Slashdot Mirror
Seattle's Creepy Cameraman Pushes Public Surveillance Buttons
theodp writes "People seem to be okay with constant corporate or government video surveillance in public. Let a lone individual point a video camera their way, however, and tempers flare. GeekWire takes a look at the antics and videos of Seattle's mysterious Surveillance Camera Man, who walks up to people and records 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?" At least with Surveillance Camera Man, you specifically know that he's watching you — not always the case. (Not even when there's no warrant, on private property in the U.S.)
One wrong move and this creepy cameraman may end up with harassment charges.
A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators. In this case, he is very mobile and instead of filming a predefined area, he films individual people. He walks up to a single person and videotapes them with the intent of aggravating them about being videotaped. That could easily be spun as harassment if he ticks off the wrong person.
Stationary surveillance is not obtrusive. This guy is obstructing the persons' line of sight and getting in their way. He's also recording the audio of what people are saying. This is more like harassment to prove a point. If he was across the street recording then I doubt anyone would even care.
Of course many would like to think that "public" surveillence camera are safer with pre-screened employees. Given the abuse, injure, rob, thieve record of TSA, the kill-sorry-wrong-house adventures of various city and federal agencies, and various asset forfeiture abuses these past 25 years, is no strong reason to believe this more than the tooth fairy.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I have absolutely no issues with public surveillance, as long as this applies doubly so to the "surveillers". All public officials (including elected officials and law enforcement officials) must submit to full time surveillance during when performing public duty in public spaces and public events. These records need to be available to the general public to ensure that the power granted to them by the people is not abused.
As far as public surveillance of civilians is concerned, this is already in place considering the number of security cameras around. Besides if you are in a public space, you implicitly agree to follow the laws for availing of the use of said public space. I can't think of a single reason why anyone should be against public surveillance in public spaces (except the obvious restrooms) unless they are breaking the law. If you want to do something that you are ashamed of (or could be potentially embarrassed by), do it in a private space.
Person with no concept of personal space gets in someone's personal space to make a point about a topic completely unrelated to personal space.
Why isn't he following politicians and LEO's?
Seriously, man, I hate ubiquitous surveillance as-much-if-not-more than the next guy - following me around doesn't prove anything, except that you're an asshole with entirely too much free time.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
the difference is that you never know what some a-hole private individual is going to do with video footage of you including, but not limited to:
* Adding it to his private collection of masturbation material
* Posting it on YouTube for everyone to enjoy a good laugh at your expense
* Modify the material and use it for blackmail/extortion/public humiliation
* Worse?
With corporate cameras, odds are much higher that the footage is going onto a temporary buffer which will eventually (usually 1 week to 1 month kind of time frame) be wiped out and replaced by the next day's worth of footage. With corporate cameras, the fixed field of view, the image is general. With an asshat like this guy, you are specifically targeted (reference list above as to why that is a problem). Occasionally we see these situations in the news such as TSA staff intercepting and/or duplicating video/images of passengers moving through the line. That is not acceptable behavior. When they are caught, they should be terminated as their actions are inappropriate.
From Steve Mann's "Shooting Back"
...suicidal
His antics are DIFFERENT because he is a PERSON, and he keeps getting right up in other peoples face (within distance to physically touch or be touched) A much better test that would eliminate the CREEPY GUY factor, would be to just mount a camera on a tripod and place it by the doorway of a building or even in the middle of a crowd or public square and then walk away from it. Maybe have it mounted on a stand that can turn and focus... I could should that people were "afraid of balloons" if I stepped right up in there faces and stared at them while holding balloons. Possibly interesting idea executed very lamely. Next.
Not because he recorded video of people in public, but because he recorded audio. Audio has much stronger legal protections, and Washington is a two-party consent state, at least when it comes to telephone calls, etc.
... I'm filming you reading /. right now.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
LOL!
Reminds me of the creepy old men at Comic Con that hangout in the lobby and film costumed young people. Hide your children, hide your wives.
.... but its questionable.
90% of this is gold. People hate being surveillance, yet they are passive to never before see amounts of it via CCD cameras and mobile phone / telephony based tracking. Keeping silence about these points could be a stylistic decision on this form of activism.
But I dont think it is.
