> Isn't it on the individuals occupying the apartment to use curtains of some sort if they don't want to be seen?
replySure, but the problem here was explicitly not the individuals occupying the apartments being seen.
>Unless I'm missing context the museum didn't organize tour groups to specially look into the apartments
From the court ruling: "Visitors in the viewing gallery frequently look into the claimants' flats and take photographs, and less frequently view the claimants and their flats with binoculars."
"Photographs of the flats are posted on social media by visitors. On the platform Instagram there were 124 posts in the period between June 2016 and April 2018"
I do not think it's acceptable to subject anyone to this, be they rich or poor.
I did read that part, I still do not see how that justifies closing the museum terrace. The people photographing and sharing online pictures from the flat isn’t on the museum. Make the museum forbid to take pictures from the terrace if that’s the main source of concern. The museum didn’t create the terrace with the intent to showcase the inside of the flats as far as I can tell, it seems they had the permit to build it before the building existed.
replyOf course it's on the museum, this was an entirely predictable outcome.
reply