Last Updated: 09/10/2025
Preface
This is project not normal, and it borders ethics. However, this is 100% legal, and I've attempted to make this photography project as moral as possible while making an active statement on the changes of what privacy actually means, what culture has come to and normalised, the legalities, and moving forward. Let's talk about it.
Excluding the few photos of my friends, a majority of these photos were not taken with consent. In this context, we will say that the definition of consent is the actors (the people in the photos) knowing that their photo is being taken and posted to this website. By that definition, I do not have the actor’s consent. However, all of these photos were taken in public spaces and by legal definition and First Amendment rights, I have all rights to take these photos. This is a good source that breaks down the legalities, and Photouno breaks down some broad legalities: "“Public space” is basically any space that is readily accessible to the public--think streets, sidewalks, benches on those sidewalks, parks, etc. In New York City, it’s beneficial to know that even the subway is considered a public space (although, unless you’re a member of the press, you are restricted from using tripods, reflectors, lights, and other additional equipment). Not only is it legal to photograph in such locations, but you can also photograph people or objects that are in public view, even if they are actually situated on private property".
This entire project borders the spectrum of weird and stalkerish to artistic and deep, often leaning to the various ends of the spectrum dependent on the context. From a personal standpoint, I wouldn't mind if someone took my photo and posted it because it meant that I was a snapshot of their explorations of what life has to offer and what makes it beautiful (my perspective, and the premise of this project of course). From a human standpoint, it is creepy, and it is weird. From a R3NYAS standpoint, this is a statement, a challenge for myself to navigate legalities and moralities, and commentary on the changing culture and privacy laws while exemplifying the authenticity of human existence.
A Brief Historical Look At Legislation Regarding Privacy
Think about 1925 and the technologies available. Cameras existed, but it wasn't a societal normality to carry a mini, high-quality camera in their pocket 24/7. American surveillance was not as advanced or normalised as it is in 2025, and therefore privacy had a different definition. Privacy could have been seen as closed curtains, avoiding crowded public spaces, or avoiding the camera lens. The legalities involving privacy have slowly shifted to include the current time’s needs, available technology, governmental technology and surveillance, and eventually age of consent and user-generated content. The Univeristy of Michigan does a great job of breaking the timeline down, so please view the entire timeline here. A summation of this and what I find important is as follows:
- In 1914, "The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) of 1914 established the Federal Trade Commission and outlawed unfair or deceptive commercial practices."
- In 1948, George Orwell comes out with "1984", which brought social commentary, and the book prophecises governmental surveillance and control.
- In 1964, William L. Prosser published an article in California Law Review titled "Privacy". Prosser "outlined four torts that would allow someone whose privacy was violated in one of those four ways to sue the perpetrator for damages. These torts are still used today:
- Intrusion upon seclusion or solitude, or into private affairs;
- Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts;
- Publicity which places a person in a false light in the public eye; and
- Appropriation of one’s name or likeness."
- In the 1960's and 70's, three Supreme Court rulings found that there was a right to martial prviacy, the Fourth Amendment expanded to include a "anywhere a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy", that a right to privacy was established in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the "United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that warrants are required for domestic intelligence surveillance." FERPA was also introduced, which is applicable to "all schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions that receive funds from the U.S. Department of Education."
Additionally, the Fair Privacy Act of 1974 was introduced, which was a federal law establishing further privacy practices.
- In 1973, Roe V. Wade was a Supreme Court decision that allowed women the right to an abortion. While this doesn't seem like it has any significance, please examine the actual court case, and how it relates to privacy. Roe V. Wade extended the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment by giving us the right to privacy, including marriage, health care decisions, your children, and more. Unfortunately, Roe V. Wade was overturned in in 2022, taking away the "right of privacy that protects intimate and personal decisions—including those affecting child-rearing, marriage, procreation, and the use of contraception—from governmental interference."
- In 1984, Neil Postman publishes "Amusing Ourselves To Death" (if you would like a free, downloadable copy of the reissued 2005 version, please message me as I believe knowledge should be free). The premise of this book is to make commentary on the age of television and media, reminisce on what we've lost in the past by integrated technologies, and to spark critical thinking when looking at new technologies. Contrasting the Orwellian prophecy versus the Huxellian prophecy, Postman states that "people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think." Think about that, and how it relates to survelliance and privacy laws.
