
Something Disintegrates at a Burger King - davepell
http://tweetagewasteland.com/2011/11/something-disintegrates-at-a-burger-king/
======
reduxredacted
The discussions on this post are awesome. _So many_ are judging this is moral
terms and from every perspective imaginable.

The two most prevalent are:

    
    
         "The fight was in public, the world has changed, I have no sympathy"
         "I would never live-tweet such a subject, that's an evil invasion of privacy"
    

We're given amazing tools to interact with others and culture has not advanced
as quickly as technology has. Our interactions with other human beings are
(and I apologise for the metaphor in advance), like services interacting with
other services on a network. Sometimes one service breaks another by accident.

We're connected to everyone else in a different way today than we were 5 years
ago (and 5 years ago I would have said 10 years ago). I could see myself over-
sharing this sort of thing because it's unusual and because I have a twitter
account and a device that sits in my hand and I don't know that my brain would
have thought of much more than "this is unusual" (it helps that I have no
twitter followers). I've also been in relationships where something like this
could happen and wouldn't want someone to broadcast it.

I think the future is going to be a hard lesson in "give everyone the benefit
of the doubt".

~~~
Confusion
Heidegger (and fellow philosophers) predicted this decades ago (and it has
been taking place for decades). His "The Question Concerning Technology" (Die
Frage nach der Technik) foresees how technology increasingly demands our
attention and changes us through what it enables, when even mass television
did not yet exist.

------
danso
I think the saddest thing is how this was on the ABCNews homepage. This was an
amusing tweet-stream, but above-the-fold homepage material? It seems
traditional media will jump on anything that involves traditional everyday
activity (breaking up) combined with what they think is whizbang technology
(Twitter, or, basically anything that is on the Internet)

~~~
wmf
Fortunately, gimmicks tend to only be news once. No one will care about the
_second_ live-tweeted (ugh) marital fight.

~~~
tripzilch
What if I'd build tweepfights.com, a social/AI/mashup that keyword-scans
Twitter for the most heated relationship arguments, automatically queries a
couple of social networks to gather background information collected into a
concise glossy report that people can of course retweet, Like, +1 and not to
forget give their completely biased unwarranted opinion on.

It'd be like a crowd-sourced Jerry Springer show!

------
njharman
> But usually those experiences are shared voluntarily

Arguing in public __is voluntary sharing __.

> with a decreasing respect for boundaries, has changed the equation. You no
> longer get to decide when to share.

The couple decided to share, in fact the people they subjected to their
"sharing" are the ones who lost ability to decide. The public arguing couple
was the one without respect for boundaries. Don't project your personal life
onto others in a restaurant. It's fucking rude and selfish.

> a nude picture was stolen

Not even semi-related. Author's dishonest attempt at trying to compare/equate
a violation of privacy with couples public outbursts is highly disingenuous.
It is clearly not worth my time to read any more of author's spurious drivel.

------
mikeash
50 or 100 years ago, the eavesdropper would have known the couple and would
have told everybody in town about what happened. I don't really see any
significant difference here. This looks like another example of people
inadvertently pining for an imaginary past.

~~~
pyre
You're missing:

1\. You can move away from a small town to escape the embarrassment.

2\. The people of the town know you, and therefore have some sort of prior
connection with you. Here we are getting the raw details of people who we've
never met, thereby forming first opinions of these people before we ever meet
them (should that ever happen).

~~~
mikeash
Just wait a bit, and the internet will find its new flavor of the week. Nobody
who saw the tweets will recognize you three days later, or remember those
first opinions.

You're right that it's not exactly the same scenario, but I'd argue that this
new thing is still not as bad as before. Being embarrassed to people who know
you is much worse than being embarrassed to people who don't.

------
watty
I'm sorry but what does twittering about a public argument and stealing nude
pictures from Bourdain have in common? The whole thing is sensational - don't
do stupid things in public.

"He was really hearing the crumbling of his own ethics and self-restraint." -
Really?

~~~
zecho
There's a thing in the Midwest known as minding your own business. There's
also a whole cultural phenomena in large cities where people crammed together
respect space by avoiding eye contact with one another. (Which, oddly, many
Midwesterners tend to see as cold and aloof, but it's a built-in mechanism of
cities).

Boyle traversed to needless gossip when he probably would have been better
served to mind his own business, which is particularly annoying from him
because he works with journalists as a "newsroom web developer" and presumably
could be considered a journalist himself. He works at the Globe, and removed
this fact from his twitter profile as people started questioning the ethics of
the ordeal. I assume he was distancing his personal twitter from his
professional life, but journalists don't normally get that kind of work/life
balance from their employers.

