Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet

The Snoop Next Door Is Posting to YouTube 244

Posted by Zonk from the get-off-my-lawn-you-damn-kids dept.
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Your most trivial missteps are increasingly ripe for exposure online, reports the Wall Street Journal, thanks to cheap cameras and entrepreneurs hoping to profit from websites devoted to the exposure. From the article: 'The most trivial missteps by ordinary folks are increasingly ripe for exposure as well. There is a proliferation of new sites dedicated to condemning offenses ranging from bad parking and leering to littering and general bad behavior. One site documents locations where people have failed to pick up after their dogs. Capturing newspaper-stealing neighbors on video is also an emerging genre. Helping drive the exposés are a crop of entrepreneurs who hope to sell advertising and subscriptions.' But other factors are at work, including a return to shame as a check on social behavior, says an MIT professor."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Snoop Next Door Is Posting to YouTube More

The Snoop Next Door Is Posting to YouTube

Comments Filter:

  • No problem? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alshithead ( 981606 ) * on Friday January 12, 2007 @11:48PM (#17586706)
    I don't see a problem. You can either forgoe shameful behavior or keep it hidden. If you're doing something you would be ashamed of then you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you're doing something that you feel you shouldn't be ashamed of but that others might want to shame you for, then keep it private. I call that civilization. For those that say they are entitled or should have the right, if most people agree then there is no reason to be ashamed. If most people don't agree then maybe you need to reassess whether or not you should be ashamed.

    I'm betting some will disagree with me. If you can provide me an example of where I might be wrong I'm certainly willing to think about it. Offhand, I couldn't think of an example on my own where my logic wouldn't work.

    First post?

    • Re:No problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by robably ( 1044462 ) on Friday January 12, 2007 @11:58PM (#17586850) Journal
      You don't see a problem? The problem is How long does someone have to be ashamed for, and in front of how many people? You put something on the internet and potentially it's there forever and can be seen by millions, like with Star Wars Kid. I believe forgiveness is necessary in society - being allowed to learn from your mistakes and move on to become a better person - but we seem to have a culture where nobody forgives and nobody is allowed to forget. The people doing the uploading, who feel the need to shame and humliate someone this much, must be pretty unpleasant themselves.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by alshithead ( 981606 ) *
        I agree that the ones doing the uploading probably have issues. I have better things to do with my time. It would take a pretty egregious offense for me make the effort.

        I hope the Star Wars Kid isn't ashamed and keep in mind that he's the exception, not the rule. It's amazing to see the life span that video has had. I see a kid having a good time, not anything to really be ashamed about.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by killjoe ( 766577 )
          It's great that you see nothing shameful or embarrassing about that video. The problem is that the vast majority of the people on this planet don't share your view and they will mock this person for the rest of his life. Whats worse is that there is a real chance he will be denied a job because of it.

          • Re:No problem? (Score:5, Funny)

            by springbox ( 853816 ) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @02:38AM (#17588058)
            Whats worse is that there is a real chance he will be denied a job because of it.
            Only if his chosen profession happens to be dancing and/or acting..

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by killjoe ( 766577 )
              You might think so but it ain't true. He will be denied jobs because the his potential employer will think that some customer will recognize him and they will lose some business.

              That's the way business people think.

              • Re:No problem? (Score:4, Insightful)

                by joto ( 134244 ) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @05:00AM (#17588720)

                Or his potential employeer will see that he is the famous Star Wars Kid, and employ him on the spot, hoping that some customers will recognize him. Which is just as likely.

                Or his potential employer won't recognize him. Because he is at least 5 years older, has different clothes, a new haircut, and doesn't try to dance around with a long stick. Which is the most likely thing to happen.

                But then again, it's only our generation who cares about this. When the kids of today grows up, everybody will have access to nude/embarassing/whatever pictures/movies/whatever of everyone else.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by killjoe ( 766577 )
                  "Or his potential employeer will see that he is the famous Star Wars Kid, and employ him on the spot, hoping that some customers will recognize him. Which is just as likely."

