Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Youtube Google Privacy Your Rights Online

YouTube Removes Video of Reactions To Being Videoed 229

Posted by Soulskill
from the now-video-your-reaction-to-the-reaction-to-reactions dept.
theodp writes "To follow-up on an earlier Slashdot post, GeekWire reports that YouTube has removed Surveillance Camera Man's latest video of people's sometimes-violent reactions to being videoed, citing its policy of prohibiting content designed to harass, threaten or bully ("This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten"). In a neat coincidence, the YouTube ban comes just after similar complaints were lodged against Google Glass. 'Some people also seem to feel threatened by Google Glass,' Philip De Cortes wrote in Google Glass Will Fail. 'They wonder if they're being recorded, and they feel like the tool could be used against them in some way.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Removes Video of Reactions To Being Videoed

Comments Filter:
  • Really (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jasper160 (2642717) on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @07:13AM (#44110717)
    People should be this upset about the government doing this too. CCTV's are popping up everywhere, even in rural US cities.
    • Re:Really (Score:5, Funny)

      by NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @07:21AM (#44110749)
      I know. It's getting to be that the only time we have any privacy is when we're online.
      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        You are modded funny, but you aren't actually wrong.

        I've long complained that you either have to be very wealthy, or willing to walk (and be wealthy) to avoid waiving your rights to something as fundamentally simple as a trip from New York to LA. The logistics involved (not driving to avoid 'implied consent' and other rights removing stipulations) are enormous even if you just put on a pair of shoes and decided to walk. (12 hour days of 4mph walking would take you 41 days to go 2000miles)

        However, online a

        • by geekoid (135745)

          "to avoid waiving your rights to something as fundamentally simple as a trip from New York to LA. "
          example of waving you rights?

      • Re:Really (Score:4, Interesting)

        by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @08:51AM (#44111695) Homepage Journal
        This type of thing is having a negative influence on regular photographer buffs tho...

        I'm on forums for photography where people doing the age old activity of "street photography" are getting some very rude and often violent reactions from people, something that never seemed to happen in the past.

        I've not really run into it yet, but I've heard of folks in other countries besides the US seeing this too. I hear of it especially in the NE section of the US from the people I've spoken with.

        I"m very much against the govt. cameras, but a guy on the street not hassling anyone shouldn't be a problem.

        I think maybe this is a side effect of social networking and facebook.

        I grew up without worrying about a camera everywhere (thank God) when I was a kid/teen/college student. Everyone knew there was a time for and at time NOT for whipping the camera out.

        Sigh, but I guess normal street photography is going to become a casualty of the new times. Sad.

        • by geekoid (135745)

          It's a side effect of a failing education system and the reoccurring theme that problem should be answered with fists instead of the brain.

          • It's a side effect of a failing education system and the reoccurring theme that problem should be answered with fists instead of the brain.

            So we should head-butt them instead of punching them?

        • by tlhIngan (30335)

          I"m very much against the govt. cameras, but a guy on the street not hassling anyone shouldn't be a problem.

          I think maybe this is a side effect of social networking and facebook.

          Probably - the news is filled with articles of how people have been "screwed over" by social networking - either some film that was obtained or some incriminating photo.

          The funny thing with CCTVs is that for the most part, people don't do anything with the footage - it's usually wiped within a month, if not sooner. However, random j

          • In the end, it boils down to - are there things you do in public that you wouldn't otherwise if everyone in the world knew you personally did those things?

            the world would be a better place if people behaved as though the world was watching them all the time.

        • by nuckfuts (690967) on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @02:12PM (#44115931)

          I"m very much against the govt. cameras, but a guy on the street not hassling anyone shouldn't be a problem.

          The person calling himself Surveillance Camera Guy was absolutely hassling people in my opinion. In one controversial instance, he sat down at a small table outside a coffee shop with a man who was talking on his cell phone, and proceeded to record the man on video. Not surprisingly, the man asked what Camera Guy was doing. Camera Guy's repeated response was an inane "It's OK - it's just a video" or something like that. The victim calmly and politely asked him to take his camera elsewhere, stating that he was having a private conversation, but eventually become quite angry that Camera Guy would not respect his request for privacy.

