First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Privacy in public
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 7/12/09
We should have the right to decide whether we want to be mentioned on the news or not.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/13/09 , edited 7/13/09

Karkarov wrote:

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.


This occurred somewhere in Europe, and apparently the laws are very different there. Obviously it's not against the law there for an institution (it was a local government building, not a mall) to hand over their security tapes to the media, otherwise they would have been prevented from doing so and it would not have been aired on the news. While the article never stated this, suicide may be a crime there, it is illegal in some parts of Europe but the article doesn't specify which part of Europe this occurred in. If it is a crime then they have the right to turn it over to the media to be a news story.

He was suing for the right to have to consent to any sort of recording of himself being distributed to other people, whether it be from a tourist's camera or a security camera. So he was basically suing for the right to own any recording of himself, and if he won then it would have to apply to everyone, which, as I said before, would cause a lot of problems for people who like to carry around cameras.


wrench246 wrote:

We should have the right to decide whether we want to be mentioned on the news or not.


Depending on where you live, you can choose to keep your identity concealed on the news, unless you committed a crime and the news is reporting it.
1187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Look.... im right...
Offline
Posted 7/13/09
lol private is the antonym of public. what's to argue? The dude is an attention whore, he tried to commit suicide in public, odds are someone will record it. If he had done it in private, he would be dead by now and not have this problem. lol.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/13/09

vinsane01

lol private is the antonym of public. what's to argue?


There are a few things to discuss. I don't think there are many people who like the idea of being watched by cameras every single moment that they are out of their house, and where this occurred that is almost a reality. Also, if someone listened in on your cell phone conversation while you were in public, wouldn't you feel like your privacy was invaded in some way? Or does it not matter to you if that person hears and records every thing you say on your phone while you're out in public?
Posted 7/13/09
No, cuddlebuns, they're not allowed to release this video to the media, at least not without consent from the given individual.

Basically, what Karkarov has said is what I would have said. Kind of reminds me of George Orwell's 1984.
4408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Cavite, Philippines
Offline
Posted 7/13/09
Now that the public knew he was attempting suicide and his reputation, forever destroyed.... he'll be more likely to kill himself again. That's life.
Posted 7/13/09

Yei wrote:

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


This.
1187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Look.... im right...
Offline
Posted 7/14/09 , edited 7/14/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


vinsane01

lol private is the antonym of public. what's to argue?


There are a few things to discuss. I don't think there are many people who like the idea of being watched by cameras every single moment that they are out of their house, and where this occurred that is almost a reality. Also, if someone listened in on your cell phone conversation while you were in public, wouldn't you feel like your privacy was invaded in some way? Or does it not matter to you if that person hears and records every thing you say on your phone while you're out in public?


Recording phone conversation is different. Phone conversation is always private unless you want the public to hear by using a loudspeaker. lol. Phone tapping is illegal and cannot be used in court. As far as im concerned, recorded video of anything done in public is not illegal and can be showed in the teli. If its illegal then we wont have any news reports since their operation will be stopped by a barrage of lawsuits. Heck if its illegal then the channel TMZ wouldnt exist.
Whether or not the some people dont like to be watched in public is their own problem. They should stay inside their houses if they dont like anyone looking at them. These cameras keep people somewhat safe from criminals since they'll be too worried of being watched.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/14/09 , edited 7/14/09

vinsane01
Recording phone conversation is different. Phone conversation is always private unless you want the public to hear by using a loudspeaker.


I didn't mean phone tapping, I meant standing next to someone and listening and recording every single thing they say. Some people's phones are loud enough that you can hear the person on the other end without the speaker phone, and even without that it's not always hard to guess what they're talking about if it is a prolonged conversation. So people shouldn't be allowed to have private conversations in public?


ShroomInferno

No, cuddlebuns, they're not allowed to release this video to the media, at least not without consent from the given individual.

Basically, what Karkarov has said is what I would have said. Kind of reminds me of George Orwell's 1984.


