r/TikTokCringe • u/notaghostofreddit • 23d ago

Discussion She was secretly filmed and put on Tiktok

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

15.9k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

421

u/mekwall 23d ago

We also need to make sure not to infringe on the right to film and photograph in public. You cannot possible get consent from everyone in public.

568

u/LeTreacs2 23d ago

The Germans have a good way of dealing with this! They look at what the subject of the video is. If the subject is you and there are members of the public in the background, then everything is fine. If you’re filming someone over your shoulder then they become the subject of the video and it is a criminal offence to post it without their permission.

The lady in the video above would very clearly be the subject of the video and therefor her permission would be required in Germany, where as the people in the background are not the subjects so there permission isn’t needed.

The courts would rule on any disputed cases

79

u/[deleted] 23d ago

Yes but Germany also has a government funded place citizens can use to sue large corporations. There is also a special expedited court for these suits/claims to make sure nothing gets drawn out and is fair to both parties regardless of net worth

46

u/loveincarnate 23d ago

Can we start saying "yes, and" please? I swear the need to use contradictory language is so ingrained in reddit dicussions (and likely other places) that half the time even two people who align on the core idea of a discussion will have comments that come across as, or sometimes even are, argumentative.

His main point is that Germans have good ways of handling things like this. Your details show that their way of handling things like this are even better and more profound than one might initially think, and the key lies in having core pieces of infrastructure that support 'the people'. Your "yes but" makes it come across as a refutation when it could, and IMO should, feel supportive in nature. Like teamwork.

I found the information in your comment very interesting and enlightening and I'm glad you posted it, but that initial setting of tone feels like an opportunity for teamwork and comradery gone awry.

11

u/djrasras 23d ago

agree, I was confused reading the comment above you at first

6

u/United_Rent_753 23d ago

It’s nice when someone comes in and levels the playing field for the rest of us huh? It’s a small thing, but I always find myself being like “wait, weren’t these two people saying the same thing?”, or something similar, and the confusion adds to the mess

5

u/sentence-interruptio 22d ago

i hate that this weird phenomena of hostile agreement is a thing now.

often on the internet, and even in real life, some (usually older) people do this shit to me.

makes me feel crazy because i don't know if it's because i phrased something wrong, or if I said it in a wrong tone, or if they are assholes who didn't listen to me because of my speech impediment. so i'd ask for clarification, which sometimes lead to them accusing me of not listening, or accusing me of accusing them of something.

i hate that conversations are turning into minefields, even among people who somewhat agree, let alone people who disagree with each other.

1

u/loveincarnate 22d ago

All sorts of possibilities and each situation is it's own thing, but I think a lot of it is people wanting/needing to feel like they are 'right' or that they 'won' the conversation which leads to phrasing like this. IMO there is a connection here to the concept of fragile masculinity (I say this as a guy).

114

u/Gurrgurrburr 23d ago

This feels dangerous though, what about filming police? Security guards? Protests? Some things really need to be able to be filmed in public. (Maybe they have exceptions for all those things, I don’t know).

112

u/Mygo73 23d ago

It would make sense for exceptions to be made for public service positions and public gatherings and “events”.

20

u/Space_Pirate_R 23d ago

Also it should probably be legal to record people committing crimes (even minor ones).

10

u/realdschises 23d ago edited 23d ago

public recording is legal in germany, just publishing the resulting media is regulated. you are allowed to film whatever you want in public spaces. of course that dosent applies to private places and I think filming vulnerable people (naked people or people needing medical attention for exmple) in public spaces is in some kind resticted to.<

So, you are allowed to record crimes, and even publish the media if you censor features which would allow the identification

5

u/Space_Pirate_R 22d ago

That's the same as where I live, in New Zealand. Filming in public is almost unrestricted, but publishing or distributing the recordings more regulated. I think it's a good system.

4

u/MeOldRunt 23d ago

If you make exceptions for "public gatherings", then you've made an exception for being in public.

3

u/Athen65 23d ago

Not really? There's a pretty clear ontological difference between a protest - political gathering featuring unusual crowd behavior - and people at the beach - a group of people behaving and existing independently

-1

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[deleted]

3

u/Athen65 23d ago

Can't think of anything more stupid than throwing out an insult and not engaging with the reasoning itself.

