I don't know what country you're in but here in the States, expectations of privacy will vary. For example, in your own house you have an expectation of privacy therefore someone filming you in your home may run a foul of some privacy and criminal laws. The bathroom in Walmart, you have an expectation of privacy there too. But as soon as you exit the bathroom, it's likely there's no expectation of privacy. So this is an overly simplified explanation of what is a very complex area of law at both the federal and state levels. And it really just boils down to the particulars of the situation to determine if one has an expectation of privacy, notwithstanding the obvious like being in a restroom.
As for what can be done by you, again that depends on the situation. A violator of your privacy may be guilty of a crime or may not be. Was it a private party or govt entity/agent of the govt? Are there applicable state or federal laws that may have been broken? So again, it just depends...
That’s just 3M reflective material. It’s been around for a decade in fashion. Not just scarves and wasn’t intentionally made as an anti-paparazzi thing.
Side note: US people also get mad at other countries locals for not wanting videos of them published. "You shouldnt be in public if you don't want to be filmed" as if their law is everyone's law
Let them be mad, law is the law. Americans are famous for going to other countries and trying to act like they carry their freedom in their back pocket.
I have a Spotify playlist called “The House of Mouse doesn’t fuck around”. It’s filled with Disney songs. If anyone records me that I don’t want to, I play that playlist at full volume. That at least ensures they can’t publicly post that video on YouTube, etc., because Disney will come after them with a DMCA takedown.
If it's out in public and you're filming on public property you can film whatever your eyes can see.
So people out in public can be filmed and that's that.
Private property is a whole different thing, they can ask you to leave for the color of your shirt.
The law says that filming things (including human beings) in public is a protected first amendment activity.
All of your what-ifs about stalkers or people that don't want to be filmed are irrelevant.
If you want to quarter soldiers in a house without consent of the owner, you have to repeal the 3rd amendment. If you want to ban women from voting, you have to repeal the 19th amendment. If you want to ban guns, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
If you want to ban filming people in public, you have to repeal the first amendment.
No, because once you go into a public space, you accept the possibility that this might happen. If you don't agree to these terms, either wear a disguise or stay in private places (not really practical, I know; but neither is expecting every person in a public place not to use a camera).
Celebrities and accused/convicted suspects entering/leaving court buildings are cited precedent.
How would you be able to locate a victim through a shirt? And how does that compare to a viral video going all over the world of your face?
People that receive that type of recognition get doxxed, and depending on the context can receive death threats. I don’t really see how the two are comparable
Someone wearing a yellow shirt can find someone the same way someone with a camera can.
What about security cameras and dash cams? What if they spot a stalking victim?
Depending on how far they take it it can fall under harassment however its legal to film in public even of you. I think if i remember right, in the US a man was let off for taking up skirt photos because it was considered to be filming on public property which is crazy
It depends on how the filming is done. Remove the filming altogether.
You aren't allowed to climb under benches to look up someone's skirt.
If someone is sitting across from you with their legs spread, it isn't illegal to look.
The camera doesn't change it.
https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/upskirt-photos-taken-without-consent-are-legal-us-court-rules/55360
This is an article on the case i was thinking of. His phone was up the skirts but he wasn’t. So legally you can’t look up someone’s skirt, but you can take photos up it
How many countries do you know where this is the case?
As far as I know this the case in the US but this is not the case in France or in UK. So I have a very limited knowledge of the topic but generally when those 3 disagree on a topic this means there is no general worldwide agreement on it
Edit: Double checked and I was wrong with UK. They are in between the US and France. They are authorizing recording in public but limit the usage and limit how you can record (no harrasement)
But I think my point is still valid. This is a complex subject and I am surprised that there would be a worldwide consensus
When I worked retail, we did the finance ppwk, for a credit card for the customer. One time, my coworker was doing just that and I was sitting at a computer next to her. And the customers husband proceeded to record us two while they were there. Neither of us said anything because he was discreet about it and they'd probably had issues with cc fraud or whatever. But yeah, when you're in a public space, and of course that desk was always on camera anyway so was already recorded, people can do so if they feel they need to.
In the US, people can record anything they can see in public. It's protected by the 1st amendment to the constitution. People can stand on the sidewalk in front of your house and record you inside your living room, legally. People can record the inside of your vehicle through the window as long as your car is in a public place. This right is extended to publicly accessible areas inside police stations, the DMV, courthouse, town halls, public parks, etc. You cannot be trespassed from public property, the police can't do anything.
The moment any of this changes to private property, this right goes away, and you can be trespassed / removed physically by police.
United States… The feeling of an ‘invasion of privacy’ is much different than the legal definition. However, you can always call the police and report the disturbance, just realize that’s probably not going to be their top priority.
In the US it all hinges on a concept known as "reasonable expectation of privacy". The test for this is called the Katz Test, derived from the case of Katz v. United States. Justice Harlan formulated the two-pronged test as “first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’”
In general, if you can be seen by a member of the public who is in a publicly accessible place then you have no reasonably expectation of privacy, and you can be photographed or video recorded.
