[HN Gopher] Please don't film me in 2023
___________________________________________________________________
Please don't film me in 2023
Author : ColinWright
Score : 157 points
Date : 2023-01-08 14:57 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| sshine wrote:
| I had some kids walk up on me in a mall sticking a speaker into
| my face asking some question.
|
| I was eating and had my mouth full. So I just stared the main
| content creator in the eyes and preserved the awkward silence.
|
| Kids don't know how to deal with that. He ended up apologising,
| saying he'll delete the thing, and walked away before I had
| finished chewing. :-)
| jesuscript wrote:
| That's a bigger issue isn't it? We have a generation of people
| (we can label em kids, but they are just people) that will grow
| up thinking it's normal to be an exhibitionist at all times.
| And they are the next people that will run the world.
|
| I'm just not optimistic about the future at all.
| watwut wrote:
| Jesus, a kid walked up to him and then apologized after
| seeing annoyed face. There is no bigger issue. I personally
| know kids who tried something similar playing at journalists
| almost 30 years ago. This literally sounds like a normal
| healthy development where a kid tries a thing he/she seen on
| TV, recognizes negative social feedback and backs off.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Repeat after me and breathe deeply:
|
| The quirks and preferences of the next generation that are
| different from my quirks and preferences are just different,
| not necessarily better or worse.
|
| People have been complaining about the terrible thing the new
| generation does since there has been people. It's a bug /
| feature of our relatively short lifespan - on one hand our
| souls calcify a bit as we age and we start to see new as
| scary at the same time we are getting more powerful in
| society. On the other hand the reaction to the calcification
| of the soul that the newer generation has helps to push
| things into new and different directions, but at a time when
| those people are not very powerful in society.
|
| It's an interesting balance, and its fun to think about how
| culture and society would change if that balance was tipped
| one way or the other.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| I guess if the next generation decides to all become
| homicidal maniacs and kill every previous generation then
| that's not better or worse?
|
| I know that is extreme but I hate the attitude that the
| quirks and preferences are neither better nor worse. Some
| quirks could be worse if it becomes society-disrupting.
| int_19h wrote:
| Did the next generation decide that? Has there ever been
| an example of such a thing?
|
| Somehow, when you look at those "younguns are bad" rants
| from 50 or 100 years ago, pretty much every time it's
| over some issue that can only elicit laughter today.
| Especially when it comes to predictions.
| watwut wrote:
| Some generations are worst behaved then others. Some
| commit more crimes then others.
|
| However, this is not an example of that.
| jesuscript wrote:
| Dude, I could care less about the newer generations
| quirks. I'm concerned about aggregate behavior altering
| sensibilities in society. This stuff is happening at
| scale and globally. It's not "oh western people do this",
| it's _everyone_ and it 's not even limited to the youth
| age group. It has permeated into the adult lives of
| millinials/gen x. They do the same shit, so the age range
| is literally from 7 years old (when do these little
| shitheads get phones now days?) all the way to fucking
| 50+.
| polynomial wrote:
| Correct. The current thing is just a thing after all.
| Let's try to stop judging people who don't hold the same
| values we do, just let them do them. (Obviously if they
| are killing people, such other people might be mildly
| inconvenienced, not sure what to do about that. One
| problem at a time?)
| cptskippy wrote:
| It's not even a generational thing. Boomers have some of
| the worst etiquette.
|
| When I grew up it was rude to call people at dinner time.
| If you called someone while they were eating it was either
| ignored, sent to answering machine, or it was answered with
| a curt "we're eating" before hanging up. This was the
| 1990s.
|
| When I got my first cellphone, I made a point of excusing
| myself and leaving a room if it rang because that's how I
| was raised.
|
| These days boomers seem to have forgotten this etiquette
| they impressed upon Gen X and Millennials. They answer
| their phones on speakerphone whenever without excusing
| themselves and and are completely unapologetic.
|
| People in general today have no concern for walking around
| in public while having a phone call and get offended if you
| mistake their conversation and acknowledge them. As rude as
| it might seem to keep Airpods in all of the time, they have
| at least saved us from having to listen to other people
| carrying on and give a visual queue to ignore someone
| speaking around you.
| onetimeusename wrote:
| I see people filming themselves at the gym a lot for tiktok
| videos I assume. Both men and women alike. I've seen them
| set up tripods or have camera assistants who circle around
| them filming. It makes me extremely uncomfortable being in
| the background of a sexualized gym video. Let's not kid
| ourselves, that's what a lot of these videos are, give me a
| break. They aren't just filming their abs or biceps or
| squat video from behind just purely for fitness' sake and
| they are well aware that their followers are not just
| really into fitness.
|
| I wouldn't really care if they did it by themselves. For
| one thing I just don't want to be identified in the
| background of what is essentially softcore erotica and for
| another I don't want to be identifiable by Chinese AI or
| have some sort of weird profile set up that matches my
| features on their end (or anywhere).
|
| These are real actual harms in my opinion and not just
| gripes about the next generation.
| temporallobe wrote:
| I see this as well, but in my gym it doesn't seem to be
| sexual in any way, so I think it depends on the gym and
| the type of patrons that attend it. Or maybe I'm just
| naive and didn't think of it in _that_ way. I will admit
| it makes me a bit irritated because I never know if I'm
| accidentally gonna end up in someone's shot.
| fragmede wrote:
| You're worried about fake profiles being setup in your
| name or being in the background of someone else's videos?
