'Please Don't Film Me in 2023' (theverge.com) 161
The Verge is decrying "a genre of video that derives its entertainment value from unwitting passersby" — like filming pedestrians in a neighborhood in New York City:
Many viewers on TikTok ate it up, but others pushed back on the idea that there's humor in filming and posting an unsuspecting neighbor for content. This year, I saw more and more resistance to the practice that's become normal or even expected.... [P]eople who have been featured in videos unbeknownst to them have pointed out that even if there's no ill will, it's just unnerving and weird to be filmed by others as if you're bit characters in the story of their life. One TikTok user, @hilmaafklint, landed in a stranger's vlog when they filmed her to show her outfit. She didn't realize it had happened until another stranger recognized her and tagged her in the video.
"It's weird at best, and creepy and a safety hazard at worst," she says in a video....
Even before TikTok, public space had become an arena for constant content creation; if you step outside, there's a chance you'll end up in someone's video. It could be minimally invasive, sure, but it could also shine an unwanted spotlight on the banal moments that just happen to get caught on film. This makeshift, individualized surveillance apparatus exists beyond the state-sponsored systems — the ones where tech companies will hand over electronic doorbell footage without a warrant or where elected officials allow police to watch surveillance footage in real time. We're watched enough as it is.
So if you're someone who makes content for the internet, consider this heartfelt advice and a heads-up. If you're filming someone for a video, please ask for their consent.
And if I catch you recording me for content, I will smack your phone away.
"It's weird at best, and creepy and a safety hazard at worst," she says in a video....
Even before TikTok, public space had become an arena for constant content creation; if you step outside, there's a chance you'll end up in someone's video. It could be minimally invasive, sure, but it could also shine an unwanted spotlight on the banal moments that just happen to get caught on film. This makeshift, individualized surveillance apparatus exists beyond the state-sponsored systems — the ones where tech companies will hand over electronic doorbell footage without a warrant or where elected officials allow police to watch surveillance footage in real time. We're watched enough as it is.
So if you're someone who makes content for the internet, consider this heartfelt advice and a heads-up. If you're filming someone for a video, please ask for their consent.
And if I catch you recording me for content, I will smack your phone away.
Beat a few of 'em (Score:3)
There's a short video of someone going up behind a guy walking down the street and popping an air horn. It was only a short burst. The target turns around and confronts the guy before smacking away the horn and popping the guy.
If anyone has seen that short video, you know exactly what I mean. Do this enough times and people will think twice about pranking people.
Filming them in public is another since, as is always stated, if you're in public anything you do can be seen by anyone.
Re: Beat a few of 'em (Score:4, Insightful)
if you're in public anything you do can be seen by anyone
The "there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place" comes from a time where cameras were't ubiquitous, and world-wide publication means weren't cheap as dirt. The oposite of "privacy" didn't use to mean that potentially 2 bn peole could watch you enjoy your morning coffee in the relative protection of your own balcony, conserved on a cheap vertical video for all posterity's consideration.
Now cameras and publication means are cheap and everywhere, the opposite of privacy is worldwide exposition in what used to be anonymous frugal moments, and so the doctrine needs to be changed.
At the very least, the implication of that doctrine (namely that if there's "no expectation of privacy", then everything and anything about you is fair game) needs to change.
Re: Beat a few of 'em (Score:4)
The solution is quite simply IMHO:
Continue to allow filming in public but ban* it's distribution (youtube, titktok, etc) unless explicit consent is given
*Or at least force to blur the complete body and distort the voice.
That way you can still film yourself on the streets while respecting everybody's wishes.
Re: (Score:2)
Continue to allow filming in public but ban* it's distribution (youtube, titktok, etc) unless explicit consent is given
I'm sorry, Mr. Rodney King, the police did not consent to share this video . . .
Re: (Score:2)
You jest, but there's a super simple solution to that issue also: implied consent for all cops and all other government personnel of any sort, at any level (local, state, fed), when performing their usual duties or acting under color of law. Oh, and that applies to private security as well.
