Thanks, but we were talking about a different video, not related to the guy on the beach getting attacked for flying his quadcopter.
1 Like
Oh, I know it isnāt the same. I was unclear. Sorry!
The first time the beach assault video was posted, it was edited for speed and with comments (telling us what her actions off-camera and unheard words are). Itās muted and in slo-mo when he yells, āYouāre assaulting me, you asswipe!ā So, I figured a link to the unedited video of this incident, plus access to other vids heād shot previously was worth posting and related to your discussion.
Again, sorry for any confusion.
1 Like
Like so many here, youāre confusing laws and cultural norms. Currently the laws say if youāre in public you donāt have an expectation of privacy, but that, at least where drone use is concerned, may change. And it doesnāt dictate whether or not its socially acceptable to be surveilled by a noisy robot. Thatās the point of this discussion, and its not countered simply be restating your understanding of the law.
Luddite morons of the mission district who donāt understand supply and demand have already taken to attacking people with Glass.
Glass and wearable computers/cameras in general are another really good example of something new that weāre working out the social norms for. And its far from as simple as following the simple laws of supply and demand. If it were that simple thereād be no morality at all, everything you could buy would be legal and fine to use however you want. Which, I hope I donāt need to explain to you, is plainly absurd.
No Iām not. Your confusing the subject by introducing the idea of ācultural normsā when all that is relevant is the law.
Currently the laws say if youāre in public you donāt have an expectation of privacy, but that, at least where drone use is concerned, may change.
Says you. Unless thereās a reason to change the law, it wonāt happen. Since cameras have been around for a while, smart people have already figured this stuff out.
Thatās the point of this discussion
No, thatās where youāre trying to steer this discussion.
and its not countered simply be restating
your understanding ofthe law.
^FTFY
Yes it is. This is about law. The dude sticking a camera in peopleās faces without their permission is a demonstration of the fact that, unless you are harassing a person, filming them in public is entirely acceptable, even if they donāt like it. Nothing matters but the law. Cultural norms mean nothing to me. Nothing. Society is fucking stupid, why would its norms be any less stupid? When the law changes to fit your fantasy we can have this discussion, but until then itās merely your fantasy so (I repeat myself):
Wearable cameras arenāt something new. In any way. Paranoid luddites are hoping to āwork out social normsā, but since the things arenāt anything new whatsoever, the law already has it covered. You can keep talking amongst yourself if you want to though. You also clearly misunderstand my point which was that the anti-tech deadshits in SF (who are annoyed about gentrification - hence supply/demand) see Glass as an embodiment of Google/tech itself and so rail against it and Google for misguided reasons.
Nice effort trying to talk down to me. When you are able to even grok the things Iām saying it may be a level playing field.
Man, lighten up. This is a discussion, thereās really no need for you to be an asshole.
But hey, I guess itās legal for you to be an asshole, so thereās no problem, right?
And apologies that I didnāt understand that āLuddite morons of the mission district who donāt understand supply and demandā was an incredibly vague reference to gentrification and not the topic at hand. (Rolls eyes).
She is in the same catagory as George Smitherman. "Hey I see a self presumed social injustice. I will take matters into my own hands after speaking with police. Cause speaking with police and having an abitrary subjective reasoning allows me to beat on some one.
Angry twat.
Take your own advice.
And apologies that I didnāt understandā¦
Your lack of knowledge on the subject didnāt stop you from pulling me up on a reply unrelated to you.
Heās doing nothing illegal, but they arenāt either. Hereās a list of the reactions people had to him filming them:
1 Asks politely for the guy to stop, then gets annoyed and drives off.
2 Asks politely for the guy to stop, then shoves past him on his way out.
3 Asks politely for the guy to stop, asks for respect, then gets away and calls him naughty words
4 Points out his own skin colour (maybe he thinks thatās why the guy is videoing him?)
5 Shoves the camera out of the way for being right in her face while sheās trying to do her job
6 Gets a little freaked out by someone creeping up and standing right behind him
7 Says some naughty words and changes his seat
7b Gets annoyed and shoves the cameraman out of the cafe, calls him some more naughty words
The last one was the most aggressive, but even then it was fairly obvious that he wasnāt trying to injure the cameraman (or even threaten to injure him), which would be a prerequisite for an assault charge (at least in this definition):
There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not.
This is America - you can get shot for being on someoneās property or playing loud music. How is it interesting that you can get shoved out of the way for being in someoneās face and refusing to back down?
My main point in that comment was that he should have tried harder if he wanted to make a social commentary about security cameras. Security cameras film crowds and property, he was filming individuals. Security cameras are generally run either by the authorities or the people who own a building, he didnāt have the justification that he was trying to protect people or property. Security cameras are generally pretty unobtrusive, he was confrontational (you cannot expect someone to ignore a person who sits down at their table and starts filming them having a private conversation). People are generally not running security cameras because they are interested in the footage, they are there in case something bad happens. Rightly or wrongly, people assume that they can ignore the cameras and carry on as normal. They have no such assumption here.
