Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
numlock86
As someone who has no idea what this is: What's the context here? By the name I would assume violation of multiple privacy related cases, which probably justifies deletion from basically everywhere. But then again, I have no idea what's the deal here.
globular-toast
It was a series of videos taken in public where a guy would just point the camera at people doing mundane things. The subjects would often question why he was filming them and the response was always simply "oh, I'm just making a video".
Occasionally the guy would elaborate further and it seemed the point was that people are captured and recorded on CCTV and other surveillance methods all the time, so why would they care about his camera? Despite this the subjects would often become enraged and sometimes violent.
It was fascinating for many reasons and I think a very interesting view on human psychology.
Barrin92
>so why would they care about his camera?
I mean it seems pretty obvious. Because a private person could potentially do anything from stalking you, to using your image in some political campaign or advertisement or whatever else.
Potentially much worse and intrusive than being filmed by a parking lot camera. Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given.
insickness
In the US, it is legal to photograph and film in public as long as there is not an expectation of privacy, such as a restroom. And it should remain legal. If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop. If I'm on a public sidewalk filming a private business, they can't tell me to stop.
You can't legally use someone's image in an advertisement without their consent. But that's different than having the right to film in public. If I'm filming and you walk in front of my camera, you don't have the right to force me to stop filming. You don't own public space.
jrochkind1
Why can't a manager or employee at any of the stores I go into in a week, all of which probably have cameras these days, be potentially doing the same thing?
I mean, I get it -- we don't think they are likely to. Because that's not the purpose of the camera. Because we figure businesses are run by people "in charge" who have certain interests. We think we understand the purpose and intention of the cameras in the stores, and we don't understand the purpose or intention of the guy standing in the street, so imagine the worst. Plus the cameras in stores are often hidden so we avoid thinking about them entirely.
But... we're on so many cameras, which just random employees at random stores have access to... or random homeowners with cameras pointing out their windows... it seems reasonable to me to be more worried about that then most people are. And I'm not sure I've meaniningfully given any kind of consent to any of it.
hnbad
> Here in Germany it even is illegal unless consent is given.
To elaborate: filming people (or taking pictures of them) in Germany requires consent, with some exceptions. Surveillance cameras are legal as long as their presence is clearly indicated with visible signage and they record only private property (e.g. pointing a surveillance camera outside your property is usually illegal).
I think dashcams currently still occupy a legal gray area but they were inadmissible for the longest time. Walking up to random strangers and deliberately recording them without consent is 100% illegal and I would even argue that it constitutes harassment, especially if asked not to.
genocidicbunny
By number, most businesses that have cameras recording are also effectively 'a private person'. There's nothing stopping the owner of a business from using the footage they recorded in similar fashion.
The stronger argument would be one that you alluded to with the 'stalking you' part -- a person with a camera can choose to follow you or frame the shot a certain way. A CCTV camera is a fixed installation that can't individually be used to really follow you, and can be somewhat trivially avoided. In effect, a person with a camera can function as a _network_ of CCTV cameras, and I think that's what raises some heckles.
netizen-936824
What makes you think that someone who works for a business and has access to their cameras couldn't stalk people? How about someone hacking into the systems on some given area to track people?
diehunde
Also, I would think most people actually do care they are being recorded on CCTV but there's not much they can do about it. It's always an eerie feeling knowing you are being recorded.
dotancohen
There is a big difference between filming a specific public location, which I happen to pass through, and filming _me_ specifically.
If the location is the subject and I am free to exit or enter the scene without my presence affecting the creativity of the work, then I have far fewer objections. But a video in which _I_ become the subject, which moves to focus my actions, is far more objectionable.
JustGoToThePub
> a big difference between filming a specific public location, which I happen to pass through, and filming _me_ specifically.
How do you know they aren't filming you specifically[1], and why do you trust them?
[1] And don't say 'I'm not interesting enough', 'cos I don't believe you.
SSilver2k2
There is no expectation of privacy in a public area. So I don't see how there is a big difference.
giantg2
"so why would they care about his camera?"
I agree that most reactions are not warranted. However, the context of the filming is quite different.
On one hand, you have (mostly) stationary cameras filming areas, and all the people in that area. Usually the cameras are not zoomed in, and ostensibly are not allowed to record audio in many jurisdictions. So you don't feel threatened because it's a universal thing and unmanned. Also, you assume the purpose is for property or personal protection.
On the other hand, you are being specifically targeted, including audio, by an actual human with a camera. Are they recording my credit card, pin, etc? It's reasonable to question what they are doing as it is unusual and could be a scam. The motive is unknown.
Context and details matter. My guess is they violated a law and/or got sued. It's much easier than most people realize. For example, if you record someone's conversation while their on the phone, you could be in violation of wire tap laws even if you didn't tamper with their communication (simply the act of recording).
amalcon
There's a pretty big difference in stated intent. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a person to be OK with being filmed for the purpose of e.g. theft prevention, but not for some kind of modern art project / protest statement.
Edit: to be clear, the opposite also doesn't seem unreasonable. If someone told me they were OK with being filmed for a modern art project, but not for theft prevention, I wouldn't find that particularly odd either.
justusthane
Apparently just a guy who wandered around Seattle filming people with a camcorder.
https://blogs.harvard.edu/internetmonitor/2013/07/10/surveil...
TowerTall
Apparently it is a video or a series of videos[1].
cortic
It is fascinating even reading these comments, people falling over themselves trying to define a difference between 'some guy' recording them, and cctv (which is effectively 'some guy' recording them).
It kind of reminds me of a nature program i watched some time ago, where they 'concealed' the cameras in plain sight by strapping them onto trees to get footage. Its important to remind ourselves that we are simple animals too, and when we don't see the 'guy' we don't feel the threat.
emerged
It’s pretty simple. The state passively monitoring everyone is a blanket society scale phenomena. One dude following you around with a camera is a targeted 1:1 social confrontation.
