YouTube Removes Video of Reactions To Being Videoed 229
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.'"
Really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
This is pure harrassment. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:4, Insightful)
It depends on your lawyer. But all other things being equal, the nature of the harassment caused by somebody videoing you in public location would not generally be considered just cause for assault. You might win a civil case against someebody if they tried to sue you for the cost of the glasses, but video harassment wouldn't save you from the legal consequences, which may include jail.
If you're willing to go to jail for what you believe is right, well then kudos.
Re: Really (Score:4, Insightful)
which can be considered harassment.
Right, but I think taking someone's property off of their body and smashing it is also considered harassment, so perhaps they were right for recording you.
Is that how the logic goes?
Fact is, if youre in a public place, you dont have an expectation of privacy. Property laws (ie, it being illegal for you to take and smash my stuff), however, still apply.
Re: Really (Score:5, Insightful)
" ...they were recording you which can be considered harassment..."
Assault and destruction of property are not justified, even if you had a legitimate claim of harassment, which in this case, you would not.
Re:Really (Score:5, Insightful)
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?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like you're lucky enough not to have met any hipsters
Re:Really (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you? where do you live? what about private cameras such as shop CCTV?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
IN the US, you can get them free, it's called 'YouTube'.
heh.
Re: (Score:2)
£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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"but people bitch about Google Glass."
I bitch, because they're ugly. I'll wait for Google Shoes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Must be nice for the police as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
" 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
>Sorry but I don't know what AR means.
>... the augmented reality possibilities...
Are you sure you don't know what AR means?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
OK, glass!
Snap a pic of her panties!
Re: (Score:2)
" 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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Really (Score:4, Insightful)
"When the person being videoed becomes hostile, punches you in the face, and breaks your new google glasses, you may rethink purchasing another pair. "
Then I'll buy something better, designed for me personally with all the money I'll get for that assault, after suing the moron, since the video will be already saved in the cloud before the fist hits my face.
Re:Really (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming that the person punching you has any assets or income worth anything. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's not premeditated, it's probably going to be a significantly lesser charge than murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you so sure a jury will award you anything? If anything, most people I know would consider someone sitting down at their table, while recording their reactions, to be openly hostile, and chances are the person doing the punching will get off on the "assault", and you'll be left holding the bag for the civil suit afterwards.
If anything, the police should be citing Surveillance Man for Disturbing the Peace. These are normal, generally happy people before the "Man with a Camera" shows up.
Re: Really (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weird reaction too; I broke my nose and the glasses are somewhere orbiting my optical nerve right now, but the whole thing is in the cloud now! Happy happy joy joy! Hopefully the court will indeed say; that is your own fault for harassing people, now bugger off!
http://youtu.be/xKTseEpWrYc
Re: (Score:2)
>because they were right, you were recording and harassing them! Ironic isn't it?
No, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Recording is not harassing. It is perfectly legal to record things in public places.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends... how easy is it to sue somebody while one is in jail?
Getting annoyed about being videoed in public won't save them from the legal consequences of their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if someone is using Google Glass, make sure you hit him from behind? That sounds like what you're advocating, although you may not mean to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
You suspect wrong. The puncher would quickly be arrested and buying the punched another pair. That is the beauty of uploading the video as you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And good luck watching that new pair if you end up suffering migraines for the rest of your life due to damage caused by the punching.
Life is not a Hollywood movie.
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of stupid. selfish unthinking uncivilized knuckle dragging moron thing assault is the correct way to handle thing?
well you.
And it's assault, just like it would be know, and the person would be arrested. If not, I will just go to the DA and/or make in publicly embarrassing to local politician who let that kind of thuggery run amok.
Re: (Score:2)
Assaulting somebody is criminal behavior... and isn't something the police are liable to laugh about, unless the police on duty at the time are just assholes.
The law, however, is quite unambiguously clear. Assaulting a person is only legally justifiable in self-defense or the defense of somebody else who is unable to defend themselves against assault. Any harassment which led up to such action would have to have to have an assault component itself for it to have any hope of being legally justified.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My point was people already bitch about shit other people own--big houses, private jets, hummers, stupid donks, animals, etc.
People bitch about things I own. I own a $1400 bicycle with $600 wheels--having upgraded from a $500 bicycle, ho-ly shit who knew?! People think it's their business to tell me I'm a horrible person for not buying a $50 40lb piece of shit from Toys-R-Us which would be "just as good" but fuck 'em.
I'm buying a $5000 piano--a Kawai CA-93--and people are telling me I don't need it and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My point was people already bitch about shit other people own--big houses, private jets, hummers, stupid donks, animals, etc.
People bitch about things I own. I own a $1400 bicycle with $600 wheels--having upgraded from a $500 bicycle, ho-ly shit who knew?! People think it's their business to tell me I'm a horrible person for not buying a $50 40lb piece of shit from Toys-R-Us which would be "just as good" but fuck 'em.
I'm buying a $5000 piano--a Kawai CA-93--and people are telling me I don't need it and/or that a $300 piano or a plastic Yamaha $500 keyboard is "just as good" and rattle on and on about this like it's somehow hurting their quality of life.
You should see the way some people react when I talk about getting granite counter tops--apparently me having granite makes their quality of life poorer because everybody has granite and it's "overdone" (in the same way, I guess, that everyone having a refrigerator is overdone? Granite is fucking fantastic--yes, cement counter top is respectable, easily repaired, looks good, etc--but granite is really, really fucking awesome).
Vibram FiveFingers [vibramfivefingers.com].
What the fuck do I care about what you think about my Google Glass?
Maybe if you stopped bragging about how much you are paying for stuff people would get off your case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it's more like if I want a piano, people feel it's their duty to tell me to Walmartize my purchase: get some cheap shit. I want something nice. That makes me a horrible person for somehow not knowing how to spend money correctly, or for not patronizing their favorite brand, or for buying something they don't see a value in.
Like the bike I got takes me about 60% as much energy to move as the $500 bike I had--it's like the bike isn't even there--and I can make it 13 miles to work in 50 minutes instead
Re:Really (Score:4, Funny)
Just one comment, it is very likely, that as a billionair, all the money you have on you will be in plastic cards, giving you a very small wallet, while poor people may have a lot more money in coins, which are thicker and add up pretty quickly.
Not that I am insinuating that your manhood is not of monstrous proportions.
Coins are also easier to keep in a sock than a wallet; which is handy because, rich or poor, problems are often best dealt with by bringing financial weight to bear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people I've talked to generally prefer "black". The key is to use it as an adjective rather than as a noun: "black" describes them, but doesn't define them. "Black people": good. "Blacks": not so good (though better than some of the alternatives).
I imagine I'd feel the same about being defined rather than described by any of my physical traits.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful brother. Sounds like you hating, my nigga.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/a-reminder-that-glass-doors-are-the-biggest-threat-to-humani
http://www.2mcctv.com/blog/2012_08_10-top-10-funniest-videos-caught-on-cctv-surveillance-cameras/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5ijGfDMiIs
Note how the last one were released by the police in an attempt of warning people of the dangers of getting too drunk, something that of co
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
On the contrary, people have the right to interrogate the authorities about the images they're collecting and the scope of the collection. They can propose laws regulating, limiting or even preventing the collection. They can elect politicians who are against it, and vote against, or no longer vote for, the politicians who are in favour of it.
Right.
And then the government can continue their classified operations to collect it anyway.
The only thing greater than a lack of privacy is the illusion you still have control to maintain it. You don't.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What is a rural city?
Black mirror (Score:5, Interesting)
Cyborg Steve Mann details alleged McDonald’s (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
pshaw really? (Score:3)
'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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Investment Opportunity (Score:2)
Time to create a pattern shifting mask for general walking around ala Rorschach.
[John]
Reactions? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
"You really don't understand why people would be more concerned by a suspicious creep pointing a camera in their faces than a CCTV camera high up on a pole? "
I totally understand it at an *emotional* level. Logically, I don't see why there's much of a difference. There could just as easily be some obnoxious creep behind the cameras at police HQ. I think that highlighting this disconnect in our perception is part of the point.
If he started following people around, it would be different because you can alw
Re: (Score:3)
With a CCTV there is an expectation that nobody is going to view or use the video unless something crazy happens (like a robbery). When someone is holding a camera and specifically recording you, there is an expectation of intent to view and use the video.
It's like the difference between walking passed the barrel of a gun in a gun store and having someone pointing an unloaded gun at you. They are both unloaded guns that, if they were loaded and fired, would hit you, but one is clearly lacking any intent w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't recall the video you're talking about, but it's refreshing to hear about one case where a government employee was actually held accountable for wrongdoing. That's a rarity, especially in the federal government.
I don't find the ownership question to be a fundamental difference. There is a potential for abuse and only the nature of the abuse is in question.
My dislike for authority certainly influences my views. For one thing, I'm paying for the hardware and salaries of the government creeps. On an
Changed my mind about the guy (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the time those people sign waivers and they're often paid a small amount as well. My roommate worked on a show similar to "Just for Laughs" in Toronto and most people simply wouldn't permit any footage of them to be used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy is something that we are only afforded by whatever level of indifference people who might be around us may have in our affairs.
We have absolutely *ZERO* control over what other people might be thinking or wanting to do.
If you want privacy... go someplace private... resorting to physical violence to try to settle what is an entirely nonviolent situation is... well... stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fallacy.
Having something to hide does not mean there is anything necessarily wrong.
People don't wear clothes in public because there is anything (necessarily) wrong with their nude bodies. They do so because there are parts of their body that they consider private.
Of course, how you behave in public, by default, is not something that is inherently private. If one wants privacy, it stands to reason that one shou