4 ms·
The chinese guy becomes a huge moron when he claims he touched her, but the pianist is a big jerk as well. Calling "freedom" the right to film (and publish on
by g-b-r 3y ago
The chinese guy becomes a huge moron when he claims he touched her, but the pianist is a big jerk as well.
Calling "freedom" the right to film (and publish on YouTube) anyone is ludicrous (yeah I know how many Americans do that).
Your freedom ends when others' freedoms begin, and if you had to assume that everything you do in public would be stored forever for the world to see your freedom just tanked.
- swat535 3y agoThat's already what your assumption should be.. don't go out in the public if you don't like to be filmed. We have freedom laws specifically for this so I am failing to see your point for this? Public spaces are _public_ .
- g-b-r 3y agoYou fail to see how not going out in public is a reduction of freedom?
- mmh0000 3y agoHow do you feel about all the surveillance cameras permeating society?
- g-b-r 3y agoExtremely bad Were you born after they spread, by any chance?
- mmh0000 3y agoMy point is, you're being filmed in most all public spaces all the time. Some rando filming doesn't really change the amount of privacy you do or don't have. EDIT: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/thrxuy/iso_surveillance_camera_man_cant_seem_to_find_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/thrxuy/iso_surveill...
- g-b-r 3y agoOh so Americans do care about being filmed in public xD Surveillance Camera Man might be my new hero, if his goals where the ones I hope. Although I might want to turn away the surveillance cameras as well, some rando filming could be worse for: - uploading the video to YouTube - sometimes reaching places that are not really covered with cameras - and in the Surveillance Camera Man case specifically, for it being more likely that the video be used for nefarious purposes
- ShaolinTrooper 3y agoThere's a difference. CCTV footages aren't used for profit and it will not be published to the public. Brendan's live video is used for profit and is published for everyone to see.
- mmh0000 3y agocctv footage gets published all the time for profit https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=security+camera+footage https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=security+...
- ShaolinTrooper 3y agoThen send me a link of a CCTV camera around your local mall or train station. They only publish it if it will be used for the news / evidence of a crime. You mean to say CCTV footages in its entire duration gets profit?
- steveylang 3y agoThese guys were literally just filming themselves playing the piano, when they were approached by people completely outside the view of the camera telling them to stop.
- g-b-r 3y agoLargely yes, but then the pianist did approach and have them specifically filmed I think the Chinese didn't move because they were recording something and wanted to do it in that place, but most of all they wanted what had already been recorded of them to be deleted / blurred. Sure it's a little ironic if they were recording themselves, but in many countries you expect it to be a right to have recordings of you at least not distributed (and it is ironic for PRC people to talk about rights).
- ETH_start 3y agoIn the UK filming in public and publishing the film anywhere is indeed a right and freedom, so you're mocking British concepts of freedom and the pianist for defending it. It's ludicrous to claim you have a right to force others to avert their cameras when you are out in public, and that otherwise, your rights are violated. If you don't want to be seen, wear a mask. The public and its eyes/cameras don't belong to you.
- g-b-r 3y agoIf that's British concept of freedom I'm most definitely mocking it. You can't see that you're forcing people to act in some way when you film them. The kind of freedom you defend here is the one of reducing other people's freedom (by a larger amount than what you sacrifice by not filming).
- ETH_start 3y agoYou're not forcing people to act in any way by filmimg them. Filming is not an act of force, and yet you advocate employing state force to restrict it.
- g-b-r 3y agoYou do, and it is, even if it doesn't involve muscles. Can I avoid it if you refuse to blur me / not upload the video ? Sure, by beating you up maybe, but that's not really allowed in today's society xD
- ETH_start 3y agoYou haven't described any aspect of filming you that forces you to do something, yet still maintain a right to use force against those who film in public.
- g-b-r 3y agoYou can't see how you're forced to constrain your behavior if you're going on YouTube? (assuming you were presentable to begin with)
- Shaolol 3y agoYour freedom to not be recorded in public ends where others' freedom to record still pictures and live video begins. I am surprised that your are learning about competing interests so late in life. Some countries come down on the side of the person doing the recording, and other countries come down on the side of the person not wishing to be recorded.
- g-b-r 3y agoSince not recording (or blurring) is a much lesser sacrifice, and for millennia you could rely on cameras and YouTube not being around, it's easy to decide which side to favour. At this point I wonder if this recording freedom idea was one of those used to spread surveillance cameras (I wasn't following English media at the time)
- Shaolol 3y ago[dead]