6 ms·

As someone who has no idea what this is: What's the context here? By the name I would assume violation of multiple privacy related cases, which probably justifi

As someone who has no idea what this is: What's the context here? By the name I would assume violation of multiple privacy related cases, which probably justifies deletion from basically everywhere. But then again, I have no idea what's the deal here.

TowerTall 5y ago
Apparently it is a video or a series of videos[1]. [1] https://www.are.na/block/2951836 https://www.are.na/block/2951836
justusthane 5y ago
Apparently just a guy who wandered around Seattle filming people with a camcorder. https://blogs.harvard.edu/internetmonitor/2013/07/10/surveillance-camera-man-draws-ire-provokes-questions-about-recording-in-public/ https://blogs.harvard.edu/internetmonitor/2013/07/10/surveil...
globular-toast 5y ago
It was a series of videos taken in public where a guy would just point the camera at people doing mundane things. The subjects would often question why he was filming them and the response was always simply "oh, I'm just making a video". Occasionally the guy would elaborate further and it seemed the point was that people are captured and recorded on CCTV and other surveillance methods all the time, so why would they care about his camera? Despite this the subjects would often become enraged and sometimes violent. It was fascinating for many reasons and I think a very interesting view on human psychology.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  There is a big difference between filming a specific public location, which I happen to pass through, and filming _me_ specifically. If the location is the subject and I am free to exit or enter the scene without my presence affecting the creativity of the work, then I have far fewer objections. But a video in which _I_ become the subject, which moves to focus my actions, is far more objectionable.
  - JustGoToThePub 5y ago
    > a big difference between filming a specific public location, which I happen to pass through, and filming _me_ specifically. How do you know they aren't filming you specifically[1], and why do you trust them? [1] And don't say 'I'm not interesting enough', 'cos I don't believe you.
    - karmakurtisaani 5y ago
      Of course they could be. The same way everyone around me could be a paid actor. But that's either absurd or frightening depending on your own psychology. A person pointing a camera at you without your consent, however, is almost universally disturbing.
      - JustGoToThePub 5y ago
        Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me :-)
      - djbebs 5y ago
        Or simply a realistic understanding of current technology and standard operating procedures of any competent surveillance agency
        karmakurtisaani 5y ago
        To me, realistic understanding implies that I'm most likely not a specific target of surveillance cameras around town. Those were not set up because of me, and there is no alert in some security office when I enter a camera's field of vision. I imagine most people think like this. A bit besides the point, but my phone has a unique identifier associated with it that is constantly communicated to my operator. It also has tons of other tracking software I have no clue about. While this is something I'd prefer didn't exist, same logic applies here. I'm not pro-surveillance, but pro realistic understanding of it. I know it's not great, but what can you do? Go around town filming people and creep them out thinking you're making a point when in reality you're just annoying people?
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >so why would they care about his camera? I mean it seems pretty obvious. Because a private person could potentially do anything from stalking you, to using your image in some political campaign or advertisement or whatever else. Potentially much worse and intrusive than being filmed by a parking lot camera. Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    What makes you think that someone who works for a business and has access to their cameras couldn't stalk people? How about someone hacking into the systems on some given area to track people?
  - insickness 5y ago
    In the US, it is legal to photograph and film in public as long as there is not an expectation of privacy, such as a restroom. And it should remain legal. If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop. If I'm on a public sidewalk filming a private business, they can't tell me to stop. You can't legally use someone's image in an advertisement without their consent. But that's different than having the right to film in public. If I'm filming and you walk in front of my camera, you don't have the right to force me to stop filming. You don't own public space.
    - Barrin92 5y ago
      >If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop to clarify this is legal here as well. Places or people of public interest are excluded from this. So crimes, public figures, monuments, public buildings and so on you can photograph as much as you want. The law protects private individuals, say someone taking your picture specifically on a train, in a gym or what have you. >You don't own public space That is true but the idea is that the public space should not become a voyeuristic zoo. Photographing spaces is fine, but individuals should not lose their privacy entirely just because they leave their home.
      - 5y ago
- amalcon 5y ago
  There's a pretty big difference in stated intent. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a person to be OK with being filmed for the purpose of e.g. theft prevention, but not for some kind of modern art project / protest statement. Edit: to be clear, the opposite also doesn't seem unreasonable. If someone told me they were OK with being filmed for a modern art project, but not for theft prevention, I wouldn't find that particularly odd either.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "so why would they care about his camera?" I agree that most reactions are not warranted. However, the context of the filming is quite different. On one hand, you have (mostly) stationary cameras filming areas, and all the people in that area. Usually the cameras are not zoomed in, and ostensibly are not allowed to record audio in many jurisdictions. So you don't feel threatened because it's a universal thing and unmanned. Also, you assume the purpose is for property or personal protection. On the other hand, you are being specifically targeted, including audio, by an actual human with a camera. Are they recording my credit card, pin, etc? It's reasonable to question what they are doing as it is unusual and could be a scam. The motive is unknown. Context and details matter. My guess is they violated a law and/or got sued. It's much easier than most people realize. For example, if you record someone's conversation while their on the phone, you could be in violation of wire tap laws even if you didn't tamper with their communication (simply the act of recording).

