Beta

×

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!

Seattle's Creepy Cameraman Pushes Public Surveillance Buttons

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the high-performance-art dept.

Privacy 387

theodp 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?" At least with Surveillance Camera Man, you specifically know that he's watching you — not always the case. (Not even when there's no warrant, on private property in the U.S.)

cancel ×

387 comments

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

Should have used HOSTS file, Seattle! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41846971)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, She is Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.

Disproof of all apk's statements: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040729&cid=40949719 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040697&cid=40949343 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040597&cid=40948659 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40947927 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040425&cid=40946755 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40942439 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3024445&cid=40942207 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038597&cid=40942031 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038601&cid=40942085 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040803&cid=40950045 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040867&cid=40950563 [slashdot.org]
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40950839 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041035&cid=40951899 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041081&cid=40952169 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041091&cid=40952383 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40952991 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40954201 [slashdot.org]
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042199&cid=40956625 [slashdot.org]
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897177 [slashdot.org]
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029589&cid=40894889 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3027333&cid=40886171 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042451&cid=40959497 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042547&cid=40960279 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042669&cid=40962027 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40965091 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40965087 [slashdot.org]
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967049 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3044971&cid=40972117 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3044971&cid=40972271 [slashdot.org]
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045075&cid=40972313 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045349&cid=40973979 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3046181&cid=40978835 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3046211&cid=40979293 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3050711&cid=41002319 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3118863&cid=41341925 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3131751&cid=41397971 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138079&cid=41429005 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3146511&cid=41469199 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3146549&cid=41469495 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41509255 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3164403&cid=41555261 [slashdot.org]
AND MANY MORE

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words

alexander peter kowalski
903 east division st.
syracuse, ny 13208

dob: 01/31/1965

mother:
jan kowalski
dob: 12/03/1933

Re:Should have used HOSTS file, Seattle! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847033)

What the hell is this?

Re:Should have used HOSTS file, Seattle! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847089)

performance art

Re:Should have used HOSTS file, Seattle! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847097)

it's apk, theres no reason to care.

Re:Should have used HOSTS file, Seattle! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847661)

He's just taking a vide^W^W^Wposting.

Seems more like an apk parody.

Re:Should have used HOSTS file, Seattle! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847101)

That's great but what about the risk of subluxations?

Subluxations (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847181)

Just wear a copper bracelet and put magnets in your shoes, man. Handled!

The proof: Your next Phrenology reading will be completely different.*

-

* (caveat: You must go to a different Phrenology practitioner for your next reading.)

Re:Subluxations (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847455)

Go get an MRI with an iron neckband. Please.

Re:Subluxations (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847663)

Sure, man. Right after you get your sense of humor re-attached. :)

hmm... (-1, Flamebait)

Soilworker (795251) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847003)

Wtf with that girl screaming "HELP ME" while she's being escorted ? Why she don't just leave herself without making any drama ? Are all American that stupid ? Like the cunt who just punch the camera, she's just a stupid security agent...

Re:hmm... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847305)

The engrish is strong with this one.

Need to take great caution with this (4, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847019)

One wrong move and this creepy cameraman may end up with harassment charges.

A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators. In this case, he is very mobile and instead of filming a predefined area, he films individual people. He walks up to a single person and videotapes them with the intent of aggravating them about being videotaped. That could easily be spun as harassment if he ticks off the wrong person.

Re:Need to take great caution with this (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847147)

A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators.

I wasn't aware there were regulations limiting the adding of security cameras to places that record what's in the public's view. This is no different than a business putting up a camera on one corner of the building and deciding to move it to another.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harassment [merriam-webster.com]

The key here seems to be repeated attempts of what he is doing. I'm guessing as long as he doesn't do it after being told to stop he's not harassing anyone.

Annoying, perhaps but being annoying isn't illegal.

Re:Need to take great caution with this (4, Insightful)

Zak3056 (69287) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847169)

A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators.

"Fixed in place" is (mostly) true, but "predefined area" does not have to be. PTZ cameras abound, also high megapixel cameras offer digital PTZ, so just because it's pointed at a fixed area doesn't mean that it's somehow limited. One extreme example is Avigilon, which offers a 29MP digital camera. Believe me when I say that the level of detail offered here, and what you can look at is fairly impressive (I've seen a nice demo setup where a single camera with a fairly wide lens is set up on a video wall offering a couple of dozen discrete views).

