• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Women upset at being photographed eating on subway

RiverDad

RiverDad

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
5,039
Reaction score
1,515
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Another day, another female-centric drama. Now what? Here's what:

The founder of a controversial Facebook group which invites people to post photographs of women eating on the London Underground said he is considering shutting it down due to the 'toxic hatred' he has received online.

The Women Who Eat On Tubes group, which has more than 21,000 members, has sparked controversy with opponents claiming it encourages people to objectify and humiliate women who are unaware their picture is being taken.

Film-maker Tony Burke, who set up the Facebook page in 2011, has insisted it was created as a 'human observation' that more women ate on the Tube than men and he had not intended to hurt anybody.​

I'm not understanding what is so hard for women to understand, anything that you do in public and which is observable by others is not a private activity.
 
Whether you like the OP or not is irrelevant to this issue, and... He has a good point. Anything that any of us do in the public domain is just that... in the public domain and we have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Every court case brought on this subject have stated so, every time. Not sure how that translates to UK law? But here in the US, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.
 
I'm pretty sure we're expected to bash women based on the actions of one dumbass.

That doesn't seem honest.
 
RiverDad said:
Another day, another female-centric drama. Now what? Here's what:

The founder of a controversial Facebook group which invites people to post photographs of women eating on the London Underground said he is considering shutting it down due to the 'toxic hatred' he has received online.

The Women Who Eat On Tubes group, which has more than 21,000 members, has sparked controversy with opponents claiming it encourages people to objectify and humiliate women who are unaware their picture is being taken.

Film-maker Tony Burke, who set up the Facebook page in 2011, has insisted it was created as a 'human observation' that more women ate on the Tube than men and he had not intended to hurt anybody.​

I'm not understanding what is so hard for women to understand, anything that you do in public and which is observable by others is not a private activity.
Click to expand...

Really?

No - I don't think this is true. In order to use my glorious face for, say, a promotional advertisement, I have to give PERMISSION. If someone is filming or taking photos for publication of any sort then notice must give / consent received in some fashion (anything from posting 'you're on camera' signs to having people sign waivers). Same thing with ezines, printed magazines and newspapers, and other forms of legally recognized media.

So - no - public creates a fuzzy line. It is neither explicit in one direction or another. It is solely dependent on what is being done with said images.

When it comes to 'scientific matters' such as taking note of observed human behaviors for scientific/study purposes then there is a fuzzy ethical line - and if people are being involved in a study, if their images are involved in any sort of a 'study' then these ethical guidelines that are set forward, and social discomforts, must be heeded.

And this is the reason why I do not eat in public or do anything else in public save for quickly make it to point A to point B - there are a lot of weirdos out there and these days it takes only a few seconds for your life to go from being private or contained to a small area to going global.
 
Last edited:
You have got to love the misogynist though train. Some people take pictures of people eating on the train, some other people complain about it on facebook, and suddenly, bam all 3 billion women on the planet are evil.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
If someone is filming or taking photos for publication of any sort then notice must give / consent received in some fashion (anything from posting 'you're on camera' signs to having people sign waivers).
Click to expand...

Kissing_the_War_Goodbye.jpg
 
RiverDad said:
...
Click to expand...

And your point here is that in the 1940's someone took a pic that didn't show someone's face and used it in a news add?

That means what, exactly?

IDENTITY is a factor when it comes to various LAWS and measures of ETHICS in legislation and through various branches of science. If someone can be identified via such a means then, these days, there are sometimes very strict standards. It depends on what is being done with said image.
 
RiverDad said:
Another day, another female-centric drama. Now what? Here's what:

The founder of a controversial Facebook group which invites people to post photographs of women eating on the London Underground said he is considering shutting it down due to the 'toxic hatred' he has received online.

The Women Who Eat On Tubes group, which has more than 21,000 members, has sparked controversy with opponents claiming it encourages people to objectify and humiliate women who are unaware their picture is being taken.

Film-maker Tony Burke, who set up the Facebook page in 2011, has insisted it was created as a 'human observation' that more women ate on the Tube than men and he had not intended to hurt anybody.​

I'm not understanding what is so hard for women to understand, anything that you do in public and which is observable by others is not a private activity.
Click to expand...

The only feminist centric drama here is the stuff you bring.
 
RiverDad said:
Another day, another female-centric drama. Now what? Here's what:

The founder of a controversial Facebook group which invites people to post photographs of women eating on the London Underground said he is considering shutting it down due to the 'toxic hatred' he has received online.

The Women Who Eat On Tubes group, which has more than 21,000 members, has sparked controversy with opponents claiming it encourages people to objectify and humiliate women who are unaware their picture is being taken.

Film-maker Tony Burke, who set up the Facebook page in 2011, has insisted it was created as a 'human observation' that more women ate on the Tube than men and he had not intended to hurt anybody.​

I'm not understanding what is so hard for women to understand, anything that you do in public and which is observable by others is not a private activity.
Click to expand...

