As someone who has no idea what this is: What's the context here? By the name I would assume violation of multiple privacy related cases, which probably justifies deletion from basically everywhere. But then again, I have no idea what's the deal here.
It was a series of videos taken in public where a guy would just point the camera at people doing mundane things. The subjects would often question why he was filming them and the response was always simply "oh, I'm just making a video".
Occasionally the guy would elaborate further and it seemed the point was that people are captured and recorded on CCTV and other surveillance methods all the time, so why would they care about his camera? Despite this the subjects would often become enraged and sometimes violent.
It was fascinating for many reasons and I think a very interesting view on human psychology.
I mean it seems pretty obvious. Because a private person could potentially do anything from stalking you, to using your image in some political campaign or advertisement or whatever else.
Potentially much worse and intrusive than being filmed by a parking lot camera. Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given.
In the US, it is legal to photograph and film in public as long as there is not an expectation of privacy, such as a restroom. And it should remain legal. If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop. If I'm on a public sidewalk filming a private business, they can't tell me to stop.
You can't legally use someone's image in an advertisement without their consent. But that's different than having the right to film in public. If I'm filming and you walk in front of my camera, you don't have the right to force me to stop filming. You don't own public space.
>If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop
to clarify this is legal here as well. Places or people of public interest are excluded from this. So crimes, public figures, monuments, public buildings and so on you can photograph as much as you want. The law protects private individuals, say someone taking your picture specifically on a train, in a gym or what have you.
>You don't own public space
That is true but the idea is that the public space should not become a voyeuristic zoo. Photographing spaces is fine, but individuals should not lose their privacy entirely just because they leave their home.
I feel like people in the US really need to hear these perspectives when it comes to laws. We're a bit boarish here in the states and seem to approach laws in this all or nothing kind of way (I'm too tired to point out examples). But, showing that a law like this can be tweaked or nuanced nto the degree where yes you can film cops and no you can not film pedestrians or people eating outdoors at a cafe, might level us up a bit. (And, then maybe also showing how you're also not going to get arrested if you're a tourist taking pictures of the Statue of Liberty and people walk into the shot. Saying that, cuz that's usually the next response in our wonderfully litigious society). (snark overload this morning)
We should be very hesitant to create laws that we expect to be selectively enforced, because it empowers law enforcement to make all sorts of bad decisions in the moment.
This already happens with photos and filming despite the general presumption of legality. Adding a bunch of nuanced exceptions would make it much worse.
Understand that the way this works is that officers can stop you from filming at any time. Then later you might get a judge to say, “the officer had no legal right to stop you.” The officer goes “oops” and that’s it. Obviously you cannot go back in time and get the moment that you missed.
A clear, simple, well-known presumption of legality makes it a lot harder for a misbehaving officer to appeal to the concept of a “judgment call.” And it makes it easier for a judge to say “you should have known” and impose consequences on the officer.
There already are nuanced exceptions. Technically, recording someone having a conversation on a phone can violate wire tap laws, even if you didn't interfere with the device. You can record police, but you're required to be back a certain distance (8' I think). Many states also allow private recording, but only if you reasonably believe a crime of violence might be committed. Etc
Ostensibly, the officer is open to a US 42 1983 color of law violation since there are court decisions affirming the right to record police in public.
> The law protects private individuals, say someone taking your picture specifically on a train, in a gym or what have you.
How does the law differentiate between public places and individuals? For example, if you're sitting in a park and I want to take a photo of the park, how would the law differentiate between me taking a photo of you versus taking a photo of the park?
I am unaware of the specific law in Germany, but the way this kind of thing usually works in much of the world is that a judge or jury decides what the photo is "of" after being apprised of the relevant context. There are a lot of laws that deal with intent; the processes for this is pretty well-worn.
Why can't a manager or employee at any of the stores I go into in a week, all of which probably have cameras these days, be potentially doing the same thing?
I mean, I get it -- we don't think they are likely to. Because that's not the purpose of the camera. Because we figure businesses are run by people "in charge" who have certain interests. We think we understand the purpose and intention of the cameras in the stores, and we don't understand the purpose or intention of the guy standing in the street, so imagine the worst. Plus the cameras in stores are often hidden so we avoid thinking about them entirely.
