Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What happened to surveillance camera guy?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: Ask HN: What happened to surveillance camera guy?

#21

Post by insickness »

Barrin92 wrote: post #17
globular-toast wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a series of videos taken in public where a guy would just point the camera at people doing mundane things. The subjects would often question why he was filming them and the response was always simply "oh, I'm just making a video". Occasionally the guy would elaborate further and it seemed the point was that people are captured and recorded on CCTV and other surveillance methods all the time, so why would they…

>so why would they care about his camera? I mean it seems pretty obvious. Because a private person could potentially do anything from stalking you, to using your image in some political campaign or advertisement or whatever else. Potentially much worse and intrusive than being filmed by a parking lot camera. Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given.

In the US, it is legal to photograph and film in public as long as there is not an expectation of privacy, such as a restroom. And it should remain legal. If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop. If I'm on a public sidewalk filming a private business, they can't tell me to stop.

You can't legally use someone's image in an advertisement without their consent. But that's different than having the right to film in public. If I'm filming and you walk in front of my camera, you don't have the right to force me to stop filming. You don't own public space.

Re: Ask HN: What happened to surveillance camera guy?

#22

Post by karmakurtisaani »

JustGoToThePub wrote: post #18
dotancohen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between filming a specific public location, which I happen to pass through, and filming _me_ specifically. If the location is the subject and I am free to exit or enter the scene without my presence affecting the creativity of the work, then I have far fewer objections. But a video in which _I_ become the subject, which moves to focus my actions, is far more objectionable.

> a big difference between filming a specific public location, which I happen to pass through, and filming _me_ specifically. How do you know they aren't filming you specifically[1], and why do you trust them? [1] And don't say 'I'm not interesting enough', 'cos I don't believe you.

Of course they could be. The same way everyone around me could be a paid actor. But that's either absurd or frightening depending on your own psychology. A person pointing a camera at you without your consent, however, is almost universally disturbing.

Re: Ask HN: What happened to surveillance camera guy?

#23

Post by SSilver2k2 »

dotancohen wrote: post #16
globular-toast wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a series of videos taken in public where a guy would just point the camera at people doing mundane things. The subjects would often question why he was filming them and the response was always simply "oh, I'm just making a video". Occasionally the guy would elaborate further and it seemed the point was that people are captured and recorded on CCTV and other surveillance methods all the time, so why would they…

There is a big difference between filming a specific public location, which I happen to pass through, and filming _me_ specifically. If the location is the subject and I am free to exit or enter the scene without my presence affecting the creativity of the work, then I have far fewer objections. But a video in which _I_ become the subject, which moves to focus my actions, is far more objectionable.

There is no expectation of privacy in a public area. So I don't see how there is a big difference.

Re: Ask HN: What happened to surveillance camera guy?

#24

Post by genocidicbunny »

Barrin92 wrote: post #17
globular-toast wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a series of videos taken in public where a guy would just point the camera at people doing mundane things. The subjects would often question why he was filming them and the response was always simply "oh, I'm just making a video". Occasionally the guy would elaborate further and it seemed the point was that people are captured and recorded on CCTV and other surveillance methods all the time, so why would they…

>so why would they care about his camera? I mean it seems pretty obvious. Because a private person could potentially do anything from stalking you, to using your image in some political campaign or advertisement or whatever else. Potentially much worse and intrusive than being filmed by a parking lot camera. Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given.

By number, most businesses that have cameras recording are also effectively 'a private person'. There's nothing stopping the owner of a business from using the footage they recorded in similar fashion.

The stronger argument would be one that you alluded to with the 'stalking you' part -- a person with a camera can choose to follow you or frame the shot a certain way. A CCTV camera is a fixed installation that can't individually be used to really follow you, and can be somewhat trivially avoided. In effect, a person with a camera can function as a _network_ of CCTV cameras, and I think that's what raises some heckles.

Re: Ask HN: What happened to surveillance camera guy?

#25

Post by liquorice »

ehnto wrote: post #15
timdaub wrote: post #11

I loved his stuff and how upset people got. You could say it was performative art criticing post-modern technocratic stance on privacy: While Zuck said privacy is over: this dude got people raging. "I'm just making a video" Legend

It puts me in a tough spot, because on one hand I believe public space should be able to be recorded, but on the other hand this is pretty obnoxious behavior and pretty threatening in context. There are laws that cover this kind of stuff that are unrelated to filming, so police definitely could do something here. We see it as a video on the internet and know the intent but in the moment, it's some guy filming you and…

AFAIK he never revealed his intents, so he could just be doing it 'for the lulz'... That seems more likely to me considering his 4chan-y attitude on his other channel 'Vagrant Holiday'

Re: Ask HN: What happened to surveillance camera guy?