                  No it's not just as likely. Businesses tend to be extremely conservative. Any doubt at all and they won't do it.

                  "Or his potential employer won't recognize him. Because he is at least 5 years older, has different clothes, a new haircut, and doesn't try to dance around with a long stick. Which is the most likely thing to happen."

                  Certainly

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Snarfangel ( 203258 )
        You don't see a problem? The problem is How long does someone have to be ashamed for, and in front of how many people?

        Just like everyone gets fifteen minutes of fame, in the future, everyone will get fifteen minutes of notoriety. As long as you can withstand that, you're golden.

        Look at Richard Jewell. He was falsely accused of planting a bomb and had every media outlet on the planet broadcasting his picture. Yet how many people today could pick him out of a lineup, or have more than the vaguest recollectio

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by X-treme-LLama ( 178013 )
          Didn't he look vaguely like Mike Holmgren, but with a semi-mullet?

          Yeah I've googled it now, but that's what I remembered from before hand. Fairly close if I do say so. :)

          However in general you have a good point.
        • Look at Richard Jewell. He was falsely accused of planting a bomb and had every media outlet on the planet broadcasting his picture. Yet how many people today could pick him out of a lineup, or have more than the vaguest recollection of what he looks like, other than his weight? Anything less newsworthy will net you fifteen minutes of fury, and then people will go on to the next scandal.

          Sure, our emotional involvement with Richard Jewell may involve the proverbial Fifteen Minutes and then we're on to what

      • ...nobody is allowed to forget."

        I might rephrase it as "anybody can refresh their memory if they want to", for you don't have to watch it repeatedly on youtube. But regardless, I think there is a good side to this. Some of what is considered shameful by the majority of our population should not be so, and continued exposure to it may cause some rethinking of the issue. We may end up with a better common definition of shame.

        The most prominent examples are things in the sexual area. Nudity is ofte

        • Re:Redefinition of shame (Score:5, Interesting)

          by LightCecil ( 792100 ) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @12:55AM (#17587322)
          There's a book that covers this. It's a science fiction book that explores a society that emerges when a freely available, perfectly portable surveillance technology emerges. It's based on projections of light-transmitting wormholes that can be put up *anywhere*, even in your house. Now, of course the initial usages are obvious, but once the novelty of "hee, I can look at people in their bathroom" wears off, the society becomes increasingly uncaring about the old social stigmas and shames. The technology also extends into time, letting people see what real history is like, rather than the history people accept, filtered through thousands of years of alterations.

          Though it destroys many people's faiths of famous figures of the past, it also constructs a society where the shames have shifted from transient things like sexuality.

          It's called "The Light of Other Days", and it was a collaboration between Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter.
          • Very good book. I recommend.

            Another book that is similar is "Earth" by David Brin. People walk around with recording googles that can be sent to the police nearly instantaneously. So most people are on their best behavior in public, except for, of course, teenagers who do silly, not quite illegal, things just to bug the older folks. This is not the plot of the story, just an interesting part of the society the book is based in.
      • The end result of all this is forced conformity.

        There is nothing shameful about sitting at a restaurant and remembering that you need to call your doctor.

        Some asshat posting that information online - along with your personal info - is just trying to bully you into behaving the way they want you to, for no good reason.

        You're now watching your back and altering your behavior not just to serve the arbitrary and wildly capricious standard of "normalness" to avoid being ridiculed, but in fact you're held hostage

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bladesjester ( 774793 )
          Not to mention the fact that far too many employers have fairly extensive checks done on potential employees now.

          That "harmless" video could impact your career for the rest of your life.

          The fact that businesses need to realize that a person's personal life is just that - personal - and they have no business basing their hiring decisions on perfectly normal, legal activities that are done outside of the workplace is a whole other matter.