I think the point of the Bourdain reference is that Bourdain's in the public
eye as a celebrity, while this couple was not. One type of gossip is almost
acceptable while the other type is decidedly not acceptable.

~~~
philwelch
So what happens in Midwestern cities?

~~~
zecho
Speaking only from experience in cities like Minneapolis, Milwaukee, St.
Louis, etc., people are likely to "ignore" their surroundings but will wake
from that state when, say, I look them in the eye. I might get a smile, I may
only get acknowledgement, but I'll likely get some reaction.

In Boston or New York or D.C., where the density is so much greater, to the
point where you're literally touching several strangers on the subway, it
takes much more to illicit a response. I'm not arguing for one of the other.
It's just what I've observed.

I think it comes down to density. Imagine riding an elevator with 2 or 3
strangers. Sometimes they'll chat. Imagine riding an elevator with 15
strangers. Most likely it'll be a quiet ride. Now imagine riding those
elevators every day for years, almost always with strangers. You get
desensitized to strangers in the latter more than the former.

The other point with the Midwest is that gossip is actively frowned upon in
many subcultures there. It's something you may do with your friends at your
house while playing cards, but you'd never, ever, gossip with them in public.
The lines are more clearly drawn. It's funny. I've family members who will
gossip about their colleagues, miles away in their own homes, but will do so
in hushed tones. It's all very Lake Wobegon.

------
TorKlingberg
It seems like this is where the world is going. As soon as you leave your home
you will be recorded, eventually by automatic cameras and microphones. Every
place you go and everything you say or do will be recorded and spread to the
world. Other services will analyze all the data and inform your family,
friends, boss and business contacts when you do something of interest to them.

~~~
extension
And it's really a boon for privacy, because we will finally be forced to a)
actively care about it and b) define exactly what, where, and when it is.

It's not privacy that we are ultimately losing, it's _obscurity_.

~~~
julian37
That sounds quite optimistic. How do you "define exactly [...] where, and
when" you can have privacy when you don't know where and when a camera or
microphone might be aimed at you?

Anthony Bourdain's photo, referenced in the article, was presumably taken by a
friend or family member only to be leaked a decade later.

And these days, using readily available tools such as telephoto lenses or
unidirectional microphones, strangers can take part in your life from a
distance of hundreds of feet. So, do you "define" privacy by making sure there
never is a hill in line of sight?

When people start live-tweeting events recorded by their private satellite at
some point in the future, do you make sure you can't see the sky so that the
sky can't see you?

That's not the kind of privacy I'm looking forward to, and it's certainly not
a boon.

EDIT: You are certainly correct that this will force us to define _what_
privacy is -- or, more likely, to dismiss the concept altogether. Either way,
it looks like we'll have to embrace this fundamental change, I can see little
point in trying to fight against it.

~~~
extension
We can define private spaces that are vulnerable to eavesdropping and define
such eavesdropping as a crime.

------
steve8918
We really have are turned into the world that George Orwell wrote about in
1984. If it's not the government recording us, it's our own fellow humans.
It's kind of incredible and scary.

The part I remember most vividly about 1984 was the one scene where the main
character had this one, tiny area in his apartment where he could stand where
the cameras couldn't see him, and he treasured it.

To think that we're living in such a world now where our own privacy is
exactly like this, something that is fleeting and to be treasured, is
frightening.

~~~
njharman
Except there is a huge legally and socially understood difference between
"your apartment" and "Burger King".

It would be totally different if dude had overheard this coming from open
window of home and taken pictures through window. I would expect (no idea if
so) that to be a criminal and/or civil invasion of privacy.

Privacy is not inherent/automatic. You have to take steps to establish privacy
(move to private space being most common) before your privacy can be violated.

------
analyst74
I actually think this is a good trend. First, I have always had this
minority/strange belief that the amount of privacy you enjoy is less relevant
than how _equal_ is the privacy you have compared to everyone else.

So if all your actions are recorded as soon as you go out of the house, it's
annoying and invasive; but if everyone gets the same treatment, it suddenly is
not a problem any more, because people will not be interested in you being
mean to someone, or is looking sad, or whatever that it is you don't feel like
sharing, because it's too common.

Heck, maybe even a lot of illegal things will become legalized or de-facto
legalized, like light drugs, prostitution and the like. Systematic
generalization like racism, ageism, sexism will be reduced, as people can know
you personally quite quickly, instead of relying on our instinctive judgement.
Basically, we will have a new understanding on things we previously consider
bad/immoral, but somehow a lot of people do it. We as a society will either
change our moral judgement, or catch and crucify those we still consider bad
(like corruption).