- Skipping forward some time, we are brought to 2001, which is the point that I personally consider the turning point in American privacy, which is outlined as: "In the name of national security, the act expands the government’s authority to monitor phone and email communications. In 2006, 14 of the original provisions planned to be sunset were made permanent under the USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act."
I don't want to further bore you with the nuances and history of privacy, as you have the ability to do the research and think for yourself (without AI!), but so far, we have covered the bases of privacy, introductions to privacy laws, and ended on the critical point in time that changed normalcy. Let's discuss what this means now, how I interpret this, and how this project is a much bigger statement than just "I am a weirdo that enjoys photographing people in public spaces because I can."
9/11, Neil Postman, and AI
In essence, 9/11 did much more than just traumatise a nation and take thousand of lives. In 2008, the Department of Justice released their archives and an official statement on the actions that the nation has taken following 9/11. Please review that here.
The government integrated surveillance technologies into society that supposedly goes towards the safety of our nation, but simultaneously violates us. The data being used can consist of phone data, IP addresses, locations, messages sent back and forth, and more. In essence, if you have and utilise a smartphone or laptop daily, the government has your information and knows much more about you than you might think. In fact, data outside of a smartphone is even used, and most of the time the data is not used for something beneficial. For example, data from CHOP was subpoenaed pertaining to transgender patients. In 2025, people in certain communities are at risk. Aligning with the current administration's wishes and beliefs, how they view transgender people, and what they are doing to oppress others, imagine what they are doing with that data. While I do not work in the government, nor do I have the full idea of the expanse of data they have on me or you, I have a base assumption that my information is theirs and they know everything about me such as my preferences on doomscrolling, my last period date, or even my day-to-day schedule.
Personally, I am on the internet, and I am a creator and artist. I overshare about my life and I do not care if people have this information, because the government already has every inch of my digitised self, and other companies have already bought and sold my data and know me. I am aware that these companies use this data for monetary profit and potential political agendas (see Postman's lecture here), but I agreed to the unread list of terms and conditions. However, I am not everyone and there are many people who have qualms with privacy practises and governmental surveillance (and rightfully so!).
To further add onto the last sentence, it's not that I don't care that big organisations have my data. I do care, but I've taken the stance that if I want to exist in a society, my data will be sold. This is an ecological change (Postman's fourth proposition from his lecture here) that technology has integrated, and adaption and survival is a must. That being said, advocacy and standing up for what you believe in is right is also a must. American culture and infrastructure makes it so that you cannot be a "winner" (Postman, 1998), and as a "loser", I can only abide by what they have set up. By rejecting all they have created, I reject the opportunity to go against. For how can I protest and make statements if I am homeless, imprisoned, or dead?
Postman continues to make wonderful statements and propositions that were true 26 years ago, and are still true today. I strongly encourage you to watch the whole lecture, or even read a summary of it. Bringing this back to current technologies and times, we can think of our digital self (everything we have uploaded to the Internet, and all the data the Internet has taken from us). If he government controls our digital self, or willingly buys data of our digital selves, what happens?
By integrating AI into the public, there are even more laws and concerns that can be argued to be very volatile, and points towards negated implications. Please review a hearing from a 2024 Senate Committee meeting here, as they talk about growing concerns with privacy laws, AI, and what it means for the future. While this meeting was over a year ago, it was one that I had studied previously and am well versed with. I will not include things that I have not reviewed or studied, hence why a much older meeting that does not include the rapid advancements made within the year. Some key talking points of this meeting are:
- Deepfakes
- Scams/vulnerable people falling towards the falsities that AI brings us and the ways that it is utilised for harm
- Data and privacy concerns
- Ownership of the "digital self".
I am aware that we have moved far past these discussions and some states have even implemented legislation that addresses senators' concerns and the interest of the people, but the focus is not entirely about AI. AI is a topic of horror that I can continue to go into, another time. At the moment, we are focused on privacy laws and photography, but I find it important to add all relevant information and context. The current political state of America is crumbling due to both sides, and I fully believe that lawmakers are utilising the wide gaps, cracks, and fear mongering to push through policies, to invade American's privacy for their own agenda, and that this is an opportunity to profit and legalise ways of life that they consider normal. Let's connect the dots.
