[SUBMITTED] Camera Shy

[Jim the Baptist]

THE ISSUE
Recently, one of your citizens while out and about caught the eyes of passers by as she adorned a rather ostentatious costume inspired by Britney Pears, complete with leotard and tropical fruit hat. The photos circulated on various social media platforms and now the young lady seeks justice. She claims the “excessive” amount of photos taken were burdensome and posed an infringement of her portrait rights. In the absence of specific laws relating to this issue, the public is divided on how to proceed.

1. “She chose to wear such a ridiculous outfit – so she must have wanted photos taken,” exclaims camera shop owner @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Hyper regulation and sensitivity is not the answer. People have a right to take photos of what they like, when they like. Hey, while we’re at it, @@LEADER@@, say cheese!”
Effect: embarrassing photos of @@LEADER@@ are circulated on a daily basis

2. Concerned churchgoer @@RANDOMNAME@@ interrupts. “If people would stop dressing so aggressively flamboyant then we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place! We should introduce strict rules on what people are and are not allowed to wear out. If not in the name of God then at least for a little modesty! You could even model for us state-ordained outfits, @@LEADER@@; more people would benefit from emulating your style.”
Effect: anyone caught with a Mo-hawk mysteriously disappears
Adds policy: Prudism

3. Your power-hungry police chief, @@RANDOMNAME@@, enters the room. “Why don’t we just ban all photos in public places? Then people can wear what they want without the fear of being photographed. Okay, we might annoy a few bird watchers and street bloggers but at least we can all keep our privacy. Plus a few more arrests every so often always looks good on my record… oops, did I say that out loud?”
Effect: pointing a phone near someone’s face almost always results in being arrested

4. “Banning public photos is not the answer,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “Photographing people is different from photographing a public landscape which happens to have people in it. Photos in public places are fine so long as the focus is not targeting a specific individual. In this case, the young lady is clearly a victim of unnecessary harassment. Anyone with photos and those responsible for circulating them should face punishment.”
Effect: citizens must receive written consent before taking a photo of anyone

1. “She chose to wear such a ridiculous outfit – so she must have wanted photos taken,” exclaims camera shop owner @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Hyper regulation and sensitivity is not the answer. People have a right to take photos of what they like, when they like. Hey, while we’re at it, @@LEADER@@, say cheese!”
Effect: embarrassing photos of @@LEADER@@ are circulated on a daily basis

2. Concerned churchgoer @@RANDOMNAME@@ interrupts. “If people would stop dressing so aggressively flamboyant then we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place! We should introduce strict rules on what people are and are not allowed to wear out. If not in the name of God then at least for a little modesty! You could even model for us state-ordained outfits, @@LEADER@@; more people would benefit from emulating your style.”
Effect: anyone caught with a Mo-hawk mysteriously disappears
Adds policy: Prudism

3. Your power-hungry police chief, @@RANDOMNAME@@, enters the room. “Why don’t we just ban all photos in public places? Then people can wear what they want without the fear of being photographed. Okay, we might annoy a few bird watchers and street bloggers but at least we can all keep our privacy. Plus a few more arrests every so often always looks good on my record… oops, did I say that out loud?”
Effect: pointing a phone near someone’s face almost always results in being arrested

4. “Banning public photos is not the answer,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “Photographing people is different from photographing a public landscape which happens to have people in it. Photos in public places are fine so long as the focus is not targeting a specific individual. Each case will be different but we can use our common sense and better judgment to assess the photographer's intent. We should punish those responsible for harassing this lady and many others by establishing formal legal precedent.”
Effect: citizens must receive written consent before taking a photo of anyone

1. “She chose to wear such a ridiculous outfit – so she must have wanted photos taken,” exclaims camera shop owner @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Hyper regulation and sensitivity is not the answer. People have a right to take photos of what they like, when they like. Hey, while we’re at it, @@LEADER@@, say cheese!”
Effect: peeping Toms are applauded as they photograph half-dressed young women through bedroom windows

