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!

Creepy Cameraman Pushes Public Surveillance Limits

theodp (442580) writes | about 2 years ago

Privacy 2

theodp (442580) writes "People seem to be okay with constant corporate or government video surveillance in public. Let a lone individual point a video camera their way, however, and tempers flare. GeekWire takes a look at the antics and videos of Seattle's mysterious Surveillance Camera Man, who walks up to people and records them for no apparent reason other than to make a point: How is what he’s doing different than those stationary surveillance cameras tucked away in buildings and public places?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Code (1)

mapfortu (2567463) | about 2 years ago | (#41843871)

FDA, medical devices, FCC, interference. Class B devices are not licensed for medical purposes. Medical devices require release forms. That people are able to take your picture, in public, is not a right. They are able to get away with it due to faults in the legal process. A class B electronic device cannot be applied to a human without their purposed consent. If you could simply gamma ray people whenever you want then the FDA would not have their entire business on medical devices. Picture taking devices, same thing. Is it legal to walk up to someone with a low voltage taser? Low voltage or not--the action is an assault with an unlicensed medical device. Cameras are in the exact same electronic device class (even fully mechanical cameras, if you are able to find one).

Re:Code (1)

HexaByte (817350) | about 2 years ago | (#41845331)

Uh, no. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of photographers to photograph anything or anyone clearly visible in public.

Using that photograph for commercial purposes, however, requires a model release. Using it for personal or editorial purposes does not.

There's a lot a difference between a video camera and a gamma ray device. Cameras record, not emit.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?