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

411–420 of 767 posts

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

#411

Post by aunty_helen »

I had this when I rode with a motorbike group. It was a loose collection of people that rode a specific route on the weekend.

I only went a few times, but it was obvious the people with the cameras were looking for interesting content and drama. I cut an open corner and ended up in the highlight reel as some example of what not to do. Even though everyone there was 50% over the speed limit and riding “dangerously” in the eyes of others, what got put on the video was the interesting stuff. And of course, you never got to see the speedo of the camera man as he went 2-3 times the limit.

Another biker I knew said he didn’t ride with those guys because they’re just out there to bait for content.

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

#412

Post by baobun »

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…

Shooting video for yourself is one thing, sharing it to a third party like Google, MS, or Apple is another. Unfortunately many people have been brainwashed to not consider or even understand the difference.

I'm fine with being recorded as long as you keep it private. Not with that video ending up on your Drive backups or OneDrive etc, let alone YT.

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

#413

Post by GJim »

ThrownOffGame wrote: post #382
justinclift wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public events that have ever existed. Not sure why you think that? Although weddings can be in public places, they don't have to be and it's quite common for only invited guests (ie not the public) to be present.

Weddings held in churches have been public with nobody turned away at the door. Perhaps you are thinking of receptions, where invitations are checked, and accountants are eyeing the attendees accordingly. An impending wedding is usually one of the most publicized events in any city. The banns must be published, typically in a special section of the newspaper. In order to give notice for anyone who may object or know…

> Weddings held in churches have been public with nobody turned away at the door.

Most ordinary weddings *are* invitation only in Blighty. Both church weddings and secular weddings held at registry offices, town halls and the like.

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

#414

Post by detaro »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #187
squigz wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're looking for a generic reason, I think, and there isn't and doesn't need to be one other than "people can desire their privacy for various reasons" Maybe publicizing where someone is every week lets criminals plan their crimes. Maybe it gives away someone's location to an abusive ex or family member or stalker. Maybe people just don't want Google and the like to have even more data about our whereabouts and act…

These are all nice concrete consequences, but I’m not sure having public images meaningfully exacerbates them. >robbers Why would a criminal take time to comb through random, anonymous, uncategorized images of people to ambiguously identify someone who might not be home (and might not even have a house worth breaking into), when it’s much easier to just stake out wealthy neighborhoods and definitively see who’s not h…

> So said stalker would have to run facial recognition software on every image on the internet to find the handful that might incidentally contain their victim

Or use an image search engine that does facial recognition. Already exist, and likely to become more common.

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

#415

Post by JadoJodo »

I feel this about all of the AI notetaking bots that everyone is adding to web meetings these days:

“Welcome to the meeting. Your voice is now being recorded and sent to a server somewhere in the world to be processed by an AI and you have zero control over it. If we were to get hacked, it will be impossible to you know if your voice will be synthesized and used to scam, abuse, or any other nefarious purposes between now and the end of time. Happy meeting!”

I’ve seriously been in meetings with 3+ AI bots from different companies I’ve never heard of.

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

#416

Post by exodust »

mikepurvis wrote: post #138

Social dance (swing, Latin, etc) has some of this too. I think generally where most scenes have fallen is “only film yourself and your friends, unless it’s something intentionally performative like a jam circle or competition, in which case go nuts.”

Not to mention EDM festivals. Remote bush doofs where everyone is off their chops, escaping reality, dancing during the day, exposed in the light.

Being recorded in 4k from different angles including action cams on people's heads on the dance floor, is a far cry from the relative anonymity of festivals of old. I remember when the only people who'd see you all bright eyed and bushy tailed were other participants in the party mayhem, which is how it should be.

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

#417

Post by hamdingers »

carlosjobim wrote: post #226
squigz wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone asks you not to record them at their own event , and you do, you're an asshole.

A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public events that have ever existed. The purpose is so that as many people as possible should know that these people are taken. Asking guests to not take photos is such a faux pass that the couple has destroyed their reputation completely. They can have a quiet and private ceremony instead if they have stage fright.

> A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public events that have ever existed.

Important context since it seems you have never been to a wedding: they are almost all invite-only.

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

#418

Post by webstrand »

kjksf wrote: post #410
webstrand wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

I figured that "reasonable expectation of privacy" was a given in the scenario. It's a family gathering, the livestreamer is not being obvious about their recording, there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Your ICE protest example is performed in public, its a protest, its not meant to be private, thus fails the test of "reasonable expectation of privacy". Action taken by agents of the state are also public actions, this has been tried many times in court.

Two-party consent is not federal law and varies state-by-state. But again it requires that you actually be a party to consent.

And yes by "US Federal Law" I am referencing the anti-wiretapping laws which prohibit, among other things, interception of oral communication via electronic means unless at least one party consents.

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

#419

Post by __float »

baobun wrote: post #412
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…

Shooting video for yourself is one thing, sharing it to a third party like Google, MS, or Apple is another. Unfortunately many people have been brainwashed to not consider or even understand the difference. I'm fine with being recorded as long as you keep it private. Not with that video ending up on your Drive backups or OneDrive etc, let alone YT.

This is drawing a very different line from the majority of conversations in this thread, I imagine.

"Sharing with a third party" because you have phone backups enabled is very different from streaming live or uploading to social media, like most are actually discussing here.

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

#420

Post by immibis »

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…

In Germany it's generally illegal to film people apart from certain exceptions (mostly public events and public spaces). Even when filming something in public, you must be filming the event/space and not a person or group who happens to be occupying it, which is a fine distinction. Even surveillance cameras have strict requirements to be legal. You don't want to be the guy who goes to jail for having a surveillance camera, right?

Tangentially, nightclubs put stickers over your phone cameras and that is a great idea.

Post reply on HN