‘Creepy Cameraman’ pushes limits of public surveillance

This is nothing like public surveillance, just as Google's use of tracking cookies is nothing like having a random stranger look over your shoulder and stare as you search the web.

This cameraman walks up to and harasses specific people. When you are in public, and there's a surveillance camera, you aren't being targeted specifically. You're no more interesting than anyone else in the frame. Moreover, it's highly unlikely that anyone's full-time job consists solely of watching the one camera that happens to point towards you. Maybe there is a guard watching an array of a dozen cameras. The unit of human attention directed towards you is much, much less.

Furthermore, a creepy guy holding a camera is a very different type of potential threat than a camera mounted on a wall. The people filmed don't know that he's just going to film them. He could begin mumbling erratically, ask them for money, or even physically attack them. All of these possibilities are especially likely considering he already violated social norms by wordlessly coming up to them with a camera.

I don't think this demonstrates anything about surveillance. The guy is a jerk and I found myself empathizing with his victims. I don't buy the point he's supposedly trying to prove.

In Europe (and we see this all over the world now) we also have what I would call network surveillance, for example the "Data Retention Directive" in EU[0].

The philosophy is: «We are observing you and saving the data, but if you do not do anything illegal no one would ever see what we have recorded. So, you can't really call it surveillance."

These are actual arguments made in this debate, and it reminds me that we are not only under surveillance by cameras, but also online.

What this guy is doing in the videos is (probably) not illegal, just really offensive and obtrusive. Equally disrespectful are the surveillance cameras, only they are hidden away. Out of sight, out of mind.

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive

This experiment would have been equally disturbing to people had he done everything the same but not held a camera. The camera is not what is creeping people out.

If I was in a classroom and someone came and stood five feet away and just told me they were watching me, I would be on edge as well.

Beware of the gargoyles: http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/cyborg/kawstretch.html

«Gargoyles represent the embarrassing side of the Central Intelligence Corporation. Instead of using laptops, they wear their computers on their bodies, broken up into separate modules that hang on the waist, on the back, on the headset. They serve as human surveillance devices, recording everything that happens around them. Nothing looks stupider; there getups are the modern-day equivalent of the slide-rule scabbard or the calculater pouch on the belt, marking the user as belonging to a class that is at once above and far below human society. They are a boon to Hiro because they embody the worst stereotype of the CIC stringer. They draw all of the attention. The payoff for this self-imposed ostracism is that you can be in the Metaverse all the time, and gather intelligence all the time. [Snowcrash 123-124]»

Can someone comment on whether or not he is actually breaking any laws? Especially when simply recording on public streets?

At least based on this article "Know Your Rights: Photographers" (http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographe...) what he is doing is perfectly legal: video-taping while standing on public property. On private property it is not ok and you have to leave when asked, which he does.

The situation only gets tricky because of the audio, and in this case it matters what state you're in. Still, it seems like the legality hinges on "reasonable expectation of privacy", which someone casually sitting at a Starbucks probably does not, or at least should not have. Also, in all cases the subject is clearly aware of being recorded.

On the other hand, in one of the clips two guys call the police and he runs away trying to avoid confrontation. That seems odd.

I think the point here is that the notion of privacy is actually quite a complicated one. If you asked people in a cafe or a supermarket if they knew they were being videoed then they'd probably say "yes" and be able to point to one of several nearby surveillance cameras, but if you dismount the surveillance camera and hold it manually close to someone then the reaction according to these videos is usually one of surprise shortly followed by hostility.

If the creepy cameraman keeps up his antics then sooner or later he's going to get arrested for stalking, and yet this kind of constant and very intrusive surveillance is going on online all the time, and with new laws it's probably going to become still more intrusive.

Why don't people react the same way to surveillance cameras in supermarkets, streets, offices, etc or to the even more extensive surveillance online (think "warrantless wiretapping" or mobile phone geolocation data)? I think this is primarily due to anthropomorphic factors, plus habituation. The online and CCTV surveillance isn't "in your face" and invading your personal space in quite the same manner as someone holding a security camera. Plus, in the early days of CCTV introduction in the 1980s and 1990s there were some people who reacted badly to seeing cameras watching them in stores, but gradually over time society has just become habituated to that being the normative situation.

