Genuinely curious, not trolling, why is it considered acceptable to spray plastic pellets into the woods?
What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
211–220 of 767 posts
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#212No alternative's being made. Only considering his own feelings, everyone else should follow. Expects people to not film (read: shoot) him because he asked. Neil's a bit of a Karen in this one I'm afraid.
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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:…
It is precisely because the video exists that you have the opportunity to correct the misconception, which is exactly what happened with the discussion in your example. Had it been a photograph, that context would have been lost and no one could refute it.
The compression artefacts help there, because they make it very clear this was taken from a video, meaning one should look up the source because it probably exists.
That is a perfect example of how a photograph could be worse than a video.
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lots of young people who have some conception and respect of privacy and there are people who haven't. That's not a generational thing.. It's just that those without awareness of boundaries have now all the tech that screams in their face to stream everything to the world without consent. I can assure you that still lots of young folks are annoyed by those people.
Agree. I went to a family gathering recently, and my wife's cousin was walking around live streaming. People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading live to the internet. The same guy did similar when his mom was on her death bed. Jesus Christ.
> People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading love to the internet.
Audio is different from video. This is technically illegal, as consent is explicitly required in the law for audio recording.
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#215Wow, such a nice idea with the purple lanyard it would be great to have something like this in general, walking down the streets someone films you and them or even YT or viewers to scan/flag the videos in question. I guess EU could put forth such regulation - no biggie. Maybe we could also create a framework on existing legislation - design a lanyard, put a QR on it leading to a "I do not consent" site. Advertise it…
Ah yes, identifying people with special items has always worked extremely well to protect freedoms.
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m Gen Z and I get how someone could be annoyed by this, but it’s also just part of life. I get annoyed when people smoke in public or pointlessly honk horns at night. But you have to accept that being around other people means some people do things you aren’t a fan of.
Smoking in restaurants and bars used to be a part of life, until it wasn’t. It took about 5 years for that shift to roll out pretty much everywhere. And it’s so much nicer without it. There’s nothing stopping us from saying this sucks, it’s socially toxic, and we’re not going to put up with it anymore.
Smoking in restaurants and bars used to be a part of life, until it wasn’t.
A couple of years ago I went to a restaurant and for some reason automatically told the hostess, "Two, non-smoking."
She looked at me like I had lobsters crawling out of my ears.
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree. I went to a family gathering recently, and my wife's cousin was walking around live streaming. People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading live to the internet. The same guy did similar when his mom was on her death bed. Jesus Christ.
> People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading love to the internet. Audio is different from video. This is technically illegal, as consent is explicitly required in the law for audio recording.
Most states in the United States allow one one-party consent for audio recordings.
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#218I 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 don't even understand how photos are less invasive of privacy. I try not to be too weird about it, but overall I dislike getting photos taken of me. Why should I put up with that if I want to participate in a hobby?
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#219I 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…
As an American living in Europe, I have seen Europe do "no cameras by default" quite successfully.
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 reaso…
The idea of public and private needs a similar distinction like libel and defamation.
Ephemeral public has no expectation of ephemeral privacy, but me walking down a street with a handful of people on it should not lead me to expect that being recorded and having it broadcast to the entire human race, permanently, for eternity.