4 ms·

>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 yo

>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.
  - insickness 5y ago
    > The law protects private individuals, say someone taking your picture specifically on a train, in a gym or what have you. How does the law differentiate between public places and individuals? For example, if you're sitting in a park and I want to take a photo of the park, how would the law differentiate between me taking a photo of you versus taking a photo of the park?
    - amalcon 5y ago
      I am unaware of the specific law in Germany, but the way this kind of thing usually works in much of the world is that a judge or jury decides what the photo is "of" after being apprised of the relevant context. There are a lot of laws that deal with intent; the processes for this is pretty well-worn.
  - taurusnoises 5y ago
    I feel like people in the US really need to hear these perspectives when it comes to laws. We're a bit boarish here in the states and seem to approach laws in this all or nothing kind of way (I'm too tired to point out examples). But, showing that a law like this can be tweaked or nuanced nto the degree where yes you can film cops and no you can not film pedestrians or people eating outdoors at a cafe, might level us up a bit. (And, then maybe also showing how you're also not going to get arrested if you're a tourist taking pictures of the Statue of Liberty and people walk into the shot. Saying that, cuz that's usually the next response in our wonderfully litigious society). (snark overload this morning)
    - snowwrestler 5y ago
      We should be very hesitant to create laws that we expect to be selectively enforced, because it empowers law enforcement to make all sorts of bad decisions in the moment. This already happens with photos and filming despite the general presumption of legality. Adding a bunch of nuanced exceptions would make it much worse. Understand that the way this works is that officers can stop you from filming at any time. Then later you might get a judge to say, “the officer had no legal right to stop you.” The officer goes “oops” and that’s it. Obviously you cannot go back in time and get the moment that you missed. A clear, simple, well-known presumption of legality makes it a lot harder for a misbehaving officer to appeal to the concept of a “judgment call.” And it makes it easier for a judge to say “you should have known” and impose consequences on the officer.
genocidicbunny 5y ago
By number, most businesses that have cameras recording are also effectively 'a private person'. There's nothing stopping the owner of a business from using the footage they recorded in similar fashion. The stronger argument would be one that you alluded to with the 'stalking you' part -- a person with a camera can choose to follow you or frame the shot a certain way. A CCTV camera is a fixed installation that can't individually be used to really follow you, and can be somewhat trivially avoided. In effect, a person with a camera can function as a _network_ of CCTV cameras, and I think that's what raises some heckles.
hnbad 5y ago
> Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given. To elaborate: filming people (or taking pictures of them) in Germany requires consent, with some exceptions. Surveillance cameras are legal as long as their presence is clearly indicated with visible signage and they record only private property (e.g. pointing a surveillance camera outside your property is usually illegal). I think dashcams currently still occupy a legal gray area but they were inadmissible for the longest time. Walking up to random strangers and deliberately recording them without consent is 100% illegal and I would even argue that it constitutes harassment, especially if asked not to.
jrochkind1 5y ago
Why can't a manager or employee at any of the stores I go into in a week, all of which probably have cameras these days, be potentially doing the same thing? I mean, I get it -- we don't think they are likely to. Because that's not the purpose of the camera. Because we figure businesses are run by people "in charge" who have certain interests. We think we understand the purpose and intention of the cameras in the stores, and we don't understand the purpose or intention of the guy standing in the street, so imagine the worst. Plus the cameras in stores are often hidden so we avoid thinking about them entirely. But... we're on so many cameras, which just random employees at random stores have access to... or random homeowners with cameras pointing out their windows... it seems reasonable to me to be more worried about that then most people are. And I'm not sure I've meaniningfully given any kind of consent to any of it.
- scyzoryk_xyz 5y ago
  That is true. We cannot expect a perfect reality with capabilities of surveillance technology. However, last few years have shown here in Europe that it is possible to at least regulate what businesses do with the footage and personal data collected. GDPR - It doesn’t mean that an employee won’t do anything, but at least the legal entity for which he/she works is accountable and responsible for how this material is handled. And this employee can be fired. This means that inside a business or organization it isn’t advisable to even talk about doing things with the data/footage. And it means there are legal methods of properly handling and disposing of it. And that is pretty neat, although it has been criticized and berated by anti-EU sentiments because it adds paperwork. I’ve never been really worried about being observed or recorded, but after those 3D scanner things have popped up for passport checks I’ve become irritated. It’s obvious that there is unnecessary AI technology that’s sucking up all the available footage and extracting detailed information about me - beyond what is necessary for standard airport security. It’s not hard to imagine how an ML algo can be using this base somewhere out there to get all sorts of Minority Report style details.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - 5y ago
diehunde 5y ago
Also, I would think most people actually do care they are being recorded on CCTV but there's not much they can do about it. It's always an eerie feeling knowing you are being recorded.