          A lot of commenters ridiculed the victim because he was expecting to have a "private conversation" in a public space. I wonder how these commenters would react to a stranger recording their phone conversations? It's one thing to be casually overheard talking on a phone in public. It's another thing for some jerk to deliberately encroach in someone's personal space and sit there recording their conversation.

          Some people have interpreted Camera Guy's stunts as an artistic commentary on life in a surveillance society. I call bullshit. At one point he tells a victim something like "Why would you object to me video recording you? The store you just walked out of has video surveillance cameras, yet you weren't bothered by that". There is a world of difference between a passive camera system that indiscriminately records video (and not audio) of anyone who walks past, and a guy who deliberately singles out individual passersby, encroaches on them in a manner that is deliberately intended to make them uncomfortable, refuses to answer meaningfully why he is doing it, records both video and audio, and then posts the videos online for the sake of ridiculing the victim.

          We have certain accepted modes of behaviour to enable us to get along together as a society, such as respect for people's personal space, even in public. To deliberately cross these boundaries, merely for the purpose of making people uncomfortable, is neither clever or noteworthy. Camera Surveillance Guy was being a rude little asshole for the sake of his own amusement. Youtube was correct to consider his actions as harassment.

    • Re:Really (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @07:31AM (#44110805) Journal

      I find it funny that we have police CCTV everywhere--there's two on my street watching my house wtf?--but people bitch about Google Glass. Yet people don't whine about dash cams or cameras in cell phones?

      Also the people claiming Google Glass will fail as a product because people don't like the idea of being videoed are dumb. The person buying Google Glass isn't being videoed, so he doesn't have an incentive to not have it; it's everyone else who has an incentive for him to not have it. That doesn't stop the product from selling. If I become a billionaire, a lot of people will be pissed at my private yacht because they have wallets as small as their penises; but their penis envy won't stop me from owning a private yacht. (The fact that private yachts are boring as hell might--wtf am I going to do with a yacht?)

      • Most people don't buy things to become social pariahs (which describes your Google Glass owner above).
      • Re:Really (Score:5, Interesting)

        by fibonacci8 (260615) on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @07:41AM (#44110873)
        The solution is to purchase music videos of Prince and have them playing clearly visible by the police monitoring. It's illegal for them to make copies, and it's not illegal for you to display the content within your home... for now.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by garcia (6573)

        I have the legal right to ask for the video from a video camera that is owned and operated by the public sector, I have no legal right to do so from someone with Google glass.

        • by Xest (935314)

          Do you? where do you live? what about private cameras such as shop CCTV?

          • In the UK that's all covered by the data protection act, yes including private shop CCTV - for a nominal fee (£20 or so) I can request copies of all records, digital or otherwise, video or otherwise, that they have on me.

            • by geekoid (135745)

              IN the US, you can get them free, it's called 'YouTube'.

              heh.

            • by Xest (935314)

              £10 is the maximum but yeah I just looked it up, I didn't realise CCTV was quite so firmly covered by the DPA. Well, there's an option for fighting over the top CCTV then, issuing SARs to companies and the police even at £10 a time could easily create a type of DOS attack because the amount of time required to find all footage of you, copy it off and send it to you would take up a good amount of a CCTV operator's time daily.

        • I have the legal right to ask for the video from a video camera that is owned and operated by the public sector, I have no legal right to do so from someone with Google glass.

          I have the legal right to ask for the video from a video camera that is owned and operated by the public sector, I have no legal right to do so from someone with Google glass.

          I have the legal right to ask for the video from a video camera that is owned and operated by the public sector, I have no legal right to do so from someone with Google glass.

          Sir, you have the legal right to ask anyone for anything.

        • by moeinvt (851793)

          "I have the legal right to ask for the video from a video camera that is owned and operated by the public sector,"

          You can ASK for anything. Does the government have any legal obligation to provide it to you? I highly doubt it.

      • For one thing, it's a lot harder to spy on you when you're on your private yacht.
      • by nospam007 (722110) *

        "but people bitch about Google Glass."

        I bitch, because they're ugly. I'll wait for Google Shoes.

        • Google Shoes will have built-in navigation based on the Google Car. No matter how drunk you get, they'll get you home from the bar.
          • by Bigbutt (65939)

            No no, it'll be connected to Google Glass. Every time you take a step, it'll snap a picture and upload it for Google Street View, Google Home View, Google Hiking View, Google Mountain Biking View, and of course Google Funniest Pictures.

            [John]

      • Re:Really (Score:4, Insightful)

        by aaaaaaargh! (1150173) on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @08:22AM (#44111327)

        I find it funny that we have police CCTV everywhere--there's two on my street watching my house wtf?--but people bitch about Google Glass. Yet people don't whine about dash cams or cameras in cell phones?

        Typical non-sequitur (and looks like a flaimebait to me, not insightful). You can consistently

        1. be against CCTV everywhere (and where I live, they are not everywhere)

        2. be against Google glasses (unless they'd have a HUGE flashing light plus aconstant BEEP BEEP BEEP sound when they are recording)

        3. have no problem with cameras in phones as long as they are clearly indicating when they are recording (and otherwise be against their use)

        Moreover, in the country I come from filming people in public without their consent is prohibited, and I greatly appreciate that.

        • by geekoid (135745)

          Must be nice for the police as well.

        • Actually, if you look at the parent post, you'll see it was about CCTV and about how the government putting CCTV everywhere is terrible as well as Google Glass. But then, dash cams everywhere filming you too. Bike helmet cams. And so on.
        • by moeinvt (851793)

          "Moreover, in the country I come from filming people in public without their consent is prohibited,"

          You mean it's PROHIBITED, or do you mean that government has a monopoly privilege in this regard?

      • wtf am I going to do with a yacht?

        Use it to get laid by hot models that wouldn't give you ten seconds of attention otherwise? Just a guess.

        • by geekoid (135745)

          AH, but you can get just as laid by lying about having a yacht.
          Not on a Yacht, but since you have had too man,e and you are in a hotel anyways..

          • by mark-t (151149)
            Or you could, you know... have a personality, and not need to have either a yacht or the need to lie about it to meet women.
      • by LoRdTAW (99712)

        "Yet people don't whine about dash cams or cameras in cell phones?"

        We did when they first came out (camera phones). Then it became the norm and even useful once the cameras produced useful pictures and video.

        The big difference between Google glass and a camera phone is that no one walks around continuously holding up their phone so the camera can capture everything. You have to be somewhat stealthy if you want to snap a clandestine picture or video with a camera phone. If someone is holding up a camera phon

        • by geekoid (135745)

          " If someone is holding up a camera phone in your direction then it becomes obvious."
          as opposed to using AR? or map software?

          Anyways, I look froward to Google Glass, and how it will change the world for the better.

          • by LoRdTAW (99712)

            Sorry but I don't know what AR means. But if you are implying that people hold their phones 90 degrees vertically when they look up maps or text then I would say that no, they don't. More like 45 degrees or less to see the screen when navigating or general use (while standing or walking). Plus it would have to be held up more toward eye level to see the viewfinder on the screen.

            I too like the idea of glass, the augmented reality possibilities would be fantastic. Navigation would be amazing: A foot path, arr

            • by Ultra64 (318705)

              >Sorry but I don't know what AR means.

              >... the augmented reality possibilities...

              Are you sure you don't know what AR means?

        • I mean like in Russia where 97% of vehicles have a dash cam and you can put together an every-angle-view 24/7 continuously of 100% of what's visible from the road.
      • by N0Man74 (1620447)

        I can only guess that people are more paranoid about some perv rubbing one off to videos captured with Google Glasses than they are of a government that will rape them using CCTV glasses.

        Though I think I'd be more ok with cops wearing or using technology that allowed them to always record what they see than just random cameras recording everything all the time. At least then there is a presence (and not just using technology to spy) and if they were required to do this then there would be a lot less potent

      • by geekoid (135745)

        " Google Glass will fail as a product because people don't like the idea of being videoed "
        alternativly:
        YouTube will fail as a product because people don't like the idea of being videoed

        • Did I just miss the opportunity to point out that Girls Gone Wild (among other shit) is essentially people doing absolutely retarded shit they don't want anyone to ever see specifically because there's a camera around? Like, the actual ethics behind Girls Gone Wild is that people immediately become jackasses when there's a camera around; when there's not a camera around, they regain full baseline understanding that they never want a video record of any of that kind of shit. Ask a random girl to show you h

    • by geekmux (1040042)

      People should be this upset about the government doing this too. CCTV's are popping up everywhere, even in rural US cities.

      There is a considerably large difference in a civilian wearing Google Glass and a government agency putting up cameras.

      I can merely walk away or choose not to be around the person wearing Glass...or perhaps kindly ask them to remove them or otherwise disable it.

      People are upset not because government agencies are doing the same thing, but mainly because there's not a damn thing citizens can do to stop it, or prevent massive abuse.

      Don't worry though, I'm sure we'll "create jobs" at battery and motor factori

      • by moeinvt (851793)

        "People are upset not because government agencies are doing the same thing, but mainly because there's not a damn thing citizens can do to stop it, or prevent massive abuse."

        Unfortunately, a huge number of citizens actively embrace the surveillance state. To the extent that activities like this can make people stop and think "Gee, this surveillance stuff is really creepy" I applaud it.

    • by mark-t (151149)

      They would be.... but a lot of people are more afraid of getting arrested than they are of having their privacy violated.

      When somebody who has no apparent affiliation with the government or law enforcement is holding up the camera, most people do not have any such pervasive fear to block them from expressing their first and probably most natural reaction.

    • What is a rural city?

  • Black mirror (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mvar (1386987) on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @07:35AM (#44110833)
    On the subject of surveillance and Google Glass, the British tv-series Black Mirror had a pretty neat episode (s01e03) titled "The Entire History of You", here's a brief description [wikipedia.org] from wikipedia: Set in an alternative reality where most people have a 'grain' implanted behind their ear which records everything they do, see or hear. This allows memories to be played back either in front of the person's eyes or on a screen, a process known as a 're-do'. Very interesting concept
  • This sounds similar to some of the problems that Steve Mann [nbcnews.com] has run into. He has been experimenting with augmented reality headsets since 1980 and has documented [nytimes.com] quite a few incidents before and been on slashdot before.
    • by DrXym (126579)
      At least Google Glass devices can be removed. Having one surgically implanted is pretty stupid regardless of the tenuous reasons offered for doing so.
  • by wbr1 (2538558) on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @08:14AM (#44111229)

    'They wonder if they're being recorded, and they feel like the tool could be used against them in some way.'"

    You wonder of you are being recorded? You are, by the hundred cameres you walk past every day, by your smartphone, by your ISP, by any of a dozen other things probably.

    I am less worried about some wierdo Google glassing me taking a piss and wacking off to it later than what the government will do with their recordings if they I cross the wrong person.

    • You wonder of you are being recorded? You are, by the hundred cameres you walk past every day

      And it's highly unlikely anything will come of it. To cameras on the street you are uninteresting.

      I am less worried about some wierdo Google glassing me taking a piss

      You should be concerned about some weirdo using you in an image meme, or of a "friend" incidentally capturing you everywhere you go, and another "friend" tagging you in the videos or photos, making your private business searchable.

      • And you should be more concerned that once your "friend" has identified you to his life logging software, it will be able to automatically tag you in every video or photo.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by geekoid (135745)

        Walking in the street is not now, nor has it ever been, private business.

