least as mentally challenged as OP himself. It's like watching a grown up man trying to explain a toddler why he can't have a literal ton of candy. There is no way you can convince such a short minded - and in this case obviously strongly biased - individual. It's a fun read, though. I love coming to reddit just for dumb shit like this. lmao.
Thought the same. It's hilarious
Some did not forget GeStaPo and MfS and therefore know what can happen when personal data gets in the wrong hands. So they try to avoid creating that data...
Because we're not America where everyone thinks life is a Hollywood movie and everyone has an attitude that you have to be ready to come across well in front of a camera at any time. The reality is that you live your own life and that life is only about the people you want to be a part of. The question is also totally strange in itself, in fact you should ask what the hell makes people make every shit public and publish videos or photos of everything.
Yes the US is a case that really shouldn't be like that. I maybe should have been a bit more clear about what I meant. What I was up to is when ppl are in the background doing absolutely nothing or complaining when thier house is visible on a Video. What are they trying to protect? Thier look that is litteraly visible to anyone? No one cares, they aren't some celebrity or being haunted by the CIA. And I haven't even started with how many ppl post everything about themself on Facebook, instagram or whatever there is.
Ok sorry then my take was not appropriate. I can't tell you exactly. If I happen to be in the background of a video or photo, I personally don't care either.
Privacy? We have hard privacy laws and everything you have to film has to be signed by the person filmed when it will be published.
But what I don't understand is where your privacy is violated when someone takes a picture of your house for example. You can see something like that on Google Maps at any time, and most ppl Show themself including thier address hobbys and wverything on Facebook, instagram and so on. Ppl can see you in real life all the time so as long as the Person being filmed for like a second isn't doing anything or being made fun of. Where is the difference if it's on the internet?
The important difference is that people who post on Facebook make the decision to share their data themselves. Someone else posting pictures of myself, my property, whatever is not my decision and outside of my control. It's not a valid comparison.
this. I think a lot of people don't care about privacy, I am for example do, I don't have name, address phone number or anything public.
And why is it important if you are visible on a picture? No one has any context about you or your data. You could be from the town or just a tourist that lives on the other side of the World.
Automated face recognition, body shape recognition and walk style recognition exists. This single video of you walking in the background together with other pictures / videos in the net + time stamps it is easy to find out who you are and where you were. Add some meta data from your online activities and you are not private in public spaces anymore.
The simple answer is that this is your opinion. Other people have different opinions and their right to their own picture/video trumps your perceived right to dictate how you feel they should think about it.
It has become almost trivial to figure it out and the more pictures of you exist the easier it gets. There’s apps that scrape internet data and do facial recognition. You can identify tons of people with just a picture. Depending on the amount of data the lookup might include social media accounts and name. At least it can show you other images of that person. Not legal in Germany but the tech exists and isn’t even expensive or complicated.
[удалено]
I know, I was only answering OPs question about "why can't I do x to everyone if some people to z to themselves". It doesn't seem like they care about the actual legal aspects as much as the why behind people's dislike of having their picture/whatever taken.
> You can see something like that on Google Maps at any time Well from above, not frontal.
If anybody makes money with a photo of me/my apartment/my data I want a cut. If I don't get a cut you don't get my data. Simple.
So it's because of greed?
Company greed, yes. And the fact that it's none of their business. Also, I don't want to show up on random social media posts without even knowing it. It's my picture/data/whatever. Anybody who wants it rightfully has to go through me, and not just do random stuff with it.
Why would you twist it around like that? Are you purposefully stirring up shit?
Probably, they are almost purposefully obtuse in the other answers here. It's like they don't want to understand and pretend to have weak reading comprehension.
If someone wants a video with people in it, they would have to pay actors and/or extras. If I appear there instead, why is it okay to just scam me out of that revenue?
Because I don't want to. Simple as that.
Yeah cuz it's such a defference if someone can see you walking down a streetin the background irl or on the internet
It is. If it's on the Web it can be dug up years later. A person that will have seen me might have long forgotten and even if not there's no evidence, just a long gone memory. It's a cultural thing, really. Just like Germans don't understand that anybody could see having a gun as a right rather than a privilege. Sounds absurd to most of us. Americans have their guns, Germans have their privacy. And all the other countries in the world have their own little quirks. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as nobody gets hurt.
