
‘Creepy Cameraman’ pushes limits of public surveillance - turoczy
http://www.geekwire.com/2012/seattles-creepy-cameraman-pushes-limits-public-surveillance/
======
graue
This is nothing like public surveillance, just as Google's use of tracking
cookies is nothing like having a random stranger look over your shoulder and
stare as you search the web.

This cameraman walks up to and harasses specific people. When you are in
public, and there's a surveillance camera, you aren't being targeted
specifically. You're no more interesting than anyone else in the frame.
Moreover, it's highly unlikely that anyone's full-time job consists solely of
watching the _one_ camera that happens to point towards you. _Maybe_ there is
a guard watching an array of a dozen cameras. The unit of human attention
directed towards you is much, much less.

Furthermore, a creepy guy holding a camera is a very different type of
potential threat than a camera mounted on a wall. The people filmed don't know
that he's _just_ going to film them. He could begin mumbling erratically, ask
them for money, or even physically attack them. All of these possibilities are
especially likely considering he already violated social norms by wordlessly
coming up to them with a camera.

I don't think this demonstrates anything about surveillance. The guy is a jerk
and I found myself empathizing with his victims. I don't buy the point he's
supposedly trying to prove.

~~~
pirateking
_Moreover, it's highly unlikely that anyone's full-time job consists solely of
watching the one camera that happens to point towards you._

How about the full-time job of one algorithm? Taken across _N_ cameras, no
actual person needs to watch any single camera. You can be targeted directly
if the watcher controls a subset of _N_ that captures you.

There is little difference between the output of one man and one camera
following you around all day, and the result of _N_ cameras stitched together
algorithmically and watched by one person. In fact the machine managed version
would be far superior given the increased range of capture _N_ cameras (not
required to be held by a human) provide.

Yes, the guy is annoying and I am surprised nobody beat him up. But the guy is
not the point of this experiment - the camera is. An alternative experiment
design could be placing the camera on a tripod at ground level and standing
aloof a few feet away. I think just bringing the cameras down to ground level
from the ceiling could be a big enough jump into the zone of discomfort for
most people.

~~~
graue
That algorithm is likely to stay hypothetical for some time. Facial
recognition has a long way to go before it's practical. Your scenario also
would require a lot more cameras being added at great expense, and/or
cooperation among the many public and private entities that operate cameras.

I'm not without my own concerns about surveillance, but let's not celebrate
someone's antisocial behavior simply because he claims to be making a point. I
think filming with a tripod, if it's not aimed at anyone in particular, would
be far less offensive, but useless as a demonstration for that same reason.

~~~
goodside
"That algorithm is likely to stay hypothetical for some time."

I interviewed someone a few weeks ago whose prior job was maintaining such an
algorithm for use in shopping malls. They had a database that you could issue
queries like "Given that a person goes to store X, how long on average will it
be until they return?" or "Are women who shop at Victoria's Secret likely to
visit The Gap in the same month?" and so on. His job was applying that
knowledge to affect what ads were displayed on the video screens that people
walked past in the mall.

(Yes, the project was self-consciously inspired by "Minority Report".
Apparently nobody found that creepy.)

~~~
xyzzy123
Oh, that is interesting. There was a UK-based company doing the same thing
(<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/20/tracking_phones/>) but using the
TMSIs of GSM phones.

Seems they are still around as: <http://www.pathintelligence.com/>

They were using USRP 1s (universal software radio peripheral, from Ettus
Research) at the time, although they might have switched hardware platforms by
now.

------
lordlarm
In Europe (and we see this all over the world now) we also have what I would
call network surveillance, for example the "Data Retention Directive" in
EU[0].

The philosophy is: «We are observing you and saving the data, but if you do
not do anything illegal no one would ever see what we have recorded. So, you
can't really call it surveillance."

These are actual arguments made in this debate, and it reminds me that we are
not only under surveillance by cameras, but also online.

What this guy is doing in the videos is (probably) not illegal, just really
offensive and obtrusive. Equally disrespectful are the surveillance cameras,
only they are hidden away. Out of sight, out of mind.

[0]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive>

~~~
tspiteri
From your link:

 _Under the directive the police and security agencies will be able to request
access to details such as IP address and time of use of every email, phone
call and text message sent or received. A permission to access the information
will be granted only by a court._

If they require a court order, that is a significant safeguard, and much
better than police/security having access to the saved data at will. Or
perhaps I should say it would be much worse without the safeguard; retaining
that data still looks creepy to me.

------
Permit
This experiment would have been equally disturbing to people had he done
everything the same but not held a camera. The camera is not what is creeping
people out.

If I was in a classroom and someone came and stood five feet away and just
told me they were watching me, I would be on edge as well.

