×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Return of Surveillance Camera Man

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the smile-for-the-camera dept.

Privacy 188

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

188 comments

Video collection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44084937)

I think I have got few videos from the Surveillance Camera Man. Big Brother, here we go !
Big Brother part 1 [youtube.com]
Big Brother part 2 [youtube.com]

Re:Video collection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44086165)

Makes me wonder if he showed up in front of Verizon store in downtown Manhattan, and filmed their customers, and then would advise that Verizon does that and MORE for NSA already?

Guy deserves getting beaten (4, Interesting)

futuramasd (2958127) | about 9 months ago | (#44084941)

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.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44084961)

especially when his definition of "public" involves entering people's home.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085545)

The Chinese place appeared to be a public place. The door was unlocked and there weren't any warnings on the door or outside that the video showed. The inside has the same appearance as some community centers that I have seen/been inside/

Bet you don't get upset when your various government, ATM, banks, credit unions, drug/grocery/general/car/recreational stores video-tape you, do you? Remember, the Boston Marathon bombers were identified by the outside camera on a Lord & Taylor store. Bet you thought that was nifty, huh?

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (4, Insightful)

BSAtHome (455370) | about 9 months ago | (#44085047)

I don't get it. This guy should be beaten? But the hundreds of stationary cameras, operated by the state, which are doing exactly the same thing is OK? I think the _state_ needs to get a beating.

He makes it a spectacle, yes, but he has a very good point. We are constantly stalked by cameras and mobile phones. I think you need to get your priorities straight.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (3, Funny)

Jawnn (445279) | about 9 months ago | (#44085065)

Oh. So all those cameras that are keeping us safe from teh terrorists are a bad thing? Is that what you're saying? That's just crazy talk, you socialist terrorist lover.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085171)

why dont you take your gooogle-glasses and go use them to fight terror serving with Sergei Brin`s fellow-soldiers in Tel-Aviv?
On second thought, just close your eyes when you see the nuclear stockpiles, oppression of the Palestinians, the numerous diamond-hoards, or the tech-centres of WindowsLiveOne, Amdocs, and Akemai......who knows, some datasets are better left unseen..... didnt you see the deflated listing of Al Capones mansion in comparison with Lansky`s Hertzeliya joint?

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085229)

hahaha, seriously, are you a troll or you really believe that shit of surveillance cameras are for your security?

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085263)

No, he was being sarcastic. Do Slashdotters even know what a troll is at this point?

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (1)

rastos1 (601318) | about 9 months ago | (#44085249)

How do you know that one of the filmed people are not terrorists? The police certainly would be more than happy to have a high quality close up video rather then something like this [guim.co.uk].

Yeah. Sure. It is creepy. Just like the cameras that are under the mall ceiling or on the street poles. If people don't like video being taken of them, I suggest they do it everywhere and every time. You know, just being consistent.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 9 months ago | (#44085219)

I don't get it. This guy should be beaten? But the hundreds of stationary cameras, operated by the state, which are doing exactly the same thing is OK? I think the _state_ needs to get a beating.

You know, there's nothing inconsistent about believing that both this man and the law are asses.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (0)

grumbel (592662) | about 9 months ago | (#44085449)

The state doesn't post videos of peoples on the Internet for shits and giggles and companies like Google take quite some effort to blur everybody faces before publishing anything. Furthermore the problem with this guy isn't even the camera, if he would just walk around and stare at people he would get pretty much the same reaction. So all he is showing is essentially that people get aggressive when you violate social norms. Surveillance on the other side doesn't really do that, England is full of cameras, yet reports on people going crazy because of it are extremely rare, a surveillance camera in the background will simply get ignored by people assuming that they even notice it in the first place.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (2)

DragonTHC (208439) | about 9 months ago | (#44085817)

the point is, you have no expectation of privacy in public.

You can be filmed and are filmed on a daily basis without your explicit consent.

But by entering a public place you're giving up your privacy.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44086129)

"But by entering a public place you're giving up your privacy."