Also, I would argue with the logic that "to spot crimes and identify perpetrators" holds any real water. I can cover my neighborhood with cameras just to be a nosy ass, without any real contribution to security.

While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.

Re:Need to take great caution with this (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847537)

While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.

That his actions are assholish at best IS the entire point. Surveillance cameras are no less assholish. So if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.

Re:Need to take great caution with this (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847699)

So if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.

Surveillance cameras don't walk up to you and film you right in your face, nor do they sit down next to you while you're on the phone and record your conversation. These are two completely different scenarios where the only common factor is a video camera.

I'm opposed to speeding on public roadways, but you don't see me picketing a NASCAR race.

Re:Need to take great caution with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847193)

A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area

Could you please cite the law where it says this?

to spot crimes and identify perpetrators

You're saying the creepy cameraman wouldn't have been able to record crimes and identify perpetrators? Does he turn his camera off if he thinks he's recording criminal activity? He seems quite agnostic towards what's going on in the field of his camera, much like security cameras.

Re:Need to take great caution with this (1)

Revotron (1115029) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847617)

Could you please cite the law where it says this?

I never said there was a law that stated this. I said that a judge might see it that way, and as a result, disregard a possible "I'm no different than a security camera" defense.

You're saying the creepy cameraman wouldn't have been able to record crimes and identify perpetrators? Does he turn his camera off if he thinks he's recording criminal activity? He seems quite agnostic towards what's going on in the field of his camera, much like security cameras.

No, I'm not saying that. You inferred that from my post, and falsely at that. I'm not saying that he wouldn't be able to videotape criminal acts. All I said was that the obvious purpose of a security camera is to watch a designated area to observe crimes, whereas a reasonable person would see his acts as something completely different. "Reasonable person" is the standard in law by which some things are measured or determined.

Re:Need to take great caution with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847325)

In time, someone will beat the shut out if him and destroy his camera. Trial result will be not guilty due to self defense.

Re:Need to take great caution with this (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847647)

If only someone would pursue similar vigilante justice agains the creeps who put surveillance cameras everywhere.

Re:Need to take great caution with this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847377)

I'm not sure annoying people counts as harassment. If he followed one person around or threatened them then yes you might have a point but it appears that he's just going up to random individuals from the story. Given that they are in a public place with no expectation of privacy I think he's probably okay legally, granted he could be convicted of being an asshole in the court of public opinion which then leads to people ignoring the fact that he is following the law and charging him anyway. That happens all the time so it is better if you don't try to piss people off.

Re:Need to take great caution with this (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847559)

a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators. In this case, he is very mobile and instead of filming a predefined area, he films individual people

What's the difference between one mobile guy that takes his camera from point A to point B, and two stationary surveillance cameras at point A and B?

Re:Need to take great caution with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847713)

The problem is that a security camera doesn't post the videos on youtube.

I don't mind being watched by cameras for a good purpose (security/surveillance) but I certainly don't want some random dude invading my privacy.

Re:Need to take great caution with this (2)

mschaffer (97223) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847635)

Not all "security" cameras are fixed. I am sure many people would be agitated if a drone were buzzing around them.

Stalking vs Surveillance (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847023)

Stationary surveillance is not obtrusive. This guy is obstructing the persons' line of sight and getting in their way. He's also recording the audio of what people are saying. This is more like harassment to prove a point. If he was across the street recording then I doubt anyone would even care.

Re:Stalking vs Surveillance (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847135)

Stationary surveillance is not obtrusive. This guy is obstructing the persons' line of sight and getting in their way. He's also recording the audio of what people are saying. This is more like harassment to prove a point. If he was across the street recording then I doubt anyone would even care.

So tell me where is this codified? I've not read anything that says "thou shalt use stationary only and not robotically controlled tracking cameras and this shall be okay" and the audio part, I'm very curious where you found that it was not okay to get audio with your video? Also, he clearly doesn't get any audio from the security guard until the security guard comes out and tells him to get lost. So I'm confused about how you're justifying some incidences over others.

Re:Stalking vs Surveillance (5, Informative)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847551)

Stationary surveillance is not obtrusive. This guy is obstructing the persons' line of sight and getting in their way.

I watched one of his videos. Typically, people notice him and move in *his* direction. Others appear to intentionally go out of their way to swat at him (wouldn't that be assault?) Another time a guy started walking away, only to turn around and swat at him. One time he sat down at a table with someone else. Another time he was video taping someone through a window. A few times he was looking into someone's parked car from beside it, which is hardly "in their way".

