7 ms·

Unless laws are passed to make filming others in public, this is unlikely to ever stop. Chances are, such laws will not get passed as it will intrude on civil l

by martin1975 4y ago

Unless laws are passed to make filming others in public, this is unlikely to ever stop. Chances are, such laws will not get passed as it will intrude on civil liberties and free expression of many. I also recommend against swatting away, as the author in the Verge concludes he/she will do, at someone's phone if they don't consent to being recorded. You run the risk of breaking someone's phone that way, giving potential rise to increased conflict or a small claims suit. Best response is to walk away or ignore.

standardUser 4y ago
> Best response is to walk away or ignore. I think this is a good take, but I'd suggest the best response is to address the human being that is addressing you and say "no thanks".
- throwaway1777 4y ago
  Have you actually tried this? Most of the time the people filming you are not exactly pleasant to deal with and will laugh at you.
  - standardUser 4y ago
    Then you can proceed to ignore them and/or walk away. Obviously. And yes, I live in Manhattan and before that downtown SF, so I'd wager I've been confronted by strangers far more often than the average person. One time I was in some sort of "soap opera" student project where I had to read some lines on tape. Another time a partner and I were confronted coming out of the Museum of Sex to be interviewed about our sex life. A video I was in at a park after Biden was announced the winner went semi-viral. One time at the corner of Polk x Post a man in a car tried to pick me up for sex work! I could go on.
- ubermonkey 4y ago
  Absolutely not. People who take advantage of social mores to force interactions for commercial purposes are not entitled to the same grace and kindness you'd extend to a normal person. This is why it's entirely okay to just shut the door on salesmen, or just hang up on cold callers. Indeed, that is actually the BEST way, because anything you say or do besides that will be used, by a skilled salesperson, to try and pry open a longer interaction. These people are operating in bad faith, and should be treated accordingly.
  - standardUser 4y ago
    If the cost is too high for you to treat strangers like human beings for a brief moment before brutally judging them, then you can follow the ignore/walk away advice.
    - pkulak 4y ago
      The cost is too high. And there’s nothing brutal about quickly stopping an unwanted, unsolicited, bad-faith interaction. Every person on the planet isn’t automatically entitled to my time.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - standardUser 4y ago
        The cost is too high to say "no thanks" instead of completely ignoring someone? And why assume they are acting in "bad faith" before you even know what they have to say? If you want to hide from the world, go for it, but don't pretend the people engaging with the world are the problem.
        techsupporter 4y ago
        > but don't pretend the people engaging with the world are the problem. They are not the problem, in my opinion, but they are also entitled to nothing that I do not choose to give of my own volition. Expecting a response, particularly a polite one, to an unsolicited interaction is on the same level of telling someone that "you'd look better if you smiled." People are free to be in public but must also be aware of the consequences of their actions. One of those consequences may be that they are brusquely ignored. If they want to be out in the world, go for it, but don't pretend the people engaging in their own activities are the problem.
        ubermonkey 4y ago
        Yes. If someone is approaching you in public with a mic in their hand, you don't owe them anything. If someone cold-calls you for sales, you don't owe them a moment more of your time once you realize what they are. If someone knocks on your door to sell knives or pots and pans or Jesus, you especially don't owe them anything.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Encouraging rudeness is not polite, no matter what words you use. You've made yourself feel better, and made it easier for the intrusive human being to continue to rudely intrude on others. Ignoring them is best, responding with swear words is second best, and pretending it's a normal human interaction is far, far down the list.
  - scubbo 4y ago
    Politeness is not a supreme virtue. These people have already proactively disrespected others by invading their privacy - they simultaneously sacrificed the right to be treated politely. Would you respond to a home invader with a polite request? If not, then we've established that there are situations in which politeness is not required or justified, and now we're just quibbling about which actions justify which responses. > You've[...] made it easier for the intrusive human being to continue to rudely intrude on others If you have made them feel uncomfortable - perhaps forced them to stop and confront the discomfort that they are selfishly causing - then this is not, in fact, true. And if this happens repeatedly, they will stop.
- Sophistifunk 4y ago
  The correct response is "fuck off cunt" because then they're going to have to spend a bunch of time bleeping you before any advertising-friendly platform will let you become a meme for their own profit.
FatActor 4y ago
> Unless laws are passed to make filming others in public, this is unlikely to ever stop. Assuming you mean the USA, the problem is you need people to enforce those laws or succeed with lawsuits (and dodge endless appeals or ascension to the SCOTUS). We can't even begin address gun violence in this country, I highly doubt we'll get consent-to-be-filmed-in-public-laws passed.
Animats 4y ago
That's a First Amendment issue in the US. What California does is to prohibit commercialization of the result without payment, which is constitutionally OK.
- braveyellowtoad 4y ago
  Interesting. Is uploading a video like this to tiktok or YouTube considered commercialisation?
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    If you monetize it on those platforms it would be.
lr4444lr 4y ago
They're sticking objects into your personal space without consent, possibly constituting harassment or invasion of privacy/eavesdropping in some jurisdictions. I highly doubt the court costs for 99% of their sweatshop-made electronics are worth the hassle, including convincing a jury. I'm not saying you should grab their stuff and stomp it into the dirt, but a swat isn't gonna hurt these clowns.
- ovao 4y ago
  A person who approaches you and asks you a question — camera or no — is not deserving of assault.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Assault, camera or no, is deserving of a self-defense response. What if was a knife or gun, not a camera? They look similar. I'm not going to wait until I'm bleeding out to find out.
    - saagarjha 4y ago
      Are you a cop?
    - akerl_ 4y ago
      What camera do you use that looks like a gun?
    - ovao 4y ago
      > they look similar Insofar as they’re both…objects?
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        They don't need to. While it's unlikely to happen to you, people have in fact been assassinated by others who they believed to be a regular camera crew: https://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/06/bindra.focus/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/06/bindra....
balls187 4y ago
Re: Small Claims: If it’s brought by someone who makes a living by being obnoxious harassing private citizens in public, how much sympathy would that get from the judge?
- 323 4y ago
  So like paparazzi? From what I've seen they are pretty well defended by law, including when filming minor celebrities.
  - balls187 4y ago
    My understanding is celebrities have a a different legal standard than the public.
DoreenMichele 4y ago
There are laws. A quick search for "laws about photographing people in public" brings up a bunch of articles including, of course, one on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law See also: https://www.reddit.com/r/WalkableStreets/comments/u9jonf/for_those_of_you_taking_street_photos_heres_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/WalkableStreets/comments/u9jonf/for... Edit: this may also be useful: https://photographybay.com/photography-laws/ https://photographybay.com/photography-laws/
- judge2020 4y ago
  Given " civil liberties and free expression of many", OP is likely speaking in a United States context, where photography in public is always allowed and only some states have 'wiretap' laws that prohibit recording conversations without the consent of all parties. Speaking in a US context and not a global context is a fairly common theme on HN~
KirillPanov 4y ago
> Unless laws are passed to make filming others in public The law and courts need to acknowledge a third state beyond "in private" and "in public". Call it "on stage" -- when large numbers of people can see you but you can't see them. You can disseminate film of people on stage, but not in public.