| That's last generarion's concerns. Facebook was opened to
| the world in 2006. You gotta keep up. Today's fears are
| deepfake videos from "you".
| gffrd wrote:
| It's annoying that this is something you even have to
| worry about. Gyms are kind of a sacred/vulnerable space,
| in that they are somewhere you go to better yourself ...
| so someone filming in them and capturing people feels
| especially perverse.
|
| Not unlike filming in a church, and capturing in the
| background normal people going in for confession.
|
| If you haven't said something to the management, you
| should. I can't imagine they'd be thrilled: they should
| be scared of people wielding cameras within their walls
| for many reasons.
| jesuscript wrote:
| It's not as generational as you think (and I realize this
| makes my previous post hypocritical, but whatever). I can
| tell you many Gen Z and Millenials notice something is a
| little off with the trends even amongst ourselves. We're
| turning weird, and not in a healthy way. Maybe others
| closer to these trends can chime in.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| > I can tell you many Gen Z and Millenials notice
| something is a little off with the trends even amongst
| ourselves.
|
| Do you think this wasn't true among previous generations?
| jesuscript wrote:
| This is a rabbit hole if we go back and forth. Yes, there
| was always a get-off-my-lawn element in previous
| generations. But I am trying to hone in on certain
| critiques that are valid for certain generations. I'll
| give in you an example:
|
| It was (whether the generation was self aware or not)
| mostly acceptably for people in America in the 1950s to
| be mildly racist towards black people (it's just, how
| they grew up, it was the status quo). That's not a get-
| off-my-lawn observation of that demographic. This was not
| a simple generational "quirk", it was a notable flaw.
|
| Socially, I think somethings a little up with whatever is
| going on now days. But that's just me and history will
| sort this. Things are very hard to sort out as it's
| actually happening.
| DAVer98 wrote:
| [dead]
| bratwurst3000 wrote:
| Here my 2 cents.
|
| The group we are talking about, mostly kids, is beeing
| targeted by the industriy to consume. They are targeted by
| ads and even whole campagnes where a lifestyle is sold.
|
| So with that in mind maybe the kids where never allright
| and we have to be suspect of some trends today. Personaly
| as someone who grew up in the dawn of social media, I am
| very against this trend of making everything to content.
|
| It cant be good for the brain to be focused that hard on
| what other people are thinking
| JamisonM wrote:
| It is funny that I kinda see it exactly the other way..
| we live in a world that is much less about the local
| community so these people are both /choosing/ to care
| what other people think and /choosing/ what they present
| to those other people.
|
| Most normie kids don't make any content.. they just
| don't.. you can still live a super-normal life and that
| is what most people do.
| chillbill wrote:
| [flagged]
| travisjungroth wrote:
| > People have been complaining about the terrible thing the
| new generation does since there has been people.
|
| People have also been saying "it's going to get colder"
| every summer as long as there have been people out of the
| tropics.
| wpietri wrote:
| Yeah, honestly, even as an old, I think the kids are
| generally amazing. I am very optimistic. I have my
| grumbles, but the amount of old bullshit they are rejecting
| outright is heartening. Better new mistakes than old ones.
| CPLX wrote:
| That's one frame of reference.
|
| Another way of looking at it is that there have always been
| profit or power seeking activities that cause massive harm
| to entire generations, until the culture finally learns how
| to rise up and counteract it.
|
| Usually the pattern is that something genuinely new comes
| along that we don't have a plan for, millions of people are
| terribly harmed, and then we sort of figure it out.
|
| Industrialization brought great progress, but it blackened
| lungs and enslaved children until the progressive labor
| movement restored some balance. Mechanized warfare and the
| desire to dominate Europe laid waste to two entire
| generations, globally, before modern international
| cooperation brought it somewhat to heel. We poured toxic
| waste into all the rivers, we applied different laws to
| people who had different colored skin, we incinerated
| people who were unlucky enough to be born above oil
| deposits, all to make a few bucks.
|
| And we've let tech media companies relentlessly
| commercialize and sexualize us, drive us to anger in search
| of "engagement" and disassociate us from each other and
| from our work and things that give us meaning, for at least
| two generations.
|
| Hopefully we'll figure out how to move past this era too.
|
| It's not a "kids are alright" kind of moment, it's just one
| of generations of examples of greed leading to people
| getting harmed.
| maxbond wrote:
| > I'm just not optimistic about the future at all.
|
| Couldn't you have made this comment in any generation though?
| I could imagine someone making it while listening to a news
| story about Woodstock on the radio.
| giardia wrote:
| Yeah but not everybody at Woodstock was recording
| everything that they and everyone around them did.
|
| Almost every single citizen is now equipped with a
| surveillance device at all hours of their life, and they
| have incentive to use them and share the data they collect.
| This is little to no recourse for you if you don't want to
| be recorded. At least in the 60s it was a handful of news
| casters with huge equipment you could steer clear of.
| maxbond wrote:
| I agree this is a problem, I was responding to the notion
| there was no hope for the future.
| giardia wrote:
| I see, misunderstood you.
| maxbond wrote:
| I could've also been more clear, thank you for the
| feedback.
|
| I've edited the comment in an attempt to clarify.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| This may be a bad example, because I've literally seen
| video of people screwing in public at Woodstock.
|
| Cameras weren't ubiquitous then but it was a major enough
| event that a lot of cameras were there.