Couple of trends I've noticed:

1) Recording and Web streaming technology has reached the point where it's cheaper and easier to buy and install a bunch of 802.11n cameras and configure them to stream to Web than to buy a configure a home security system and fiddle with installation, DVR, hard drives, etc.

2) People manage their privacy expectations. I live in a complex that's next to a public park, and our HOA forum erupted when it turned out one of the neighbors was surreptitiously recording the view of the park, and posted a video of an unleashed dog, which is a violation of park rules. After much huffing and puffing from the dog owners who thought their privacy was being invaded, they learned the practice is in the clear, and is perfectly legal.

3) I wish companies would stop posting the "This are is under surveillance" signs. I understand the intent is to reduce crime, but this creates the false impression that a private business owner or government entity is required to post such sign on their property.

To rephrase famous Eric Schmidt quote, if you don't want something to show up on YouTube, don't perform it in public space.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is a brilliant, fascinating, and (from the one clip I've seen) well executed social experiment.

This is similar to a strategy often employed by Scientology against their critics. Just go out and film them whenever they are in a public place.

Don't answer questions, don't give reasons, just film them. You don't need a reason; you are in a public place, you can film whoever or whatever you want.

Truly fascinating. It's very interesting how quick many of these subjects are to anger.

I don't really understand his point, it's obviously quite different to passive surveillance cameras which: don't follow you around (are avoidable); don't generally record sound with enough fidelity to discern conversations; and are operated by more reputable entities than some random creep. It wouldn't surprise me if his behaviour in the videos wasn't already illegal.

I'd probably react same way if this guy had no camera and just stood and looked at me and listened to what I say.

Imagine if everyone got this angry whenever they noticed a CCTV camera. Imagine putting up CCTV in your store and all your customers started ranting about privacy and left, or called the police. It'd be amazing. There would be no CCTV.

Wondering how we can get people this fired up about privacy in other contexts.

With the exception of @comice, I think almost everyone here is missing the point of what this project is about.

It's not about legality of having the right to film in public. It's an act of art to point out the discrepancies in our perceptions of how we are surveilled.

When the camera is on a wall, it just becomes an object in the environment. When the camera is attached to a person walking around, it gets pulled out of the environment and into our perceived personal space. The end result is the same, video being captured of your actions at very close range and you don't know where it's going or what's being done with it.

The only difference is what the device is attached to. This is an animal instinct at play, and is why most people totally miss the point. We don't start responding at an emotional level until it feels like another creature has locked its eyes on us.

The last part to remember is how difficult it must have been for the guy. If you have ever done street photography, you'll immediately recall the gut-level discomfort that sometimes shows up when taking photos of strangers. When your subject looks back at you with those "why are you photographing me" eyes, you shirk. It takes a lot of repeat practice doing this until you learn to ignore that discomfort. This fellow was getting up close and personal with his subjects and it must have been 10 times worse. I can imagine he really had to psyche himself up to do it before he got over the discomfort.

I find it interesting that he records everyone else and puts them up on youtube but doesn't reveal his own identity.

More of his approach is about antagonizing people and seeing how they react rather than highlighting the ubiquity of surveillance equipment.

I wonder how he would react if he was the one being antagonized.

This would have gotten very interesting if he had tried his experiment on the sidewalk outside of a schoolyard or daycare playground.

Unfortunately his experiment has a confusing methodology because he is introducing himself as a variable in the testing. And barging into closed rooms completely complicates the point.

Then again, maybe his objective is simply to stir up some discussion.

I'd like to see this tried with some less irritating filming method. Perhaps a small camera mounted to a moveable remote control device with a sign on it indicating that it is conducting random anonymous surveillance.

Creepy Cameraman is a Paparazzi, meaning that what he is doing to common folks on video is no different from what famous people are being subjected to everyday.

Question is why is it acceptable to us when Paparazzis do it to Hollywood stars but not when same is done to us?

