The Return of Surveillance Camera Man 188
theodp writes "Remember Surveillance Camera Man, the anonymous guy who walked up to random people around Seattle and creeped them out by taking video of them without explanation? GeekWire reports that he's back with a new video compilation of his adventures in pushing people's privacy buttons, the latest installment in an apparent ongoing commentary on the pervasiveness of public surveillance, which has taken on a whole new twist with increased fretting over the recording capabilities of Google Glass and heightened concern over privacy in general, thanks to the NSA data surveillance controversy."
Guy deserves getting beaten (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
especially when his definition of "public" involves entering people's home.
Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (Score:5, Insightful)
The outside cams at Lords and Taylor was insufficient for an identification. Fuzzy nondescript images that showed clothing patterns at best.
Hundreds of private snapshots submitted by people were what nailed them [zowchow.com]. But even that failed to identify them until private people phoned in saying they recognized them.
But its funny you mention the Boston Marathon at all, because it is the biggest single failure of the NSA spying operation, the elephant in the room as the NSA testified before congress about how many bombings the program had prevented without any specifics at all. Yet it totally missed these guys even when the Russians handed them to us on a silver platter.
Critical infrastructure in the US is exploding seemingly every other month, all publicly written off as accidents. Refineries that used to operate for 10s of years without a significant accident go up in flames, and nobody asks why.
Re: (Score:3)
Critical infrastructure in the U.S. has been exploding every other month for as long as I've been alive. Nobody asks why because we all know exactly why.
A purely capitalistic model is completely incapable of providing serious infrastructure, because there is no real room for infrastructure competition in most places, and because without competition to force the issue, corporations inherently cut corners at every possible opportunity (even where safety is concerned) because every dollar spent on infrastruct
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Critical infrastructure in the US is exploding seemingly every other month, all publicly written off as accidents. Refineries that used to operate for 10s of years without a significant accident go up in flames, and nobody asks why.
Tinfoil much? Nobody asks why because everyone knows why. Economic pressures on what remains of manufacturing industries try to do more with less. We're pumping 10s of thousands of barrels more through old units with only minor upgrades. Add a cooler here, re-rate (note, not upgrade) metallurgy to new less conservative standards, maybe increase a pump size or two and volah extra barrels of throughput with minor capital investment.
Back in the day refineries ran on a stable source of oil at a fixed rate with
Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get it. This guy should be beaten? But the hundreds of stationary cameras, operated by the state, which are doing exactly the same thing is OK? I think the _state_ needs to get a beating.
He makes it a spectacle, yes, but he has a very good point. We are constantly stalked by cameras and mobile phones. I think you need to get your priorities straight.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Sure. It is creepy. Just like the cameras that are under the mall ceiling or on the street poles. If people don't like video being taken of them, I suggest they do it everywhere and every time. You know, just being consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, he was being sarcastic. Do Slashdotters even know what a troll is at this point?
Re: (Score:1)
Nope.
And it should be "socialist terrorist child molester".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (Score:5, Informative)
I don't get it. This guy should be beaten? But the hundreds of stationary cameras, operated by the state, which are doing exactly the same thing is OK? I think the _state_ needs to get a beating.
You know, there's nothing inconsistent about believing that both this man and the law are asses.
Re: (Score:1)
People don't appear to take responsibility to make complaints for state operated cameras. It is apparent that these cameras are tolerable as evidenced by this action.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, perhaps that is exactly the point.
The difference between him and the State (or he and the coffee house, or whatever) is that he is both highly visible, and able to run away, while a lone camera can do neither of these things.
Re: (Score:1)
The state doesn't post videos of peoples on the Internet for shits and giggles and companies like Google take quite some effort to blur everybody faces before publishing anything. Furthermore the problem with this guy isn't even the camera, if he would just walk around and stare at people he would get pretty much the same reaction. So all he is showing is essentially that people get aggressive when you violate social norms. Surveillance on the other side doesn't really do that, England is full of cameras, y
Re: (Score:3)
the point is, you have no expectation of privacy in public.
You can be filmed and are filmed on a daily basis without your explicit consent.
But by entering a public place you're giving up your privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, if someone under 18 still manages to see you doing it, you can go to jail for exposing yourself in front of a minor. You do not have an expectation of privacy in a public place, and you never did.