2a [only valid for nations without religion banned]. Concerned churchgoer @@RANDOMNAME@@ interrupts. “If people would stop dressing so aggressively flamboyant then we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place! We should introduce strict rules on what people are and are not allowed to wear out. If not in the name of God then at least for a little modesty! You could even model for us state-ordained outfits, @@LEADER@@; more people would benefit from emulating your style.”
Effect: anyone caught with a Mo-hawk mysteriously disappears

2b [only valid for nations with religion banned]. Concerned senior citizen @@RANDOMNAME@@ interrupts. “If people would stop dressing so aggressively flamboyant then we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place! We should introduce strict rules on what people are and are not allowed to wear out. Why can't we just go back to the good old days when ankles were sexy? Say, @@LEADER@@, you've got a fine pair yourself!"
Effect: anyone caught with a Mo-hawk mysteriously disappears

3. Your power-hungry police chief, @@RANDOMNAME@@, enters the room. “I have a better idea. Let's ban taking someone's photograph without their permission, unless that activity relates to matters such as law enforcement, journalism or reasonable promotion of the public good. OK, we might annoy a few tourists, but you can trust our fine nation's police force to use our honest and fair discretion. Plus a few more arrests every so often always looks good on my record… oops, did I say that out loud?”
Effect: pointing a phone near someone’s face almost always results in being arrested

4. “Banning public photos is not the answer,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “Photographing people is different from photographing a public landscape which happens to have people in it. Photos in public places are fine so long as the focus is not targeting a specific individual. Each case will be different but we can use our common sense and better judgment to assess the photographer's intent. We should punish those responsible for harassing this lady and many others by establishing formal legal precedent.”
Effect: birdwatcher's photos often include incidental cleavage

[Atheris]

There are some grammatical, personal preference, and coding issues. Highlighted in red.

THE ISSUE
Recently, one of your citizens while out and about caught the eyes of passers by as she adorned a rather ostentatious costume inspired by Britney Pears, complete with leotard and tropical fruit hat. The photos circulated on various social media platforms and now the young lady seeks justice. She claims the “excessive” amount of photos taken were burdensome and posed an infringement of her portrait rights. In the absence of specific laws relating to this issue, the public is divided on how to proceed.

1. “She chose to wear such a ridiculous outfit – so she must have wanted photos taken,” exclaims camera shop owner @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Hyper regulation and sensitivity is not the answer. People have a right to take photos of what they like, when they like. Hey, while we’re at it, @@LEADER@@, say cheese!”
Effect: embarrassing photos of @@LEADER@@ are circulated on a daily basis

2. Concerned churchgoer @@RANDOMNAME@@ interrupts. “If people would stop dressing so aggressively flamboyant then we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place! We should introduce strict rules on what people are and are not allowed to wear out. If not in the name of God then at least for a little modesty! You could even model for us state-ordained outfits, @@LEADER@@; more people would benefit from emulating your style.”
Effect: anyone caught with a Mo-hawk mysteriously disappears
Adds policy: Prudism

3. Your power-hungry police chief, @@RANDOMANME, enters the room. “Why don’t we just ban all photos in public places? Then people can wear what they want without the fear of being photographed. Okay, we might annoy a few bird watchers and street bloggers, but at least we can all keep our privacy. Plus, a few more arrests every so often always looks good on my record… oops, did I say that out loud?”
Effect: pointing a phone near someone’s face almost always results in being arrested

4. “Banning public photos is not the answer,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “Photographing people is different from photographing a public landscape which happens to have people in it. Photos in public places are fine so long as the focus is not targeting a specific individual. In this case, the young lady is clearly a victim of unnecessary harassment. Anyone with photos and those responsible for circulating them should face punishment.”
Effect: citizens must receive written consent before taking a photo of anyone

That being said, I'm a fan of this issue. I don't know if it contradicts any, but I'm not an issue expert.

[Jim the Baptist]

There are some grammatical, personal preference, and coding issues. Highlighted in red.

I like your suggestions and I have added all of them.

[Atheris]

There are some grammatical, personal preference, and coding issues. Highlighted in red.

