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

Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

documentcloud.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 291 posts

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#161

Post by hug »

sschueller wrote: post #153
loteck wrote: post #58

Very few commenters seem to realize that this decision affects only "States prohibiting recording without providing notice to or obtaining consent from the recording’s subjects when created in a place where the subjects lack a reasonable expectation of privacy “ (e.g. when talking in public). Which is only 5 states: Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Massachusetts and Oregon. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2…

I don't understand why public is considered "lack a reasonable expectation of privacy". In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violat…

I’ve been sitting here for a while trying to come up with how to eloquently put this in English and I cannot. Maybe English lacks the appropriate terminology to express the difference between privacy and publicity within the expanded scope of current technology. It’s my only language, and I like to think I’m pretty good at it, but I’m absolutely stumped as to how you’d exactly word exactly what you’re not understanding.

I feel like it’s a case of the language we speak shaping our interpretation of what is just, and doing so in such a way that it’s hard to even explain what we’re now missing.

The problem, in so many words, is that these days the act of being in public is public. That’s a weird sentence to write, and I’m not sure how else to put it.

Previously, the memory of any public act was restricted to those who were there to observe it at the time. Any acts in public were by themselves public. Acts in private were private. There was a third quasi-state: anonymous isn’t the right word, because you were always identifiable, but by happenstance you just weren’t. You were in public, but not publicised. Recognisable, but not recognised. Observable, but not observed. By definition though you were always in public, never in private.

Modern technology has somewhat erased the third state by slowly but surely eroding the cases in which you are not observed, tracked, recorded, or identified, by some technology or another. It’s made public very public, if you excuse the unavoidable pleonasm.

There’s no good word for the third state, that I can think of, and it makes me sad.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#162

Post by kmlx »

sschueller wrote: post #153
loteck wrote: post #58

Very few commenters seem to realize that this decision affects only "States prohibiting recording without providing notice to or obtaining consent from the recording’s subjects when created in a place where the subjects lack a reasonable expectation of privacy “ (e.g. when talking in public). Which is only 5 states: Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Massachusetts and Oregon. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2…

I don't understand why public is considered "lack a reasonable expectation of privacy". In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violat…

so it’s illegal to film someone on a street in switzerland and post it online?

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#163

Post by timeon »

kmlx wrote: post #162
sschueller wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why public is considered "lack a reasonable expectation of privacy". In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violat…

so it’s illegal to film someone on a street in switzerland and post it online?

Sounds reasonable.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#164

Post by wongarsu »

kmlx wrote: post #162
sschueller wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why public is considered "lack a reasonable expectation of privacy". In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violat…

so it’s illegal to film someone on a street in switzerland and post it online?

This is the norm in Europe. Filming a crowd is fine, making a picture of the Eiffel tower with people around it is fine, filming a specific person and publishing it without their consent generally isn't. "Generally" because obviously it gets more interesting in the specifics of when it is ok, but those are exceptions similar to how copyright has exceptions.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#165

Post by criley2 »

hnbad wrote: post #155
loteck wrote: post #58

Very few commenters seem to realize that this decision affects only "States prohibiting recording without providing notice to or obtaining consent from the recording’s subjects when created in a place where the subjects lack a reasonable expectation of privacy “ (e.g. when talking in public). Which is only 5 states: Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Massachusetts and Oregon. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2…

So this basically allows blanket surveillance of anything you do in public to the point that paparazzi or stalkers could just legally chase and livestream you every minute after you exit your home until you enter another private space? I'll never understand why Americans believe there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. An alleyway is very different from a stage in the town square.

Two points:

1) Americans place freedom of speech (including photography or recording things) very highly and are willing to suffer some damage in exchange for more freedom.

2) Limits on recording in public would very quickly and very easily be weaponized by police against minorities, leftists, and basically anyone else who resists the creeping tide of ---- well, you know, right wing politics.

