3 ms·

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

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.)
  - dghlsakjg 6y ago
    The legal term is "reasonable expectation of privacy" (per the supreme court) and sadly it is not a boolean, it is an 'it depends' answer. > filming private property that isn't yours from a public space isn't legal if that's your intent. This is exactly what the "Streissand effect" case was about. Its the legal reasoning behind how the paparazzi operate (How else would we have pictures of what Taylor Swift did at her private 4th of July party?). It is absolutely protected speech to film/photograph private property from a publicly accessible location (if it is a privately owned public location that you are filming FROM, like a mall, then you must stop when asked. You are not required to destroy the material however). Edit: This is all in reference to US law.

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.)
- dghlsakjg 6y ago
  The legal term is "reasonable expectation of privacy" (per the supreme court) and sadly it is not a boolean, it is an 'it depends' answer. > filming private property that isn't yours from a public space isn't legal if that's your intent. This is exactly what the "Streissand effect" case was about. Its the legal reasoning behind how the paparazzi operate (How else would we have pictures of what Taylor Swift did at her private 4th of July party?). It is absolutely protected speech to film/photograph private property from a publicly accessible location (if it is a privately owned public location that you are filming FROM, like a mall, then you must stop when asked. You are not required to destroy the material however). Edit: This is all in reference to US law.