This is very interesting. Though I think everything is defunct because of the presentation of the whole thing. If he made the slightest change, i.e was holding a microphone, people would not only stop what they were doing and allow themselves to be recorded, but they'd let him ask them questions. I think there's enough evidence of this in other YouTube videos where one person calls a random person, puts on their best over zealous voice, tells them they're from a radio station and asks them embarrassing questions that the call-ey couldn't be happier to answer. As outlined in many books it's just a very basic principle of social engineering. People want to give their information out, it's just a matter of asking for it politely. If he had gone into one of those classes and asked to sit in and record it for 2 minutes, even without a purpose, I'm sure they would have been much more open to the idea. A surveillance camera is on the opposite side but the same in many ways, it's not asking anything from you and it's far enough away that people don't feel threatened by it. There is fault in both the creepy camera mans and the people he's recording's logic. The cameraman thinks that they have a problem being filmed at all, and the people think that they're less safe because they can see that they're being filmed. You can bring to their attention the fact that they're being filmed every day all you want but that doesn't change anything because it's so out of site and out of mind that they don't (and won't) see it as a threat.

An interesting situation would be where the one being recorded by C. Cameraman, pulls out their cellphone and starts recording him back. Surveillance stalemate.

Nice trolling, shows how violent and ignorant of surveillance (both the CCTV kind and from whatever existing and new gadgets bring us) society is...

Do you ever wonder how many times your "private conversation" was listened in on or recorded by some stranger (with his mobile phone e.g.), accidentally or on purpose?

The point about celebrities having to endure these things every day is excellent too ...

This reminds me of something in the philosophy of ethics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#The_fat_man

The more remote something distasteful is from us, the more we can tolerate it. Sometimes moral decisions come down to this. It's interesting to note how this experiment is related to that.

What a terrible idea. This guy is going to get himself killed. I think there are two issues here, one that he is filming but also that he is invading personal space and picking out specific people and essentially staring at them. Tactically, if a stranger begins staring at me or targeting me in some odd way I consider them a threat to my life.

I think this is an interesting project, but by recording sound, isn't he breaking the law? If I'm recalling correctly, the security cameras he's talking about are legal because they don't record sound, only picture.

Or does the fact that it's in public (or at least the ones that are video taped in public) make it legal?

This is super annoying. Why didn't one of the people recorded pull out their cell phone and record this guy recording others, just to annoy him? And make a "point" if that is what he is trying to do? (May be somebody did, I didn't watch all the videos, just one to see what it is about)

This reminded me of an interesting episode ("The Entire History of You", s01e03) of the UK's Channel 4 series Black Mirror that touches the subject of recording our lives with a "Google Glass" type of device.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/4od

Highly recommended if you want to take a fictional look into the subject of public surveillance.

pd: in case the Channel 4 video is not available in your country: http://www.tubeplus.me/player/1968872/Black_Mirror/season_1/...

I work with a few hundred cameras over my head each day I'm used to it and I know the people who control the cameras, maybe that's what bugs people the most; not knowing who controls the cameras?

The equipment, from Pelco, is pretty advances for being almost ten years old. Supposedly you can see the date on a dime from a camera 30 feet away. They can also view the digits on gas pumps from a kilometre away on the other side of a river.

The trajectory of present technology seems to be towards a constantly greater state of communal knowledge and awareness and I can't see a way to avoid that. Once one person knows something these days, it is easier and easier every day for that knowledge to be made known to others.

I don't think the interesting debate is about whether or not we should fight the seeming inevitability of this, but rather what we can do in response to it.

What people are reacting to is the posed threat, or creepiness, of something. And what we should ascertain is whether being filmed is creepy. Being followed by a man not behaving according to social rules is an obvious possible threat that hardly needs to be proven, but how creepy it is to be surveillanced is another and more interesting point to prove.

So the experiment should be redone to factor out the creepy man. That means, either have a trusted and passive person do the filming (police, reflex-vest, etc) or to set up a tripod with a camera. Even if it was made clear that the video would be streamed to public, I think very few people would react as they did above, simply because a film camera is a lot less threatening than an unknown, weird person.

Dressing up the cameraman in different clothes and behavioural patterns would emphasize this point further. If he seem to be a tourist, a store employee, etc he would be judged less of a threat.

It's not double standard to judge creepy cameraman differently than CCTV, it's simply a rational conclusion that the cases are different.

The people are reacting to the threat that he represents, and not really to the camera he's holding. He sounds like a young adult male and acts like he is either delusional or insane. Humans perceive others acting specifically oddly to themselves as a danger and tell him to back away - they don't know that he is trying to make a point, and to them he could be a pervert, a stalker or any other bad thing. He'd get the same reaction if he stared at them or stalked them.

