Video cameras and you. Where do you draw the line?

[DugMachine]

The above video is a unidentified man walking around the Seattle area acting as a human surveillance camera basically. He just sits there and records, confuses others and tries not to respond which leads to anger in most.

Now I just came across this on Tumblr and honestly it angers me. It's supposed to be some sort of social commentary on how everyday, multiple security cameras record us but as soon as you put a face behind it people start getting annoyed.

What angers me is that people are so accepting of this. It's like everyone is just some tinfoil nutcase that doesn't realize security cameras are in place for a reason and having a random stranger record you without your permission (I realize you don't need it) is just plain rude and annoying.

I don't know, the whole "experiment" just rustles my johnnies and probably no amount of rationalizing will get me to side with the supporters. But that doesn't mean I don't want to see what Escapist thinks of this so what are you thoughts?

 

[370999]

I think it is a social faux oas (did I spell that right?) to do this. No wonder people are getting angry. As having someone with a video-camera who refuses to respond to human interaction is something that is irritating. And I don't think it is comparable to a security camera stationed at a property. That is usually done to monitor that area for the purpose of preventing crimes by being able to identify those who commit them. A guy with a camera does not have that same air.


So yes I agree with you DugMachine, but I struggle to be eloquent enough to express it.

 

[Lionsfan]

I think it is a social faux oas (did I spell that right?) to do this. No wonder people are getting angry. As having someone with a video-camera who refuses to respond to human interaction is something that is irritating. And I don't think it is comparable to a security camera stationed at a property. That is usually done to monitor that area for the purpose of preventing crimes by being able to identify those who commit them. A guy with a camera does not have that same air.


So yes I agree with you DugMachine, but I struggle to be eloquent enough to express it.

You spelled faux pas right, just had a typo


OT: Why do we accept government and store cameras? Mostly because we trust that the people using those cameras are professionals, and using the footage in a responsible way. We don't know how some random guy with a camera is using the footage

 

[Stasisesque]

I believe it's supposed to highlight the fact that you never know who's going to gain access to footage of you. The security cameras are in place for a reason, yes, but in theory anyone could be on the receiving end of that footage. When you stick a man behind the camera you're forcing everyone to focus on the fact you don't know that man, and he could do anything with information about you.

Regardless of the truth of this, I believe that is the point of the "experiment".

 

[370999]

I think it is a social faux oas (did I spell that right?) to do this. No wonder people are getting angry. As having someone with a video-camera who refuses to respond to human interaction is something that is irritating. And I don't think it is comparable to a security camera stationed at a property. That is usually done to monitor that area for the purpose of preventing crimes by being able to identify those who commit them. A guy with a camera does not have that same air.


So yes I agree with you DugMachine, but I struggle to be eloquent enough to express it.

You spelled faux pas right, just had a typo


OT: Why do we accept government and store cameras? Mostly because we trust that the people using those cameras are professionals, and using the footage in a responsible way. We don't know how some random guy with a camera is using the footage

Drat.


Indeed. Of course I'm not massively in favour of how widespread surviellance has become, but there is an air of legitimacy.

 

[Quaxar]

This is a stupid video. I wonder if the guy even has any permissions to post videos of these people on the internet.

I don't know, the whole "experiment" just rustles my johnnies

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/249/843/7e8.jpg

 

[Dags90]

The security cameras are in place for a reason, yes, but in theory anyone could be on the receiving end of that footage. When you stick a man behind the camera you're forcing everyone to focus on the fact you don't know that man, and he could do anything with information about you.

Regardless of the truth of this, I believe that is the point of the "experiment".

See: the proliferation of humorous security footage on Youtube.

Security cameras have a purpose, but this isn't it.

Discussing the merits of security cameras doesn't make you a tinfoil hat person. In many cases they're usually kind of terrible tools for security work. The images are still usually really terrible quality, and the more cameras you have under one roof the more footage you have to sift through to find anything important. Especially for public security cameras this is important, because they're not free and studies have shown them to be pretty terrible at having an actual impact.[footnote]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/09/lib-dems-says-uk-cctv-cameras-dont-solve-crimes/[/footnote]

This is a stupid video. I wonder if the guy even has any permissions to post videos of these people on the internet.