But... we're on so many cameras, which just random employees at random stores have access to... or random homeowners with cameras pointing out their windows... it seems reasonable to me to be more worried about that then most people are. And I'm not sure I've meaniningfully given any kind of consent to any of it.
That is true. We cannot expect a perfect reality with capabilities of surveillance technology.
However, last few years have shown here in Europe that it is possible to at least regulate what businesses do with the footage and personal data collected. GDPR - It doesn’t mean that an employee won’t do anything, but at least the legal entity for which he/she works is accountable and responsible for how this material is handled. And this employee can be fired.
This means that inside a business or organization it isn’t advisable to even talk about doing things with the data/footage. And it means there are legal methods of properly handling and disposing of it. And that is pretty neat, although it has been criticized and berated by anti-EU sentiments because it adds paperwork.
I’ve never been really worried about being observed or recorded, but after those 3D scanner things have popped up for passport checks I’ve become irritated. It’s obvious that there is unnecessary AI technology that’s sucking up all the available footage and extracting detailed information about me - beyond what is necessary for standard airport security. It’s not hard to imagine how an ML algo can be using this base somewhere out there to get all sorts of Minority Report style details.
We of course don't have much like GPDR in the USA.
I actually have no idea what laws (which probably vary from state to state) would control what is done with private surveillance footage -- I think it's possible almost no laws would. (My guess is that in states with two-party consent laws, you have "consented" to be videotaped by virtue of some sign posted at the entrance that says by entering you consent, and that once you have, they can do almost anything with it -- but I'm just guessing).
I actually haven't read much about how GPDR applies to private surveillance video which I believe is as pervasive in most of Europe as it is here, if not more. Because it's never been as professional relevant to me as website/internet/software stuff. But now I'm curious to read more about that.
(I believe "Surveillance Camera Man" was mostly or entirely in the USA, for what it's worth).
> Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given.
To elaborate: filming people (or taking pictures of them) in Germany requires consent, with some exceptions. Surveillance cameras are legal as long as their presence is clearly indicated with visible signage and they record only private property (e.g. pointing a surveillance camera outside your property is usually illegal).
I think dashcams currently still occupy a legal gray area but they were inadmissible for the longest time. Walking up to random strangers and deliberately recording them without consent is 100% illegal and I would even argue that it constitutes harassment, especially if asked not to.
By number, most businesses that have cameras recording are also effectively 'a private person'. There's nothing stopping the owner of a business from using the footage they recorded in similar fashion.
The stronger argument would be one that you alluded to with the 'stalking you' part -- a person with a camera can choose to follow you or frame the shot a certain way. A CCTV camera is a fixed installation that can't individually be used to really follow you, and can be somewhat trivially avoided. In effect, a person with a camera can function as a _network_ of CCTV cameras, and I think that's what raises some heckles.
What makes you think that someone who works for a business and has access to their cameras couldn't stalk people? How about someone hacking into the systems on some given area to track people?
Also, I would think most people actually do care they are being recorded on CCTV but there's not much they can do about it. It's always an eerie feeling knowing you are being recorded.
There is a big difference between filming a specific public location, which I happen to pass through, and filming _me_ specifically.
If the location is the subject and I am free to exit or enter the scene without my presence affecting the creativity of the work, then I have far fewer objections. But a video in which _I_ become the subject, which moves to focus my actions, is far more objectionable.
Of course they could be. The same way everyone around me could be a paid actor. But that's either absurd or frightening depending on your own psychology. A person pointing a camera at you without your consent, however, is almost universally disturbing.
To me, realistic understanding implies that I'm most likely not a specific target of surveillance cameras around town. Those were not set up because of me, and there is no alert in some security office when I enter a camera's field of vision. I imagine most people think like this.
A bit besides the point, but my phone has a unique identifier associated with it that is constantly communicated to my operator. It also has tons of other tracking software I have no clue about. While this is something I'd prefer didn't exist, same logic applies here.