~~~
hencq
Exactly. I hate how he's pretending to make some elaborate statement, but in
reality is just being childish and annoying.

~~~
peterhajas
I mean, he is making an elaborate statement. People don't yell at him because
he's standing there, they yell at him because he's filming them. He's not
breaking any law (except for arguably when he keeps entering the Church of
Scientology), and is exercising his liberties.

The words "childish" and "annoying" are dangerous to throw around here,
because it creates a culture of non-acceptance and weirdness for someone who
is _doing nothing wrong_. This is how liberties erode.

~~~
hencq
Not doing anything wrong legally perhaps, but it definitely goes against
common social norms. Notice most people don't actually yell at him, but just
ask him what he's doing and ask him (politely) to leave. It's only when he
doesn't, that people get upset.

I guess he's just "exercising his liberties", but that doesn't make it
elaborate. Unless pointing out that people don't like awkwardness is all of
sudden an elaborate statement.

~~~
aes256
Beyond any notion of it being a protest against the concept of a surveillance
society, it's actually quite an interesting social experiment.

The responses are fascinating. A lot of people quick to anger. Many more
people who have some — I'm assuming, although I'm no expert on the law in the
particular area — false impression that they cannot be filmed without their
permission. An alarming number of people who are prepared to call 911 over
such a trivial matter.

I've never seen anything quite like this before.

~~~
heed
It's also interesting that some people thought he was impeding one of their
rights when really it was the other way around.

------
gioele
Beware of the gargoyles:
<http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/cyborg/kawstretch.html>

«Gargoyles represent the embarrassing side of the Central Intelligence
Corporation. Instead of using laptops, they wear their computers on their
bodies, broken up into separate modules that hang on the waist, on the back,
on the headset. They serve as human surveillance devices, recording everything
that happens around them. Nothing looks stupider; there getups are the modern-
day equivalent of the slide-rule scabbard or the calculater pouch on the belt,
marking the user as belonging to a class that is at once above and far below
human society. They are a boon to Hiro because they embody the worst
stereotype of the CIC stringer. They draw all of the attention. The payoff for
this self-imposed ostracism is that you can be in the Metaverse all the time,
and gather intelligence all the time. [Snowcrash 123-124]»

------
karpathy
Can someone comment on whether or not he is actually breaking any laws?
Especially when simply recording on public streets?

At least based on this article "Know Your Rights: Photographers"
([http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-
photographe...](http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-
photographers)) what he is doing is perfectly legal: video-taping while
standing on public property. On private property it is not ok and you have to
leave when asked, which he does.

The situation only gets tricky because of the audio, and in this case it
matters what state you're in. Still, it seems like the legality hinges on
"reasonable expectation of privacy", which someone casually sitting at a
Starbucks probably does not, or at least should not have. Also, in all cases
the subject is clearly aware of being recorded.

On the other hand, in one of the clips two guys call the police and he runs
away trying to avoid confrontation. That seems odd.

~~~
DanBC
Ignoring the photography - people could feel threatened or harassed. I think
(but I do not know) that there are laws to help people who are being harassed.

Running is a good idea because many photographers - not creepy photographers -
have been arrested for taking photographs of the public, in public.

The Metropolitan Police (London, UK) had to give advice to officers and the
public about the law because so many people were being harassed unfairly.

(<http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm>)

~~~
rorrr
Many photographers also sued the city/state for being arrested for
photography, and won significant amounts of money.

[http://www.pixiq.com/article/californian-journalist-
wins-162...](http://www.pixiq.com/article/californian-journalist-
wins-162500-settlement)

[http://www.pixiq.com/article/ny-photographer-
wins-30000-in-w...](http://www.pixiq.com/article/ny-photographer-
wins-30000-in-wrongful-arrest-case)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/10...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101806575.html)

~~~
potatolicious
Yes, after their name has been dragged through the mud for being "that creepy
photographer who got arrested by the cops".

Unless your intent is to become a civil rights test case, avoiding police
confrontation as a photographer is almost always the best move.

~~~
rorrr
If I got paid $100,000 for every unlawful arrest, I wouldn't give a crap about
what some random newspaper wrote.