It is legal, yes. However, just because certain acts are legal do not make them moral. I find it disturbing that you have no apparent concern for a woman who was photographed by a creep on a subway.
 
RiverDad forum thread checklist:

1: Post some small thing that involves a handful of people at most. CHECK

2: Be outraged at their actions. CHECK

3: Suggest, imply, state that this is representative of the whole group you dislike. CHECK

4: Pat yourself on the back for being so clever in demonizing that group you hate. CHECK
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Really?

No - I don't think this is true. In order to use my glorious face for, say, a promotional advertisement, I have to give PERMISSION. If someone is filming or taking photos for publication of any sort then notice must give / consent received in some fashion (anything from posting 'you're on camera' signs to having people sign waivers). Same thing with ezines, printed magazines and newspapers, and other forms of legally recognized media.

So - no - public creates a fuzzy line. It is neither explicit in one direction or another. It is solely dependent on what is being done with said images.

When it comes to 'scientific matters' such as taking note of observed human behaviors for scientific/study purposes then there is a fuzzy ethical line - and if people are being involved in a study, if their images are involved in any sort of a 'study' then these ethical guidelines that are set forward, and social discomforts, must be heeded.

And this is the reason why I do not eat in public or do anything else in public save for quickly make it to point A to point B - there are a lot of weirdos out there and these days it takes only a few seconds for your life to go from being private or contained to a small area to going global.
Click to expand...

Paparazzi don't need to get permission of the people the photograph. And all of that is certainly for-prophet and advertising.
 
TG I'm not alone regarding these strange threads.

If it is acceptable for some weirdo to go around taking unauthorised pictures of women he doesn't even know and then post them on an unsavoury Facebook page and that is "his right", then in the same society it is certainly the right of anyone (including the people concerned) to call him on it in public and let the world know he is allegedly a big weirdo who doesn't know how to behave.

It is also their right to commence a Facebook campaign until he learns sense.

Regarding advertising, pretty sure you can be sued for using images to sell a product without permission. Just publishing the celeb pic may be ok, but not to publicise a product. I am not sure, but I think the status and profession of the person may come into it here at least, i.e. if you are a public figure or not and if it's in the public interest etc. These women are not public figures....
 
Ikari said:
Paparazzi don't need to get permission of the people the photograph. And all of that is certainly for-prophet and advertising.
Click to expand...

This isn't a matter of famous people and the paparazzi (which is actually controlled or governed in various ways depending on where in the world you are - case by case).

Permission or notice is usually required or considered polite when:
1) Using images for promotion (anytime a product or service is marketed with said image) - this is usually required. Without permission, you cannot use someone's image (taken in public or otherwise) to market a service or a product.
2) When images are used for the purpose of scientific and other study permission might be required. Not so much for the images themselves, but for permission of the individual to opt in or opt out of any such study. Usually, here, if permission isn't granted then the person must be reduced to vague references like numbers, not identifiable measures such as images collected to document said activity. (This is a fuzzier line - depending on the outcome and business/organization related to it, etc)

The OP guy claimed these images were for 'study' purposes - and therefor it falls into the dubious category. What this relies on is the permission of those individuals to be identified *in tandem* with said study. They should have the right to opt in or opt out.

Examples of when "taken in public" is still protected/prohibited: if someone has a cease and desist order against a person or entity, or if someone has a restraining order, or if said images would be used for nefarious purposes.

So - no - public doesn't mean people can snap photos and do whatever they want. The purpose, what it's used for and how it's used, matters quite a bit. Generally speaking: public is public.

-
I ran a business for a long time, worked as a freelance jeweler, and now I write erotica. I had to learn the ins and outs of model permissions and explicit visual consent.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
This isn't a matter of famous people and the paparazzi (which is actually controlled or governed in various ways depending on where in the world you are - case by case).

Permission or notice is usually required or considered polite when:
1) Using images for promotion (anytime a product or service is marketed with said image) - this is usually required. Without permission, you cannot use someone's image (taken in public or otherwise) to market a service or a product.
2) When images are used for the purpose of scientific and other study permission might be required. Not so much for the images themselves, but for permission of the individual to opt in or opt out of any such study. Usually, here, if permission isn't granted then the person must be reduced to vague references like numbers, not identifiable measures such as images collected to document said activity. (This is a fuzzier line - depending on the outcome and business/organization related to it, etc)

The OP guy claimed these images were for 'study' purposes - and therefor it falls into the dubious category. What this relies on is the permission of those individuals to be identified *in tandem* with said study. They should have the right to opt in or opt out.

Examples of when "taken in public" is still protected/prohibited: if someone has a cease and desist order against a person or entity, or if someone has a restraining order, or if said images would be used for nefarious purposes.