TowerTall 5y ago

Apparently it is a video or a series of videos[1]. [1] https://www.are.na/block/2951836 https://www.are.na/block/2951836

justusthane 5y ago

Apparently just a guy who wandered around Seattle filming people with a camcorder. https://blogs.harvard.edu/internetmonitor/2013/07/10/surveillance-camera-man-draws-ire-provokes-questions-about-recording-in-public/ https://blogs.harvard.edu/internetmonitor/2013/07/10/surveil...

globular-toast 5y ago

It was a series of videos taken in public where a guy would just point the camera at people doing mundane things. The subjects would often question why he was filming them and the response was always simply "oh, I'm just making a video". Occasionally the guy would elaborate further and it seemed the point was that people are captured and recorded on CCTV and other surveillance methods all the time, so why would they care about his camera? Despite this the subjects would often become enraged and sometimes violent. It was fascinating for many reasons and I think a very interesting view on human psychology.

dotancohen 5y ago
There is a big difference between filming a specific public location, which I happen to pass through, and filming _me_ specifically. If the location is the subject and I am free to exit or enter the scene without my presence affecting the creativity of the work, then I have far fewer objections. But a video in which _I_ become the subject, which moves to focus my actions, is far more objectionable.
- JustGoToThePub 5y ago
  > a big difference between filming a specific public location, which I happen to pass through, and filming _me_ specifically. How do you know they aren't filming you specifically[1], and why do you trust them? [1] And don't say 'I'm not interesting enough', 'cos I don't believe you.
  - karmakurtisaani 5y ago
    Of course they could be. The same way everyone around me could be a paid actor. But that's either absurd or frightening depending on your own psychology. A person pointing a camera at you without your consent, however, is almost universally disturbing.
    - JustGoToThePub 5y ago
      Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me :-)
    - djbebs 5y ago
      Or simply a realistic understanding of current technology and standard operating procedures of any competent surveillance agency
      - karmakurtisaani 5y ago
        To me, realistic understanding implies that I'm most likely not a specific target of surveillance cameras around town. Those were not set up because of me, and there is no alert in some security office when I enter a camera's field of vision. I imagine most people think like this. A bit besides the point, but my phone has a unique identifier associated with it that is constantly communicated to my operator. It also has tons of other tracking software I have no clue about. While this is something I'd prefer didn't exist, same logic applies here. I'm not pro-surveillance, but pro realistic understanding of it. I know it's not great, but what can you do? Go around town filming people and creep them out thinking you're making a point when in reality you're just annoying people?
Barrin92 5y ago
>so why would they care about his camera? I mean it seems pretty obvious. Because a private person could potentially do anything from stalking you, to using your image in some political campaign or advertisement or whatever else. Potentially much worse and intrusive than being filmed by a parking lot camera. Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  What makes you think that someone who works for a business and has access to their cameras couldn't stalk people? How about someone hacking into the systems on some given area to track people?
- insickness 5y ago
  In the US, it is legal to photograph and film in public as long as there is not an expectation of privacy, such as a restroom. And it should remain legal. If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop. If I'm on a public sidewalk filming a private business, they can't tell me to stop. You can't legally use someone's image in an advertisement without their consent. But that's different than having the right to film in public. If I'm filming and you walk in front of my camera, you don't have the right to force me to stop filming. You don't own public space.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    >If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop to clarify this is legal here as well. Places or people of public interest are excluded from this. So crimes, public figures, monuments, public buildings and so on you can photograph as much as you want. The law protects private individuals, say someone taking your picture specifically on a train, in a gym or what have you. >You don't own public space That is true but the idea is that the public space should not become a voyeuristic zoo. Photographing spaces is fine, but individuals should not lose their privacy entirely just because they leave their home.
    - 5y ago
amalcon 5y ago
There's a pretty big difference in stated intent. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a person to be OK with being filmed for the purpose of e.g. theft prevention, but not for some kind of modern art project / protest statement. Edit: to be clear, the opposite also doesn't seem unreasonable. If someone told me they were OK with being filmed for a modern art project, but not for theft prevention, I wouldn't find that particularly odd either.
giantg2 5y ago
"so why would they care about his camera?" I agree that most reactions are not warranted. However, the context of the filming is quite different. On one hand, you have (mostly) stationary cameras filming areas, and all the people in that area. Usually the cameras are not zoomed in, and ostensibly are not allowed to record audio in many jurisdictions. So you don't feel threatened because it's a universal thing and unmanned. Also, you assume the purpose is for property or personal protection. On the other hand, you are being specifically targeted, including audio, by an actual human with a camera. Are they recording my credit card, pin, etc? It's reasonable to question what they are doing as it is unusual and could be a scam. The motive is unknown. Context and details matter. My guess is they violated a law and/or got sued. It's much easier than most people realize. For example, if you record someone's conversation while their on the phone, you could be in violation of wire tap laws even if you didn't tamper with their communication (simply the act of recording).