Now, the tricky thing is, it's a slow process like any culture shift. We are
all marching toward less privacy, but if you march too fast and got unlucky,
you could end up on the news like that couple.

------
FuzzyDunlop
Even in the most filthiest rag of a tabloid a story like this would get no
more than a sentence long aside buried in the middle pages: "Man and wife
argue fiercely in Burger King."

That this fella thought it a good idea to give a blow by blow account merely
suggests he is too unscrupulous even for a red top. I don't find it offensive,
just immensely disrespectful.

Either that or incredibly sheltered if the witnessing of a relationship on the
rocks was so exciting to him.

------
estenh
I watched this happen on Twitter. Hilarious distraction while I was doing some
tedious work for class. Definitely didn't expect to see it on Gawker and ABC.
Don't think the writer did either.

Now I'm just wondering when people will stop looking at this as some sort of
societal commentary and realize it was just one guy having fun on Twitter
while bored in a Burger King.

------
Peaker
Why does this web site prevent my browser from zooming in the text?

~~~
Stratoscope
I didn't check the site, but if it's the same problem that usually causes
this, you can fix it with this userstyle:

<http://userstyles.org/styles/54719/ctrl-plus-text-zoom-fix>

~~~
Peaker
Thanks!

------
v21
"In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 people."

~~~
zecho
I don't think this is what was meant by the phrase. Fame and infamy are two
very different things.

------
plink
Lummoxine plunging headlong into their troughs and wrassling is of interest to
whom exactly, and tarnishes whom?

------
strathmeyer
What kind of morals is it if you think people shouldn't be talking about
things? This isn't religion. You don't get to tell people what to think and
do. Just because you're doing something bad doesn't make it wrong for others
to think about it.

~~~
icebraining
_You don't get to tell people what to think and do._

Of course you do. In fact, you're doing it in that very sentence. It's called
free speech.

You don't get to _force them_ to actually abide by it, though.

------
funkah
The live-tweeting thing was strange. It's funny that two fairly naive young
people in a Burger King are deciding the fate of their marriage, in that it's
so absurd. I do think there is humor there.

But something was off-putting about how faithfully the guy was trying to
document this event. It seemed like he was really trying to put these two
people's identity on blast, and foiled only by the circumstances (the quality
of his phone's camera, the distance between himself and the couple) rather
than, you know, any sense of propriety or mercy.

I guess what I'm saying is, the element of identity changes the stakes. Like I
said, the notion of two people ending their marriage in a Burger King is so
ridiculous that it's funny. But when it becomes John Smith of 123 Main Street,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, having a fight with his wife Jane, it starts to feel
weirdly mercenary. Like it's not being done for a laugh anymore, but expressly
to humiliate two people.

But, I agree that this is the way things are going whether we all like it or
not. Whatever is in public is fair game for social media. But Mr. Boyle should
consider exercising his powers of restraint a little better.

~~~
paganel
There's nothing funny about deciding to end your marriage in a Burger King, in
fact, I cannot think of any place where it would be "funny" to do that. This
Tweeter-guy or whoever he is should have sticked to minding his own business,
or maybe his life is so empty and lacking real-life relationships that he
needs to live through other people's eyes and feelings. Now, that is funny.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_should have sticked to minding his own business_

My guess is that the tweeting guy, and the rest of the patrons, would have
preferred if none of this had happened. They didn't choose to be witness to
the conflict. It was the choice of that couple to thrust the situation on the
rest of the diners. In that context, I can't see that the twitter guy is
guilty of anything other than, maybe, poor taste.

~~~
vecter
If by poor taste you mean incredibly insensitive, mean, and asinine, then
yeah.

------
nknight
If you're having a loud fight in public that's disturbing other people, I have
no sympathy for you whatsoever. This is as bad if not worse than parents that
won't take their screaming kid outside. These two idiots at least could have
prevented themselves from screaming in the first place, but chose not to.

They have no expectation of privacy. They _should_ have an expectation of
global shaming, it's all they deserve.

~~~
pyre
You're constructing an artificial dichotomy of blame here. You're attempting
to say that we can _only_ blame the couple or _only_ blame the broadcaster.

Does the general sentiment that 'no one likes a gossiper' only apply to
private information?

Example:

    
    
       1. I'm with a friend in public
       2. I pick my nose
       3. No one notices but my friend
       4. My friend then shouts at the top of his
          lungs, "Hey everybody! This guy just picked
          his nose."
    

Are you going to pin a medal on my friend because you dislike people that pick
their nose in public?