He has all the permissions he needs. As soon as you step in public in the U.S. you consent to photographed and recorded. These works belong to the photographer/videographer to do with as they please.

 

[DugMachine]

Discussing the merits of security cameras doesn't make you a tinfoil hat person. In many cases they're usually kind of terrible tools for security work. The images are still usually really terrible quality, and the more cameras you have under one roof the more footage you have to sift through to find anything important. Especially for public security cameras this is important, because they're not free and studies have shown them to be pretty terrible at having an actual impact.

Well maybe tinfoil hat was a bit harsh but I've never felt uncomfortable around security cameras but handhelds I sure as hell do.

 

[Dags90]

Well maybe tinfoil hat was a bit harsh but I've never felt uncomfortable around security cameras but handhelds I sure as hell do.

That's sort of exactly the point.

If you replaced every security camera in private stores and public places with a person wearing an appropriate uniform, most people people would be decidedly more uncomfortable with that.

Imagine. You walk into Walmart and you're greeted, not by an elderly/handicapped person, but a pimply faced teenager with two hours of training in a blue vest following your movements with a camera. It's creepy, and it's exactly what happens every time you walk into a big retailer. You just don't see the person behind the camera.

 

[DugMachine]

snope

I "get it" but I trust Wal-mart enough to record me, see I'm doing nothing criminal and let the tape sit for a week or two before they clear it for more space to record more people just shopping. With random strangers I have no idea what they want with the footage and not only that, my aversion to cameras in general stems from me being uncomfortable with my body.

I don't like having my picture or video taken even by my closest friends. So why can't a random stranger like this just respect my wishes to not be filmed instead of sitting there like a mute and only responding to say "but you have security cameras right there"?

 

[alphamalet]

This sort of thing is so juvenile. He is doing it for the purpose of someone's reaction, to then try and use it against them in some capacity or another. Most of these are people just trying to do their job and earn money, or are minding their own business. It angers me as well.

 

[Stasisesque]

snope

I "get it" but I trust Wal-mart enough to record me, see I'm doing nothing criminal and let the tape sit for a week or two before they clear it for more space to record more people just shopping. With random strangers I have no idea what they want with the footage and not only that, my aversion to cameras in general stems from me being uncomfortable with my body.

I don't like having my picture or video taken even by my closest friends. So why can't a random stranger like this just respect my wishes to not be filmed instead of sitting there like a mute and only responding to say "but you have security cameras right there"?

But anyone viewing the security footage from Walmart would be able to watch you go about your daily shop. The fact you can see this guy filming you is actually better than what security cameras do. You know he's filming you, you can see him. If you wanted you could go and get a camera and film him filming you. You can't do that with the Walmart security cameras because you don't know who's viewing the footage.

And as Dags showed earlier, that footage could end up online to be watched by millions. Or the news. Or sold to corporations overseas.

 

[DustyDrB]

snope

I "get it" but I trust Wal-mart enough to record me, see I'm doing nothing criminal and let the tape sit for a week or two before they clear it for more space to record more people just shopping. With random strangers I have no idea what they want with the footage and not only that, my aversion to cameras in general stems from me being uncomfortable with my body.

I don't like having my picture or video taken even by my closest friends. So why can't a random stranger like this just respect my wishes to not be filmed instead of sitting there like a mute and only responding to say "but you have security cameras right there"?

But anyone viewing the security footage from Walmart would be able to watch you go about your daily shop. The fact you can see this guy filming you is actually better than what security cameras do. You know he's filming you, you can see him. If you wanted you could go and get a camera and film him filming you. You can't do that with the Walmart security cameras because you don't know who's viewing the footage.

And as Dags showed earlier, that footage could end up online to be watched by millions. Or the news. Or sold to corporations overseas.

Pretty sure guys who release security footage are likely to be fired for doing so. And we all know there are cameras in such places. You know it when you walk in. I think they even have to put up signs that tell you there are security cameras there. You can choose to not enter if you're not fine with that. Some random dude following on the street is a different thing altogether. These people are blatantly saying they don't give him consent. What else are they going to do? Not be in the world?