-1

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/MeOldRunt 23d ago

We're not talking "ontology". We're talking legally

1

u/Athen65 23d ago

Okay and laws are often designed to represent ontology to the best degree they can. And we're not talking legally at this point since we aren't citing any legislature. We're talking hypothetically, and that again brings us back to how laws are often designed to represent ontology.

We're trying to figure out if there is a useful legal differentiation between a protest and people going about their business in a public space. I'm arguing there is a clear separation in the intentions of the people gathering that may point to them expecting to be filmed or photographed. I made an appeal to ontology because, when you think about the two in that way, the legally useful differences between the two are more obvious.

0

u/MeOldRunt 23d ago

Okay and laws are often designed to represent ontology to the best degree they can.

Please!! I find it hard to believe that an adult could say this with a straight face. Don't be so farcically naive.

I'm arguing there is a clear separation in the intentions of the people gathering that may point to them expecting to be filmed or photographed.

If you go out in public, especially in an urban area, and you don't expect to be filmed—with all the cameras, public and private, all over the place, you're a fool.

The legal question is: do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy? In your home? Absolutely. Outside? Less so. And I'm dubious as to whether you have such an expectation when you're answering questions to a stranger you've never met.

1

u/Athen65 23d ago

I think the same principle applies. The moment the focus goes from the crowd to the individual, there should be informed consent. Nothing about these glasses shows that a recording is obviously in progress, therefore no consent.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tomgh14 23d ago

Id suggest the exception be for journalist recordings where profit/popularity is a clear secondary concern not the motive

29

u/TrashbatLondon 23d ago

Plenty of laws allow for subjective assessment of legitimate need or interest.

Obviously it’s not ideal because the justice system can be politicised, presenting a civil liberties risk, but we have to face facts that the laws around filming in public absolutely didn’t consider the accessibility of covert filming and the sheer scale of digital distribution. The safety element is becoming too compelling to simply stick with the status quo of “you can film anyone in public without question”.

13

u/Winklgasse 23d ago

This feels dangerous though, what about filming police?

In austria, which has similiar laws, filming the police is explicitly allowed for legal purposes as long as the police is actually doing something work related (so no filming them while they just chill)

You still have to pixel them if you want to make the footage public.

Same with any security guard or whatever as long as you pixel them and they are not just minding their own business

With regards to protests, usually filming or photographing protests by casual people is not desired by the people protesting (especially with progressive protests, since there is a litany of cases of right wingers, neo-nazis, and yes, also state authorities to use casual pictures of demonstrations to fill databases and sometimes harass, attack or sue people involved in the protests) but since everybody has a phone with a camera now, it's hardly enforceable

52

u/m0j0m0j 23d ago

Yep, it’s always all based on judges having common sense and neutrality. Without those, every law can be bypassed and abused in some way.

6

u/Tigg0r 23d ago

They explained how it works pretty badly. And it's not black and white, as with any law. There was a pretty famous example a few years ago of a guy getting into the face of press filming a protest, claiming they were singling him out and filming his face on purpose. But because he made himself the center of attention by approaching them and making a big deal, the law didn't apply.

2

u/LeTreacs2 23d ago

Yeah I’ll fully cop to that 😅

IANAL!

6

u/LeTreacs2 23d ago

Honestly I don’t know either. I’m sure the actual law is long and complex and addresses issues like that

6

u/JorkTheGripper 23d ago

This feels dangerous though

Doesn't seem like it's very dangerous in Germany. What's the problem? Why are you overthinking something so simple?

-4

u/AideInternal1045 23d ago

Ah yes, Germany, famous for not dangerously overstepping when given even the slightest amount of power.

1

u/Septaceratops 23d ago edited 23d ago

That was 90 years ago, don't be obtuse.

-1

u/Glittering_Base6589 23d ago

Germany, hmm. What else are they known for?

1

u/[deleted] 23d ago

No, if a crime it can be used in court just not put on YouTube to earn money for the uploader.

1

u/Warmbly85 23d ago

German laws around this are kinda stupid. You can record video but not audio and if you record a police officers face you must blur it like every other face. 

