Have you ever thought about how many pictures of you are circulating around the world, maybe even ones you don’t know have been taken?
It could be something as harmless as an accidental cameo in a family’s photo next to a tourist attraction. Or perhaps you’re sitting outside a coffee shop and an amateur photographer shoots you in an attempt to capture the ambiance of the café. Few would call this photography “non-consensual,” but, by definition, it is.
Other possibilities of non-consensual photography exist as well, and maybe a few ideas are coming to your head. Maybe someone taking pictures of you on the way to work to show their friends, or to keep for themselves. Additionally, these pictures legally do not belong to you, whether or not you are aware that they’re being taken. I’m not trying to scare anyone, but this is something that can, and does, happen.
There have been measures to prevent non-consensual photography from occurring, though. According to the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004, individuals in the US are prohibited from “[capturing] an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly [doing] so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Yet, although this piece of legislation has been passed by federal law, it is still completely legal for your photo to be taken in public settings, no consent needed.
In Hungary, a law was passed requiring photographers to ask for the consent of their subject(s), intentional or accidental, to be photographed. Although this seems like a law that would settle the privacy issues of of non-consensual photography, the policy was met with a barrage of criticism from photographers, especially photojournalists, who called it “vague and obstructive.” Especially in the United States, where First Amendment rights are valued highly, the possibility of major legislation prohibiting non-consensual photography at the standard that Hungary has set is low.
An exhibition at the MAMA Gallery in Los Angeles’s Arts District engages directly with this form of non-consensual and voyeuristic photography. The artist (though not the photographer), James Georgopoulos, created a piece called “Human Behavior,” which uses found negatives of women in the 1960’s. The women in the photos, often clad in go-go boots and miniskirts, are simply walking along Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood, California. But the magnitude and slight diversities of these photographs truly capture the eerie and voyeuristic possibilities of non-consensual photography.
With the installations included in his The Earth Is Flat series, Georgopoulos not only tries to convey the lack of privacy that “Human Behavior” so aptly captures, but also the increasing learning capacities of computing technologies, and how threateningly human-like these technologies have and continue to become. For reference, consider monumental figures like Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking, who have proposed that we exist in a “technological stone age,” meaning that whatever gains artificial intelligence has made, they are only the beginning.
Georgopoulos also suggests that computers are constantly cataloguing pictures, thoughts and information that we choose to share with others or not. With this information, artificial intelligence is being continually fostered, allowing machines to learn from their conscious, human users. “Luddite,” a piece from the exhibit, depicts an assembly-line machine equipped with a monitor of a single, human eye, blinking pensively as it observes its observer.
The idea that, in addition to humans, computers and programs are garnering a voyeuristic-type knowledge of their users is a bit frightening and reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984. Although there is only so much people and computers can learn about their subjects through observation, it’s best to be aware of not only your surroundings, but also how much information you share with your devices.