Not always. If you have to relief yourself in public park, you look for a secluded spot, don't you?
It is called, an expectation of privacy, and it exists in public places too.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085883)

You're missing the point: The stationary cameras aren't posted on the web whenever the person operating the camera feels embarrasing someone.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#44086021)

Security cams release embarrassing footage all the time. Its also used EXTENSIVELY in court cases for things people would rather not be seen. Your argument is weak.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085969)

I don't get it. This guy should be beaten?

Parent was obviously projecting and was really talking about himself. I wish him luck on that!

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (2)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 9 months ago | (#44086207)

What is it you don't get? Yes, the guy should be beaten and the state should be beaten. The guy apears to be weaker than the state, so let's start with him...

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44086243)

He needs to be tied to the comfy chair!!!

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085145)

Guy deserves getting beaten

And you deserve to be killed in self defense.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085201)

Maybe he should have something intelligent to say to these people when they ask why he's filming them. If the whole point is to make people conscious of just how much they are recorded, he should be a bit more explicit about it. Otherwise the message gets lost in the creepiness.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (4, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 9 months ago | (#44085237)

Otherwise the message gets lost in the creepiness.

The message .. is .. that its creepy.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085495)

You are constantly being filmed but you don't "go crazy" about the filming by hidden/out of the way cameras. Why go crazy over this guy? His filming of subjects/people in the public domain are quite legal. If you don't want to be filmed, go to a place where there aren't cameras and/or change the laws to make these cameras illegal.

After watching the guy's videos, I would think that he could go to the police with legitimate complaints against some of these people. He was accosted and touched (assault and battery), threatened with bodily harm, attacks against his property were made.

Wow, the USA is a real cluster, isn't it?

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085621)

Are you saying you attack the cameras in grocery stores?

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 9 months ago | (#44085917)

I love uneducated people like you.

I have Google Glass, and 100% of the people I encounter want to know more and are very curious about it. I suggest you actually get education about what you are talking about, because to anyone that has even a glimmer of a clue about Google Glass, you sound like a complete fool to them.

Re:Guy deserves getting beaten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085921)

While i don't like the idea of what he is doing either, what he is doing is *legal*. So you propose committing crimes against people that are not breaking the law?

Hope you never end up on a jury.

We need a SOVIET AMERICA (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 9 months ago | (#44084949)

Down with the blood-drenched dictatorship of the bourgeoisie! The emancipation of the proletariat is the emancipation of all humanity!Read Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky! Workers of the world, unite!

Richard Dawson: Surveillance...says! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#44084963)

capabilities of Google Glass and heightened concern over privacy in general, thanks to the NSA data surveillance controversy."

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)...

Re:Richard Dawson: Surveillance...says! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085117)

I already wear a mask all the time anyway. Fuckin' surveillance lovers...

Re:Richard Dawson: Surveillance...says! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085151)

Ah I see you're making a protest...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/21/canada-bans-protesters-wearing-masks/ [washingtontimes.com]

Careful there brother

Re:Richard Dawson: Surveillance...says! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085305)

I knew it! is that what you did last summer?!?

Re:Richard Dawson: Surveillance...says! (2)

Jiro (131519) | about 9 months ago | (#44085591)

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.

Re:Richard Dawson: Surveillance...says! (3, Insightful)

SJHiIlman (2957043) | about 9 months ago | (#44085963)

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.

Re:Richard Dawson: Surveillance...says! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44086229)

"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.

Re:Richard Dawson: Surveillance...says! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085481)

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.

Re:Richard Dawson: Surveillance...says! (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | about 9 months ago | (#44085837)

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

Again, ruined by implementation (3, Insightful)

poity (465672) | about 9 months ago | (#44084969)

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.

Re:Again, ruined by implementation (1)

poity (465672) | about 9 months ago | (#44084997)

*being stalked and made into a public spectacle

Re:Again, ruined by implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085215)

one stalk of salary and i get a bowel-movement.......
that doesnt mean anyone suddenly gets my consent to be in possession of the time of flush, or which water-closet im using. (yeah, yeah, i got a smart-grid home-so does everyone)

wheres the line between public/private, and does your opinion or perception of rights matter anyway?

