8 ms·
Bodycams for civilians
- atoav 3y agoJust a side note: Recording people without their consent might be illegal in certain places.
- ghaff 3y agoIn general in the US, video recordings in a public place are legal. (Audio is a bit more complicated depending on local law ADDED but in public it should generally be OK.)
- froddd 3y agoGenuine question: is it the act of recording that is illegal or is it the publishing of recorded material where this applies?
- ghaff 3y agoIn the US, it probably doesn’t matter in general. My understanding is at least some countries in Europe have restrictions about posting photos (and presumably video) without the subject’s permission. Something that is of course ignored probably 100s of thousands of times per day.
- orwin 3y agoIn France, if you post a image of a minor (less than 18) without express permission, you're in a world of trouble. It's automatic win in a lawsuit, no mater how justified you think you are.
- ghaff 3y agoI wonder how many iconic photographs including by the likes of Henri-Cartier Bresson would fail that test. I assume there also have to be carveouts for newspaper/magazine editorial.
- atoav 3y agoAt least in Germany this is about the act of recording and the act of publishing. But in reality if you are not publishing, most recordings will never be noticed by the people on the pictures. Also there are limitations, e.g. implicit consent or "panoramic freedom" (when the people on the picture are not recognizable).
- the_gipsy 3y agoDepends on country and the exact types of "record" and "publish".
- _cenw 3y agoAnd even if it's not, a cop will claim it is. It's long been settled that recording police in Germany is totally fine, but they keep claiming that once you have an audio track, it's recording "the spoken private word" which has special protection. Doesn't matter they're there in an official capacity, and also doesn't matter if you don't record audio. They'll just assume you are. Even the press get targeted. https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/2020/10/02/reportit-police-violence-against-press/ https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/2020/10/02/reportit-poli...
- ghaff 3y agoEven in the US, my understanding with respect to audio specifically is that there are one party consent locales and two party consent locales. So audio can actually be more restrictive than video. ADDED: And it looks like there’s no out of the box way with the default iPhone camera app to record video without audio.
- rainbowzootsuit 3y agoUS Federal is 1-party and some states are 2-party. This is why you get the "this phone call may be recorded for quality assurance" notifications—because you have now been informed as the second party. But the above is for private conversations. If the interaction is in a public area, then there isn't an expectation of privacy, so the number of parties informed is moot, but this has been the subject of legal disputes notably when it comes to police being recorded. If anything it would seem like government representatives would have less expectations of privacy when conducting official business, but it's been argued.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y agoThey keep claiming it because they don’t want to be recorded. It’s still legal to do it. Police are allowed to lie to you after all.
- _cenw 3y agoWell, obviously. But it is very rare that you will get your theoretical rights when your legal opponent is a cop. One of the cases linked in the article literally had a camera running when a cop assaulted them[1], and yet they got charged for assult and resisting arrest first, dragged through court for a year while the prosecutors office refused to prosecute the police offer due to "lack of public interest, slim chance of guilty verdict and low degree of guilt". They look out for each other. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQcmgkWXa9A#t=1m40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQcmgkWXa9A#t=1m40s
- logtempo 3y agoDepend of the country, but public places can be filmed without consent, except if it record a specific person.
- Ferret7446 3y agoI've always wondered, if you start recording to capture evidence of some crime against you, can you not submit that as evidence to defend yourself in court?
- atoav 3y agoI'd probably live with the risk then.
- porkbeer 3y agoAbout half the states in the usa the act Audio recording is privliged.
- petschge 3y agoJust a sidebar on the word "civilian". Police offices in the US like to call member of the public "civilians", but they themselves are civilians as they do not fall under the military code of justice. Unless you want to argue that they are an occupying force that is in armed conflict with the population and should be treated as combatants under the Geneva Conventions...
- bArray 3y agoTechnically true, but in the UK they refer to themselves as "first responders", "emergency services", "the force", etc. And they do technically have powers beyond that of a civilian (for better or for worse).
- amenhotep 3y agoNo they don't. They have powers beyond that of an ordinary member of the public. So do many other civilians! That doesn't make them not civilians.
- BSDobelix 3y agoAnother sidebar, the CIA is a civilian service as ~70% of all intelligence services are (except military intelligence), otherwise it would not be possible to do stuff that is against the law and many other "bonuses", like plausible deniability.
- Wohlf 3y agoSeveral dictionaries define civilian as those not in military or police forces, the Geneva conventions only dictates language in the context of war.
- BSDobelix 3y agoThere is also "civil servant", but that has different meanings in country's and also different law's and duty's attached to that "title".
