Do you want a camera to be poking into your face every time your sneeze?

I was talking to the taxi-driver last Friday morn on the ECP, it seems that some people are taking taxis as motels or something. There was a lesbian couple who were doing it recently, and he had a few other couples who can't wait as well. Why can't these people can't keep their urges in check? Anyway, I've become a bit cautious about inspecting the cleanliness of where I seat after that conversation.

I've seen that some people engage in kissing and groping or other bad behaviour on the SBS buses and the MRT trains, but the videotaping of a sex act on the buses still comes as a surprise to me on two counts. One, that the couple actually did it on the bus. Two, someone actually captured it on video and posted it online. I'm not sure which is worse, but I'll take it that the former is unequivocally bad. Now, what about the latter?

Kway Teow Man's refutations of Andy Ho's reasoning
The Kway Teow Man has put up a piece on public shaming and citizen journalism. In it, he disputes certain points in Andy Ho's article on the same subject. His arguments are

1. In cyber-shaming, the person doesn't carry the picture or movie on his/her forehead and there is some sort of forgiveness over time and it's not permanent.


2. Gossip is unfounded and often cannot be verified. Here, we are talking about EVIDENCE of wrong-doing

I think these 2 points do not stand up to scrutiny.

The Web does not forget
First, when an incident first erupts in cyberspace, it creates a massive wave which eventually dies down. But does the matter end there, do people forget? No, because of two things. People who record the event and put it on their websites or blogs, and search engines and aggregators. As an example, why is Tammy NYP back in the Technorati Top Searches? Because of hyperlinks, blog aggregators, etc. Because people remember. You can be sure if some issue about racist scholars crops up or musicians defaulting NS reemerges, a certain Chua CZ and Melvin Tan will be mentioned in blogs again and will eventually be picked up by aggregators . Anyway, I'm still getting some searches on Wee Shu Min....lol. In this sense, the area effect is large.

And the thing with search engines is that the longer your content lives, the more likely someone will link to you, and the more likely your content will withstand the test of time. Meaning, old content is given more priority by search engines, and it is harder for an issue to be completely forgotten. I can google someone up and see, OK, this guy said some pretty embarrassing, stupid, etc thing some years back. And it's difficult to ignore such a fact when we know about it. In this sense, the area effect is small, but it is likely to be felt more as the person searching you should be someone who knows you or needs to interact with you.

Now that it is harder to forget something, people have to make an effort to forgive whereas there need not be such an issue in the first place when they don't have the knowledge in their minds.

Don't believe everything you see
Secondly, a picture is worth a thousand words but it may not be enough for the full story. There was a ST article recently this year about citizenship journalism, something related to taking pictures of people pretending to be asleep so they don't have to give up seats to people who need it more. Or people who park their bikes in places parking spaces meant for cars. How do you know that the person who took the photo or video captured the context? Maybe the guy sleeping was ill. Or he did give up his seat when he realized there was pregnant woman, but the person taking the photo had gotten off the train. The truth is, you don't know. Are pictures and videos really hard evidence then?

What are the limits to citizen journalism?
I think that there ought to be limits to citizen journalism. For example, in the case of the man sleeping on the train, does one need to publish his face to the whole Internet to make a point on people not giving seats to people who need it? How does capturing the image of his face in 5 mega-pixel clarity and publishing on your blog solve the problem of Singaporeans lacking in social graces (if such is the case)? Besides shaming the person and making others fear suffering the same fate, it doesn't do anything much, does it? Why can't you just blur out his face? It's almost like the case of the MRT suicides, where full disclosure need not always be a good thing. Do we want to be constantly alert and worry about how we appear in public? Do you want a camera to be poking into your face every time your sneeze or cough on the bus? Do you want to be snapped when you slip and fall on a wet pavement?

Where to draw the line
Does anyone remember the case of the students hugging on the MRT train? How far does one’s private sphere extend into the public sphere? Do you have any legal rights against people who take photos or videos of you in public without your permission?

KTM says,

At the end of the day, a public place is a public place. Anything that is done in a public place, except for (indecent) acts forbidden by the law, is for public consumption.

If people want to post stuff they capture on camera or video online, they should be free to do so. That is called the freedom of expression. :-)

Well that is true, but I'm guessing people will not be happy if they are captured on pictures or videos without their permission. I don't think we are ready to say that it is ok for anyone to do anything with our images that are captured in public.