Re: (Score:2)
implied consent for all cops and all other government personnel of any sort, at any level (local, state, fed), when performing their usual duties or acting under color
Thank you, enabler of Rodney King. You are why LA citizens should not do this . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Ok - so just change the guy being assaulted by police officers to being assaulted by a random gang of racist guys. You run into the same issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Take away monetary gain, and most sharing would go away. That way you could share racists beating someone without their permission, but you can't make a buck off of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, therefore you can't share the original video but you may blur their faces and save the original for the trial. If they get convicted then post the original
Mr. King case was very clear. Others are not. Where do *you* draw the line? I'd rather the line was drawn by a judge
Re: (Score:2)
Then blur their faces when doing distribution. Journalism should not be used as an excuse to perform a parallel judgement. Keep the original file for the trial and if they get convicted then publish it with the permission of the court.
Otherwise deal with the fact that paparazzi *are* journalists
Re: (Score:2)
Undercover journalism, isn't only for catching someone doing things illegal.
It also is to catch people that are doing things that technically are legal, but less so on a moral basis.
And for that to be an effective tool against bad things happening that are legal....you need
Re: (Score:2)
Decency and respect are still important parts of human behavior.
But this must not be enacted into law. What's public is public. Beware the unintended consequences of changing the law about that.
When you choose how to act out in the world, you're choosing to be seen that way.
The law must not require witnesses to keep it secret, since you didn't choose to.
Re: (Score:2)
Decency and respect are still important parts of human behavior. But this must not be enacted into law. What's public is public. Beware the unintended consequences of changing the law about that. When you choose how to act out in the world, you're choosing to be seen that way. The law must not require witnesses to keep it secret, since you didn't choose to.
It already is. Public mischief is an offense. So is invasion of privacy and harassment. And stalking. So is profiting from someone else's image, likeness, and activity (gaining viewers on tiktok is considered a form of profit because you obtain a benefit) without their permission.
Re: (Score:2)
Decency and respect are still important parts of human behavior. But this must not be enacted into law.
It already is.
Privacy is not really protected by law.
There are some specific instances (ruled on by justices who did not want to generalize) about illegal search and seizure, for example, but (don't look in my car trunk!) except for what may or may not be in my trunk, we seem to have ceded most privacy to the Police. And I'm not saying this right now on a cellphone, but if I were . . . I'm sure it would already have been Rayed by Sting or something. Ever since the Police, that guy's been hit and miss . . .
Roxanne . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you focused on the cops so much?
Because they are the enforcers of the overlord.
Why are you not focused on cops just as much?
I think I have concern for and respect grannies, people who care for one another, gardeners, and also talky-talk people we still like to be around and more.
What do your police do that they don't? Except kill and torture? (I don't think we need those. Maybe except in SF films.)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Most illegal behaviour is done by non-police. Have your already forgotten Jan 6?
Same with stalkers. Same with shootings. Same with killings. Same with breaking and entering. Same with crypto fraud. Same with assaults. Same with porch thieves. Same with hit-and-run. Same with rape. Same with kiddie pr0n. Same with email scams. Same with catfishing.
Re: Beat a few of 'em (Score:2)
What's public is public.
Precisely my point: the distinction berween "public" and "private" is too simple, too unnuanced for today's tech.
"Public", as opposed to "private", used to factually mean that "a random bypasser night catch a glimpse". No biggie.
But now it means so much more.
We need a different category - one which means you're not private, but that you still have the right to expect not to be involuntarily and permanently exposed to billions of people.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't agree. The right to document the world is too precious. I don't want your different category.
I see too little upside, and way too much potential for abuse.
We can keep the same rule we've had for a long time: what you want to do without anyone seeing, do behind closed doors.
Re: Beat a few of 'em (Score:2)
The right to document the world is too precious.
It isn't black or white. Like "freedom", it's a matter of consideration. There are precedents in existing jurisdictions: in parts of Europe there is a right to your own image, i.e. other people cannot take pictures of you and e.g. sell your portraits (it's a copyright thing). But there are those who are considered "persons of predominantly public interest", e.g. politicians: those everyone has a right to photograph and publish when they're exercising their function.
