5 ms·

There are lots of young people who have some conception and respect of privacy and there are people who haven't. That's not a generational thing.. It's just tha

by siva7 1y ago

There are lots of young people who have some conception and respect of privacy and there are people who haven't. That's not a generational thing.. It's just that those without awareness of boundaries have now all the tech that screams in their face to stream everything to the world without consent. I can assure you that still lots of young folks are annoyed by those people.

RajT88 1y ago
Agree. I went to a family gathering recently, and my wife's cousin was walking around live streaming. People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading live to the internet. The same guy did similar when his mom was on her death bed. Jesus Christ.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading love to the internet. Audio is different from video. This is technically illegal, as consent is explicitly required in the law for audio recording.
  - greenavocado 1y ago
    Most states in the United States allow one one-party consent for audio recordings.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      They're not party to others' conversations.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        As long as someone is not hidden, or trying to be deceptive, then they would be considered party to the conversation. Someone walking around live streaming would become party to all the conversations.
    - jon-wood 1y ago
      And most states also allow you to leave a bar thirty seconds after your friend you arranged to meet there arrives, it would still be considered rude to do so and probably you wouldn’t be welcome in the future if you kept doing it.
      - blackoil 1y ago
        You are free to quit the party, but host won't be arrested for recording and sharing video.
    - serial_dev 1y ago
      I get that for whistleblowers, journalists, investigators, ... I don't think it's relevant for a birthday party with children. If it's me, I'm leaving the party. If it's my children attending, I'm strongly recommending them to leave the party (or just leave with them, depending on their age). Live-streaming a birthday party of children is obnoxious behavior that should not be tolerated.
      - sdoering 1y ago
        If it’s me, in Germany, I would instantly tell this person to stop filming and to delete any recordings. And if they streamed live to expect a letter from the (German equivalent of the) DA soon, as I would - as soon as back home - I would press charges and search damages. Because in German publishing images/recordings of an individual without consent violates basic constitutional rights. And that’s nothing to f** with. If minors were involved you’d be in a whole different can of soup even. So while I don’t advocate for violence - as others have hinted in this thread - a black eye could actually be the lesser negative outcome for such a person.
      - f1shy 1y ago
        This is the case where I find law in Europe better than USA. In germany you need consent to film or record other people. The downside is the misuse of the law, what happens constantly, to basically prohibit (at least in practice) ANY recording activity. Is not unheard of, I have seen and experienced myself quite a few times, for example, a tourist being stopped and asked to delete a video of a simple recording in a park (police called immediately), because a random stupid person was around and wants to show how good he knows his rights… (see sister comment)
    - webstrand 1y ago
      Under US federal law one-party consent requires that you actually be a party to the conversation. This is why most security cameras do not record audio. If you're wandering around livestreaming and picking up conversations you're not a participant in, it's a violation of federal wiretapping laws.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        Presumably, a person holding up a phone live-streaming would be party to the conversation. If two people are talking at a party, and a third person obviously comes by within earshot, then the two people can either stop talking, or they can continue, but the third person is now party to the conversation.
      - kjksf 1y ago
