[flagged]
The article is primarily about the latter. So this is like telling people to stay home if they don't want TikTokers harassing them in public.
How about just stop bothering people you don't know for 'content'?
This trend isn't new. I've seen people swarmed by TikTokers on the street once or twice, then asked questions to make them look stupid and laughed at. I too was mobbed by a hardbass crowd when that was a meme on social media about ten years ago. I was on a second or third date with someone at a restaurant, and it wholly ruined the mood when my date and I were made fools on some video that luckily never went viral.
It's not strictly dangerous or harmful, but it's definitely not a social interaction most people want. When you are the subject, it feels like you've been taken advantage of against your will, and publicly humiliated. And if the video goes viral, that's exactly what you will be.
And you're making this claims about all videos in this format or what? The "Man on the street" format isn't anything new. I don't think you have any evidence to state this as an absolute.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a video camera in public but you can be publicly humiliated and harassed without a camera too.
My disagreement is that there is no law requiring consent to film in public and there shouldn't be. We should clearly define what kind of behavior is considered harassment and create more avenues to reduce it but that is irrespective of recording. Something that was harassment without recording is still harassment with recording and vice-versa.
You're the one who makes the claim.
Is it "harassment"? I don't know, I'd say probably not quite. It's certainly is rude and annoying beyond what I would consider reasonable.
Yes, it is technically achievable by some measure, but nobody living anything resembling a reasonable life is going to avoid ever going in public.
It's also fine for people to want different things to be acceptable or not in different circumstances; I am fine with adults wearing swimsuits at the beach, but would be uncomfortable if they went to my child's kindergarten class in them.
Figuring out the trade-offs and coming up with compromises is the whole value proposition of society.
1. One is if we say that a person has a right to remain private and retains right to their image under any or some circumstances.
2. Another is if we say that a person has a right to observe and record their observations freely, always or under some circumstances.
Both are highly subjective, especially when it comes to particular conditions - that's for sure. Both could be true (or not, some may argue), and in practice they're kind of balanced - but with different places valuing one thing over another, creating a different balance.
Whatever an individual may like or dislike doesn't actually matter, except for being a data point - those in power (be it a power of democracy or authoritarianism) define the rules. If someone doesn't like the rules of the place they live in - well, there's no definite answer to that. Sometimes the ridiculous "live somewhere else" is the only practical answer (no jokes or sacrasm intended).
Which is a completely valid and reasonable statement.
Consider the statement "if you don't like being bullied, completely isolate yourself from all humans forever." This is a valid way to avoid being bullied. It is also, however, not at all practical.
It is also completely valid and reasonable, and much more tenable in reality, to propose alternative solutions (e.g. punitive action against bullies, teaching good coping mechanisms to victims, making people not want to bully, etc.)
Similarly, one valid approach to Celiac is to not eat any food at all ever. An equally valid approach is to not eat gluten. The latter requires some more social buy-in (e.g. ingredient lists), but that effort makes it wildly more achievable in practice.
Being valid doesn't mean that something is the best, or even a good, recommendation.
"History"
"An early instance of this argument was referenced by Henry James in his 1888 novel, The Reverberator:
If these people had done bad things they ought to be ashamed of themselves and he couldn’t pity them, and if they hadn’t done them there was no need of making such a rumpus about other people knowing.
"Upton Sinclair also referenced a similar argument in his book The Profits of Religion, published in 1917 :
Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my relatives and friends — people residing in places as far apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile of a government official to whom I complained about this matter: "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." My answer was that a study of many labor cases had taught me the methods of the agent provocateur. He is quite willing to take real evidence if he can find it; but if not, he has familiarized himself with the affairs of his victim, and can make evidence which will be convincing when exploited by the yellow press.
"The motto
`If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear'
has been used in defense of the closed-circuit television program practiced in the United Kingdom."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt
https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.disciplineAndPunish...
"This enclosed, segmented space, observed at every point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place, in which the slightest movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded, in which an uninterrupted work of writing links the centre and periphery, in which power is exercised without division, according to a continuous hierarchical figure, in which each individual is constantly located, examined and distributed among the living beings, the sick and the dead — all this constitutes a compact model of the disciplinary mechanism."
https://i.pcmag.com/imagery/reviews/0244he8B2BeMYIAYRB8LNH5-...
> When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society[1].
However, this does not apply to areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Public restrooms and (I'd assume) skirts included [2].
[1] https://www.aclusocal.org/en/photographers-rights [2] https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/PHOTOG.pdf
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/upskirting.h...
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115
I’ve shot street photography and photojournalistic/documentary work for over a decade now and this seems to be the recurring discussion: “It’s legal to just take pictures of people in public?” And yes, it is. It’s literally how photojournalism works and why child labor (Lewis Hine), civil rights (Gordon Parks), war abuses (Don McCullin), and so much more made it to the forefront of National discussions. Not saying TikTok content is that quality but the laws protecting public recording are an essential component of freedom of expression. Once you start choosing which content gets to be recorded due to some subjective quality rating you fall into censorship.
Apparently it also doesn't apply to court rooms. Nor does it apply to nudity or partial nudity even if publicly photographed.
Somewhere, not all that far along the range, these cross a threshold into harassment, stalking, or other things that people generally recognise as unacceptable. In "public places" the threshold is slightly further along the range but not very much.
But filming in public or taking photos rarely is prohibited.
Publishing without consent mostly is prohibited.