You see, he also begins to harass live public performances, which, in all honestly, who gives a crap if it gets recorded. Maybe some pinhead copyright holder, but its public performance, and its meant to be seen, and often sold which is a totally different issue that surveillance. The guy, unfortunately is probably just trolling for attention.
I really like the idea though. Take this guys, "Im taking a video" "Why? Why not!" approach till the person gets agro, then asking them questions relating to their prior activity. "Why not? You are doing nothing wrong?" "What do you mean consent... there are 10 video cameras watching you all around" "Private phone conversation? All of your cell calls are recorded for the NSA's discretional use". This to that effect, to point out the Hippocratic in peoples typical passe approach to personal privacy and surveillance. That would be be some very effective evidence for how the public isnt actually okay with being surveiled when they are aware of it.
Also, would be more interesting to see it done within the field of view of a real surveillance camera (either on a tripod or him walking around with it). The closest he gets in those videos is some comments like "Weren't there cameras in the store you just came out of?". Would be much more compelling if he were saying "well that camera right up there is filming both of us right now, why don't you care about that one?"
Bottles.
Certainly thought provoking.
..
It could be done more interestingly, perhaps operating in an area with a public facing surveillance cam. Then he could engage passers by in conversations more like: "Why are you taking a video?" "Do you think there is a difference between what I'm doing and what that camera over there is doing?" As it is, he just seems to be irritating people and not planting any seeds for future thought.
I say this after watching the second video here
0:23 shopper exits store
shopper: "Can I ask who you are?"
video guy: "What."
shopper: "What are you doing?"
video guy: "Oh I'm taking a video."
shopper: "Of what?"
video guy: "Just a video."
shopper: "Why are you taking a video?"
video guy: "Why not?"
shopper: "I don't really care for other people just to be taking a random video of me."
video guy: "Didn't you just come out of the drug store?"
shopper: "Yeah"
video guy: "They have cameras in there."
shopper: "So?"
shopper: gets on bike, rides off.
(The other interactions go down hill from there.)
His antics are DIFFERENT because he is a PERSON
Agreed, it's so weird that he's a person. Now if he was just a normal old drone, I'd be completely fine with it hovering next to me, watching me scratch my balls and walk out of 7-11 with three cases of beer, lottery tickets and an illegally sized Big Gulp. I mean, it's not like there's people behind those drones and security cameras watching me, right?
My work here is dung.
What if I were to do the following:
Creepy guy comes up to me as I am minding my own business, and starts to film me to make this point. He's very close, which irritates me.
So in response, I get very close to him, and yell in his face very loudly. No real words, just a very loud scream. As loud as possible, right at him, over and over.
Now, from my standpoint, the point I would be making is: if you irritate and act obnoxiously to others, they might do the same to you, so try not to irritate and act obnoxiously towards others.
Apparently his filming me is not illegal. If I yell loudly at him until he went away (or until it escalated, which could easily happen) would it be illegal to do that? In this specific situation?
Look, I understand that we're surrounded by video cameras *statically* recording us as we move through an area, but just sitting down at someone's table while they're on the phone and shoving a camera in their face, and his other antics, is just pure douche-ness, plain and simple!
The engrish is strong with this one.
This is not comparable at all to surveillance. What part of get out of my face does he not understand?
... the guy can do what he likes, right? He's not breaking any law or harming anyone.
This entire concept is perfect. I think its time for us to all start recording everyone. Maybe then people will decided ubiquitous, endless recording of our lives should be regulated and protected.
Ewww. THAT's creepy. But your point about the drones is only partially right. It's not so much the acknowledgement that "someone" is passively (but intrusively) watching you as it is the invasion of "your space" . One of those fragile Quad-Helicopter Drones would also be creepy, not because it could hurt you as much as it is invading your "space". My IMPLIED point was that anything that is mobile and right there in-your-face is creepy. I "person" holding the camera is probably the most creepy, the only way it could be creepier would be if he was just starring at you without even a camera. You could make it less creepy by having him keep his distance. Or have fixed position stand (aka a tripod). Or if the drone were high enough up that you didn't immediately notice it.
I think you mean 'hypocrisy', not 'Hippocratic'
Corporations are people too, my friend. /obligatory
Most organisations - commercial and governmental - have to conduct business under certain rules. I don't like being on CCTV, but here in London they have become a part of life through reducing insurance to businesses and yes, reduction in street and public transport crime.