          Remember, boys and girls, things on the internet never really go away.
          • Business functions on exchange. Without it, it collapses.

            Business owners who use their newfound information to exclude others on the basis of misplaced morality will quickly find they are out of business.

            It's far more likely that this type of environment will result in people refusing to buy from those they don't feel should be trusted with any authority, financial or otherwise, because they're lying immoral antisocial scumbags.

        • If you're in a restaurant and need to make an important call the polite thing to do would be get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside and make the call.

          You do make a good point about being "held hostage to anyone's momentary whims". Another post made reference to "noise". At some point only the most extreme cases will be used to try and cause shame. All others will be ignored and viewed by such a small number of people that they won't be shamed.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Travoltus ( 110240 )

            If you're in a restaurant and need to make an important call the polite thing to do would be get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside and make the call.

            You do make a good point about being "held hostage to anyone's momentary whims". Another post made reference to "noise". At some point only the most extreme cases will be used to try and cause shame. All others will be ignored and viewed by such a small number of people that they won't be shamed.

            And how do you know that the idiot close enough to film y

          • If you're in a restaurant and need to make an important call the polite thing to do would be get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside and make the call.

            So is it safe to say then that if you are in a restaurant and need to have an important conversation the polite thing to do is get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside to have the conversation? It is perfectly legitimate to make a phone call at normal conversational volume anywhere that a normal conversation could be held. I think what ticks of m

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by alshithead ( 981606 ) *
              "So is it safe to say then that if you are in a restaurant and need to have an important conversation the polite thing to do is get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside to have the conversation? It is perfectly legitimate to make a phone call at normal conversational volume anywhere that a normal conversation could be held. I think what ticks of most of the cellphone bigots is that they can no longer hear both sides of the conversation. It has very little to do with the actual noise involved."

              I think

              • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

                by TempeTerra ( 83076 )
                "CAN YOU HEAR ME KNOW"

                I feel your pain. God damn but it pisses me off when someone's shouting on a cell phone and they can't even spell right ;)
                • It's funny, I saw that after I submitted and was disgusted. I couldn't figure out if that was the fault of the puppy on my lap or the beer in my belly. :)
            • Cell phone snobs are one thing, but people recording them and putting their PERSONAL INFORMATION online is even worse.

              And putting that woman's conversation with her doctor online may be a violation of HIPAA.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Wansu ( 846 )

            We have already reached the end game of the surveillance state. Rejoice - a great reckoning is due very soon and I'm not kidding.

          I reckon I'd be tickled to see a YouTube video of some nosy bastard's camera phone shoved up his ass.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by RareButSeriousSideEf ( 968810 )
          I see your point, but not *all* forced conformity is eeeevil.

          When I see some asshat park his Beamer diagonally across 4 prime spots in a crowded parking lot, or change lanes into a lane that's ending just to force his way into a gapless line of traffic ¼ mile up, I'd like him to conform to my notion of civilized behavior. I'm too lazy to actually film him myself & Tube the video, but I'd defend someone else's prerogative to do so.

          On the other hand, the goofy, perpetually drunk & shirtless dude

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dhalgren ( 34798 )
          Meh.

          People who would make business decisions based on having seen you slip at a bus stop probably aren't worth dealing with. If you judge that they are then you're trading your principles for the money you get from dealing with them, in which case, what are you complaining about?

          And while I might be ridiculed by a certain subset of people (say, a religious group posting some of my antics at certain shows I've played), I'd have to remember who's doing the ridiculing, and whose opinions I respect. Meaning, of
      • How many more Star Wars Kids will we have though?