Same here: you can document the world all
Re: (Score:2)
The "there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place" comes from a time where cameras were't ubiquitous, and world-wide publication means weren't cheap as dirt.
That means that in today's world, where cameras are ubiquitous, and worldwide publication means are cheap as dirt, there is even less of an expectation of privacy in public than there was from the previous time. You should now fully expect to be on camera if you're outdoors in public and act accordingly.
The doctrine doesn't need to change, the way people act in public needs to change. If you're being awful in public, expect to end up on YT or the Tok.
Re: (Score:2)
there is even less of an expectation of privacy in public than there was from the previous time
But it doesn't have to be this way.
Despite the occasional shit-flinging, we're not apes. We live by rules, and we can make rules to reign in the unhinged possibility of perpetual world-wide exposure without consent.
Re: (Score:2)
There has been a need for improvement in this area for decades. Since the invention of the zoom lens, in fact.
Now that smartphones have 50x zoom capability it's getting urgent.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take you by the hand back to each of my posts and show you that I pretty much explicitly laid out that its not the zoom capability of phone cameras that constitutes problem. But... why bother? You read what you want to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a time and a place for everything - it's possible to invade someone's privacy even in a public space, same as it's possible to intimidate by videoing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not comparable. Sneaking up on someone and activating an air horn is technicall assault, and if someone does that to you then you have the right to defend yourself.
Re:Beat a few of 'em (Score:5, Informative)
So you, like the Verge author, are encouraging assault?
That's nice.
If you blow a horn in my ear, that's assault. I'm defending myself.
As I said at the end, if they're just filming you in public, not much you can do since you are in public.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is. Demand a percentage of any gross profits for the video. In court.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you need to prove you had creative control and were intimately involved in the creative process. Good luck with that.
Also millions of views on TikTok get you little more than a few cents. So please PLEASE go sue someone over this. No wait. I need to make popcorn first!
Re: (Score:2)
You're mistaken. Videos or photography of is the property of the person making the recording, not the subject. It has always been this way. Why do you think the paparazzi are a thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, IANAL, but I think that's actionable. He didn't get her to sign a release.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when he was told not to record people’s panels that they do for a living. Then he decided he’d found a loophole and recorded their audio secretly from his pocket and then published it on his youtube channel?
No wonder that he’s less popular than APK, DNS-and-BIND, and even Andrew Tate!
Secret audio recordings fall under a different, more restrictive law (written before motion picture cameras became ubiquitous).
You need the consent of at least one of the parties speaking (and in many cases, ALL of the parties), to make a sound recording.
So, if you're not part of the recording, you can't record it.
Video recordings in public spaces (places normally accessible by the public) are different. You can record a crowd scene, but not individuals, without their permission - MOST of the time.
F
Re: Beat a few of 'em (Score:2)
This varies by state...
Re: (Score:2)
Shut the fuck up, you anus-brain.
There's a difference between videoing people and harassing or interfering with them.
Says the Slashdotter who calls random strangers "anus-brain."
Re: (Score:2)
Everything a kid, and especially a teenager does now, is recorded permanently and will never go away.
That possibility has existed for a very long time. The probability has increased some, is all.
I think the kids are more aware of this than the rest of us.
hey dumbass (Score:3, Informative)
the law is not on your side, especially this
> And if I catch you recording me for content, I will smack your phone away.
Re:hey dumbass (Score:5, Insightful)
I was generally on the author's side until this sentence. That's assault and, because I'm like that, vandalism / destruction of property.
No sane columnist is going to recommend smashing someone's window with a baseball bat, but the phone is probably more expensive to replace.
Re: hey dumbass (Score:2)
Law has bern known to be on the wrong side of morality before, especially around times of such a rapid technological change that society and common sense haven't had a chance yet to catch up.