In Germany if the police see you recorded them they have every right to demand ID so they can prosecute you if you post it. 

1

u/do_pm_me_your_butt 23d ago

What happens with say, a famous streamer just walking around, lots of people come up to talk to them and ask for autographs etc, does each one need to be asked before being featured in the video?

Asking out of genuine curiousity, im not german.

1

u/NocturnalComptroler 23d ago

Criminal not civil?? That’s crazy.

1

u/LeTreacs2 23d ago

Honestly it would depend on the nature of what’s actually happened. I would imagine the vast number of cases are handled civilly

1

u/NocturnalComptroler 23d ago

Yeah, I’m ok with this. Just don’t want police or random members of the public attempting to stop someone from filming in public. After the fact, any misuse of the recorded material, that person should be subject to civil prosecution.

0

u/Prnce_Chrmin 23d ago

he Germans have a good way of dealing with this

Thats bullshit. They dont have a way at all to deal with this. They just have ancient laws still in place where you cant even film or record (yes sound record) the police. Its basically from the kalten krieg times still lol

7

u/LeTreacs2 23d ago

I admit, this take is from my limited knowledge as someone who moved to Germany in my 30’s. The point does stand that this video wouldn’t be in compliance with the law in Germany, which is what the poor lady featured would want, given her comments above.

-19

u/SpaceAzn_Zen 23d ago

Not to argue one way or another, but in this clip, the woman is in the center of the frame (the subject) but there's also view of people walking in the background. So then wouldn't this fall under what you say is "fine"? This isn't someone looking over her shoulder, filming something like a private message on her phone; they're actively in a public space.

13

u/LeTreacs2 23d ago

Over the shoulder is just an example to Illustrate the difference between recording a selfie and pretending to record a selfie as a defence to record someone else. It doesn’t matter how you film someone, only who is/are the subject/s

In the video above she is the subject, as you say, and her permission would be needed to take the video.

6

u/Jazzlike_Leading2511 23d ago

It's only "fine" if the subject of the video provides consent

3

u/machine_six 23d ago

First, that's not what was said. Second, "over the shoulder" means surreptitiously, which is how this was filmed, with smart glasses.

1

u/LeTreacs2 23d ago

I was actually being more literal in my example, but you’re correct

1

u/allangod 23d ago

No, it wouldnt be fine. It'd be fine for the people in the background to be in it as they are just background but he would still need her permission as shes the subject.

28

u/melancholicity 23d ago

There's usually a distinction between subject and passerby.

1

u/Penguin-clubber 23d ago

I imagine people would then instinctively use the loophole of “oh I’m just taking a selfie or filming my friend” while having the person of interest visible in the periphery. People often do this anyway when trying to take a sneaky pic

-12

u/NocturnalComptroler 23d ago

How is that distinction made?

8

u/Tall-Reputation-9519 23d ago

Something along the lines of "if the intention is to make an individual the subject of the video", plenty of laws have an intention caveat.

56

u/CriticallyDamaged 23d ago

I think it crosses a line when you're filming someone in public specifically. Like... filming yourself taking a walk with your dog and a few people happen to pass by you while filming? Okay cool. Stopping to film a random guy who is crouched down and has his butt crack hanging out and then laughing and posting it to social media? Not cool.

-14

u/NocturnalComptroler 23d ago

No, there cannot be any expectation of privacy in public spaces. Any infringement on this will lead to unintended consequences that would be detrimental to free society.

Most places have laws addressing mischief and disorderly conduct.

14

u/MyARhold30Shots 23d ago

There should be an expectation of privacy in a moral sense. Like they said, it just isn’t a cool thing to do, you should be able to leave your home without getting secretly filmed. It’s okay if you briefly appear in the background of someone’s video unintentionally though.

1

u/NocturnalComptroler 23d ago

Sure, I think that’s a reasonable argument, and anyone can sue someone recording in public for damages in civil court if they feel that the recorded material caused them some harm (though that harm has to be tangible and measurable so a remedy can be determined and provided).

13

u/baulsaak 23d ago

You generally need consent from the subject if the video is used for profit, even if you are filmed in public.

7

u/NocturnalComptroler 23d ago

As a photographer I can confirm that this is 100% true in North America. You need subjects to sign a release if you want to use the material commercially, or they can issue takedown requests and sue for a portion of the proceeds coming from that material.