That said, I do agree that there is a fine line between not expecting privacy if you get caught doing something stupid in public and expecting to be tracked continuously so that your every movement and every action can be scrutinized in the hopes of catching you doing something wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
What is it you don't get? Yes, the guy should be beaten and the state should be beaten. The guy apears to be weaker than the state, so let's start with him...
Re: (Score:2)
He makes it a spectacle, yes, but he has a very good point. We are constantly stalked by cameras and mobile phones. I think you need to get your priorities straight.
Except that's not the point he's making. The only point he is making is that when people are exposed to an overtly sociopathic personality they go heavily on the defense. I have no problem with being recorded. I don't have a problem with discrete recording devices. I do have a problem with someone coming up and sticking a camera in my face.
None of this has anything to do with the act of recording or the camera itself. In his last movie it summed it up quite nicely when the fat guy turned around and said "Yo
Re: (Score:3)
He makes it a spectacle, yes, but he has a very good point. We are constantly stalked by cameras and mobile phones. I think you need to get your priorities straight.
Except that's not the point he's making. The only point he is making is that when people are exposed to an overtly sociopathic personality they go heavily on the defense. I have no problem with being recorded. I don't have a problem with discrete recording devices. I do have a problem with someone coming up and sticking a camera in my face.
What if they're not invading your personal space, but stand 6 feet away with a camera? 10 feet? Is it "sticking something in your face" you're objecting to, or the camera? And if it's the camera, why don't you have a problem with being recorded or discrete recording devices?
None of this has anything to do with the act of recording or the camera itself. In his last movie it summed it up quite nicely when the fat guy turned around and said "You even look like an asshole". I don't think I've thought that of any shop owner with a CCTV system before.
On the contrary, I think the videos were summed up quite well by the exchange with the guy on the phone:
Guy on phone: "Excuse me, I'm having a private conversation."
Surveillance man: "No, you're not."
Re: (Score:2)
What if they're not invading your personal space, but stand 6 feet away with a camera? 10 feet? Is it "sticking something in your face" you're objecting to, or the camera? And if it's the camera, why don't you have a problem with being recorded or discrete recording devices?
The concept of personal space varies with the thoughts and opinions of the person. Me standing next to some people photographing their friends and I happen to be in the photo not an issue. Some one comming up and snapping a picture of me? No problem. Someone trains their video camera past me in a completely unbiased way? Go for it.
Someone targeting me with their camera, visually, and following me on the other hand invokes a creep factor and my personal space suddenly gets VERY big.
I've answered your discret
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, his argument is strong. This guy should be beaten, then he would reconsider trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Then one assumes the person doing the beating should be filmed doing it by a fixed location security camera so they are prosecuted for doing so?
If you beat Obama I will call you a racist! Sir! (Score:1)
*Sarcasm*
Re: (Score:2)
and yet no one blinks an eye when they can't see the man behind the camera.
Re: (Score:2)
I love uneducated people like you.
I have Google Glass, and 100% of the people I encounter want to know more and are very curious about it. I suggest you actually get education about what you are talking about, because to anyone that has even a glimmer of a clue about Google Glass, you sound like a complete fool to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Just remember, curious is not synonymous with approve or accept.
If I met somebody with a Google Glass I too would be curious. That doesn't mean I would approve or welcome the person taking a video of me. As irrational as it is, to a lot of people there is a big difference between somebody standing there blatantly videoing you Vs the ever present surveillance cameras, at least from an emotional perspective.
Re: Guy deserves getting beaten (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass#Camera [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Annoyingly filming other people. The subjects are obviously annoyed and almost go hit him. I hope you see why Google Glass is a ridiculously bad idea.
I guess you're the guy who took the baseball bat to the ATM for filming you, right?
Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise the message gets lost in the creepiness.
The message .. is .. that its creepy.
Re: (Score:1)
Which again, is because its an explicit violation of social norms. One person doing anything different is always creepy because it's asking all sorts of questions: why are they doing it? why would they be doing it? how dangerous do I think this person is?
If you're filmed by a 1000 cameras a day, you're not going to care because it's the norm. In fact, if they were just a facet of daily life (people have Glass for example) then no one is going to care. And yet, one guy coming up out of the blue, with no soci
Richard Dawson: Surveillance...says! (Score:1)
The guy's an idiot, then. If anything saves us from 1984 it will be everybody having this stuff on all the time. It's the politicians misusing it that's the problem, and if everything they do is recorded (to say nothing of common criminality)...