------
motters
I think the point here is that the notion of privacy is actually quite a
complicated one. If you asked people in a cafe or a supermarket if they knew
they were being videoed then they'd probably say "yes" and be able to point to
one of several nearby surveillance cameras, but if you dismount the
surveillance camera and hold it manually close to someone then the reaction
according to these videos is usually one of surprise shortly followed by
hostility.

If the creepy cameraman keeps up his antics then sooner or later he's going to
get arrested for stalking, and yet this kind of constant and very intrusive
surveillance is going on online all the time, and with new laws it's probably
going to become still more intrusive.

Why don't people react the same way to surveillance cameras in supermarkets,
streets, offices, etc or to the even more extensive surveillance online (think
"warrantless wiretapping" or mobile phone geolocation data)? I think this is
primarily due to anthropomorphic factors, plus habituation. The online and
CCTV surveillance isn't "in your face" and invading your personal space in
quite the same manner as someone holding a security camera. Plus, in the early
days of CCTV introduction in the 1980s and 1990s there were some people who
reacted badly to seeing cameras watching them in stores, but gradually over
time society has just become habituated to that being the normative situation.

~~~
vacri
There is also the idea of accountability. Get recorded by a camera inside
McDonalds, and you know it's unlikely to be used for stalking or similar -
it's not worth the PR damage to the company to do so. Same with cameras in a
supermarket. Plus if you get scared, just wander away.

But when the camera is held by a stranger who you don't know, who's not
engaging with you, and who follows you around, there's no sense of
accountability. You don't know who he is should you want to follow up with the
authorities.

~~~
motters
As a sociological experiment I wonder what would happen if the cameraman was
replaced by a mobile robot with a camera. Would people still react in the same
way?

------
prostoalex
Couple of trends I've noticed:

1) Recording and Web streaming technology has reached the point where it's
cheaper and easier to buy and install a bunch of 802.11n cameras and configure
them to stream to Web than to buy a configure a home security system and
fiddle with installation, DVR, hard drives, etc.

2) People manage their privacy expectations. I live in a complex that's next
to a public park, and our HOA forum erupted when it turned out one of the
neighbors was surreptitiously recording the view of the park, and posted a
video of an unleashed dog, which is a violation of park rules. After much
huffing and puffing from the dog owners who thought their privacy was being
invaded, they learned the practice is in the clear, and is perfectly legal.

3) I wish companies would stop posting the "This are is under surveillance"
signs. I understand the intent is to reduce crime, but this creates the false
impression that a private business owner or government entity is required to
post such sign on their property.

To rephrase famous Eric Schmidt quote, if you don't want something to show up
on YouTube, don't perform it in public space.

~~~
hdevalence
Re 3:

Such signs are, in fact, required by law, at least in some jurisdictions
(e.g., Canada).

------
aes256
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is a brilliant, fascinating,
and (from the one clip I've seen) well executed social experiment.

This is similar to a strategy often employed by Scientology against their
critics. Just go out and film them whenever they are in a public place.

Don't answer questions, don't give reasons, just film them. You don't need a
reason; you are in a public place, you can film whoever or whatever you want.

Truly fascinating. It's very interesting how quick many of these subjects are
to anger.

------
asdfaoeu
I don't really understand his point, it's obviously quite different to passive
surveillance cameras which: don't follow you around (are avoidable); don't
generally record sound with enough fidelity to discern conversations; and are
operated by more reputable entities than some random creep. It wouldn't
surprise me if his behaviour in the videos wasn't already illegal.

~~~
lifeformed
I think it's reasonable to imagine a not so distant future where surveillance
equipment can cover all those things: 1) are ubiquitous, 2) can record
excellent audio quality (and perhaps be transcribed and automatically
analyzed), and 3) is cheap enough for any venue (or random person) to own.

~~~
comrh
Exactly, the article even mentions Google Glass. Think about the future, what
if everyone is recording you, your casual interactions in public. Gets as
creepy as those videos pretty fast.

------
scotty79
I'd probably react same way if this guy had no camera and just stood and
looked at me and listened to what I say.

------
comice
Imagine if everyone got this angry whenever they noticed a CCTV camera.
Imagine putting up CCTV in your store and all your customers started ranting
about privacy and left, or called the police. It'd be amazing. There would be
no CCTV.

Wondering how we can get people this fired up about privacy in other contexts.