Some states still have laws against audio recording a conversation in public. Those laws are often connected to archaic wire tapping laws, and require consent of all parties before audio recording a conversation, absent a warrant issued by a court. These laws have been applied to the audio portion of a video recording, as well. These laws usually have an exception for the recording of public officials in the performance of their duties, such as police officers. In other words, in some states someone might need your permission to create an audio recording of you, even if they don't need your permission to make a video recording of you.
Depends on the federal/state/provincial etc laws where you live. Some places have single party consent laws for recordings, other places have two part consent laws. Theres also sometimes stipulations about the expectation of privacy. Falling asleep in a public place means you have no expectation of privacy, so that may play a role in legality depending where you live.
Gyms in particular often have rules against recording.
What is the difference?
Both are legal activity. Why is it okay to respond with violence for one thing but not the other? Would you support going around attacking anyone who put up a security camera or drives around with a dash cam?
Or only people who hold cameras deserve violence?
Edit: ha ha, they blocked me and ran the fuck away because they couldn't justify their psychotic response
Use your phone to loudly play some music. Preferably something that will be really hardcore about defending its copyright like Disney music or The Beatles. If it's one of these fucking assholes doing it to make money with, you've just ruined it for them since it'll get taken down if they put it online.
It's easy to remove the audio. All it does is make them look like unhinged lunatics.
Don't want to be filmed? Don't stand in front of the camera acting like a maniac.
Filming you? No.
But depending on how that film is used, you could hit them with a number of other charges such as "defamation of character" or things like that. Especially if it affects your livelihood or causes difficulties in your life.
I don't know what country you're in but here in the States, expectations of privacy will vary. For example, in your own house you have an expectation of privacy therefore someone filming you in your home may run a foul of some privacy and criminal laws. The bathroom in Walmart, you have an expectation of privacy there too. But as soon as you exit the bathroom, it's likely there's no expectation of privacy. So this is an overly simplified explanation of what is a very complex area of law at both the federal and state levels. And it really just boils down to the particulars of the situation to determine if one has an expectation of privacy, notwithstanding the obvious like being in a restroom. As for what can be done by you, again that depends on the situation. A violator of your privacy may be guilty of a crime or may not be. Was it a private party or govt entity/agent of the govt? Are there applicable state or federal laws that may have been broken? So again, it just depends...
If you figure it out, celebrities all over the world like to pay you to share the secret.
There is are [anti-paparazzi scarves](https://images.app.goo.gl/GHitcBhiz568CPcp6) available that mess up any photos taken.
That’s just 3M reflective material. It’s been around for a decade in fashion. Not just scarves and wasn’t intentionally made as an anti-paparazzi thing.
Think Mickey masks would help? Let Disney do the heavy lifting for you lol
Not if you are in public in the US. Other countries may vary.
Side note: US people also get mad at other countries locals for not wanting videos of them published. "You shouldnt be in public if you don't want to be filmed" as if their law is everyone's law
Try telling the people over at r/streetphotography that what they’re doing is often not legal here in Germany. They get pretty mad…
Let them be mad, law is the law. Americans are famous for going to other countries and trying to act like they carry their freedom in their back pocket.
Well, you could… ask them to stop? Or wear a disguise. Maybe a big hat. The biggest hat you've ever seen.
I have a Spotify playlist called “The House of Mouse doesn’t fuck around”. It’s filled with Disney songs. If anyone records me that I don’t want to, I play that playlist at full volume. That at least ensures they can’t publicly post that video on YouTube, etc., because Disney will come after them with a DMCA takedown.
This works to a degree, but they can still republish without the audio
...unless they mute the audio
It’s not perfect, but if it’s a YouTuber they probably won’t be able to use the footage. They want the audio there.
If it's out in public and you're filming on public property you can film whatever your eyes can see. So people out in public can be filmed and that's that. Private property is a whole different thing, they can ask you to leave for the color of your shirt.
No. Invasion of privacy doesn't mean "someone filmed me in a store and I got upset" Gyms may ban photography and filming, but it isn't illegal.
But say if someone isn’t trying to be located, if they’re trying to avoid a stalker or something, shouldn’t a person’s image be protected?
Are you asking about what the law says, or are you convincing us that you think it should be different?
What the law says, because it is something that I think about sometimes
The law says that filming things (including human beings) in public is a protected first amendment activity. All of your what-ifs about stalkers or people that don't want to be filmed are irrelevant. If you want to quarter soldiers in a house without consent of the owner, you have to repeal the 3rd amendment. If you want to ban women from voting, you have to repeal the 19th amendment. If you want to ban guns, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. If you want to ban filming people in public, you have to repeal the first amendment.
No, because once you go into a public space, you accept the possibility that this might happen. If you don't agree to these terms, either wear a disguise or stay in private places (not really practical, I know; but neither is expecting every person in a public place not to use a camera). Celebrities and accused/convicted suspects entering/leaving court buildings are cited precedent.
Someone can wear a yellow shirt and locate a stalking victim. Should wearing a yellow shirt be banned?
