Live data from Hacker News

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

neilzone.co.uk

511–520 of 767 posts

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

#511
>Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me.

Why?

I dont ask this dismissively. Im not suggesting he's unjustified. That's just the interesting question to me and the author doesnt explore it. I believe this feeling is a new trend.

I dont think people had these qualms, say, 20 years ago. The world was a very different place back then. At the end of the day I suppose it's because 20 years ago, even with a totally permissive policy, you'd never expect footage of you to reach any significant amount of people. It would rarely happen and when it did there wouldnt be a huge audience to share it with.

But does it go beyond that? Would people have cared even if it did reach a wide audience? Is it possible people seek more privacy and control over their image than before? And not just as a reaction to how global everything is because of the internet? Gen Z being afraid of answering phone calls, etc.

This strikes me as similar to the attitude towards phone number privacy. People used to publicly share their phone numbers by default. You were included in the phone book unless you specially requested not to be. Now it feels invasive for parties to ask you for it, even when they have some plausible reason.

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

#513

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.

Wiretapping laws are set by states, and different states have different criteria. For example, the two-party consent in MA involves 'intercepting' the conversation so even listening on a microphone and not recording it is considered wiretapping, but not all states use that criteria. Some people, like public officials performing their duty in public-- e.g. cops and politicians-- can't have any expectation of privacy.

Expectation of privacy is

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

#514
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…

Every airsoft event I've been to has been on private property. Solution here is to use a private airsoft field then make no filming a condition of entry. If they violate the rule, trespass.

That's the solution. You don't want to be recorded? Attend "no-recording" event. If there are no such events, tough luck. Market is not obligated to serve your particular needs. If you thing enough people care, organize it yourself.

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

#515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well J D Vance has all those awkward pics of him as a young fellow and it hasn't hurt him. He made VP coming from nowhere.

They still get used to try and discredit him all the time. Same with the videos of AOC dancing.

Yeah but both of those are clearly ineffective since both those people won their respective elections.

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

#516
post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find photos and videos to both be invasive and unwanted. I’ve been a member and gyms where the owner will start taking videos and pictures of the class that ultimately end up on social media or in marketing material. I’m not ok with it and I get incredible uncomfortable when I’m in some weird position to do an exercise and a camera starts heading my way. Any time an unwanted camera is around there is some level of…

I am assuming you have no good alternatives regarding your gym? Because if you feel uncomfortable with the behaviour of the owners, you should really vote with your wallet.

I don’t go there anymore. The owner has been texting me on and off to try and get me to go back. I’ve been looking for other options, but am having trouble finding one that looks decent for me.

It’s a bit of a paradox. When I’m looking for a gym, I find pictures incredibly helpful, but I don’t want them taken of me as a member there.

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

#517
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…

OP offers a reasonable idea of wearing a lanyard or badge to indicate you'd like to be censored out of the final video. that's practical and provides community enforcement -- for example if someone publishes a video with a subject like that, the community can shame them for it.

Shouldn't it be opt in, not opt out? Wear a badge if you are okay being in it. People who aren't wearing it are blurred out or otherwise removed.

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

#518

>Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me. Why? I dont ask this dismissively. Im not suggesting he's unjustified. That's just the interesting question to me and the author doesnt explore it. I believe this feeling is a new trend. I dont think people had these qualms, say, 20 years ago.…

What changed?

Awareness and prevalence of dragnets, AI, surveillance economy.

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

#519
This is mostly a joke, but objects in fantasy land are sometimes closer than they appear.

Major cloud compute and OS infra providers should provide a global opt-out of public bystander-recording. OK, record me, but it will be known by my face, location stamps from my device, etc, that it's me, and post-processing will anonymize me.

Legitimate public interest? EG, I stole your car and it's on tape? Sure, provide the cloud provider with a warrant for 'originals'.

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

#520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thus: A normal wedding with a normal amount of invited guests is one of the most non-secret events to exist private !== secret You seem to have this concept crossed in your thinking. Just because people know about it doesn't make it not private. Try getting into an event at Davos. Try getting into any well known event without an invitation. You'll see just how not public they are. The fact that people think it is a…

> Just because people know about it doesn't make it not private. That's exactly what I adressed in my comment above. You're explaining to me exactly what I've explained to you. Public can mean something which has been publicized = made known to the general public. In this case it doesn't mean that everybody is invited. You have a very hostile tone, for no apparent reason. Feel free to blow off steam if you need to, b…

"It's still a public event even if everyone is not invited."

You are not stating the same thing. You are saying that an invite only is not a private event. You've apparently misread the bit you quoted as it is a double negative; "> Just because people know about it doesn't make it not private". Just because people know about a private event does not mean the event is public. Knowledge of the event is not what makes it private. What makes it private is the host's restriction of who can attend.

Also, I'm not hostile. You're being defensive on an indefensible position and not liking the fact you are being called out for that position. There's a difference.

Post reply on HN