        Remember there's only so much shame to go around. The fact is there's now thousands of videos on youtube of people doing stuff way more embarrasing than Star Wars means that we're getting past the point of focusing that much attention on a single person. Even if once in a blue moon something goes bigtime like the Stolen Sidekick thing we're beginning to get to the point that we understand that it's not such a big deal and these things go bigtime mostly for th
      • '' You don't see a problem? The problem is How long does someone have to be ashamed for, and in front of how many people? You put something on the internet and potentially it's there forever and can be seen by millions, like with Star Wars Kid. I believe forgiveness is necessary in society - being allowed to learn from your mistakes and move on to become a better person - but we seem to have a culture where nobody forgives and nobody is allowed to forget. The people doing the uploading, who feel the need to
      • Yeah, but once you hit 40 you don't care about it anymore. Just wait a bit.

      • You don't see a problem? The problem is How long does someone have to be ashamed for, and in front of how many people?

        For as long as it takes.

        One thing I like about pictures and videos its it reduces the possibility of bias and slander. It lets the viewer decide. And like crime, don't do it and you will not be recorded.

        It worked in the small towns a century ago. This is just the modern version of flogging. Our papers used to once upon a time print the names and addresses of criminals, sometimes with

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by turgid ( 580780 )

        Who defines "shameful behaviour?"

        Coming home at 1am may be shameful to some anally-retentive types (even if you're quiet). Mowing your lawn in a style which they find offensive (stripes going the wrong way) might also be considered shameful. Having a car that is more than 2 years old might be considered shameful.

        I used to live somewhere (flats in a "nice" town in Essex) where the neighbours made me park my car behind a Range Rover so that they didn't have to look at it.

    • Misleading video, punishment fits the crime, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by The Amazing Fish Boy ( 863897 ) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @12:00AM (#17586886) Homepage Journal
      For those that say they are entitled or should have the right, if most people agree then there is no reason to be ashamed. If most people don't agree then maybe you need to reassess whether or not you should be ashamed. I'm betting some will disagree with me. If you can provide me an example of where I might be wrong I'm certainly willing to think about it.
      Are you saying the majority is always in the right? I can think of a few examples where the majority would deem an act "shameful" that shouldn't really be. Stealing a newspaper is (in most cases) shameful, as is not cleaning up after your dog. But what about, for example, getting rejected when asking someone out?

      Furthermore, there is the issue of a mistaken act. Think of Seinfield where Jerry's girlfriend sees him scratching his nose in his car. From her angle it looks like he's picking his nose. Should that go on these sites?

      Finally, even with shameful acts, there is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. What if you stumble home drunk, piss on your car, and collapse in your doorway. Now, first of all, that's pretty pathetic, and you probably deserve ridicule. But that ridicule should come from friends and neighbours. Should that video go online, where your employer might see it? Does it have your name on it? What if it affects future employment opportunities?

      I don't think it's as clear cut as "don't do something you'd be ashamed to do."
      • "Are you saying the majority is always in the right? I can think of a few examples where the majority would deem an act "shameful" that shouldn't really be. Stealing a newspaper is (in most cases) shameful, as is not cleaning up after your dog. But what about, for example, getting rejected when asking someone out? "

        Why would getting rejected when asking someone out be shameful? That strikes me as a self image problem. So that's one attempt at an example, do you have others?

        "Finally, even with shameful act

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by inviolet ( 797804 )

        Well said.

        There is another angle to the "punishment should fit the crime" point, and that is this: the internet's memory is too long. The old-fashioned kind of shame was visited upon the offender by eyewitnesses, and after a while the incident would be forgotten. Nor could their memories of the incident be accurately spread to non-witnesses. And that was usually sufficient.

        Not so with YouTube.

      • Finally, even with shameful acts, there is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. What if you stumble home drunk, piss on your car, and collapse in your doorway. Now, first of all, that's pretty pathetic, and you probably deserve ridicule. But that ridicule should come from friends and neighbours. Should that video go online, where your employer might see it? Does it have your name on it? What if it affects future employment opportunities?

        How about I sit within surveillance distance of any part

    • Recording what people do in public is, er, in the public domain*.

      * This bikini cam brought to you by the Ft. Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce. Visit scenic South Florida!