Stare/stalk situation:

> Threatened person: "Why are you staring/following me?"

> Perceived threat: "I'm just looking/walking."

> Threatened person: "Stop doing it or I'll call the cops."

Surveillance cameras don't get the same immediate reaction because there is no human behind it who could be an immediate danger. Also they aren't literally in your face nor as physically intimidating as an adult male would be.

The only point he proves is that perceived stalkers of unstable mental state freak people out.

There seems to be quite a bit of controversy in this thread. I think it would be interesting to ask why people have an issue with being recorded in the first place. A lot of HNers are strong on privacy but I have never really understood why.

He needs to do the same experiment, but instead of putting it in their face, attach the camera to the wall and point it at them and walk off. see if they accept the filming then

Already the case with British cops: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7510715.stm

I don't know what this person's motives are, but these stunts have provoked thought and discussion about what's happening to us all and where this "surveillance society" is headed.

Actually seeing the individual filming us can be frightening. It makes us want to know who is filming us and why. It arouses suspicion and concern.

The unobtrusive cameras are not just to catch the bad guys, but to allow us to move around our lives without being startled by the fact that someone somewhere is watching us.

What if your phone could detect the lens of nearby cameras (because those cameras are detecting you), and flood it with directed light to render it useless?

In every movie and show I have seen, surveillance cameras have always been a joke to bypass. What is the actual state of anti-camera technology right now? Duct tape? Laser pointer? Ski mask?

What consumer grade cloaking technology is on the horizon?

__The Five Stages of Coping With Surveillance__

1. Denial: This man isn't going to constantly video tape me for an uncomfortable amount of time.

2. Anger: I can't believe this man is constantly video taping me for an uncomfortable amount of time!

3. Bargaining: Maybe this man can be reasonable?

4. Depression: There is no reasoning with this man.

5. Acceptance: Constant surveillance is good for me. If I am uncomfortable, it is because I have something to hide.

Here's my $0.02.

Firstly, with regards to his actions outside of private properties, how are his actions any different to say, a journalist stood with a camera with a long range lense taking pictures from the highway to the office? The invasion of privacy is still clear, the only real difference is the knowledge of the situation.

After having security cameras follow around our every move (I live in the most widely covered town in England) we have become numb to it, it has just become a part of every day life to expect to be stalked by the police and other entities. I believe the uncomfortable feelings these people experienced were due mainly to the fact that he was also though, but that alone would not make them uncomfortable, if say, for instance he was stood in the street taking a video of nothing in particular, say, the other side of the road, people would happily walk by him with little or no discomfort.

The point where he started "invading privacy"[1] by following people round is where they began to feel uneasy, being followed by a camera man is unnatural, but I beg the question, how is this any different to paparazzi? How is this any less legal, say, they the topless photos of Kate Middleton, following Lady Gaga in to a hotel to get some exclusive shots or taking a photo of Madeleine McCann's parents while they are in their home?

The legality of this is in question by a few of the posters, but I feel this is totally wrong, it should not be the legality of whether or not to record audio, or whether the video can persistently track you, it should be a question of free speech versus privacy.

On the one hand you have an annoying man who isn't doing any genuine harm, on the other hand you have a person who clearly believes their privacy is being infringed, the question is, to whom do the majority of the rights fall.

I'm no expert on American laws, but from what I know, freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment, and you could argue that if he is trying to change peoples views and mentality with this video, it is in fact a form of speech and should be afforded the same rights, though a general exclusion is invasion of privacy, according to the Wikipedia page regarding the first [2], but if so, why is a security camera not an invasion of privacy?

I would be willing to bet a significant portion of this months wages that even if he followed suit with the security cameras and removed the sound from his recording, almost every person would still have felt uncomfortable, especially in the UK, where legally, unless you are suspected of having committed an illegal activity, a hand operated security camera can not track you for more than 5 seconds. [3]

[1] - If indeed, the right to not be on video while in public should be regardless as privacy, can you truly have privacy while in public?

[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time,_Inc._v._Hill

[3] - This number was given to me by an operator of the Blackburn with Darwen CCTV unit several years ago when I took part in a visit for high school and as such I have no proof, so take this point as opinion.