Re:hey dumbass (Score:4, Insightful)
recording me for content
In some places, the law isn't on your side either. That doesn't (usually) justify violence, but if you clearly record to publish without consent, preventing you from doing so can be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
preventing you from doing so can be legal
Citation needed. You may have legal recourse if you were published without consent but beyond covering yourself up I've never come across any law in the USA that allows you to take specific action. Heck even in Germany where they are incredibly strict on this kind of thing there's no law allowing you to take any action on someone else to prevent you from being recorded, at best you can call the police.
Re:hey dumbass (Score:5, Insightful)
the law is not on your side, especially this
> And if I catch you recording me for content, I will smack your phone away.
As satisfying a fantasy as retributive violence may be, I have to agree with the parent poster here; and to take it further, it's a wasted opportunity.
I would be very tempted - if I were quick enough thinking on my feet and in a situation where I could make it work - to respond with the following:
Ah, you're recording? Good! I have a very important message for your viewers!
You are watching this because an algorithm has determined that it will hold your attention and keep you on the platform you are viewing this on.
Not because it is interesting.
Not because it will enhance your life in any way.
Simply because it will make you spend time on some app or website, and potentially earn some company somewhere some ad revenue.
So ask yourself: Is this really how you want to spend your life?
I figure either you get the message our there, or the annoyance who is recording you will edit you out as a boring NPC. Either works. Of course, I am likely being far too hopeful here.
Re: (Score:2)
This is tiktok, not a live Stream. Your message will but cut up, mashed together with a beat on the background and you'll look like an idiot. You can't game the system with long rambling activism.
Actually let's have some fun with your post:
Ah, you're recording? Good! I have a very important message for your viewers! You *snip* will enhance your life. *snip* it will make you *snip* earn *snip* revenue. *snip* Is this really how you want to spend your life?
Overly a static image of a gold chain on your neck a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Attacking some one before asking is assault
If you ask someone politely to be polite, and they choose to continents to be rude, the situation is then much more fluid.
Re:hey dumbass (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But let's say I take a photo of a couple kissing on the street with the intention that I'm going to use it in a flyer to promote my business. In that case I need to ask them to sign a release form.
If it's for your *own* business you don't *need* a release; you're simply taking your chances if the subjects take you to court. That risk is yours to accept. If you're selling the photo for someone else to promote *their* business in a flyer, then *they* probably want a model release form since they probably don't want to accept the risk of the subjects taking them to court.
Even so, a signed model release is not a "get out of jail free" card. If you use or distort the image in a way that damages the subjec
Oh look. More victims. (Score:2)
TikTards are a cancer on society. (Score:4, Informative)
And if I catch you recording me for content... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if I catch you recording me for content, I will smack your phone away.
If you hit the phone out of their hand, you're just inviting the clip to go viral.
Think it through. Instead of giving them what they want, do the opposite of what they expect.
Say "You're filming this? Good. I'm going to film this too." or in other cases, just ignore them and walk away. Some trolls hate it when you just ignore them.
Re: (Score:2)
And if I catch you recording me for content, I will smack your phone away.
If you hit the phone out of their hand, you're just inviting the clip to go viral.
Think it through. Instead of giving them what they want, do the opposite of what they expect.
Say "You're filming this? Good. I'm going to film this too." or in other cases, just ignore them and walk away. Some trolls hate it when you just ignore them.
Viral?!??! Smacking the phone away is likely to be battery [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Say "You're filming this? Good. I'm going to film this too."
Sounds like a good recipe for a viral video on Tiktok. Two Tiktokers filming each other. An epic battle commences!
Any action you take is playing their game. Walk away. The more boring the content the better.
Re: (Score:2)
1: Take a deep breath
2: Turn around camly
3: Ask in a calm voice "Would you like it if someone else did this to you"
4: Turn back around an walk away before they have time to respond
I bet you they will hate it as this does not turn into a clickbait video that might go viral, and if it does it only makes the person blowing the horn and filming look like a fool. I might ofc be 100% wrong, if you think that is the case I would appreciate a response t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, it will become one of the many viral "Karen" videos.
