3 ms·

It is a violation of rights of people captured in the video. What is creepy for you is not very relevant here.

bb88 8y ago
I want to understand why you think it's a violation of rights of people in the video. Because to me, it doesn't seem clear cut at all. Is it a policy violation of Uber/Lyft? That doesn't seem like the case because there are other drivers that livestream uber rides. Is it a violation of reasonable expectation to privacy when you're in someone else's vehicle? Because that's not necessarily a given, since you're in someone else's vehicle. Is it because it's being live streamed and recorded on a site like twitch? Because it seems to me that if someone can legally record video, it's their copyright, and they can distribute it however they want to. What am I missing?
- codedokode 8y ago
  Because I think that people have a right not to be secretly filmed let alone being published on the Internet. For me it seems a natural thing that doesn't need explanation. > a violation of reasonable expectation to privacy Probably. The customers expected that they just take a ride and are not being filmed. They don't expect that their face will be published on the Internet so that anyone can find their social network page and learn who they are. > if someone can legally record video, it's their copyright, and they can distribute it however they want to. It should not be this way. Wikipedia says that in some countries there are laws against this [1]. Of course, some laws could be written before Internet become popular so they need adaptation. This article [2] also mentions that surveillance can be regulated by laws. Finally, there are personality rights [3] although they are related to commercial activity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_photography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_photography [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
  - bb88 8y ago
    Thanks for replying. I think there's a wide gulf between what people estimate their rights to be and their actual rights granted to them by law. I understand your sentiment with not having your image spread throughout the internet without your permission, but asking for that right would break journalism. I'd be up for a fix so long as it doesn't create criminals of both professional photographers and tourists livestreaming on times square, say.
- detaro 8y ago
  Being allowed to record video (e.g. in a cab for security reasons) does not imply you can freely publish it. Copyright doesn't say anything about potential other rights of the people depicted - e.g. copyright of a photograph of a person doesn't imply you can freely use it for all purposes. That said, in the US these rights are very weak compared to other countries, so this might very well be legal. In some states, audio recording without consent is not legal, but Missouri appears to be one-party-consent.
  - bb88 8y ago
    That makes no sense. If I have the right to record a video, I also have the right to publish the video as well. Otherwise news outlets would never be able to publish the video they capture, especially in the coverage of breaking news.
    - detaro 8y ago
      That's not a logical argument. I did not say you never have the right, you don't necessarily have it, so news publishing video doesn't mean anything about other cases. In most jurisdictions, news explicitly have "high-priority" rights (freedom of press etc) to publish things related to current issues even if they can't be published for other purposes. There's a reason things like model releases for photography and film exist: Having the copyright for something does not mean you have full freedom to use it. Again, in the US these rights tend to be limited, but even there they exist. E.g. while you can freely photograph in public (which is not the case everywhere in the world), you can't use people's image for advertising without permission, you can't freely use photos of artwork in public places or of some buildings, ..., all despite having the copyright on your images.
      - bb88 8y ago
        While those are very good points, none of them seem to apply here in this specific case. In fact it's hard to see how his behavior is illegal, given today's laws. It might be creepy, but a lot of creepy things are not illegal.
finnthehuman 8y ago
>What is creepy for you is not very relevant here. Then (grandparent poster should) select better adjectives when making a point.
freehunter 8y ago
I didn't make the argument that it was or was not creepy, the parent made that. I just said "creepy" isn't an interesting argument. If it's a violation of rights, call it that. Getting my arm chopped off might be icky, but a doctor's not going to treat "icky arm", they're going to treat a dismemberment.

bb88 8y ago

I want to understand why you think it's a violation of rights of people in the video. Because to me, it doesn't seem clear cut at all. Is it a policy violation of Uber/Lyft? That doesn't seem like the case because there are other drivers that livestream uber rides. Is it a violation of reasonable expectation to privacy when you're in someone else's vehicle? Because that's not necessarily a given, since you're in someone else's vehicle. Is it because it's being live streamed and recorded on a site like twitch? Because it seems to me that if someone can legally record video, it's their copyright, and they can distribute it however they want to. What am I missing?

codedokode 8y ago
Because I think that people have a right not to be secretly filmed let alone being published on the Internet. For me it seems a natural thing that doesn't need explanation. > a violation of reasonable expectation to privacy Probably. The customers expected that they just take a ride and are not being filmed. They don't expect that their face will be published on the Internet so that anyone can find their social network page and learn who they are. > if someone can legally record video, it's their copyright, and they can distribute it however they want to. It should not be this way. Wikipedia says that in some countries there are laws against this [1]. Of course, some laws could be written before Internet become popular so they need adaptation. This article [2] also mentions that surveillance can be regulated by laws. Finally, there are personality rights [3] although they are related to commercial activity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_photography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_photography [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
- bb88 8y ago
  Thanks for replying. I think there's a wide gulf between what people estimate their rights to be and their actual rights granted to them by law. I understand your sentiment with not having your image spread throughout the internet without your permission, but asking for that right would break journalism. I'd be up for a fix so long as it doesn't create criminals of both professional photographers and tourists livestreaming on times square, say.
detaro 8y ago
Being allowed to record video (e.g. in a cab for security reasons) does not imply you can freely publish it. Copyright doesn't say anything about potential other rights of the people depicted - e.g. copyright of a photograph of a person doesn't imply you can freely use it for all purposes. That said, in the US these rights are very weak compared to other countries, so this might very well be legal. In some states, audio recording without consent is not legal, but Missouri appears to be one-party-consent.
- bb88 8y ago
  That makes no sense. If I have the right to record a video, I also have the right to publish the video as well. Otherwise news outlets would never be able to publish the video they capture, especially in the coverage of breaking news.
  - detaro 8y ago
    That's not a logical argument. I did not say you never have the right, you don't necessarily have it, so news publishing video doesn't mean anything about other cases. In most jurisdictions, news explicitly have "high-priority" rights (freedom of press etc) to publish things related to current issues even if they can't be published for other purposes. There's a reason things like model releases for photography and film exist: Having the copyright for something does not mean you have full freedom to use it. Again, in the US these rights tend to be limited, but even there they exist. E.g. while you can freely photograph in public (which is not the case everywhere in the world), you can't use people's image for advertising without permission, you can't freely use photos of artwork in public places or of some buildings, ..., all despite having the copyright on your images.
    - bb88 8y ago
      While those are very good points, none of them seem to apply here in this specific case. In fact it's hard to see how his behavior is illegal, given today's laws. It might be creepy, but a lot of creepy things are not illegal.

finnthehuman 8y ago

>What is creepy for you is not very relevant here. Then (grandparent poster should) select better adjectives when making a point.

freehunter 8y ago

I didn't make the argument that it was or was not creepy, the parent made that. I just said "creepy" isn't an interesting argument. If it's a violation of rights, call it that. Getting my arm chopped off might be icky, but a doctor's not going to treat "icky arm", they're going to treat a dismemberment.