First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Privacy in public
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/12/09
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D150.htm

The article is basically about some guy who tries to commit suicide in public and is caught by surveillance cameras, which allows police to save him. He is grateful, but later the footage is shown on the news without his consent and he gets upset. He then took this case to the European Courts of Human Rights in order to earn the right to commit private acts in public and not have those acts displayed all over the media.

So do you think we should have any sort of privacy in public areas (other than restrooms of course)? Personally I don't think so, if you want to keep something private then do it in a private place where no one will see you. If you do something where there are a lot of people are around, then expect a lot of people to see it, including the media and the government.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 7/12/09
You're not supposed to do something in public if you don't want the public to know about it.
1581 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / canada
Offline
Posted 7/12/09
I agree, you can't expect to do something in public and have it considered "private". Straight up paradox. Anything done in public is essentially PUBLIC. However the media should show some common decency (which of course they dont have) and leave certain images out, they can tell the story and leave the name out, u dont have to go tell the guys name show the footage and have him humiliated.
25823 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/09
the only thing i can think of that would be private is lol not even using the bathroom if done for all to see its public
Posted 7/12/09
attention whore ahem >.>
9982 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 7/12/09

Yei wrote:

You're not supposed to do something in public if you don't want the public to know about it.



Agreed with this post.
Revolver Dogelot
72936 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / somewhere that is...
Offline
Posted 7/12/09
Well any decent media outlet (not many of those left) would have at least done some legwork and confirmed the story and consulted the guy first. Bear in mind they could still run the story, but without consent they cant give his name. Also there is the fact that the security tape from the mall is NOT a matter of public record. Someone either leaked the tape or sold it, both of which should frankly be looked down on. So he actually does have a legal leg to stand on in regards to the privacy of the film footage. However they could still run the story regardless, and he does not have a legal reason to argue that since he did do it in public. But the fact is without his consent to use his name or video footage would they bother? Probably not.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/12/09

Karkarov wrote:

Well any decent media outlet (not many of those left) would have at least done some legwork and confirmed the story and consulted the guy first. Bear in mind they could still run the story, but without consent they cant give his name. Also there is the fact that the security tape from the mall is NOT a matter of public record. Someone either leaked the tape or sold it, both of which should frankly be looked down on. So he actually does have a legal leg to stand on in regards to the privacy of the film footage. However they could still run the story regardless, and he does not have a legal reason to argue that since he did do it in public. But the fact is without his consent to use his name or video footage would they bother? Probably not.


I think that in Europe, where this occurred, people don't (or didn't before this guy) have any legal rights over videos or images of themselves that were taken without their consent (i.e if they were in the background of someone's picture or home video). It was caught by the surveillance cameras on the outside of some local government building, and they openly handed it over to the media. I didn't see anything in the article about them giving his name away until he took legal action against them, so I don't know if they actually said his name when they first displayed the footage.

But either way, this is an extreme from of privacy (publicity?) invasion by the government, hence why I posted it up. Surprisingly almost everyone who posted doesn't see a problem with people being constantly surveillanced as soon as they leave their house.
Posted 7/12/09
There is no privacy in public. If you want to do something private go somewhere private, not where everyone can see you.
Revolver Dogelot
72936 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / somewhere that is...
Offline
Posted 7/12/09
It wasn't a "public" video. It was a security tape from a mall. That is not media meant for public consumption, it is not some guys tape on a hand held camcorder, it is private security footage. It should not have been given to the media, and that is my point. If anything he should be suing the mall. Basically the gist is this: The tape was not "public record" or taken by someone "on the scene", it was private footage taken for the safety and security of the Mall and it's owners / workers.

Also I don't think the average user understands what you mean. For example people don't really "get it" when you talk about google's satellite. The idea that there is a satellite that can be logged into by anyone, anywhere, at any time, and they can get a real time view of what is going on where I live pisses me off. If I had the resources I would blow out of the sky. So yes I definitely have a problem with the constant non stop surveillance that frankly invades your privacy too. I should not have to worry about being monitored while mowing the yard, eating a hot dog on my porch, or having a friendly chat with the mail man.
8356 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 7/12/09 , edited 7/12/09
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure if a store/shop or something has video surveillance they must have a sign posted somewhere alerting the people they're being recorded...This is in the US though, Might not apply to European countries...So, if you want to do something in private do it in your own home? Don't go to a public place...
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/12/09

Karkarov wrote:

It wasn't a "public" video. It was a security tape from a mall. That is not media meant for public consumption, it is not some guys tape on a hand held camcorder, it is private security footage. It should not have been given to the media, and that is my point. If anything he should be suing the mall. Basically the gist is this: The tape was not "public record" or taken by someone "on the scene", it was private footage taken for the safety and security of the Mall and it's owners / workers.


He did sue the organization that released the footage (don't know if he won or not, never bothered to look that far) and if he won then that would mean that people wouldn't be allowed to have personal cameras in public places, because everyone walking by in the background would have to consent to being in the photo and having that photo displayed to the family and friends of the person who took it, which obviously would be too much of a hassle. The guy committed the act where hundreds of strangers could see him, why does it matter if a few thousand more people see it? The owners of the security cameras own the rights to all of the footage that is on it, and they have the right to decide to hand it over to the media if they please. If the guy does something in front of that camera that he doesn't want other people to see, then he should be more aware of where is doing such things and not do them in areas where they may be recorded. Just as a thief shouldn't be upset if footage of him robbing a store is aired on "Cops" or a similar show.


Also I don't think the average user understands what you mean. For example people don't really "get it" when you talk about google's satellite. The idea that there is a satellite that can be logged into by anyone, anywhere, at any time, and they can get a real time view of what is going on where I live pisses me off. If I had the resources I would blow out of the sky. So yes I definitely have a problem with the constant non stop surveillance that frankly invades your privacy too. I should not have to worry about being monitored while mowing the yard, eating a hot dog on my porch, or having a friendly chat with the mail man.


It's good to see that someone can see beyond the single issue in the OP. I agree that housing areas shouldn't be monitored.
Revolver Dogelot
72936 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / somewhere that is...
Offline
Posted 7/12/09
Not really, as a business they have limitations on what they can have those camera's for. The footage can only be used to identify when, where, how, and by whom a crime is perpetrated. Because they are a business they are held to a different standard.

For example... Lets say you are in a mall and you trip and fall. When you get up your pants have split open and you look like a real idiot. The next day a security video of it is on youtube getting many lulz. Do you see what I mean? They are not allowed to do that as a business. Their tapes simply can not be used in any way outside of a crime related issue. There are laws in place regarding it.

That said the laws of a security camera in a mall have nothing to do with a guy with a camcorder. If he extended his suit to cover any any kind of public recording then he is a fool, and the suit should be thrown out.
Posted 7/12/09 , edited 7/12/09
It's like people on cell phones. If someone on a sidewalk is talking on a cell phone, lean in and listen to the conversation. If that person says, "Do you mind? Leave so I can have some privacy." you should say, "No. Why don't you go somewhere so we can have a little bit of public around here." XD
Posted 7/12/09
that was foolish on his behalf anyway to do something like that in public.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.