~~~
greenyoda
Most stores that have surveillance cameras use them to deter shoplifting or
robbery. So it's possible that if the stores were forced to remove their
cameras, they'd have to raise their prices to make up for the lost revenue.
Or, the store would just hide the cameras so the shoppers couldn't see them.

------
geuis
With the exception of @comice, I think almost everyone here is missing the
point of what this project is about.

It's not about legality of having the right to film in public. It's an act of
art to point out the discrepancies in our perceptions of how we are
surveilled.

When the camera is on a wall, it just becomes an object in the environment.
When the camera is attached to a person walking around, it gets pulled out of
the environment and into our perceived personal space. The end result is the
same, video being captured of your actions at very close range and you don't
know where it's going or what's being done with it.

The _only_ difference is what the device is attached to. This is an animal
instinct at play, and is why most people totally miss the point. We don't
start responding at an emotional level until it feels like another creature
has locked its eyes on us.

The last part to remember is how _difficult_ it must have been for the guy. If
you have ever done street photography, you'll immediately recall the gut-level
discomfort that sometimes shows up when taking photos of strangers. When your
subject looks back at you with those "why are you photographing me" eyes, you
shirk. It takes a lot of repeat practice doing this until you learn to ignore
that discomfort. This fellow was getting up close and personal with his
subjects and it must have been 10 times worse. I can imagine he really had to
psyche himself up to do it before he got over the discomfort.

------
capred
I find it interesting that he records everyone else and puts them up on
youtube but doesn't reveal his own identity.

More of his approach is about antagonizing people and seeing how they react
rather than highlighting the ubiquity of surveillance equipment.

I wonder how he would react if he was the one being antagonized.

~~~
mvzink
I imagine he would react at least as negatively, given that he was bothered by
surveillance enough to do this project.

------
grannyg00se
This would have gotten very interesting if he had tried his experiment on the
sidewalk outside of a schoolyard or daycare playground.

Unfortunately his experiment has a confusing methodology because he is
introducing himself as a variable in the testing. And barging into closed
rooms completely complicates the point.

Then again, maybe his objective is simply to stir up some discussion.

I'd like to see this tried with some less irritating filming method. Perhaps a
small camera mounted to a moveable remote control device with a sign on it
indicating that it is conducting random anonymous surveillance.

------
donpark
Creepy Cameraman is a Paparazzi, meaning that what he is doing to common folks
on video is no different from what famous people are being subjected to
everyday.

Question is why is it acceptable to us when Paparazzis do it to Hollywood
stars but not when same is done to us?

~~~
kaolinite
It's a complicated issue however there is a difference: film stars make money
from being famous. The more well known they are, the more money they get for
an appearance in a film. Being famous is just as much their job as acting.

I'm not saying that they therefore have no right to privacy - I'm not even
sure exactly what my views are on the issue - but there is definitely a
difference.

Somewhat related: [http://wilwheaton.net/2012/09/heres-my-flabby-forty-year-
old...](http://wilwheaton.net/2012/09/heres-my-flabby-forty-year-old-nerdy-
self-on-the-beach-in-hawaii/)

~~~
RickHull
> Being famous is just as much their job as acting.

This seems like sloppy thinking to me. Becoming famous is a potential side-
effect of their acting job. With fame comes other opportunities, but that
doesn't make being famous a job. Who is the employer?

Likewise, getting a good night's sleep brings opportunities to excel that
might not otherwise be available. It doesn't make it my job.

------
mochizuki
This is very interesting. Though I think everything is defunct because of the
presentation of the whole thing. If he made the slightest change, i.e was
holding a microphone, people would not only stop what they were doing and
allow themselves to be recorded, but they'd let him ask them questions. I
think there's enough evidence of this in other YouTube videos where one person
calls a random person, puts on their best over zealous voice, tells them
they're from a radio station and asks them embarrassing questions that the
call-ey couldn't be happier to answer. As outlined in many books it's just a
very basic principle of social engineering. People want to give their
information out, it's just a matter of asking for it politely. If he had gone
into one of those classes and asked to sit in and record it for 2 minutes,
even without a purpose, I'm sure they would have been much more open to the
idea. A surveillance camera is on the opposite side but the same in many ways,
it's not asking anything from you and it's far enough away that people don't
feel threatened by it. There is fault in both the creepy camera mans and the
people he's recording's logic. The cameraman thinks that they have a problem
being filmed at all, and the people think that they're less safe because they
can see that they're being filmed. You can bring to their attention the fact
that they're being filmed every day all you want but that doesn't change
anything because it's so out of site and out of mind that they don't (and
won't) see it as a threat.

------
pirateking
An interesting situation would be where the one being recorded by C.
Cameraman, pulls out their cellphone and starts recording him back.
Surveillance stalemate.

------
lazyjones
Nice trolling, shows how violent and ignorant of surveillance (both the CCTV
kind and from whatever existing and new gadgets bring us) society is...

Do you ever wonder how many times your "private conversation" was listened in
on or recorded by some stranger (with his mobile phone e.g.), accidentally or
on purpose?

The point about celebrities having to endure these things every day is
excellent too ...

------
EGreg
This reminds me of something in the philosophy of ethics:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#The_fat_man>

The more remote something distasteful is from us, the more we can tolerate it.
Sometimes moral decisions come down to this. It's interesting to note how this
experiment is related to that.

------
BryanB55
What a terrible idea. This guy is going to get himself killed. I think there
are two issues here, one that he is filming but also that he is invading
personal space and picking out specific people and essentially staring at
them. Tactically, if a stranger begins staring at me or targeting me in some
odd way I consider them a threat to my life.