And yet drones are restricted (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cellphones don't typically have the ability to put you in hospital when they fall out of the sky. Heck my friend flies drones professionally and ended up in hospital himself (and swore off carbon fibre propellers after that).
Re: (Score:2)
Cellphones don't typically have the ability to put you in hospital when they fall out of the sky.
Sure they do. Just need to find a taller building to drop them from.
Stop filming people being attacked and not helping (Score:5, Insightful)
This shit pisses me off. There's all these videos of people getting attacked in public such as a subway. You've got 10 different people filming that shit but nobody helping. Ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, kids. (Score:2)
And subsequently be charged with assault.
Re: (Score:2)
And subsequently be charged with assault.
oh boy that escalated quickly!
Take pictures is OK?!? (Score:2)
Privacy? (Score:2, Troll)
... preferably into heavy truck traffic.
Just because some TikTok videographer thinks privacy is dead, they need to learn that, no, it isn't. Simply being in public doesn't make you a potential subject for some video project they're working on. Whatever happened to model releases anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Your privacy in public was always a myth ,,, that's why it's called public ...
I've been overtly filmed by creeps (Score:5, Informative)
I have a disability (missing body parts). I've been stalked by creeps pointing their recording cellphones at me more or less openly. Some of them just didn't hide at all, like if it was normal to treat people like freakshow attractions and it was their God-given right to film away.
I managed to get close enough to a couple of them to smack their phone and smash it on the floor. Yeah, not legal. But you know what? Call the cops on me, see if I care.
Fortunately, the body parts I'm missing are easy to hide under winter clothing, so it's only a summertime problemv - and not very common at that. But it has been a problem.
Only in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly in Europe, filming people without their permission is illegal.
That photo of the Eiffel Tower you wanted to get? Forget about it.
Unless it's a very long exposure [pinimg.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly in Europe, filming people without their permission is illegal.
No it's not, if they're in a public space.
Re: (Score:2)
Not universally. The laws are different in different countries with different details, and are generally quite permissive.
What you say does apply in Japan. It is illegal to film other people without their permission even in public places. You can live-stream though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ability to film in public freely for starters. Not having dash cams is a pretty shitty restriction.
Europe has less freedom of speech protections also, e.g. restrictions on saying ACAB.
Re: (Score:2)
In general in Europe, at least in the few countries I know about, filming in public in itself is legal, but publishing the videos if they contains information which can identify people is not unless there is consent or a legally justifiable reason.
As example, with a dashcam you cannot just publish the recorded videos on YouTube for fun unless you obscure the identifiable elements (faces, registration numbers...), but you can submit them as evidence in case of accident to help determine the facts in case of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Photo is one thing (Score:2)
Public space? Sure. Harrasment? Yep. (Score:3)
A simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Easy solution. A person wears QR codes front and back, that link to a terms of service for filming the person wearing them. "In filming me without my specific permission, you grant me the right to destroy the filming equipment being used. The costs associated with the destruction of said equipment by my will be born by you". Nothing violent proposed, just removing the filming equipment, breaking it, and demand damages.
The QR code can be small enough to be justifiably recognised by modern filming equipment.
Re: (Score:3)
the right to destroy the filming equipment being used
Nothing violent proposed
Pick one.
Re: (Score:2)
What if they film you from the side? Or if you're in a crowd or a ride at Disneyworld?
And do you believe that wearing a QR code constitutes a legal contract that allows you to presume someone sees it, interprets it as more than a QR code, and allows you to destroy their property because you "believe" they filmed you and didn't just point a camera in your direction?
W I R E T A P ? (Score:2, Troll)
Certain states (Cali, MD, ... ) require all-party consent to record conversations. The rest require single-party consent. Since there is likely to be relevant audio on the vids, wiretap attaches. Is the videographer always party?
Assault might be excused if the vid didn't stop when asked, indicating a persistant ongoing violation. IANAL.
Thousands of Security Cameras Filming You and This (Score:2)
There is an army of security guards looking at you at any given time now. What the fuck is one more recording?