Re: (Score:2)
flash back 250 years.
If anything saves us from the Tyranny of the King, it will surely be having regulars quartered in our houses.
If those soldiers abuse and harm us, that's the problem
Re: (Score:2)
That is just plain unbelievable. Ten years?! I'd say that North Ameria in general is on a bad, bad path.
Re: (Score:3)
There are anti-mask laws in some places in the US too. It's not because of hostility towards protestors. It's because of a little organization you might have heard of, called the KKK, whose members would attack people while wearing masks.
Re: (Score:2)
can't wear hats or sunglasses in a bank.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, because some people might abuse the ability to wear masks, doing so should be severely restricted? I thought we were supposed to the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the home of the sniveling cowards. I don't want the government dictating what clothing or accessories I can wear on my own body.
Again, ruined by implementation (Score:4, Insightful)
He's still injecting people's aversion to being physically stalked into the equation. Whether through ignorance or deliberate slight of hand, he makes the assumption that peoples' reactions to being unwillingly made the sole object of attention in public is the same reaction of of those people if put under surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
*being stalked and made into a public spectacle
Re: (Score:2)
one stalk of salary and i get a bowel-movement
You should buy some celery with that salary instead of eating the money. Then there would be fewer people waiting for the end result.
Re:Again, ruined by implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the same reaction, and that's the point. It should be.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the same reaction, and that's the point. It should be.
You weight physical stalking as having 0 negative value. That is shocking.
Of course it shouldn't be the same reaction stalkers are an immediate potential danger to your life. CCTV doesn't follow you, can't touch you, and is a known quantity.
Re: (Score:2)
*the educated, land owning rabble like themselves.
Re: (Score:1)
Adventures in Homeless Harrassment.
Starring Annoying Mute Camera Guy!
Idiot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy is brilliant. The idiots are the people sitting around outside yakking on their cellphones who want to label it a "private conversation". Not when you're inflicting it on everyone at the next table.
And this guy:
Passer-by: "I don't really care for other people to just be taking a random video of me."
Surveillance Camera Man: "Didn't you just come out the drugstore?"
Passer-by: "Yeah."
Surveillance Camera Man: "They have cameras in there."
Passer-by: "So?" (pushes Surveillance Camera Man).
If you're ready to assault this guy, why are you not out wrecking the surveillance state, spraypainting cameras and calling for better privacy laws? The cognitive dissonance is amazing.
Re: (Score:1)
Passer-by: "I don't really care for other people to just be taking a random video of me."
Surveillance Camera Man: "Didn't you just come out the drugstore?"
Passer-by: "Yeah."
Surveillance Camera Man: "They have cameras in there."
That is not random surveillance. For one, you are entering the store's property, and their cameras are for identification purposes should the store be robbed. Their cameras also only film people who go into the store, ie customers. Therefore, this is no longer random recording, but targeted recording. This is rather different than some asshole standing on public property filming random people because he thinks he is making some kind of statement.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? An act is right or wrong independent of whether the state has issued a piece of paper making the part of the planet on which it occurs someone's so-called 'property". And many surveillance cameras, privately and publicly owned, record public spaces.
Their cameras are for whatever the store management decides they are for. If a woman has a nip slip that gets caught on the store's camera
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. As an unaccompanied male walk into a children's playground with an SLR camera around your neck and you'll see exactly the same thing, if not more.
Re: (Score:2)
As an unaccompanied male walk into a children's playground with an SLR camera around your neck and you'll see exactly the same thing, if not more.
No, having an SLR around your neck is no problem at all. It is if you are taking pictures of other people's children, or just... hanging out at the children's playground by yourself... where you generate a lot of negative attention.
I've seen this exact scenario play out, too, where the creepy guy was sitting by himself with his camera and nobody said anything, just used basic gestures to let each other know to keep an eye on him. And then as soon as he started taking pictures of children, he was accosted. O
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Passerby: The cameras in the store are for a known purpose and it is exceedingly unlikely that the video they take of me is going to be used against me personally. The store's certainly not going to be publishing that video to Youtube, and they're probably not going to even watch it once. On the other hand, it's exceedingly likely that a guy off the street intentionally filming a particular person is going to use it in a way directly opposing the interests of that person.
Furthermore, people filming strang
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Being singled out by one person with one camera is creepy, especially if the person displays obvious sociopathic tendencies.
