Hacker News Reader

Comment by g-b-r | Hacker News Reader

The chinese guy becomes a huge moron when he claims he touched her, but the pianist is a big jerk as well.

Calling "freedom" the right to film (and publish on YouTube) anyone is ludicrous (yeah I know how many Americans do that).

Your freedom ends when others' freedoms begin, and if you had to assume that everything you do in public would be stored forever for the world to see your freedom just tanked.

View on HN

These guys were literally just filming themselves playing the piano, when they were approached by people completely outside the view of the camera telling them to stop.

Largely yes, but then the pianist did approach and have them specifically filmed

I think the Chinese didn't move because they were recording something and wanted to do it in that place, but most of all they wanted what had already been recorded of them to be deleted / blurred.

Sure it's a little ironic if they were recording themselves, but in many countries you expect it to be a right to have recordings of you at least not distributed (and it is ironic for PRC people to talk about rights).

In the UK filming in public and publishing the film anywhere is indeed a right and freedom, so you're mocking British concepts of freedom and the pianist for defending it.

It's ludicrous to claim you have a right to force others to avert their cameras when you are out in public, and that otherwise, your rights are violated. If you don't want to be seen, wear a mask. The public and its eyes/cameras don't belong to you.

If that's British concept of freedom I'm most definitely mocking it.

You can't see that you're forcing people to act in some way when you film them.

The kind of freedom you defend here is the one of reducing other people's freedom (by a larger amount than what you sacrifice by not filming).

You're not forcing people to act in any way by filmimg them. Filming is not an act of force, and yet you advocate employing state force to restrict it.

You do, and it is, even if it doesn't involve muscles.

Can I avoid it if you refuse to blur me / not upload the video ?

Sure, by beating you up maybe, but that's not really allowed in today's society xD

You haven't described any aspect of filming you that forces you to do something, yet still maintain a right to use force against those who film in public.

You can't see how you're forced to constrain your behavior if you're going on YouTube? (assuming you were presentable to begin with)

If your behaviour would somehow be considered unacceptable when the camera isn’t rolling, then yes, I could see that constraining someone’s actions.

I don’t see that as a negative though.

Unacceptable behavior would be unacceptable camera or no camera, since you're in public (even in countries that limit recording you generally can record illegal behavior, if it's to report it to law enforcement).

But the minimal standard for simply walking among strangers and for being recorded forever for the world to see is very different, if you care about your dignity.

And that's all assuming there are surveillance cameras to limit other actions in the first place

Nope, not forced

That's already what your assumption should be.. don't go out in the public if you don't like to be filmed. We have freedom laws specifically for this so I am failing to see your point for this? Public spaces are _public_ .

You fail to see how not going out in public is a reduction of freedom?

How do you feel about all the surveillance cameras permeating society?

Extremely bad

Were you born after they spread, by any chance?

My point is, you're being filmed in most all public spaces all the time. Some rando filming doesn't really change the amount of privacy you do or don't have.

EDIT: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/thrxuy/iso_surveill...

Oh so Americans do care about being filmed in public xD

Surveillance Camera Man might be my new hero, if his goals where the ones I hope.

Although I might want to turn away the surveillance cameras as well, some rando filming could be worse for:

- uploading the video to YouTube

- sometimes reaching places that are not really covered with cameras

- and in the Surveillance Camera Man case specifically, for it being more likely that the video be used for nefarious purposes

There's a difference.

CCTV footages aren't used for profit and it will not be published to the public.

Brendan's live video is used for profit and is published for everyone to see.

cctv footage gets published all the time for profit

https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=security+...

Then send me a link of a CCTV camera around your local mall or train station. They only publish it if it will be used for the news / evidence of a crime.

You mean to say CCTV footages in its entire duration gets profit?

Your freedom to not be recorded in public ends where others' freedom to record still pictures and live video begins. I am surprised that your are learning about competing interests so late in life. Some countries come down on the side of the person doing the recording, and other countries come down on the side of the person not wishing to be recorded.

Since not recording (or blurring) is a much lesser sacrifice, and for millennia you could rely on cameras and YouTube not being around, it's easy to decide which side to favour.

At this point I wonder if this recording freedom idea was one of those used to spread surveillance cameras (I wasn't following English media at the time)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com