Not a single time did he intentionally get in anyone's way. Not a single time did he block anyone's line of sight, until they intentionally turned to face him. Sounds to me like you're just making shit up and didn't bother to watch the videos to make sure your claims could withstand 5 minutes of verification.

Public vs private (4, Insightful)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847031)

Of course many would like to think that "public" surveillence camera are safer with pre-screened employees. Given the abuse, injure, rob, thieve record of TSA, the kill-sorry-wrong-house adventures of various city and federal agencies, and various asset forfeiture abuses these past 25 years, is no strong reason to believe this more than the tooth fairy.

Re:Public vs private (4, Interesting)

inKubus (199753) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847489)

Right, it's classic cognitive dissonance due to imperfect information. You can't see the security guard watching the surveillance camera video, so you assume it's fine. Whereas on the street, you are afforded more of a choice and so you take it. Unfortunately this, from an economic prospective, puts security guards with access to surveillance footage at a relative advantage to everyone else as far as having access to video. But what people don't take into account is that the kind of people who are attracted to the job are also the people who enjoy having that relative advantage. Thus, over time, it's likely the worst people you'd want to have access to video footage of you will have it and the people you'd most want to have it won't. Video is video, and that's the point this guy is trying to make. Just because you can face your accuser in this case doesn't make what he's doing any WORSE than other surveilance. But people feel it is because they associate it with a person. Any strong power that can make use of this advantage will have a very strong position of power due to the information imbalance.

File this under.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847035)

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:File this under.. (2)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847157)

Nah, but three lefts do.

Re:File this under.. (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847183)

Actually you usually end up a block behind where you wanted to be, given that 270 degree turns on a dime are rarely made.

Re:File this under.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847243)

If you miss your right turn onto a 1-way street, 3 lefts starting at your next intersection are your best bet (if you don't know another way to your destination).

Re:File this under.. (1)

MarkGriz (520778) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847187)

And I'm wagering that's exactly what he's gonna get, right to the face.

Re:File this under.. (4, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847207)

He's not trying to make a right. He's trying to call attention to a wrong.

Public surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847037)

I have absolutely no issues with public surveillance, as long as this applies doubly so to the "surveillers". All public officials (including elected officials and law enforcement officials) must submit to full time surveillance during when performing public duty in public spaces and public events. These records need to be available to the general public to ensure that the power granted to them by the people is not abused.

As far as public surveillance of civilians is concerned, this is already in place considering the number of security cameras around. Besides if you are in a public space, you implicitly agree to follow the laws for availing of the use of said public space. I can't think of a single reason why anyone should be against public surveillance in public spaces (except the obvious restrooms) unless they are breaking the law. If you want to do something that you are ashamed of (or could be potentially embarrassed by), do it in a private space.

Re:Public surveillance (2)

inKubus (199753) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847525)

I think there should definitely be surveillance cameras in the rooms where the other cameras are monitored, which are monitored at a different location by a separate agency.

So, To Summarize... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847061)

Person with no concept of personal space gets in someone's personal space to make a point about a topic completely unrelated to personal space.

Re:So, To Summarize... (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847261)

"You even look like a dumb fuck."

Funniest part of the video and sums up my feelings on the whole project. This has nothing to do with surveillance and everything to do with a sociopath making people uncomfortable.

Re:So, To Summarize... (3, Insightful)

Ichijo (607641) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847371)

Yes, it can be uncomfortable to have your beliefs or your security measures challenged, but sometimes they need to be.

Re:So, To Summarize... (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847631)

If the dude had no camera, it would be almost the same thing. Walk up to a guy sitting in a car and just stare in the window. Sit down at a table with someone talking on the phone. Stare in through a plate-glass window at someone eating, then when they move, follow them inside. No camera, the reaction would have been the same.

I get the point he was trying to make. I may even agree a bit. He just did a horrendous job of making that point and instead behaved like a sociopath, and because he had a camera rolling we get to see what people do when sociopaths interact with normal (or even abnormal) people.

If He's Trying to Prove a Point... (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847071)

Why isn't he following politicians and LEO's?

Seriously, man, I hate ubiquitous surveillance as-much-if-not-more than the next guy - following me around doesn't prove anything, except that you're an asshole with entirely too much free time.

Re:If He's Trying to Prove a Point... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847125)

He did for follow a security guy though. I thought it was a ingenious. The security guy cannot really leave, whatever he is guarding. He knows he cannot attack the camera man. He also knows what the camera man is doing is legal. Borderline harassing, but very difficult to prove harassment.

creepy not... (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847143)

...suicidal

Re:creepy not... (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847463)

Then the pussy shouldn't be doing it at all.

Re:If He's Trying to Prove a Point... (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847307)

following me around doesn't prove anything, except that you're an asshole with entirely too much free time.

In Seattle? That's hard to believe!

Re:If He's Trying to Prove a Point... (1)

Larryish (1215510) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847567)

new movie:

Tactless in Seattle

Re:If He's Trying to Prove a Point... (1, Flamebait)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847597)

Following you around with a camera does prove something. If surveillance cameras don't bother you as much as this guy does, that's proof that you're a hypocrit. You don't want to be a hypocrit do you? No? Then you better start hating surveillance cameras and complaining loudly about them.

The difference... (4, Insightful)

skelly33 (891182) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847105)

the difference is that you never know what some a-hole private individual is going to do with video footage of you including, but not limited to:

* Adding it to his private collection of masturbation material
* Posting it on YouTube for everyone to enjoy a good laugh at your expense
* Modify the material and use it for blackmail/extortion/public humiliation
* Worse?

With corporate cameras, odds are much higher that the footage is going onto a temporary buffer which will eventually (usually 1 week to 1 month kind of time frame) be wiped out and replaced by the next day's worth of footage. With corporate cameras, the fixed field of view, the image is general. With an asshat like this guy, you are specifically targeted (reference list above as to why that is a problem). Occasionally we see these situations in the news such as TSA staff intercepting and/or duplicating video/images of passengers moving through the line. That is not acceptable behavior. When they are caught, they should be terminated as their actions are inappropriate.

Re:The difference... (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847165)

I agree, they should be put to death.

or did you mean their employment should be 'Terminated', as opposed to their existence?

Re:The difference... (2, Informative)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847205)

I don't think laws are based on "odds". It's like saying it's OK to stab someone in the foot but not in the neck, since the former is less likely to kill them!

Re:The difference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847465)

I don't think laws are based on "odds". It's like saying it's OK to stab someone in the foot but not in the neck, since the former is less likely to kill them!

Really? Because I seriously, really believe there's a difference between a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and actual first-degree murder. But hey, whatever makes you feel more smug, man, go with it.

Re:The difference... (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847499)

It's like saying it's OK to stab someone in the foot but not in the neck, since the former is less likely to kill them!

Well, you'd probably get grevious bodily harm for stabbing someone in the foot, but attempted murder for stabbing them in the neck. So, there is a difference, legally.

Re:The difference... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847271)

I fail to see the difference if it's some a-hole with his own camera or an a-hole in a room in a building working for someone. Sure, they might be afraid of losing their job if they do the wrong thing, but at the end of the day it's still some creep looking at pictures of you.

Besides, the real problem here is that we DON'T know what anyone's doing with surveillance photos - doesn't matter who the individual is. I know it's easier to get upset at one person, because he has a face and he gets up in yours. But that doesn't change the reality of the surveillance situation.

At least he's calling attention to the issue, even if it pisses people off. Not in a classy way, not in a particular intelligent or friendly way, but he's doing it.

Re:The difference... (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847633)

With corporate cameras, odds are much higher that the footage is going onto a temporary buffer

A false sense of security is worse than no sense of security.

classic vid on the topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847133)

From Steve Mann's "Shooting Back [youtube.com] "

His actions/presence MAKE it different (5, Insightful)

justsomecomputerguy (545196) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847163)

His antics are DIFFERENT because he is a PERSON, and he keeps getting right up in other peoples face (within distance to physically touch or be touched) A much better test that would eliminate the CREEPY GUY factor, would be to just mount a camera on a tripod and place it by the doorway of a building or even in the middle of a crowd or public square and then walk away from it. Maybe have it mounted on a stand that can turn and focus... I could should that people were "afraid of balloons" if I stepped right up in there faces and stared at them while holding balloons. Possibly interesting idea executed very lamely. Next.

Re:His actions/presence MAKE it different (1)

ottothecow (600101) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847213)

+this.