~~~
aes256
> Tactically, if a stranger begins staring at me or targeting me in some odd
> way I consider them a threat to my life.

Are you serious?

~~~
wlesieutre
Going out on a limb and saying he's an American. I think people here are
somewhat conditioned to say that about everything because you can CYA when you
overreact.

------
ryanstewart
I think this is an interesting project, but by recording sound, isn't he
breaking the law? If I'm recalling correctly, the security cameras he's
talking about are legal because they _don't_ record sound, only picture.

Or does the fact that it's in public (or at least the ones that are video
taped in public) make it legal?

~~~
stfu
He is clearly not very concerned about the legality, esp by running around and
recording on private property. But I guess his whole point is the there-is-a-
surveillance-camera,so-how-do-you-like-being-recorded-now illustration.

------
vijayr
This is super annoying. Why didn't one of the people recorded pull out their
cell phone and record this guy recording others, just to annoy him? And make a
"point" if that is what he is trying to do? (May be somebody did, I didn't
watch all the videos, just one to see what it is about)

------
ojosilva
This reminded me of an interesting episode ("The Entire History of You",
s01e03) of the UK's Channel 4 series Black Mirror that touches the subject of
recording our lives with a "Google Glass" type of device.

<http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/4od>

Highly recommended if you want to take a fictional look into the subject of
public surveillance.

pd: in case the Channel 4 video is not available in your country:
[http://www.tubeplus.me/player/1968872/Black_Mirror/season_1/...](http://www.tubeplus.me/player/1968872/Black_Mirror/season_1/episode_3/The_Entire_History_of_You/)

------
dhughes
I work with a few hundred cameras over my head each day I'm used to it and I
know the people who control the cameras, maybe that's what bugs people the
most; not knowing who controls the cameras?

The equipment, from Pelco, is pretty advances for being almost ten years old.
Supposedly you can see the date on a dime from a camera 30 feet away. They can
also view the digits on gas pumps from a kilometre away on the other side of a
river.

------
AliAdams
The trajectory of present technology seems to be towards a constantly greater
state of communal knowledge and awareness and I can't see a way to avoid that.
Once one person knows something these days, it is easier and easier every day
for that knowledge to be made known to others.

I don't think the interesting debate is about whether or not we should fight
the seeming inevitability of this, but rather what we can do in response to
it.

------
ripperdoc
What people are reacting to is the posed threat, or creepiness, of something.
And what we should ascertain is whether being filmed is creepy. Being followed
by a man not behaving according to social rules is an obvious possible threat
that hardly needs to be proven, but how creepy it is to be surveillanced is
another and more interesting point to prove.

So the experiment should be redone to factor out the creepy man. That means,
either have a trusted and passive person do the filming (police, reflex-vest,
etc) or to set up a tripod with a camera. Even if it was made clear that the
video would be streamed to public, I think very few people would react as they
did above, simply because a film camera is a lot less threatening than an
unknown, weird person.

Dressing up the cameraman in different clothes and behavioural patterns would
emphasize this point further. If he seem to be a tourist, a store employee,
etc he would be judged less of a threat.

It's not double standard to judge creepy cameraman differently than CCTV, it's
simply a rational conclusion that the cases are different.