| [deleted]
| pronlover723 wrote:
| what part of woodstock had the average attendee trying to
| get as many worldwide followers as possible?
| maxbond wrote:
| None but my understanding was there was lots of
| exhibitionism.
| jesuscript wrote:
| Yeah, but at least those people were on drugs. That's a
| good enough excuse in my book. People are doing shit
| stone cold sober now days.
| themagician wrote:
| The difference with radio is that the content you were
| creating generally had to be good. Bad content would get
| bad ratings, few listeners, and would fizzle out. It didn't
| last. Radio is a hard business. Good content was hard to
| monetize, bad content was impossible to monetize.
|
| The magic it Facebook, TikTok, et. al is that they figured
| out how to generate revenue from content that is just
| fractionally better than nothing at all. The algorithms can
| monetize content with a value that is just fractions of a
| cent less than zero and they do all this without having to
| pay real money for most of it.
|
| An entire generation now aspires to make a living creating
| what is effectively content spam. Filler. Junk for the
| algorithm to promote. And what's incredible is that they
| aren't wrong. You can make a living doing this. The payouts
| and sponsorships are insane.
|
| It won't last forever though. Eventually we'll just have AI
| created content. You'll have an infinite stream of "Sick
| car, what do you do for a living" videos at no cost.
|
| The TikTok of tomorrow is one where you just type in a few
| words about your interests and it generates an infinite
| stream of fake videos.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It's not so much good vs bad as long-tail vs median.
|
| A lot of content that wouldn't have flown in the
| mainstream during the traditional radio era because it
| didn't capture the median demographic that the players
| were competing for can fly online because it captures the
| long tail and satisfies enough the interests or desires
| of a single content creator or small team to justify
| their efforts (where a studio organization can't survive
| without the kind of advertising revenue you get by being
| median popular).
|
| A combination of lower costs and wider reach (allowing
| you to find more of the long tail) changes the
| mathematics on what is worth someone's time to publish.
|
| And that's without getting off in the US-specific weeds
| regarding the fact that there was content that
| categorically could not be on the radio because the
| otherwise -assumed First Amendment right to freedom of
| speech / the press was curtailed in the United States by
| the FCC acting as arbiter on parceling up a finite
| national resource (whereas the internet is not considered
| such a resource and therefore there's no central US
| governing authority telling you what you can and cannot
| put online in the same way).
| edrxty wrote:
| Kids these days, amirite?
|
| Every generation has had their asshole exhibitionists.
| Technology has just been pushing said assholes towards making
| TikTube content lately.
|
| Boomers did the radio shock-jockey routine, X did deeply
| weird television and lately podcasts, Y did 1st
| gen/text+photo social media, and Z is doing 2nd
| gen/video+photo social media.
|
| This isn't Gen Y/Z being somehow inferior, "we" (the readers
| of this community) did this.
| jesuscript wrote:
| How different was 1970 to 1995? Socially people were under
| the same framework. There's a huge difference between 2005
| at 2020 for example. I don't think we can chalk this up to
| get-off-my-lawn syndrome that simply.
|
| The music, games and movies are very much similar from
| times of old (you might like it, you might not, you might
| just be getting old, that's the part that never changes or
| causes alarm). It's social behavior that's peculiar - in a
| bad way.
| int_19h wrote:
| I would say that the difference between 1995 and 1970 is
| significantly greater than between 2020 and 2005.
|
| Then again, I wasn't around in 1970, so I can only judge
| that difference based on how it was recorded.
| [deleted]
| standardUser wrote:
| It's a good thing that so many young people feel free to be
| themselves, in public and on the record, instead of
| constantly stifling themselves and hiding away. Just think
| about how much previous generations had to hide and play-act
| and deny who they were. It led to nothing by pain and
| suffering and death.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| The wilder the future gets the higher the baseline of noise I
| can blend into.
| taftster wrote:
| "content creator" - ha! Pretty sad that you chewing food is
| considered "content."
|
| I like the awkward silence non-response. I might have ended up
| grabbing a handful of gadgets and smashing them on the ground.
| You have much more patience than I.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Meeting annoyances with crimes seems weird, too.
| maxbond wrote:
| And seems guaranteed to turn into really successful
| content. Staring is the right approach; starve the trolls,
| make them acutely aware of your humanity and the violation
| of your dignity, and let them come to their own conclusions
| about their behavior.
| jesuscript wrote:
| Weird, but even weirder is the absolute lack of reality
| based thinking of the person doing the filming. I'd be
| scared out of my mind to point my camera at anyone, because
| in the real world someone might just flip their shit and
| punch you in the face. That happens in the real world.
| polynomial wrote:
| Things can go from someone filming another person without
| consent -and/or with dubious intent- to a 911 call a lot
| faster than most people realize.
| starwind wrote:
| I would have asked him to publish it on TikTok. Let's just make
| this _real_ weird
| snowpid wrote:
| In Germany filming strangers without consent is forbidden.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| Are TikTokers respecting it?
| fxtentacle wrote:
| Not sure, but I've not had any problem with obnoxious people
| recording videos in public in the past 10 years.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I think so. I'm less familiar with TikTok but livestreamers
| in Germany do tend to respect it and you'll find relatively
| few prank or "stranger filmed in subway/gym" style German
| content on the internet. People will also usually turn
| cameras off/down when going into businesses, facing windows,
| etc.