- flandish 3y ago
- tokai 3y agoAs a cyclist it seems like an attractive solution as a dash-cam equivalent. That's not really for security but for peace of mind with insurance claims.
- agos 3y agoI don't think it would work well - once you start recording it's too late
- HenryBemis 3y agoA GoPro is a (reasonably) better choice. More battery, inside a hard case, you can mount on helmet or have it fixed on the bike, and probably cheaper (especially if you buy a second hand one and just replace the battery).
- tokai 3y agoWhen you spend obscene amounts on light and aerodynamic equipment an old gopro on the helmet is very sad.
- dukeyukey 3y agoWhy would you spend obscene amounts on equipment? All I've got is a helmet and a front light, cost me about £60 all-in-all.
- tokai 3y agoThere is a huge difference between riding a bike and being a cyclist. This video explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EE8m8mmq1k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EE8m8mmq1k
- mmh0000 3y agoI would like to take a moment to thank you for introducing me to a new youtube series which has already wasted an hour of my day. I love-hate you.
- dleeftink 3y ago> This all perhaps makes sense for European mores Anyone else found this an odd sentiment? In my experience, a device like this will not likely receive much praise around Europe, regardless of social or professional setting.
- obscurette 3y agoIt's a matter of interpretation probably. I read it as "it's from European company, so MAYBE there is something in Europe I don't know and it makes sense in there".
- dleeftink 3y agoBut that assumes uncommon ground over a common one -- just because product X is built in country Y does not mean a country or region shares those values by default. A shared ruleset on the other hand ('privacy by default'), might be shared more fully.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoThe article is written from the perspective of an american to whom europe is not a real place, but a counter-america.
- Hamuko 3y agoI found it to mean "as opposed to the US where someone will shoot you with a gun for it."
- jdietrich 3y agoSetting aside the peculiar use of the term "civilian", I do think that there's a viable and reasonable market for this sort of less-conspicuous bodycam. Where I live (not the US), it's increasingly common for retail employees in sketchy areas to wear highly conspicuous bodycams of the Taser Axon type due to increasing concerns about theft and assault. I'm not sure how much of a deterrent they are, but they certainly provide an insight into incidents that often isn't provided by standard fixed CCTV systems. The clear downside is the implicit message sent by their use - everyone knows what that bodycam says about the relationship between the store and the community they serve. If I were a social worker or a nurse, I could see a great deal of value in a product like this. The designers seem to have struck a neat balance between discreetness when it's switched off and conspicuity when it's switched on. Obviously there are very significant privacy and data protection concerns that need to be seriously considered, but I could see a product like this offering significant benefits in terms of personal safety and professional liability.
- justinclift 3y ago> less-conspicuous bodycam. This doesn't seem "less conspicuous", to me at least. It has a literal light ring that turns on when it's in use, which makes it seem like it'll be pretty obvious and hard to miss. If the light could be turned off while it's in use, then it might be "less conspicuous".
- jdietrich 3y ago>The designers seem to have struck a neat balance between discreetness when it's switched off and conspicuity when it's switched on. Covert body-worn cameras are a well-established technology, but a completely different class of device. A bodycam records people who know that they are being recorded, which has substantial behavioural and legal implications. Current bodycams are - often intentionally - very conspicuous even when they're turned off. They're big blocky devices and some of them have bright yellow markings that say "VIDEO & AUDIO". That's potentially useful as a deterrent, but it's also a bit hostile because it clearly implies a degree of caution or suspicion on the part of whoever is wearing it. A bodycam that's subtle and non-threatening when turned off but very visible when turned on is a different class of device again. If I were a nurse, there's no way in hell that I'd wear a covert camera unless I had a very clear reason for doing so and very strong assurances that it's legally above board. If I did wear one, I'd be constantly worried that someone would find out, because I'd be furious if the shoe were on the other foot. Unless the hospital was genuinely so dangerous that I was constantly worried for my safety, I'd be very reluctant to wear a big lump of a bodycam, because it's going to put a lot of my patients on their guard when that absolutely isn't warranted. I'd be quite happy to wear one of these cameras. Unless I turn it on, most people aren't going to notice it; If they do notice, I can very easily explain "it's a bodycam, because occasionally we get a patient who might be a bit aggressive", demonstrate the very obvious red recording light and reassure them that they aren't being spied on.
- renewiltord 3y agoEnjoyable to see new technologies enable old techniques https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
- black_13 3y ago[dead]
- DueDilligence 3y ago[dead]