I'm not pro-surveillance, but pro realistic understanding of it. I know it's not great, but what can you do? Go around town filming people and creep them out thinking you're making a point when in reality you're just annoying people?
If you have a realistic understanding you know that all those hours of video are being kept essentially forever, and that current ai capabilities are more than good enough to keep an eye on your every move using that data.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you, personally, are being tracked, and that traking will remain and may be actionable at any time in the future.
Just be sure you don't piss off a cop, otherwise he might just look you up on the database and see that those cameras you thought weren't watching you actually captured a number or minor infractions for which you will now be fined.
> Just be sure you don't piss off a cop, otherwise he might just look you up on the database and see that those cameras you thought weren't watching you actually captured a number or minor infractions for which you will now be fined.
You know, I'll take that any day over some random weirdo coming to film me under the pretense of making a point.
The difference is the subject. It's not academic or philosophical. Go watch the videos linked in other comments to understand the intrusive nature.
I get it, the counter argument is that the stationary camera is no less intrusive. To which I counter that the stationary camera records my happenstance gross actions along with those actions of many others, I am literally lost in the noise. But the explicit camera on me records much finer detail of myself, and nobody else, there is no noise to be lost in.
Perhaps people who like attention do not see a problem being the center of attention. I personally don't mind if someone notices my presence but I do mind if they think that seeing me means that I can become the star of their next production.
I agree that most reactions are not warranted. However, the context of the filming is quite different.
On one hand, you have (mostly) stationary cameras filming areas, and all the people in that area. Usually the cameras are not zoomed in, and ostensibly are not allowed to record audio in many jurisdictions. So you don't feel threatened because it's a universal thing and unmanned. Also, you assume the purpose is for property or personal protection.
On the other hand, you are being specifically targeted, including audio, by an actual human with a camera. Are they recording my credit card, pin, etc? It's reasonable to question what they are doing as it is unusual and could be a scam. The motive is unknown.
Context and details matter. My guess is they violated a law and/or got sued. It's much easier than most people realize. For example, if you record someone's conversation while their on the phone, you could be in violation of wire tap laws even if you didn't tamper with their communication (simply the act of recording).
There's a pretty big difference in stated intent. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a person to be OK with being filmed for the purpose of e.g. theft prevention, but not for some kind of modern art project / protest statement.
Edit: to be clear, the opposite also doesn't seem unreasonable. If someone told me they were OK with being filmed for a modern art project, but not for theft prevention, I wouldn't find that particularly odd either.
It is fascinating even reading these comments, people falling over themselves trying to define a difference between 'some guy' recording them, and cctv (which is effectively 'some guy' recording them).
It kind of reminds me of a nature program i watched some time ago, where they 'concealed' the cameras in plain sight by strapping them onto trees to get footage. Its important to remind ourselves that we are simple animals too, and when we don't see the 'guy' we don't feel the threat.
It’s pretty simple. The state passively monitoring everyone is a blanket society scale phenomena. One dude following you around with a camera is a targeted 1:1 social confrontation.
The difference is so vast it baffles me that anyone would consider them interchangeable.
Any amount of fear for someone following you that you can see, should be more for someone following you that you can't see. The fact that its inverse is a weakness of our psychology.
Fully agree with you. It feels like people who think differently on the matter have abstracted away everything else but the fact that there's a camera looking in your direction. Sure, if you think like that, they're the same, but if you consider the context AT ALL, they're two totally different things.
Interesting. Every now and then I download and save a local copy of content I think will be "at risk" for future censorship. This was one that I saved.
I'm not surprised it's been taken down from Youtube because, well, it's Youtube. But odd that it would be removed from archive.org.