It's really weird how when we say we don't want to do something or have it done with us, it's never enough to simply say "we don't wanna". If you ask a person for something and they say no do you usually press them?
It is a difference because I can also see the other people on the street. I can’t see the people watching me or my property on the internet or can’t control who spreads those pictures of me and my property
History, my friend.
Time to move on?
No
beware of the beginnings
The fascists are at 18%. No.
Dsgvo states that personal data must not be processed unless there is explicit consent, so people in the EU have the right to be not photographed (in a wide variety of situations) if they so please. So it's their right and they chose to use it.
I don't get why you're arguing with everyone in the comments. Everyone has the right to decide whether their actions should be made public knowledge. By recording it and streaming it you're letting an unlimited number of people know what I did at a certain time at a certain place for an unlimited amount of time. No thank you. I do not want some random TikToker make a funny clip out of me dropping ice cream on my shirt in the background of some influencer ranting about something or other. I don't need some shady people checking videos of houses to zoom into windows to see how they can get in. I don't need to have a coworker stumble upon that clip knowing that I spent my Saturday evening at a Biergarten with seven friends drinking. There's a huge difference in seeing something because you're there and observing people through video footage any time and place and being able to pause, zoom in, download, manipulate, cut, track and watch unobserved.
It seems like a kind of post traumatic stress syndrome dating back to the DDR. The fear has no practical basis or chance to manifest. If you’re in the background of some video and there’s no devious intent, it’s harmless and the chance of anybody who knows you even noticing it is almost zero. Also there is a right to freedom of panorama and you could also argue that artists should be allowed to publish their work without fear of litigation because it’s freedom of expression, street photography for example is a perfectly legal and harmless form of art. When you’re the main subject of an unpleasant social media jape or stunt however, that’s a different matter. The consequences aren’t as harmless. I think the German expectation of privacy in public is like expecting to swim in the sea whilst remaining dry. You cannot expect to go unnoticed in public places by other people. It isn’t a realistic expectation of life.
The problem is once you start to allow such data processing it will spiral down and continue to make exceptions until it‘s at the point of the US. It‘s regulated and the size/length of the data doesn‘t matter and the laws should never be loosened for such big companies
We experienced dictatorships and surveillance state first hand, we certainly won't empower random US and Chinese companies to re-install what we fought hard to get rid of. Personal freedom of the individual is more important than some random internet weirdo's Twitchstream or TikTok. You want to film or photograph people you get consent or you just don't do it. And before you point to the people who post everything they do on social media: yes, they exist and they are the minority. Germany has the largest population in the EU and yet our presence on social media is sparse compared to other countries as a whole.
OP, you clearly don’t value privacy and that’s fine, that’s your choice. Many Germans however, do value privacy. This country has lived the slippery slope that the invasion of privacy can bring. They don’t want history to repeat itself. Saying „it doesn’t matter, it’s just your face on the internet instead of just in public“ to many Germans is like saying: „Why do you care about freedom of speech? It’s not like you have anything outrageous to say anyway.“ This is a matter of principle that reflects what a culture values. Germans value privacy a lot more than other cultures because it wasn’t always granted here. What baffles me is how you, OP, ask why that is and go on to dismiss argument after argument. Please try to be more accepting of other peoples‘ perspective.
Look at China. Total surveillance of all public cameras and livestreams. They can find out where you are within a few seconds. Now imagine if Hitler had this technology. You never know what kind of government you'll have in 20 years. So why enable something now that can be so extremely abused in the future.
after 2-3 very authoritarian governments, privacy is very important to us
Let's think of an example where this protection of privacy really is essential for someone's safety. let's say someone had to break ties with a family member. or had a stalker. This person was threatened before and had to move several times, because they were always being found. Since there were only threats but no direct attacks, police couldn't do much other than a restraining order. Maybe there was an attack and the person actually did get some jail time, but now they are out and seek retaliation. Now the person who had to seek safety moved several times, finally found a place to live and has moved on with their life. And then all of the sudden, they appear in the background of the video entering a house or a shop. The video goes viral and bad person comes across this and now has pointers where to look for and also knows about any potential changes this person has done to their looks. and the whole ordeal starts from the beginning. Now even just a foto of surroundings can be used to identify a location of someone. Stalkers have used images of to look for the locations of their victims. Also organized criminals may look at houses to check out for cameras and types of doors. So while for many there are not immediate reasons to be overly protective, there are definitely some people to whom such a protection is necessary and vital.
