News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, good point. An exception here would be good, also not requiring consent to film police (and other actors for state violence) should be baked in.
This gets complicated because you also need to build in an exception for anyone interacting with the police or in the background of the shot.
Seems pretty reasonable, with extraordinary powers comes extraordinary oversight. Everything gets destroyed as a matter of course unless legal proceedings ensue within a proscribed time frame, unless third party approval is given. Do you disagree? Do you have a better option? I'm just scratching around, appreciate the input.
I don't know that I really have a better option, but I do have some parameters that I would really like to see.
My position is that there should be no expectation of privacy when you're in public but there are obviously issues with that. I think there should be a distinction between private photography and recordings and official ones though. Someone taking a video of their kids playing in the park shouldn't need to get consent from every person in the park who may end up getting recorded. Even private security cameras such as doorbell cameras should be okay even if the recording includes public areas near the home like the street or sidewalk.
Posting said recordings online is another matter. Say I take a video of my dog playing in the park and post it on youtube because I think it's cute. Now let's say that the video includes other people in the background. I think that should be fine if the people just happen to be there in the background. On the other hand, if I post the video with the intent of pointing out the people in the background and mocking them, that is a whole other issue. I think that should fall afoul of some sort of revenge-porn like law. People should have a right to the direct use of their image in a public venue but not an absolute right that would make it illegal to post their image or even their voice as an incidental background feature.
Having said all that, I do not approve of the use of cameras by government or law enforcement unless it is part of an existing investigation and a warrant has been obtained or as part of standard (and universal) use of body-cams. Police, and the government in general, should not have networks of surveillance cameras monitoring everyone all the time. Neither should police be able to access private or business security cameras without valid probable cause or a warrant. Recordings made by members of the public for their own entertainment, news reporting (whether they are a paid reporter or not), or security purposes should be considered completely separately from government or police recordings.
I have no idea if this idea could be effectively legislated, but in my perfect world, this is how it would be.
I get it, and I'm a bit cavalier myself about just taking a photo, and that's historically been fine for personal use. The problem comes when companies aggregate that privilege. One of the interesting possibilities now available is simply removing all (non focused / designated) background humans from a photo, and it can be done on device these days. The tech could actually be used to preserve privacy, but where's the profit?
The mechanisms to stop mass surveillance by governments are in place, warrants and so forth, but they are now able to simply buy it from private concerns which makes it OK legally apparently (until challenged). Perhaps there needs to be an expectation of significant consequences for flaunting ethics before legal precedents have been set, things change fast, but decency is still recognizable.
Journalists should also have a pass, poor bastards have been used hard in the last few decades. I'd suggest making it a formal, protected profession like doctors or psychologists, with strict ethical guidelines, like it almost was once. Allow whistleblowers and others with information for the public good temporary protection under the same guidelines.
All in all, it makes little difference to simply post online, but I do appreciate the chance to test my ideas and formulate something coherent from the inchoate rage I feel at the unchecked abuses I see daily. Thanks for your input, here's hoping you, I, and others get the chance to put these ideas to use.