"Creepy Cameraman" pushes the limits of public surveillance.

People have come to accept surveillance cameras as a part of everyday life. But what happens when someone is carrying the surveillance camera instead?
That’s the question raised by a series of online videos in which an unidentified man takes a camera around Seattle and other parts of Washington state, walking up to people and recording them for no apparent reason other than to make a point: How is what he’s doing different than those stationary surveillance cameras tucked away in buildings and public places?

Link to source and YouTube videos.

To make a point about public surveillance, a fellow has been walking up to people, with a camcorder in hand filming them. When asked why he's doing what he's doing, he gives simple replies like "You were just in the drugstore weren't you? There's cameras in there as well."

(Paraphrasing.)

But people's reactions of course are a little different. Most people are so accustomed to being in view of cctv, (or accustomed to ignoring them) that they don't really see it the same way.

-

What do you think?

I don't really see it any different than the Google glasses idea.

People don't seem to mind things, unless they are faced with them directly, it seems...

Yea, i get what he is saying.

But I can't help but feel that there is a difference between voyeurism and CCTV.

My business has 96 cameras located within it. I can watch any of them from my cell phone, as long as I have a 3g capable connection or better. The only time I watch is to get a feel for the flow of business, etc. And when I have to contact authorities to submit it as proof of a crime.

If that is where it stops, then I am fine with it. But I have seen the reports that all CCTV sofware diverts a stream to the NSA data storage. That is a whole 'nuther animal.

I like how they use the term "creepy" to automatically make the brainwashed masses think what he's doing is bad.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


The only real difference between your set up and the camera guy though.. is that people can see him standing in front of them. You could be watching customers walk around your business while they are completely ignorant to the fact.

But, don't get me wrong, I actually believe private business have every right to record on their property. It's when the lines get blurry and private enterprises begin selling or offering their data to government and vice versa that causes concern.

Right now the concern is minimal, but as facial recognition develops third party marketing could be projected to an entirely new level. Which is great from a professional standpoint (for myself) but even I cringe at some of the tactics I use in a day to day basis with clients and prospective clients.

reply to post by boncho


If they make you cringe, why do you do it?

Originally posted by bonchoI don't really see it any different than the Google glasses idea.

You hit the nail on the head there. I mean, Google glasses are nothing more then camcorders you can wear on your head that films everything you do. (Well, kinda anyways.) If people think this is "innovative" then why do they have a problem with people just using a bigger version? Like a camcorder? It's something I'm not too keen on, I don't like constantly being watched. I don't mind stores (explained why below) but when everyone and their grandma's have recording capabilities posting it online and sharing it with friends and the like, it just becomes too much.

The future of 1984 isn't London and it's atrocious surveillance cameras, it's idiots always connected to Facebook, Google+ with cameras in their glasses.

Say hello to Big Brother 2.0

Originally posted by bonchoPeople don't seem to mind things, unless they are faced with them directly, it seems...

Which is exactly the problem with the world today. People don't care unless it DIRECTLY effects them in one fashion or another. Like poverty. Why should they care? After all they have food in their stomachs. That's just one example out of a plethora of others one could use.

We need to start caring. Not just about cameras, but everything. That being said, private cameras in private locations (like stores) I totally understand and agree with. If you don't like it, then don't enter that store or work there. It's there for loss prevention and store security. A right the owner of the store has in order to protect himself.

reply to post by boncho


We do data collection frequently as a way to market our business. We have a honey pot set up to gather email addy's of interested parties. Of course, it is all on the up and up, we let them know why we want their email (to send invitations to events, etc).

The idea that I could use facial recognition to get a roster of people who actually walk through my building....that is something that is interesting to consider from a marketing perspective.

You likely don't have to worry about people like me, who just want to find better ways to inform people of what we are doing so they can make their decision to ignore us or not. What you DO have to worry about is the back doors that are alleged in every single piece of CCTV software that diverts that info to the NSA. It isn't that the info gets sold insomuch as it is just siezed. Ostensibly for "national security".

With the whole surveillance state, the question s who is watching the watchers. In this case people get to see the watcher and they don't like it. I also liked the robotic responses given by the video maker, that helps create the arbitratory nature of a surveillance state.

I think the point he is trying to make about public cameras is a 100% perfect miss. The public camera is recording everyone and everything that comes into it's range. Nothing personal and odds that anyone later watching it even notices me are slim to none unless I've done something wrong or illegal to make it a point to watch me.

THIS guy is 'in your face' obnoxious...making it 100% personal and generally being as confrontational as humanly possible.

There are escalated responses to someone invading my personal space and being confrontational in my face. Not everyone should be responded to with a smack upside the head for such blatant stupidity.....but I promise you, this man wouldn't have his camera in a functional condition if he ignored the first couple polite requests to get out of my face with it.

Yeah...I'd buy the moron a new one.....but after running HIS time through civil court chasing the claim for as long as I could draw it out for his inconvenience....since causing other people grief seems to amuse him.

This guy has a problem understanding what expectation of privacy and tresspassing mean. He has all the rights in the world to shoot in the public. Not the same thing as going on to private property.
There was a thread about this guy in some other place I shall not mention. One comment said something like:

I've seen this guy in action. He is pissed about 1st amendment and the fact that you can shoot people in public without their consent. He was photographed doing something in public that got him into trouble. He will keep doing this untill the privacy laws are changed.

That is just an anonymous comment but would certainly explain such behaviour.