------
confluence
The people are reacting to the threat that he represents, and not really to
the camera he's holding. He sounds like a young adult male and acts like he is
either delusional or insane. Humans perceive others acting specifically oddly
to themselves as a danger and tell him to back away - they don't know that he
is trying to make a point, and to them he could be a pervert, a stalker or any
other bad thing. He'd get the same reaction if he stared at them or stalked
them.

Stare/stalk situation:

> Threatened person: "Why are you staring/following me?"

> Perceived threat: "I'm just looking/walking."

> Threatened person: "Stop doing it or I'll call the cops."

Surveillance cameras don't get the same immediate reaction because there is no
human behind it who could be an immediate danger. Also they aren't literally
in your face nor as physically intimidating as an adult male would be.

The only point he proves is that perceived stalkers of unstable mental state
freak people out.

------
goldenchrome
There seems to be quite a bit of controversy in this thread. I think it would
be interesting to ask why people have an issue with being recorded in the
first place. A lot of HNers are strong on privacy but I have never really
understood why.

~~~
AngryParsley
I can't easily find your real name, so I doubt you're completely apathetic
about privacy. (Mine is in my profile.)

In normal unrecorded life, you can make a fool of yourself and nobody will
care after a couple weeks. Online, things are different. Your embarrassing
mistakes are preserved forever. Google crawls and indexes them so that
everyone can see you at your worst.

The same is true if you're being recorded. Would you like it if everyone you
met knew about your fan fiction? What about a time you got drunk and made an
ass of yourself? There are many things that are legal, but embarrassing.
Privacy allows us to present a socially acceptable persona while pursuing
bizarre or embarrassing interests. Until we get people to expand their idea of
"socially acceptable", we need privacy. Without it, mavericks would be
punished even more than they already are.

------
antonwinter
He needs to do the same experiment, but instead of putting it in their face,
attach the camera to the wall and point it at them and walk off. see if they
accept the filming then

------
andr
Already the case with British cops:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7510715.stm>

~~~
bashzor
Omg. After reading other comments, first thing I'd do when I saw a cop with
that is pull out my phone and start filming him back.

------
NIL8
I don't know what this person's motives are, but these stunts have provoked
thought and discussion about what's happening to us all and where this
"surveillance society" is headed.

Actually seeing the individual filming us can be frightening. It makes us want
to know who is filming us and why. It arouses suspicion and concern.

The unobtrusive cameras are not just to catch the bad guys, but to allow us to
move around our lives without being startled by the fact that someone
somewhere is watching us.

------
pirateking
What if your phone could detect the lens of nearby cameras (because those
cameras are detecting _you_ ), and flood it with directed light to render it
useless?

In every movie and show I have seen, surveillance cameras have always been a
joke to bypass. What is the actual state of anti-camera technology right now?
Duct tape? Laser pointer? Ski mask?

What consumer grade cloaking technology is on the horizon?

~~~
ricardobeat
[http://www.informationweek.com/georgia-tech-device-
disables-...](http://www.informationweek.com/georgia-tech-device-disables-
digital-cam/189800206)

[http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/28/worlds-largest-
private-y...](http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/28/worlds-largest-private-
yacht-features-a-laser-based-anti-photo-shield/)

------
shredfvz
__The Five Stages of Coping With Surveillance__

1\. Denial: This man isn't going to constantly video tape me for an
uncomfortable amount of time.

2\. Anger: I can't believe this man is constantly video taping me for an
uncomfortable amount of time!

3\. Bargaining: Maybe this man can be reasonable?

4\. Depression: There is no reasoning with this man.

5\. Acceptance: Constant surveillance is good for me. If I am uncomfortable,
it is because I have something to hide.

------
shanelja
Here's my $0.02.

Firstly, with regards to his actions outside of private properties, how are
his actions any different to say, a journalist stood with a camera with a long
range lense taking pictures from the highway to the office? The invasion of
privacy is still clear, the only real difference is the knowledge of the
situation.

After having security cameras follow around our every move (I live in the most
widely covered town in England) we have become numb to it, it has just become
a part of every day life to expect to be stalked by the police and other
entities. I believe the uncomfortable feelings these people experienced were
due mainly to the fact that he was also though, but that alone would not make
them uncomfortable, if say, for instance he was stood in the street taking a
video of nothing in particular, say, the other side of the road, people would
happily walk by him with little or no discomfort.

The point where he started "invading privacy"[1] by following people round is
where they began to feel uneasy, being followed by a camera man is unnatural,
but I beg the question, how is this _any_ different to paparazzi? How is this
any less legal, say, they the topless photos of Kate Middleton, following Lady
Gaga in to a hotel to get some exclusive shots or taking a photo of Madeleine
McCann's parents while they are in their home?

The legality of this is in question by a few of the posters, but I feel this
is totally wrong, it should not be the legality of whether or not to record
audio, or whether the video can persistently track you, it should be a
question of free speech versus privacy.

On the one hand you have an annoying man who isn't doing any genuine harm, on
the other hand you have a person who clearly believes their privacy is being
infringed, the question is, to whom do the majority of the rights fall.

I'm no expert on American laws, but from what I know, freedom of speech is
protected by the first amendment, and you could argue that if he is trying to
change peoples views and mentality with this video, it is in fact a form of
speech and should be afforded the same rights, though a general exclusion is
invasion of privacy, according to the Wikipedia page regarding the first [2],
but if so, why is a security camera _not_ an invasion of privacy?

I would be willing to bet a significant portion of this months wages that even
if he followed suit with the security cameras and removed the sound from his
recording, almost every person would still have felt uncomfortable, especially
in the UK, where legally, unless you are suspected of having committed an
illegal activity, a hand operated security camera can not track you for more
than 5 seconds. [3]

[1] - If indeed, the right to not be on video while in public should be
regardless as privacy, can you truly have privacy while in public?

[2] - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time,_Inc._v._Hill>

[3] - This number was given to me by an operator of the Blackburn with Darwen
CCTV unit several years ago when I took part in a visit for high school and as
such I have no proof, so take this point as opinion.