Thereās plenty to say about the dangers of a surveillance state, but this guy isnāt saying it. Peopleās right to take pictures and video in public is also an important issue, but if the worst youāre getting is being shoved for antagonising someone, you can hardly claim that youāre being oppressed. I once went on a walk in the park with my family, some of whom had cameras. It was a beautiful day and my dad and brother were taking photos of the area (not of people, just the scenery). A short time later, a police car came up and told us that there had been a complaint about a man taking pictures of their children (it wasnāt a big park and it was obvious that they were referring to my dad, even though we were in a group which included women and we hadnāt taken any pictures of the area the kids were playing in). If we can appreciate peopleās right to take pictures while expecting them to show respect for others, that would be nice. If we have to involve the law, thatās a sign that the normal social controls arenāt working and need to be reinforced, but there are plenty of ways to resolve minor disagreements before that point.
1 Like
Hi there, not sure what a lot of your post is about. Because you arenāt replying to anyone, the numbered set at the top is kinda from left field. Anyway, hereās some, hopefully helpful, info for you. The woman involved in this incident was apparently charged at the scene with 3rd Deg. Assault, and Breach of Peace.
Here are links to and the basic write ups for those two codes for CT. Itās best when dealing with legal issues to look up specific local code, not a generalized definition. Codes vary widely state-by-state, and that determines the definition. In CT itās the action of the attacker, not a fear of injury by the victim, that determines if an assault has occurred. Breach of Peace occurred when she threatened and instigated a fight (the assault itself was a BoP).
Sec. 53a-61. Assault in the third degree: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when: (1) With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or (2) he recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person; or (3) with criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon, a dangerous instrument or an electronic defense weapon.
http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2005/title53a/sec53a-61.html
Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other personās property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, āpublic placeā means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.
http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2011/title53a/chap952/Sec53a-181.html
On another note: I take photos of insects, and so Iām often in parks. Whenever children are about, I do let people know what it is that Iām shooting photos of. It relaxes the parents, because a macro lens can easily be mistaken for a telephoto by someone who doesnāt shoot. I adopted this practice a few years ago, and have found what usually happens is the parent eventually asks if the kids can see my pics, and after they ogle some insect eyes Iām left to my own devices. Iām sorry that your dad had a negative experience for such a silly reason! Since you were in a group, they should have thought better.
Thanks, it was supposed to be a reply to Teapot about the āSurveillance Camera Manā video - it shows up as being part of that thread when you follow the link on your comment, but mine seems to be an orphan. I used a general definition because while weāre talking about an issue in a particular state, weāre also talking more generally about the rights and wrongs of videoing people in public. I live in Germany and far as I remember, Teapot is in Australia, so Iām more concerned about whether this kind of behaviour is OK in general rather than what specific local laws apply to the guy in this video.
As far as the original video is concerned, Iād agree that it was assault and there doesnāt seem to be a lot of nuance to it - she thought wrongly that he was being a pervert and overreacted with violence, despite being unprovoked. In the Surveillance Man video, itās unlikely that the guy with the camera ever had a serious fear that he might be injured. The last guy might have been accused of a breach of the peace, but I think the police would have to have been pretty bored that day to make an issue of it.
I donāt really blame the police for showing up in the park - people tend to get quite upset if they feel their children are being photographed, and the officers werenāt aggressive at all. We werenāt anywhere near the children and nobody had pointed their camera in their direction, so we didnāt see the need to discuss it with them. Once the police had seen some of the pictures, they apologised and drove off. The only other time the police have gotten involved when I was around was when my 4 year old nephew accidentally knocked a girl over on some playground equipment. She started crying but calmed down after a couple of minutes. The mother was very upset though and called the police, so we had to wait around for 45 minutes while the police came and wrote a report. (The two kids were playing happily together by the time the police arrived, so it was hard to convince them that my nephew was guilty of assault).
2 Likes
I completely understand now!
Iād forgotten about āSurveillance Manā - long day!
I live in California (originally from here) and spent a decade in the midwest while attending college. When dealing with U.S. law, itās sometimes best to treat each state almost like its own country. Remember, weāre the United States of America, and in some ways weāre almost more like a āunionā of countries than an individual country. Our national constitution provides for statesā rights to write their own laws except in certain cases (where national law is necessary). So, for example, in one state a woman may be able to get an abortion the same day she asks, the next state over, she may need to wait 72 hours, and traveling the other way, it may be all but illegal. We have no national abortion law.
So in the U.S., knowing a stateās law really does matter, because itās like knowing the law of the country in which an event occurred.
I didnāt think you were arguing the assault, I just wanted to be sure you had good references. As to āSurveillance Manā, well, he was the instigator, and put himself in the path of danger. If he ever really got hurt, it would probably be considered his fault, and it seemed like he was okay with that. Few people really do realize how many times a day theyāre photographed - and no one really seemed to understand that he wasnāt the only camera trained on them. To be safer, he could have carried business cards with an explanation of what he was doing with him. After he got the response he wanted, he could have handed over the card to clear the air.
