Some videos are still up: https://www.twitch.tv/justsmurf/videos/all
Creepy as fuck to be honest
Creepy as fuck to be honest
“Creepy” is not a good argument. What’s offensive to you is normal to me, what’s creepy to me is normal to you.
Is it a policy violation of Uber/Lyft? That doesn't seem like the case because there are other drivers that livestream uber rides.
Is it a violation of reasonable expectation to privacy when you're in someone else's vehicle? Because that's not necessarily a given, since you're in someone else's vehicle.
Is it because it's being live streamed and recorded on a site like twitch? Because it seems to me that if someone can legally record video, it's their copyright, and they can distribute it however they want to.
What am I missing?
> a violation of reasonable expectation to privacy
Probably. The customers expected that they just take a ride and are not being filmed. They don't expect that their face will be published on the Internet so that anyone can find their social network page and learn who they are.
> if someone can legally record video, it's their copyright, and they can distribute it however they want to.
It should not be this way. Wikipedia says that in some countries there are laws against this [1]. Of course, some laws could be written before Internet become popular so they need adaptation.
This article [2] also mentions that surveillance can be regulated by laws.
Finally, there are personality rights [3] although they are related to commercial activity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_photography
I think there's a wide gulf between what people estimate their rights to be and their actual rights granted to them by law.
I understand your sentiment with not having your image spread throughout the internet without your permission, but asking for that right would break journalism.
I'd be up for a fix so long as it doesn't create criminals of both professional photographers and tourists livestreaming on times square, say.
That said, in the US these rights are very weak compared to other countries, so this might very well be legal. In some states, audio recording without consent is not legal, but Missouri appears to be one-party-consent.
Otherwise news outlets would never be able to publish the video they capture, especially in the coverage of breaking news.
There's a reason things like model releases for photography and film exist: Having the copyright for something does not mean you have full freedom to use it. Again, in the US these rights tend to be limited, but even there they exist. E.g. while you can freely photograph in public (which is not the case everywhere in the world), you can't use people's image for advertising without permission, you can't freely use photos of artwork in public places or of some buildings, ..., all despite having the copyright on your images.
In fact it's hard to see how his behavior is illegal, given today's laws.
It might be creepy, but a lot of creepy things are not illegal.
Then (grandparent poster should) select better adjectives when making a point.
Is it less creepy if it's just some guy watching old surveillance videos if he works for a security company? Or the NSA? Because... well, look, if you find this creepy you'll just make yourself sad reading about what our government does.