AI technologies are being furthered (which includes suicides from AI usage, deepfakes, very realistic videos 100% created by AI, academic dishonesty in education, so on and so forth), and morally, I must acknowledge the other side of the argument: that AI is good and will continue to do good. I am very aware of the potential positives of AI and how it can help certain industries (medical, tech, etc.), if used properly. There it is, my acknowledgement. AI can be cool, but I still firmly stand on the side of disliking AI usage.
Surveillance Normalcy
9/11 created the need for citizen surveillance, and the last decades have been spent normalising this. At first, in the early 2000's, it might not have been common to have security cameras outside of your door. Now, it is almost uncommon to see someone without a Ring camera, Apple Air Tag, or some location sharing service (such as the built in iPhone service or Life360). In fact, some people are even using Meta glasses to record others and create content, without the other person's knowledge. Some of these integrations are safety measures or to ensure that you are protected, loved ones know where you are, or in case you need to trace your steps. However, this collected personal information that you may utilise does not include the very mapping of your self, such as through medical records, education, habits, scrolling preferences, data collected from employers, any survey you have completed, any place where you have utilised your credit card, so on and so forth.
Recent controversies of Palantir have also come to light, and the government is working with AI surveillance and other companies to track citizens, and in current times, to identify unwanted residents or citizens. I am not here to argue about the legalities or ethics of using AI technologies to deport humans, but I want it to be noted and comprehended that the government has your data and the government is going to utilise it for whatever the government wants. On the government's end, it is an active choice to normalise surveillance under the guise of safety of the nation and protection for it's citizens. But, as citizens, we also contribute to this agenda.
By normalising content creation and carrying a smartphone (in fact, I have even seen four year olds use Apple Pay), people have smartphones and carry their smartphone everywhere. We utilise these for every day tasks, such as communication, music, driving directions, and photography. Photography can consist of selfies, photos of your brunch, photos of friends, or professional photography. Our social behaviours have created a shift in the ways that we view privacy. Cameras inside and outside the house, (which the government and other potential hackers can access) are normalised. Taking photos outside or filming people with and without their consent is normalised. The idea and stance that technology and the official organisations that utilise these technologies are protecting us is also normalised, but constantly being contradicted. Let's bring this back to Humans in the .raw.
Official Statement
Now that I have given you context, history, and other things you really really should look into, you might be able to get an understanding of this project. Every photo I have taken is 100% legal and I have every right to photograph these people. That does not take away the immorality of photographing unknowing actors, but by all legal means, I have every right to do so on public property.
Humans in the .raw began as a birthday trip to New York City, and I couldn't capture anything without a person in it, so I turned my focus to capturing the residents of the city. At this time in my life, I had not experienced a lot of positives of life and interacting with society, so the idea of a melting pot, humans interacting with each other, and the mere idea of life and existence encapsulated me. The rawness of humans, whether negative or positive, has always intrigued me and I couldn't help but crave to capture more shots of people and their humanness. Personally, I act different when I know someone is filming/photographing me. You can't capture authenticity if it isn't authentic, hence why these actors are not apprehended beforehand. This tests the limits of privacy laws, art, and my own creative works. The best way to describe this project, from a R3NYAS perspective, is that it is candid street photography that explores humans, life, raw emotions, and the unexpected beauty of it all.
From a human perspective, this is weird and I am creepy. However, as aforementioned in the preface, this is completely legal. This is a case study and example of how a 22 year old photographer on the street can legally take your photo and be able to post it and do whatever I desire with this photo (except monetarily profit, and even then, I'm sure I could find a way to without consent forms). If a regular 22 year old with the intent of creating art violates your privacy (by this I mean an ethical or moral violation of privacy, not a legal violation, as I have all legal protections to do this), what are other people doing? What is the government doing? I have no malicious intent but am aware of how stalkerish this project is. But please, imagine what people with malicious intent are doing, and how it is completely legal to do these things.
The point of Humans in the .raw is to display raw human emotion and the beauty of it, but to also make a statement, to give viewers the resources and introductions to privacy laws, and to urge them to think critically. Now that I have fully explained the intent, purpose, legalities, and the creativity that went into Humans in the .raw, please enjoy, but most important of all, advocate for your privacy.
If you are an actor and would like your photo taken down, please message me and I will do so :)