Hacker News Reader

Comment by kmlx | Hacker News Reader

so it’s illegal to film someone on a street in switzerland and post it online?

This is the norm in Europe. Filming a crowd is fine, making a picture of the Eiffel tower with people around it is fine, filming a specific person and publishing it without their consent generally isn't. "Generally" because obviously it gets more interesting in the specifics of when it is ok, but those are exceptions similar to how copyright has exceptions.

“THE TOWER ILLUMINATED Controlled use The various illuminations of the Eiffel Tower (golden illumination, twinkling, beacon and events lighting) are protected. The use of the image of the Eiffel Tower at night is therefore subject to prior authorisation by the SETE. This use is subject to payment of rights, the amount of which is determined by the intended use, the media plan, etc.”

https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel...

I guess that explains the distinct lack of public freakout videos from Europe.

I think that's more related to the fact that most Europeans normally speak languages other than English.

A bit difficult to post them when they are illegal, no?

Not at all actually. There is a constant stream of compromising material posted online in Europe. It's a huge problem actually, because it's notoriously hard to get such stuff taken down, as the authorities simply do not care.

Yes, you would need to make them unidentifiable by blurring their face, anonymizing their voice and any other feature that may identify them.

Wide shots of crowds are generally ok in public, the issue is focusing on specific people. For example someone having a mental breakdown in public.

You also can not have door bell or private cameras pointing to public streets/roads. You have to ensure your camera only records your property and you are required to post a sign that a camera is installed.

So having a dash cam in your car isn’t allowed?

It may or may not be OK to record without having a notice if your intention is a specific private use, like your own legal defense. It would certainly not be OK to publish a video clip of a specific person you encountered that may be embarrassing.

For example, you can be fined for publishing footage of an accident where someone was hurt and may feel embarrassed that other see them in that condition, but it may be OK to give it to police or legal council of people involved.

At least here in Norway the issue isn't taking the photo or filming, but publishing it in any way.

Jein (German word joke that combines Ja & Nein / Yes & No).

The short answer is: they are allowed BUT. There are many privacy rules that prohibit the actual use of these recordings (not limited to publishing but in court as well).

The assumption of privacy is very strong here.

https://eu.cobra.com/blogs/news/are-dash-cams-legal-europe

Not everywhere in europe, simmuliar applies to Doorbell cameras.

https://community.security.eufy.com/t/background-blur-for-th...

If it's similar to Denmark or Germany, then yes. More or less.

If you use a wide angle lens form afar and the person in question is just a small blimp in the background it can be ok. At least that is how I understood it.

But you can't just walk up to a person and take their photo.

You also can't have a security / doorbell camera that records public road. I think if you watch it live, that part can be recorded. But no 24/7 background recording of public spaces.

I like it :)

Sounds reasonable.

I wonder if there are exceptions for photographing police and other government officials? Seems like there should be. And what about the reverse? Are police body cams allowed?

Same applies, you can film the police but you can't post it online as they as individuals have a right to privacy as well. Misconduct is handled by the appropriate authoritative which will view such tapes but not by the Public although such footage will end up in the media with the police officer's identities anonymized.

Police body cams are permitted but the handling of the recordings is very strictly controlled. The same applies to public cameras such at train stations etc. There are clear signs indicating they are present and the footage has strict retention policies. In many cities now it is also illegal for these camera to do any type of face recognition.

In only very extreme situations can the government share footage with the media where a person is identifiable.

That's interesting. It must make it a lot more difficult for reporters trying to capture images and videos of newsworthy events. It seems like exposing corruption could be a lot more difficult if regulatory capture ever happens.

It gets more country-specific the deeper you get into it, but usually there are exceptions for people in the public eye (like politicians or celebrities), events of sufficient public interest, etc.

> you can film the police but you can't post it online as they as individuals have a right to privacy as well

This is perverse. What "privacy right" do police officers have when they are on duty or acting under color of law? I think no public official should have a right to privacy while they are actively performing their duties as public officials (this would not apply to their personal life, which is why there should also be very strict restrictions to ensure that all public work is done in public). I also count police officers in this, since they have extra-legal rights compared to the rest of us, being the very embodiment of the state's "monopoly on violence".

If a police officer is doing something heinous, why should they deserve any privacy at all outside of their personal life, where they in theory don't have the right to use their police powers?

Your baby/bathwater filter seems to be on the fritz.

If, as in the common case, a police officer is performing their duty correctly, why should they as a private individual be singled out, maligned, their personal safety be threatened, etc. etc?

If you’re coming at this from e.g. the US perspective where the situation with police is a very stylized us/them, this may feel odd.

If they're performing their duty correctly, a video of their work should not be harmful to them at all.

Situations like this are the only time I feel the saying "if you don't have anything to hide, you'd let people look" is appropriate, when concerning people with power "over" common folk. This wouldn't apply to officers doing plainclothes or undercover work, as there would be no reason for a bystander to assume they were a police officer being abusive or doing their job incompetently. This would apply to uniformed officers going outside of the bounds of what is reasonable. It's not a perfect solution, no, but it's a lot better than "uniformed officers have a right to privacy while uniformed and officering, and it is morally wrong to film them in the process of wrongdoing".

There must always be strong checks on authority, lest it be abused. Perhaps the US is up there in the list of offenders, but then again they're not the worst offender in the world by far. Any modern democratic nation is susceptible to authoritarians and fascists wresting control if they don't institute strong protections against it happening.

There are other reasons to protect someones privacy. An office may be doing everything to the book but accidentally shit his pants due to what he had for lunch. Having a video of this circulate in public and being the laughing stock of the town is why we have these laws. With the internet something like this would haunt a person for their entire life.

Everyone deserves the right to privacy and misconduct should be dealt with by the appropriate superiors/agencies and not by public shaming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com