Re:Again, ruined by implementation (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 9 months ago | (#44085595)

one stalk of salary and i get a bowel-movement

You should buy some celery with that salary instead of eating the money. Then there would be fewer people waiting for the end result.

Re:Again, ruined by implementation (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#44085155)

It's not the same reaction, and that's the point. It should be.

Re:Again, ruined by implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085223)

Yes, because the answer to a serious problem is to childishly oversimplify things in a blatantly manipulative fashion to "prove" your point, all while looking like, acting like, and outright being a complete douchebag that's contributing to the problem, rather than doing anything about it. You're probably the same sort of person who absolutely LOVES the smug-as-hell anti-smoking ads where they bug random people on the street into making weighted opinions, right?

Re:Again, ruined by implementation (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 9 months ago | (#44085557)

Yes. That's how the founding fathers got the rabble of their day* interested.

*the educated, land owning rabble like themselves.

Re:Again, ruined by implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44086269)

If you can't tell the difference between targeted and non-targeted recording, then you're part of the problem.

Re:Again, ruined by implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085291)

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.

Where did he make this assumption? Did he release a manifesto? Is it on his YouTube page? All I see is you making a straw man and attacking it.

Re:Again, ruined by implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085855)

Have you seen how the Afro-American asshole reacted?

Idiot (1, Insightful)

cob666 (656740) | about 9 months ago | (#44084983)

This guy is an idiot and I'm surprised he doesn't get his ass kicked more often.

Re:Idiot (5, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 9 months ago | (#44085147)

This guy is brilliant. The idiots are the people sitting around outside yakking on their cellphones who want to label it a "private conversation". Not when you're inflicting it on everyone at the next table.

And this guy:

Passer-by: "I don't really care for other people to just be taking a random video of me."

Surveillance Camera Man: "Didn't you just come out the drugstore?"

Passer-by: "Yeah."

Surveillance Camera Man: "They have cameras in there."

Passer-by: "So?" (pushes Surveillance Camera Man).

If you're ready to assault this guy, why are you not out wrecking the surveillance state, spraypainting cameras and calling for better privacy laws? The cognitive dissonance is amazing.

Re:Idiot (0)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 9 months ago | (#44085303)

Passer-by: "I don't really care for other people to just be taking a random video of me."

Surveillance Camera Man: "Didn't you just come out the drugstore?"

Passer-by: "Yeah."

Surveillance Camera Man: "They have cameras in there."

That is not random surveillance. For one, you are entering the store's property, and their cameras are for identification purposes should the store be robbed. Their cameras also only film people who go into the store, ie customers. Therefore, this is no longer random recording, but targeted recording. This is rather different than some asshole standing on public property filming random people because he thinks he is making some kind of statement.

Re:Idiot (2)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 9 months ago | (#44085503)

you are entering the store's property,

So what? An act is right or wrong independent of whether the state has issued a piece of paper making the part of the planet on which it occurs someone's so-called 'property". And many surveillance cameras, privately and publicly owned, record public spaces.

and their cameras are for identification purposes should the store be robbed

Their cameras are for whatever the store management decides they are for. If a woman has a nip slip that gets caught on the store's cameras, you can bet it will be viewed...

Therefore, this is no longer random recording, but targeted recording

Oh, I'm sure the bike guy would have been mollified by SCM saying "It's not random, I deliberately targeted you."

This is rather different than some asshole standing on public property

Amazing the anger and hostility SCM brings up, especially among people who are apparently ok with being filmed by hidden cameras controlled by corporate and government agents.

I'd rather be filmed by a obvious person than a hidden camera -- if there's a person where I am, I know I'm being observed. The problem with surveillance is when it separates "being observed" from "being in the company of others".