Regardless, security cameras watch an area (usually not targeting a specific individual) from afar. They don't get in your face. They don't sit next to you and listen to your phone conversations [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bT1ZfRtrJc&feature=plcp&t=58s].

 

[Stasisesque]

snope

I "get it" but I trust Wal-mart enough to record me, see I'm doing nothing criminal and let the tape sit for a week or two before they clear it for more space to record more people just shopping. With random strangers I have no idea what they want with the footage and not only that, my aversion to cameras in general stems from me being uncomfortable with my body.

I don't like having my picture or video taken even by my closest friends. So why can't a random stranger like this just respect my wishes to not be filmed instead of sitting there like a mute and only responding to say "but you have security cameras right there"?

But anyone viewing the security footage from Walmart would be able to watch you go about your daily shop. The fact you can see this guy filming you is actually better than what security cameras do. You know he's filming you, you can see him. If you wanted you could go and get a camera and film him filming you. You can't do that with the Walmart security cameras because you don't know who's viewing the footage.

And as Dags showed earlier, that footage could end up online to be watched by millions. Or the news. Or sold to corporations overseas.

Pretty sure guys who release security footage are likely to be fired for doing so. And we all know there are cameras in such places. You know it when you walk in. I think they even have to put up signs that tell you there are security cameras there. You can choose to not enter if you're not fine with that. Some random dude following on the street is a different thing altogether. These people are blatantly saying they don't give him consent. What else are they going to do? Not be in the world?

Regardless, security cameras watch an area (usually not targeting a specific individual) from afar. They don't get in your face. They don't sit next to you and listen to your phone conversations [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bT1ZfRtrJc&feature=plcp&t=58s].

My first post was sort of required reading to get the gist of the second post.

There are many ways security cameras and a guy with a camera on the street are not the same, but the point is to highlight the ways they are the same. Invasion of privacy, an unknown individual owning video footage of you, the inability to know how that footage will be used. People do get fired for releasing footage on to the internet, but by that point the video's gone viral and there's very little you can do about it.

You can be just fine with security cameras. For the most part, most people are. Yes there are those who take it to "tinfoil hat" lengths, but the majority who are uneasy about the rise of surveillance just want to know how much privacy they have left.

 

[Saladfork]

I'm watching security cameras right now. I can tell you that if nothing significant occurs, the footage sits around doing nothing for about two months (We have a big hard drive, it deletes things automatically). I can also tell you that I'd get fired on the spot for releasing that footage to anyone but the company or the police. I'm not even supposed to show it to the employees here.

So yeah. Your silly antics are safe around me. I can't really speak for other places, I suppose.

 

[aba1]

I actually think this thread illustrates why we can't just record each other. Everyone can't help but needlessly pass judgement on others. If we all just stopped needlessly judging it really wouldn't be much of a issue.

I think it is interesting that people get upset despite the fact that this camera doesn't effect anybody negatively. I tend to look at things like "Is it hurting me? if so do something about it if not move on".

 

[alphamalet]

snip

Like you said, there are a lot of obvious differences between the guy holding the camera and a surveillance camera, but I don't think this video serves to highlight how people feel about surveillance cameras vs someone with a camera. The problem is, most people would probably still react the same way even if this guy didn't have a video camera on him. If someone stops, sits next to you, and just stares at you, you're going to be a bit alarmed and wonder why they are doing what they are doing. If that person doesn't stop, and follows you to a certain extent, you're going to be more alarmed, and that's how these people reacted. Cameras are far more passive than another person actively choosing to look at you, and aren't capable of anything beyond taking film. This isn't a social experiment, nor does it have any social implications. It's just someone harassing other people.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I love them. I will wave to the people in the black room viewing the videos while plotting the governments demise/how to black out the cameras.

 

[hazabaza1]

The line gets drawn right about when I get my dick out.

 

[Nightvalien]

People don't think, living in ignorance let them believe they are safe and that no one will ever see what they do when they are not being watched, when that illusion is shattered, they get angry with themselves due insecurity and fear that the man behind the camera will judge or do something vile with their image or ridicule them in some way, so they feel powerless hence the violence. I don't mind pictures being taken or being filmed but if they hit the internet in way, there will be blood for the blood god, gallons of blood.