|
| Culturally it definitely still works which is arguably the
| function of the law to begin with.
| lostlogin wrote:
| How do security cameras, dash cams etc get used?
| csunbird wrote:
| Security cameras: You are only allowed to use them to film
| private land.
|
| Dash cam: The footage can not be published with faces and/or
| license plates legible (anything that can be linked to a
| person really). You are allowed to keep the footage for
| private purposes unedited.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Sounds like a good system to me.
| noduerme wrote:
| Certainly a lot of security cameras must face a public
| street?
| Lewton wrote:
| "Certainly" not, as it's against the law
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| I know stores for sure that have cameras facing the
| street (at least I assume from the position of the
| entrance which is to observe).
|
| I think there is a law regulating where and if such a
| camera is allowed to be positioned and how you are
| allowed to process the imagery.
|
| It is also not forbidden to film out of my doorway, is
| it?
|
| Law is certainly complex in this case.
|
| Storing close-up videos of strangers indefinitely is
| hopefully forbidden, but not filming a street per se.
| luckylion wrote:
| > It is also not forbidden to film out of my doorway, is
| it?
|
| It is if you're looking at the public road out of your
| door. Cameras need to be angled so that they do not film
| public spaces. There was a case a few years back about
| police stations in Baden-Wurttemberg needing to shut down
| their cameras because one complaint found them to surveil
| too much of the sidewalk.
| sally_glance wrote:
| I learned that you have to request a permit from the
| local authorities stating purpose, duration,
| retention/processing... Not doing so might incur some
| pretty hefty fines if reported.
| csunbird wrote:
| You also must have a good reason as well!
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| Security cameras in public spaces in Germany are mostly
| combined with sign indicating camera surveillance.
|
| In public spaces it's probably somewhat regulated, but it
| might be a small sign.
|
| On private property with video surveillance there also
| always seems to be some signage, clearly visible.
|
| The purpose of that is for sure also to prevent crime from
| happening in the first place.
|
| Example sign: https://m.media-
| amazon.com/images/I/41WuyzXzgPL._AC_SY580_Dp...
| drdaeman wrote:
| Just curious - what about wearable cameras? Like a bodycam.
|
| Kinda like a dashcam, but worn by a person rather than a
| vehicle.
| ketkev wrote:
| They're regulated. Not German nor a lawyer but my
| understanding is that security cameras should only film
| private property (or as much as possible) and constantly
| running dashcams aren't allowed. It seems you're only allowed
| to record when something is happening but a dashcam which
| deletes the records unless you save them seem to be fair game
| leobg wrote:
| By civil law only. A criminal act it is not. That means unless
| the person takes it into their own hands to sue, nothing will
| happen. Still, you take on quite a legal risk if you publish
| footage that shows strangers, because you'll never know when
| they will turn up and sue you for damages. It could happen 10
| years down the line, and the amount of damages they can claim
| will be even higher the longer the footage has been published.
| brewmarche wrote:
| It is not criminal to _shoot/film_, however it is a criminal
| act to _publish_ videos/photos with people when they have not
| consented. There are many exceptions though (famous persons,
| people accidentally in the picture not being the focus,
| public demonstrations and other events -- maybe not the best
| translations, just to give some ideas)
| brewmarche wrote:
| However as has been said, even without intent to publish
| there might be civil damages involved.
| ghaff wrote:
| Yet how many millions of Europeans in countries with laws of
| this sort have appeared on Instagram, Flickr, TikTok, etc.?
| It may be technically the case but essentially no one worries
| about it--especially those who aren't going to shove a camera
| in someone's face.
| [deleted]
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| As explained in the topmost comment, this is a simplification
| but mostly true (thank god). Lines get fuzzy when you are in
| the background of some personal video or on surveillance camera
| footage.
| jakobdabo wrote:
| I happen to know a few German street photographers, like
| Siegfried Hansen[1], for example. Now, I wonder, how do they
| publish their works and organize exhibitions then? Is it
| possible that there are some exceptions in the law?
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Hansen_(photographer...
| [deleted]
| mikae1 wrote:
| In GDPR there are some kind of exemptions for art and
| journalism.
| [deleted]
| matsemann wrote:
| Here in Norway filming or photographing in public space is in
| most cases perfectly legal. It's _publishing_ it that 's
| restricted. You walking randomly in the background of a wide
| street shot you have to accept, but if you're the main focus of
| the video it can't be published without your approval.
|
| Unless it has some kind of "allmenn interesse", aka "general
| interest", where it's better for society that it's published vs
| your right for privacy. For instance if you're a public figure
| doing something bad in public and getting video taped, you
| can't stop that from getting out by not "approving" it.
| hartator wrote:
| > In the case of random TikTok creators, it's clear the level of
| consent and notice runs the gamut.
|
| I am reading this like this: When Verge is doing this, it is
| obviously legit and obviously not when it's Tiktokers. Without
| backing this with any data.
| starwind wrote:
| I haven't seen a video from the Verge where they walk up to
| random people randomly, stick a mic in their face, and ask them
| random questions
| tinyspacewizard wrote:
| Bring back Surveillance Camera Man
| o_____________o wrote:
| Funny, recently I started seeing some of the old videos
| republished on TT
|
| https://www.tiktok.com/@surveillancecameraman
| rvz wrote:
| [flagged]
| maxbond wrote:
| The comment you linked is talking about how much they value
| finding community through TikTok, not how much they value
| ubiquitous surveillance. Transporting that comment to a
| different context to misconstrue it & then sneer at that person
| behind their back is terrible faith. Please don't do that on HN
| or anywhere.