standardUser 4y ago

> Best response is to walk away or ignore. I think this is a good take, but I'd suggest the best response is to address the human being that is addressing you and say "no thanks".

throwaway1777 4y ago
Have you actually tried this? Most of the time the people filming you are not exactly pleasant to deal with and will laugh at you.
- standardUser 4y ago
  Then you can proceed to ignore them and/or walk away. Obviously. And yes, I live in Manhattan and before that downtown SF, so I'd wager I've been confronted by strangers far more often than the average person. One time I was in some sort of "soap opera" student project where I had to read some lines on tape. Another time a partner and I were confronted coming out of the Museum of Sex to be interviewed about our sex life. A video I was in at a park after Biden was announced the winner went semi-viral. One time at the corner of Polk x Post a man in a car tried to pick me up for sex work! I could go on.
ubermonkey 4y ago
Absolutely not. People who take advantage of social mores to force interactions for commercial purposes are not entitled to the same grace and kindness you'd extend to a normal person. This is why it's entirely okay to just shut the door on salesmen, or just hang up on cold callers. Indeed, that is actually the BEST way, because anything you say or do besides that will be used, by a skilled salesperson, to try and pry open a longer interaction. These people are operating in bad faith, and should be treated accordingly.
- standardUser 4y ago
  If the cost is too high for you to treat strangers like human beings for a brief moment before brutally judging them, then you can follow the ignore/walk away advice.
  - pkulak 4y ago
    The cost is too high. And there’s nothing brutal about quickly stopping an unwanted, unsolicited, bad-faith interaction. Every person on the planet isn’t automatically entitled to my time.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - standardUser 4y ago
      The cost is too high to say "no thanks" instead of completely ignoring someone? And why assume they are acting in "bad faith" before you even know what they have to say? If you want to hide from the world, go for it, but don't pretend the people engaging with the world are the problem.
      - techsupporter 4y ago
        > but don't pretend the people engaging with the world are the problem. They are not the problem, in my opinion, but they are also entitled to nothing that I do not choose to give of my own volition. Expecting a response, particularly a polite one, to an unsolicited interaction is on the same level of telling someone that "you'd look better if you smiled." People are free to be in public but must also be aware of the consequences of their actions. One of those consequences may be that they are brusquely ignored. If they want to be out in the world, go for it, but don't pretend the people engaging in their own activities are the problem.
      - ubermonkey 4y ago
        Yes. If someone is approaching you in public with a mic in their hand, you don't owe them anything. If someone cold-calls you for sales, you don't owe them a moment more of your time once you realize what they are. If someone knocks on your door to sell knives or pots and pans or Jesus, you especially don't owe them anything.
pwinnski 4y ago
Encouraging rudeness is not polite, no matter what words you use. You've made yourself feel better, and made it easier for the intrusive human being to continue to rudely intrude on others. Ignoring them is best, responding with swear words is second best, and pretending it's a normal human interaction is far, far down the list.
- scubbo 4y ago
  Politeness is not a supreme virtue. These people have already proactively disrespected others by invading their privacy - they simultaneously sacrificed the right to be treated politely. Would you respond to a home invader with a polite request? If not, then we've established that there are situations in which politeness is not required or justified, and now we're just quibbling about which actions justify which responses. > You've[...] made it easier for the intrusive human being to continue to rudely intrude on others If you have made them feel uncomfortable - perhaps forced them to stop and confront the discomfort that they are selfishly causing - then this is not, in fact, true. And if this happens repeatedly, they will stop.
Sophistifunk 4y ago
The correct response is "fuck off cunt" because then they're going to have to spend a bunch of time bleeping you before any advertising-friendly platform will let you become a meme for their own profit.