Cool! Donāt kill yourselfā¦ 
Was it this one?
(Edited because somehow linking to the address put the whole article into my comment)
TL;DR: This footage was taken in a few takes and the laughing bystanders arenāt shown in the same frame as the couple.
2 Likes
assault.
calls him naughty words
assault.
Shoves the camera out of the way
assault.
Gets annoyed and shoves the cameraman out of the cafe, calls him some more naughty words
assault.
trying to injure the cameraman (or even threaten to injure him), which would be a prerequisite for an assault charge
Trying or threatening to injure someone is not a prerequisite for an assault charge. Spitting on someone is assault. Saying bad things to someone can be assault. Your definition and ability to identify crimes is appalling.
How is it interesting that you can get shoved out of the way for being in someoneās face and refusing to back down?
Itās interesting because it demonstrates how irrational people are. That is part of his commentary. Not everything has to be spelled out or has to make an obvious commentary. I like what the guy doesā¦ itās part art part documentary. Itās also for the lulz.
Thatās a nice story about the park. Did you tell the cop that you werenāt taking pictures of anyones children and even if you were, youāre well within your rights? Maybe you should have so the cop and the dumbarse calling them realises that a public park is a place where photos can be taken.
PS @catgrin fistbump
How did you do that? I couldnāt find it in my history, but that was it.
+1M internets to you, fine sir or madam!
@anon61221983: There it is, no thanks to me.
You still rule!
1 Like
(Emphasis mine)
Laws are going to vary, so I used a general legal dictionary - Iām not sure why weād need to go into specific state law though when weāre talking more generally. Even in CT though, those people would have to be trying to injure the cameraman or have actually injured him for it to be 3rd degree assault. If the last guy had been unprovoked, he might have had a case, but as Catgrin mentioned, the fact that the cameraman was the instigator here and the other guy was trying to get out of the situation would be taken into account. It was only when the cameraman followed the guy into the restaurant and abandoned all attempts to meaningfully represent a security camera that he got a physical response, and one that didnāt threaten or cause injury.
People are only irrational for objecting to this if you take any social norms out of consideration. Someone who sits at your table and refuses to leave, even when you politely ask, is not a neutral observer. The fact that they have a camera just makes it worse.
WRT the park incident, we did point out that we werenāt taking pictures of the children, but didnāt say that we would have had a right to - which we did under UK law - as it wouldnāt have helped the discussion and in any case we would have asked first (not for legal reasons, just to be polite).
@anon67050589 no problem, I just Googled a critique of the organisation that made the video.
Dude, thatās your/catgrinās definition. rest deleted due to unnecessary snarkiness
Someone who sits at your table and refuses to leave, even when you politely ask, is not a neutral observer. The fact that they have a camera just makes it worse.
True. I already made clear that the cameraman was in the wrong when filming on private property. Filming in public: entirely acceptable. Filming on private property: requires permission of the property owner.
You need to ask yourself questions about situations that fall outside of these two, very specific examples. How do the things youāre saying relate to journalists? How do they relate to documentarians? In both of those cases the subjects often do not want to be filmed. Thats why you get them in public.
Thatās the law in Connecticut. We need to agree on whether weāre talking about the actual law as it refers to a particular situation, general principles that laws generally follow or our own ideas of what the law should be. Iām not sure it makes that much sense to focus exclusively on Connecticut as I think even Surveillance Man was making a more general point. As far as the assault goes, UK law seems to be a little stricter and doesnāt seem to require that injury was caused or even threatened. As an isolated incident that didnāt cause or threaten injury and where the intention just seems to have been to remove the cameraman from the scene because he wouldnāt allow the guy to leave, I donāt think anyone would take it too seriously.
I think weāre going to keep coming up against this issue: Iām not denying that filming in public is legal in America, and if the cops got involved he would be in the right to explain this and reject some claim that he is legally obliged to obtain consent. This does not mean that itās acceptable though, and this video shows that many people donāt accept it. I think even with journalists and documentarians, thereās a balance. People have a right to privacy and also to free expression. While its fair to expect a photographer to go unhindered, itās also fair to expect them to have respect for someoneās private life and to follow basic ethics as far as proportionality goes. I think paparazzi often step over the line here of what is acceptable, even where they are not breaking the law.
Edit: today I learned that Connecticut has three 'cās. Hmm. ConnECTicut. I knew it looked wrong when I wrote it āConneticutā.
I understand. I just donāt care what people think.
itās also fair to expect them to have respect for someoneās private life and to follow basic ethics as far as proportionality goes
True, but TMZ? As long as paparazzo assholes are still free and able to be assholes, I reserve the right of this guy to do it too. TMZ are making money off it as well which is far worse than this guy trying to make a point about our unquestioning acceptance of surveillance.
1 Like
