4 ms·

Not if it contains other people's space they can't.

by tpxl 6y ago

tharne 6y ago
A public protest is, by definition, in public. There isn't what the Supreme Court would call a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
- tpxl 6y ago
  Yes, however a surveilance camera cannot simply be pointed in the street to record everything.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    isn't that essentially what a ring camera is, assuming your door faces the street? if so, where are all the legal challenges?
  - OminousWeapons 6y ago
    Ring cameras don't have continuous recording, they will only record on motion events. To my knowledge, there is also no way to set up alerting and capture preferences separately (ie if the camera detects motion and starts recording, you are getting alerted unless you turn off alerts for the camera entirely). If someone set their camera to record a public street they would literally get DOSed with alerts, so this is not what people do. Also, to my knowledge there are very few restrictions on recording people in public.
  - jdminhbg 6y ago
    Of course it can: https://www.weatherbug.com/traffic-cam/ https://www.weatherbug.com/traffic-cam/
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - devchix 6y ago
      I feel like replies in this subthread that asserts: "a person has no expectation of privacy in public space therefore recording a person in that space is unsurprising, expected even", is flippant and pat. The existence of the camera changes the space and the behavior of the subject. If you would imagine your Ring camera faces a Planned Parenthood entrance, or a homeless shelter. You've recorded a woman entering PP. Several people come and go at the homeless shelter. There's no other context for these images. I would not argue that these are not public spaces, but the people making entries and exits here are in probably in a part of their life needing the most protection of privacy. The camera's existence now provides a record, one that may live on without the subjects' knowledge. That record + ML + facial recognition + $future_tech will sketch a different future for these people, vs. one without the recording. Surely you can see that? I don't know what the answer should be. It's all going that way it seems. Cams recordings go to the cloud, it's harder and more expensive to install a system with only local storage. Ease of use is funneling society into an exploitable place. Bruce Schneier in one of his posts a long time ago exhorted his readers to resist ID'ing people in images. I wonder how he feels now, after the Jan6 incident. Bellingcat and crowd-sourced Twitter are ID'ing rioters. I'm not making the comparison of PP/homeless shelter visitors with the rioters, to be clear.
      - qwertycrackers 6y ago
        I don't see how you can have an expectation of privacy when moving through the street and entering / exiting buildings. How is this morally different than if a busybody lived across the street from PP and make a habit of keeping an eye on the door so (she?) could gossip about her observations at book club. This behavior is most certainly rude, but legal. It seems strange to argue this is immoral but hold the underlying crimes being recorded as immoral. The anti-reporting stance seems to be a veiled argument that the entire law is illegitimate.
        DanBC 6y ago
        > I don't see how you can have an expectation of privacy when moving through the street and entering / exiting buildings. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689049.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689049.stm > Miss Campbell had objected to the publication of pictures of her leaving drug addiction treatment in early 2001. > Lord Hope, who voted in favour of Miss Campbell, said on Thursday: "Despite the weight that must be given to the right to freedom of expression that the press needs if it is to play its role effectively, I would hold that there was here an infringement of Miss Campbell's right to privacy that cannot be justified." (This is about fees, but contains links and references to the previous cases) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1255.html&query=(naomi)+AND+(campbell) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/ECHR...
  - notyourday 6y ago
    > Yes, however a surveilance camera cannot simply be pointed in the street to record everything. Yes it can.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    You could make a better argument if, instead of saying "you cannot do this" when it is both physically and legally possible to do so, you said why you think U.S. law should disallow continuous recording in public spaces. @devchix below has not been downvoted because they make such a case.
cheschire 6y ago
I'm unsure why you're being downvoted, it's illegal to film other people's space in Germany, so it seems certainly possible to me that this is the case in parts of America as well.
- dghlsakjg 6y ago
  It's being downvoted because the US, with some very narrow exceptions, does not recognize a right to not be filmed in public (or filmed in private if the filming location is from public property). As gross as it is, if you leave your front curtains open, I am (legally) allowed to film through your windows from the sidewalk. Since this is an article about a US movement, US police, a US company and US laws, it is fair to downvote contextually wrong information.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    > (or filmed in private if the filming location is from public property). > if you leave your front curtains open, I am (legally) allowed to film through your windows from the sidewalk Well that's obviously situational - filming private property that isn't yours from a public space isn't legal if that's your intent. There's a difference between filming an intersection and happening to capture what happens through a window and pointing a camera across the street at the neighbor's window with the intent to record them. I won't look up every state's laws, but for Georgia: > It shall be unlawful for: (2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view; ...
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      I'm not sure that citation reads as strongly to me. "and out of public view" being the key element that suggests if you record from a public place, that the recording is probably legal. If I can see something from a public place, it seems like it's not "out of public view". (I'm not arguing it's right and proper to do so, of course.)
    - 6y ago
rascul 6y ago
The laws around recordings can vary widely from one jurisdiction to the next.