    • Re:No problem? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LionKimbro ( 200000 ) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @12:02AM (#17586902) Homepage
      Well, there are those situations where society is wrong, and needs to be called on it.

      Will society be responsive? That's the question.

      If society is not responsive when society is wrong, then this is horrific and terrible and should be opposed.

      If society is responsive, then we should welcome our new neighborly overlords.

      Example: "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote." Suppose we had this high technology, and it's early 1900's. You and your subversive friend are having a discussion, and whisper that you think women should be able to vote. Obviously, you are trying to create a subversive cell movement; And unfortunately for you, someone with a microphone and a camera caught it, and posted it online. You are visibly and painfully ostracized from society. Anyone who thought at least some bit of sympathy for your way of thinking either changes their mind (against you,) or decides to stay quiet. Because a critical mass of people are able to express their opinion, society is incapable of changing, and the passages of perspective [communitywiki.org] are blocked.

      Will society be responsive in our future environment? We do not know. It seems reasonable to believe that the future may resemble a panopticon, [wikipedia.org] but that piece of evidence alone doesn't tell us enough; We don't know what balancing forces [usemod.com] may exist.

      But, anyways: There's an example of how the system you described might be flawed.
      • Fantastic point about a "critical mass" being needed! That's why I asked for examples counter to what I stated. I felt there was an angle I was missing but couldn't put my finger on it. I guess the critical mass has to come from a critical mass of subversives. Think about how Victorian times changed to where we are now. From what I read of history it's not that everyone espoused Victorian ethics, it's that they kept their non-Victorian ethics hidden from view of the general public until people started

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • In the example you cited, most people already thought something, and they just needed to be able to establish internal communications.

          However, there are situations where most people don't think something, but it's possible, given the proper arguments, that they could be convinced.

          The question is then: "Can they hear the arguments?"

          If the people who believe in the idea are destroyed before they can ever put their arguments together and present them, then no change in perspective can occur.

          The progress of soc

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JanneM ( 7445 )
      Mostly my worry would not be documenting "shameful" behavior in itself, but being inaccurate about it, and essentially punishing people that have not actually done anything wrong. It can range from taking information out of context (film their dog pooping on the street and cut before you see them conscientiously pick it all up) to completely made-up accusations.

      Of course, as mean and narrow-minded people tend to be today, it's probably only a matter of time before so many of us are added to so many "accusat
      • I agree wholeheartedly. The biggest danger of all in this is false accusation. And, you're probably right about the noise issue. The value of such sites will almost certainly be degraded to no value at all once the amount of information available becomes too large and broad.

    • Re:No problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GreggBz ( 777373 ) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @01:03AM (#17587374) Homepage
      I guess I don't think like you, not anymore.

      A few years ago one warm summer day, I got fuming mad at some woman who was going rather slow, worrying about something inside her station wagon and could not decide on a lane. I remember this vividly. Latter, honest to god, I saw her checking out at K-Mart. She was buying gatoraide for some reason and chatting with the clerk. She started crying. It turns out she had just moved to the city where I live, someone had stolen her pocket book, she could not find it in here car and she was having a really bad day. I made it a point to apologize for my behavior when we were both driving, cause you see, I was the real asshole.

      You don't walk in these peoples shoes, please don't arbitrarily demonize them. Nobody ever gets to know anyone these days. I guess we are to busy hiding behind our gadgets. Really, how well do you know your neighbor? It's easy to judge someone badly, it's a little harder to get to know your fellow humans and see them for what the are, human. People are not just an inconvenience in your self-absorbed little world. Yea, I know, it's scary to say "hello, how are you, I'm such-and-such..." but you'll feel better if you truly live and let live.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by naoursla ( 99850 )
      What if you stop by a bar to have a drink and someone who does not like alcohol takes your picture and posts it to an anti-alcohol group and they start pestering you about drinking alcohol. Now insert any other activity of which you are not ashamed, but which someone else might not like you doing.
    • The same rationalization some sheriff had for wanting to put CC cameras into people's houses.
    • Not so much a contradiction, but rather another case: social "civil disobediance", such as a gay couple kissing in public. This will force one of two reactions: tolerance, and intolerance. Accordingly, shame can be turned around. I believe that this is called "political correctness".

