Note: Since some of y’all objected, I went ahead and pixilated the whole image beyond recognition…
As I mentioned, I rather often shoot pictures of things I don’t ever post on the blog, just in the course of a day.
I always have the Blackberry with me, which means I always have the equivalent of a double-naught spy camera with me, since you can take pictures without seeming to, if you’re sly enough.
For instance… last week, I complained on Twitter about the woman next to me in a restaurant talking loudly, to a friend who had stopped by her table, about her colonoscopies. Plural. After she had shared the saga of one colonoscopy, and told us all about the polyps they found, doing everything but give them names, she then told us about a subsequent colonoscopy, and what do you know but they found more polyps that they had missed the first time…
I kept count. She said “colonoscopy” six times. Very publicly.
About halfway through this soliloquoy, I held my Blackberry out well ahead of me, to get around the friend who was standing between us, and shot the above exposure. You can see the friend’s purse at the left of the frame. Very sneaky photo.
I went back and forth about whether to post the photo, as a cautionary tale. In the end, you see, I have compromised. I pixilated the lady’s face, and the menu naming the restaurant.
What do you think? Should I even do this much, or should I have run it undistorted, as just desserts for having told this tale while I and a restaurant full of others were trying to eat? I’ll be interested to see what y’all think…
By the way, this happened the morning after that crazy day I wrote about. I had spent the night on the twins’ couch while my wife and son-in-law were with my daughter at the hospital, and was having a late breakfast before heading to the hospital myself, so the last thing I wanted was to listen to this woman’s tale with my meal.
You are right to blank out identities taken within an establishment without permission. Stuff taken outside is OK.
You need to blank it out. Maybe just tell it without the picture because people who know this lady will recognize her. Even this distorted picture seems a little vengeful to me.
You should have asked the waitress to move you because you certainly deserved a peaceful breakfast.
What is the purpose of showing that picture? What information does it impart to the viewer?
Ron Galella, public place–no expectation of privacy (in both directions)…in other words, I ought to expect that my photo might be snapped at any time from any place some one can lawfully be (such a problem for me, you know). At the same time, if I am eating out, I run the risk that the person also eating out with me will not have the same standards of delicacy that I do, and may use terms for medical procedures, or names of former Alaskan governors that may ruin my meal. People with noisy children, cell phones, just plain annoying voices….
Greg—I figured it was a guy thing, but since you don’t get it….
No, I agree about the annoyance, partiularly crying babies, I just don’t see what is communicated by the picture. A faceless woman in a nameless restaurant.
Brad, you are a good guy.
The restaurant was previously named, or so heavily hinted at that I figured it out. We’re talking a certain “country-cooking,” locally-owned chain with a reptile as its first name, if I’m not mistaken. Cornbread, rolls or mix?
—and yes, you are a good guy, Brad, for all the grief I give you. I’m thankful you do the blog, too.
Do you guys remember the footage David Letterman used of the fat woman eating a pear? It was filmed in a very public place so she had no expectation of privacy. But he ran it constantly, night after night — essentially, he was profiting from her image, not reporting. She sued. Interesting case.
Not familiar with it. Did she win?