Live data from Hacker News

Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

documentcloud.org

211–220 of 291 posts

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

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

So having a dash cam in your car isn’t allowed?

It may or may not be OK to record without having a notice if your intention is a specific private use, like your own legal defense. It would certainly not be OK to publish a video clip of a specific person you encountered that may be embarrassing.

For example, you can be fined for publishing footage of an accident where someone was hurt and may feel embarrassed that other see them in that condition, but it may be OK to give it to police or legal council of people involved.

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

#212
post #78

> Plaintiff Project Veritas, a non-profit media organization that engages in undercover investigative journalism, states that it documents matters of public concern by making unannounced audiovisual recordings of conversations, often in places open to the public. This has got to be the single rosiest description of Project Veritas ever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas

The kinds of money this "non-profit" org gets is almost like they're getting funded covertly from foreign states, looking to interfere with american politics.

Do you have any proof of this?

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

#213
post #161

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…

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 understandi…

The distinction makes sense, but of course the counter-argument would be: what prevented someone, using earlier forms of technology, from documenting your presence at that public place and then publishing it ... say in written or illustrated form? We had newspapers, illustrators, journalists and printers well before photography, microphones and the Internet. Even if we remove those media, what is to prevent someone from communicating their observations verbally and having news of your presence spread by word of mouth? A conversation between two people at a coffee shop could be transcribed by pen & paper by an eaves dropper at an adjacent table. The wait staff or owner could report your presence to whomever they choose, including the media.

I'm a very private person and welcome more privacy protection, but I've always been swayed logically by the "no expectation of privacy in public" argument. As long as people can see you with your own two eyes and hear you with their own two ears, it seems to me like the existence of recorded media and more efficient distribution channels is moot.

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

#214
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mocking a politician is protected political speech. Complaining that the politician you support has been mocked violates the no-politics rule here. Your understanding of what's allowed is completely backwards.

The point is that neutrality isn't a given and shouldn't be assumed for any media organisation.

I think we might be talking about different things. Slander is illegal. Political speech is constitutionally protected.

How exactly does this relate to "neutrality"?

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

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there are exceptions for photographing police and other government officials? Seems like there should be. And what about the reverse? Are police body cams allowed?

Same applies, you can film the police but you can't post it online as they as individuals have a right to privacy as well. Misconduct is handled by the appropriate authoritative which will view such tapes but not by the Public although such footage will end up in the media with the police officer's identities anonymized. Police body cams are permitted but the handling of the recordings is very strictly controlled. Th…

That's interesting. It must make it a lot more difficult for reporters trying to capture images and videos of newsworthy events. It seems like exposing corruption could be a lot more difficult if regulatory capture ever happens.

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

#216
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess that explains the distinct lack of public freakout videos from Europe.

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

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how does this square with police not letting people film them?

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over this Taylor Swift song I've got blasting...

That doesn't really stop people from filming, just uploading to YouTube.

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

#218
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 understandi…

The distinction makes sense, but of course the counter-argument would be: what prevented someone, using earlier forms of technology, from documenting your presence at that public place and then publishing it ... say in written or illustrated form? We had newspapers, illustrators, journalists and printers well before photography, microphones and the Internet. Even if we remove those media, what is to prevent someone f…

What prevented documenting and publishing public acts in the past?

Merely an infeasibility to scale that with economically and socially reasonable levels of effort - actually an impossibility. The law and culture have not changed fast enough to keep up with obvious conclusions that result from the fast pace of technological change. There is a quantitative but not qualitative difference, but that's still an important difference!

For example, imagine that in the 70s, you might have had police officers with radios sitting on the shoulders of roads around a city, watching for a license plate and vehicle description to catch a suspect. That was reasonable, courts reasonably ruled that license plates were public information, that's the whole point of vehicle registration. But it would cost a pile of money to have professional humans use their eyes and brains for every hour you wanted to surveil those roads. It would have been impossible for humans to manually hand-write every plate and vehicle at rush hour, and if they could, it would be impossible for clerks to cross-reference traffic logs and store them in file cabinets, and if they could, it would be impossible to analyze the exploding warehouse of records to find anything of interest. And even if you could, the many humans in that chain would ask questions; you'd employ a tenth of the town to surveil their neighbors. But now, for less than it costs to have a single manned police cruiser on the road for a month, you can have 24/7/365 license plate monitoring on every road in and out of and through a city, logging events to a database that can analyze and query the computationally insignificant few hundred thousand results effortlessly. And that doesn't even get into the novel, unexpected, deanonymizing things you can do once you have reams of data!

A cop watching license plates was implicitly limited due to the cost of employing a human, that human's inability to be two places at once, that human's limited attention span, sensory capacity, and data recording abilities. It doesn't mean that removing those limitations and doing the same thing everywhere and all the time with omnipresent, omniscient, effortless nanobot surveillance is reasonable!

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

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first page of the summary explains how there are already exceptions for recording police.

Those exceptions won't stop police from thinking you can't record them and using that as a reason to bust your phone followed by busting your lip. Him and his 5 buddies will go on to say that you provoked them and you'll never see justice. In general, North American police are ignorant bullies who couldn't hack it through high school or college. Their maturity level is stuck in the past as well, usually never maturin…

[deleted]

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

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same applies, you can film the police but you can't post it online as they as individuals have a right to privacy as well. Misconduct is handled by the appropriate authoritative which will view such tapes but not by the Public although such footage will end up in the media with the police officer's identities anonymized. Police body cams are permitted but the handling of the recordings is very strictly controlled. Th…

That's interesting. It must make it a lot more difficult for reporters trying to capture images and videos of newsworthy events. It seems like exposing corruption could be a lot more difficult if regulatory capture ever happens.

It gets more country-specific the deeper you get into it, but usually there are exceptions for people in the public eye (like politicians or celebrities), events of sufficient public interest, etc.
Post reply on HN