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.
- insickness 5y ago
  > The law protects private individuals, say someone taking your picture specifically on a train, in a gym or what have you. How does the law differentiate between public places and individuals? For example, if you're sitting in a park and I want to take a photo of the park, how would the law differentiate between me taking a photo of you versus taking a photo of the park?
  - amalcon 5y ago
    I am unaware of the specific law in Germany, but the way this kind of thing usually works in much of the world is that a judge or jury decides what the photo is "of" after being apprised of the relevant context. There are a lot of laws that deal with intent; the processes for this is pretty well-worn.
- taurusnoises 5y ago
  I feel like people in the US really need to hear these perspectives when it comes to laws. We're a bit boarish here in the states and seem to approach laws in this all or nothing kind of way (I'm too tired to point out examples). But, showing that a law like this can be tweaked or nuanced nto the degree where yes you can film cops and no you can not film pedestrians or people eating outdoors at a cafe, might level us up a bit. (And, then maybe also showing how you're also not going to get arrested if you're a tourist taking pictures of the Statue of Liberty and people walk into the shot. Saying that, cuz that's usually the next response in our wonderfully litigious society). (snark overload this morning)
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    We should be very hesitant to create laws that we expect to be selectively enforced, because it empowers law enforcement to make all sorts of bad decisions in the moment. This already happens with photos and filming despite the general presumption of legality. Adding a bunch of nuanced exceptions would make it much worse. Understand that the way this works is that officers can stop you from filming at any time. Then later you might get a judge to say, “the officer had no legal right to stop you.” The officer goes “oops” and that’s it. Obviously you cannot go back in time and get the moment that you missed. A clear, simple, well-known presumption of legality makes it a lot harder for a misbehaving officer to appeal to the concept of a “judgment call.” And it makes it easier for a judge to say “you should have known” and impose consequences on the officer.

genocidicbunny 5y ago

By number, most businesses that have cameras recording are also effectively 'a private person'. There's nothing stopping the owner of a business from using the footage they recorded in similar fashion. The stronger argument would be one that you alluded to with the 'stalking you' part -- a person with a camera can choose to follow you or frame the shot a certain way. A CCTV camera is a fixed installation that can't individually be used to really follow you, and can be somewhat trivially avoided. In effect, a person with a camera can function as a _network_ of CCTV cameras, and I think that's what raises some heckles.

hnbad 5y ago

> Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given. To elaborate: filming people (or taking pictures of them) in Germany requires consent, with some exceptions. Surveillance cameras are legal as long as their presence is clearly indicated with visible signage and they record only private property (e.g. pointing a surveillance camera outside your property is usually illegal). I think dashcams currently still occupy a legal gray area but they were inadmissible for the longest time. Walking up to random strangers and deliberately recording them without consent is 100% illegal and I would even argue that it constitutes harassment, especially if asked not to.

jrochkind1 5y ago

Why can't a manager or employee at any of the stores I go into in a week, all of which probably have cameras these days, be potentially doing the same thing? I mean, I get it -- we don't think they are likely to. Because that's not the purpose of the camera. Because we figure businesses are run by people "in charge" who have certain interests. We think we understand the purpose and intention of the cameras in the stores, and we don't understand the purpose or intention of the guy standing in the street, so imagine the worst. Plus the cameras in stores are often hidden so we avoid thinking about them entirely. But... we're on so many cameras, which just random employees at random stores have access to... or random homeowners with cameras pointing out their windows... it seems reasonable to me to be more worried about that then most people are. And I'm not sure I've meaniningfully given any kind of consent to any of it.

scyzoryk_xyz 5y ago
That is true. We cannot expect a perfect reality with capabilities of surveillance technology. However, last few years have shown here in Europe that it is possible to at least regulate what businesses do with the footage and personal data collected. GDPR - It doesn’t mean that an employee won’t do anything, but at least the legal entity for which he/she works is accountable and responsible for how this material is handled. And this employee can be fired. This means that inside a business or organization it isn’t advisable to even talk about doing things with the data/footage. And it means there are legal methods of properly handling and disposing of it. And that is pretty neat, although it has been criticized and berated by anti-EU sentiments because it adds paperwork. I’ve never been really worried about being observed or recorded, but after those 3D scanner things have popped up for passport checks I’ve become irritated. It’s obvious that there is unnecessary AI technology that’s sucking up all the available footage and extracting detailed information about me - beyond what is necessary for standard airport security. It’s not hard to imagine how an ML algo can be using this base somewhere out there to get all sorts of Minority Report style details.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 5y ago

diehunde 5y ago

Also, I would think most people actually do care they are being recorded on CCTV but there's not much they can do about it. It's always an eerie feeling knowing you are being recorded.