There's a British chap who's been becoming popular on YouTube lately who does some interesting public filming which sounds like it might be similar (though not identical, as he is more focused on practicing his legal rights rather than provoking a reaction): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HmOju41Ma0
I loved his stuff and how upset people got. You could say it was performative art criticing post-modern technocratic stance on privacy: While Zuck said privacy is over: this dude got people raging. "I'm just making a video"
It puts me in a tough spot, because on one hand I believe public space should be able to be recorded, but on the other hand this is pretty obnoxious behavior and pretty threatening in context. There are laws that cover this kind of stuff that are unrelated to filming, so police definitely could do something here. We see it as a video on the internet and know the intent but in the moment, it's some guy filming you and your family and not explaining why, I would totally get why people are furious.
As a photographer myself, how do you think street photography happens? Sometimes the mundane stuff is unstaged, and when I was shooting it, you end up throwing a lot of stuff away anyway. In North America, you have no right to privacy in a public space. I understand why people are antsy about being photographed / recorded in public, but they direct that anger at the person doing it instead of the laws that allow it.
Besides, the person you see and who is generally being intentionally visible isn't usually the one you have to worry about.
Did you watch the videos linked elsewhere in this thread? He's acting pretty insidious, it's not just street photography. Even just someone following you around like they are, with no camera, would be uncomfortable/threating to some. He follows one family back to their car.
> but they direct that anger at the person doing it instead of the laws that allow it.
The law that allows filming in public spaces clearly was not meant to allow this kind of creepy behaviour. People are rightfully directing their anger at the person abusing the law, rather than the law itself.
AFAIK he never revealed his intents, so he could just be doing it 'for the lulz'... That seems more likely to me considering his 4chan-y attitude on his other channel 'Vagrant Holiday'
It just shows how people have no idea about how transparent they have become. A private guy filming you is so trivial and insignificant compared to surveillance capitalism, it shouldn't even get a mention.
Except its been shared widely. Its not his home movie shown to ten people, its privacy breach (I understand thats at best a hypothetical motivation not a law) with thousands, or millions of viewers.
Scale is sometimes enough to make the mundane terrible. Hence memes.
True, in this case it is an exception of course. Although in times of social media an audience is easy to be found. Memes are the opium of the people or something like that.
I think opium is the opium of the people. But I do think "laughing at strangers" has persisted a long time in our culture. Millenia. Romans laughing at Braes (trousers) on Gauls...
Surveillance Camera Man had some of the most fascinating
videos ever uploaded to the Internet.
They were:
- A form of Urban Art.
- A study of Human behavior. From the relaxed
and curiosity driven reactions of a few, to the
freaked, untitled, scary, reaction of many.
- A intrusion into the personal space of
some, while in a public space, only made
more fascinating by his calm brazenness.
- Pure real life Golden Comedy.
The most important reminder, will always be of how much our
tolerance to surveillance is only based on the invisibility
of said surveillance. In the digital world or in the real world. Always took Camera Surveillance Man, with his constant
repetition, "It's just a camera", "It's just a video"
as a statement of the must important unspoken question:
"If you freak out about this camera, why don't you freak
out about the others?"
Commentators arguing about a personal invasion of privacy, are
forgetting how easily it is to correlate two or three different signals, and de-anonymize you, therefore formally putting the
camera back at your face again.
After seeing this comment and watching a few of the AMAZING vagrant holiday videos, I learned from the comments that he likes to upload to specific locations and has deleted his videos and re-uploaded them many times over the years.
That timing is interesting, I wouldn't be surprised if SCM is a hacker news reader or at least has a Google alert set up and actually saw this thread and reacted.
Using the filename and basic dorking you can still find copies as I found a half dozen last night when sharing the above link, but seems like sharing any link just helps it disappear. If the two channels are really the same producer, which seems true to me, than some of the actions recorded for Vagrant Holiday are not something you can put your face next to, if SCM was filming in his own neighborhood he may have become concerned about opsec and what clues are inadvertently remaining in that old content that could lead back to him. I don't see what external privacy/legal concern would cause all videos to be removed since they are all different subjects so I think it his choice.
Yeah, I thought this too. My impression is he doesn't want to be associated with this video anymore. If I had to speculate I'd say VH seems like a person with a clear moral code who has outgrown the idea of having filmed people against their will. The video has also recently been used to make Oblivion NPC memes with a million views. I think he's tired of it, but that's mostly just speculation.