So - no - public doesn't mean people can snap photos and do whatever they want. The purpose, what it's used for and how it's used, matters quite a bit. Generally speaking: public is public.

-
I ran a business for a long time, worked as a freelance jeweler, and now I write erotica. I had to learn the ins and outs of model permissions and explicit visual consent.
Click to expand...

Well if the rules are really that, then it can come out in court I suppose. I'd be a bit surprised, a citizen is a citizen and it shouldn't matter if they are famous. Still, I think many people argue that there is no privacy in public, when I'd say there's a slight expectation at reduced privacy, but that it still exists. So it would be good to promote the ideal that some sense of privacy still exists in public.
 
Ikari said:
Well if the rules are really that, then it can come out in court I suppose. I'd be a bit surprised, a citizen is a citizen and it shouldn't matter if they are famous. Still, I think many people argue that there is no privacy in public, when I'd say there's a slight expectation at reduced privacy, but that it still exists. So it would be good to promote the ideal that some sense of privacy still exists in public.
Click to expand...

It's on the very low end of the scale of 'concern' for me. Hardly a lawsuit (I think the 'up-skirt' case had more legs to stand on and that was shot down) - I think it's just annoying to think of people taking pics and putting them on websites. Juvenile, but not offensive (like - some people are EXTREMELY offended over what he did.)

Creepy yes - but no different than the 'People of Walmart' and the like. (Actually, this guy wasn't really making fun of people unlike the People of Walmart thing)
 
RiverDad said:
Another day, another female-centric drama. Now what? Here's what:

The founder of a controversial Facebook group which invites people to post photographs of women eating on the London Underground said he is considering shutting it down due to the 'toxic hatred' he has received online.

The Women Who Eat On Tubes group, which has more than 21,000 members, has sparked controversy with opponents claiming it encourages people to objectify and humiliate women who are unaware their picture is being taken.

Film-maker Tony Burke, who set up the Facebook page in 2011, has insisted it was created as a 'human observation' that more women ate on the Tube than men and he had not intended to hurt anybody.​

I'm not understanding what is so hard for women to understand, anything that you do in public and which is observable by others is not a private activity.
Click to expand...

Why is it so hard for you to understand that everyone, even women, have the same right you have to express outrage at something that offends them. It's the expression of outrage you're objecting to here, right? You're saying that they should just shut up and sit on their hands.
Typical conservative disregard for liberties.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Whether you like the OP or not is irrelevant to this issue, and... He has a good point. Anything that any of us do in the public domain is just that... in the public domain and we have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Every court case brought on this subject have stated so, every time. Not sure how that translates to UK law? But here in the US, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.
Click to expand...

How can anyone expect PRIVACY in a PUBLIC place?

I mean, come on. The NSA knows who they are talking to on your cell and they're pissed of at pictures of them shoveling the pie hole?
 
When you consider that in all likelihood there are CCTV security cameras which are being monitored watching my every move when i walk to where i am going to be eating, when i order and then when i sit down down to eat anyway, it's difficult to be outraged about this.

That being said, just another reason why Social Media (Facebook in this instance) can be so messed up. What a miserable, boring life one must lead that they even know about sites like that to begin with nevermind that they actually feel the need to contribute towards it.
 
My husband is a photographer, and I believe he told me that this is how it works. If he is shooting a model, and he plans to use her picture for financial gain, she has to sign a waiver. At no time does she ever have a right to any of the photographs, because they belong to him. If she refuses to sign the waiver, he still gets to keep the pictures and she gets nothing.

In public, he can take pictures of people all he wants, without a waiver, as long as he is not selling them. Once he starts to sell the picture, he has to get permission from the subject(s). But he doesn't have to have anybody's permission to take the pictures. He can take them 'til the cows come home.
 
Serenity said:
When you consider that in all likelihood there are CCTV security cameras which are being monitored watching my every move when i walk to where i am going to be eating, when i order and then when i sit down down to eat anyway, it's difficult to be outraged about this.

That being said, just another reason why Social Media (Facebook in this instance) can be so messed up. What a miserable, boring life one must lead that they even know about sites like that to begin with nevermind that they actually feel the need to contribute towards it.
Click to expand...

In a sane society it might lead to people going on a diet, perhaps making healthy life choices. In today's Amerika, it's a matter of civil rights. The fighting of wars for 13 years destroying the rights of individuals labeled terrorist, has been done for the "right" of the populace to eat wherever they want.

The Obama administration tried to put cameras in newsrooms, and no one whimpered but the media, but remove those security and traffic cameras this instant less I get caught in some illegal activity or embarrassed over being piggish in public.

Hail social media. It is a fine opportunity to see the culture we have built. Remember all that "progressive" rhetoric on social media by the Occupy Occult? Exposed the true "eat the rich mentality". Had we only listened to Obama, we would have seen them as social innovators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom