Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Removes Video of Reactions To Being Videoed
theodp writes "To follow-up on an earlier Slashdot post, GeekWire reports that YouTube has removed Surveillance Camera Man's latest video of people's sometimes-violent reactions to being videoed, citing its policy of prohibiting content designed to harass, threaten or bully ("This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten"). In a neat coincidence, the YouTube ban comes just after similar complaints were lodged against Google Glass. 'Some people also seem to feel threatened by Google Glass,' Philip De Cortes wrote in Google Glass Will Fail. 'They wonder if they're being recorded, and they feel like the tool could be used against them in some way.'"
People should be this upset about the government doing this too. CCTV's are popping up everywhere, even in rural US cities.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Well now ill video the reactions of ppl getting their videos banned of violent reactions of ppl to being videoed.
someone will kill the bastard...
Are they going to ban Just for Laughs prank videos, too?
There are two issues at work here but the difference is subtle.
The first is about people being filmed without their knowledge, whether by private individuals, corporate entities, or governments. The latter brings with it a whole bag of nutjob whackos that tends to drown out any focused discussion. This is an issue of the concept of "right to privacy" in private and public spaces and archival of such video for future use.
The second issue is one where people are being filmed with their knowledge and without their consent with the intent to harass and inflame. This is the tool cameraman is attempting to utilize in order to make a political statement. I can only assume the issue he's trying to highlight is the above mentioned issue. I can only assume this because I refuse to spend any more of my valuable time researching the details. He's just not worth it. Regardless of whether it's legal to film random strangers on the street; stalking, harassment, and/or disorderly conduct charges (x1000) will eventually put a damper on his tactics.
.. "2 girls 1 cup reaction" videos?
... its delicious..
On the subject of surveillance and Google Glass, the British tv-series Black Mirror had a pretty neat episode (s01e03) titled "The Entire History of You", here's a brief description from wikipedia: Set in an alternative reality where most people have a 'grain' implanted behind their ear which records everything they do, see or hear. This allows memories to be played back either in front of the person's eyes or on a screen, a process known as a 're-do'. Very interesting concept
Step 1 - pacify people in a certain group (in our case, google glass users)
Step 2 - ?
Step 3 - profit!
"we kinda knew the Govt was spying on us totally, and we're OK with that because, you know, terrorism?" Facepalm
Right now, I don't understand what Glass offers. (Then again, I barely understand what smartphones offer either.)
I only understand that they have a high potential of being irritating to wear and use and so I hardly see it as being for everyone. People can't really multitask very well so switching over to using Glass, even though it's right there on your head for immediate use, will always have a delay and take you a bit away from the real world instead of augmenting it.
That said augmented reality is interesting. If it implemented face recognition, coupled with its surveillance capabilities, it seems like a great tool to put on every police officer and other surveillance personnel.
'Some people also seem to feel threatened by Google Glass,' Philip De Cortes wrote in Google Glass Will Fail. 'They wonder if they're being recorded, and they feel like the tool could be used against them in some way.'"
No surprise there, the FBI has already claimed they have the "right" to hack into computers in order to turn webcams into surveillance devices. They are already demanding CALEA II: Mandatory Wiretapping On Every Device. The NSA already has surreptitious access to the cell phone network. Put the two out-of-control government agencies together and yes, Google Glass will be used against us by our corrupt government. It's only a matter of time.
This sounds similar to some of the problems that Steve Mann has run into. He has been experimenting with augmented reality headsets since 1980 and has documented quite a few incidents before and been on slashdot before.
'They wonder if they're being recorded, and they feel like the tool could be used against them in some way.'"
You wonder of you are being recorded? You are, by the hundred cameres you walk past every day, by your smartphone, by your ISP, by any of a dozen other things probably.
I am less worried about some wierdo Google glassing me taking a piss and wacking off to it later than what the government will do with their recordings if they I cross the wrong person.
Silence is a state of mime.
The removal of this video is bullying.
Big fuckin joke too. the one time google has a problem with surveillance....
I dont think people are so upset about the mans motive; to educate people about surveillance is a good thing. the problem is 90% of the footage captured by public CCTV cameras is different. Municipalities in the US that receive funding for CCTV cameras do so likely as part of a Homeland Security grant from the federal government and will install low-resolution cameras typically at intersections as government buildings have already been covered. These low resolution cameras are typically designed to reduce the cities expenditure on insurance for police and emergency services as they blow through red lights far more frequently and thus have a greater potential for collision with an automobile than does the average driver.
The footage is, in my personal experience as an accident victim, uselessly low quality and low framerate.
as for private surveillance, ATM video is hillariously low quality (check out youtube for a few examples.) higher end DVR systems in stores and pubs however are only used during an altercation or when required in order to prosecute a violation of law. nobody of any importance has interest to this video.
what the privacy evangelist is doing in contrast is uploading people to a distributed global network of video content which is freely available to anyone at any time. It serves to educate the public about google more than anything else, which is good. Given the potential for my boss, my coworkers, or my loved ones to stumble across the video however, I cant say id think twice about landing a haymaker on the first glasshole to shout "record."
Good people go to bed earlier.
it will.
This is a big problem only because technology today allows to do it for everybody and even if processing is still a mile or two away from real time watching, selecting, automatic decision making and execution we are still on the good way there and while people are working on making processing real time we still keep records of people fiddling with their zippers in public in hope to be used sometime.
Fake or stolen ID, rent car, drive with sunglasses.
Time to create a pattern shifting mask for general walking around ala Rorschach.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
Why do people passively accept the presence of fixed security cameras everywhere, but get agitated when there is a person aiming a camera at them?