Joe Random on the street with a camera is a different proposition. A much more menacing one. First, you immediately know you are dealing with a nutjob, who's focused on you. Second, you don't expect any scrupules from said nutjob, or that he'll lose his job or get in hot water if he misuses the footage - a reasonable expectation for CCTV camera operators.
The difference is accountability.
Reminds me of a sociology/communication project where you have to break some sort of social norm. I for one went a different route where I walked around a mall without shoes. The reactions I got from people were priceless! He seems to be doing a similar thing here. Ilegal? No. Annoying to people? Probably. Breaking a social norm? Yes!
An arbitrary person pointing a camera at you is somebody you do not know, and you have had absolutely no involvement in getting them to point that camera at you.
In a democratic society, however, the government is elected by the people, and for their term is entrusted by them to preserve the best interests of that society. This is entirely different from some random person you meet on the street, and have no prior connection to.
While admittedly, possibility for corruption in the government exists, and to use it for no less honorable purposes than somebody who had no business recording you at all, at least with the government, you've had some say on what sort of people would be monitoring those cameras, where you have absolutely no say at all on the type of people you might meet on the street.
So, in the end, they are two different things.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
He is shooting video from both public places and on private property. He has every right to do the former but not the latter.
A bright laser pointer aimed directly into the lens ought to damage the CCD - after a few such 'treatments' the camera will be seriously impaired, or outright useless. (Just make sure the videographer isn't looking through an optical viewfinder, and that the beam or its reflection doesn't hit anyone's eye).
IANAL, however I doubt very much that the police would even lay charges over such an incident, (never mind secure a conviction), and Mister Asshole would probably find better things to do with his time after a few hundred dollars' worth of damage to his camera equipment.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
There's a sandbox game I play from time to time called Space Station 13, usually as the AI. It's a 2D multiplayer RPG/roguelike of sorts, and much like Dwarf Fortress or MUD's, not the easiest thing to get into.
/tg/ server 2 as Wintermote, an AI that enjoys monitoring all communications and drama going on around the space station. The AI has a lot of tools at its disposal for doing this - you can change frequencies on a room's intercom; using its microphone to transmit and eavesdrop on nearby conversations over a private channel, you can hack into the PDA messaging system and read every single private message sent between players on their PDA's (think, tablets/phones), and you have cameras covering nearly the entire station so that you can see almost everything that is happening.
/until/ it both involves them and is specifically brought to their attention. The Head of Security doesn't care that I'm spying on two scientists in the bomb testing lab, but if she finds out I'm spying on her in the interrogation room where she's beating a prisoner to death, wellll suddenly it's creepy and weird.
/everything/; moreso even than an AI, because the AI is limited by game considerations - intercoms, power, working computer systems, etc. Every player knows that anything they say can and probably /is/ being seen by another player who is currently dead in the round.
/that/ point that it became an issue and they decided to stop and continue some other time.
/him/.
I mostly play on
The curious thing I've noticed is that nobody ever cares about the spying
What is more interesting is that when a player dies, they become an observer in the round and can hear and see
So an interesting story relating to this: I see the librarian and a medical doctor in the library having a rather private conversation - I turn on the intercom and eavesdrop, and then comment on something one of them said, I was immediately told to stop listening, and the two then turned off their intercom. An admin shortly thereafter made all dead players visible. The librarian and doctor were surrounded by a swarm of ghosts, all listening to their conversation. Once it was done, they immediately stopped their conversation and departed the library, but the dead players had always been there, listening. Both the Librarian and Doctor knew that dead players or the AI could hear anything they said, but they continued their conversation until it was made directly apparent (By an admin making dead players visible, or by me speaking to them) that someone was dropping eaves. It was only at
I've asked players if they mind if I spy on them, and the response is almost always "I don't mind, so long as you don't interject or comment about things, or tell other people".
Basically, out of sight, out of mind. People generally don't care that I see/hear what they're doing, so long as I don't bring it up or mention it. And that, I think, relates to this article - the government CCTV cameras and ubiquitous surveillance isn't really made apparent to people. You don't have a government agent calling you up and saying that he listened to that conversation you just had on the phone, and that he found that one joke really hilarious.
In the back of your mind, you know or think you know the government is spying on you like that, but it isn't really shoved in your face and it doesn't really impact you, and so people ignore it. It's only when it's brought to a person's attention that they ever give a shit.