FatActor 4y ago

> Unless laws are passed to make filming others in public, this is unlikely to ever stop. Assuming you mean the USA, the problem is you need people to enforce those laws or succeed with lawsuits (and dodge endless appeals or ascension to the SCOTUS). We can't even begin address gun violence in this country, I highly doubt we'll get consent-to-be-filmed-in-public-laws passed.

Animats 4y ago

That's a First Amendment issue in the US. What California does is to prohibit commercialization of the result without payment, which is constitutionally OK.

braveyellowtoad 4y ago
Interesting. Is uploading a video like this to tiktok or YouTube considered commercialisation?
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  If you monetize it on those platforms it would be.

lr4444lr 4y ago

They're sticking objects into your personal space without consent, possibly constituting harassment or invasion of privacy/eavesdropping in some jurisdictions. I highly doubt the court costs for 99% of their sweatshop-made electronics are worth the hassle, including convincing a jury. I'm not saying you should grab their stuff and stomp it into the dirt, but a swat isn't gonna hurt these clowns.

ovao 4y ago
A person who approaches you and asks you a question — camera or no — is not deserving of assault.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Assault, camera or no, is deserving of a self-defense response. What if was a knife or gun, not a camera? They look similar. I'm not going to wait until I'm bleeding out to find out.
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    Are you a cop?
  - akerl_ 4y ago
    What camera do you use that looks like a gun?
  - ovao 4y ago
    > they look similar Insofar as they’re both…objects?
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      They don't need to. While it's unlikely to happen to you, people have in fact been assassinated by others who they believed to be a regular camera crew: https://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/06/bindra.focus/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/06/bindra....

balls187 4y ago

Re: Small Claims: If it’s brought by someone who makes a living by being obnoxious harassing private citizens in public, how much sympathy would that get from the judge?

323 4y ago
So like paparazzi? From what I've seen they are pretty well defended by law, including when filming minor celebrities.
- balls187 4y ago
  My understanding is celebrities have a a different legal standard than the public.

DoreenMichele 4y ago

There are laws. A quick search for "laws about photographing people in public" brings up a bunch of articles including, of course, one on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law See also: https://www.reddit.com/r/WalkableStreets/comments/u9jonf/for_those_of_you_taking_street_photos_heres_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/WalkableStreets/comments/u9jonf/for... Edit: this may also be useful: https://photographybay.com/photography-laws/ https://photographybay.com/photography-laws/

judge2020 4y ago
Given " civil liberties and free expression of many", OP is likely speaking in a United States context, where photography in public is always allowed and only some states have 'wiretap' laws that prohibit recording conversations without the consent of all parties. Speaking in a US context and not a global context is a fairly common theme on HN~

KirillPanov 4y ago

> Unless laws are passed to make filming others in public The law and courts need to acknowledge a third state beyond "in private" and "in public". Call it "on stage" -- when large numbers of people can see you but you can't see them. You can disseminate film of people on stage, but not in public.