| deepzn wrote:
| I think it's a sense of humans losing emotional intelligence, as
| technology use increases. Would be interested in studies on the
| correlation or causation between the two. This is happening
| socially as well, with people being on their phones all the time
| and in their own spaces, and not interacting or communicating
| with others. That sense of being human, and personal is lacking
| in today's world.
| ozim wrote:
| These are mostly teenagers and young adults doing these things
| in a let's say not so appropriate manner.
|
| One thing I have to say about (generalization) that group is
| that they don't have much emotional intelligence - it does not
| have anything to do with technology. They are young and still
| learning life.
| jesuscript wrote:
| I would say that people are being introduced to patterns of
| behavior at very early ages where it is near impossible for the
| parent or local community to correct because it's happening at
| such a scale where it's hard to mitigate. That's the ugly truth
| about "normal", normal is never objective. Normal is always a
| function of how many people are doing it. If most of the world
| is dysfunctional, it will never be assessed as a dysfunction.
| It will be seen as normal.
| yboris wrote:
| I've watched some Japanese video creators on YouTube and so often
| when they film streets they frame their shot so as to cut off the
| faces of those in public (whether by tilting the camera, or
| shooting a crowd where everyone is walking away). It's so polite,
| so considerate <3
| joe__f wrote:
| There are quite a few east Asian students in the city where I
| live, and especially the girls like to do photo shoots around
| town. They go to lengths to get shots without other people in,
| but I always got the impression they're doing it for aesthetics
| primarily above consideration for others
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://kokoro-jp.com/columns/4027/
|
| > "It isn't a criminal offense to photograph people's faces in
| public, but it can be a civil offense if the person who has
| been photographed finds their likeness published anywhere. They
| can make a case against the photographer on the grounds of
| breach of privacy," says Tia. "The threat of being identified
| in a creative's work and suffering consequences for it is all
| the victim needs to prove in court."
|
| > That's why on most Japanese blogs, YouTube videos, and
| television programs, the faces of bystanders are blurred, an
| arduous and artistically painful process for any passionate
| creative. Tia says it best: "As an artist, mosaics and bars
| over the face can be such an ugly mark on one's work."
| viewtransform wrote:
| I see a market for software that replaces those faces with
| "AI" faces. There's my startup idea for the day.
| blooalien wrote:
| That actually sounds like a _totally valid_ use for those
| AI face generators. _Gotta_ be hella better 'n a big ol'
| blur or giant pixels where a face should be.
| rippercushions wrote:
| > _As an artist, mosaics and bars over the face can be such
| an ugly mark on one's work._
|
| Connoisseurs of Japanese art will know that legally mandated
| mosaics are not limited to faces.
| sotrue5 wrote:
| I assume this means NSFW stuff? I never see anyone call
| themself a "connoisseur" of art unless it's porn.
| bool3max wrote:
| If you don't want to be filmed in public, don't be in public.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| r/TopMindsOfHackerNews
| Clubber wrote:
| It's been decided filming/photographing in public is a first
| amendment right in the US.
|
| https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/photographers-rights
| arcturus17 wrote:
| a) There is not only law, there is also decency and respect
| for others
|
| b) Many of us are not in the States
| giantg2 wrote:
| It's hardly as absolute as you make it sound. For example,
| I wonder how they come down on upskirt shots?
|
| It'd be nice if that link had information related to the
| current discussion of Tik Tok videos. It's mostly about
| filming police with very little about the art side,
| especially the type of "art" these Tik Tok videos can
| include.
| Clubber wrote:
| >It's hardly as absolute as you make it sound.
|
| Can you cite legal examples of exceptions? I know the
| police tried real hard to ban people filming them and
| failed. As annoying as these people are, public
| photography as a freedom of the press right a large net
| positive IMO.
|
| https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/if-stopped-
| photog...
| giantg2 wrote:
| I did in the prior comment - upskirt photos. You can also
| see how recording in court rooms is prohibited. Or how
| recording nudity or partial nudity is prohibited. These
| are in statute and code (at least in PA, but other states
| are similar).
|
| Also, your police recording example isn't absolute
| either. I believe circuits are split on that. Even the
| ones that protect recording have set limits, like being
| at least 8 feet ways, or not interfering.
|
| Public recording may be a net positive, but it's also
| subject to restrictions (at least as the laws stand now).
| PeterisP wrote:
| That allows the act of filming, but does it also allow
| publishing the video for commercial purposes without the
| subjects' permission?
| Clubber wrote:
| Yes, otherwise mothers could be arrested for taking a
| picture of their kids and publishing it on Facebook
| because some guy was walking in the background.
| Ekaros wrote:
| If you want to film something, just setup your own studio or
| green screen. Not too hard or expensive these days.
| x86x87 wrote:
| If you don't want to smell my fart while i'm farting in your
| face just stop breathing. /s Jeez.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The discussion about being filmed is really secondary in this
| discussion. This discussion is primarily about the widespread
| distribution of those films.
| ozim wrote:
| People mostly argue what they "like".
|
| But filming in public or taking photos rarely is prohibited.
|
| Publishing without consent mostly is prohibited.
| cvalka wrote:
| There's no expectation of privacy in public places.