I like your suggestions and I have added all of them.

I'd also recommend editing the thread by keeping past drafts in spoilers.

[Jim the Baptist]

I like your suggestions and I have added all of them.

I'd also recommend editing the thread by keeping past drafts in spoilers.

I normally would but considering I only fixed grammatical/small formatting errors I didn't bother this time.

[Mudreuque]

I really like this issue! Any mistakes have already been said.

[Tinhampton]

Why does this not overlap with Issue #1145 "Your Wild Self(ie)" - which also pertains to image rights?

[Jim the Baptist]

Why does this not overlap with Issue #1145 "Your Wild Self(ie)" - which also pertains to image rights?

That issue is totally different, as you said it's about image rights and it talks about who is owed the earnings generated as a result of an image or photo. That issue was also about an animal and even suggested giving the revenue to the animal. Moreover, it talks about selfies rather than taking photos of others. Mine is more from a privacy/harassment perspective (rather than revenue or earnings) and whether people have the right to take photos of others in public places. It's completely different.

[Australian rePublic]

Was she in an embarrassing post/position, or was she just walking?

[Jim the Baptist]

Was she in an embarrassing post/position, or was she just walking?

A valid point, but I think whether she was in an embarrassing position or not is irrelevant because it's a subjective matter and doesn't factor into the issue. It's more about whether people have a right to take photos of her rather than whether she looked objectively "embarrassing" or not.

[Australian rePublic]

Was she in an embarrassing post/position, or was she just walking?

A valid point, but I think whether she was in an embarrassing position or not is irrelevant because it's a subjective matter and doesn't factor into the issue. It's more about whether people have a right to take photos of her rather than whether she looked objectively "embarrassing" or not.

Yes it does. If she was picking her nose, vs she was just walking randomly by makes a big difference

[Jim the Baptist]

A valid point, but I think whether she was in an embarrassing position or not is irrelevant because it's a subjective matter and doesn't factor into the issue. It's more about whether people have a right to take photos of her rather than whether she looked objectively "embarrassing" or not.

Yes it does. If she was picking her nose, vs she was just walking randomly by makes a big difference

The issue is encompassing all scenarios of public photography (including picking her nose and walking around randomly). As I say, it's all encompassing because it's about public photography of people in general as a form of harassment rather than "embarrassing" public photography of people. But for what it's worth I think it's implied that she was *not* doing anything embarrassing and simply minding her own business.

[Ko-oren]

Good issue at its core, I want to see how this develops.

How do options #1 and #4 differ in consequence? Option #1 allows all photos to be taken, while option #4 effectively allows the same, as long as you pretend like you were taking photos of something else. Adding to that, the dismiss button is very similar to either option as well. I suggest editing the options to stronger wording in order to make them stand out from each other as well as the dismiss button.

[Jim the Baptist]

Good issue at its core, I want to see how this develops.

How do options #1 and #4 differ in consequence? Option #1 allows all photos to be taken, while option #4 effectively allows the same, as long as you pretend like you were taking photos of something else. Adding to that, the dismiss button is very similar to either option as well. I suggest editing the options to stronger wording in order to make them stand out from each other as well as the dismiss button.

I agree with you to some extent - options 1 and 4 are similar but I think they differ in terms of how liberal or "pro civil rights-y" they are. Option 1 is basically for anarchy - do nothing and shut up. Meanwhile option 4 is a compromise, banning all photos is too extreme so let's punish those responsible for the photos circulating. So there is a difference in the sense that option 4 has meaningful consequences while 1 is anti nanny state/pro de-regulation. How would you suggest making them more strongly worded?
Edit: I guess 1 may come across as a little dismiss-y, I could try making the option longer to emphasise more strongly that its anti-nanny state etc. but it would really just be repeating itself.

[Ko-oren]

I'd push option 4 further towards legal red tape.