#26

Post by hnbad »

Barrin92 wrote: post #17
globular-toast wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a series of videos taken in public where a guy would just point the camera at people doing mundane things. The subjects would often question why he was filming them and the response was always simply "oh, I'm just making a video". Occasionally the guy would elaborate further and it seemed the point was that people are captured and recorded on CCTV and other surveillance methods all the time, so why would they…

>so why would they care about his camera? I mean it seems pretty obvious. Because a private person could potentially do anything from stalking you, to using your image in some political campaign or advertisement or whatever else. Potentially much worse and intrusive than being filmed by a parking lot camera. Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given.

> Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given.

To elaborate: filming people (or taking pictures of them) in Germany requires consent, with some exceptions. Surveillance cameras are legal as long as their presence is clearly indicated with visible signage and they record only private property (e.g. pointing a surveillance camera outside your property is usually illegal).

I think dashcams currently still occupy a legal gray area but they were inadmissible for the longest time. Walking up to random strangers and deliberately recording them without consent is 100% illegal and I would even argue that it constitutes harassment, especially if asked not to.

Re: Ask HN: What happened to surveillance camera guy?

#27

Post by raxxorrax »

timdaub wrote: post #11

I loved his stuff and how upset people got. You could say it was performative art criticing post-modern technocratic stance on privacy: While Zuck said privacy is over: this dude got people raging. "I'm just making a video" Legend

It just shows how people have no idea about how transparent they have become. A private guy filming you is so trivial and insignificant compared to surveillance capitalism, it shouldn't even get a mention.

Re: Ask HN: What happened to surveillance camera guy?

#28

Post by JustGoToThePub »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #22
JustGoToThePub wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a big difference between filming a specific public location, which I happen to pass through, and filming _me_ specifically. How do you know they aren't filming you specifically[1], and why do you trust them? [1] And don't say 'I'm not interesting enough', 'cos I don't believe you.

Of course they could be. The same way everyone around me could be a paid actor. But that's either absurd or frightening depending on your own psychology. A person pointing a camera at you without your consent, however, is almost universally disturbing.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me :-)

Re: Ask HN: What happened to surveillance camera guy?

#29

Post by Barrin92 »

insickness wrote: post #21
Barrin92 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so why would they care about his camera? I mean it seems pretty obvious. Because a private person could potentially do anything from stalking you, to using your image in some political campaign or advertisement or whatever else. Potentially much worse and intrusive than being filmed by a parking lot camera. Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given.

In the US, it is legal to photograph and film in public as long as there is not an expectation of privacy, such as a restroom. And it should remain legal. If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop. If I'm on a public sidewalk filming a private business, they can't tell me to stop. You can't legally use someone's image in an advertisement without their consent. But that's differe…

>If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop

to clarify this is legal here as well. Places or people of public interest are excluded from this. So crimes, public figures, monuments, public buildings and so on you can photograph as much as you want. The law protects private individuals, say someone taking your picture specifically on a train, in a gym or what have you.

>You don't own public space

That is true but the idea is that the public space should not become a voyeuristic zoo. Photographing spaces is fine, but individuals should not lose their privacy entirely just because they leave their home.

Re: Ask HN: What happened to surveillance camera guy?

#30

Post by jrochkind1 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #17
globular-toast wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a series of videos taken in public where a guy would just point the camera at people doing mundane things. The subjects would often question why he was filming them and the response was always simply "oh, I'm just making a video". Occasionally the guy would elaborate further and it seemed the point was that people are captured and recorded on CCTV and other surveillance methods all the time, so why would they…

>so why would they care about his camera? I mean it seems pretty obvious. Because a private person could potentially do anything from stalking you, to using your image in some political campaign or advertisement or whatever else. Potentially much worse and intrusive than being filmed by a parking lot camera. Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given.

Why can't a manager or employee at any of the stores I go into in a week, all of which probably have cameras these days, be potentially doing the same thing?

I mean, I get it -- we don't think they are likely to. Because that's not the purpose of the camera. Because we figure businesses are run by people "in charge" who have certain interests. We think we understand the purpose and intention of the cameras in the stores, and we don't understand the purpose or intention of the guy standing in the street, so imagine the worst. Plus the cameras in stores are often hidden so we avoid thinking about them entirely.

But... we're on so many cameras, which just random employees at random stores have access to... or random homeowners with cameras pointing out their windows... it seems reasonable to me to be more worried about that then most people are. And I'm not sure I've meaniningfully given any kind of consent to any of it.

Post reply on HN