| azornathogron wrote:
| Of course there is. Privacy isn't a binary condition. It is
| more invasive to be seen than not seen, it is more invasive
| to be closely watched than to merely be seen incidentally, it
| is more invasive to be recorded than watched, it is more
| invasive for a recording to be published than held privately.
|
| Somewhere, not all that far along the range, these cross a
| threshold into harassment, stalking, or other things that
| people generally recognise as unacceptable. In "public
| places" the threshold is slightly further along the range but
| not very much.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| It's not so much about "privacy", IMO. It's about being
| unreasonably bothered by others for their for-profit content.
| zinekeller wrote:
| That is only really applicable in few places such as the US.
| France, Germany and Japan (to name a few) extends the right
| of privacy even when outside of residence.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Do you have a source for that? For example, can I take
| upskirt shots because they're in public? Public restrooms
| also have an expection of privacy, even though they are
| public. There are many different laws that are privacy
| related that deal with public spaces.
| drew-y wrote:
| In the US:
|
| > When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you
| have the right to photograph anything that is in plain
| view. That includes pictures of federal buildings,
| transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is
| a form of public oversight over the government and is
| important in a free society[1].
|
| However, this does not apply to areas where there is a
| reasonable expectation of privacy. Public restrooms and
| (I'd assume) skirts included [2].
|
| [1] https://www.aclusocal.org/en/photographers-rights [2]
| https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/PHOTOG.pdf
| giantg2 wrote:
| Why would we just assume that a skirt would be included
| if the wearer is in a public space and it blows up or
| somwthing? These sorts or unexplained
| inclusions/exceptions are could very well be applied to
| "I assume sticking a mic/camera in someone's face is an
| invasion of privacy".
|
| Apparently it also doesn't apply to court rooms. Nor does
| it apply to nudity or partial nudity even if publicly
| photographed.
| Clubber wrote:
| Ya the up-skirt thing was interesting. There's some laws
| on the books but I don't think it's ever been tried in
| the SCOTUS.
|
| https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/upskirtin
| g.h...
| piffey wrote:
| Left up to the states so far. I know WA it falls under
| voyeurism.
|
| https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115
|
| I've shot street photography and
| photojournalistic/documentary work for over a decade now
| and this seems to be the recurring discussion: "It's
| legal to just take pictures of people in public?" And
| yes, it is. It's literally how photojournalism works and
| why child labor (Lewis Hine), civil rights (Gordon
| Parks), war abuses (Don McCullin), and so much more made
| it to the forefront of National discussions. Not saying
| TikTok content is that quality but the laws protecting
| public recording are an essential component of freedom of
| expression. Once you start choosing which content gets to
| be recorded due to some subjective quality rating you
| fall into censorship.
| tsuujin wrote:
| Ah yes, the "she was wearing a short skirt she just have wanted
| it" defense.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Except rape is illegal and filming in public is not. So
| actually they're entirely different.
| c7b wrote:
| I assume that's a satire of this:
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid...
| ?
| bmacho wrote:
| "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know,
| maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." -- Eric
| Schmidt CEO of Google
| eternalban wrote:
| > "If you have something that you don't want anyone to
| know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
| -- Eric Schmidt
|
| "History"
|
| "An early instance of this argument was referenced by Henry
| James in his 1888 novel, _The Reverberator_ :
|
| _If these people had done bad things they ought to be
| ashamed of themselves and he couldn't pity them, and if
| they hadn't done them there was no need of making such a
| rumpus about other people knowing._
|
| "Upton Sinclair also referenced a similar argument in his
| book _The Profits of Religion_ , published in 1917 :
|
| _Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my
| relatives and friends -- people residing in places as far
| apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile
| of a government official to whom I complained about this
| matter: "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to
| fear." My answer was that a study of many labor cases had
| taught me the methods of the agent provocateur. He is quite
| willing to take real evidence if he can find it; but if
| not, he has familiarized himself with the affairs of his
| victim, and can make evidence which will be convincing when
| exploited by the yellow press._
|
| "The motto
|
| _`If you 've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to
| fear'_
|
| has been used in defense of the closed-circuit television
| program practiced in the United Kingdom."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt
|
| https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.disciplineAndPunis
| h...
|
| _" This enclosed, segmented space, observed at every
| point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed
| place, in which the slightest movements are supervised, in
| which all events are recorded, in which an uninterrupted
| work of writing links the centre and periphery, in which
| power is exercised without division, according to a
| continuous hierarchical figure, in which each individual is
| constantly located, examined and distributed among the
| living beings, the sick and the dead -- all this
| constitutes a compact model of the disciplinary
| mechanism."_
|
| https://i.pcmag.com/imagery/reviews/0244he8B2BeMYIAYRB8LNH5
| -...
| gameman144 wrote:
| This isn't the same as "if you don't like the movie, don't
| watch it". It's more like "if you don't like traffic cops,
| don't be on roads".
|
| Yes, it is technically achievable by some measure, but nobody
| living anything resembling a reasonable life is going to avoid
| ever going in _public_.
|
| It's also fine for people to want different things to be
| acceptable or not in different circumstances; I am fine with
| adults wearing swimsuits at the beach, but would be
| uncomfortable if they went to my child's kindergarten class in
| them.
|
| Figuring out the trade-offs and coming up with compromises is
| the whole value proposition of society.