Being subjected to generic recording, often automated with no one looking at the footage is completely different.
Comparing them is simply asinine.
Or do you think that the millions of hours of footage that are recorded every moment actually gets watched?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there a difference between a video taken for the purpose of a store safety, and a creepy asshole guy taking a video of you while you go about your stuff?
Yes there is a difference, SCM isn't hiding when he's taking the video.
Besides that, plenty of people are proving themselves willing to hurt him, while he is in full compliance with the law, he IS recording for the purpose of safety.
Re: (Score:2)
At any rate, this guy will - sooner or later - get his ass kicked and/or camera broken after pestering the wrong guy.
(Example: my cousin is a hot headed- testosterone full - short tempered muscle bound guy. not afraid of assault charges or jail. I guarantee If he did this to him creepy guy will need a doctor)
I am just waiting for that one on you tube.
You could also follow him around with a camera - fight fire with fire.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "I'll film it all and sue your ass!" is the new idiot nerd mantra thats supposed to protect from everything, or at least cause some sort of justice to happen.
Heres the thing: Aggravated assault gets me 5 years. Your camera wedged down your throat and the brain damage caused after I throw you and your camera into whatever happens to be nearby is forever.
I am both a nerd and a man that, based on the "haha I have a camera asshole!" response, can break your neck without thinking about it. I like that camera
Re: (Score:2)
Sound (Score:2)
He's recording a conversation. In Washington State. Without the prior consent of both parties.
Generally, it is legal to record a conversation in public as a third party. The people engaged in that conversation do not have an expectation of privacy if they continue in that third's presence. But if two people are alone and one asks the other , "Why are you recording me?" That conversation's privacy is protected and may not be recorded.
Why has he not been arrested?
Re: (Score:1)
IANAL, and neither is the cop. I agree. If it is illegal to record conversations without permission, why hasn't he been arrested?
Retaliation (Score:2)
A lot of the retaliation by his, er, subjects is physical and likely an illegal escalation. I think a simpler response is to produce a mirror or better yet a camera-disabling laser pointer. But then, he holds the power of edit, so any truly effective responses won't make it into the videos. There's a lot of creative people in Seattle, and I'd like to see those "outtakes" which didn't produce the effect he was going for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a question... (Score:5, Interesting)
For every recording he used in his video how many did he have of people who didn't care in the slightest he was recording?
Selective editing can pretty much twist any story.
Re: (Score:1)
I was thinking the same thing. He's misrepresenting his victims.
Re: (Score:1)
For every recording he used in his video how many did he have of people who didn't care in the slightest he was recording?
Selective editing can pretty much twist any story.
Who's story? The Surveillance Camera Man records people. He puts the best reactions up on youtube. Why would he want to bore us with people nodding and smiling at the camera?
Any other story is just guessing by the poster of this submission and the article on Geekwire.
Pure speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Selective editing?
Almost all most conventional CCTV footage is also very boring. Usually, we only see the highlight reels. So what?
The blade cuts both ways (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why should only the police/FBI/NSA/corrupt politicians in charge of security companies have the ability to film the public at will any time they want to?
To be honest, the government shouldn't be allowed to do that to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happened? (Score:1)
What has happened in society and culture that makes people angry, offended, upset and aggressive when being filmed? There was a video buzzing on the Internet recently taken about 20-25 years ago in a 7-Eleven store, and people where smiling, joking, excited and happy to be on camera. WHAT HAPPENED???
Re: (Score:2)
WHAT HAPPENED???
They saw themselves on YouTube and went "Oh, Shit".
Any excuse to get violent (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, maybe i'm not stoned enough yet (working on it), but what I found amusing was people used dude with a camera as an excuse to be violent. Almost everyone was violent, or at least passive aggressive towards the guy. Even though we know we are being recorded by stores and other things, when a person with a camera gets in our face, people tend to try to do something about it. Why? I'm leaning that there is actually a face associated with this camera. You do into a store, there's a camera or 6 on the wall, but you can't get to them, you can't do anything about them. But the moment a camera appears in your face, with a person holding it, suddenly you have a target to put your frustrations on. And on top of it, people are being violent on a guy recording them being violent. WTF? Not only are you suddenly breaking the law but you are being recorded doing it.
Here's the best part. I bet the person gets people not reacting. They don't make it on to his youtube clips, do they? In other words, if you want to be sure you are seen in youtube if this guy appears, start acting like a twat.