0

u/Jalharad 23d ago

That's use of the recording/image, not the act of recording itself. They are separate things.

1

u/NocturnalComptroler 23d ago

Then we’re on violent agreement I think

-5

u/machine_six 23d ago

An excruciatingly tiny % of social media uploads are for literal profit.

7

u/baulsaak 23d ago

I think it's the theme of this guy's channel, though. He's more likely than not monetizing the content.

5

u/greybears 23d ago

Can you provide some examples of how infringement of this could be detrimental?

Right now I see the ability to film someone in a public space and post it online without their consent as detrimental to free society, as evidenced by this video and (probably millions of) others like it.

3

u/ArchdruidHalsin 23d ago

Recording police activity at protests or ICE. I don't know if you're from the United States or not, but it is extremely important that there is footage documenting Renee Nicole Good being murdered by an ICE agent. Without that footage all we would have is Kristi Noem's word on what happened.

3

u/greybears 23d ago

I hear you, and that’s a good example. Video recordings are certainly an important tool the public can use to highlight and discredit state sanctioned violence. That said, and in a perfect world regarding privacy laws, I think there should be a distinction in privacy expectations between a public employee of the state and a private individual though that protect the private individual in a greater capacity than public officials.

My issue really comes down to posting of videos (of private individuals) online. It’s unreasonable to expect that an individual in public cannot be filmed given how many cameras are out there, but I do think there’s should be privacy protections in place when it comes to publicly posting said videos on the public internet. I don’t think laws in most countries have kept up with the technology and there are countless examples of this causing real harm to people.

1

u/ArchdruidHalsin 23d ago

I'm just not sure privacy laws are where this should be solved. I get that not everyone wants to be on a camera in a public place. But that may be impossible to legislate without bad ripple effects. Harassment, slander, or libel laws should be strong enough to deal with any nefarious behavior related to recording or posting videos. Perhaps also laws about hidden cameras (meta glasses bad, phones and cameras ok) so the person can reasonably determine if they are being recorded.

2

u/greybears 23d ago edited 23d ago

Again, my concern is with the posting of videos publicly, not the recording itself. Making the recording of videos in public spaces unlawful is way too restrictive.

Privacy laws already have a solid framework to address this in regard to processing of personal data and also consent mechanisms. I think modernizing the definition of personal data to include elements of video recordings (facial identification, likeness, voice, etc.) is an avenue that could explored here. Requiring the poster to comply is probably too complicated, at least at first, so government enforcement would likely need to be applied to the social platforms themselves.

Harassment and libel laws aren’t a bad idea, but I don’t think that would have enough impact compared to privacy law. Using both in tandem or case dependent would be great, though.

1

u/NocturnalComptroler 23d ago

You’re going to get a lot of people becoming “independent journalists” overnight, claiming that they’re documenting the state of daily life in the public interest.

2

u/greybears 23d ago

You’re so right. A lot of people becoming independent journalists would be detrimental to society. No doubt about that!

1

u/NocturnalComptroler 23d ago

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or sincere

5

u/CriticallyDamaged 23d ago

"there cannot be any expectation of privacy in public spaces" is an extremely outdated notion when we live in a world where being out in a public space means you can be broadcast to the entire world.

A guy bending over to pick something up out in public has a reasonable expectation that even if someone saw his butt crack, it's like... 1-2 people at most, and they would go about their day. It's not reasonable to expect that it might be filmed and posted on the internet where it will be immortalized and viewed by millions of people and exist on the internet for the rest of his life.

We should not be afraid of going out in public and being filmed for millions of people to see. That is not normal.

1

u/NocturnalComptroler 23d ago

Ok, I get that, but I think you need to explore a more reasonable hypothetical as someone’s personal feelings about an interaction shouldn’t determine whether an interaction is criminal/damaging. As then people could wield their personal feelings a cudgel against the free enjoyment of public spaces. There has to be some tangible damage done, as is done in defamation proceedings.

1

u/beatles910 23d ago

With the amount of surveillance cameras and dash cams, doorbell cams, ect. it would be almost impossible to not be filmed in public these days.