| doodlesdev wrote:
| > "if you don't like traffic cops, don't be on roads".
|
| Which is a completely valid and reasonable statement.
| gameman144 wrote:
| It is completely valid. It is also completely infeasible.
|
| Consider the statement "if you don't like being bullied,
| completely isolate yourself from all humans forever." This
| _is_ a valid way to avoid being bullied. It is also,
| however, not at all practical.
|
| It is also completely valid and reasonable, and much more
| tenable in reality, to propose alternative solutions (e.g.
| punitive action against bullies, teaching good coping
| mechanisms to victims, making people not want to bully,
| etc.)
|
| Similarly, one valid approach to Celiac is to not eat any
| food at all ever. An equally valid approach is to not eat
| gluten. The latter requires some more social buy-in (e.g.
| ingredient lists), but that effort makes it _wildly_ more
| achievable in practice.
|
| Being valid doesn't mean that something is the best, or
| even a _good_ , recommendation.
| Beaver117 wrote:
| If you don't want to be robbed, lock your doors.
| k12sosse wrote:
| If you don't want to get wet, don't stand in the water.
| bouke wrote:
| If you don't want to be robbed, don't have anything valuable.
| Clubber wrote:
| This guy was downvoted into oblivion for summarizing current
| case law in the US. I haven't been here in probably a year, and
| that's a little concerning to me.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| The poster did not claim to be summarizing current case law.
| One can, and many people likely have, just as easily
| interpret the statement as their opinion. Just because a
| statement happens to currently align with current case law,
| doesn't mean it's a summary of current case law.
| silisili wrote:
| There's a big difference between being filmed more generally -
| security cameras, being in the background of some shot, a
| festival recording - than being the subject of the recording,
| mainly being harassed by people making stupid TikTok videos.
|
| The article is primarily about the latter. So this is like
| telling people to stay home if they don't want TikTokers
| harassing them in public.
|
| How about just stop bothering people you don't know for
| 'content'?
| Ataraxic wrote:
| Asking someone in public a question isn't harassment. Doing
| the same with a video camera is also not harassment. If they
| make the polite request to stop and you don't, it would start
| to be harassment.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| Did you see the video in the article? Pushing a microphone
| like that in someone's face strikes me as an unreasonable
| invasion of personal space. It's not "asking a question"
| like you or I would: "excuse me, [...]?", "sorry, could I
| ask you if [...]?", or something along those lines. It's an
| aggressive invasion of personal space.
|
| Is it "harassment"? I don't know, I'd say probably not
| quite. It's certainly _is_ rude and annoying beyond what I
| would consider reasonable.
| giantg2 wrote:
| One caveat, if it's done in a manner or intent to provoke
| the person, then it can be harassment on the first time.
| clnq wrote:
| The ones filming aren't courteously approaching people to
| ask a question; they are provoking a reaction.
|
| This trend isn't new. I've seen people swarmed by TikTokers
| on the street once or twice, then asked questions to make
| them look stupid and laughed at. I too was mobbed by a
| hardbass crowd when that was a meme on social media about
| ten years ago. I was on a second or third date with someone
| at a restaurant, and it wholly ruined the mood when my date
| and I were made fools on some video that luckily never went
| viral.
|
| It's not strictly dangerous or harmful, but it's definitely
| not a social interaction most people want. When you are the
| subject, it feels like you've been taken advantage of
| against your will, and publicly humiliated. And if the
| video goes viral, that's exactly what you will be.
| Ataraxic wrote:
| > The ones filming aren't courteously approaching people
| to ask a question; they are provoking a reaction
|
| And you're making this claims about all videos in this
| format or what? The "Man on the street" format isn't
| anything new. I don't think you have any evidence to
| state this as an absolute.
|
| I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a video camera in
| public but you can be publicly humiliated and harassed
| without a camera too.
|
| My disagreement is that there is no law requiring consent
| to film in public and there shouldn't be. We should
| clearly define what kind of behavior is considered
| harassment and create more avenues to reduce it but that
| is irrespective of recording. Something that was
| harassment without recording is still harassment with
| recording and vice-versa.
| clnq wrote:
| Not all videos in the "man on the street" format. The
| typical TikTok trend ones.
| Ataraxic wrote:
| So all tiktok videos shot in the "tiktok" format are
| about provoking a reaction?
|
| You're the one who makes the claim.
| b3morales wrote:
| Agree, although personally I object to security cameras, too,
| the ones that are just surveilling the public sidewalk
| because _who knows_...
| stoppingin wrote:
| I'm not sure what it's called, but I've seen a product which is a
| database of the time/location of US car license plate sightings.
| As I understand it, these are OCR'd from a combination of
| private, and public footage. I wonder if something similar exists
| for faces, and if some company is performing facial recognition
| on publicly uploaded footage. It sounds quite paranoid, however
| we know for a fact that such technology exists, and that there's
| a motivation for it.
| RhodesianHunter wrote:
| All of the tow companies have cameras on their trucks so that
| they can sell this data.
| amelius wrote:
| > In my favorite TikTok video of 2022, ...
|
| Where is the video? At least provide a link.
| savef wrote:
| It's near the top of the article for me, but here you go:
| https://www.tiktok.com/@hot.shame/video/7133999030887140614
| evan_ wrote:
| it's embedded directly below the text you quoted
| defaultcompany wrote:
| When I worked in film/tv production we were perpetually getting
| signed releases from people who were in the shot. Is this just
| not a thing now? Or is the downside so low that nobody cares?