      Hmmm. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Intolerance of intolerance, and people having to force things in our faces in order to retain the right privately. I think that I prefer old-fashioned liberalism.

  • in other news.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, 2007 @11:49PM (#17586728)
    Ceiling cat is watching you MASTURBATE.

  • Sounds Like Fun (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Friday January 12, 2007 @11:52PM (#17586764) Homepage Journal
    But please, for the survival of the human race... get a real job!

    Everyone wants to cash in on the latest gold rush, but isn't it time we rewarded excellence instead of stupidity? Although there must be some form of corrective benefit for being exposed as a petty thief. (although eventually we'll be living in the society where you can't misstep once or you become suddenly exiled from your own life)

    Balance? Complacency? A lack of appropriate countermeasures? Who knows how this is going to play out, but many of us will watch it nonetheless!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by smoker2 ( 750216 )

      but isn't it time we rewarded excellence instead of stupidity?

      Being good brings it's own rewards. How is anybody being rewarded for their stupidity in this case ? (unless it's their *just* rewards.)

      I've been mulling over a similar project for a while now. Based on the number of outright dangerous and illegal maneuvers I see people perform when driving, I feel that for the law to work, somebody has to give a shit. So, I intend to capture video of the said actions and post them on a web site, together with th

  • One site documents locations where people have failed to pick up after their dogs.

    Awesome. I've been waiting for just such a service for years.

    I was one step removed from actually mailing the stuff to my fellow apartment dwellers in the mid 1990s. I was so tired of slogging through it on my way down to my car which I could never park in my assigned spot because they took it from us.

  • yeah, yipee, and other happly expletives (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Friday January 12, 2007 @11:53PM (#17586776) Journal
    For too long, society in large part has not been focussed on what other people think, rather it has been several decades of the ME generation. If I had already installed my X10 motion activated cameras, perhaps I could have caught the little fscks that egged my car within a week of moving to a very nice new neighborhood.

    I really don't think that there is anything wrong with someone physical, and personally filming people doing bad things and posting them to the web. Its little to no different than them telling their friends, or passing the gossip around the local grocery store... just a little more convincing :)

    The point here is simple; its a bit of advice: if you don't want to have people on youtube seeing you pee off the back patio, don't pee off the back patio.

    Sure, there are other cases where things seem to be exaggerated, but for most of this, its not, and it is good to see the community cleaning up in their own back yards.

    Now, if this is from police cameras that are perusing neighborhoods on a regular basis, I'm going to shout out against that. But if your neighbor catches you doing something bad, sorry, you shouldn't have been doing that... 'you plays, you pays' as the saying goes.

  • It seems to me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChePibe ( 882378 ) on Friday January 12, 2007 @11:55PM (#17586810)
    ...that it's fairly simple to avoid becoming a target of these websites:

    Pick up after your dog.

    Park correctly.

    Don't take things that don't belong to you.

    I know that if people in my apartment complex did this, we could all live happier lives, particularly the picking up after dogs bit.

    Don't want to have a video of you stealing your neighbor's paper show up on YouTube? Don't steal your neighbor's paper.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by arun_s ( 877518 )
      What you say is fair enough, roughly summarised as 'if you haven't done anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about anyway'.
      But what about the privacy issues involved? Would you like it if your creepy next door neighbour was filming you for a couple of hours every day, just waiting for you to make a wrong move? How about him selling a month's footage of your activities to any 'interested' party? He's got a noble excuse in case he's caught doing the recording, but you never what happens behind you
      • The point of this is to make people uncomfortable.

        If you're in public - and, in the case of most of these problems, not even on your own property - your expectation of privacy is zero. Zilch. Therefore, act as if people were watching you because, odds are, they are.