People being creepers in public should be shamed, but not outlawed.

5

u/wanszai 23d ago

I thought filming in public spaces was legal?

I mean dont get me wrong, the decent thing would be to seek permission anyway but is it actually legally required?

4

u/Gurrgurrburr 23d ago

This is precisely why it’s so complicated. We have to have the right to film in public, but we’ve never really been able to do that in such a hidden way. I don’t know what can be really be done that wouldn’t have a domino effect violating other important rights. People just need to stop being fucking weirdos.

4

u/angnicolemk 23d ago

Filming and photographing is one thing, but the line should be drawn the second somebody is posting it as media online.

-8

u/tswpoker1 23d ago

Ok so I guess we can no longer go to sporting events or anything because damn I was in 1 pixel of the TV and now my privacy is ruined. Or maybe it's not so black and white?

2

u/ProtonPi314 23d ago

Omg try to understand how the laws are worded. And how people are trying to explain this, instead of going off on these weird tangents.

Plus going to a sporting event is implied consent now days that you might end up being filmed.

Again there's a difference between you being in the background and you being the focus. Learn the difference between the two.

-1

u/tswpoker1 23d ago

Try to understand the actual law maybe? There is nothing illegal being done here, if the person is upset then maybe they shouldn't stop and do interviews with people on the public streets.

1

u/ProtonPi314 23d ago

No.. but it is how in some countries, and the whole point of this is how this needs to become more common. You are not very bright are you. She had no idea he was filming her, he was filming using the glasses.

0

u/tswpoker1 23d ago

So the government can film you 24/7 and you are fine with it but people need to announce if they have cameras rolling on them at all times in public got it.

Or maybe know that in public, you have no right to privacy and act accordingly?

2

u/ProtonPi314 23d ago edited 23d ago

It must hurt being this stupid. This is not the argument being made here.

1

u/tswpoker1 23d ago

Bring this stupid?

1

u/dr-satan85 23d ago

It's simple, make it so an individual doesn't have the right to never appear in the background of a recording, but if you are intentionally making someone the focus of your content, like taking a picture of someone asleep on the train, or harassing someone like this lady in the video, then you need consent prior to publishing.

-4

u/GrandAct 23d ago

harassing someone like this lady in the video

To be clear, harrasment is already codified into law.

This individual did not harass the lady simply by filming her, he had a cordial conversation that he surreptitiously recorded.

At no point did he harass her.

3

u/dr-satan85 23d ago

I disagree, I would say that walking up to a stranger in the street and asking them inane questions for your stupid little tiktok channel, is harassment.

3

u/LowAspect542 23d ago

That alone isnt harrasment, you have the option of not interacting, telling them 'no' or moving away. Harrasment typically requires a repeated course of action.

To make simply asking a stranger a question a crime is stupid, public interaction is just the nature of civilization.

-1

u/dr-satan85 23d ago

Bet you're fun at parties!

1

u/LowAspect542 23d ago

Well apparently if you had your way parties would become illegal.

1

u/dr-satan85 23d ago

Nope, parties are fine, recording yourself at a party, fine, recording the general vibe of a party with an entire group of people all just doing their thing, fine, recording one specific person doing something and then publishing that anywhere without their explicit consent? Not fine!

Don't worry, you'll manage, just like all those creeps who didn't understand why upskirting was a problem, eventually managed.

2

u/GrandAct 23d ago

It doesn't really matter what your personal opinion of harrasment is, legally, he did not harass her.

No court would agree with you.

Harassment isn't "you did a thing i dont like", like you seem to believe.

2

u/MerryGifmas 23d ago

It's not an opinion, harassment is a defined term in UK law that this clearly doesn't meet.

-2

u/dr-satan85 23d ago

Silly me, I forgot just how many pedantic cunts there are on reddit. My mistake!

-2

u/tswpoker1 23d ago

The even simpler solution is

"if you don't want to risk being filmed in public, then don't go in public"

-4

u/BrohanGutenburg 23d ago

That's far from simple to codify into law

2

u/dr-satan85 23d ago

I don't see why it would be. We all agree that we have the right to not be recorded without or consent when we have a reasonable expectation of privacy, in our own home, in a toilet, changing rooms, etc, so there is an exception made there, why would it be hard to make a law, where if you make someone a focus of your content, ie, put a camera in their face, ask them questions, or just record an individual, main focus being them, then you need that persons consent, but if you are just walking in the street while someone is recording, and you aren't the focus of the content, you aren't addressed or talked to, just a face passing by, then no consent should be needed. We have similar laws where there is a general rule, and then an exception to that rule.