If this camera man acted like a real surveillance camera and held the camera in one position vs. panning it to follow their movement, nobody would care. Nor should they.

I think he would get similar reactions even without a camera. Imagine a stranger just sitting at your table or standing there staring at you.

What I find intriguing is that apparently, in this age of ubiquitous camera-phones, no-one pulled out their phone and started filming him.

His message is clear. What should we do? Just wait for Skynet to turn on?

My opinion is that this guy is very illustrative of how screwed we are with regard to privacy, yet I'm having trouble deciding which side to be on, since I can't have it both ways.

If we could, for arguments sake, ignore the issue of different states having different laws on the audio aspect of recording. I believe the audio law I am referring to was designed to protect the public from being secretly recorded on the telephone. Unfortunately, it has been misappropriated with regards to changes in technology.

It is my understanding that you have the right to photograph/video ( again, gloss over audio issues for a moment ) anything you desire as long as you are on public property. You can even peer into private areas while being located on public property. This all comes down to what is referred to as a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Someone has already linked to explanations if these laws.

It's the very premise that allows the paparazzi to exist and be profitable at what they do. That and despite what the famous may say, it's a relationship that need exist or they would not be famous. If you are sitting inside an all glass Apple store and someone films you from outside, you had no expectation of privacy before you walked in, every passerby is seeing you with their own eyes just not recording it permanently.

I'm actually in support of this. I believe it's part of freedom of speech to be able to record or photograph things while in public.

Yet oddly, I'm very much against the rise in CCTV in every store I go into. I think perhaps this comes down to one key word for me. "Surveillance". I don't like automated surveillance becoming more and more commonplace. But a photographer or videographer is not performing such an act.

There's also part of me that feels all law enforcement should be recording everything all the time. For their protection as well as the publics.

I think the guy brings up some interesting points, as before thinking about this I was pro public ability to record, even into private spaces, asking as from a public location. But a CCTV is doing the same in many cases. I think most of you understand the internal debate in having with myself.

I think one interesting point is how the majority of people got immediately angry. Some felt they had a right to privacy while in public, for which they are wrong. And others, I believe mostly "security" took it as far as assault and either touched, shoved, or pushed the guy with a few hitting his camera.

He may be more effective if just before he left, he handed them a small flyer that brings to their attention all these issues. It's nice to see people have an opinion about something, and they very clearly have strong and loud opinions as these videos show. But they are very quiet as another 100 cameras are installed in their local pumpkin patch.

What would I say if this guy came up to me and sat at my table as I was talking?

I'd say "hey, what are you doing?"

"I'm just taking a video"

"Ok, well can you go take a video from over there?"

"Ok."

He would move to another table, keep taking a video of me.

Then I would continue eating.

I am guessing movie stars have to deal with paparazzi all the time.

What if I was on some phonecall or saying something private?

Then I'd say "well can you go take a video of someone else?"

"I'm just taking a video man."

"Yeah, but you want to hear everything we're saying?"

"No, I'm just taking a video"

"And I'm just trying to have a private conversation."

"I'm just taking a video man"

(I tell the person on the phone -- hold on a sec brb, and put phone on mute)

"What are you going to do with that video?"

"Nothing, just taking a video"

"Are you trying out that camera?"

"No, just taking a video"

"So how long are you going to be taking that video?"

"You seem confused"

"Do what you want" -- and I would move somewhere else, he would follow me

"Why are you following me?"

"I'm just taking a video man"

"Okay but why are you following me?"

"I'm just taking a video."

"Of me?"

"No, just in general."

"But you're following me."

"Well, I--"

"Um, yeah. I think you've proved your point. Can you try it with someone else now?"

"I'm just taking --"

"Yeah, I know, a video."

"Yeah"

"I guess I must be famous. You're not going to stop?"

"I'm just taking a video."

(I turn to someone who works at the store -- "This guy keeps following me with the camera")

They turn to the guy: "Sir, I'm gonna have to ask you to stop filming"

"I'm just taking a video"

"Well you can take a video outside."

"But I'm just taking a video..."

"Sir, please leave now."

(they escort him out)

(I resume the conversation and have a good laugh at what just happened, still not sure what the guy's point was.)

The camera is not what bugs these people, it is him. If it were a cute little kid or a super model - or just somebody with a much better attitude - there would have been a much different response.