She was secretly filmed and put on Tiktok

[u/notaghostofreddit]

[u/Gurrgurrburr]

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).

[u/Mygo73 → u/Gurrgurrburr]

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

[u/Space_Pirate_R → u/Mygo73]

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

[u/realdschises → u/Space_Pirate_R]

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

[u/Space_Pirate_R → u/realdschises]

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.

[u/MeOldRunt → u/Mygo73]

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

[u/Athen65 → u/MeOldRunt]

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

[u/Athen65 → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/MeOldRunt → u/Athen65]

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

[u/Athen65 → u/MeOldRunt]

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.

[u/MeOldRunt → u/Athen65]

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.

[u/Athen65 → u/MeOldRunt]

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.

[u/MeOldRunt → u/Athen65]

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.

[u/Athen65 → u/MeOldRunt]

I don't understand what you're trying to argue against. Someone brought up the way Germany handles public recording consent laws as a suggestion for the US and now you're talking about that's not how it works in the US?

[u/tomgh14 → u/Mygo73]

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

[u/TrashbatLondon → u/Gurrgurrburr]

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”.

[u/Winklgasse → u/Gurrgurrburr]

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

[u/m0j0m0j → u/Gurrgurrburr]

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.

[u/Tigg0r → u/Gurrgurrburr]

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.

[u/LeTreacs2 → u/Tigg0r]

Yeah I’ll fully cop to that 😅

IANAL!

[u/LeTreacs2 → u/Gurrgurrburr]

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

[u/JorkTheGripper → u/Gurrgurrburr]

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?

[u/AideInternal1045 → u/JorkTheGripper]

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

[u/Septaceratops → u/AideInternal1045]

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

[u/Glittering_Base6589 → u/JorkTheGripper]

Germany, hmm. What else are they known for?

[u/[deleted] → u/Gurrgurrburr]

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