And that is exactly what this man is doing. He's shoving the surveillance into people's faces, to try and get them to give a shit. I fear, however, that instead of fighting against the government surveillance - which he is trying to bring to their attention - people are just going to fight against
No, you are confusing yourself because you have an ideological axe to grind.
AC and MightyYar brought up the topic of "personal space". Privacy and personal space are not necessarily related at all. My privacy may be approximately nil in a crowd, while the crowd could still be very respectful of my personal space. Likewise, a full body cavity search may not violate my privacy in any important way (depending on my personal attitude about my details of biology), while it has everything to do with personal space.
He is violating social taboos very dear to most people, and violence is a likelihood. Juries are not going to sympathize with this fellow any more than they would sympathize with a naked man caught masturbating in front of a grade school.
Furthermore actions very close to another's personal space that a reasonable person might construe as purposefully menacing can be grounds for assault. "Assault", unlike "battery" does not require any actual physical contact. All it takes is a jury to believe "he scared me" from one victim and this guy could be in the hospital as warm up for his time in jail.
The Finnish privacy laws ban recording, photographing or filming people identifiably (whether in a public place, workplace or in the home) without first giving them a clear notification, typically with a posted sign.
So no nannycams in your home in Finland unless you first tell the nanny about them. No private eye pictures of secret lovers. No schoolyard monitoring cameras without warning signs.
Google streetview blurs pictures of people and license plates automatically (often including, unfortunately, street signs as well).
Bingo.
I think the clearest illustration of what's really being tested here is that these people are in situations where the common thread is the camera. The new element, the one that produces the reaction, is the person. I bet one million fake imaginary dollars that if you conducted this "study" by having some guy just walk up to people and stare at them, it would produce the same reaction. Conversely, hang signs on cameras in the middle of the street that say, "Smile, we're watching you and saving the footage for later masturbation!" you might get some laughs, but that's about it.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
Reentering the classrooms was a big no-no that obfuscates the point. The matter then is no longer about omnipresent surveillance and the reality that people should be made uncomfortable by it, but rather about some jackass trespassing. I saw the second video first and thought it much better. Recording people and following them, that emphasizes the point enough, especially when they go haywire. Trespassing - which is what he was doing after he was told to leave the class - not such a good idea.
His antics are DIFFERENT because he is a PERSON
Corporations are people too. Hadn't you heard?
All this proves is that people are still primates. Staring at someone signals aggression. A camera can't stare at you, because it doesn't have a face. A person holding a camera is still a person, and he's a person doing the most threatening thing short of actual physical aggression that a primate can do: stare at you quietly with no expression.
Congrats, dude, you've just taught people that the kind of people who talk about surveillance and Orwell REALLY ARE socially-crippled paranoid weirdos. Privacy advocates everywhere owe you a swift kick in the ass. Two, in fact, for not explaining your purpose after freaking people out, and thus failing to do any education about privacy issues whatsoever.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
This is more like harassment to prove a point.
Actually it is more like harassment without any point. If he was trying to prove a point when asked "why are you videoing me?" he would explain that he is behaving just like a security camera and, since people accept that, why not this? Of course that is not quite true since security cameras do not usually record audio and some of the places he filmed were private where you would not expect cameras. In most of the cases he seems to just respond with a "I'm taking a video" which is no explanation at all.
I see his point, but he absolutely needs to refine it to complete the delivery. His "victims" need to see the other surveillance cameras that are viewing them at that moment. And he needs to reduce his focus on pissing off the victim and intensify the illustration of the point of his irritating actions.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
I love this guy. His point is entirely valid. The most hilarious thing about this entire situation is that all the people that are hating him, that think he should get arrested, he completely agrees with. And all the people that excuse what he's doing and try to defend him completely disagree with his point. It's the most fucked up thing ever. He shouldn't be able to do this, and neither should businesses, the government or anyone else. He's pointing out just how creepy it is and saying wake the fuck up.
getting his ass beat.
Regardless of what he is trying to do, he is fucking with people. I can't wait to see him fuck with the wrong person.
I go out dancing. I'm very good at it. People often try to take videos of me. I hate it and avoid letting them if I notice.
It's a matter of intent and framing. I do not want a video of me show up on YouTube in a context I don't control.
