> South Korea has a problem with unwanted, clandestine photography relating to upskirting and when mobile phones were introduced, authorities moved to stop perverts from taking photos of people without permission.
1. My mind is blown that this oddly specific behaviour was apparently so common that the government mandated all cellphone cameras must play shutter sounds that cannot be muted. What the hell?
2. Do third-party camera apps also trigger the shutter sound? What about recording a video? If not, doesn't this law just push pervs to snap video instead of still shots while unnecessarily degrading user experience across society?
>1. My mind is blown that this oddly specific behaviour was apparently so common that the government mandated all cellphone cameras must play shutter sounds that cannot be muted. What the hell?
You're missing the other possibility: incompetent politicians writing bad polices to respond to the latest moral panic. Plane hijackings are pretty rare, yet we have TSA screening and no liquids over 100ml on flights.
This is from the same country that prohibited blood in video games in the 90s. I had a copy of Duke Nukem that I picked up from some street vendor in Seoul that was identical to the American one, but all of the blood was colored white. I'm not sure that seeing a monster's head explode in a shower of what I will generously refer to as "milk" did anything positive for my moral alignment.
Reminds me of when I watched Fist of the North Star several years ago. All of the blood spurts were censored to be bright white, but there was one episode where two dead guys were drenched in blood and that wasn't censored for some reason
.
The most hilarious though is in part 3 of Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. The main character is a minor so they censor his face any time he smokes. But in one episode there's a bad guy who can imitate people's faces, and he imitates the main character and smokes (without any censorship).
I would guess one outcome of that was a significant increase in bad words used on non live TV. Since they'll be beeped out it's not really big deal anymore.
Or inventing new bad words like Farscape. Don't even need to look most of them up, you'll learn at least frell, dren, tralk, and mivonks just by context and frequency of use.
I have a couple of Nintendo Wii games where there's a setting for the blood to be red or green. Not sure if that was a requirement by Nintendo or just was something publishers at the time did but it did stick out in my mind back then as being silly.
The rarity of plane hijackings is balanced by the decades of harm they can do, even beyond the obvious death and destruction. 9-11 for example led to 20 years of ruinous war, trillions wasted, and many lives lost, not to mention geopolitical realities which led to even more death and loss of money. Taking extreme caution to prevent a recurrence of that, not to mention protecting lives and a whole industry, probably doesn't compare to upskirt shots.
> 9-11 for example led to 20 years of ruinous war, trillions wasted, and many lives lost, not to mention geopolitical realities which led to even more death and loss of money.
9-11 led to cockpits being secured. The rest was politically motivated, and does nothing to prevent a recurrence of 9-11.
The water ban came later for a different reason, namely the "Liquid bomb" plot, which involved bringing liquid bombs onto planes and detonating them mid-flight. I'm not saying the ban was an especially good reaction, but cockpit doors wouldn't have helped. You don't need to be in the cockpit to bring a plane down with a bomb.
Right but the original context was "another 9-11" that would lead to "decades of war". We have clear examples, right or wrong, where bringing down a single plane would not result in that response by a nation state.
One of the reasons we have not seen another airplane based terror event, is not because of security, but because it simply would not invoke the response the terrorist desire. They want a nation to over react, to bomb things, to over all make the lives of the people they purport to be fighting for "freedom" on behalf of worse... This keeps them in power, and aids in recruitment.
Taking down a single plane does not do that, using that plane as a missile did, which door locks prevents.
> My mind is blown that this oddly specific behaviour was apparently so common that the government mandated all cellphone cameras must play shutter sounds that cannot be muted. What the hell
It was and is extremely common. It's happened to my partner, many of her friends and has been an issue for years. And is not just contained to cell phone cameras but hidden cameras in general. Public bathrooms are such a hotspot that many women fear using them.
Not sure if it's an issue involving a lot of men or just a smaller more active group. But there is a lingering issue with how young Korean men think of women. For example in a poll, 76% of men in their 20s oppose feminism:
While South Korea is a deeply paternalist and sexist society and there are many disadvantages women face in Korean society, men in Korea do have compelling reasons to oppose Korean feminist movements. In particular, the government has instituted gender quotas in some industries:
> The flustered “angry young men” believe that government policies aimed at ensuring gender parity are in fact giving women an unfair advantage.
Enforcing gender parity when the workforce is majority male is indeed giving one gender an advantage. They don't "believe" these practices are unfair any more than they "believe" the sky is blue. If you want to eliminate discrimination, anonymize applications and take steps to eliminate the ability to determine the gender of applicants. Forcing outcomes is indeed putting your finger on the scale.