The difference is so vast it baffles me that anyone would consider them interchangeable.
cortic
Any amount of fear for someone following you that you can see, should be more for someone following you that you can't see. The fact that its inverse is a weakness of our psychology.
karmakurtisaani
Fully agree with you. It feels like people who think differently on the matter have abstracted away everything else but the fact that there's a camera looking in your direction. Sure, if you think like that, they're the same, but if you consider the context AT ALL, they're two totally different things.
EricE
Why are you assuming passive monitoring from one and active from the other?
belter
The state monitors you actively not just passively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...
globular-toast
Interesting. Every now and then I download and save a local copy of content I think will be "at risk" for future censorship. This was one that I saved.
I'm not surprised it's been taken down from Youtube because, well, it's Youtube. But odd that it would be removed from archive.org.
sixhobbits
Archive.org processes takedown requests too - they have some exemptions for retro games etc, but they are not above the law.
sackerhews
What was it about?
Mind sharing it?
curl --upload-file ./the-video-file.ext https://transfer.sh/your-reference.extundefined
tsywke44
He has a new channel, ”Vagrant Holiday”. Highly recommend.
belter
"Riot Holiday" that was insane. As somebody commented, this guy would be the ironic commentator to the end of the world...
petercooper
There's a British chap who's been becoming popular on YouTube lately who does some interesting public filming which sounds like it might be similar (though not identical, as he is more focused on practicing his legal rights rather than provoking a reaction): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HmOju41Ma0
DavidPeiffer
I was able to find #6 on Vimeo. I'm entirely unfamiliar with this content.
rhklein
You can still find all 8 episodes searching vk.com
timdaub
I loved his stuff and how upset people got. You could say it was performative art criticing post-modern technocratic stance on privacy: While Zuck said privacy is over: this dude got people raging. "I'm just making a video"
Legend
ehnto
It puts me in a tough spot, because on one hand I believe public space should be able to be recorded, but on the other hand this is pretty obnoxious behavior and pretty threatening in context. There are laws that cover this kind of stuff that are unrelated to filming, so police definitely could do something here. We see it as a video on the internet and know the intent but in the moment, it's some guy filming you and your family and not explaining why, I would totally get why people are furious.
bendauphinee
As a photographer myself, how do you think street photography happens? Sometimes the mundane stuff is unstaged, and when I was shooting it, you end up throwing a lot of stuff away anyway. In North America, you have no right to privacy in a public space. I understand why people are antsy about being photographed / recorded in public, but they direct that anger at the person doing it instead of the laws that allow it.
Besides, the person you see and who is generally being intentionally visible isn't usually the one you have to worry about.
ehnto
Did you watch the videos linked elsewhere in this thread? He's acting pretty insidious, it's not just street photography. Even just someone following you around like they are, with no camera, would be uncomfortable/threating to some. He follows one family back to their car.
yoz-y
> but they direct that anger at the person doing it instead of the laws that allow it.
The law that allows filming in public spaces clearly was not meant to allow this kind of creepy behaviour. People are rightfully directing their anger at the person abusing the law, rather than the law itself.
liquorice
AFAIK he never revealed his intents, so he could just be doing it 'for the lulz'... That seems more likely to me considering his 4chan-y attitude on his other channel 'Vagrant Holiday'
raxxorrax
It just shows how people have no idea about how transparent they have become. A private guy filming you is so trivial and insignificant compared to surveillance capitalism, it shouldn't even get a mention.
ggm
Except its been shared widely. Its not his home movie shown to ten people, its privacy breach (I understand thats at best a hypothetical motivation not a law) with thousands, or millions of viewers.
Scale is sometimes enough to make the mundane terrible. Hence memes.
raxxorrax
True, in this case it is an exception of course. Although in times of social media an audience is easy to be found. Memes are the opium of the people or something like that.
belter
Surveillance Camera Man had some of the most fascinating videos ever uploaded to the Internet.
They were:
- A form of Urban Art.
- A study of Human behavior. From the relaxed and curiosity driven reactions of a few, to the freaked, untitled, scary, reaction of many.
- A intrusion into the personal space of some, while in a public space, only made more fascinating by his calm brazenness.
- Pure real life Golden Comedy.
The most important reminder, will always be of how much our tolerance to surveillance is only based on the invisibility of said surveillance. In the digital world or in the real world. Always took Camera Surveillance Man, with his constant repetition, "It's just a camera", "It's just a video" as a statement of the must important unspoken question: "If you freak out about this camera, why don't you freak out about the others?"
Commentators arguing about a personal invasion of privacy, are forgetting how easily it is to correlate two or three different signals, and de-anonymize you, therefore formally putting the camera back at your face again.
Golden I tell you:
"Just a video":
This one, where the person arguing about it sits on a desk,
with a large green panel that says: "CCTV Monitoring Station"
theartfuldodger
After seeing this comment and watching a few of the AMAZING vagrant holiday videos, I learned from the comments that he likes to upload to specific locations and has deleted his videos and re-uploaded them many times over the years.
I checked other mentioned locations and you can still watch the full collection here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/OkQQggPH6a9B/
Jamie9912
It just loads forever :( Looks like the request times out on the video player
theartfuldodger
Ah, thats terrible, I was still watching Vagrant Holiday videos
Here is a reupload - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBQi88JJ38Q
Inu
Reupload is gone...
olwmc
I believe he now goes by “Vagrant Holiday”. Could be wrong though
Jamie9912
Oh my god I thought they sounded similar!!
undefined
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
Ironically it looks like his content has been taken down from YouTube AND archive.org https://archive.org/details/SurveillanceCameraMan18