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

401–410 of 767 posts

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

#401

Post by ryandrake »

pixl97 wrote: post #365
footy wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right. My younger sister was stalked by a crazy ex for years. According to some of the people here that would mean she had no right to participate in a regular activity.

Since you're allergic to peanuts that means everybody should be banned from eating peanuts and we should stop growing them, right? While directly providing said stalker with information seems like a harmful, and likely prosecutable behavior, the indirect providing of information is not a burden the general public should bear for another parties already illegal actions.

> Since you're allergic to peanuts that means everybody should be banned from eating peanuts and we should stop growing them, right?

My kid's school strictly bans peanut products due to at least one kid having a severe and potentially deadly allergy. It seems like a reasonable and necessary precautions to avoid harm or injury.

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

#402

Post by balderdash »

sandblast wrote: post #225
balderdash wrote: post #54

I think the laws around this are fairly antiquated. People should clearly have the right to photograph in public, however, I strongly believe that should someone take someone else’s photograph they shouldn’t need their consent to post the photo publicly or monetize it in anyway. Obviously, there should be some limited car outs like public servants in the commission of their duties, legitimate news organizations, use…

I think you meant "they should need their consent to post", right?

Yes I did

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

#403

Post by wang_li »

hermannj314 wrote: post #220
stuartjohnson12 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>...but me walking down a street with a handful of people on it should not lead me to expect...

You shouldn't have an expectation either way. If anything, the expectation that you will not be recorded is more of a violation of the social contract that the reverse. It's a public space that can be used for many purposes. If the effect on bystanders is minimal then attempting to exclude an activity is wrong. Can we say "I don't want you to see me, so look away whenever I am out." "I don't want to wait in traffic so everyone else has to pull over and clear the road when I am driving." "I didn't consent to this smell, so this restaurant has to turn off their stoves and ovens hours before I will be coming by."

Reality is that you can't exclude others if they aren't doing something that excludes you.

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

#404

Post by Aurornis »

pitt1980 wrote: post #97
sharperguy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The venues for these things are private and so they can set their own rules. The author proposes a rule: A simple purple lanyard indicating that you don't wish to be included in the published film. This doesn't necessarily need to be an article, because the author could have just handled it with each venue individually, but this just gets the conversation going about general sentiment and wider applicability. My gues…

Aren’t these venues small businesses that very much appreciate whatever publicity someone sharing their venue on social media gives them? I guess they can weigh that against their customers desire for privacy.

In many hobbies, recording footage and reviewing it later is very valuable for improving. Think about football players reviewing game footage as a team to discuss what they did well and what went wrong.

Many hobbies are like this. The majority of footage people record on their GoPros is for themself. It's rare for someone to edit it into a YouTube video. Even more rare for someone to go see it.

The AirSoft example is interesting because players where so much protective gear and face masks that it would be very difficult to recognize anyone's likeness anyway.

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

#405

Post by shmel »

Hizonner wrote: post #178
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…

> I get it, but the alternative is what? Stop taking video in public, or at least of the public. You just assume you should be able to do that and the whole world should adjust to your preference. Maybe it should be the other way around.

Do you also support a blanket ban of CCTV in public spaces? I am pretty sure that the bank had a camera in the ATM recording a public pavement 24/7 and nobody bats an eye.

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

#406

Post by aeternum »

blitzar wrote: post #383

I don't want to be someones "content", even if it is due to my rougish good looks and a suave mix of bond with john wick on the airsoft battlefield.

You can always leave or ask the airsoft organizers to make new rules. The more interesting question is whether there's some legal avenue to avoid being someone's "content".

Reality TV has to get consent + releases so where is the line?

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

#407

Post by buildsjets »

greenavocado wrote: post #217
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Most parents will punch you in the face if you try to record audio of thier children without two party consent.

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

#408

Post by wang_li »

fuzzehchat wrote: post #167
sharperguy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The venues for these things are private and so they can set their own rules. The author proposes a rule: A simple purple lanyard indicating that you don't wish to be included in the published film. This doesn't necessarily need to be an article, because the author could have just handled it with each venue individually, but this just gets the conversation going about general sentiment and wider applicability. My gues…

The author is a tech lawyer. I think the article is there to start discussion. I agree with him that if private venues allow people to record like this they should offer, at the very least, an opt out. "Purple lanyard" seems like a good way. It's also a pretty easy spot in post production where you can either blur or cut as appropriate.

There is a super obvious opt out that doesn't require people to take special actions.

Don't go to places that allow recording.

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

#409

Post by ljm »

pixl97 wrote: post #365
footy wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right. My younger sister was stalked by a crazy ex for years. According to some of the people here that would mean she had no right to participate in a regular activity.

Since you're allergic to peanuts that means everybody should be banned from eating peanuts and we should stop growing them, right? While directly providing said stalker with information seems like a harmful, and likely prosecutable behavior, the indirect providing of information is not a burden the general public should bear for another parties already illegal actions.

Peanuts aren't served on a plane just in case someone with a peanut allergy has a bad time as result. Peanuts (and other things people are deathly allergic to) are also not served or used as ingredients in restaurants where there is a risk of cross contamination.

What you've done is bring back the equivalence to a public place so that an absurd argument can be made about banning peanuts wholesale.

As far as any non-public situation goes, it's a simple discussion of consent and it's easy: just ask for it instead of feeling entitled to it.

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

#410

Post by kjksf »

webstrand wrote: post #352
greenavocado wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most states in the United States allow one one-party consent for audio recordings.

Under US federal law one-party consent requires that you actually be a party to the conversation. This is why most security cameras do not record audio. If you're wandering around livestreaming and picking up conversations you're not a participant in, it's a violation of federal wiretapping laws.

You're so obviously wrong.

I watched multiple videos from Portland ICE protest, multiple videos of ICE arresting people, all with audio. Half the people at protests are recording.

If you were right all that would be illegal.

The magic word is: "reasonable expectation of privacy".

If you're in public, like in streets, in the mall etc. you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy. You can be recorded, with audio, and it's legal.

The two party consent rules only apply to private conduct e.g. you have a phone conversation. In states with two party consent the other person can't record the conversation without notifying you.

What you describe as "US federal law" sound more like anti-wiretapping law i.e. I can't plant a bug in your house and record your conversations. Which is duh, but not relevant to being recorded while in public.

Post reply on HN