More Troubling Proposed Anti-Social Networking Laws: CA Wants Photo Removal Law
from the get-over-it dept
It's amazing what sort of laws politicians will come up with when they overreact to something that new technology allows, without bothering to understand the issue. It appears some California state politicians are upset about the fact that people are uploading photos and videos to social networking sites, and those photos may reveal something the subject of the photo wouldn't like. So, they want to require any site that allows uploads of images or videos to be required to take down that content on request of a subject in that content. Yes, even if the photo or video were taken in public.In looking over text of the bill (warning: pdf), it looks like the original idea was worse: that social networking sites would be required to prevent anyone from copying an image off of a website. It looks like someone explained to the bill's sponsor how that's impossible. However, even though the bill claims that it's aimed at photos of people who had an expectation of privacy, that doesn't appear to be anywhere in the actual text. Instead, sites would be required to take down content on the request of anyone in the image. Sites would also be responsible for verifying that the takedown request came from the person actually in the photo, though there's no mechanism to determine how. It's also not clear how to deal with photos that involve multiple people.
But, honestly, what's most unclear... is why such a law is needed in the first place? It seems like a major hassle for no good reason whatsoever -- especially in an era where taking photos and sharing them has become the norm for many people.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, first amendment, photos, social networks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=22447
Where people have filmed cops doing things that maybe wrong? That should be displayed for everyone to see. But I bet some people here would say, "yeah, but those videos came from conspiracy websites so their content must be false." We should be VERY careful about making sure that we CAN take videos of law enforcement when they are on duty (or any government official on duty).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Im confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warning
I see that all the time here. As if PDFs are some crazy format that no uses???
I'm just sayin...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warning
A lot of (especially older) computers and browsers have trouble with pdf files, so it causes trouble for some users. So I give them a warning so they realize it will be opening up a pdf reader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And thanks for not shredding me on the PDF comment :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
take more pictures and post them everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: take more pictures and post them everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO....
This is absolutely a suspect class for restricting free speech. You can post your own photo on a news website, on a blog, or whatever else, but if you're on a social networking site, well then fsck free speech!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unconstitutional
I can see it now.
The news reports on a serial killer. Serial killer forces them to remove their images from the news site along wi9th any video (video is just images strung together). The FBI is forced to remove the photo too, from the Most Wanted site.
A candidate screws up and gets his picture taken frenching a minor - pic removed.
Anyone in a picture, of say the inauguration of Obama, can now force the removal of the picture.
Free Speech INCLUDES pictures....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unconstitutional
They get elected because people vote for them and personally I cant think of a stronger argument for drastically improving public education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Photo Removal Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[cue 'why do you hate democracy' rants, but that's a different issue. also 'why do you hate America', answer: I'm not an American and they keep coming up with stuff like this]
this post brought to you by the society for the use of brackets [which i created just now. wonder if i can use the protection of brackets against the evil parentheses as some sort of election platform? *laughs*]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
let me buy you a large glass of hemlock my greek friend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rock - WebSite - HardPlace
No Photos allowed
Thanks alot DB govmnt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scope *as written* appears to be easily worked around but frighteningly broad in principle
So, it seems to me that a user on, say, Facebook, could post a note and link to "Pix of Bob" over on MySpace or the user's own webpage. Bob would be powerless, at least on Facebook.
Fortunately, the best-and-brightest who brought us this bill did not think to expand the take-down authority across the Internet, to web-hosting companies and ISPs, and elsewhere. The principle that a person has near-absolute control over all images of himself or herself would seem to apply, however, regardless of where the "offending" image is hosted - even in meatspace. Perhaps Ass'y Member Davis has these latter iterations up his sleeve for the second and third rounds. After all, why simply cripple Anglo-American legal tradition when you can kill it outright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]