Not if it contains other people's space they can't.

by tpxl 6y ago

Not if it contains other people's space they can't.

A public protest is, by definition, in public. There isn't what the Supreme Court would call a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

tpxl 6y ago
Yes, however a surveilance camera cannot simply be pointed in the street to record everything.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  isn't that essentially what a ring camera is, assuming your door faces the street? if so, where are all the legal challenges?
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  Ring cameras don't have continuous recording, they will only record on motion events. To my knowledge, there is also no way to set up alerting and capture preferences separately (ie if the camera detects motion and starts recording, you are getting alerted unless you turn off alerts for the camera entirely). If someone set their camera to record a public street they would literally get DOSed with alerts, so this is not what people do. Also, to my knowledge there are very few restrictions on recording people in public.
- jdminhbg 6y ago
  Of course it can: https://www.weatherbug.com/traffic-cam/ https://www.weatherbug.com/traffic-cam/
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - devchix 6y ago
    I feel like replies in this subthread that asserts: "a person has no expectation of privacy in public space therefore recording a person in that space is unsurprising, expected even", is flippant and pat. The existence of the camera changes the space and the behavior of the subject. If you would imagine your Ring camera faces a Planned Parenthood entrance, or a homeless shelter. You've recorded a woman entering PP. Several people come and go at the homeless shelter. There's no other context for these images. I would not argue that these are not public spaces, but the people making entries and exits here are in probably in a part of their life needing the most protection of privacy. The camera's existence now provides a record, one that may live on without the subjects' knowledge. That record + ML + facial recognition + $future_tech will sketch a different future for these people, vs. one without the recording. Surely you can see that? I don't know what the answer should be. It's all going that way it seems. Cams recordings go to the cloud, it's harder and more expensive to install a system with only local storage. Ease of use is funneling society into an exploitable place. Bruce Schneier in one of his posts a long time ago exhorted his readers to resist ID'ing people in images. I wonder how he feels now, after the Jan6 incident. Bellingcat and crowd-sourced Twitter are ID'ing rioters. I'm not making the comparison of PP/homeless shelter visitors with the rioters, to be clear.
    - qwertycrackers 6y ago
      I don't see how you can have an expectation of privacy when moving through the street and entering / exiting buildings. How is this morally different than if a busybody lived across the street from PP and make a habit of keeping an eye on the door so (she?) could gossip about her observations at book club. This behavior is most certainly rude, but legal. It seems strange to argue this is immoral but hold the underlying crimes being recorded as immoral. The anti-reporting stance seems to be a veiled argument that the entire law is illegitimate.
      - DanBC 6y ago
        > I don't see how you can have an expectation of privacy when moving through the street and entering / exiting buildings. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689049.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689049.stm > Miss Campbell had objected to the publication of pictures of her leaving drug addiction treatment in early 2001. > Lord Hope, who voted in favour of Miss Campbell, said on Thursday: "Despite the weight that must be given to the right to freedom of expression that the press needs if it is to play its role effectively, I would hold that there was here an infringement of Miss Campbell's right to privacy that cannot be justified." (This is about fees, but contains links and references to the previous cases) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1255.html&query=(naomi)+AND+(campbell) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/ECHR...
- notyourday 6y ago
  > Yes, however a surveilance camera cannot simply be pointed in the street to record everything. Yes it can.
- judge2020 6y ago
  You could make a better argument if, instead of saying "you cannot do this" when it is both physically and legally possible to do so, you said why you think U.S. law should disallow continuous recording in public spaces. @devchix below has not been downvoted because they make such a case.

cheschire 6y ago

I'm unsure why you're being downvoted, it's illegal to film other people's space in Germany, so it seems certainly possible to me that this is the case in parts of America as well.

dghlsakjg 6y ago
It's being downvoted because the US, with some very narrow exceptions, does not recognize a right to not be filmed in public (or filmed in private if the filming location is from public property). As gross as it is, if you leave your front curtains open, I am (legally) allowed to film through your windows from the sidewalk. Since this is an article about a US movement, US police, a US company and US laws, it is fair to downvote contextually wrong information.
- judge2020 6y ago
  > (or filmed in private if the filming location is from public property). > if you leave your front curtains open, I am (legally) allowed to film through your windows from the sidewalk Well that's obviously situational - filming private property that isn't yours from a public space isn't legal if that's your intent. There's a difference between filming an intersection and happening to capture what happens through a window and pointing a camera across the street at the neighbor's window with the intent to record them. I won't look up every state's laws, but for Georgia: > It shall be unlawful for: (2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view; ...
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I'm not sure that citation reads as strongly to me. "and out of public view" being the key element that suggests if you record from a public place, that the recording is probably legal. If I can see something from a public place, it seems like it's not "out of public view". (I'm not arguing it's right and proper to do so, of course.)
  - 6y ago

rascul 6y ago

The laws around recordings can vary widely from one jurisdiction to the next.