Slashdot Mirror
The Return of Surveillance Camera Man
theodp writes "Remember Surveillance Camera Man, the anonymous guy who walked up to random people around Seattle and creeped them out by taking video of them without explanation? GeekWire reports that he's back with a new video compilation of his adventures in pushing people's privacy buttons, the latest installment in an apparent ongoing commentary on the pervasiveness of public surveillance, which has taken on a whole new twist with increased fretting over the recording capabilities of Google Glass and heightened concern over privacy in general, thanks to the NSA data surveillance controversy."
I think I have got few videos from the Surveillance Camera Man. Big Brother, here we go !
Big Brother part 1
Big Brother part 2
Annoyingly filming other people. The subjects are obviously annoyed and almost go hit him. I hope you see why Google Glass is a ridiculously bad idea.
The guy's an idiot, then. If anything saves us from 1984 it will be everybody having this stuff on all the time. It's the politicians misusing it that's the problem, and if everything they do is recorded (to say nothing of common criminality)...
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
He's still injecting people's aversion to being physically stalked into the equation. Whether through ignorance or deliberate slight of hand, he makes the assumption that peoples' reactions to being unwillingly made the sole object of attention in public is the same reaction of of those people if put under surveillance.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
This guy is an idiot and I'm surprised he doesn't get his ass kicked more often.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
It used to be celebrities that had to deal with presumed loss of privacy in public spaces. Now everyone's become a celebrity. You didn't think you made that choice? Too bad.
Google is in the vanguard but of course it goes way beyond them, in fact it was probably inevitable.
Lead magnet.
I already wear a mask all the time anyway. Fuckin' surveillance lovers...
He's recording a conversation. In Washington State. Without the prior consent of both parties.
Generally, it is legal to record a conversation in public as a third party. The people engaged in that conversation do not have an expectation of privacy if they continue in that third's presence. But if two people are alone and one asks the other , "Why are you recording me?" That conversation's privacy is protected and may not be recorded.
Why has he not been arrested?
Have gnu, will travel.
Ah I see you're making a protest...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/21/canada-bans-protesters-wearing-masks/
Careful there brother
Recording people in public and twisting it into a privacy and surveillance issue sound like a something they guys from chicks gone wild would do. And not something we'd see on /.
A lot of the retaliation by his, er, subjects is physical and likely an illegal escalation. I think a simpler response is to produce a mirror or better yet a camera-disabling laser pointer. But then, he holds the power of edit, so any truly effective responses won't make it into the videos. There's a lot of creative people in Seattle, and I'd like to see those "outtakes" which didn't produce the effect he was going for.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
*Sarcasm*
I knew it! is that what you did last summer?!?
I'd gladly see this guy beaten up for being such an asshole....
For every recording he used in his video how many did he have of people who didn't care in the slightest he was recording?
Selective editing can pretty much twist any story.
[The Universe] has gone offline.
I think this is a strong right that we should all be defending. Why should only the police/FBI/NSA/corrupt politicians in charge of security companies have the ability to film the public at will any time they want to? We should defend our right to see and film anything that is public. We shouldn't be beating these people up - be it Google Glass, a Go Pro cam, or your cell phone. We should be thanking them. This is the only way that the general public will wake up and realize that pervasive surveillance is a good thing that everyone should have access to so as to help defend ourselves from unscrupulous authorities. It should not be concentrated in the hands of a few with strong incentives to abuse it.
Your gov already has all your "private" stuff, friends of your gov get a copy, enemies of your gov steal a copy, private corps buy/steal it too and every two-bit script kiddie can get it too.
Face it: All your enemies know your every secret already, if they feel like bothering with you.
The only people who don't have a copy of all your most "private" things are your friends!
Just like with Snowden. Does anybody honestly think he has revealed anything the Russians, Chinese, Al-Quaida, Taliban, etc. didn't already know?
Its one thing to do some sort of social experiment, try things out and do it in a fun or amusing way that people consent to. But just walking around recording people and trying to aggravate them is something else entirely. Because that's what he is doing, purposefully trying to upset people.
It isn't about exposing surveillance to the public or anything at all. There is a big difference between "potentially" being under surveillance by a law enforcement official and some jackass sticking a camera in your face that is no official of anything at all. They aren't anywhere near the same thing.
Public video cameras for security purposes, sure they record everyone but unless something bad happens no one is watching you. They had all those cameras in boston and there was never an issue with it, no one cared, but when they guys bombed the race they suddenly came in great use and used to identify the people who did it. Without those cameras they would have never found the people who did it. But up till then they recorded stuff but unless something bad happened nothing was ever done with it.
The only people who get actual personal surveillance and monitoring are people who do bad things. If you aren't doing bad things the reality is no one cares about you or even notices you. This guy is just blowing stuff way out of proportion and is invading peoples privacy a thousand times more than any law enforcement agent does, and he isn't a law enforcement agent, he is just some random douche.
This is nothing like what cameras do and doesn't get any message out there.
1) A person actively following you around could have any intention, such as killing, mugging, whatever.