I watched all of his videos, i found all of them funny especially when the people ask him "did you ask us to film me or us?". I believe that was his point, people that put up cctv cameras on the streets at every corner never asked anyone if they could film everyone, they did it without any ones consent and continue to do so.

Well I just think this is great! Sure, he's creepy, but, why not? When you put a face behind the surveillance, it makes it real. I wish the camera signs that they post around would have an image of a human form behind the camera.

According to a court case in L.A., ( I have no idea how to find this article again. years ago) in the first video, when he was outside the glass front building, the people inside had no reasonable expectation of privacy. The court ruled that the completely glass storefront structure with no devices to obscure the occupants from the outside public, constituted consent. The guy didn't have to look over, around or through anything basically.

Especially when the woman came outside onto a public sidewalk. She was subjecting herself to the cameraman on public property. She didn't have to be there.

Granted, that would be infuriating to me too, but, I get his point. It's just a hard reality when you are being woken up to the matrix. Hopefully, the people that he explained it too will wake up too. I wish he would've made his point to everybody. It seems like it would be more effective.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by boncho

 

If they make you cringe, why do you do it?

It's part of business. As long as that information isn't being used to extort or defraud someone, or impact them in a negative way I don't see it as something that compromises my ethics. The cringing part comes from what could be done with it, I suppose.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

The idea that I could use facial recognition to get a roster of people who actually walk through my building....that is something that is interesting to consider from a marketing perspective.

You likely don't have to worry about people like me...

That's not what I worry about. It's when the data gets sold to a central party with shady objectives. It could anything from trying to smear someone, to silencing them, to building a case against them where it violates their privacy rights.

The problem with automated data systems is the ability for corrupt people to use them for unintended purposes. Like when a woman in the bank wiped her husbands accounts, etc.

A bitter ex employee wants to get back at their boss.

A intelligence, police agency employee has an axe to grind on misplaced moral indignation.

That sort of thing...

When I stand on a Public street corner and I am filmed by the "Private Property or Business" outside their building how far out into public space does their rights to film me and my rights to not want to be filmed extend? Where are those boundaries? Are we allowed personal freedom of our images and control of it? Can a image of me be used for media or for profit without my consent if it is filmed on public space?

At certain points he definitely crossed the line, filming within a private property building. But standing outside and filming is perfectly legal whether anyone likes it or not.

Now will this open up a discourse to what we deem necessary for security for the public and private sector and what rights we have of our own image and privacy.

In my view what will happen is that that State (all states) will pass a law making it illegal for a private citizen to film but perfectly legal for a business to video whatever the choose...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


But running him through the legal system as far as possible would cost you time and money too wouldn't it? I guess that's the thought stream that makes it possible for every business and govt agency to walk all over our rights too. Why don't you feel the same way about cctv? We could fight back, but, meh, it's easier to just let them do it. I really do get it. I'm not saying you're wrong, I am just kind of realizing this as I'm writing it.

I think we all hate it in our core, but, when there is someone right there with the camera, you have a person to complain to. With cctv, it's too hard to find out who it is watching, so, we just submit.

reply to post by abeverage


I think you are right about the future. A few posts back, I mentioned a court case about the glass storefront.

According to a court case in L.A., ( I have no idea how to find this article again. years ago) in the first video, when he was outside the glass front building, the people inside had no reasonable expectation of privacy. The court ruled that the completely glass storefront structure with no devices to obscure the occupants from the outside public, constituted consent. The guy didn't have to look over, around or through anything basically.

Originally posted by abeverage
When I stand on a Public street corner and I am filmed by the "Private Property or Business" outside their building how far out into public space does their rights to film me and my rights to not want to be filmed extend?

You are standing in public. You have no right "to not want to be filmed".

Where are those boundaries?

They dont excist.

Are we allowed personal freedom of our images and control of it? Can a image of me be used for media or for profit without my consent if it is filmed on public space?

When you are shot the rights of that shot belong to the shooter. Publishing an image is entirely different matter. Media can use unconsented images for editorial purposes but they have to be truthfull with them. They cannot make up stuff like "this man likes donuts, these people are criminals or anything of that kind". They have to use "person(s) in image are not related to the event" if there is a change to associate the people in the picture with a negative effect.
For profit your image cannot be used without your consent. They need you to sign a model release before use.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by abeverage
When I stand on a Public street corner and I am filmed by the "Private Property or Business" outside their building how far out into public space does their rights to film me and my rights to not want to be filmed extend?

You are standing in public. You have no right "to not want to be filmed".

Where are those boundaries?

They dont excist.

Are we allowed personal freedom of our images and control of it? Can a image of me be used for media or for profit without my consent if it is filmed on public space?

When you are shot the rights of that shot belong to the shooter. Publishing an image is entirely different matter. Media can use unconsented images for editorial purposes but they have to be truthfull with them. They cannot make up stuff like "this man likes donuts, these people are criminals or anything of that kind". They have to use "person(s) in image are not related to the event" if there is a change to associate the people in the picture with a negative effect.
For profit your image cannot be used without your consent. They need you to sign a model release before use.

edit on 3/11/2012 by PsykoOps because: agreement -> release.

Yeah, its called a driver's license, or a birth certificate, oh and social insurance number, actually even your bank card. Your parents and mine have signed us off at our birth, so did their parents and so on and forth, can't blame them, or anyone else since no one is told what you are signing when you are signing it, we gave them consent without even being aware of it.

Feel free to post even a single example of such a consent then. There should be billions out there. Surele some can be found from the net?