While there's definitely a lot of sexism and paternalism in South Korea, it was very unfortunate that explicit gender discrimination was path that feminist movements decided to take. It's very bad for feminism to create situations when anti-discrimination is a form of "anti-feminism". This severely curtails good will and willingness to work on issues like the one described in the linked article.
Both Korean and Japanese societies are quite paternalist, so I'm not surprised. In Korea they have all kinds of exaggerated expectations from women and the largest gender pay gap in the OECD.
Here's the Hollywood Reporter, adding context to an article about how the Barbie movie didn't do well in Korea:
'But in Korea, a country where gender disparity and anti-feminist backlash are prevalent, the film’s focus — albeit uplifting — on female empowerment may have sparked discomfort and even fatigue.
“Given how gender has been politicized and became a polarizing issue in Korea in the past few years, young people seem to be easily exhausted by discussions around gender,” says Kang Yu-jeong, a professor of Cultural Contents at Kangnam University in the city of Yongin. “It’s such a sensitive topic for the younger generation — the film’s main target — that they want to avoid it entirely.”'
I've seen a couple people who I think were vigilante in their photo taking, but either I missed something (and the person photographed clearly did too) or they were a bit off their rockers..
To me it seems like a law that attempts to handle something that is also generally discomforting.. I.e. after that kind of an experience one can wonder if the under ground man has a collection of photographs of you for some slight you don't understand.
I remember hearing in South Korea about some US Soldier being imprisoned over a dispute where he repeatedly photographed a young woman, explicitly against her consent.
Some countries give you a right to your own image. This comes up often in Germany, where privacy law is very different from the US.
I know that in the UK, you can photograph everything that you can see in the public....not sure about rest of the Europe but I suppose laws are liberal as well.
In the US, it probably differs from state to state.
A common example that I can give is when you want to take a photo of a document for future reference (or maybe even PDF submission) in a quiet office or room. I can definitely say that the mandatory shutter sounds create a lot of awkward moments.
I had a similar awkwardness when I tried to have a non-audio indicator for something when laptop screen was off.
When I was using my carrying my laptop around public places in town most of the day, before I'd close the laptop lid (which triggered an immediate suspend at some low level), I'd press a hotkey to "secure" the laptop. This locked the screen and started a process to zero various RAM caches, and scrub misc. temp/junk files. (Not that I needed that, but I was figuring out privacy&security at the time.) To indicate to me that it was OK to close the lid and leave, instead of doing a beep that might bother someone in a library or something, I flashed an LED for an instant. The LED available was the white ThinkLight at the top of the LCD, which was bright enough to illuminate the keyboard and nearby workspace.
You might guess how this could appear in a library. Sudden flash, as if from a cameraphone, in someone's peripheral vision, coming from the direction of a guy who is suddenly leaving.
So I disabled that indicator, because it seemed infinitely more risky and harmful than the threat of a spy neutralizing me and using advanced computer forensics on my laptop to recover a fragment of a high-value spam email.
> That moment shouldn't be awkward if you have a legitimate reason for taking that photo.
Think of for example quiet libraries with a bunch of students quietly studying. They do not like other people making noise, however legitimate the reason is.
> you can record a video...
Video recording also has a mandated start/stop sound, FWIW.
I wonder if it's less a single action of taking one photo, but the collective noise of lots of people taking lots of photos.
With film photography people were be restrained with the cost of film and photo development, whereas now there's no restraint and lots of people take lots of photos of the most mundane things. I can imagine the noise and distractions of 'click, click, click' in public spaces, events, gatherings etc. An always on chorus of 'click, click, click,click, click, click,click, click, click'.
The noise is annoying per se, but also: stealthy != illegitimate. For example think of trying to document something abusive going on around you, and being betrayed by "your" tool.
More fundamentally, it's just not a tool's proper place to second-guess if its wielder is doing something illegitimate. You should be technically able to use your general computing device to launch a doomsday weapon if you so desire, even though that's ethically and legally frowned upon.
Ah, I suppose you could also just use the accessibility switch to turn the white point all the way down, and lower your screen brightness all the way. At that point, the screen basically appears black.
Isn't public photography legal? It can be creepy but it is legal, at least in the "democratic" west. And btw all modern cities have cameras all around it so you can easily catch creeps if they cross the line of legality.
1. My mind is blown that this oddly specific behaviour was apparently so common that the government mandated all cellphone cameras must play shutter sounds that cannot be muted. What the hell?
2. Do third-party camera apps also trigger the shutter sound? What about recording a video? If not, doesn't this law just push pervs to snap video instead of still shots while unnecessarily degrading user experience across society?