2) CCTVs are passively monitoring everyone, they don't single people out
3) Even if there was a floating CCTV camera that followed you around you can be sure that it poses no threat over you compared to a human if all it can do is record you
If this is some campaign to make people take notice of how much surveillance is around us then it's a damaging one. Frankly I've noticed that people who are against CCTV monitoring are typically control freaks anyway.
What has happened in society and culture that makes people angry, offended, upset and aggressive when being filmed? There was a video buzzing on the Internet recently taken about 20-25 years ago in a 7-Eleven store, and people where smiling, joking, excited and happy to be on camera. WHAT HAPPENED???
Signature intentionally left blank.
You're pretty naive if you think the politicians and the rich are going to be recorded at all times. That only applies to the serfs.
That is just plain unbelievable. Ten years?! I'd say that North Ameria in general is on a bad, bad path.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
There are anti-mask laws in some places in the US too. It's not because of hostility towards protestors. It's because of a little organization you might have heard of, called the KKK, whose members would attack people while wearing masks.
Okay, maybe i'm not stoned enough yet (working on it), but what I found amusing was people used dude with a camera as an excuse to be violent. Almost everyone was violent, or at least passive aggressive towards the guy. Even though we know we are being recorded by stores and other things, when a person with a camera gets in our face, people tend to try to do something about it. Why? I'm leaning that there is actually a face associated with this camera. You do into a store, there's a camera or 6 on the wall, but you can't get to them, you can't do anything about them. But the moment a camera appears in your face, with a person holding it, suddenly you have a target to put your frustrations on. And on top of it, people are being violent on a guy recording them being violent. WTF? Not only are you suddenly breaking the law but you are being recorded doing it.
Here's the best part. I bet the person gets people not reacting. They don't make it on to his youtube clips, do they? In other words, if you want to be sure you are seen in youtube if this guy appears, start acting like a twat.
Be seeing you...
flash back 250 years.
If anything saves us from the Tyranny of the King, it will surely be having regulars quartered in our houses.
If those soldiers abuse and harm us, that's the problem
They're using their grammar skills there.
can't wear hats or sunglasses in a bank.
They're using their grammar skills there.
So, because some people might abuse the ability to wear masks, doing so should be severely restricted? I thought we were supposed to the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the home of the sniveling cowards. I don't want the government dictating what clothing or accessories I can wear on my own body.
This guy, and Google Glass, are a drop in the bucket, seeing as the NSA probably has hacked into every surveillance camera that's even potentially connected to the Internet...
"There are anti-mask laws in some places in the US too. It's not because of hostility towards protestors. It's because of a little organization you might have heard of, called the KKK, whose members would attack people while wearing masks."
Error.
NYC prohibits that, and KKK rallies ceased before the local law was enacted. So, your argument is wrong in part.
NYC also prohibits use of bullhorn speakers. Somehow, police uses this only against protesters, and never against street performers.
BTW, that mask prohibition laws are void, at least under the USA Constitution.
...that Steve Mann had to pay the price for this sort of 'performance art'.
The wider issue, though, is not so much that arbitrary Google-Glass-enabled people are invading privacy, bad though that might be. The problem comes if your Google account is hacked (likely a common problem) or some other method of stealing or diverting the video stream takes place. We've already had some evidence of the 'flip side' of this technology with schools sneakily enabling laptop cameras and mics "to check whether students are doing their homework" -- a bit like all those smoke detectors they put in at Princeton in the '70s -- which didn't save Whig Hall from burning down, but certainly gave notice when students were smoking that wacky tobaccy...
And now that we have a government that helps with something like Stuxnet, that Snowden has described as desirous of exploiting private 'social' information, and at least probably interested in using law and policy to harass what it perceives as its opponents. I would not be happy about the prospects if widespread pervasive 'video streaming' were to become common...
No kidding. It arrived 2 days ago. A DJI Phantom with a GoPro video camera. So, I guess I'm just adding to the social churn.
LOL at the comments about 'when Google Glass becomes available, everybody will be filmed like this all the time' (paraphrased from memory), hasn't anybody been on Ebay lately? Pencams are about $30 each, you can film anybody, anywhere, and they won't have a clue. And that includes the police. Put it in your back pocket and turn your back to them and pretend to be on your phone, they won't have a clue you're filming them.
You're already being leashed into a surveillance state and lapping it up, what difference does it make if some hipster is doing the same thing with a camera in hand?
He's not even bring particularly rude or snide about it, maybe a bit of a smartass, but that's it really (walking into what appears to be a private home notwithstanding).
If you're so pissy about some doofus filming in public, why aren't you pushing back against the increasing surveillance by your own government?
Hey, lady on the cell phone, you realize that acting like a prissy bitch is just going to cement it's publication on YouTube, right? Call it a Streisand effect on a smaller scale. Why not just say, hi, how ya doin', nice day ain't it? Oh, and that "private" conversation your having on your cell phone has already been traced, recorded and parsed for keywords by the NSA ... and you're worried about some dipshit with a camera filming you having lunch?
Didn't that jail sentence teach him anything?
can't wear hats or sunglasses in a bank.