I do not like surveillance cameras, but there is an implicit intent behind them that I do not find objectionable in the same way. I still find it objectionable, but in a different and much more subtle way.
This guy pretend to be a surveillance camera but clearly being a private individual raises the same questions I have for people who photograph or take videos of me when I'm out dancing.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I thoroughly agree with what he is doing. It needs to be done, however the way he is going about it is simply pissing people off and turning them against his cause. He needs to target it a lot more carefully. Maybe have a carefully crafted flyer to hand out to people. Find out what other cameras are in the area and let them know what cameras are on them right now. He needs to be a _lot_ less aggressive. He doesn't need to be aggressive to get his point across. He can be extremely conservative because he's just showing people the truth. His flyer might say something like: If you felt uncomfortable with me filming you, you should be aware that there are x other cameras filming you right now at y locations. You might want to do something about this problem. (and couple it with a specific action) Go here. Do this.
And follow up here for further information. Create an organization. Target specific lawmakers. Get the people involved in where to target next. Make it as easy as possible for your (customers?) to do the right thing. Have the flyer be a pre-addressed postcard that they can just sign and drop in the mail. Or at least get funding. It's a much better way of bumming a dollar. Ask for contributions for legal fees etc.
Incorporate yourself. Don't just be an jerk on the street with a camera.
And you don't want to admit it. I believe your response is awfully revealing.
The only difference between ubiquitous surveillance cameras, and someone pointing one at you, is getting to see the person who is going to later masturbate to the footage.
And I agree that people are more likely to fight against him: people always want to kill the messenger to avoid dealing with the existence of the underlying message. Killing the messenger doesn't nullify the existence or validity of the message. He's saying we're under check, and we better do something before we're under check-mate. At the check-mate message, well, we may accept the message, but it's too late to do a damn thing about it.
The ability to record everything you say and do from one foot away and follow you when you leave the surveillance areas and continue to monitor you.
I'm pretty sure you are missing this guys point. We are getting close to the threshold of their being no way to leave surveillance areas.
What's more, I could reasonably expect that an individual filming me on purpose is being provocative, and such an individual is likely of a mindset to also be provocative in the way he (or she) uses that video.
It should also be tried with a cute robot. One with a huge-eyed chlidish face, makes occasional cute noises and says praise-like things. (You're interesting. You're pretty! What a splendid example of a human.)
(And all its video goes to DHS and their monkeys make copies of the hot chick videos for masterbatory purposes, anything embarrassing/funny uploaded to youtube, etc.)
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
If I walk up to you in the street and ask you how old you are and are you married then you're going to be uptight. (You might decline of course but this is EMOTIVE territory.) Yet people blandly fill in forms with this and lots more connected information without worrying. Let's make it more creepy! 1001 CCTV cameras can see how short skirts are at any place today. So it'll be OK for me to approach women and take my tape measure out will it? The guy in the story is quite rightly pointing out that we have grown to accept Big Brother surveillance.
How is what he's doing different than those stationary surveillance cameras tucked away in buildings and public places?
Out of sight, out of mind. Most people forget that every ATM is watching them, almost every public and corporate building all use surveillance cameras in one form or another. Some obvious, some not so much. They are so prevalent that most people simply forget they are there.
He should tell people he is filming them in case they commit any crimes.
First story I've read on Slashdot recently that was captivating enough for me to RTFA.
I take pictures at random in public - still photos - and have gotten some hostile reaction. Even in the U.S., people seem to think I need permission to take a picture in a public place or of somewhere visible from a public place. I don't need to get permission. Why should I? Why should your dislike of something I do prevent my exercise of freedom of speech, in this case. If you want laws like that, you could move to North Korea, Russia, or communist China - perhaps the thinking there would agree with you more.
Did the cops who beat up Rodney King get the video quashed on any sort of legal grounds? No, because they couldn't.
As Diane Arbus said, any time you go out in public, you run the risk of being photographed.
Video cameras in drug stores are not following people around with a creep behind it. It's like we don't mind our friends taking pictures of us and we don't mind our friends walking up to us and sitting with us, but some creep, that's different. It’s like there is a difference between a drug store surveillance camera and some punky drug store employee following you around the store with a camera. There’s a difference. It's not about the camera. It's the creep holding it. Yes, it is hard for geeks to understand these things. Sad little idiot savants. But geeks can learn even though they are missing some things when it comes to the social intelligence department. Holy crap I can't believe we even need to have this conversation. And of course this is happening in Seattle the passive agressive geek capital of the world.