~~~
nknight
You're constructing a strawman. No one is trying to pin a medal on anybody
here.

Some people are trying to publicly crucify Boyle (the irony is delicious, by
the way) for exposing to ridicule those who deserve nothing else.

You don't need to construe his actions as particularly meritorious in order to
not find him ethically deficient.

Ethics, by the way, are what the blog post linked to brought up. Ethics are
also not the determinate factor in the conduct of a friendship, so you're
doubly off in the woods.

~~~
rblackwater
I think he should be publicly crucified _because_ the irony is delicious.

------
vasco
TL;DR People don't have common sense and make fools of themselves, then try to
blame others.

~~~
maaku
Don't inject your own visceral response into an TL;DR.

------
vannevar
_In that Burger King, Andy Boyle thought he was listening to the
disintegration of a couple’s marriage. He was really hearing the crumbling of
his own ethics and self-restraint._

He might also have been hearing the crumbling of his own finances. His
surveillance and subsequent reporting may be legally actionable and if I were
that couple, I'd be lawyering up about now.

~~~
potatolicious
How in the world?

There are _very_ clear laws and precedents that have hit the court room _many_
times that make this situation very clearcut.

Boyle has done nothing illegal - recording anyone in a location where there is
no reasonable expectation of privacy (a dining room at a Burger King
definitely qualifies) is perfectly legal.

The _use_ of this imagery is slightly more complex, but in this case there
isn't really a case to be made. Non-commercial usage of someone's likeness in
a broadcast is very well protected - and it can't be said that Boyle was using
this couple's argument for commercial profit.

The only place where Boyle could run into trouble is recording on private (aka
Burger King's) property. But even then, the laws around that are clear -
unless there was clear signage prohibiting recording, or an employee of Burger
King instructed him not to record, he's in the clear.

Morally? That's a minefield. But legally speaking I just don't see any case.

~~~
vannevar
_Boyle has done nothing illegal - recording anyone in a location where there
is no reasonable expectation of privacy (a dining room at a Burger King
definitely qualifies) is perfectly legal._

I see a world of difference between a fight in a Burger King and a fight
broadcast live over the Internet to thousands of people. The 'expectation of
privacy' here doesn't seem as clear-cut as you make it out to be. I don't
think you have to be in your own living room to have an expectation of
privacy.

~~~
potatolicious
The "expectation of privacy" is a legal concept, not a lay concept.

We could argue about whether or not the couple _should_ have had an
expectation to privacy till the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact
that Boyle is still, legally, in the clear. So "lawyer up" indeed.

~~~
vannevar
_It doesn't change the fact that Boyle is still, legally, in the clear._

Just to clarify, is that a legal opinion? I fully understand it's a legal
question. But a civil suit for intentionally disseminating embarrassing
information is very different from a Fourth Amendment case. This is a case
where someone intentionally broadcast to the Internet a couple's marital
issues (otherwise known only to a handful of people in a restaurant) with the
apparent intent to ridicule them. You still haven't convinced me Boyle is 'in
the clear'.

~~~
potatolicious
I am not a lawyer, but I am a photographer who has deeply studied this issue
for my own protection. This is, and continues, to be a hot-button topic
amongst photographers, so I would consider myself to be more informed than
most people need to be.

So no, this is not a professional legal opinion, but it's one based on solid
information about the laws of the United States.

If Boyle is to be sued, it won't be over anything related to use of likeness.
More likely it will come from a defamation or libel angle - but that's
entirely separate to the issue of privacy in public spaces.

~~~
vannevar
"...it won't be over anything related to use of likeness."

I'd I agree with you there: it's not the likeness that's the problem. It's the
wide dissemination of embarrassing private information without any apparent
legitimate informative purpose. Like an upskirt photo, the fact that many
people in the restaurant might have the same view doesn't mean it's OK to
tweet the image to the world at large.

~~~
potatolicious
I agree - but this really is just a sign of the times. Technology has made our
previous implicit social contract re: privacy somewhat out of date. We need to
(and we are, naturally) developing new codes of conduct in its place.
Incidents like this will push this evolutionary process in the right
direction.

Not sure why we need to get involved, legally. This seems like one of those
things where we really _can_ just let it regulate itself. I am fairly certain
Mr. Boyle is receiving his lesson in respecting boundaries as we speak.

