Hacker News Reader

Comment by insickness | Hacker News Reader

In the US, it is legal to photograph and film in public as long as there is not an expectation of privacy, such as a restroom. And it should remain legal. If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop. If I'm on a public sidewalk filming a private business, they can't tell me to stop.

You can't legally use someone's image in an advertisement without their consent. But that's different than having the right to film in public. If I'm filming and you walk in front of my camera, you don't have the right to force me to stop filming. You don't own public space.

View on HN

>If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop

to clarify this is legal here as well. Places or people of public interest are excluded from this. So crimes, public figures, monuments, public buildings and so on you can photograph as much as you want. The law protects private individuals, say someone taking your picture specifically on a train, in a gym or what have you.

>You don't own public space

That is true but the idea is that the public space should not become a voyeuristic zoo. Photographing spaces is fine, but individuals should not lose their privacy entirely just because they leave their home.

> The law protects private individuals, say someone taking your picture specifically on a train, in a gym or what have you.

How does the law differentiate between public places and individuals? For example, if you're sitting in a park and I want to take a photo of the park, how would the law differentiate between me taking a photo of you versus taking a photo of the park?

I am unaware of the specific law in Germany, but the way this kind of thing usually works in much of the world is that a judge or jury decides what the photo is "of" after being apprised of the relevant context. There are a lot of laws that deal with intent; the processes for this is pretty well-worn.

I feel like people in the US really need to hear these perspectives when it comes to laws. We're a bit boarish here in the states and seem to approach laws in this all or nothing kind of way (I'm too tired to point out examples). But, showing that a law like this can be tweaked or nuanced nto the degree where yes you can film cops and no you can not film pedestrians or people eating outdoors at a cafe, might level us up a bit. (And, then maybe also showing how you're also not going to get arrested if you're a tourist taking pictures of the Statue of Liberty and people walk into the shot. Saying that, cuz that's usually the next response in our wonderfully litigious society). (snark overload this morning)

We should be very hesitant to create laws that we expect to be selectively enforced, because it empowers law enforcement to make all sorts of bad decisions in the moment.

This already happens with photos and filming despite the general presumption of legality. Adding a bunch of nuanced exceptions would make it much worse.

Understand that the way this works is that officers can stop you from filming at any time. Then later you might get a judge to say, “the officer had no legal right to stop you.” The officer goes “oops” and that’s it. Obviously you cannot go back in time and get the moment that you missed.

A clear, simple, well-known presumption of legality makes it a lot harder for a misbehaving officer to appeal to the concept of a “judgment call.” And it makes it easier for a judge to say “you should have known” and impose consequences on the officer.

There already are nuanced exceptions. Technically, recording someone having a conversation on a phone can violate wire tap laws, even if you didn't interfere with the device. You can record police, but you're required to be back a certain distance (8' I think). Many states also allow private recording, but only if you reasonably believe a crime of violence might be committed. Etc

Ostensibly, the officer is open to a US 42 1983 color of law violation since there are court decisions affirming the right to record police in public.

All laws are enforced selectively, AGs have full discretion on what they decide to prosecute and what to ignore.

That is true but the idea is that the public space should not become a voyeuristic zoo.

Is looking at other people in public voyeuristic? Or is using a camera for watching it back later what makes it voyeuristic?

This whole thread is a parody of the "I can't define porn but know what it is when I see it"

My retail customers had to apply for surveillance license when they put up cameras facing streets. I couldn't remember if it was US or UK...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com