        Maybe we could use some more shame in our society. Anything to silence the Britney Spears and Paris Hiltons of the world.
      • What you describe is called invasion of privacy. Prove it and you have a court case. Anyone that is spying on you is invading your privacy. If they catch you by accident doing something that is against the public morals or public decency, that is your problem. If they are filming you for hours each day, that is stalking and/or invasion.

    • Those are straightforward examples. If I'm carrying boxes and fall down the stairs, I don't deserve 40 million people laughing at me.

  • If a cop can be there (Score:3, Informative)

    by Snarfangel ( 203258 ) on Friday January 12, 2007 @11:59PM (#17586864) Homepage
    ...a camera can be there. As long as it's a public area and a police officer can be there without warrant, or a private area where the owner consents, I don't see the problem. Only when it's somewhere where the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy should there be any question as to whether it should be tolerated.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bones3D_mac ( 324952 )
      Aren't there certain laws about stationary, always-on cameras that dictates how one can use them? Despite the fact that there is no expectation of privacy in public, specifically pointing a fixed camera at another person's house for the sole purpose of monitoring their activity is probably illegal in a lot of states. (Especially since law enforcement officials used to require a warrant for such activities.)

      Somehow, I doubt putting a tiny "you are being watched" sticker in your window is going to save your a
      • At the very least this borders on stalking, I believe. Odd part to try and prove it- you would have to tape them taping you, making you a stalker.

        Or get a friend to pay some anonymous kid to whizz on the camera.
  • It's interesting that so far, most of the posts here are saying "What's the problem? Don't do stupid and shameful things, no problems", yet wherever the issue of CCTV Brit style comes up, it's nothing but outrage. What's the difference?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by LunarCrisis ( 966179 )

      It's interesting that so far, most of the posts here are saying "What's the problem? Don't do stupid and shameful things, no problems", yet wherever the issue of CCTV Brit style comes up, it's nothing but outrage. What's the difference?

      The difference is that in this case the public has access to this material, which causes much less concentration of power (bad in my books) than it being restricted to one centralized organization such as the government. Like it or not, as technology progresses, physical privacy is on the way out. I'd much rather lose my privacy to everyone than lose it only to the government.

      • Like it or not, as technology progresses, physical privacy is on the way out. I'd much rather lose my privacy to everyone than lose it only to the government.

        All this means is that, instead of just a Big Brother, you have a bunch of Little Brothers nipping at your heels recording everything which Big Brother can use however he wants.

        The loss of privacy should concern you no matter if it's the government or your neighbor down the street that's doing the recording.
    • It's different when it's the government. With lots of cameras owned by various private entities scattered around, the only way this is useful to the government is if the police get a warrant for all the cameras in the vicinity of a crime and get those camera owners to provide them with the tapes/data, which is cumbersome. Lots of cameras owned by the government and run by a centralized authority is another ball of wax.

  • As always, SF saw this coming (Score:3, Informative)

    by rah1420 ( 234198 ) <rah1420@gmail.com> on Saturday January 13, 2007 @12:33AM (#17587146)
    Who remembers I See You [fictionwise.com] by Damon Knight? I still remember that little story from a Daw anthology. Creeped me out.

  • Is shame still an effective deterrent? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hasbeard ( 982620 ) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @01:02AM (#17587360)
    To what sense is shame still an effective deterrent? To feel shame requires that one sense that in some way his actions are socially unacceptable. As the boundaries of our culture seemed to have been stretched further and further, what was once unacceptable is now acceptable. For example, once homosexual behavior was deemed unacceptable. Now, it seems at times, homosexuality is almost a "status symbol." Increasingly, rudeness seems to be tolerated. Right wing and Left wing political figures and commentators insult one another with abandon. It seems to me that there are an increasing number of people who seem unable to sense when they have crossed the boundaries (or else they don't care).
    • You have hit upon a key point. You can't shame someone for behavior for which they aren't ashamed and that boundary seems to expand daily. Common courtesy seems to be as dead as common sense.