No, I'm serious. You're recorded either way.
somebody picks up a camera and starts following him? mirror effect?
What was going on with the lady screaming for help. I am guessing the people abducting her were security guards, because there was a security guard trying to stop the filming. But what right do they have to assault someone on public property? The didn't look like police officers. And the lady was screaming for help, and this guy was just filming?
There is a big difference between an individual I don't know filming me and a corporation or government I can identify (especially after the fact). That difference is the repercussions of misuse on the recorder. A corporation or government agency that misuses a recording is likely to suffer repercussions for abuse of my image. For a business, it runs the risk of financial harm. For government, the risk is loosing the next election. However if I can't even identify the individual filming me, how could there be any repercussions?
You seriously believe you have a bigger chance of recourse against a corporation or government agency than against a mere private citizen?! Please email me your dealer's contact info as it appears he carries some good shit...
The thing is, though is that there IS often a creepy guy; he's just in a room somewhere operating the camera out of sight.
"I may not agree with what you say (or do) but I will fight to the death if you piss me off, I have concealed carry, you bastard!".
Because it is censorship done under the authorisation of people who have been democratically elected by society to preserve the best interests of that society.
Unlike the censorship of the private companies.
watching me scratch my balls and walk out of 7-11 with three cases of beer, lottery tickets and an illegally sized Big Gulp
I don't get the Big Gulp reference, but as for the rest, who fucking cares?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I don't believe this proves anything. It's one thing to have a STATIONARY camera look at a specific area, albeit an area you can avoid to not be on camera, and it's a completely different and annoying thing to have a stranger breaching your private space (the 2 feet surrounding you) by sticking a camera in your face and refusing to move away.
We often associate stationary surveillance cameras as tools for security, used to protect us and witness anything of importance in its line of sight. This nothing like that, this is just some man recording people and posting it online, something the people videotaped probably know will happen and are aggravated because they don't want it to happen.
He should have just put a surveillance camera next to a building, put a TV under it showing what the camera sees. Then put a poster somewhere stating that "we can see you". That more closely represents the Big Brother environment we live in today, for anyone who actually has a problem with it.
I personally do not care for public surveillance cameras. They are fixed, I can avoid them. I'm in public so I somewhat expect it. But if a man started to record me for his own personal gain or for some sort of prank. I'd just walk away as I tell him to stop videotaping me.
Trying to fire up my euphemism engine here at work. I think that an individual recording you causes you to think of all the unseemly things that individual might do with pictures of you in their private collection. Law enforcement and corporations are just abstract enough that we can't easily imagine them doing gross things while looking at them. (Just one idea)
I understand the point that the cameraman is trying to make but the way he's doing it... well it's like being stared at in public, isn't it?
1. Get a couple of children in line of sight of his camera.
2. Scream that there's a pedo videoing kids.
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
I probably shouldn't be surprised, but as a photographer, this is how stupid the populace is. I usually have better results than this, but it's amazing the stupidity of people coming out of buildings and telling him to stop taking video because they're an American or whatever, even though he didn't enter the building and he's on the sidewalk. These people are retarded, and I occasionally have to deal with them, although, unlike this guy who plays dumb, I explain the law to them instead. Spelling the law out is not the best opening line, but you kind of have to explain it to them when they try to grab and detain and restrict you.
I think he is editing the video to show only people he finds offensive, and people overreacting is kind of bad, mind you, he is being very obnoxious about it, but the video of the cab driver was a nice reaction, and I'm assuming he included it, not because he's a nice guy, but because he seeks to make everyone look bad and he thought the cab driver would look like a racist.
The fact that he goes into buildings and everything is crossing the line a little, too, and when people ask him to leave, he's sometimes defiant, in some of the videos. That kind of obnoxious behavior could threaten the rights of real photographers if new laws are passed or interpreted.
Fuck him. I've smashed a fuckers' phone who was recording me, and if I ran into this fuck I'd do the same goddamn thing.
I don't like surveillance and I don't like people doing this kind of shit. He's making a point by being just as obnoxious and offensive as what he's protesting. Fucking asshole.
It's not apk. It's some troll that apk got the best of who couldn't deal with it like a normal human being would.