Hacker News Reader

Comment by randomhodler84 | Hacker News Reader

Translated: “But gawking is not a trivial offense. Since January 1, 2021, a law has been in force that punishes photographing or filming an accident with a prison term of up to two years. With their action, the Johanniter show the drastic consequences and dangers of the greed for sensation and explain the punishments.“

I find this very heavy handed. What harm is simply photographing an accident scene, as long as you are not causing disruption. There was a recent case in .au where a guy filmed a several cops dying from a truck accident and taunting them (they were trying to give him a ticket when hit by another truck driver). He was sentenced to 10 months for breaking public decency.

View on HN

I agree it does come off as extreme, but I can understand the desire to provide society with some reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space when someone might no longer be able to consent to being in public.

Sure, it's part of the inherent risk calculation when we venture out or interact with public space, but at the same time if I can no longer remove myself from that space when I want to achieve some privacy I think it's reasonable that society change the context of the space. At that point I would think that laws pertaining to the violation of privacy (like those regarding peeping-toms) should apply.

That being said, and going back to the "no longer consent to being in public", what about drunks, or children who cannot legally exercise consent? There's a million ways this can get very hazy very fast.

Reasonable expectation of privacy applies by default to photos in public in Germany (with exceptions at events, public interest/press, ...).

You're making a great point here, that I've never heard before in the debate. Not only in the specific issue of the article, but public life in general.

I think the argument is that drunks did consent, in the same spirit as a drunk driver carry a responsibility. Still, going too far might be harassment. Guardians are responsible for making choices for minors until they can make those choices themselves.

> What harm is simply photographing an accident scene

These days a “good” accident scene video will get you a ton of view on social media which translates to a lot of money. If someone crashes and is dying bleeding out on the road, the financial indentures for passers by is to stop straight away, increasing the risk of further accidents, and rushing to the scene to get the best possible shot of the dying person.

I honestly cannot see the problem in just removing that whole tangent completely by making it illegal.

The only proper action at a scene of an accident is to help out if possible or get the hell out of the way.

The infamous German tabloid/gutter press Bild also pays you money for videos or photos and credit you as "citizen journalist". Similarly news agencies ask you on Twitter if they can use your footage.

Might be something about empathy. If you got into a car accident and were lying on the street with a removed limb, would you like random strangers taking photos of you?

There are a lot of things I would like and not like, some of them more reasonable than others. If government is intended to prevent violation of rights, ‘not liking’ being photographed in public seems a poor justification for imprisoning someone.

Imprisoning photographers of the police is a already a punishable crime in France. So do we call the leaders like Macron an autocrat or dictator like we do in other countries.

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20201121-new-french-law-b...

Meanwhile cops and national guardsman violently attack journalists and protestors and their phones in all the protests ranging from Ferguson, Baltimore in the Obama era to the George Floyd ones in the summer under Trump era.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-p...

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/19/6047123/nearly-a-third-of-thos...

https://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/19/us/ferguson-journalists-a...

https://www.insider.com/117-journalists-arrested-or-detained...

https://cpj.org/2020/08/charges-remain-against-journalists-a...

The journalists and citizen journalists are under constant attack.

Germany is not France. No German court will not punish you for filming an officer abusing a civilian/protestor/etc. But you will be punished for taking a gore video of someone dying.

It is in Germany too. You are generally entitled to your own image.

https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/photography-laws-germany

Germany takes personal rights in such situations a lot more serious than other countries. E.g. you can't just take pictures of other people in public either - extra penalty for accident victims just expands on that due to extreme circumstances and their helplessness (and gives police the power the act immediately, vs the victim that might not even know having to pursue it afterwards)

I wish you had translated the first two medics' statements:

The first one reports arriving at a bridge where somebody was about to commit suicide by jumping. A whole group of people started filming it.

The second one reports that he's experienced people reaching over his shoulder with their phone to get a better view

Filming a vehicle crash where no humans involved would be of little interest or reason to create such a law on its own merits, which suggests two intersecting motivations (knowing nothing about how this came to be):

1. Drivers are filming crashes and causing further crashes due to being distracted drivers.

2. Human beings are considered to have an automatic right to privacy in scenarios lacking a compelling public interest.

Speaking to one reason only would not weaken the need for the law, so take care to consider the wider concerns beyond just privacy rights alone.

Technically, if human privacy rights are legally enforced in the country where this law exists (unlike the United States), then the existing privacy law could be considered sufficient for #2. But having it on the books makes the judgement call much easier for the general (non-press, non-authority) public, and it also provides a clear warning about crash porn taken by first responders who find fascination with that sort of thing.

All around, it seems a healthy enough law given the context of their country’s human privacy rights. I imagine the press will find cause to argue the edges of it, but I’m hard pressed to come up with any significant benefit to the general public that is being set aside. Identifying such a benefit would be key to arguing that this oversteps.

> what harm is simply photographing an accident scene, as long as you are not causing disruption

Because it always causes disruption.

This has been illegal for a while. You can't photograph people if it shows their helplessness[1]. The examples I found (I wrote this article) specifically mention people photographing accidents.

In general, German photography laws are pretty strict. I like that it prevents things like Worldstar or /r/publicfreakout. People can still have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even when they leave the house.

[1] https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/photography-laws-germany

Your translation is not correct, it says "filming the victims of an accident". So presumably filming an accident from a distance (where the victim cannot be identified and you are not in the way of the rescue workers) is not illegal.

This is the death by a thousand papercuts you get when you open the door to an area of regulation. Likely more things will be illegal to film in Germany soon, such as police activity ("it's for national security, you know?")

Reply on news.ycombinator.com