Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jach | Hacker News Reader

And knowing this, do you make an effort to avoid surveillance cameras or petition their removal? Do you go to any great lengths to improve your personal privacy more than your peers who don't know this? I know it too, but I'm still not bothered by surveillance cameras, I just ignore them and I'd probably just ignore this dude too. Brent Spiner would do his 'death stare' (http://telly.com/OFUVJ#none). It's important to remember his videos don't show everyone, they probably only show the most entertaining reactions, I'm sure plenty of people just ignored him. (Even in the video people who have business elsewhere do just ignore him, they walk right by.)

View on HN

> Do you go to any great lengths … ?

If he does not, does that disqualify him from holding an opinion on surveillance cameras? Is he complicit in their proliferation if he has not significantly altered his life in protest?

The only chance we have for avoiding a disturbingly Orwellian surveillance culture is to combat the public ignorance about the extent and power of the systems now in construction.

> I just ignore them and I'd probably just ignore this dude too.

In contrast, I thought the strong reactions from the people on film were admirable. Running away without expressing disapproval is cowardly; if I were with my family, I would give the guy fair warning, then rush him for being predatory.

> If he does not ...

No, I'm just interested if his behavior is significantly different from those around him that are ignorant. Because for me, it's not. And if that's true in the general case,

> The only chance ... combat the public ignorance ...

is false.

> Running away

is not the same as ignoring. Also, one can hardly express one's disapproval if one is indifferent.

> ... I would give the guy fair warning, then rush him for being predatory.

If I were the guy, I'd make sure to charge you with as many crimes as I could. Just because you announce your intention to beat up an annoying jerk before you actually beat them up doesn't make it acceptable behavior.

This brings up an interesting twist to the conversation: Should it be considered self-defense to defend your privacy? That seems to be one possible category for the discussion: "do you care enough to defend yourself" (petitions and such) extended to "if you do care enough to do it, what should be your legal limit of self defense? Is your privacy an extension of your self?"

In countries where privacy is a well defined and better protected concept, courts have ruled that actions such as destroying the camera used can be covered under self-defense [1].

[1]: http://www.burhoff.de/insert/?/asp_weitere_beschluesse/inhal... He [the accused] does not have to confine himself to covering his face, but may choose a defense that is suitable to end the attack immediately and permanently

> No, I'm just interested if his behavior is significantly different from those around him that are ignorant. Because for me, it's not. And if that's true in the general case,

A very important point to discuss. While I don't know specifically his change of behavior there are more widely known cases to discuss.

For example Soviet Union and East Germany. I can tell you that the behavior of people was different, especially on the phone where part of the surveillance took place. Youth, being mostly ignorant about that in some cases got their parents in trouble which in turn affected parents' behavior at home.

I think the takeaway from these and other cases is that public's change of behavior is function of security services' activities (corrupt or not). All it takes is several known cases of visits from the authorities about things one said over the voip or im conversation. Or the authorities pressuring their catch for money or cooperation in unrelated case to 'help them out'.

I also think this directly affects how free we feel. If we would constantly have to guard what we write in e-mails as to not to be remotely connected to what might be seen as mentioning the current enemy of choice, then some freedom is lost.

>In contrast, I thought the strong reactions from the people on film were admirable. Running away without expressing disapproval is cowardly; if I were with my family, I would give the guy fair warning, then rush him for being predatory.

In this case I would not see running/walking away as cowardly. By staying or making a scene he will continue filming you and therefore possible having film of you doing some action you may later regret or at least could be edited to make you look like you're in the wrong. It's also unlikely you would actually get the camera footage from the camera man. I think the best course of action would be to contact a local law enforcement officer and then proceed with a court case if you didn't like the out come of that or wanted to pursue getting the video footage. Really though if you just walk away I think they camera man would just leave you alone.

"If I were with my family, I would give the guy fair warning, then rush him for being predatory"

Photographing people in public places is not "being predatory". In fact, it's perfectly legal in the U.S. So you'd get probably get charged with assault.

Stalking is not legally, and his videoer freely admits to stalking.

I think stalking requires an ongoing effort to track somebody, or repeat offences. I'm not sure you could actually get this guy with stalking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Reply on news.ycombinator.com