Saving celebrity's from paparazzi sounds nice and good, but we're more worried about what happens when the police show up. Can we record them attacking us, or will that now be considered an additional crime that the policeman will get to punish us for? It's very easy to see our rigged Supreme Court ruling that police officers have "an expectation of privacy on the job" in light of your points.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#166

Post by rlpb »

sschueller wrote: post #153
loteck wrote: post #58

Very few commenters seem to realize that this decision affects only "States prohibiting recording without providing notice to or obtaining consent from the recording’s subjects when created in a place where the subjects lack a reasonable expectation of privacy “ (e.g. when talking in public). Which is only 5 states: Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Massachusetts and Oregon. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2…

I don't understand why public is considered "lack a reasonable expectation of privacy". In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violat…

I think there's a distinction between being recorded in the first place, and what the recording might be used for in the future. I think it's OK to permit a recording to take place in a public place without explicit consent, but still require consent to use that recording in (for example) publishing it where someone is a feature in that publication (as opposed to someone who happens to be in the background and remains otherwise unidentified).

Nowadays technology might mean that someone anonymous gets identified by a third party using automation. So it will become public knowledge, indexable on the person, as to where they were and what they were doing. But that was going to happen anyway. I'm not sure restricting recordings in the first place is really going to stop that.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#167

Post by Mashimo »

kmlx wrote: post #162
sschueller wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why public is considered "lack a reasonable expectation of privacy". In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violat…

so it’s illegal to film someone on a street in switzerland and post it online?

If it's similar to Denmark or Germany, then yes. More or less.

If you use a wide angle lens form afar and the person in question is just a small blimp in the background it can be ok. At least that is how I understood it.

But you can't just walk up to a person and take their photo.

You also can't have a security / doorbell camera that records public road. I think if you watch it live, that part can be recorded. But no 24/7 background recording of public spaces.

I like it :)

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#168

Post by AdrianB1 »

As an outsider (European), I don't understand the reasoning for the dissenting opinion; I read it as: "you have a right, granted by the US Constitution (1A), but if the state has an interest that is in conflict with that right then you no longer have the right and this is fine". It asks the question "how is that right guaranteed?" if the State believes it is fine to revoke it.

As I see, there is no clause in 1A saying: this right is valid only if the state does not have a different opinion. Free speech is free even if you cry "Fire!" in a theater, but not if the state has other plans?

Btw, in Europe I think there is no country with free speech rights. My country has it in the Constitution, but it is cancelled by the next paragraph saying "it can be limited by law" (any law), so it practically means nothing as the laws should respect the Constitution, not to restrict it.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#169

Post by aapl88889 »

criley2 wrote: post #165
hnbad wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this basically allows blanket surveillance of anything you do in public to the point that paparazzi or stalkers could just legally chase and livestream you every minute after you exit your home until you enter another private space? I'll never understand why Americans believe there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. An alleyway is very different from a stage in the town square.

Two points: 1) Americans place freedom of speech (including photography or recording things) very highly and are willing to suffer some damage in exchange for more freedom. 2) Limits on recording in public would very quickly and very easily be weaponized by police against minorities, leftists, and basically anyone else who resists the creeping tide of ---- well, you know, right wing politics. Saving celebrity's from…

Have you seen videos of bystanders trying to record militant leftist groups like Antifa?

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#170

Post by sschueller »

kmlx wrote: post #162
sschueller wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why public is considered "lack a reasonable expectation of privacy". In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violat…

so it’s illegal to film someone on a street in switzerland and post it online?

Yes, you would need to make them unidentifiable by blurring their face, anonymizing their voice and any other feature that may identify them.

Wide shots of crowds are generally ok in public, the issue is focusing on specific people. For example someone having a mental breakdown in public.

You also can not have door bell or private cameras pointing to public streets/roads. You have to ensure your camera only records your property and you are required to post a sign that a camera is installed.

Post reply on HN