Also, would be more interesting to see it done within the field of view of a real surveillance camera (either on a tripod or him walking around with it). The closest he gets in those videos is some comments like "Weren't there cameras in the store you just came out of?". Would be much more compelling if he were saying "well that camera right up there is filming both of us right now, why don't you care about that one?"

Re:His actions/presence MAKE it different (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847251)

His antics are DIFFERENT because he is a PERSON

Agreed, it's so weird that he's a person. Now if he was just a normal old drone [slashdot.org] , I'd be completely fine with it hovering next to me, watching me scratch my balls and walk out of 7-11 with three cases of beer, lottery tickets and an illegally sized Big Gulp. I mean, it's not like there's people behind those drones and security cameras watching me, right?

Re:Drones watching you scratch your balls (1)

justsomecomputerguy (545196) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847519)

Ewww. THAT's creepy. But your point about the drones is only partially right. It's not so much the acknowledgement that "someone" is passively (but intrusively) watching you as it is the invasion of "your space" . One of those fragile Quad-Helicopter Drones would also be creepy, not because it could hurt you as much as it is invading your "space". My IMPLIED point was that anything that is mobile and right there in-your-face is creepy. I "person" holding the camera is probably the most creepy, the only way it could be creepier would be if he was just starring at you without even a camera. You could make it less creepy by having him keep his distance. Or have fixed position stand (aka a tripod). Or if the drone were high enough up that you didn't immediately notice it.

Re:His actions/presence MAKE it different (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847573)

Corporations are people too, my friend. /obligatory

This is (probably) illegal... (2, Interesting)

supersat (639745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847179)

Not because he recorded video of people in public, but because he recorded audio. Audio has much stronger legal protections, and Washington is a two-party consent state, at least when it comes to telephone calls, etc.

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847273)

How can it be illegal, he was in public space, shooting a video from public space. There is no law against that. Sure its stupid, but people do stupid things all the time, but its not illegal.

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (2)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847395)

Sorry, but no. Recording audio of a person without their knowledge or consent is legally considered illegal wiretapping in many states.

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847451)

You need neither their knowledge nor their consent if they're in a public place.

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (2)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847561)

Sorry, courts have ruled otherwise. In some states with 2 party consent laws, any audio recording requires the prior knowledge and consent of all participants.

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847505)

The whole point of what he's doing is to make sure they know he's doing it, thus rendering your point about recording without their knowledge moot.

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847541)

He still needs their consent before he can record their audio.

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847709)

Not so. In Washington, consent is only necessary if the conversation is private. As for what's considered private...

Whether a conversation or other communications is "private" depends on a number of case-specific factors, such as the subjective intention of the parties, the reasonableness of their expectation that the conversation would be private, the location of the conversation, and whether third parties were present.

In other words, consent is necessary for most telephone calls or meetings behind closed doors, but not for conversations between strangers taking place in a public place with other people moving around as well.

Source: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/washington/washington-recording-law [citmedialaw.org]

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847535)

Which is retarded and needs to be fixed. It's not wiretapping.

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (1)

IonOtter (629215) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847711)

Not in a public place it isn't, no.

However, what *is* happening, is police officers are behaving badly, getting caught on film/tape/video/cellphones, and then *charging* the person with wiretapping.

A cop can charge you with sexually assaulting the pope with a glow-in-the-dark dildo, even though you were at home in bed, while the pope was on the other side of the planet at the time. Logic and legality do not apply to charges.

However, *IF* you have:

1. The money...
2. The time...
3. And a lawyer,

Then you can have the charges expunged. But if you don't have at least two of those three things, then even if the charges are dropped, you will now and forever more have aggravated sexual assault charges on your criminal record.

You might get lucky, and the case might go to a judge, who would take one look at it and wipe the charges off your record for free.

However, it's much more likely that you'll be charged with resisting arrest, assaulting an officer and a host of other, much more probable charges that aren't likely to be dropped, or even challenged.

Unless there's video, of course? [youtu.be]

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (1)

Digicaf (48857) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847591)

In two-party consent states it IS illegal, regardless of the location. Even in a lot of one-party states, the person doing the recording must be taking part in the conversation, or else that too is illegal.

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847381)

Nope. So long as it doesn't cross the line into harassment and remains on public property, what he's doing is completely legal. Photography and videography in public is protected under federal law.

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (4, Informative)

dills (102733) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847383)

There's no expectation of privacy in public, therefore it's exempt.

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847417)

Consent only matters when there is an expectation of privacy. In a public place there can not be an expectation of privacy.