  • Fair game: Its all in public (Score:3, Insightful)

    by atcurtis ( 191512 ) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @01:46AM (#17587666) Homepage Journal
    What people do in public becomes public property.

    If someone acts like an arse in public, should not be surprised to find it posted on a website.

    If they don't want anyone to post them doing disgraceful things in public, they should either refrain from doing something which people would find offensive... or if they are a true sociopath, they can always murder all the witnesses before they can post it online.

    I would so dearly like to attach a video camera to my car, perhaps with a 30 second buffer, so that when I press the button to record an event, everything up to 30 seconds before the event is also recorded. Would much prefer a good quality video camera so that license plates are clearly visible.

    I seem to recall that a few years ago, a man in Japan was fined for speeding based upon video evidence posted online...
  • I followed some of the links in TFA, and for the most part have come to the conclusion that the article is spreading a bit of FUD.

    There isn't all that much stuff here - pictures of bad driving, and not picking up your dogs poop sure, but a lot of them are "look at her wearing sweatpants in a dance floor", and "she didn't even try to understand baseball and is an elitist Ivy league bitch", stupid or misspelt signs, people who cut in line. Whatever. Its happened to all of us, and we've all done it occasionall

  • So... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dangitman ( 862676 ) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @02:25AM (#17587972)
    How do we shame people who post on YouTube?

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @03:40AM (#17588350)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • We all did this occasionally. These are good conversational pieces, nothing else.
      But if you keep doing this day after day, annoying the shit off your neighbor up to the point that he sets up a camera and waits for you to do this Yet Again, then posts it to the web, this is a different matter.

  • Backfire? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jimbob666 ( 1050308 )
    Couldn't this backfire? What I mean is that the subjects of these videos might see their activity as even more 'amusing' because it is on YouTube. Like a medal of honour or something. Just like what has happened to Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) here in the UK.
  • This is worrying. I see a lot of comments along the lines of "If you don't want to be shamed on camera, simply don't do whatever it is they're filming you for!"

    I hate to be the guy to Godwin a thread, but well, I have to be that guy today. Think about how well you folks would have fit in with Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia... "Well, if you don't want us filming you and posting it, STOP BEING SO DAMN JEWISH IN PUBLIC!!!" or "Well, if you don't want us turning you in, comrade, stop talking about how great c
  • I think this is funny. It's ok for other people to video tape you and record everything you do, but it's bad for the government to do it. Of course, the government doesn't go posting your embarassing moments to YouTube either. It is very ironic that the people who condemn the government for wanting to put cameras up everywhere somehow think this is ok based on the same arguments that the pro-public camera people use. "If you're doing nothing wrong, there is nothing to be afraid of.". We have seen the enemy.
  • Sometimes if you have the right contacts, you can find out everything you need to know.

    For example, someone was harassing my friends girlfriend. I have access to certain data where I can get a persons location. Another friend has access to criminal history data, and so on. From just a first name, last name and approximate YOB, we located the puke. Had to pull data from a bunch of places but it all clicked.

    We just used the tools available to every law enforcement agency in the U.S.

  • Different ethics (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Per Abrahamsen ( 1397 ) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @12:21PM (#17592388) Homepage
    How about movies of women visiting abortion clinics? Men visiting brothels?

    Or, where I live, you could risk the life of some Muslim high-school girls by publishing photographs of them kissing non-Muslim boys.

    Should two men be allowed to walk hand in hand in a public park, without getting their picture on www.godhategays.com?

    Or what about people who aren't doing anything ethically wrong (even by the fanatics who would consider any of the above examples morally evil), like people who are overweight, mentally ill, bad dressers, clumsy, plain ugly, or otherwise doesn't live up to the norm of society?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Imitation is the sincerest form of television." -- The New Mighty Mouse

Close