Being filmed like a criminal.

GreyQueen

I do actually know that consent from passers-by isn't required for a camera taking street shots. I disagree with the principle, funamentally. I am never pleased to be walking up the precinct and realise that I am inadvertantly walking face-first into a TV camera. Nor am I overjoyed when encountering a fellow cyclist with helmet cams as I tootle about the roads. A woman I know had a helmet mounted bike light which was usually mistaken for a helmet cam, which she removed because she got so much grief from other citizens.

There's a big difference in probabilities in being seen by a single person, on the street, when that person is someone you want to avoid, and having that same shot on the Six O'clock News in front of millions.

The Police move people around the country for their own protection. Some people re-locate themselves to get away from violent ex partners etc. Undermining their safety for the purposes of having a few seconds' worth of footage of a crowded street is a poor trade-off, I think.

Supermarkets thought themselves clever by replacing cashiers with auto-tills and now they're finding that some of the shoppers aren't honest, so they're throwing more technology at the problem.

That tells me that auto tills + theft + store security guards + anti-theft CCTV is still cheaper than giving a human being a job. And then commerce speculates on the reason for falling sales....... it's enough to make a cat laugh.

Undervalued

GreyQueen wrote: »

I do actually know that consent from passers-by isn't required for a camera taking street shots. I disagree with the principle, funamentally. I am never pleased to be walking up the precinct and realise that I am inadvertantly walking face-first into a TV camera. Nor am I overjoyed when encountering a fellow cyclist with helmet cams as I tootle about the roads. A woman I know had a helmet mounted bike light which was usually mistaken for a helmet cam, which she removed because she got so much grief from other citizens.

There's a big difference in probabilities in being seen by a single person, on the street, when that person is someone you want to avoid, and having that same shot on the Six O'clock News in front of millions.

The Police move people around the country for their own protection. Some people re-locate themselves to get away from violent ex partners etc. Undermining their safety for the purposes of having a few seconds' worth of footage of a crowded street is a poor trade-off, I think.

You may disagree but, as you acknowledge, that is the law.

There are of course implications both ways but are you really advocating a complete ban on filming and taking photographs in any public place? Because that is what you are saying. Otherwise, where would you draw the line as to how visible a person was in the film or photograph?

I appreciate there are a relatively small number of people who have a good and lawful reason to want to keep their location secret. However there is a larger number of criminals who would wish to do the same.

Like it or not camera technology is ever more widespread and virtually all of us have video camera / still camera / audio recorder / gps tracker in our pockets (i.e a smart phone)! It is not going to go away.

In the early days of desktop computers, long before the internet, somebody famously described a personal computer as an unlocked filing cabinet with a built in photocopier. In a relatively few years we have moved from that to a pocket sized computer come film studio with the ability to share its output with the whole world.

I think you need to find a different solution to your small but I am sure very real and serious problem.

Norman_Castle

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

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?

Greenpeace formed in 1971. The current environmental movement has developed from decades of effort, it didn't start when you noticed it. The question was what are you personally doing about the current problems. Your answer appears to be blaming others and spouting !!!!!!.
What will you tell future generations about your environmental exploits?

Barny1979

Islandmaid wrote: »

In 1979, I stood with my father, an environmental scientist and his friends on the northern tip of Newfoundland, at the age of 11 protesting against seal culling and whale hunting.

In 1989, he (my father) was a senior part of the Exxon Valdez recovery group working with and being part of the environmental cleanup and I was part of the intelligence gathering group behind that disaster.

In between that my father was, as were our family, part of various research and development groups for Greenland, Iceland and many northern territories

My father was a child of the 40’s, myself a child of the 60’s

Apart from not using straws and filling bottles, what actual help have you been Mr S ?

Not to defend Mr S, but the example you given is very niche and also presumably influenced by your father's career. Apart from protesting when 11, you haven't given much tangible examples of what you've personally done.

GreyQueen

It's an inarguable fact that technology always outstrips legislation. And a widely-observed remark to the fact that the law is an a s s (as in donkey-like creature not as in a backside).


When photography was invented, the equipment was huge, fragile and expensive. It was some time before camera and photographers got out of the studio and into the environment. In the earliest times, it would have been a wagon-load of kit and you were very unlikely to be photographed without sitting or standing very very still.


We now have phones which can take photographs very slyly. Women are now finding that the law doesn't seem to have a problem with strangers holding cameras under their hems to photograph areas which were not intended to be viewed by strangers - upskirting would have been a difficult thing to do with something like a box Brownie or even an old school Instamatic.


The law always lags behind technology. Does that mean that the law or the technology must be granted a free pass if some citizens disagree with this lax attitude? Possibility, up to a point, until a critical mass of people/ a significant test case, re-defines what is lawful.

Undervalued

GreyQueen wrote: »

It's an inarguable fact that technology always outstrips legislation. And a widely-observed remark to the fact that the law is an a s s (as in donkey-like creature not as in a backside).


When photography was invented, the equipment was huge, fragile and expensive. It was some time before camera and photographers got out of the studio and into the environment. In the earliest times, it would have been a wagon-load of kit and you were very unlikely to be photographed without sitting or standing very very still.


We now have phones which can take photographs very slyly. Women are now finding that the law doesn't seem to have a problem with strangers holding cameras under their hems to photograph areas which were not intended to be viewed by strangers - upskirting would have been a difficult thing to do with something like a box Brownie or even an old school Instamatic.