If they weren't allowed to do so, then the local government personnel who released it and the news station that broadcast it would've been penalized in some way. But the only legal action that was taken against them was this guy's personal lawsuit. So I'm pretty sure it's legal where this occurred.
Posted 7/14/09 , edited 7/14/09
Like I said, no they don't have the right to disclose this material. They were violating against Article 8, 10, and 13 of the Convention.
The publicising of the given video by the authority operating the CCTV system represents a serious interference with the individual's right to respect for his private life. The fact that no official authority complained was, because it was just a simple "man of the street" which of course doesn't make their actions any more legal. They most probably didn't expect that said individual would actually come and complain about this violation. Also, the disclosure of the mentioned video was completely unnecessary as it wasn't released to prevent a crime, or even to identify a criminal. Honestly, they ought to obtain the individual's consent prior to publicising the video. But you see, the problem isn't only that..they must have failed to mask it properly because how otherwise were people able to tell his identity? So, point in fact is that they disclosed this video without consent, and even failed to ensure the masking of the individual's identity. They just gave the video unaltered to the media, and the media itself also completely failed to properly mask his identity. They handled it without discretion which then also leads to a serious violation of the relevant broadcasting regulations.

Notes:
The European Convention on Human Rights
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art8


30807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Brick, NJ
Offline
Posted 7/14/09
I think somethings should be private. I don't know about his case, but say your skirt gets blow up by the wind or that your pants for down. Would you appreciate pictures of that circulating? I'd be livid. Just because something happens in public, doesn't mean it deserves to get plastered everywhere. He did have a cry for attention and tried to commit suicide, but he was thankful he was saved. Does he deserve to get humiliated? Eh, it is all point of view.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/14/09

ShroomInferno wrote:

Like I said, no they don't have the right to disclose this material. They were violating against Article 8, 10, and 13 of the Convention.


I read them, but I don't see how they could apply to this situation. Article 10 maybe, but that would be if trying to commit suicide in public could be considered a private act, which is why he sued the council, so he could have some privacy in public.


The publicising of the given video by the authority operating the CCTV system represents a serious interference with the individual's right to respect for his private life.


But he committed the act in public, and any act committed in public cannot be considered a part of a person's private life. I would understand if someone planted a camera in his house or somewhere around his house, but he left the privacy of his home and tried to kill himself in front of a bunch of people in a public area.


Honestly, they ought to obtain the individual's consent prior to publicising the video.


They would only need his consent if he had any legal rights to the video, and if that were the case then anyone who happens to be caught on any camera in public, whether they realize it or not, would own rights to that video and would have to consent to it being distributed, which would cause a lot of problems.


But you see, the problem isn't only that..they must have failed to mask it properly because how otherwise were people able to tell his identity?


The article never really said how his identity was revealed (at least I don't think so), and they never said that his identity was revealed during the news report. I just assumed that his identity wasn't revealed until he filed a lawsuit against them.
85312 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Colorado, USA
Offline
Posted 7/15/09
He could have just commit suicide in the privacy of his own home. Plus many people interrupt suicide when done in public. I'm sure he learned his lesson there.

On a more serious note, I do agree that privacy in public is a poor concept. The concept of a public space is that anyone can by chance see you, and thus you've been seen and cannot be unseen. The "anyone" that may see you in person, are not too different from the "anyone" that may see you when presented to the rest of the world.

"Public" should be a friendly space and concept. To enact a different concept, people would have to feel and act more restricted. A public environment should not be that, and remain comfortable.
Revolver Dogelot
72966 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / somewhere that is...
Offline
Posted 7/15/09 , edited 7/15/09
Well like I said before, it isn't a public tape. It is a security tape, which means it only exists to help identify criminal activity, apprehend said criminals, and protect the building it is in. Security tapes CAN NOT be used to spy on people, track your movements if you have done nothing illegal, make youtube videos, or give media footage for their late show. Unless committing the act of suicide was illegal where this took place they really didn't have any requirement to give the video up and they would have needed the permission of the people on the tape to do so. Why? Because even though it is a public space, the security tapes are not public videos and are subject to special laws. If buildings weren't restricted on how they could use those tapes they would not be allowed to do the taping in the first place.

However since his suit was idiotically aimed at all video's that ever show a person regardless of who, where, and how they were filmed then it is all moot. That suit is absolutely ludicrous and holds no legal merit, much less any common sense. So they hopefully tossed it out. I will say though that if he lives in a place where a person can't even choose to take their own life if they want to then he needs to move. I don't approve of suicide, but it is his life not the governments. They have no business telling you whether or not you can end it if you want.
311282 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/17/09
when there are many people around paying attention, PRIVATE becomes PUBLIC.
but if someone really wants privacy, he/she needs to go on a secured or remote area where there are no other people around.

"earn the right to commit private acts in public." how ironic and pathetic.. if that guy really wants to die, then he should have done it on a real PRIVATE place where no one can stop him.. He's an idiot for committing suicide in public. Of course, many people will see and stop him. That person has no common sense. oooppss..sorry
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.