So... banks are the new Churches in capitalistic America. How fitting.
Every one of them broke at least one law - 'threatening behaviour' (in the U.K.), one assaulted the videographer, etc.
Are they going to be arrested for their crimes, which have clearly been videoed and now witnessed by millions of people, or can we all just attack or threaten to attack anybody who comes anywhere near us and looks at us, and happens to be holding something 'electrical' in their hand? How do they even know the camera was on? What if he had been holding binoculars? I bet they'd go apeshit then as well. What if he was wearing glasses? How much would the glasses have to qualify as 'binoculars' in the eyes of the observed here? LOL.
ALL of those people were assholes with massive anger problems. If that guy came up to me it wouldn't bother me in the slightest, but then, I'm not paranoid, and I'm also not in a permanent angry mood.
I'm surprised no one has said it yet, but at least where I live, what this guy was doing qualifies as harassment, which a crime punishable with jail time, and thus would allow the filmed people to make a citizen's arrest.
I'm really surprised that people don't whip out their camera phones and film him. He's obviously trying to hide his identity.
Especially after watching his videos, If some idiot got in my face in a public place and didn't go away, I'd just pull out my own phone & film him, telling him I plan to expose his identity "Oh.. you must be the 'surveillance camera guy'.. This is going to be an awesome YouTube post. A lot of people have been wondering what you look like so that they can kick your ass.."
This has nothing to do with the camera.
Walking up to people, getting into their personal space, and staring at them is creepy as fuck and by most social standards an act of aggression.
Stop trying to make this into an issue it's not. This has nothing to do with people's comfort in regards to surveillance. To even suggest this is an issue of that nature is so completely socially broken it's laughable.
Picture this...instead of the stationary cameras on the wall/ceiling at the drug store, there are employees following people with cameras. I'm betting customers would react the same way as surveillance guy. Funny how the visible attachment of a person to the camera makes all the difference for some reason. Why is that?
The only real problem I see with surveillance man is he doesn't give a reason for the recording. The first thing the subjects ask is what the reason is. With surveillance cameras, the automatically assumed purpose is safety and liability. When a random guy comes up and starts recording you, it could be for a variety of reasons. They could just be some punk trying to get a rise out of them to post on youtube, which is very likely. They could also be a private investigator, al beit not a very good one, trying to get damning/embarrassing evidence on them.
He would likely get better responses and make his point better made if he gave a reason, and possibly printed out papers to give to people. It's not that people don't approve of surveillance, it's that they don't approve of apparently reasonless surveillance. If there's any reason whatsoever, they'll see you as much less threatening, although that makes the resulting videos less entertaining.
What I find odd is that people seem fine with the paparazzi doing this to someone else that isn't them.
What would be your reaction facing the same harassment ?
- Do as if he does not exist, or as if he were transparent.
- Film him with a phone camera, but for how long ?
- Run away, faster than him.
- Freeze, but for how long ?
- Make a fake call, calling for an imaginary team of tough guys to get him and beat him bad.
- Start talking a lot, as if it were an interview, a VIP interview for something big, and answer imaginary questions.
- Hold a mirror, big enough, toward the camera.
- Do the same thing as Cowboy Neal.
...is there really any expectation of privacy when you're out in public?
There are several reasons why this guy is different from a camera in a store. 1) People assume that store security feeds are not actually being watched by anybody. 2) People think of it as "the store" taking pictures. Not the employees. Same reason why people take "I'm sorry, it's company policy" as an OK answer most of the time. 3) Individuals are held to the golden rule, but companies generally are not. If a person throws a coke can out the window of a moving car you think, "what an asshole!" But if employees of a company do some illegal dumping, you don't assume the individuals doing the dumping are assholes. No raindrop is responsible for the flood. 4) If you don't like having your video taken in a store, you can choose not to be in that store. 5) A store will normally clearly state that it is taking video for security purposes.
I could go on but it doesn't really matter. To people who think this guy is right, none of these differences are valid. To people who think he's wrong, they seem obvious.
I happen to think this guy is wrong for a completely different reason. What does it hurt to have everybody with Google Glass? Who cares if pathetic people want to take videos of me. If I pull some Dunkin Donuts crazy-bitch rant, I deserve to be posted to YouTube. If I do something good, that should get posted too. It's like we can all be each other's Elf on a Shelf. But instead of reporting to Santa, we just post to YouTube or FB or whatever.
Take perverts on a beach, taking zoomed in photos of hotties in bikinis. Why not take pictures of them taking pictures? The cure for a bad guy with a camera is a good guy with a camera, right?!
Jesus... I'm really rambling here. I should just shut the hell up now.
"This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten"
Sweet! Now YouTube gets to catch shit for censoring someone merely recording in public, while there are a jillion videos on their site with far more harassment, bullying, and threats.
*gets his popcorn*
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
Pretty sure that the courts have ruled that recording video and sound without express permission is illegal in this state and the city of Seattle in particular.
We have upskirt video laws for this reason.
That he's not been arrested does not mean he's not doing something illegal.
"This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten"
Hi, Mom!
and don't forget to wave.