Re: A Family's Horror -- and the Role of Google Images

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap () eros-os org>
Date: February 5, 2010 2:33:20 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] re A Family's Horror -- and the Role of Google Images

[For IP, if you like]
 
We all agree that this situation is terrible for the family. I think we also agree that the police officers acted 
improperly. But at the end of the day this is largely about an interaction between a horrible event, a violation of 
public trust, and mis-set expectations about privacy. The circumances of horror should not be allowed to confuse us 
about the events and the degree of [im]propriety involved.
 
Lauren's note, as I read it, raised three key issues:
 
 
First, The practice of humane behavior is an astonishingly tenuous thing. To some degree, society functions because we 
are *not* regularly exposed to opportunities for titilation like this photo, and when we are, they are immediate and 
real. We slow down at accident sites to look. We glance furtively at the porn magazines on the shelf (even those of us 
who don't buy them). We enjoy reports on politicians who are caught with their pants down (either figuratively or 
literally), thinking, in some miniscule part that we rarely admit, "better him than me". But we *know*, at some level, 
that these actions *should* be furtive. We are, if only in some very small way, ashamed. Context is key: most of us do 
not surf medical texts to view pictures of severed body parts, because the clinical context and treatment (thankfully) 
deprives those photos of titilation.
 
Search engines change the context. They expose us to the same things in ways that are socially disconnected. Our sense 
of shame is reduced, and our willingness to be less than humane is enhanced. We need to think about how to restore the 
balance here.
 
 
Second, photo search exists at a stage where we cannot shield our children or ourselves. Six months ago my four and 
half year old wanted to know why the girls on the DVD covers weren't wearing any pampers. I can steer him away from 
this in the physical world, but in the world of online digital images this isn't (yet?) practical. Once released, you 
can't call a photo back. Those who wish to find it can and will do so.
 
 
Third and finally, society has mis-set expectations about privacy in a digital world. That a mother's horror at the 
circumstances of her daughter's death is intertwined with her horror at its mass publication is inevitable and 
*necessary*. But her anger at the circulation of the photo derives mostly from the mistaken expectation that society 
will collude to suppress distribution of public events. Should a police officer have disclosed evidence in this 
fashion? Certainly not. But it might just as well have been a reporter or a passer-by with a camera, and *that* person 
is under no moral or ethical constraint in this situation. The officer at the scene's error lies in acting momentarily 
in a normal (if regrettable) civilian role when his professional role was called for. The officers who re-circulated 
the photo acted insensitively and in bad taste, but if they did it using personal resources they have done no wrong, 
and if they did it using office resources they have done no more wrong than you or I do daily at *our* jobs in using 
our employers' resources for momentary personal activity. I do not like these conclusions, but they are no less true 
for my dislike.
 
 
Relying on copyright for this is hopeless. Digital photos and digital search will not go away. As well try to call back 
the wind, and bringing in RIAA for things like this (or anything else) is unthinkable; RIAA recognizes neither common 
sense nor reasonable restraint. The things we need to push on here are better automated photo tagging and re-setting 
our expectations.
 
 
Please note that I neither endorse nor celebrate these realities. At the same time, I don't endorse the bleating herd 
of impossible expectations grounded in a 19th century world model. Much as I hate it, McNealy was right. Though David 
Brin, I think, said it with considerably more grace.
 
 
 
Jonathan




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com