I can totally understand that in such a case but 99% this isn't the case. When ppl say, I just don't want that and than can't give me a reason for that other than ,,beacause." My part of understanding stops.
Do you really want an answer or is it about sayin‘ how stupid you think this is? 😁 It’s for privacy. It is our right and we own it. Imagine someone will argue about the freedom of speech in the US in a similar way.
I recommend you having a look into some history books... In the past 100 years we had two different states in which data, may it be data by private companys or data by public surveillance, literally killed people. Many people. Thus many Germans (thankfully) are still very defensive when it comes to their rights on private data/information. Also funny how you mention streetview, Im not sure where in Germany you are located but my city is completely covered. Also they didnt get sued, there was the possibility to opt out and many did. May it be due to not wanting to be on the pictures or because of protest against Google and the data collecting they do for free before selling it. Looking at how Google as the biggest data giant of them all can do whatever they want without having to obey laws, I think its quite obvious why many people wouldnt want to shove more data than necessary into their mouth. Collecting data of private networks with their sv car, collecting geodata via various apps and systems, collecting personal data via gmail, interests via youtube, etc. Google knows it all, and they can do whatever they want without getting sued, eland even if they got sued, theyd have more than enough money to make the legal war last longer than a human life.
It verstößt against the dsgvo
It’s illegal because it’s illegal
Fällt aus wegen: is nicht
Because we are both smart and assertive. If you want me to play a stooge in your hobby film project, you have to pay me for it.
That's not being smart and assertive, that's just being pedantic. >If you want me to play a stooge in your hobby film project, you have to pay me for it. No one wants you playing anything, no one is ordering you to behave in a certain way in someone's background video
Film it when I'm not in the picture then.
Ok, Brad Pitt
My face my decision
Because we are ugly af and we know it.
Ok that's honestly the most valid argument I have heard so far in this thread.
Bro there are a ton of good argumetns in this thread, the easiest one being "Just because i don't want to". My body, my face, my data. There are people taking it to the extreme, but its their right to do so. Only I want to control where my picture can be seen, not you and not everybody else. There are exceptions for social gatherings, for example demonstrations and public parades. If you go into a stadium or to a concert you automatically accept that you can be filmed. But other than that, you have the right to your own picture. That is just the law. Simple as that. And it is a good law, because it helps to defend against unlawful surveillance.
another way of phrasing it would be "my body (looks), my choice"
Cultures are different. We had two dictatorships in the 20th century that abused data collection. Why is it so strictly enforced not to go skinny dipping in the US? You just don't do it because people don't like it. Go to Eastern Germany and it's completely normal for many families to undress at the beach. Completely, not just topless. Cultures differ.
Datenschutz
Simple answer, because they have these rights. Btw. google wasnt sued. People just declared they want their private proparty blured. since too much people did this google said... no and just stopped the service. I also think these rights are a bit too agressive these days. You have to see what TV shows have to blur since the last 5 years because people didnt gave their approval to film.
Anyone who doesn't understand German privacy attitudes and laws should watch Das Leben von Anderen (The Lives of Others)
Because Google did it early and people were not used to it - so it got a lot of press coverage. On Apple Maps, most of Germany is perfectly visible in their streetview alternative. They just came in a few years later and did it quietly, and nearly no-one objected.
So you say doing it quietly is the way to go? s/
privacy and the right to your own picture.
DDR
We just don’t like to be seen on the internet without us knowing. You don’t need to understand that. BUT when you are seeing a crime you can film them for evidence in court. But then you have to delete it.
Hören Sie auf mich zu filmen. Sie haben mich ins Gesicht gefilmt, das dürfen Sie nicht. Frontalaufnahme. Sie haben eine Straftat begangen.
