I accidentally had a popular political live stream | Hacker News Reader

I accidentally had a popular political live stream

medium.com

64 pointsduggan18 comments

AFAIK in Hungary you can't just put out your camera pointing to the street and start recording indefinitely. You can apply for permission though. I don't know what's the case with actively going out with a camera and streaming, I would definitely not do that on a political event though even if it's legal.

Not everything has to be done following the rules, sometimes the best things come out when you don't care about the rules.

As others have said, legal restrictions on broadcasting political events have dubious morality.

I can't judge your specific circumstances, but I can say how much I admire the people involved in the highly illegal activities of the 1967 writer's conference[1] that was at least partially responsible for the Prague Spring.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring#1967_Writers.2...

> legal restrictions on broadcasting political events have dubious morality.

Well I do not doubt this. However voluntarily documenting that you were there could hit back decades later. It's hard to predict the political situation in the far future even if you have a pretty good democratic setting in the present.

If you limit your speech based on a speculative Orwellian autocracy, you are already living in your own personal one.

Don't tell Roko's Basilisk.

That actually is a very close analogue, isn't it.

Nearly exact I think. Only difference being the thing being created is a government system instead of an AI, and the torture is done physically, instead of to a simulation.

And really, if one accepts the idea of a simulation of oneself as being oneself, then the govt/ai distinction is, I think, mainly decoration at that point.

Hm.

I think the analogy is pretty good. I've used the political example as a way to think about Roko's basilisk without the extropian/singularity mysticism that attaches to the original formulation.

Recast, you could say: At some point within your natural lifetime, a brutal dictator will probably arise in the world (because, let's face it, horrific despotry is a recurring theme in human affairs). Clearly, any such dictator will want to punish people who did not help their rise to power by putting them in torture camps. Therefore, it is your only rational option to seek out the most brutal, repressive tyrant you can find and help them gain power. Any other action would be foolish!

While that sounds kind of absurd, people do act on it. People assume that there will always be a neighborhood bully, a local crime boss, an exploitive employer, and so they try to get on the good side of the inevitable by gravitating to the most ruthless (and therefore most likely to overpower the others).

In most countries, this is (rightfully) illegal. You have a right to privacy, even in public places, and this includes not getting filmed arguing with your girlfriend by a stranger who then publicizes the video.

In most (Western) countries you have a right to privacy when there is a reasonable expectation to privacy. What you do on the public streets is presumably something you don't mind the people seeing.

What you are suggesting is analogous to yelling out a personal secret and then being mad that people "eavesdropped".

> What you do on the public streets is presumably something you don't mind the people seeing.

The law of certain countries disagree with your.

A simple example that applies to the Italian law and to almost all continental EU countries. You are allowed to take pictures of every public crowd, simple. BUT you are not allowed to share (display) those pictures if they contain elements that could lead to the identification of somebody who is "already known to the general public". [1] The definition of "already known to the general public" is very fuzzy.

In addition, you are going to be in trouble if you publish a photo a crowd where there are minors and the faces of those minors have not been blurred or authorized.

[1] http://www.fotografi.org/pubblicabilita_foto_ritratto_esempi...

What you're criticising doesn't sound like what he did, though. The political stream he mentioned in the title was coverage of a specific event.

Is it? The exact boundaries of Article 8 are unclear.

http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/what-can-we-do-about-neig...

Citation needed.

Also, if you are in public you are in public. I have no problem being recorded there.

Situation in the Netherlands:

You can record people on the street with say your phone if you hold it yourself, but actually mounting a surveillance camera anywhere in public domain (except a dashcam) is only allowed in two cases. (1) people are adequately warned before-hand that there's a camera. (a warning sign will do, but a tiny sticker wouldn't, hidden cameras thereby can't be legal in any case) or (2) the camera doesn't film actual people. (e.g. bird watching, a live internet cam that watches the traffic or weather, or a busy square where the camera is zoomed out so much that individual people aren't recognisable).

Security cameras in public areas fall under similar conditions, but of course most of them are on private property where there are different rules. However, a shop is also public domain, despite being private territory, because shop owners open their doors to the public. So here, too, cameras surveillance must be communicated, too. (which can be the camera being very openly visible, a monitor showing camera footage indicating there's surveillance, signs, or e.g. a warning on the ticket of say a concert).

In short, what he did wouldn't have been allowed as it appears like he built this camera, 'hid' it (or didn't position it so it's easily visible to all), and didn't inform those being taped that they were being taped. That wouldn't have been allowed here, and I wouldn't be surprised if Dublin is similar. The solution would've been easy, and perhaps those taped e.g. ringing all bells wouldn't have if they knew they were being taped doing so.

What he did after, holding a phone and walking around, was completely fine, though.

But that's taping. Publishing (e.g. in a livestream to all) isn't always allowed. The law says it mustn't damage the 'reasonable interests' of a person, which refers to privacy issues. It's a bit vague what this means but I can easily imagine 'reasonable interests' relating to privacy meaning for example arguing with your girlfriend. None of that happened for the OP though, so his livestream was fine.

That's not true in much of the US. Their are a surprisingly high number of cameras pointed at the streets including security, ATM, private web cams, and weather cams.

If I can see you with my eyes, why can't I see you with my camera?

If your presence in public spaces was "private" then I wouldn't be able to observe it simply by being there.

tangent: "Winter 2010 was a tough one for a lot of people. Physically, it was brutally cold, the coldest in more than a century. I had to stuff up my stupid, impractical windows with black bags and cower with an electric heater through the nights."

Black bags are not going to do it. Get a 3m window insulation kit. It is available in Ireland and actually does a pretty good sealing job. Used it in an apartment in ND and it did wonders. Plus, you can remove it easily so it doesn't damage the apartment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com