        You're so obviously wrong. I watched multiple videos from Portland ICE protest, multiple videos of ICE arresting people, all with audio. Half the people at protests are recording. If you were right all that would be illegal. The magic word is: "reasonable expectation of privacy". If you're in public, like in streets, in the mall etc. you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy. You can be recorded, with audio, and it's legal. The two party consent rules only apply to private conduct e.g. you have a phone conversation. In states with two party consent the other person can't record the conversation without notifying you. What you describe as "US federal law" sound more like anti-wiretapping law i.e. I can't plant a bug in your house and record your conversations. Which is duh, but not relevant to being recorded while in public.
        webstrand 1y ago
        I figured that "reasonable expectation of privacy" was a given in the scenario. It's a family gathering, the livestreamer is not being obvious about their recording, there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Your ICE protest example is performed in public, its a protest, its not meant to be private, thus fails the test of "reasonable expectation of privacy". Action taken by agents of the state are also public actions, this has been tried many times in court. Two-party consent is not federal law and varies state-by-state. But again it requires that you actually be a party to consent. And yes by "US Federal Law" I am referencing the anti-wiretapping laws which prohibit, among other things, interception of oral communication via electronic means unless at least one party consents.
    - buildsjets 1y ago
      Most parents will punch you in the face if you try to record audio of thier children without two party consent.
      - greenavocado 1y ago
        Do that in a public place and you will catch an assault and/or battery charge
        buildsjets 1y ago
        Such a trial is an acceptable result, in exchange for committing well justified violence. Any jury with parents on it will acquit.
  - RajT88 1y ago
    Eve if legal, the guy was in the wrong.
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    Laws almost always vary by jurisdiction.
  - hdgvhicv 1y ago
    Which jurisdiction are you taking? Japan? Christmas Island? Cuba?
    - Izkata 1y ago
      11 states in the US have two-party-consent laws. IIRC GP is correct about recordings of private conversations in these states.
  - i_am_jl 1y ago
    Really? What jurisdiction has that rule? Are you sure you're not conflating simple audio recording with a recording of audio telecommunications?
  - GJim 1y ago
    What in gods name does the law have to do with it?
- serallak 1y ago
  A friend that was going to deliver a child told us about a dad-to-be that was going around the maternity ward making videos ...
  - Freak_NL 1y ago
    That's a good recipe for getting a black eye. The mother-to-be tends to be pretty much confined to her immediate affairs, but the partner… (I'm sure everyone is different, but I've been there as the father-to-be, and I would have made a good effort of turning that live-stream into a live-colonoscopy.)
    - lsaferite 1y ago
      Considering the level of undress and temporary IDGAF of the moms in labor, filming anywhere near them is a good way to get injured.
- Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
  >The same guy did similar when his mom was on her death bed. Jesus Christ. I am so sorry for your loss and I am out of words. Just, I just want to be with ya in silence for a while. I am sorry that you had to go through this. I am really speechless
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    Are you expressing overdramatic sympathy for the loss of a stranger's wife's cousin's mother? No wonder that cousin films and streams everything.
    - Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
      I was definitely feeling something as I didn't think of the stranger's wife's cousin's mother? as dying but rather the stranger's wife dying and that cousin recording it. But even now, yes you may have proved your point but death is so fucking weird and not talked about and sometimes I just get speechless, like someone just left the earth, let that sink in... Honestly, I can somewhat both understand why he was live streaming now wanting more comments/everyone's final messages to go to her mother but at the same time, its definitely privacy invasive and might show their last moments and something of a behaviour I don't condone but I just don't know, now my opinion is mixed.
      - RajT88 1y ago
        Yep - was my wife's cousin's mother who died. I didn't know the lady at all. I didn't even end up meeting the cousin, I heard about all this after the fact. My wife isn't broken up either - kind of distant family.
igor47 1y ago
We need content for ML! If you don't upload every moment of your life, you're not doing your part for humanity.

