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.
.. "2 girls 1 cup reaction" videos?
Most of the time those people sign waivers and they're often paid a small amount as well. My roommate worked on a show similar to "Just for Laughs" in Toronto and most people simply wouldn't permit any footage of them to be used.
*shrug* i'm not sure why this is even news. it's their site, they can ban/remove whatever they want.
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
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.
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.
Perhaps you are comfortable having facing someone wearing a camera strapped to their heads, who may or may not be recording you, who may or may not even be paying attention to what you are saying, who may even be augmenting your appearance for their private amusement. But I guarantee there are many people who would not. For a similar effect try videoing people on a train or in a social situation and see how they appreciate it. Wearing Google Glass is an invitation to get into arguments and receive free punches by friends and total strangers alike.
At least Google Glass devices can be removed. Having one surgically implanted is pretty stupid regardless of the tenuous reasons offered for doing so.
Because hypocrisy.
That's a fallacy.
Having something to hide does not mean there is anything necessarily wrong.
People don't wear clothes in public because there is anything (necessarily) wrong with their nude bodies. They do so because there are parts of their body that they consider private.
Of course, how you behave in public, by default, is not something that is inherently private. If one wants privacy, it stands to reason that one should take their private matters to some location where they can control who else can legally be there without their permission. Which means someplace that isn't in public.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
Privacy is something that we are only afforded by whatever level of indifference people who might be around us may have in our affairs.
We have absolutely *ZERO* control over what other people might be thinking or wanting to do.
If you want privacy... go someplace private... resorting to physical violence to try to settle what is an entirely nonviolent situation is... well... stupid.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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."