Feet and shoes on Bulkhead?

[JohnK]

Oh great! Now let's start another 100 posts debate whether bare feet on the bulkhead is ok or not...

It is not a good look in public and people should not have to look away to avoid it. Much easier if people stopped doing it.

P.S. If you were in the BNE business lounge with me 2 weeks ago you would have agreed the guy with his 2 bare feet up on the chair/seat was a creep.

 

[mannej]

Off course the person assaulting. You keep talking about the legality of the situation. What about some common sense? If I'm doing something that really bothers you, kindly ask me to stop. If it doesn't bother you that much, let it go. Don't take photos and later mock me on social media. It's not nice.

I keep bringing up the legality issue as you used an example that was not legal and tried to use it as your comparison case. The photo by the OP in no way identifies to person, so I don't see the morality issues and lack of common sense you refer to.

 

[boomy]

yawn, could this get more boring?

goodnight boomy

It's daytime here, sorry to make you bored.
Goodnight Aussie_flyer

 

[legroom]

Off course the person assaulting. You keep talking about the legality of the situation. What about some common sense? If I'm doing something that really bothers you, kindly ask me to stop. If it doesn't bother you that much, let it go. Don't take photos and later mock me on social media. It's not nice.

The photos were all de-identified.

You are taking it personally - I am not sure why.

It is a legitimate subject for discussion / debate.

Photos are used as prop here IMO.

It would be different if the pax is identifiable, then and only then it is an invasion of his / her privacy.

The cabin is a public space despite your own "suite". I could walk up & down to the loo and have a side scan of what's going on - and that is just purely normal.

I take my seat as a private passenger, not as a social policeman. However, that does not stop me from having an opinion.

While I have no right to impose that opinion onto anyone, I do have the right of revulsion etc... should I find that is the case. Whether I keep that feeling to myself or share / discuss that in a public forum is another choice - without ID the flight / pax.

 

[boomy]

The photos were all de-identified.

You are taking it personally - I am not sure why.

It is a legitimate subject for discussion / debate.

Nothing personal, we are debating, it's all good.
Just to be clear, I also think putting bare feet is gross (socks are ok) but taking photos of those people is worse. Today it's just feet, tomorrow who knows... Soon Google glasses will be out on the market, then things will get very interesting, legally and morally.

 

[amexmerchantsettlement]

Are foot rests the answer?

 

[boomy]

Are foot rests the answer?

Good point. QF B747 F had it. Photo was taken on A380, no foot rest there?

 

[artemis]

My point was that everyone has differing standards as to what is acceptable.

I am not at all fond of feet, but have no issue with what the lady did in the OP.

What I do find abhorrent is the surreptitious photo-taking (and I would argue that it is not deidentified - they are quite unique looking socks) without the person's permission. When I take photos of patients, it is always with their consent and if those images are promulgated somewhere (for teaching or clinical purposes) all identifiers are removed (tattoos, jewellery).

Others don't agree that the photo is the worse 'crime'. And that's ok. I accept that. But that's my point - just leave people alone. They may think you're completely abhorrent for something you've just done. I imagine the lady in that photo would suggest the photo taking and subsequent ridicule on here is discourteous, just as you think her feet on a bulkhead offends your sensibilities...

 

[Moody]

A picture is worth a thousands words as they say, and this one certainly fits that description. Defending this sort of disgusting behaviour becomes that little bit harder when you see it in practice, and so we get the laughable argument that the perpetrator is the victim because an anonymous image of their bare feet on a bulkhead wall has been posted on the internet. What a joke!

 

[artemis]

A picture is worth a thousands words as they say, and this one certainly fits that description. Defending this sort of disgusting behaviour becomes that little bit harder when you see it in practice, and so we get the laughable argument that the perpetrator is the victim because an anonymous image of their bare feet on a bulkhead wall has been posted on the internet. What a joke!

You seem so vehement in your castigation of this woman.

What if it was a child? Would that change things?

It'd certainly make the taking of surreptitious photos a WHOLE lot more dodgy!

It's all a matter of perspective. She's really not hurting anyone. Let it go! *hums that annoying song*

 

[mannej]

Can someone versed in the privacy act tell me if the photo being referred to is criminal or not (I.e illegal in the eyes of the law)?

There are some interesting comparisons being used to prop up arguments (I.e the peeping tom pics and the patient photos - they seem to be totally different to the OP).

 

[Buzzard]

Nooooooooooo

 

[wingspan]

Can someone versed in the privacy act tell me if the photo being referred to is criminal or not (I.e illegal in the eyes of the law)?

There are some interesting comparisons being used to prop up arguments (I.e the peeping tom pics and the patient photos - they seem to be totally different to the OP).