The law always lags behind technology. Does that mean that the law or the technology must be granted a free pass if some citizens disagree with this lax attitude? Possibility, up to a point, until a critical mass of people/ a significant test case, re-defines what is lawful.

Actually the law does have a problem (quite rightly) with what you describe! I think you will find it is now a specific offence. Obviously that doesn't mean it never happens, just like any other crime there will always be those who break the law.

I am not minimising the genuine concerns of the relatively small number of people affected by your earlier more general point. However, a knee jerk reaction with widespread consequences is not the answer.

Going back to your earlier point, it seems to me that the chances of someone needing to hide for genuine personal safety concerns....

Being in a public place when something sufficiently newsworthy was happening as to make "the six o'clock news".

and either

Not being aware that it was being filmed

or

Being unable to turn away from the filming and exit the area

plus

Actually being identifiable in the few seconds that would be broadcast

and

That film being seen by the person that wishes them harm

plus, even then

All that person has learnt is that they were at a particular location at that time

Statistically, I would have thought they have a far higher chance of being injured or worse in a car accident!

Yes, coincidences do occasionally happen. No doubt such a scenario has actually happened.

However, overall there are plenty of steps a government could take in all kinds of areas that would save more people from injury or worse than this one!

GreyQueen

Upskirting has only been a criminal offence since 12/04/2019 and there was a lot of fuss to get to the point where the law was in touch with public opinion.

Regarding probabilities - people buy lottery tickets although you're more likely to be struck by lightning than win the lottery. Things which are improbable are not impossible; I've been 1000s of miles from home, walked around a corner and bumped into a relation from my home area.

On local news, I have seen multiple examples of news stories opening with shots taken mid-crowd on the major shopping street. Usually to 'illustrate' some point about retail. As if one couldn't frame the story without seeing shoppers shopping or passers-by passing. Even regional news has the potential to be viewed by millions.

If you pull a 180 in front of a camera, or hide your face, or dive into a store, you are very conspicious to those who will be 'looking' through the camera when the footage is broadcast. Besides, one is normally nearly on top of a TV camera before it is even visible, and your face would be very recognisable.

I know two people, in separate incidents, who found themselves wanted by the Police by watching the local evening news and seeing images of their vehicles in proximity to serious crimes. Thanks to the wonders of CCTV. One was exhonerated quickly, the other one had a very uncomfortable day being put to the hard question by CID before the unshakable alibi was checked.


Being hauled in for questioning and kept for a day by detectives didn't enhance their professional reputation and has left them with the habit of diarising their movements, with notes of witnesses to same, ever since.

VfM4meplse

I'm loving the OS tips from days of yore on this thread....but I am sensing more than a bit of subtle sexism here. Far be it for me to defend the male sex but it does feel as though they are getting an extra bashing on account of being in a female-dominated zone (as well as the overt generational disagreement).

Undervalued

GreyQueen wrote: »

Upskirting has only been a criminal offence since 12/04/2019 and there was a lot of fuss to get to the point where the law was in touch with public opinion.

Regarding probabilities - people buy lottery tickets although you're more likely to be struck by lightning than win the lottery. Things which are improbable are not impossible; I've been 1000s of miles from home, walked around a corner and bumped into a relation from my home area.

On local news, I have seen multiple examples of news stories opening with shots taken mid-crowd on the major shopping street. Usually to 'illustrate' some point about retail. As if one couldn't frame the story without seeing shoppers shopping or passers-by passing. Even regional news has the potential to be viewed by millions.

If you pull a 180 in front of a camera, or hide your face, or dive into a store, you are very conspicious to those who will be 'looking' through the camera when the footage is broadcast. Besides, one is normally nearly on top of a TV camera before it is even visible, and your face would be very recognisable.

I know two people, in separate incidents, who found themselves wanted by the Police by watching the local evening news and seeing images of their vehicles in proximity to serious crimes. Thanks to the wonders of CCTV. One was exhonerated quickly, the other one had a very uncomfortable day being put to the hard question by CID before the unshakable alibi was checked.


Being hauled in for questioning and kept for a day by detectives didn't enhance their professional reputation and has left them with the habit of diarising their movements, with notes of witnesses to same, ever since.

So what you are advocating is no filming or photography at all in a public place if it includes any person who might be identifiable?

In fact your latest example goes even further - no images that include car number plates!

I am sorry if you or anybody you know has had a bad experience but I honestly think you are getting this totally out of proportion.

Sorry.

[Deleted User]

Not sexism from me love what I do very much object to though is having the blame for all the ills of the world being heaped at ALL my generations doorstep with no actual justification or proof that each and every one of us is an irresponsible planet wrecker with a hugely overactive selfishness gene who doesn't think or care about the consequences of their actions through all their lives or their effects on others. The damage set in with the onset of the industrial revolution, wars and world wars have done huge environmental damage and the consumerism of these modern days is systematically destroying what's left of the worlds forests and depleting the oil, metals and minerals deposits which ARE finite and won't last forever. We ALL have a responsibility to try to stop the damage mankind has done and try to heal this poor sick planet and that includes everyone who is alive today including Mr.S who presumably has eaten, drank, travelled, lived in a dwelling where the utilities are connected, driven or been driven in a car or by other means of transport , needed clothing and the wherewithal to keep himself and his surroundings clean and in good order and thereby added his own bit of pollution to the existing problem. The easy bit is apportioning blame and trying to shed any from yourself and your peers.....the hard bit is actually doing something about the problem!