I can sort of understand the reaction if he followed them around, but in the few clips I watched, he's in a public place and the people are actively chasing him away.
I'd like to see him sitting somewhere in the direct vicinity of a police camera and point out to people that the government is doing the same damned thing. Maybe people would re-consider their support of government spying.
At least Google Glass devices can be removed. Having one surgically implanted is pretty stupid regardless of the tenuous reasons offered for doing so.
We need more of those guys. But instead of annoying random strangers, make it International Film an Official Day.
You see any kind of public servant out in the open, start pointing a camera at them. Don't harrass them, or follow them onto private ground. Just make it obvious you're filming everything they do on the street.
It's not like they have anything to hide if they're doing nothing wrong, right?
If someone takes video with Google glass, these people would be as clueless as if it were a surveillance camera and wouldn't even know.
This guy is shoving a big camera in their face, and being a douche. No real comparison, people don't like things stuck in their face, if they don't know, they won't care.
If there are 10 people who resent google glass, for every 1 person that buys it, then there's a potentially solid market for some kind of fashionable gloves with brass knuckles, and a farraday cage (to kill network connectivity of the google glass) built in.
Based on the video that was removed by YouTube and posted on LiveLeak, I thought he was trying to make a political point by filming people in public places, which is well within his rights.
If you look at some of his YouTube videos however, he's actually going inside buildings and pointing his camera at people through windows. Just being a jackass and probably violating trespass laws, especially after they ask him to leave.
It's weird that YouTube chose the one specific video to delete. The others are depicting actions which seem a lot more like harassment.
I don't care if you snap a picture of me. I don't care if you accidentally video me.
I do care if you record every single thing I do, upload it to some storage I (and you, think about it) have no control over, and keep it there until you can use it against me. That's not going to fly.
Record me in this fashion and the last scene you have in your cloud storage is a close up of a hand and then some shattering sounds. No, I won't punch you (probably), but I will destroy your Glass. And that's not ITG, I'm just an average Joe.
OMG, he's worse than Google! oh wait..
Freeing up your hands doesn't matter that much, except in every craft that involves using your hands. It may not be such a breakthrough product in the casual world, but it will revolutionize the professional world, and that's where real money is.
I"m very much against the govt. cameras, but a guy on the street not hassling anyone shouldn't be a problem.
The person calling himself Surveillance Camera Guy was absolutely hassling people in my opinion. In one controversial instance, he sat down at a small table outside a coffee shop with a man who was talking on his cell phone, and proceeded to record the man on video. Not surprisingly, the man asked what Camera Guy was doing. Camera Guy's repeated response was an inane "It's OK - it's just a video" or something like that. The victim calmly and politely asked him to take his camera elsewhere, stating that he was having a private conversation, but eventually become quite angry that Camera Guy would not respect his request for privacy.
A lot of commenters ridiculed the victim because he was expecting to have a "private conversation" in a public space. I wonder how these commenters would react to a stranger recording their phone conversations? It's one thing to be casually overheard talking on a phone in public. It's another thing for some jerk to deliberately encroach in someone's personal space and sit there recording their conversation.
Some people have interpreted Camera Guy's stunts as an artistic commentary on life in a surveillance society. I call bullshit. At one point he tells a victim something like "Why would you object to me video recording you? The store you just walked out of has video surveillance cameras, yet you weren't bothered by that". There is a world of difference between a passive camera system that indiscriminately records video (and not audio) of anyone who walks past, and a guy who deliberately singles out individual passersby, encroaches on them in a manner that is deliberately intended to make them uncomfortable, refuses to answer meaningfully why he is doing it, records both video and audio, and then posts the videos online for the sake of ridiculing the victim.
We have certain accepted modes of behaviour to enable us to get along together as a society, such as respect for people's personal space, even in public. To deliberately cross these boundaries, merely for the purpose of making people uncomfortable, is neither clever or noteworthy. Camera Surveillance Guy was being a rude little asshole for the sake of his own amusement. Youtube was correct to consider his actions as harassment.
Conflict of interest much, Google?
Ah, Google Glass -- what a boon to rhinoplasty!
--
Eisenhower's nightmare has come true.
The primary issue is intent. The people being videotaped without their consent can file a lawsuit. It is arguable the video is being used for commercial purposes (i.e. he is publishing under a perceived trademark). Under most jurisdictions, that requires a permit and proof of insurance. There is very little difference with what he is doing and what portrait photographs do.
"The right of publicity is the right to control the commercial use of one's likeness. The most obvious example of this is advertising (whether or not the advertisement is for commercial purposes). This right concerns the subject of the photograph and is distinct from the photographer's copyright licence which may impost its own terms or grant freedoms regarding commercial reuse. All images hosted on Commons must allow free commercial reuse from a copyright point-of-view, but the subject of the photograph may still refuse permission or demand payment for such reuse. This right does not affect the hosting of an image on Commons; might rarely affect the use of an image on a Wikimedia project; and is most likely to affect commercial re-users. In some countries and states, the right of publicity may persist for some time after death."
All I have to say is get over all your surveillance sensitivity ...... I mean, if you are so concerned, next time you go to a store like Home Depot, ask them ... no tell them , to erase all the videos of you walking around the store. Pretty soon when they can run that face recognition software on videos, everyone and the government will know where you are at all times. People have to get use to be video taped all the time now.... everywhere... And about the guy being taped while he was on the phone ... supposedly in public... well, the photographer had the right to be taking his photos in public! And YES.... Why are all the people not REALLY upset with the NSA spying on them.... and the massive billion dollar date center of theirs in the Utah dessert. Folks... wakeup!