Both my kids (and me) found it very off-putting, so there's some anecdata that at least some young kids still feel it's an invasion of privacy.
Maybe not all is lost.
The same guy did similar when his mom was on her death bed. Jesus Christ.
(I'm sure everyone is different, but I've been there as the father-to-be, and I would have made a good effort of turning that live-stream into a live-colonoscopy.)
I am so sorry for your loss and I am out of words. Just, I just want to be with ya in silence for a while. I am sorry that you had to go through this. I am really speechless
But even now, yes you may have proved your point but death is so fucking weird and not talked about and sometimes I just get speechless, like someone just left the earth, let that sink in...
Honestly, I can somewhat both understand why he was live streaming now wanting more comments/everyone's final messages to go to her mother but at the same time, its definitely privacy invasive and might show their last moments and something of a behaviour I don't condone but I just don't know, now my opinion is mixed.
I didn't know the lady at all. I didn't even end up meeting the cousin, I heard about all this after the fact. My wife isn't broken up either - kind of distant family.
Audio is different from video. This is technically illegal, as consent is explicitly required in the law for audio recording.
What jurisdiction has that rule? Are you sure you're not conflating simple audio recording with a recording of audio telecommunications?
If it's me, I'm leaving the party. If it's my children attending, I'm strongly recommending them to leave the party (or just leave with them, depending on their age). Live-streaming a birthday party of children is obnoxious behavior that should not be tolerated.
The downside is the misuse of the law, what happens constantly, to basically prohibit (at least in practice) ANY recording activity. Is not unheard of, I have seen and experienced myself quite a few times, for example, a tourist being stopped and asked to delete a video of a simple recording in a park (police called immediately), because a random stupid person was around and wants to show how good he knows his rights… (see sister comment)
Because in German publishing images/recordings of an individual without consent violates basic constitutional rights. And that’s nothing to f** with.
If minors were involved you’d be in a whole different can of soup even.
So while I don’t advocate for violence - as others have hinted in this thread - a black eye could actually be the lesser negative outcome for such a person.
If you're wandering around livestreaming and picking up conversations you're not a participant in, it's a violation of federal wiretapping laws.
I watched multiple videos from Portland ICE protest, multiple videos of ICE arresting people, all with audio. Half the people at protests are recording.
If you were right all that would be illegal.
The magic word is: "reasonable expectation of privacy".
If you're in public, like in streets, in the mall etc. you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy. You can be recorded, with audio, and it's legal.
The two party consent rules only apply to private conduct e.g. you have a phone conversation. In states with two party consent the other person can't record the conversation without notifying you.
What you describe as "US federal law" sound more like anti-wiretapping law i.e. I can't plant a bug in your house and record your conversations. Which is duh, but not relevant to being recorded while in public.
Your ICE protest example is performed in public, its a protest, its not meant to be private, thus fails the test of "reasonable expectation of privacy". Action taken by agents of the state are also public actions, this has been tried many times in court.
Two-party consent is not federal law and varies state-by-state. But again it requires that you actually be a party to consent.
And yes by "US Federal Law" I am referencing the anti-wiretapping laws which prohibit, among other things, interception of oral communication via electronic means unless at least one party consents.
It's usually simpler than that: if you see them recording you, and if they aren't trespassing (i.e. breaking the law otherwise); or you are on their property or on public property that they are legally permitted to use, which carries a posted sign telling you that you may be recorded, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Otherwise you do.*
Somebody could possibly hear something has nothing to do with it. Consenting to being heard is not consenting to being recorded. But maintaining your presence in a place where people are allowed to record is. If it's your party, tell them to put it away or leave. If it's their party, you leave. If you are recording surreptitiously and you are not working with law enforcement, it's probably not going to be admissible in court and if you publish it, you're going to get sued. Depending on your state and local laws, you are likely to lose badly.
-----
[*] All of this depending specifically on how the term is defined in your state and local laws. For example, video has often been separated from audio for pragmatic reasons; security cameras are meant to record physical acts, not conversations. For a second example, many states have decided that sending your voice over a wire to a designated recipient as an electronic signal is already consenting for the person receiving that signal to be able to record it and use it as they please; others have not. For a rationale in the second case, imagine that you didn't have the right to reveal a letter that was sent to you.
Just a note because I myself made the same argument very loudly 1-3 weeks ago...and was informed some states have different laws than I expected. Massachusetts, in particular.
(Note that MA limits clandestine recording, not the obvious recording in TFA blog about airsoft -- and it has been neither upheld nor overturned by SCOTUS)
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law
>>> Massachusetts makes it a crime to secretly record a conversation, whether the conversation is in-person or taking place by telephone or another medium. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99. Accordingly, if you are operating in Massachusetts, you should always inform all parties to a telephone call or conversation that you are recording, unless it is absolutely clear to everyone involved that you are recording (i.e., the recording is not "secret"). Under Massachusetts's wiretapping law, if a party to a conversation is aware that you are recording and does not want to be recorded, it is up to that person to leave the conversation.
>>> This law applies to secret video recording when sound is captured. In a 2007 case, a political activist was convicted of violating the wiretapping statute by secretly recording video of a Boston University police sergeant during a political protest in 2006. The activist was shooting footage of the protest when police ordered him to stop and then arrested him for continuing to operate the camera while hiding it in his coat. As part of the sentencing, the court ordered the defendant to remove the footage from the Internet. From this case, it appears that you can violate the statute by secretly recording, even when you are in a public place.
Expectation of privacy is
If two people are talking at a party, and a third person obviously comes by within earshot, then the two people can either stop talking, or they can continue, but the third person is now party to the conversation.
Someone walking around live streaming would become party to all the conversations.
Any jury with parents on it will acquit.
The age of posting on Facebook under your real name with privacy settings public is long gone because of the numerous obvious risks.
But just being seen in a small segment of a YouTube video with no name is a pretty minor risk.
According to my 18 year old niece, FB is just for old people anyway. (Thank god I never really used it). They still use Instagram, though.
Privacy concerns .. are little in general. Hard to be popular, when you avoid the mainstream plattforms. And yes, private groups are on the rise everywhere.
It might become a slightly larger risk when image processing and face recognition get cheap enough that anyone can search to find every video/livestream/photo containing your face.
- the victim knows they are fake, which provides some emotional distance (similar to when actors choose to use prostetics or doubles for a nude scene: the viewer doesn't know but the actor still feels more comfortable)
- most of them are bad enough that the discerning eye can spot it as an AI image (many chronically online people are scarily good at that)
- they can be proven to be fake because they are just an imagined version of your body ('look, I have a tatoo/mole/scar/blemish here that isn't in the nude, it's obviously fake')
AI nudes are still pretty bad, but services that turn up nude images of you by indexing the internet with face-detection are way worse
Also, if you down sample the quality of the video, it would be even harder to tell it was a fake.
That’s neither here nor there. Would you want even a fake nude of you online?
That's neither here nor there, the claim was that deepfakes were a replacement for actual nudes, but you're maybe overlooking that the actual invasiveness is an important part of what the abuser finds appealing about the real thing.
Both are of course terrible, they're both abusive and both are becoming illegal in more and more places, but one is more invasive than the other.
I'm also aware there are probably a number of guys on this site who work in that space so just as a message to you if you're reading: You suck.
It's given rise to a much richer form of social media and "personal brand" building when done well, IMO. Although I have noticed the tide starting to turn, with the amount of us-vs-them sentiment all over the internet lately.
Honestly, if I was a kid just discovering social media today, I'd be extremely guarded too.