~~~
vacri
The second security guard is where the insight comes from: "I feel
threatened". What made all of the people in the video uncomfortable was not
their privacy being violated, but that an unknown person was taking lengthy
close-up interest in them. He would have had the same effect, though probably
to a lesser degree, if he'd just stood there staring at people.

It's an interesting experiment in social norms, but it's not particularly
ethical.

~~~
GlennS
I think you make a pretty good point. This experiment is meant to be about
privacy, but there's a good chance that the subject are actually reacting to
him moving into their personal space and refusing to leave.

~~~
phpnode
it's probably a combination of the two that makes it so unpleasant for the
"victims". If he was there without a camera this would be immediately seen as
aggressive behaviour. If he was filming them from a distance, they'd either
not notice or probably not really care, he'd come across as a non threatening
weirdo. But by getting up close with a camera, the unfortunate subject simply
doesn't know how to react, the weird middle ground is deeply unsettling.

------
mvkel
If this camera man acted like a real surveillance camera and held the camera
in one position vs. panning it to follow their movement, nobody would care.
Nor should they.

------
kgc
I think he would get similar reactions even without a camera. Imagine a
stranger just sitting at your table or standing there staring at you.

------
codepopacy
What I find intriguing is that apparently, in this age of ubiquitous camera-
phones, no-one pulled out their phone and started filming him.

------
suryamp
His message is clear. What should we do? Just wait for Skynet to turn on?

------
biturd
My opinion is that this guy is very illustrative of how screwed we are with
regard to privacy, yet I'm having trouble deciding which side to be on, since
I can't have it both ways.

If we could, for arguments sake, ignore the issue of different states having
different laws on the audio aspect of recording. I believe the audio law I am
referring to was designed to protect the public from being secretly recorded
on the telephone. Unfortunately, it has been misappropriated with regards to
changes in technology.

It is my understanding that you have the right to photograph/video ( again,
gloss over audio issues for a moment ) anything you desire as long as you are
on public property. You can even peer into private areas while being located
on public property. This all comes down to what is referred to as a
"reasonable expectation of privacy". Someone has already linked to
explanations if these laws.

It's the very premise that allows the paparazzi to exist and be profitable at
what they do. That and despite what the famous may say, it's a relationship
that need exist or they would not be famous. If you are sitting inside an all
glass Apple store and someone films you from outside, you had no expectation
of privacy before you walked in, every passerby is seeing you with their own
eyes just not recording it permanently.

I'm actually in support of this. I believe it's part of freedom of speech to
be able to record or photograph things while in public.

Yet oddly, I'm very much against the rise in CCTV in every store I go into. I
think perhaps this comes down to one key word for me. "Surveillance". I don't
like automated surveillance becoming more and more commonplace. But a
photographer or videographer is not performing such an act.

There's also part of me that feels all law enforcement should be recording
everything all the time. For their protection as well as the publics.