Re:Idiot (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#44086181)

Amazing the anger and hostility SCM brings up

Not really. As an unaccompanied male walk into a children's playground with an SLR camera around your neck and you'll see exactly the same thing, if not more.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085333)

What you and Google are conveniently ignoring is that privacy expectations are not binary, as in "on" (inside our private homes with the window shades drawn) and "off" (everywhere else). We expect reasonable amounts of privacy even when we're out in the street, although it is not absolute in the sense that we might show up in the background of someone's photo of their relatives posing. Property surveillance photos are supposed to be recycled on a regular basis and are meant to assist in investigation of crimes, accidents, and natural disasters.

We don't expect to be photographed or videotaped randomly in secret and have those pix or clips uploaded to the Internet, although courts have ruled that celebrities have to live with some of that as a tradeoff for their choice of professions.

Re:Idiot (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#44086063)

Your expectation and reality are quite different. If you are in public, your privacy is OFF, except in certain very limited circumstances.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085345)

Isn't there a difference between a video taken for the purpose of a store safety, and a creepy asshole guy taking a video of you while you go about your stuff?

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085461)

Having camera-shaped things in your store might or might not provide store safety, actually recording does nothing, though.

Re:Idiot (2)

tjhart85 (1840452) | about 9 months ago | (#44085605)

Isn't there a difference between a video taken for the purpose of a store safety, and a creepy asshole guy taking a video of you while you go about your stuff?

Yes there is a difference, SCM isn't hiding when he's taking the video.

Besides that, plenty of people are proving themselves willing to hurt him, while he is in full compliance with the law, he IS recording for the purpose of safety.

Re:Idiot (1)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about 9 months ago | (#44086303)

Yes. One is creepy, the other is not. Both are legal.
At any rate, this guy will - sooner or later - get his ass kicked and/or camera broken after pestering the wrong guy.
(Example: my cousin is a hot headed- testosterone full - short tempered muscle bound guy. not afraid of assault charges or jail. I guarantee If he did this to him creepy guy will need a doctor)
I am just waiting for that one on you tube.
You could also follow him around with a camera - fight fire with fire.

Re:Idiot (1)

Dusthead Jr. (937949) | about 9 months ago | (#44085485)

If I was that passer-by I would turn the question back at him. I would ask the camera man what shoplifting has he prevented? What robber has he identified? The camera man might be able to do those things, only if he were hidden. But let's see him catch a robber while standing right next to him, with a gun. I would like to see footage of that.

Re:Idiot (1)

Jiro (131519) | about 9 months ago | (#44085497)

Passerby: The cameras in the store are for a known purpose and it is exceedingly unlikely that the video they take of me is going to be used against me personally. The store's certainly not going to be publishing that video to Youtube, and they're probably not going to even watch it once. On the other hand, it's exceedingly likely that a guy off the street intentionally filming a particular person is going to use it in a way directly opposing the interests of that person.

Furthermore, people filming strangers is highly correlated with the people harassing those strangers in other ways, not because they are going to use the film for that, but because the kind of person who is willing to film them is typically willing to do other bad things.. Stores filming customers is not so correlated."

Re:Idiot (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#44086077)

This is the dumbest argument EVER. We see people acting a fool on security footage ALL THE TIME. Security footage is used EVERYDAY to change lives for good or bad.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085839)

This guy is brilliant.

No, he's not. He's an asshole who is trying to make a point by pushing people's buttons by violating their personal space. If he stood across the street and recorded people then he'd not get half the reaction, but no, he's got to be a jerkoff about it.

At the risk of going all 'internet tough guy', I'd drop him like a used condom and then destroy his gear. Get in my personal space and you've got one warning before a right cross breaks your nose. Get near my niece and nephew and I'll frame you as a pedophile and it will be worse.

As somebody else has pointed out, note that he's doing it in white bread Seattle in a decent neighborhood. If he tried that shit in my old neighborhood in Boston he literally might not make it out of alive.. in other words, he's a pussy for his choice of venue.

Guy is a good metaphor for the Google Age (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085045)

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.

You Fail It.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085121)

Best. Individuals our chances to this. For well-yknown

Sound (1)

PPH (736903) | about 9 months ago | (#44085137)

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?