        You re already being recorded, and the government and corporations can find out every thing you do. If you become a perosn of interest, then whom every is interested can find out everything you do on a much more personal level then some dorks tagging you from an image.

        Google Glass is the citizens number one best protection from abuse.

        BTW, I can get a hidden camera that I wear on me for a lot less then Google Glass. So If I want to reco

    • dude im not sure what brand smartphone you are using but trust me when i say i know 100% for certain my smartphone isn't videoing me surreptitiously...and if there was any hint it was i'd reflash the rom in 30 seconds...and how is my ISP videoing me when i dont have any cameras connected to my computer?
      • by wbr1 (2538558)
        I said record. Record does not mean a video recording necessarily. Audio, traffic logging, gps logging.. all of these are recording.
  • Time to create a pattern shifting mask for general walking around ala Rorschach.

    [John]

  • Reactions? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by moeinvt (851793) on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @09:07AM (#44111905)

    Why do people passively accept the presence of fixed security cameras everywhere, but get agitated when there is a person aiming a camera at them?

    I can sort of understand the reaction if he followed them around, but in the few clips I watched, he's in a public place and the people are actively chasing him away.

    I'd like to see him sitting somewhere in the direct vicinity of a police camera and point out to people that the government is doing the same damned thing. Maybe people would re-consider their support of government spying.

    • Re:Reactions? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @09:35AM (#44112275)

      Disagree. This guy is just being a total asshole and a creep. The one lady is just having a conversation on the phone and he come up, sits down in front of her, videotaping her from point blank range. She asks him fairly nicely to please go away, and he just keeps being an asshole about it. Despite that, she continues acting fairly nice for a while until he continues being an asshole. And she even tried to engage him in some conversation, reading part of something off his shirt "I support" and then asking what it was he supported. Instead of responding, he continues to just be a creep, and gives her no response.

      Also, this is supposed to be some form of protest against pervasive security cameras, but there are a few major differences. First, I believe the vast majority of security cameras only capture video, not sound. Second, security cameras are not specifically targeting you the way this jerk is by coming up and getting right in people's faces. Third, security cameras generally aren't uploading their videos to youtube.

      I'm generally very cool with people doing this stuff in public. I have no problem with people taking photos or videos of me in public. Hell, I'm a photographer myself, so I'm sensitive to that sort of thing since I'm often the one behind the camera. But this guy is just an asshole, and even I would be extremely pissed if he acted that way around me. Assholes like him are why people like me get grief whenever we photograph in public.

      • by Ksevio (865461)
        Exactly - I doubt he'd get such fun reactions if he sat in the corner of a room and aimed his camera at people (say like the surveillance he's trying to bring attention to), but his videos show that he's clearly trying to violate peoples' personal space by getting in their face. He's probably get the same reactions if he shoved his shoe at them.
      • by mark-t (151149)

        A person having a private conversation in a public place is only afforded privacy by whatever level of indifference about the conversation may exist in those surrounding them. That's something over which one will have absolute;y zero control.

        If you want to have a private conversation, have your private conversation someplace where you can have some legal say in who else is allowed to be near you.

    • "Why do people passively accept the presence of fixed security cameras everywhere, but get agitated when there is a person aiming a camera at them?"

      The brain did not evolve a threat response to cameras in an environment. It really has to do with proximity and the fact that the human observer is within proximity.

      Most of our problems come from the idea that 'we are free' when we are not. People don't get emotionally upset simply because the human mind doesn't get emotionally upset enough because it wasn't p

  • by moeinvt (851793) on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @11:28AM (#44113999)

    Based on the video that was removed by YouTube and posted on LiveLeak, I thought he was trying to make a political point by filming people in public places, which is well within his rights.

    If you look at some of his YouTube videos however, he's actually going inside buildings and pointing his camera at people through windows. Just being a jackass and probably violating trespass laws, especially after they ask him to leave.

    It's weird that YouTube chose the one specific video to delete. The others are depicting actions which seem a lot more like harassment.

He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.

Working...