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

611–620 of 767 posts

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

#611

Post by soiltype »

shmel wrote: post #405
Hizonner wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Many people are actually quite uncomfortable with the prevalence of video surveillance, in fact.

However, there are significant differences: 1. The camera is in a fixed position, 2. The footage is not typically shared let alone published online.

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

#612

Post by physicsguy »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #502
physicsguy wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gets asked at basically every wedding I've been to in the UK i.e. there is a professional photographer, please don't take photos of the bride and groom in the church and it still gets ignored. At my own wedding, one of the guests (not even someone invited to the whole day, just a neighbour of my wife's parents who knew her growing up) is leaning out of the aisle with their phone taking photos ruining a load of p…

Unrelated to this post but what does it mean when a person isn't invited to the whole day?

In weddings in the U.K. (or at least in England) anyone can attend a wedding - legally they have to be open.

It’s therefore not uncommon if it’s local for more distant friends of family, neighbours, etc. to pop along to the ceremony at invitation of the couple or their parents as a result, but not to be invited to the party part. Sometimes older guests will just come to ceremony too.

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

#613

Post by worik »

anigbrowl wrote: post #594
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most gyms it shouldn't be that hard to take useful pictures without people in them though? Or much simpler: when the photos of a class are taken, simply ask beforehand who disagrees with being photographed and/or photos containing him/her made public, so that for those few minutes where the photos are taken, these people can get out of the picture.

Better yet, offer a free class to people who don't mind being photographed (of whom there are many). 'Being part of a company's marketing' isn't something that should be included in the price of a product or service.

Better still, pay people for the use of their image in advertising

Always

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

#614

Post by worik »

pixl97 wrote: post #342
callc wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic human decency. Just as the author says: “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.” It doesn’t fall to the legal level, but a social rules level. People who obnoxiously recording people in public, even if 100% legal, and disregard the wishes and conform of others around them dese…

>Basic human decency. If this existed we'd have a lot less problems in this world.

It exists

Life would be absolutely impossible without it

The debate is about its extent

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

#615

Post by pessimizer »

hunter2_ wrote: post #566
webstrand wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

I'm not so sure that the family gathering scenario is well-defined, though. If I'm at a gathering in someone's house, and I'm in a room with only the person/people that I'm actively talking to, then I feel reasonably private in the sense that my words are falling only on the ears of intended recipients. But if I'm in a room with the people I'm talking to and also people I'm not talking to, then I acknowledge that ear…

It's important to remember that you're making this up. You're just sort of spontaneously interpreting "reasonable expectation of privacy" off the top of your head.

It's usually simpler than that: if you see them recording you, and if they aren't trespassing (i.e. breaking the law otherwise); or you are on their property or on public property that they are legally permitted to use, which carries a posted sign telling you that you may be recorded, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Otherwise you do.*

Somebody could possibly hear something has nothing to do with it. Consenting to being heard is not consenting to being recorded. But maintaining your presence in a place where people are allowed to record is. If it's your party, tell them to put it away or leave. If it's their party, you leave. If you are recording surreptitiously and you are not working with law enforcement, it's probably not going to be admissible in court and if you publish it, you're going to get sued. Depending on your state and local laws, you are likely to lose badly.

-----

[*] All of this depending specifically on how the term is defined in your state and local laws. For example, video has often been separated from audio for pragmatic reasons; security cameras are meant to record physical acts, not conversations. For a second example, many states have decided that sending your voice over a wire to a designated recipient as an electronic signal is already consenting for the person receiving that signal to be able to record it and use it as they please; others have not. For a rationale in the second case, imagine that you didn't have the right to reveal a letter that was sent to you.

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

#617

Post by seb1204 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #549
GJim wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those include not trying to impress strange rules on guests you invite to an event. I think you will find it is both good etiquette and very common to make polite requests ("rules") of guests you invite..... whether these be to 'bring a bottle', 'smoke outside', 'wear black tie', 'wear your birthday suit' or 'don't film us'. If you can't accommodate such requests, don't go.

One of those is different from the others. And yes, it's very common for people to not go to an event if the hosts are making up strange demands.

How are they different? It appears you agree that if one does not like the rule they should not go. At the same time my impression is that you still want to go but dislike the rule.

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

#618

Post by seb1204 »

hahn-kev wrote: post #432
carlosjobim wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So if you have a quiet and private ceremony is it ok to ask people who come to that not to take pictures?

Yes, why not?

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

#619

Post by scratchyone »

berkes wrote: post #461
aunty_helen wrote: post #411

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…

We, a group of people living on a street where we get a lot of dangerous motorbikers passing our homes, started collecting these video's recently. Our goal is to get the roads closed for motorbikes, place bike-repelling infrastructure and to have police involved in the many cases of one-sided accidents. For that we need to convince local governments that motorbikes are misbehaving. So we now sift through instagram, y…

lol why do you want to punish all motorcycle riders instead of the actual people who are misbehaving....

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

#620

Post by landl0rd »

al_borland wrote: post #499
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 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…

Classes are a different story, but at least for the legion of would-be gymfluencers that show up in gyms frequented by us zoomers, there's an easy solution: tell them to please not film you. If they don't comply, mess up their video. Deliberately walk across the camera. Deliberately get in the way. Take the machine against which they're resting a cell phone and start using it. Make funny faces. Whatever.

More people should understand you are no more morally obligated to behave sociably toward those exhibiting antisocial behavior than you are to stay your hand from a man who hits you.

Then there are those who film in the locker rooms which arguably should be reason to ban them from said gyms.

Imo these types should stick to "influencer gyms". They exist. Alphaland in Texas is a great example; a friend of mine frequented it as she started her bodybuilding page. Worked great for her. Just stay the hell out of the "normal people" gyms.

Post reply on HN