h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Maybe we don't want anyone to see us on a bad hair day?"

Fine. Then don't go out. Or wear a hat. It's not rocket science. (Or Rocket Hat. http://basicinstructions.net/basic-instructions/2010/9/30/how-to-maintain-an-adversarial-relationship.html)

"Maybe we even want the right to chance our arm at a spot of light criminality"

Go to it then. Chance your arm. Don't, though, go bleating about it when the internet rips off your arm at the shoulder and beats you to death with the wet end.

>>Can't say I'm behind the Facebook riot sentences. But they're something of an anomaly, at least for now.

Well they certainly were an anomaly...until they were passed. Now they're a precedent.

They weren't the first of their kind though, were they - there was that guy who tweeted that he was going to blow up an airport if they didn't get their act together - that cost him his job I seem to recall, as well several thousand pounds (although Stephen Fry offered to pay it, I also recall...). Not a prison sentence, admittedly, and again, if you MUST tweet something you probably ought to consider it a public announcement, right?

The Paul Chambers thing? That was ridiculous. But I'm biased. We were Twitter 'friends' before the Joke Trial blew up. So to speak.

Well remembered.

But that's just what I mean. Maybe it would be *sensible* to treat it as a public announcement...but the technology has got ahead of us. All sorts of silly cases of people getting in trouble at work because they've Facebook Friended a colleague who harbours a grudge...

I wonder how folk adjusted to phones. Nowadays we regard phone calls as sacrosanct and only MIT, Special Branch and tabloid journalists are allowed access. But that's not always how we feel about overheard conversations. (is it? question)

Or diaries. There's no law against reading someone's diary without permission, but it's generally regarded as a slimy thing to do. And yet...there was that young lassie at Heathrow who was jailed for writing terrorist-y poems in hers. (the equivalent of adolescent boys playing with explosives? did anyone else do that?)

I will say some of those reviews are hilarious as is the name of the shop. The keyboard warriors may not be particularly likeable but some of them are really witty.

I am against putting pictures of my kids on the Internet. This is mainly so I can freely write about how cute they are while making it less likely that their friends will find out and take the mickey. Sort of thing.

That said, I am also against anyone else putting them on the internet, particularly with their names attached. I daresay this is squirrelly, but there you go. Mind you, I am also rather adverse to having my picture on the internet with either my real or my internet name attached. I would take an extremely dim view of anybody filming my toddler to put him on youtube for any reason whatsoever.

I dunno. You gotta have some privacy. I'd be adverse to other people randomly revealing any personal info about me and mine to the world too.

That said, that is just me going about my everyday business.

I am also doing repetition today. Apparently my favourite phrases this evening are adverse and that said. And why not.

Paul Chambers was an accountant; he not only lost his job, but his registration, or whatever ti is that says an accountant is licenced to count.

That said, he was unbelievably fekkin stupid, and I couldn't agree with those bloggers and pundits who leaped to his defence.

Oh, and Mrs Duncan's website may be sparse, but an earlier version is on the wayback machine.

Sol raises an interesting point: isn't there a right to have parts of our lives kept private and even whilst we can be as careful as possible, others are able to broadcast it on the internet. Tyler Clementi is a tragic example of this - he was doing everything he could to keep his private life private and whilst those who breached his privacy will likely face jail, that's not much consolation to his family and friends.

There are more mundane examples - people might try to keep all kinds from becoming public knowledge: sexuality, mental health, stuff from childhood. Things that could affect your view of someone and yet aren't really that relevant. Don't we have a right to keep these things off-line? Or is the general feeling that you're always okay to publish online provided its true?

"an earlier version is on the wayback machine"

Once again - welcome to 2012, scumbag.

Regarding pictures of you or your kids in the street - unless you go over to the photographer and hand them your details, who are you? Anybody and nobody. If they pursue you and hunt out your details, that's harrassment, and we have perfectly good laws about that already, and have had for decades before the internet came along.

As far as Tyler Clementi is concerned - that's another matter entirely. The actions of Ravi in that case were the actions of a duplicitous privacy-invading scumbag. I can't see any defence for what he did whatsoever. If he'd distributed a video of Clementi snogging a dude in the university cafeteria, I'd say fair play - but he deliberately used what could reasonably be called a spy camera to pry into what Clementi was doing in the dorm room they shared, their *private* room. Indefensible, and a completely different style of thing to what we're talking about here.

It's not about what's likely. It's not someone else's place to decide what images of me and my kids go where. Plus, can you guarantee me that that image or that vid won't go viral? How dare, how very dare anybody make that choice for my kids? But in truth I just don't like it. I am at peace with the fact this may be irrational.

In the end, since kids pix on the net is sensitive, it is arrogant for a photographer to dismiss other people's concerns because for them it is a non issue. Even if it is a non issue.

So now we have a two tier system of justice? We have:

- Unblemished angels who get to live their lives unmolested.

- Scumbaga who, as a result of any level of misdemeanour, deserve to have their lives made hell.

Exactly. Thread solved

Isn't it good manners to ask parents if at all possible. One of the best photos I've ever taken is of a young group of kids playing in the fountains in Trafalgar Square on a really hot day.

I didn't have time to ask their mum if I could take the shot beforehand, but I showed it to her afterwards and offered to delete it if she didn't like it.

I didn't have to, but it was polite and everyone went away happy. I got mum's address and sent her a copy of the photo when I got it printed and got a Christmas card in return. Isn't that a better way - instead of going for our rights, going for what causes the maximum benefit?

I agree! And I don't think most people mind children being photographed with permission, as you'd also ask of an adult. But it's become one of those 'You're not meant to' things.

"It's not someone else's place to decide what images of me and my kids go where"

Images of you and your kids go wherever you choose to go with your kids.

It is not your place to decide where another private individual points their camera in a public place. Of course, politeness suggests they may choose to seek your permission, before or after the fact, but at the end of the day, hey, *public place*. If you're that irrationally paranoid, get yourself a dozen cats and stay indoors.

er i dont think i am alone in being wary of some guy who is hanging around a fountain taking pix of kids...
i certainly would not give him the address of the kid whose pix he just took
nothing personal
just unwise

i would also like to add that any man who accuses a mother of being "irrationally paranoid"
when it comes to the safety and lives of her children...
is an absolute idiot, cold brastard, and i hope he realises how off he is and changes
before he ever reproduces himself...

We do have a two tier system of justice: people who can go about their business not harassing and inconveniencing others, parking their cars inconsiderately, swearing at people, ripping off their limbs...

And people who apparently *don't* know how Youtube works, and who don't think, even for a split second, that if someone's pointing a video camera at them they might possibly do better to wind their neck in.

And I have *no* problem with that. I will say right out that I hope no physical harm comes to Mr. or Mrs. Duncan. But then I generally hope no physical harm comes to anyone. But if someone deserves prison for posting on Facebook about a riot that never happened, and if someone deserves to lose their job for a tweeted joke - it is, I think, perfectly reasonable to hope that this couple lose their business, livelihood, swish car and home as a result of their nasty, aggressive and threatening behaviour. I can't see any reasonable defence for this woman or her husband for what they did. And if she ill-advisedly comes out with some statement of regret, you can guarantee that its real meaning is "I regret getting caught." No pity at all.