Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What happened to surveillance camera guy?

news.ycombinator.com

51–60 of 74 posts

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

#51

As someone who has no idea what this is: What's the context here? By the name I would assume violation of multiple privacy related cases, which probably justifies deletion from basically everywhere. But then again, I have no idea what's the deal here.

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 agree that most reactions are not warranted. However, the context of the filming is quite different.

On one hand, you have (mostly) stationary cameras filming areas, and all the people in that area. Usually the cameras are not zoomed in, and ostensibly are not allowed to record audio in many jurisdictions. So you don't feel threatened because it's a universal thing and unmanned. Also, you assume the purpose is for property or personal protection.

On the other hand, you are being specifically targeted, including audio, by an actual human with a camera. Are they recording my credit card, pin, etc? It's reasonable to question what they are doing as it is unusual and could be a scam. The motive is unknown.

Context and details matter. My guess is they violated a law and/or got sued. It's much easier than most people realize. For example, if you record someone's conversation while their on the phone, you could be in violation of wire tap laws even if you didn't tamper with their communication (simply the act of recording).

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

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like people in the US really need to hear these perspectives when it comes to laws. We're a bit boarish here in the states and seem to approach laws in this all or nothing kind of way (I'm too tired to point out examples). But, showing that a law like this can be tweaked or nuanced nto the degree where yes you can film cops and no you can not film pedestrians or people eating outdoors at a cafe, might level us…

We should be very hesitant to create laws that we expect to be selectively enforced, because it empowers law enforcement to make all sorts of bad decisions in the moment. This already happens with photos and filming despite the general presumption of legality. Adding a bunch of nuanced exceptions would make it much worse. Understand that the way this works is that officers can stop you from filming at any time. Then…

There already are nuanced exceptions. Technically, recording someone having a conversation on a phone can violate wire tap laws, even if you didn't interfere with the device. You can record police, but you're required to be back a certain distance (8' I think). Many states also allow private recording, but only if you reasonably believe a crime of violence might be committed. Etc

Ostensibly, the officer is open to a US 42 1983 color of law violation since there are court decisions affirming the right to record police in public.

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

#53

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.

Or simply a realistic understanding of current technology and standard operating procedures of any competent surveillance agency

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

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like people in the US really need to hear these perspectives when it comes to laws. We're a bit boarish here in the states and seem to approach laws in this all or nothing kind of way (I'm too tired to point out examples). But, showing that a law like this can be tweaked or nuanced nto the degree where yes you can film cops and no you can not film pedestrians or people eating outdoors at a cafe, might level us…

We should be very hesitant to create laws that we expect to be selectively enforced, because it empowers law enforcement to make all sorts of bad decisions in the moment. This already happens with photos and filming despite the general presumption of legality. Adding a bunch of nuanced exceptions would make it much worse. Understand that the way this works is that officers can stop you from filming at any time. Then…

All laws are enforced selectively, AGs have full discretion on what they decide to prosecute and what to ignore.

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

#55
post #48
post #34

It is fascinating even reading these comments, people falling over themselves trying to define a difference between 'some guy' recording them, and cctv (which is effectively 'some guy' recording them). It kind of reminds me of a nature program i watched some time ago, where they 'concealed' the cameras in plain sight by strapping them onto trees to get footage. Its important to remind ourselves that we are simple ani…

It’s pretty simple. The state passively monitoring everyone is a blanket society scale phenomena. One dude following you around with a camera is a targeted 1:1 social confrontation. The difference is so vast it baffles me that anyone would consider them interchangeable.

Why are you assuming passive monitoring from one and active from the other?

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

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 o…

That is true but the idea is that the public space should not become a voyeuristic zoo. Is looking at other people in public voyeuristic? Or is using a camera for watching it back later what makes it voyeuristic?

This whole thread is a parody of the "I can't define porn but know what it is when I see it"

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

#58

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.

Also, I would think most people actually do care they are being recorded on CCTV but there's not much they can do about it. It's always an eerie feeling knowing you are being recorded.

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

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sto…

That is true. We cannot expect a perfect reality with capabilities of surveillance technology. However, last few years have shown here in Europe that it is possible to at least regulate what businesses do with the footage and personal data collected. GDPR - It doesn’t mean that an employee won’t do anything, but at least the legal entity for which he/she works is accountable and responsible for how this material is h…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN