4 ms·

In most countries, this is (rightfully) illegal. You have a right to privacy, even in public places, and this includes not getting filmed arguing with your girl

by _yy 11y ago

In most countries, this is (rightfully) illegal. You have a right to privacy, even in public places, and this includes not getting filmed arguing with your girlfriend by a stranger who then publicizes the video.

irremediable 11y ago
What you're criticising doesn't sound like what he did, though. The political stream he mentioned in the title was coverage of a specific event.
IIAOPSW 11y ago
In most (Western) countries you have a right to privacy when there is a reasonable expectation to privacy. What you do on the public streets is presumably something you don't mind the people seeing. What you are suggesting is analogous to yelling out a personal secret and then being mad that people "eavesdropped".
- gioele 11y ago
  > What you do on the public streets is presumably something you don't mind the people seeing. The law of certain countries disagree with your. A simple example that applies to the Italian law and to almost all continental EU countries. You are allowed to take pictures of every public crowd, simple. BUT you are not allowed to share (display) those pictures if they contain elements that could lead to the identification of somebody who is "already known to the general public". [1] The definition of "already known to the general public" is very fuzzy. In addition, you are going to be in trouble if you publish a photo a crowd where there are minors and the faces of those minors have not been blurred or authorized. [1] http://www.fotografi.org/pubblicabilita_foto_ritratto_esempi_concreti.htm http://www.fotografi.org/pubblicabilita_foto_ritratto_esempi...
pjc50 11y ago
Is it? The exact boundaries of Article 8 are unclear. http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/what-can-we-do-about-neighbours-cctv-camera.html http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/what-can-we-do-about-neig...
3pt14159 11y ago
Citation needed. Also, if you are in public you are in public. I have no problem being recorded there.
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  Situation in the Netherlands: You can record people on the street with say your phone if you hold it yourself, but actually mounting a surveillance camera anywhere in public domain (except a dashcam) is only allowed in two cases. (1) people are adequately warned before-hand that there's a camera. (a warning sign will do, but a tiny sticker wouldn't, hidden cameras thereby can't be legal in any case) or (2) the camera doesn't film actual people. (e.g. bird watching, a live internet cam that watches the traffic or weather, or a busy square where the camera is zoomed out so much that individual people aren't recognisable). Security cameras in public areas fall under similar conditions, but of course most of them are on private property where there are different rules. However, a shop is also public domain, despite being private territory, because shop owners open their doors to the public. So here, too, cameras surveillance must be communicated, too. (which can be the camera being very openly visible, a monitor showing camera footage indicating there's surveillance, signs, or e.g. a warning on the ticket of say a concert). In short, what he did wouldn't have been allowed as it appears like he built this camera, 'hid' it (or didn't position it so it's easily visible to all), and didn't inform those being taped that they were being taped. That wouldn't have been allowed here, and I wouldn't be surprised if Dublin is similar. The solution would've been easy, and perhaps those taped e.g. ringing all bells wouldn't have if they knew they were being taped doing so. What he did after, holding a phone and walking around, was completely fine, though. But that's taping. Publishing (e.g. in a livestream to all) isn't always allowed. The law says it mustn't damage the 'reasonable interests' of a person, which refers to privacy issues. It's a bit vague what this means but I can easily imagine 'reasonable interests' relating to privacy meaning for example arguing with your girlfriend. None of that happened for the OP though, so his livestream was fine.
protomyth 11y ago
That's not true in much of the US. Their are a surprisingly high number of cameras pointed at the streets including security, ATM, private web cams, and weather cams.
superuser2 11y ago
If I can see you with my eyes, why can't I see you with my camera? If your presence in public spaces was "private" then I wouldn't be able to observe it simply by being there.

by _yy 11y ago

irremediable 11y ago

What you're criticising doesn't sound like what he did, though. The political stream he mentioned in the title was coverage of a specific event.

IIAOPSW 11y ago

In most (Western) countries you have a right to privacy when there is a reasonable expectation to privacy. What you do on the public streets is presumably something you don't mind the people seeing. What you are suggesting is analogous to yelling out a personal secret and then being mad that people "eavesdropped".

gioele 11y ago
> What you do on the public streets is presumably something you don't mind the people seeing. The law of certain countries disagree with your. A simple example that applies to the Italian law and to almost all continental EU countries. You are allowed to take pictures of every public crowd, simple. BUT you are not allowed to share (display) those pictures if they contain elements that could lead to the identification of somebody who is "already known to the general public". [1] The definition of "already known to the general public" is very fuzzy. In addition, you are going to be in trouble if you publish a photo a crowd where there are minors and the faces of those minors have not been blurred or authorized. [1] http://www.fotografi.org/pubblicabilita_foto_ritratto_esempi_concreti.htm http://www.fotografi.org/pubblicabilita_foto_ritratto_esempi...

pjc50 11y ago

Is it? The exact boundaries of Article 8 are unclear. http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/what-can-we-do-about-neighbours-cctv-camera.html http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/what-can-we-do-about-neig...

3pt14159 11y ago

Citation needed. Also, if you are in public you are in public. I have no problem being recorded there.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago
Situation in the Netherlands: You can record people on the street with say your phone if you hold it yourself, but actually mounting a surveillance camera anywhere in public domain (except a dashcam) is only allowed in two cases. (1) people are adequately warned before-hand that there's a camera. (a warning sign will do, but a tiny sticker wouldn't, hidden cameras thereby can't be legal in any case) or (2) the camera doesn't film actual people. (e.g. bird watching, a live internet cam that watches the traffic or weather, or a busy square where the camera is zoomed out so much that individual people aren't recognisable). Security cameras in public areas fall under similar conditions, but of course most of them are on private property where there are different rules. However, a shop is also public domain, despite being private territory, because shop owners open their doors to the public. So here, too, cameras surveillance must be communicated, too. (which can be the camera being very openly visible, a monitor showing camera footage indicating there's surveillance, signs, or e.g. a warning on the ticket of say a concert). In short, what he did wouldn't have been allowed as it appears like he built this camera, 'hid' it (or didn't position it so it's easily visible to all), and didn't inform those being taped that they were being taped. That wouldn't have been allowed here, and I wouldn't be surprised if Dublin is similar. The solution would've been easy, and perhaps those taped e.g. ringing all bells wouldn't have if they knew they were being taped doing so. What he did after, holding a phone and walking around, was completely fine, though. But that's taping. Publishing (e.g. in a livestream to all) isn't always allowed. The law says it mustn't damage the 'reasonable interests' of a person, which refers to privacy issues. It's a bit vague what this means but I can easily imagine 'reasonable interests' relating to privacy meaning for example arguing with your girlfriend. None of that happened for the OP though, so his livestream was fine.

protomyth 11y ago

That's not true in much of the US. Their are a surprisingly high number of cameras pointed at the streets including security, ATM, private web cams, and weather cams.

superuser2 11y ago

If I can see you with my eyes, why can't I see you with my camera? If your presence in public spaces was "private" then I wouldn't be able to observe it simply by being there.