“Banning public photos is not the answer, but allowing everything isn't the way forward either,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “We will need to look at each case, establish precedents, tie every rule down so everyone is happy and safe. We need to compare each photographer's intent to the result. What percent of a photo contains passers-by, and what percent of a photo is actually what they wanted to eternalise on film. The legal world can provide a wonderful middle ground!"

or something to that effect. I haven't worded everything as well as I could have, but this could be a start (depending on what the other readers say).

[Jim the Baptist]

I'd push option 4 further towards legal red tape.

“Banning public photos is not the answer, but allowing everything isn't the way forward either,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “We will need to look at each case, establish precedents, tie every rule down so everyone is happy and safe. We need to compare each photographer's intent to the result. What percent of a photo contains passers-by, and what percent of a photo is actually what they wanted to eternalise on film. The legal world can provide a wonderful middle ground!"

or something to that effect. I haven't worded everything as well as I could have, but this could be a start (depending on what the other readers say).

I like that idea, I'll edit option 4 to sort of emphasise the legal aspect of it and make it sound less dismiss-y. Thanks!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

THE ISSUE
Recently, one of your citizens while out and about caught the eyes of passers by as she adorned a rather ostentatious costume inspired by Britney Pears, complete with leotard and tropical fruit hat. The photos circulated on various social media platforms and now the young lady seeks justice. She claims the “excessive” amount of photos taken were burdensome and posed an infringement of her portrait rights. In the absence of specific laws relating to this issue, the public is divided on how to proceed.

Good premise. A little too wordy, see if you can trim it.

1. “She chose to wear such a ridiculous outfit – so she must have wanted photos taken,” exclaims camera shop owner @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Hyper regulation and sensitivity is not the answer. People have a right to take photos of what they like, when they like. Hey, while we’re at it, @@LEADER@@, say cheese!”
Effect: embarrassing photos of @@LEADER@@ are circulated on a daily basis

Effect line seems a little mild.

I'd go with something like "the right to take photos of half-dressed young women through bedroom windows is held to be sacrosanct". Though possibly that's too wordy.

2. Concerned churchgoer @@RANDOMNAME@@ interrupts. “If people would stop dressing so aggressively flamboyant then we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place! We should introduce strict rules on what people are and are not allowed to wear out. If not in the name of God then at least for a little modesty! You could even model for us state-ordained outfits, @@LEADER@@; more people would benefit from emulating your style.”
Effect: anyone caught with a Mo-hawk mysteriously disappears
Adds policy: Prudism

We don't need policy suggestions, and Prudism is not actually coded by issue outcomes directly, but is allocated according to game stats being past a given threshold.

I'd note that the religious trappings of this option mean that it couldn't be presented in nations where religion is banned. That's fine, as long as the issue still flows without this option present.

3. Your power-hungry police chief, @@RANDOMNAME@@, enters the room. “Why don’t we just ban all photos in public places? Then people can wear what they want without the fear of being photographed. Okay, we might annoy a few bird watchers and street bloggers but at least we can all keep our privacy. Plus a few more arrests every so often always looks good on my record… oops, did I say that out loud?”
Effect: pointing a phone near someone’s face almost always results in being arrested

I'd suggest moderating this position as there's not enough reasonable positions in this issue.

Instead perhaps make it "ban taking someone's photograph without their permission, unless that activity relates to law enforcement, journalism or reasonable promotion of the public good."

4. “Banning public photos is not the answer,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “Photographing people is different from photographing a public landscape which happens to have people in it. Photos in public places are fine so long as the focus is not targeting a specific individual. In this case, the young lady is clearly a victim of unnecessary harassment. Anyone with photos and those responsible for circulating them should face punishment.”
Effect: citizens must receive written consent before taking a photo of anyone

This is a decent reasonable position, but the effect line doesn't follow. I'd suggest something more like "birdwatcher's photos often include incidental tits", but I'd likely get told off by my fellow editors.

[Jim the Baptist]

I was on hiatus for a while but this issue draft has been revived. Because of the religious implications of option 2, I made that into 2 options for nations with both religion banned/not banned.
Also I took into consideration all of Candlewhisper's other feedback and suggestions.