Yes, the breakup was hilarious. Yes, it was also a breach of privacy.
Breakups are not often funny.
This is unless they are live-tweeted. Because as we now know, anything that is live-tweeted is instantly hilarious.
This has been proven time and time again by those people who have tweeted the breakups of the people nearby and gained many laughs, retweets and new followers along the way.
However, there is a fine line between humour and humiliation, and in the latest viral story, one tweeter may have crossed it.
It started with a photo of a couple sitting on a plane and text that read:
“This guy just broke up with his girlfriend and she’s SOBBING”
And then continued:
Like every other break up that’s been tweeted before, Kelly Keegs’ musings have gone viral.
Her observations were funny. This is true. She was stranded on the tarmac on a plane and put her time to good use when she saw an opportunity to provide the rest of the world with some entertainment.
But there’s something different about this story. And it’s the photo; the fact that this couple’s private affairs have not only been broadcast but that they are now potentially identifiable.
Too much? We think maybe…
Related links:
The couple at the table were breaking up. So he live-tweeted the whole thing.
Top Comments
If you share your private conversations and issues in a public place, expect it to be public. I don't have much sympathy.
So you would be ok if I took photos and live tweeted your child's birthday party because they were outside. Or live tweeted you and your best friend talking about a private matter at the table next to me
What nonsense. What happened to basic good manners and simply minding your own business? So what if they are public.
I don't see a photo there? but I'm assuming that mamamia decided not to publish the photo out of respect for the couple? Thank you for that, but perhaps may be an idea just to mention that in your article because I was wondering if I misunderstood the article. I am hoping that the photo was not a recognisable one of the couple, as in just their backs (not that makes it ok, but it would be even worse if it was a recognisable photo), I'm sure the tweeter had no compunction though in taking a easily recognisable photo of them.
This tweeter's actions are appalling, sopciopathic even, what's next will we be live tweeting car accidents! "OMG I just saw someone flattened by a truck - Hilarious!" Photo attached!
The thing is though you can't insert a conscience into people who don't have one, but what you can do is penalise them for their actions. In this complicated world of copyright, there are all sorts of rules about violating another's copyright, I realise of course that the person taking the photo owns the copyright, but you will also find that if you want to show footage/photo of someone as part of a doco you must get their signed permission. There are some exceptions to this rule, such as people who are in the background or the newsworthiness of the event, but in general if you try and get a doco screened in the "conventional" media, e,g, TV, cinema, film festival etc, you needed to have signed permissions from the subjects. There are also some other exceptions such as if these photos are for personal/private use, e.g. holiday snaps you are showing to some friends and family. However you can hardly call sharing photos all over the web friends and family.
Therefore it is simple, people should not be able to take photos of others and put them on the web without their permission. If they do so they should be fined. We all think this is in the too hard basket, because yes it would be hard to track some perpetrator down if they are from a foreign country, and laws also vary from country to country, however it is completely possible to set this up so that you can fine anyone within your own country because they have to follow the laws here. (9 out of 10 people would be caught because it is relatively simple to track most of these people down, even anonymous people, via IP addresses etc. You would also fine the owners of the websites, e.g. Twitter/Facebook if they don't penalise/expell these people (or at the very least remove their posts). So that people can still post private images to show to friends and family on Facebook, then you simply ensure that all of these sites are by default set to private and therefore the assumption is that they are only sharing these images with friends and family, just as would have happened in the old days of photo albums, and therefore these people are exempt from having to get permissions signed. Anyone who wants to have public settings can do so, but each and every photo must have permissions signed. There is absolutely no need why anyone would need to have their private photos shared to the world anyway, and it is a affront to the rest of our privacy when a photo appears of me on someone's facebook page without me giving permission and for all the world to see.
As for overseas sites, Facebook, Twitter etc must have separate sites set up for Australia, and their overseas sites are not accessible in Australia. Fine them if they contravene this. If countries want to ensure that a website is not accessible in a particular country they can do this.
The thing is we are all just putting up with this lack of privacy because we are told that it is in the too hard basket. The reality is is that there are a number of things that can be done as I have mentioned above. If governments go after the companies who own the websites (and in most cases this is traceable too) such as the owners of Facebook/Twitter then they will soon be taken to task.
Of course there will always be people who are technically knowledgeable enough to be able to bypass all this, just as you can make your house impenetrable but a very determined thief may find a way in, but you can set up security systems to stop the majority and the amateurs.
The fact is we can easily set up all these laws and security systems in place, but it is because the public doesn't make it an issue. We need to make our privacy an issue and start lobbying government, because right now, the owners of Facebook and Twitter and similar sites are a bunch of arrogant **** who think they can just trample of our privacy and freedoms without any comeback and they are making billions! Time the public rose up and took them to task!
Why would you want to limit social media sites to being accessible in one country only? Many people rely on social media to communicate with friends and family living overseas as well as the news. It would be silly to sensor these websites.