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

What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

neilzone.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 767 posts

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#201

Post by blindriver »

I have changed my mind on this topic recently. I believe that when you video in public everyone that gets videoed should require explicit permission or their face and voices should be removed. The only exceptions would be videoing public servants and if a crime is being committed. Videoing for private consumption would also be allowed in my opinion but not if it's posted in a way that more than a handful of people could see or if its uploaded to a site.

With AI this is entirely possible and if you are going to post videos on youtube or anything, you should be able to afford the removal of non-verified participants.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#202

Post by trenchpilgrim »

phillipharris wrote: post #99

This isn't a general solution, but since it's Airsoft can't you just wear a helmet that covers your whole head?

^ you should be wearing a mouthguard and goggles anyway, add a skate helmet and your head is probably not visible

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#203

Post by blindriver »

jen729w wrote: post #11

I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Who's to say how much of you I have in the shot? Do you feature? Did you flash by? Are you blurred? Recognisable? I was shooting video of a car park exit last year. (I was trying to prove to the shopping centre owners that it was dangerous.) Mundane footage. Some lady drives out in he…

You can use AI to blur anyone that doesn't give permission. You can't use the excuse of "it's too much work!" It should be the law that you can't indiscriminately video everyone for your own financial gain.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#204

Post by stuartjohnson12 »

alex77456 wrote: post #156
jen729w wrote: post #11

I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Who's to say how much of you I have in the shot? Do you feature? Did you flash by? Are you blurred? Recognisable? I was shooting video of a car park exit last year. (I was trying to prove to the shopping centre owners that it was dangerous.) Mundane footage. Some lady drives out in he…

Part of the issue is, big portion of the footage being recorded, is not worth recording, let alone publishing. (Except for personal value of the person recording, but that doesn't require public sharing) With the OP example, people getting recorded are not bystanders catching stray camera focus, they are the subject of the video. Without other participants, there would be little 'content'. Imagine going to an indoor…

Not to mention "auditors", whose goal is to use the ambiguous nature of feels-like-a-privacy-invasion-but-legally-isnt when you stick a camera in someone's face in a public place to try and get a rise out of people and prance around as victim.

I think this is a case where the reasonable person test is excellent. Is this use of a camera reasonable for personal/professional purposes

You should be expected to take reasonable steps not to victimise someone by use of a video camera, subject to public interest. That means filming strangers with intent to provoke them should be a crime but raging car park lady cannot reasonably claim to have been victimised. Consent affects what is reasonable without creating a duty-bound obligation not to film without consent.

We already have "reasonable expectations of privacy", why not flip that?

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#205

Post by weinzierl »

eterm wrote: post #29

I wonder if it's a generational or cultural difference present in the comments here. I am sympathetic to the author, and I also find video a bit invasive of privacy in a way that photos aren't. I therefore find the (obviously common) attitude that videos are just "something you need to accept" quite alien, but I wonder how much of that attitude is just comments coming from a younger generation that have grown up with…

It is primarily a cultural one. You won't find many countries with the "well, if you don’t want to be in photos published online, don’t be in public spaces" opinion outside the anglo-saxon world.

The UK is a special place because culturally it belongs to the anglo-saxon sphere but legally it inherited the strict EU personality rights.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#206

Post by agedclock »

eertami wrote: post #200
agedclock wrote: post #124

I found this frustrating to read. First the other airsoft participates he seems to seem to be okay with people filming. There is clearly no expectation of privacy. > I occasionally see people saying “well, if you don’t want to be in photos published online, don’t be in public spaces”. > > This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should be able to exist in society, including going outside one’s own home…

> There is no expectation of privacy in any place that is considered public. Well that entirely depends on the country - in the UK it is true, but it wouldn't be true in Switzerland or Germany, where you do have the right to privacy even in public spaces. > Then this is nothing else than you "not liking it". The author knows what the laws are, but presumably disagrees with the reasoning behind the laws and is critici…

> Well that entirely depends on the country - in the UK it is true, but it wouldn't be true in Switzerland or Germany, where you do have the right to privacy even in public spaces.

Obviously the law is different in different places.

However. The person is talking about Newbury which I used to live near, which is in the UK. So they are talking about their experience in the UK.

So the only law the is applicable here is UK law.

> The author knows what the laws are, but presumably disagrees with the reasoning behind the laws and is criticising them.

He specifically says at the end "This isn’t about what is legal". I also don't believe he understands the law, since he often conflates/misuses the use of term private throughout the entire article.

What he understands as private isn't what is understood by almost anyone (both legal and colloquially).

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#207

Post by filoeleven »

latexr wrote: post #130
eterm wrote: post #29

I wonder if it's a generational or cultural difference present in the comments here. I am sympathetic to the author, and I also find video a bit invasive of privacy in a way that photos aren't. I therefore find the (obviously common) attitude that videos are just "something you need to accept" quite alien, but I wonder how much of that attitude is just comments coming from a younger generation that have grown up with…

> I also find video a bit invasive of privacy in a way that photos aren't. I’d argue photos can be more invasive. If someone makes a 10 minute video and you’re somewhere in the background for 5 seconds, no one may ever notice. Furthermore, with compression artefacts for motion you may become difficult to recognise. But if you’re in a photo, people will be looking at it for longer and are thus most likely to notice yo…

> A snapshot taken at the wrong millisecond can easily make you look like a creep or weirdo when a video would’ve made it clear you were just turning your head or starting a yawn.

Taking a screenshot from a video for exactly this reason is incredibly common. Look at any photograph accompanying a political story about a figure from "the other party".

See for example this Reddit post about the "triggered" meme origin: > Ironically, if you ever get a chance to see the video of this incident, this woman and the man she's speaking with are actually having a polite discussion. But... She has very animated facial expressions and the photographer just happened to catch this frame at an inopportune moment.

So it seems to me that since a video is simply thousands of photographs with a soundtrack, video is strictly more invasive than photography.

https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/adyt1d/comment/hvp04...

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#208

Post by brna-2 »

crazygringo wrote: post #89
andersa wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that what you want? Yes. I would like to go back to a time before everyone had 3 different cameras with them and the ability to share those photos to a global network so third parties can use that data to track what I am doing literally everywhere. I no longer leave my house except for strictly necessary obligations.

Genuine question, what are you worried about that this is affecting how often you leave your house? What is making that the best cost-benefit analysis for you?

I would also want to know. Did the game of being incognito grow into the logic that leaving your house is not viable anymore or something else?

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#209

Post by diflartle »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #143

If this was beach volleyball I would be more inclined to agree with the poster, but surely everyone is wearing face masks playing Airsoft?

As an avid beach volleyball player, every tournament and most league games have one or more people recording them with cell phones or go pros on tripods at the end line. Just part of the game.

Nobody bats an eye, I assume because we're already out in public, basically in bathing suits.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#210

Post by cthor »

op00to wrote: post #145
cowpig wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nearly everybody gets over it really quick and the world moves on. Perhaps this article being #1 on HN right now is evidence that your perspective is not the same as "nearly everybody" else

The evidence I present is that I have never seen someone complain about someone else filming in public. I’m not sure that the articles position on HN says anything about the majority opinion on a topic, only that it’s of interest.

You must not have looked very far. Here's one example from circa 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN9E3vJzxk0

People respond to a camera shoved in their face. It's not felt the same as simply being looked at.

Post reply on HN