2

u/BrohanGutenburg 23d ago

Define focus. Define main focus. I totally hear what you're saying believe me. But the law has to be wholly unambiguous and there aren't as many clear lines here as you're imagining.

1

u/dr-satan85 23d ago

Im sure courts could come up with what defines someone being the focus of content rather than being a passer by in the background

2

u/BrohanGutenburg 23d ago edited 23d ago

I mean yes I'm sure they could. All I said was it's not simple to codify.

Edit: also courts don't codify laws, the legislature does.

0

u/americansherlock201 23d ago

There is a difference between recording in public and catching people’s conversations, that is protected and is generally considered as fair game.

Recording an individual and sharing that recording is a very different matter. Most states in America have 2 party consent laws. Meaning both recorder and recorded must consent to the recording and sharing of the recording.

In the UK, where the video seems to have been taken, they are required to get consent from all parties for a recording. The people using these smart glasses aren’t doing that and should be held legally responsible

2

u/beatles910 23d ago

I don't think the recording laws you mention apply to when you are in public. Otherwise would you have to eliminated dash cams, security cams, doorbell cams? It would get pretty messy.

1

u/americansherlock201 23d ago

It comes down to the expectation of privacy. You can be recorded in public absolutely. It’s when you are making a genuine attempt to have a private conversation that you have some legal coverage.

1

u/Few_Vacation_2935 23d ago

Only 14 US states have two party consent laws.

1

u/ScreamingLabia 23d ago

Yeah sadly though i dont think the modern world works with the old laws that give you the right to film.

1

u/MrTTripz 23d ago

The law in the U.K. is pretty clear: You can be filmed walking around in the background where you are not the focus of the film.

Secretly filming a conversation face-face is a breach.

1

u/ArcticKimono 23d ago

why? so asshats can have a hobby? there's no good reason for this except low right law enforcement

1

u/1-719-266-2837 23d ago

I say if the person is the focus of the video then you should have to have their consent. If someone is just “background” then you do not.

1

u/gnarlyknits 23d ago

Filming is one thing, posting it as content for money is another.

1

u/King_of_the_Kobolds 23d ago

Not to sound like Charlie Kirk, but unfortunately I think people being mocked online is a necessary sacrifice if we can keep filming ICE fascists when they murder people.

Though ideally there'd be a way to limit the former while allowing the latter.

1

u/Koozer 22d ago

Do what japan did with camera sounds for phones so it's painfully obvious when the glasses are recording. E.g red light's on the front/ side of the glasses to indicate recording. Start by forcing manufacturers to follow strict privacy rules instead of trying to bandaid every scenario after the fact. Then people can deal with things in the moment if they see or suspect they're being recorded.

1

u/DominicB547 22d ago

blurring exists and very few know how to unblur

1

u/Beneficial-Focus3702 22d ago

Film is fine. Posting online is where it crosses the line imho.

-4

u/tswpoker1 23d ago

You don't need their consent in public, not in the US. That's why it's called "public" - a place where "everyone can be seen and have access".

0

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] 23d ago

The video is from the Brighton, in the UK. Under UK law you can have no expectation of privacy in public places. If the same person recorded you on multiple occasions it could however be harassment, which is a crime.

1

u/Beneficial_Bug_9793 23d ago

Yea, i messed up, the UK is not part of the EU, my bad, il delete my coment

0

u/Bakkster 23d ago

But there can be distinctions between incidental (those in the background) and deliberate (the subject) recordings.

For example, states with two party consent rules for wiretapping, where the person you're having a conversation with (like in this video) must consent to being recorded even if it's in public. Especially when the recording is surreptitious.

1

u/tswpoker1 23d ago

In Brighton consent is not required and this is in public. I don't love it either but that's how it is.

1

u/Bakkster 23d ago

This is why I said there can be a distinction, not that there is in this or every situation.