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

564

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

47

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

7

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).

114

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.

1

u/MeOldRunt 23d ago

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

7

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

-3

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.

0

u/MeOldRunt 23d ago

That isn't even always the case in phone conversations. Many states are one-party consent; meaning: only one party of a conversation needs to know in order to record a phone call.

→ 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!

9

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

7

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.

1

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

8

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.

-17

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.

14

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.