It's absolutely legal. That's not really the argument though. You can take photos of stranger's children in public too if you like. It's legal. It's just weird.

 

[mannej]

It's absolutely legal. That's not really the argument though. You can take photos of stranger's children in public too if you like. It's legal. It's just weird.

I agree the issue in regards to children is different, however to suggest that the OP is in the wrong for that picture is a bit of a long bow.

 

[legroom]

You seem so vehement in your castigation of this woman.

What if it was a child? Would that change things?

It'd certainly make the taking of surreptitious photos a WHOLE lot more dodgy!

It's all a matter of perspective. She's really not hurting anyone. Let it go! *hums that annoying song*

I do not even know if that was a woman or a man - up to this post.

I did not care. Nor should anyone else.

The subject matter was about 'feet on bulkhead'.

Analogy with taking pictures of patients for clinical purposes is misleading and wrong.

One is about de-identified etiquette / behavioral issue while the other requires exposed body parts with more risks of ID the patients who clearly need to give informed consent.

I'm sure Kmart had sold millions of these socks.

 

[artemis]

I do not even know if that was a woman or a man - up to this post.

I did not care. Nor should anyone else.

The subject matter was about 'feet on bulkhead'.

Analogy with taking pictures of patients for clinical purposes is misleading and wrong.

One is about de-identified etiquette / behavioral issue while the other requires exposed body parts with more risks of ID the patients who clearly need to give informed consent.

I'm sure Kmart had sold millions of these socks.

Actually I think you'll find naked bodies a whole lot harder to identify than the clothed bodies...

I think taking photos of people without them being aware of it is highly unacceptable. I think you'll also find that if photos are taken in public places for the intent of promulgating to the wider population, consent must be sought for that. If you attend conferences where photos are taken, consent must be sought for those images to be taken (even if they're aren't used).

I think that one should reasonably be able to enjoy a flight (especially a long haul flight) without fear that another passenger is going to take photos of them... I'd be very unhappy if someone took a photo of me during a flight, even if I am committing some horrendous crime like putting my feet up on the seats/bulkhead.

I'll also wager that the OP would be more than happy to lie across multiple seats if available, with his feet touching the seat, if that meant he could sleep. Is that a travesty?

The point I'm trying to make is that sure, the OP was offended, but there's a continuum of offenses and I don't think this rates very highly in terms of serious harm to others.

Stop invading others privacy with photos and ask them nicely to desist from whatever it is that's bothering you.

 

[mannej]

I think taking photos of people without them being aware of it is highly unacceptable. I think you'll also find that if photos are taken in public places for the intent of promulgating to the wider population, consent must be sought for that. If you attend conferences where photos are taken, consent must be sought for those images to be taken (even if they're aren't used).

Snip.

I think that one should reasonably be able to enjoy a flight (especially a long haul flight) without fear that another passenger is going to take photos of them... I'd be very unhappy if someone took a photo of me during a flight, even if I am committing some horrendous crime like putting my feet up on the seats/bulkhead.

Snip.

Stop invading others privacy with photos and ask them nicely to desist from whatever it is that's bothering you.

Are these comments your belief or consistent with the law?
I am interested, as I am not so sure that your beliefs regarding right to privacy stack up with the law. Does Today Tonight or ACA obtain consent when they are filming in public for use in their next "Australia's obesity epidemic" expose or not? Do they obtain consent when they are going after a con man?

I'd be interested to know what as individuals our right to privacy is in the OP above and beyond personal opinions.

 

[Virgin Bart]

Actually I think you'll find naked bodies a whole lot harder to identify than the clothed bodies...

I think taking photos of people without them being aware of it is highly unacceptable. I think you'll also find that if photos are taken in public places for the intent of promulgating to the wider population, consent must be sought for that. If you attend conferences where photos are taken, consent must be sought for those images to be taken (even if they're aren't used).

I think that one should reasonably be able to enjoy a flight (especially a long haul flight) without fear that another passenger is going to take photos of them... I'd be very unhappy if someone took a photo of me during a flight, even if I am committing some horrendous crime like putting my feet up on the seats/bulkhead.

I'll also wager that the OP would be more than happy to lie across multiple seats if available, with his feet touching the seat, if that meant he could sleep. Is that a travesty?

The point I'm trying to make is that sure, the OP was offended, but there's a continuum of offenses and I don't think this rates very highly in terms of serious harm to others.

Stop invading others privacy with photos and ask them nicely to desist from whatever it is that's bothering you.

Lighten. Up.

Posting a photo of someone on a plane is not an invasion of privacy.

 

[Pushka]

If you are in a public space there's no requirement for consent.

 

[legroom]

Lighten. Up.

Posting a photo of someone on a plane is not an invasion of privacy.

Esp when that someone is de-identified which shows the OP's respect for privacy.