by siva7 1y ago

RajT88 1y ago

Agree. I went to a family gathering recently, and my wife's cousin was walking around live streaming. People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading live to the internet. The same guy did similar when his mom was on her death bed. Jesus Christ.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading love to the internet. Audio is different from video. This is technically illegal, as consent is explicitly required in the law for audio recording.
- greenavocado 1y ago
  Most states in the United States allow one one-party consent for audio recordings.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    They're not party to others' conversations.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      As long as someone is not hidden, or trying to be deceptive, then they would be considered party to the conversation. Someone walking around live streaming would become party to all the conversations.
  - jon-wood 1y ago
    And most states also allow you to leave a bar thirty seconds after your friend you arranged to meet there arrives, it would still be considered rude to do so and probably you wouldn’t be welcome in the future if you kept doing it.
    - blackoil 1y ago
      You are free to quit the party, but host won't be arrested for recording and sharing video.
  - serial_dev 1y ago
    I get that for whistleblowers, journalists, investigators, ... I don't think it's relevant for a birthday party with children. If it's me, I'm leaving the party. If it's my children attending, I'm strongly recommending them to leave the party (or just leave with them, depending on their age). Live-streaming a birthday party of children is obnoxious behavior that should not be tolerated.
    - sdoering 1y ago
      If it’s me, in Germany, I would instantly tell this person to stop filming and to delete any recordings. And if they streamed live to expect a letter from the (German equivalent of the) DA soon, as I would - as soon as back home - I would press charges and search damages. Because in German publishing images/recordings of an individual without consent violates basic constitutional rights. And that’s nothing to f** with. If minors were involved you’d be in a whole different can of soup even. So while I don’t advocate for violence - as others have hinted in this thread - a black eye could actually be the lesser negative outcome for such a person.
    - f1shy 1y ago
      This is the case where I find law in Europe better than USA. In germany you need consent to film or record other people. The downside is the misuse of the law, what happens constantly, to basically prohibit (at least in practice) ANY recording activity. Is not unheard of, I have seen and experienced myself quite a few times, for example, a tourist being stopped and asked to delete a video of a simple recording in a park (police called immediately), because a random stupid person was around and wants to show how good he knows his rights… (see sister comment)
  - webstrand 1y ago
    Under US federal law one-party consent requires that you actually be a party to the conversation. This is why most security cameras do not record audio. If you're wandering around livestreaming and picking up conversations you're not a participant in, it's a violation of federal wiretapping laws.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      Presumably, a person holding up a phone live-streaming would be party to the conversation. If two people are talking at a party, and a third person obviously comes by within earshot, then the two people can either stop talking, or they can continue, but the third person is now party to the conversation.
    - kjksf 1y ago
      You're so obviously wrong. I watched multiple videos from Portland ICE protest, multiple videos of ICE arresting people, all with audio. Half the people at protests are recording. If you were right all that would be illegal. The magic word is: "reasonable expectation of privacy". If you're in public, like in streets, in the mall etc. you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy. You can be recorded, with audio, and it's legal. The two party consent rules only apply to private conduct e.g. you have a phone conversation. In states with two party consent the other person can't record the conversation without notifying you. What you describe as "US federal law" sound more like anti-wiretapping law i.e. I can't plant a bug in your house and record your conversations. Which is duh, but not relevant to being recorded while in public.
      - webstrand 1y ago
        I figured that "reasonable expectation of privacy" was a given in the scenario. It's a family gathering, the livestreamer is not being obvious about their recording, there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Your ICE protest example is performed in public, its a protest, its not meant to be private, thus fails the test of "reasonable expectation of privacy". Action taken by agents of the state are also public actions, this has been tried many times in court. Two-party consent is not federal law and varies state-by-state. But again it requires that you actually be a party to consent. And yes by "US Federal Law" I am referencing the anti-wiretapping laws which prohibit, among other things, interception of oral communication via electronic means unless at least one party consents.
  - buildsjets 1y ago
    Most parents will punch you in the face if you try to record audio of thier children without two party consent.
    - greenavocado 1y ago
      Do that in a public place and you will catch an assault and/or battery charge
      - buildsjets 1y ago
        Such a trial is an acceptable result, in exchange for committing well justified violence. Any jury with parents on it will acquit.
- RajT88 1y ago
  Eve if legal, the guy was in the wrong.
- bee_rider 1y ago
  Laws almost always vary by jurisdiction.
- hdgvhicv 1y ago
  Which jurisdiction are you taking? Japan? Christmas Island? Cuba?
  - Izkata 1y ago
    11 states in the US have two-party-consent laws. IIRC GP is correct about recordings of private conversations in these states.
- i_am_jl 1y ago
  Really? What jurisdiction has that rule? Are you sure you're not conflating simple audio recording with a recording of audio telecommunications?
- GJim 1y ago
  What in gods name does the law have to do with it?
serallak 1y ago
A friend that was going to deliver a child told us about a dad-to-be that was going around the maternity ward making videos ...
- Freak_NL 1y ago
  That's a good recipe for getting a black eye. The mother-to-be tends to be pretty much confined to her immediate affairs, but the partner… (I'm sure everyone is different, but I've been there as the father-to-be, and I would have made a good effort of turning that live-stream into a live-colonoscopy.)
  - lsaferite 1y ago
    Considering the level of undress and temporary IDGAF of the moms in labor, filming anywhere near them is a good way to get injured.
Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
>The same guy did similar when his mom was on her death bed. Jesus Christ. I am so sorry for your loss and I am out of words. Just, I just want to be with ya in silence for a while. I am sorry that you had to go through this. I am really speechless
- pessimizer 1y ago
  Are you expressing overdramatic sympathy for the loss of a stranger's wife's cousin's mother? No wonder that cousin films and streams everything.
  - Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
    I was definitely feeling something as I didn't think of the stranger's wife's cousin's mother? as dying but rather the stranger's wife dying and that cousin recording it. But even now, yes you may have proved your point but death is so fucking weird and not talked about and sometimes I just get speechless, like someone just left the earth, let that sink in... Honestly, I can somewhat both understand why he was live streaming now wanting more comments/everyone's final messages to go to her mother but at the same time, its definitely privacy invasive and might show their last moments and something of a behaviour I don't condone but I just don't know, now my opinion is mixed.
    - RajT88 1y ago
      Yep - was my wife's cousin's mother who died. I didn't know the lady at all. I didn't even end up meeting the cousin, I heard about all this after the fact. My wife isn't broken up either - kind of distant family.

igor47 1y ago

We need content for ML! If you don't upload every moment of your life, you're not doing your part for humanity.