Re:This is (probably) illegal... (1)

dills (102733) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847649)

In Washington State, the "2 party rule" specifically only applies to telephone conversations and other conversations where there is an expectation of privacy. Just because the rules are different in say, Maryland, doesn't mean that every state's 2 party rules are the same.

In related news... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847185)

... I'm filming you reading /. right now.

Re:In related news... (1)

PuZZleDucK (2478702) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847577)

... and I'm eavesdropping on fahrbot-bot recording you :p

Comic Con creepy old men (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847195)

LOL!

Reminds me of the creepy old men at Comic Con that hangout in the lobby and film costumed young people. Hide your children, hide your wives.

He could be making a fantastic political point.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847197)

.... but its questionable.

90% of this is gold. People hate being surveillance, yet they are passive to never before see amounts of it via CCD cameras and mobile phone / telephony based tracking. Keeping silence about these points could be a stylistic decision on this form of activism.

But I dont think it is.

You see, he also begins to harass live public performances, which, in all honestly, who gives a crap if it gets recorded. Maybe some pinhead copyright holder, but its public performance, and its meant to be seen, and often sold which is a totally different issue that surveillance. The guy, unfortunately is probably just trolling for attention.

I really like the idea though. Take this guys, "Im taking a video" "Why? Why not!" approach till the person gets agro, then asking them questions relating to their prior activity. "Why not? You are doing nothing wrong?" "What do you mean consent... there are 10 video cameras watching you all around" "Private phone conversation? All of your cell calls are recorded for the NSA's discretional use". This to that effect, to point out the Hippocratic in peoples typical passe approach to personal privacy and surveillance. That would be be some very effective evidence for how the public isnt actually okay with being surveiled when they are aware of it.

Re:He could be making a fantastic political point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847565)

I think you mean 'hypocrisy', not 'Hippocratic'

thought provoking, could be better done. (5, Interesting)

Fubari (196373) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847241)

Certainly thought provoking.
It could be done more interestingly, perhaps operating in an area with a public facing surveillance cam. Then he could engage passers by in conversations more like: "Why are you taking a video?" "Do you think there is a difference between what I'm doing and what that camera over there is doing?" As it is, he just seems to be irritating people and not planting any seeds for future thought.

I say this after watching the second video here [photograph...acrime.com] ..
0:23 shopper exits store
shopper: "Can I ask who you are?"
video guy: "What."
shopper: "What are you doing?"
video guy: "Oh I'm taking a video."
shopper: "Of what?"
video guy: "Just a video."
shopper: "Why are you taking a video?"
video guy: "Why not?"
shopper: "I don't really care for other people just to be taking a random video of me."
video guy: "Didn't you just come out of the drug store?"
shopper: "Yeah"
video guy: "They have cameras in there."
shopper: "So?"
shopper: gets on bike, rides off.

(The other interactions go down hill from there.)

Re:thought provoking, could be better done. (1)

PuZZleDucK (2478702) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847613)

perhaps operating in an area with a public facing surveillance cam.

I thought this too, if he could point out one or two fixed cameras recording people at the same time they ask why he's recording them then the point is better made. Not hard to do in almost any city nowdays.

So I have a question. (1)

xevioso (598654) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847257)

What if I were to do the following:

Creepy guy comes up to me as I am minding my own business, and starts to film me to make this point. He's very close, which irritates me.

So in response, I get very close to him, and yell in his face very loudly. No real words, just a very loud scream. As loud as possible, right at him, over and over.

Now, from my standpoint, the point I would be making is: if you irritate and act obnoxiously to others, they might do the same to you, so try not to irritate and act obnoxiously towards others.

Apparently his filming me is not illegal. If I yell loudly at him until he went away (or until it escalated, which could easily happen) would it be illegal to do that? In this specific situation?

Re:So I have a question. (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847343)

A better response is probably to get out your phone and record him recording you. Apparently people don't know who he is. And apparently he also doesn't like being recorded.

What a douchebag! (1)

GerryGilmore (663905) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847295)

Look, I understand that we're surrounded by video cameras *statically* recording us as we move through an area, but just sitting down at someone's table while they're on the phone and shoving a camera in their face, and his other antics, is just pure douche-ness, plain and simple!

Re:What a douchebag! (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847507)

Yet if he was doing the same thing to policemen the whole Slashdot bunch would rally in his defence.