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Did the release signing come after the intrusiveness? Or do all
| the "man on the street" segments feature people who were asked
| off-camera for permission?
| noduerme wrote:
| in my experience growing up in LA in the 90s, hanging around
| where "reality" tv was being shot on the street, you usually
| get approached with a release by producers after they've
| already gotten you in a shot.
| defaultcompany wrote:
| In documentaries I worked on we would tell people what we
| were doing and ask them if we could talk to them and then get
| a release afterwards. Not sure about other types of shows.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The downside is proportional to pocket size. If you're a rando
| Tik Toker or YouTuber, you have nothing to take (or so little,
| you can round down to zero). A production company has assets or
| capitalization at risk, hence the legal dance around releases.
| giantg2 wrote:
| It can be a crime in some states depending on the
| circumstances, especially if audio is captured.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Different shades from a release for being in the shot
| versus recording someone's conversation, but an important
| call out nonetheless. Interestingly, I haven't heard of any
| criminal cases where social media folks have recorded and
| shared public conversations on platforms (TikTok,
| r/PublicFreakout, etc). Doesn't mean they don't exist, so
| if you've got case law to share, drop it here. I presume
| (Not a lawyer! Not legal advice!) that depending on
| jurisdiction, you may record _anything_ in public assuming
| there is no expectation of privacy in the situation.
|
| https://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18015374/whyd-you-
| push-t...
| giantg2 wrote:
| In general, that's true. However there are exceptions.
| Things like upskirt shots, recording in courtrooms,
| recording full or partial nudity (ie filming sunbathers),
| etc.
| kencausey wrote:
| In other words, intent matters.
| hervature wrote:
| I don't think GP said anything about intent. If you
| "accidentally" upskirt someone and release it on TikTok,
| the victim and the court isn't going to be too impressed
| with "I didn't mean to and didn't notice it before
| uploading". Of course, there is some expectation of
| "within reason". Like, if you have to look at the
| reflection in the window, it is entirely reasonable to
| think someone may not have noticed before uploading.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| What can be a crime? If you're in a public space (and not
| the legal definition of public --- a mall is considered a
| public space despite being privately owned) you have no
| legal expectation of privacy. Period. End of story. There
| are very good reasons for this, despite the fact in
| creative tiktokers are definitely exercising the bounds of
| the law.
|
| Of course if the content somehow slanders or misrepresents
| someone, that's another issue.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Filming in a public space can be a crime.
|
| Try filming in a courtroom. There are also laws against
| filming upskirt, full or partial nudity even if in a
| public setting, etc in my state and in similar states.
| Since you brought up privately owned but open to the
| public spaces, owners can set their own rules and ask you
| to leave if you violate them.
|
| The point is, circumstances matter. This isn't an
| absolute right and has some restrictions to it (as do
| pretty much all rights it seems).
| pronlover723 wrote:
| I tend to agree with your POV but as a counterpoint, in
| Japan it's against the law to film people in public
| without their permission. A shot of a crowd is unlikely
| to get you in trouble, and in fact, a shot taken without
| permission but that the person you took it of never finds
| out is unlikely to get you in trouble (although that's
| the same for shoplifting)
|
| But, it is the law there and it is often enforced. As an
| example you can find public exhibitions with signs up "no
| photography". You'll even find these signs at trade shows
| at many booths where you'd expect the entire point is to
| show off to the public.
|
| The point is, different cultures have different feelings
| about this.
|
| IIUC, it was Japan that made Google Maps remove faces
| from streetview.
| tacotacotaco wrote:
| How about some respect for the strangers that also have a
| right to use the shared public space. Is it really too
| much to get consent before they start recording?
| dahart wrote:
| Not sure why this is getting downvoted, I believe it's
| correct for the U.S. Reminds me of the famous
| "Photographer's Rights" pamphlet
| http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf and there
| definitely are people out there making confrontation
| videos with security guards and police for YouTube based
| on knowing they can't legally be stopped for shooting in
| public. It might be lame, but it is legal.
| darekkay wrote:
| > Not sure why this is getting downvoted, I believe it's
| correct for the U.S.
|
| That's the problem: A US-centric "end of story, period"
| generalization. In general, you are not allowed to take
| pictures of other people in public without their consent
| in Germany and many other countries.
| habitue wrote:
| Signing the releases isn't in the videos you make right?
| Institutional knowledge isn't transferred to people on tiktok.
| They replicate what they see, which is the walking up to people
| part. All the stuff behind the scenes is only known by people
| working in the industry.
| Ataraxic wrote:
| Feel like this article is trying to tie many disparate complaints
| about people filming in public together.
|
| It at one time criticizes the surveillance state and then also
| tries to connect it to the "man on the street" format.
|
| Seems simply like a compilation of complaints by someone who
| doesn't like to be filmed in public.
| durkie wrote:
| Yes? The article is titled "Please don't film me in 2023"
| XorNot wrote:
| The point is that overt interference (sticking a microphone
| and camera in someones face) is _very_ different to being
| incidentally captured by peoples security cameras, doorbells,
| dashcams, bodycams - that is, equipment which exists
| specifically to minimise interference in ones life.
| [deleted]
| alex_young wrote:
| Startup idea: sell bricks with labels affixed to them - "Content
| Deletion Kit"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-08 23:00 UTC)