3 ms·

> Don't hallucinate something I didn't say to try to make a pointless argument. "Random dude" was not part of this comment thread until you made it up. Sorry,

> Don't hallucinate something I didn't say to try to make a pointless argument. "Random dude" was not part of this comment thread until you made it up. Sorry, that wasn't what I was trying. "Accessible by random dude" was something I took as a measure for being "public accessible space". In my mind that's a prerequisite to being allowed to take photos. > If I wanted to, I could get all the security footage from any public facility, just by requesting it. Wow. That's a thing? That explains some films, I always thought, they have just weirdly good connections to a security guy or bribe someone. > Constitutional rights don't stop because someone's feelings might get hurt if their photo is taken, and a made-up policy that some institutions like to post In my mind personal privacy should be a higher right than some random person today feeling like they need to record my faux pas. But your law is your law. Don't you have a (legal) duty to protect children from having arbitrary behaviour publicly broadcasted? The videos sound I bit like public place means any where you can just walk in. Does that mean you really need a fence, to say that something is not public? I mean we are here also not the Nordics, where you do not need a fence what's-o-ever, but we don't need a fence that physically prevents you from going in. A partial fence or markings on the ground are enough, and you are expected to just not walk onto private property, you don't need to be forced to do so here.

leptons 1y ago
>In my mind personal privacy should be a higher right than some random person today feeling like they need to record my faux pas. But your law is your law. You are being recorded by the government, constantly in public. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. If you're going to be disturbed that someone recorded you tripping over a rock, then that's your problem, not the problem of some random camera in the area. The only time where permission is required is if the photo or video is used for commercial purposes - like a tv show or movie or an ad campaign, etc. Then the person filming must get a signed release to use the images. >The videos sound I bit like public place means any where you can just walk in. Generally, yes. >Does that mean you really need a fence, to say that something is not public? Not a fence, just a "no trespassing" sign is enough if it's a private property. But you are allowed to walk up to any home's door and knock on the door, even while recording. If they tell you to leave, you must leave. If it's public land, then a fence is likely necessary, with a sign posted that it is a restricted area. For example, if it's an unfenced parking lot at a public facility, and there is no "restricted" sign posted, you can walk around and take photos of all the cars, even inside the cars since it's essentially within public view from a non-restricted area.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  > You are being recorded by the government, constantly in public. Are we talking about your country or about mine now? When the legal basis for the surveillance expires the government must also delete the data like everybody else. Sure they might not always do it, but that is simply illegal and I can sue my government for that. This applies to all cameras. Any place where a camera is installed needs to have a sign, stating the storage duration and a contact where you can object and get your data deleted earlier. For example, footage from bodycams of policemen need to be regularly deleted, and emergency dashcams for cars, are only allowed to be have storage for a few hours maximum, so the data is regularly overwritten. If you use a camera that doesn't do that and you bring the data to a court as evidence, it is taken against you. > If you're going to be disturbed that someone recorded you tripping over a rock, then that's your problem, not the problem of some random camera in the area. It's less that I would be personally disturbed by the recording itself, but by the public humiliation that follows, which absolutely has real world consequences. Would you hire that fool you have seen last week on Youtube doing a dumb challenge? Suddenly the recorder has a way to ransom you. That applies even more to children in a school. That will be a easy way to bully people if you make that legal. Your explanation sounds like it would be absolutely illegal, to record the habits of your neighbors, when they get up, when they go to work, what they like to eat etc. ...

leptons 1y ago

>In my mind personal privacy should be a higher right than some random person today feeling like they need to record my faux pas. But your law is your law. You are being recorded by the government, constantly in public. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. If you're going to be disturbed that someone recorded you tripping over a rock, then that's your problem, not the problem of some random camera in the area. The only time where permission is required is if the photo or video is used for commercial purposes - like a tv show or movie or an ad campaign, etc. Then the person filming must get a signed release to use the images. >The videos sound I bit like public place means any where you can just walk in. Generally, yes. >Does that mean you really need a fence, to say that something is not public? Not a fence, just a "no trespassing" sign is enough if it's a private property. But you are allowed to walk up to any home's door and knock on the door, even while recording. If they tell you to leave, you must leave. If it's public land, then a fence is likely necessary, with a sign posted that it is a restricted area. For example, if it's an unfenced parking lot at a public facility, and there is no "restricted" sign posted, you can walk around and take photos of all the cars, even inside the cars since it's essentially within public view from a non-restricted area.

1718627440 1y ago
> You are being recorded by the government, constantly in public. Are we talking about your country or about mine now? When the legal basis for the surveillance expires the government must also delete the data like everybody else. Sure they might not always do it, but that is simply illegal and I can sue my government for that. This applies to all cameras. Any place where a camera is installed needs to have a sign, stating the storage duration and a contact where you can object and get your data deleted earlier. For example, footage from bodycams of policemen need to be regularly deleted, and emergency dashcams for cars, are only allowed to be have storage for a few hours maximum, so the data is regularly overwritten. If you use a camera that doesn't do that and you bring the data to a court as evidence, it is taken against you. > If you're going to be disturbed that someone recorded you tripping over a rock, then that's your problem, not the problem of some random camera in the area. It's less that I would be personally disturbed by the recording itself, but by the public humiliation that follows, which absolutely has real world consequences. Would you hire that fool you have seen last week on Youtube doing a dumb challenge? Suddenly the recorder has a way to ransom you. That applies even more to children in a school. That will be a easy way to bully people if you make that legal. Your explanation sounds like it would be absolutely illegal, to record the habits of your neighbors, when they get up, when they go to work, what they like to eat etc. ...