Re:Sound (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085167)

Most people just say IANAL, instead of proving it out loud like you do. Maybe the reason he hasn't been arrested is because you don't know the law and its interpretations as well as you think you do.

privacy in public? Is this a joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085235)

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 /.

Retaliation (1)

devnullkac (223246) | about 9 months ago | (#44085297)

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 a sociopath (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085317)

I'd gladly see this guy beaten up for being such an asshole....

I have a question... (4, Interesting)

mindwhip (894744) | about 9 months ago | (#44085325)

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.

Re:I have a question... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085675)

I was thinking the same thing. He's misrepresenting his victims.

Re:I have a question... (0)

Nyder (754090) | about 9 months ago | (#44085775)

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.

Who's story? The Surveillance Camera Man records people. He puts the best reactions up on youtube. Why would he want to bore us with people nodding and smiling at the camera?

Any other story is just guessing by the poster of this submission and the article on Geekwire.

Pure speculation.

The blade cuts both ways (2)

stigmato (843667) | about 9 months ago | (#44085351)

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.

Re:The blade cuts both ways (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085437)

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?

To be honest, the government shouldn't be allowed to do that to begin with.

Re:The blade cuts both ways (-1, Troll)

maliqua (1316471) | about 9 months ago | (#44086035)

Its not the right to film thats causing the rage, its his way of using that right, i'd beat the shit out of that asshole, i'd beat him to the god damn ground and leave him for dead if i he was following me around being annoying, is it his right yes, should i tollerate it, yes, would i nope

Why the outrage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085367)

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?

What a dick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085369)

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.

Re:What a dick. (1)

SJHiIlman (2957043) | about 9 months ago | (#44085445)

The only people who get actual personal surveillance and monitoring are people who do bad things.

Wow, you're naive. People who do something the government doesn't like (which isn't necessarily bad) might be put under surveillance, too. Rules and attitudes change, and so too can the criteria that determines who should be put under surveillance. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is an absolutely idiotic mindset to have.

Idiotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085431)

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.

Re:Idiotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085953)

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

Oh? You'd be okay if suddenly there was a drone hovering over you every time you went outside?

What happened? (1)

Reliable Windmill (2932227) | about 9 months ago | (#44085451)

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???

Any excuse to get violent (4, Insightful)

Nyder (754090) | about 9 months ago | (#44085715)

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.

Re:Any excuse to get violent (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085895)

Okay, maybe i'm not stoned enough yet (working on it),

This explains a lot.

but what I found amusing was people used dude with a camera as an excuse to be violent.

It's not so amusing when people get hurt, unless of course you're a sociopath.

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.

Yes, it's called violation of personal space by an asshole following you. It's a social norm. I can walk up to you in the street and say right to your face (without physically touching you) "I think you're a fucking cunt", and it's protected under the First Amendment, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Not only are you suddenly breaking the law but you are being recorded doing it.

Actually, this guy needs to be doxed and outed. In certain states wiretapping laws (he's apparently not getting consent to use the audio) apply, and hopefully he'll get hit with a felony and placed into general population, where he should be outed as a camera-toting pervert.

Re:Any excuse to get violent (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 9 months ago | (#44085981)

Mr. Coward. You made my point. thanks!

Re:Any excuse to get violent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44086055)

You're not proving a point, nor is the "Surveillance Camera Man", because he's not doing this for a few minutes, then stopping and educating the people he's just stalked; he's posting the videos to a web site where he's largely preaching to the choir (us). Do you really think that Geekwire and Slashdot carry any weight whatsoever in the real world?

In addition, it's apparent that you're an antisocial asshole. I fire people like you every day as a tech manager due to your inability to empathize and play well with others.

Re:Any excuse to get violent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44085973)

It's interesting. I bet people would have a similar reaction if a camera was floating around unmanned, but still pointed right at them.

This guy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44086001)

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...

My first thought was... (1)

overmod (180722) | about 9 months ago | (#44086231)

...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...

I have my own drone (0)

careysb (566113) | about 9 months ago | (#44086259)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...