I think the guy brings up some interesting points, as before thinking about
this I was pro public ability to record, even into private spaces, asking as
from a public location. But a CCTV is doing the same in many cases. I think
most of you understand the internal debate in having with myself.

I think one interesting point is how the majority of people got immediately
angry. Some felt they had a right to privacy while in public, for which they
are wrong. And others, I believe mostly "security" took it as far as assault
and either touched, shoved, or pushed the guy with a few hitting his camera.

He may be more effective if just before he left, he handed them a small flyer
that brings to their attention all these issues. It's nice to see people have
an opinion about something, and they very clearly have strong and loud
opinions as these videos show. But they are very quiet as another 100 cameras
are installed in their local pumpkin patch.

~~~
morsch
If LEO themselves record everything all the time, the cameraman will just pan
or zoom away from police abuse, and if not, records will just disappear. They
have no incentive to present an accurate picture and plenty of incentive not
to do so, esprit de corps etc.

~~~
biturd
I was hoping they continue in the tradition they are now, which has both saved
them and gotten them in trouble in the past.

Currently they use dash mounted cameras with mics and they can't turn them off
on some models. I was hoping they would have something like a helmet mounted
GoPro or best mounted one. Yes, it won't see everything, but since they call
50 officers to a car ticket, someone will capture it.

Loss of tape should come with fines. Leo should be held to the highest of
standards. No off duty for mistakes, you are fired.

The other case I heard where it helped them was some spoiled brats were drunk
in public and called in a attempted rape charge. Tapes probed otherwise and
had the girls talking about making the false claim in tape. They got busted
pretty hard from what I recall.

------
EGreg
What would I say if this guy came up to me and sat at my table as I was
talking?

I'd say "hey, what are you doing?"

"I'm just taking a video"

"Ok, well can you go take a video from over there?"

"Ok."

He would move to another table, keep taking a video of me.

Then I would continue eating.

I am guessing movie stars have to deal with paparazzi all the time.

What if I was on some phonecall or saying something private?

Then I'd say "well can you go take a video of someone else?"

"I'm just taking a video man."

"Yeah, but you want to hear everything we're saying?"

"No, I'm just taking a video"

"And I'm just trying to have a private conversation."

"I'm just taking a video man"

(I tell the person on the phone -- hold on a sec brb, and put phone on mute)

"What are you going to do with that video?"

"Nothing, just taking a video"

"Are you trying out that camera?"

"No, just taking a video"

"So how long are you going to be taking that video?"

"You seem confused"

"Do what you want" -- and I would move somewhere else, he would follow me

"Why are you following me?"

"I'm just taking a video man"

"Okay but why are you following me?"

"I'm just taking a video."

"Of me?"

"No, just in general."

"But you're following me."

"Well, I--"

"Um, yeah. I think you've proved your point. Can you try it with someone else
now?"

"I'm just taking --"

"Yeah, I know, a video."

"Yeah"

"I guess I must be famous. You're not going to stop?"

"I'm just taking a video."

(I turn to someone who works at the store -- "This guy keeps following me with
the camera")

They turn to the guy: "Sir, I'm gonna have to ask you to stop filming"

"I'm just taking a video"

"Well you can take a video outside."

"But I'm just taking a video..."

"Sir, please leave now."

(they escort him out)

(I resume the conversation and have a good laugh at what just happened, still
not sure what the guy's point was.)

~~~
jere
"What are you doing?"

"Oh, just writing a transcription of the video"

"But we don't need a transcription of the video. How about an insightful
comment?"

"It's OK. I'm just writing a transcription."

~~~
EGreg
It's not a transcription of the video!

------
wilfra
The camera is not what bugs these people, it is him. If it were a cute little
kid or a super model - or just somebody with a much better attitude - there
would have been a much different response.

~~~
ikawe
Would you say that standard surveillance cameras have a good or bad attitude?

~~~
overcyn
Neither. Surveillance cameras don't interrupt classrooms. Surveillance cameras
don't distract musical performers. Surveillance cameras don't walk on to
private property after being told to leave.

Hes an asshole who happens to be carrying a camera. And then when people get
irritated, he makes it out as if the camera is the primary cause.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
Regardless of his behavior, the point he's making is totally valid. You can no
longer claim that "I'm doing nothing wrong, therefore I don't mind being
recorded on security cameras wherever I go" - if you saw the sheer extent of
footage collected of you and the data that can be extrapolated from that
footage, you would be horrified.