What worries me is that some idiot will want a ban on public photography like that retarded law in Germany. And then after a few years we find there is no record of life in our cities for people to learn from. One of the coolest things about photography is being able to go back in time and look at history visually, and see the reality better than someone's personal recollections (which are biased, b
Automatic tagging (Score:4, Insightful)
Progression. (Score:2)
People are just shittier in general (Score:2)
Did phones in every pocket plus the internet make people shittier? Or was there latent unrealized shittiness that these things facilitated?
"Please don't film me" shouldn't need to be requested. It should be assumed to be the default. But that's where we are. Add anonymity and stir. Simmer for a while and all the shit drops to the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
TV cameras at sporting events (Score:2)
The security presence was, let me put it, full-on.
Inside the arena, there were guys with large TV cameras on their shoulders, with telephoto lenses and a little multi-GHz wire globe antenna on top. Standing on the walkways. No sound man, just the single person.
They weren't labeled as representing any organisation or with a TV network logo as far as
Truth emerges (Score:2)
it's just unnerving and weird to be filmed by others as if you're bit characters in the story of their life.
"As If?" No, it's unnerving and weird for narcissists when they realize that they ARE just bit characters in other peoples' lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Think you missed the point, matey.
These people are not trying to be a part of the life of the person who is filming, in fact they'd rather not feature in their lives at all.
The person filming is the one who believes strangers on the street exist solely for their amusement and financial gain. Any narcissism, sociopathy, selfishness or just plain immaturity is on the part of the one holding the camera.
Video harassment for fun and profit (Score:2)
There was a gentleman in Baltimore who would severely harass people around the city, while filming it. Developed quite a following apparently. He was ultimately charged with some crimes but Baltimore justice is unusually lenient so unclear what if anything happened to him:
Smile, You're on Candid Camera (Score:2)
Does anyone remember Allen Funt? He made a living photographing people without their consent. Of course, he had to get a model release from them before he could broadcast their pictures.
Gradual reduction in basic civility/humanity (Score:3)
All across what used to be called Western Civilization, as values change and people turn their backs on the moral underpinnings of society, people are becoming crass, invasive, obnoxious jerks.
Average people used to not want to embarrass other people - now they will happily record some other person in some embarrassing/humiliating situation and upload it to the web in hops of getting clicks.
Average people used to respect each other's privacy, not anymore. People used to have a basic civility - when I was growing up, nobody would utter an expletive in the presence of women or children - I was a teenager before I heard a person swear. Now people are raised in a verbal sewer and it's not all that shocking to see some six year old swearing.
This all has a coarsening effect; without even noticing it, many people treat the ones around them with less respect and we all think of our fellow human beings as less dignified and less worthy of basic respect. If we have a disagreement, it's easier to attack them as some form of evil than to actually patiently listen to them explain themselves, and the odds are pretty good that even if we do listen, when it's our chance to respond THEY will not patiently listen to us. After all, if a person has no innate dignity then their opinions are probably also not to be respected.
It's probably true that at some level this all contributes to the ease with which people on the left or right will so easily slip into wishing ill (even up to wishing DEATH) for their political opponents.
Legal .. but ... (Score:2)
There is no expectation of privacy, and anyone can film or photograph you for any reason ...
But if they are making money from the picture/recording even indirectly, then they need your permission
It's weird at best, and creepy and a safety hazard (Score:2)
And completely legal.
There's no privacy in public, you are filmed by CCTVs, taxis, ATMs, banks, shops, buses.
You just don't like it.
as if anyone cares, but maybe someone does (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Newsworthy would be like you took a video of two women in a catfight outside Walmart.
Nah, that's just a regular day either in outside Walmart - see peopleofwalmart for more info.
Re: (Score:2)
and so the doctrine needs to be changed
Why? Our Founding Fathers may not have anticipated the Internet. But the principle that "there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place" was only inaccurate in practice. Practice is only drawing closer to the underlying principle.
At any rate, I'd like to see how one would write the underlying regulations. There's "everything goes" at one end of the spectrum. At the other end is "nothing is permitted". Which would turn the country into a huge police state, with everyone parsing innocent pho