Not even comparable (1)

hardtofindanick (1105361) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847313)

This is not comparable at all to surveillance. What part of get out of my face does he not understand?

Re:Not even comparable (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847339)

He is just being a camera on the wall. If you look at the camera on block, ask it to get off your face, does it go away?

Re:Not even comparable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847497)

Except that, you know, the camera on the block is not in your face. You're presuming what people are complaining about is comparable to what you wish they would complain about.

Re:Not even comparable (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847703)

The camera on my block is at face level. I bet it has more resolution that the one he is holding (the purpose of the camera (the ones I am talking about atleast) is to catch faces, even ones that are far away from the camera). It is true that I am presuming it. May I ask, why you believe they are not comparable.

Re:Not even comparable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847683)

No, he's a human being stalking people where he has no reason to do so. Companies want to assure security on their premises. Police want to watch for criminal activity in their jurisdictions. This guy wants to stalk and harass people for teh lulz and claim it's "art", or "a statement", or "just what I'm doing until the job market picks up, I swear, mom", or whatever bullshit lines they teach art school students these days to use when desperately trying to deflect any criticism and accusations that he's being a stalker harassing people for teh lulz.

And, to save both of us the time and trouble, I know your next argument will be a broad generalization of "ha HA! Look at this company X, they spied on people and a video made its way to the internets!!!! And so did this police video! See how evil they are? *giggle*giggle*snort*". So I'll just answer that now: Those are outliers. No, just because you immerse yourself in as much anti-police, anti-company, and anti-anything-bigger-than-you propaganda as is humanly possible all day and night doesn't make it a reality, no more than immersing yourself with as much porn as possible will make you a sex god. Those cameras DO some amount of good. They DO help catch people engaging in criminal activity. This douchebag is just a stalker with a prepared line to fool people like you. He hasn't done ANY good.

It's a free country... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847427)

... the guy can do what he likes, right? He's not breaking any law or harming anyone.

shove his camera down his throat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847445)

Or perhaps up his ass.

In any case, this jerk off needs his ass beat down.

I love it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847501)

This entire concept is perfect. I think its time for us to all start recording everyone. Maybe then people will decided ubiquitous, endless recording of our lives should be regulated and protected.

Accountability? (1)

ArrayIndexOutOfBound (694797) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847601)

Most organisations - commercial and governmental - have to conduct business under certain rules. I don't like being on CCTV, but here in London they have become a part of life through reducing insurance to businesses and yes, reduction in street and public transport crime.
Joe Random on the street with a camera is a different proposition. A much more menacing one. First, you immediately know you are dealing with a nutjob, who's focused on you. Second, you don't expect any scrupules from said nutjob, or that he'll lose his job or get in hot water if he misuses the footage - a reasonable expectation for CCTV camera operators.
The difference is accountability.

Sociology? (1)

fldsofglry (2754803) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847637)

Reminds me of a sociology/communication project where you have to break some sort of social norm. I for one went a different route where I walked around a mall without shoes. The reactions I got from people were priceless! He seems to be doing a similar thing here. Ilegal? No. Annoying to people? Probably. Breaking a social norm? Yes!

Okay, let's look at this rationally. (0)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847643)

An arbitrary person pointing a camera at you is somebody you do not know, and you have had absolutely no involvement in getting them to point that camera at you.

In a democratic society, however, the government is elected by the people, and for their term is entrusted by them to preserve the best interests of that society. This is entirely different from some random person you meet on the street, and have no prior connection to.

While admittedly, possibility for corruption in the government exists, and to use it for no less honorable purposes than somebody who had no business recording you at all, at least with the government, you've had some say on what sort of people would be monitoring those cameras, where you have absolutely no say at all on the type of people you might meet on the street.

So, in the end, they are two different things.

I can see his point but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41847651)

He is shooting video from both public places and on private property. He has every right to do the former but not the latter.

Disable the camera? (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about a year and a half ago | (#41847707)

A bright laser pointer aimed directly into the lens ought to damage the CCD - after a few such 'treatments' the camera will be seriously impaired, or outright useless. (Just make sure the videographer isn't looking through an optical viewfinder, and that the beam or its reflection doesn't hit anyone's eye).

IANAL, however I doubt very much that the police would even lay charges over such an incident, (never mind secure a conviction), and Mister Asshole would probably find better things to do with his time after a few hundred dollars' worth of damage to his camera equipment.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>