4 ms·
Am I the only one who has no problem with this? You're in someone else's car. Of course that person has a right to record you. And freedom of the press is a
by jMyles 8y ago
Am I the only one who has no problem with this? You're in someone else's car. Of course that person has a right to record you. And freedom of the press is a crucial cornerstone of a democratic state. Of course this person has a right to publish anything they please.
This is just journalism paired with a new and novel social and technological configuration. Nothing more.
Meanwhile, actual eavesdropping-style surveillance is ongoing via state institutions. Are we perhaps bothered by our conscience a bit here?
- jobigoud 8y agoIt's basic decency to let the people know they are being filmed.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago> Am I the only one who has no problem with this? You're in someone else's car. Of course that person has a right to record you. And freedom of the press is a crucial cornerstone of a democratic state. Of course this person has a right to publish anything they please. Is there a name for the fallacy that says "anything not actually illegal must therefore be morally correct"?
- jMyles 8y agoI wasn't making the case that it's merely legal and therefore OK - it's actually novel and interesting IMO. What's so wrong with it?
- DanBC 8y agoIt's neither novel nor interesting, and other countries have already regulated this. For example, in England you're allowed to use CCTV but you need to register with ICO and you can only use that video for law enforcement purposes - eg if someone vomits in your car you could use the video when you sue that person.
- entwife 8y agoI, too, don't have a problem with this. Overall, video would increase safety of passenger and driver. My problem is with the comments on the video stream. For safety of passenger, I hope he obscures their names and addresses.
- codedokode 8y agoFor safety you don't need to film people secretly or upload the video to the Internet. The driver did this for profit.
- codedokode 8y agoI am not fine with this. I don't want anyone to record me secretly let alone stream over Internet.
- jMyles 8y ago> I don't want anyone to record me secretly Well, too bad. The photons that bounce off your skin don't belong to you in perpetuity. You don't get to tell the rest of us how to use our eyes (including electronic eyes). Do you instruct everyone you converse with to forget what you've said unless they have your permission to remember?
- codedokode 8y agoIf we follow your logic then sneaking around a military base with a camera is not a problem, right?
- pseudalopex 8y ago12 US states have laws against surreptitiously recording private figures. Their media and democratic institutions seem to function about as well as the rest. Most people believe that not all information is newsworthy. That includes most journalists, who try to balance people's rights to live their lives unmolested with the public interest. If what Jason Gargac is doing is journalism, so is "revenge porn". Gargac also lied about his recording and hypocritically asked the Post-Dispatch to withhold his name "because privacy concerns". What point are you trying to make about warrantless spying? The legal rationalization relies on a reductionist view of privacy similar to yours.