Being filmed like a criminal.

Pollycat

coffeehound wrote: »

I don't dispute the need for surveillance and security, but the corner that has been turned here is that rather than general oversight, this is personal surveillance - they are watching you, and far from being discreet about it, they're slapping the customer in the face with it. The unwritten dialogue goes something like

Right customer, scan your damn stuff now. Come on, move it! Can't you see there's a queue? Don't you dare scan those bananas as carrots now - we're watching you, remember. Put it in the bag faster. Hey staff, this clown's buying alcohol here! And again - is he legit? Don't even THINK about taking that carrier bag without scanning it - we've got our eye on you, Charlie. Alright, now pay your damn money and GTFO, maggot

Okay maybe a little dramatised, but not far from the truth

Don't like it?
Shop elsewhere.


Advice that has been given to the OP numerous times.

Barny1979

Exactly, if customers don't like it, they will vote with their feet.

Undervalued

GreyQueen wrote: »

They're also be legally obliged to pixelate/ fuzz out every face apart from yours and every car numberplate before providing it to you. The necessary editing is time-consuming and thus costly and this is the main reason why organisations are unwilling to provide CCTV images on demand, unless it it the Police asking.


What bugs me more than being spotted on CCTVs - often ropey-quality and overwritten on hard drives regularly- is the habit of news organisations to set up a camera taking crowd shots of people walking around the main city centre streets here in broad daylight. Without so much as a by-your-leave or consent form.


There are some people, often female people, who are de facto refugees from violence in other parts of the UK, and who don't need their faces on a news programme where anyone can spot them.

You do not need a person's consent to take a photograph of them going about their business in a public place. Or indeed on private property if they can be seen from a public place. There may be under certain circumstances issues with the complex, largely judge made, "privacy" laws if you publish that photograph but just taking it is not a crime or open to any civil redress.

If you interrupt the person and ask them to smile or stand over there then technically they become a model (even if no fee is involved) so you would then need their consent to use the image.

The argument always was (certainly many years ago when I was at college) that anybody could have stood in that public place and seen the person and whatever they were doing so why is it different to look at a photograph. In other words don't do anything in a public place that you are not happy to be seen doing.

Where this gets more complicated is when a photographer stands in a public place with a very long lens and photographs something / somebody that wouldn't have been noticeable with the naked eye!

unrecordings

This could, with a bit of willing shift the thread into something a little more interesting: Consent and copyright vs Fair Use.

And I guess goes back to the original point of filming/cctv/surveillance/poking a mobile phone in someone's face as a means of 'harassment'

Norman_Castle

coffeehound wrote: »

I don't dispute the need for surveillance and security, but the corner that has been turned here is that rather than general oversight, this is personal surveillance - they are watching you, and far from being discreet about it, they're slapping the customer in the face with it.

The self service checkouts have invited opportunistic theft by shoppers who would otherwise pay properly for everything. They rely on trust and clearly too many people can't be trusted. Individual cameras showing you are personally being filmed will help prevent theft. They're similar to the speed signs which light up showing both the speed and your registration number which demonstrate you personally are being watched.

I'm indifferent about these cameras and screens. They only show what can be seen anyway by those around you and without suspicion that you personally will defraud the system its highly unlikely anyone will be monitoring the camera. If they were that would rate highly as the worlds most boring job.

[Deleted User]

If you've nothing to hide and are an honest normal everyday shopper then the taking of photographs or anything like it will not cause you any distress at all when you're shopping. If you are however trying to be dishonest and take something without paying for it then the photographs and checks will catch you out. Every shoplifting theft increases prices for the rest of us honest everyday shoppers so the security is necessary in whatever form it takes. If you have nothing to hide then you will be OK!

Mr_Singleton

monnagran wrote: »

Out of interest , Mr S. sweetie, could you point us to the ways in which you, personally, are attempting to clear up the mess we old gits have made

Enlighten us please.

Sure..... can you not see that throwing billions of single use plastic bags into landfill is a bad idea for the enviroment? That the factory farms that were providing you with all that wonderfully cheap food by soaking the environment with pesticides & chemical fertilisers also wasn't a good idea. The milkman was soon out on his/her ear when much cheaper plastic containers came along... No recycling just chuck it in the bin and the council will run it up to the dump for you.

When the baby boomers were at there peak power in the 80's & 90's where was the recycling or the concern for the environment?

Pollycat

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Sure..... can you not see that throwing billions of single use plastic bags into landfill is a bad idea for the enviroment? That the factory farms that were providing you with all that wonderfully cheap food by soaking the environment with pesticides & chemical fertilisers also wasn't a good idea. The milkman was soon out on his/her ear when much cheaper plastic containers came along... No recycling just chuck it in the bin and the council will run it up to the dump for you.

When the baby boomers were at there peak power in the 80's & 90's where was the recycling or the concern for the environment?

Yes. I can see that.
That's why I don't do it. :dance:

And I'm pretty sure a lot of posters disagreeing with you don't do it either.

It's more likely to be your generation and the one after it who you should be wagging your finger at.

[Deleted User]

Ditto Polly! I shop with reuseable bags, buy loose fruit and veg from the greengrocer, use the local to us Friday local producers market in the village hall and we grow fruit and veg, buy local eggs and use the local baker who uses paper bags. Other than not shopping and being totally self sufficient I can't see how much more we can do.

We have ALWAYS re-used and recycled everything we can, we were church mouse poor when the children were small and living on one salary with a huge mortgage, we ran 3 full allotments then which wirtually kept us fed as well as keeping us busy and I had never been abroad until I was in my 40s and had never flown, I think many of my generation are the same, we are still doing it too and so are many of our friends.

We also get our milk from the milkman in glass re-useable bottles.

monnagran

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Sure..... can you not see that throwing billions of single use plastic bags into landfill is a bad idea for the enviroment? That the factory farms that were providing you with all that wonderfully cheap food by soaking the environment with pesticides & chemical fertilisers also wasn't a good idea. The milkman was soon out on his/her ear when much cheaper plastic containers came along... No recycling just chuck it in the bin and the council will run it up to the dump for you.

When the baby boomers were at there peak power in the 80's & 90's where was the recycling or the concern for the environment?

Mr S, honeybun, speaking as a pre-baby-boomer (so I'm not sure if I count as a spoiler of the planet) we virtually invented recycling. Indeed, if you have never worn a beautiful coat made out of your father's cricketing f lannels, (while he was sweating away in the jungles of Burma trying to ensure that you had a future to be born into,) written a letter from side to side then turned it round and written over that writing from top to bottom to save paper, or mended your shoes by sticking rubber (when you could get your hands on some ) over the soles to cover up the holes, I don't think that you are in any position to lecture us about re-cycling.

We have probably forgotten more about it than you ever knew..

Oh, and along with recycling and memorizing well known poems, we also learned that 'their' is a possessive pronoun and 'there' is an adverb.
We also learned how to answer a straight question.

Let's try again shall we?

What, Mr S. petal, are you doing PERSONALLY to save the planet?

We are all ears.