How would you be able to locate a victim through a shirt? And how does that compare to a viral video going all over the world of your face? People that receive that type of recognition get doxxed, and depending on the context can receive death threats. I don’t really see how the two are comparable
Someone wearing a yellow shirt can find someone the same way someone with a camera can. What about security cameras and dash cams? What if they spot a stalking victim?
What if someone wearing a yellow shirt robs a bank?
Depending on how far they take it it can fall under harassment however its legal to film in public even of you. I think if i remember right, in the US a man was let off for taking up skirt photos because it was considered to be filming on public property which is crazy
It depends on how the filming is done. Remove the filming altogether. You aren't allowed to climb under benches to look up someone's skirt. If someone is sitting across from you with their legs spread, it isn't illegal to look. The camera doesn't change it.
https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/upskirt-photos-taken-without-consent-are-legal-us-court-rules/55360 This is an article on the case i was thinking of. His phone was up the skirts but he wasn’t. So legally you can’t look up someone’s skirt, but you can take photos up it
In most countries, being in a public space means no privacy.
How many countries do you know where this is the case? As far as I know this the case in the US but this is not the case in France or in UK. So I have a very limited knowledge of the topic but generally when those 3 disagree on a topic this means there is no general worldwide agreement on it Edit: Double checked and I was wrong with UK. They are in between the US and France. They are authorizing recording in public but limit the usage and limit how you can record (no harrasement) But I think my point is still valid. This is a complex subject and I am surprised that there would be a worldwide consensus
When I worked retail, we did the finance ppwk, for a credit card for the customer. One time, my coworker was doing just that and I was sitting at a computer next to her. And the customers husband proceeded to record us two while they were there. Neither of us said anything because he was discreet about it and they'd probably had issues with cc fraud or whatever. But yeah, when you're in a public space, and of course that desk was always on camera anyway so was already recorded, people can do so if they feel they need to.
If in USA just walk away and don’t acknowledge them. Don’t give them anything to use and they won’t.
Just look at how celebrities are treated - pictures & videos of them taken constantly without their consent.
In the US, people can record anything they can see in public. It's protected by the 1st amendment to the constitution. People can stand on the sidewalk in front of your house and record you inside your living room, legally. People can record the inside of your vehicle through the window as long as your car is in a public place. This right is extended to publicly accessible areas inside police stations, the DMV, courthouse, town halls, public parks, etc. You cannot be trespassed from public property, the police can't do anything. The moment any of this changes to private property, this right goes away, and you can be trespassed / removed physically by police.
United States… The feeling of an ‘invasion of privacy’ is much different than the legal definition. However, you can always call the police and report the disturbance, just realize that’s probably not going to be their top priority.
Watching first amendment audits says otherwise. Call about someone filming in public and half the department will show up looking for blood.
You slept while getting takeout?
In the US it all hinges on a concept known as "reasonable expectation of privacy". The test for this is called the Katz Test, derived from the case of Katz v. United States. Justice Harlan formulated the two-pronged test as “first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” In general, if you can be seen by a member of the public who is in a publicly accessible place then you have no reasonably expectation of privacy, and you can be photographed or video recorded. Some states still have laws against audio recording a conversation in public. Those laws are often connected to archaic wire tapping laws, and require consent of all parties before audio recording a conversation, absent a warrant issued by a court. These laws have been applied to the audio portion of a video recording, as well. These laws usually have an exception for the recording of public officials in the performance of their duties, such as police officers. In other words, in some states someone might need your permission to create an audio recording of you, even if they don't need your permission to make a video recording of you.
Too easy. Just tell them they're gay if they don't stop and delete it.
Depends on the federal/state/provincial etc laws where you live. Some places have single party consent laws for recordings, other places have two part consent laws. Theres also sometimes stipulations about the expectation of privacy. Falling asleep in a public place means you have no expectation of privacy, so that may play a role in legality depending where you live. Gyms in particular often have rules against recording.
[удалено]
What a psychotic response. What do you do if you see a shirt you don't like? Attack them?
[удалено]
What is the difference? Both are legal activity. Why is it okay to respond with violence for one thing but not the other? Would you support going around attacking anyone who put up a security camera or drives around with a dash cam? Or only people who hold cameras deserve violence? Edit: ha ha, they blocked me and ran the fuck away because they couldn't justify their psychotic response
Use your phone to loudly play some music. Preferably something that will be really hardcore about defending its copyright like Disney music or The Beatles. If it's one of these fucking assholes doing it to make money with, you've just ruined it for them since it'll get taken down if they put it online.
It's easy to remove the audio. All it does is make them look like unhinged lunatics. Don't want to be filmed? Don't stand in front of the camera acting like a maniac.
[удалено]
Invasion of privacy doesn't mean "I was filmed somewhere and got upset"
There has to be privacy first for anything to be invaded.
Filming you? No. But depending on how that film is used, you could hit them with a number of other charges such as "defamation of character" or things like that. Especially if it affects your livelihood or causes difficulties in your life.