Re: (Score:2)
what do people do when there is a bothersome fly in their face
now make that fly an obnoxous douche
Re: (Score:2)
Solution:
Write an quite rude, but origional message on a paper if front of him. Specifically tell him to NOT record it, because it's yours.
When he posts it, sue him for $150,000 statutory copyright infringment damages.
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Coward. You made my point. thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
You're not proving a point, nor is the "Surveillance Camera Man", because he's not doing this for a few minutes, then stopping and educating the people he's just stalked; he's posting the videos to a web site where he's largely preaching to the choir (us). Do you really think that Geekwire and Slashdot carry any weight whatsoever in the real world?
In addition, it's apparent that you're an antisocial asshole. I fire people like you every day as a tech manager due to your inability to empathize and play well with others.
You talk about empathizing with people then admit that you fire people every day?
Again, my point made.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not proving a point, nor is the "Surveillance Camera Man", because he's not doing this for a few minutes, then stopping and educating the people he's just stalked; he's posting the videos to a web site where he's largely preaching to the choir (us). Do you really think that Geekwire and Slashdot carry any weight whatsoever in the real world?
In addition, it's apparent that you're an antisocial asshole. I fire people like you every day as a tech manager due to your inability to empathize and play well with others.
You talk about empathizing with people then admit that you fire people every day?
Again, my point made.
admit should of been brag, since you are bragging about it. You get a keen pleasure out of labeling people anti-social so you can then fire them and feel good about it.
My first thought was... (Score:2)
...that Steve Mann had to pay the price for this sort of 'performance art'.
The wider issue, though, is not so much that arbitrary Google-Glass-enabled people are invading privacy, bad though that might be. The problem comes if your Google account is hacked (likely a common problem) or some other method of stealing or diverting the video stream takes place. We've already had some evidence of the 'flip side' of this technology with schools sneakily enabling laptop cameras and mics "to check whether students
I have my own drone (Score:1)
Maybe it's a form of commentary (Score:2)
You're already being leashed into a surveillance state and lapping it up, what difference does it make if some hipster is doing the same thing with a camera in hand?
He's not even bring particularly rude or snide about it, maybe a bit of a smartass, but that's it really (walking into what appears to be a private home notwithstanding).
If you're so pissy about some doofus filming in public, why aren't you pushing back against the increasing surveillance by your own government?
Hey, lady on the cell phone, you r
Film him (Score:1)
I'm really surprised that people don't whip out their camera phones and film him. He's obviously trying to hide his identity.
Especially after watching his videos, If some idiot got in my face in a public place and didn't go away, I'd just pull out my own phone & film him, telling him I plan to expose his identity "Oh.. you must be the 'surveillance camera guy'.. This is going to be an awesome YouTube post. A lot of people have been wondering what you look like so that they can kick your ass.."
Different Scenario (Score:2)
Double standards (Score:1)
What I find odd is that people seem fine with the paparazzi doing this to someone else that isn't them.
Pool: and your reaction would be ? (Score:2)
What would be your reaction facing the same harassment ?
- Do as if he does not exist, or as if he were transparent.
- Film him with a phone camera, but for how long ?
- Run away, faster than him.
- Freeze, but for how long ?
- Make a fake call, calling for an imaginary team of tough guys to get him and beat him bad.
- Start talking a lot, as if it were an interview, a VIP interview for something big, and answer imaginary questions.
- Hold a mirror, big enough, toward the camera.
- Do the same thing as Cowb
explaining the difference (Score:2)
There are several reasons why this guy is different from a camera in a store. 1) People assume that store security feeds are not actually being watched by anybody. 2) People think of it as "the store" taking pictures. Not the employees. Same reason why people take "I'm sorry, it's company policy" as an OK answer most of the time. 3) Individuals are held to the golden rule, but companies generally are not. If a person throws a coke can out the window of a moving car you think, "what an asshole!" But if emplo
Re: (Score:1)
The only people who get actual personal surveillance and monitoring are people who do bad things.
Wow, you're naive. People who do something the government doesn't like (which isn't necessarily bad) might be put under surveillance, too. Rules and attitudes change, and so too can the criteria that determines who should be put under surveillance. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is an absolutely idiotic mindset to have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your missing his point.
No, I'm not; read what I quoted. He quite explicitly stated that only 'bad' people are put under surveillance, and that's the part I chose to reply to.