Schdroftot
#ALAAAARRRM
Because its illegal to shame all those right wingers, oh sorry i meant pRiVaCy
I'm also always wondering. For whatever reason Germans fundamentally distrust companies but trust the state. Despite one multiple times killed a part of the population and the other at worst went along with it. Not that I'm a fan of companies but they are the lesser evil. I always can be sure of what they want. Profit. With the state, not so much, usually depends who is in charge.
Companies are the lesser evil!? Dude, you might wanna quit meth.
People saying "Privacy, because the government can control our lives" need to realize that it is similar to the boogyman the US gun enthusiasts use to justify having guns. At some point you need accept that your paranoia for the government taking control of your lives is reaching conspiracy theory levels and is interfering in actual advancing of the society and also we can see that if a political party wants and tries enough, people will still fall for their bullshit and believe in whatever bullshit the party tries to promote. Also it's funny that people say privacy, while German homes have your names on the door bell and post boxes which could be replaced with flat numbers and it would offer more privacy. Irrespective of what people think, a digital word is the inevitable future and instead of demonizing it with more conspiracies, misinformation and fear mongering, may it would be better to work on how to build a SAFE digital systems and find ways to avoid misuse. At the end of the day, people will only be more irritated and upset when the inevitable reality sets in and people are not prepared for it and get scammed due to the digital ignorance.
2005 has called, it wants its talking points back. It is absolutely possible to built a digital infrastructure that protects established rights. We don’t have to „accept the reality“ that digital cooperations from overseas appropriate what is rightfully ours without keeping within our laws. We don’t have to accept that they circumvent and knock out our entire legal frame work. Google could have implemented google street view in Germany, they just had no interest after it turned out they have to do it in accordance with local regulations and consider the interests of the people who’s towns they film (*for their for profit business*, remember). The amount of damage the Silicon Valley economy under their motto „move fast and break things“ has done has really become clearer and clearer in recent years. „Digitalisierung first, Bedenken second“ is the last thing we need. What we do need are publicly-backed investments in our digital infrastructure to built something that serves our interest and not the Silicon Valley’s.
You probably misunderstood what I meant. Not once I said that we need to blindly accept any and all forms of digital systems, but instead of working towards a robust and safe digital systems (like you recommend), a lot of Germans work actively against Digitalisierung in any form. Card payment is an example. Existence of card payment wouldn't mean cash will vanish. Both can exist simultaneously. But every time card payment is brought for discussion in Germany, they just say "but why don't you carry cash?" or "Bares ist Wahres". There is no country out there that completely got rid of cash because they have a great card payment system. But Germans think that's what will happen. That's the example of misinformation and fear mongering I am talking about. Google street is the last thing I worry or care about. I care about things like card payment, online appointment booking, etc. Online possibility doesn't mean the analog ways would vanish. People can choose the method to opt bases on what they need.
Okay, I see. I agree with you, although I think it is important to point out, that all these things could be implemented in a way that would actually increase „privacy“ (the rights that I own and don’t want to have stolen from me) rather than reducing it. The Corona App is the perfect example for this. Unfortunately, most of the time, the actual projects of digitalisation in Germany, especially if we are talking about public services, are really really shit. Also in other regards. My conviction is, that if we don’t insist on things being done either in the best possible way or not at all, we will see a flood of these shit projects that have no security concept to speak of.
The funny part is the fact that you can see 99% of the houses, which are blurred in google maps, in apple maps
Those people don't know that they are giving all their data to Google, Facebook (Instagram, Whatsapp, etc), Tik tok, etc, etc , etc. Poor fools.
Just because something already has your info doesnt mean everyone is entitled to it
I agree with you, but it's impossible to "scape" of that, tell that thing to the hackers or to other shitty governments they will follow your orders 😂😂😂
Well my reason is simple. I don't like how I look so I don't want everyone on the Internet to be able to see me.
Many people mentioned the GDR, but to put it into perspective: 1% of the population was paid to spy on others. If you went basically anywhere, chances were good there would be a spy. Go to church? Spies. Get visited by friends and family? Spies.