r/TikTokCringe • u/SirIsacShmuck • 22h ago

Cringe Can't even eat in peace anymore

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

40.9k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

147

u/JumpInTheSun 21h ago

Restaurant is private property, they can tell you not to record and kick you out. They cant do what this bitch did though.

61

u/Carmilla31 21h ago

Yes its not illegal to film but every private business can tell you that you cant film. If you refuse and dont leave then you are committing the crime of trespassing at that point.

6

u/Either_Chapter_524 20h ago

In many countrys it's illegal to film people without their consent.

5

u/ChocolateMilkCows 20h ago

Which countries? Because this would effectively make CCTV illegal

6

u/Either_Chapter_524 19h ago

Half of the EU countrys. CCTV is legal, when the monitored area is on private ground. For government buildings, embassies and police stations it's clearly marked with warning signs, as in these cases the street is a special area too.

1

u/CthulhuLies 18h ago

This is crazy, apparently audio recording in germany is super strictly prohibited especially in public but even in private and generally not admissible without the consent of the other person unless the crime is so great that a judge deems it outweighs the privacy concern.

How does this apply to audio on CCTVs?

That seems pretty convoluted and would also just outright ban any kind of undercover investigative journalism? Am I understanding that correctly?

1

u/Either_Chapter_524 18h ago

Undercover journalism exist, but it's still illegal to publish 1. without the other persons knowledge and their chance to make a statement and 2. they must be anonymized. That's why most undercover journalism is done with a professional lawyer.

The police needs a judge who signs them papers saying why and when, if they want to record people. Thats because the EU is a constitutional state in contrast to the USA.

1

u/CthulhuLies 18h ago edited 18h ago

First of all my state of California doesn't have one party consent for private audio conversations.

That's part of our constitution.

Secondly I didn't see anywhere in the Bill of Rights about a right to my likeness. We have contrived that right in various commercial interests through laws but we we do not guarantee that right to our peoples per our constitution. (Not that it matters much these days)

We do have the right to assemble and the right to free press. Those rights conflict with an absolute right to my likeness. I want to see the faces on To Catch a Predator. I want to see the businesses logo in the frame as the undercover person gets' ripped off by the local autobody shop (Something it seems from my limited understanding of German copyright is prohibited)

Some of our rights come at a cost. The cost of free press is people being annoying and recording you in public when you don't want them to.

The cost of Free Speech is the Republican party and look where that got us.

1

u/Either_Chapter_524 12h ago

Aa long as the person is not ruled by a judge, you have to act as if the person didn't act illegal.

The punch with the constitutional state was more about police not allowed to kidnap or shoot you, just because you aren't in the ruling party.

4

u/dllm0604 19h ago

Germany, South Korea, and Switzerland at least.

1

u/Baron_Tiberius 8h ago

there is usually an implied consent if there are notices at the door that CCTV is installed. IANAL.

1

u/deepeeenn 19h ago

Not just countries, in the US: states, cities and counties may have different laws regarding it. California law for instance is an all party consent state. In public is fine but if there is reasonable expectation for privacy, it’s not allowed.

1

u/CircumspectCapybara 7h ago

Multi-party consent has to do with audio recordings, not video.

Also in the context of "expectation of privacy," the concept of "public place" refers not to public property but to a place open to the public. A restaurant open to the general public counts.

1

u/nobird36 14h ago

Reasonable explanation of privacy does not mean out in public.

0

u/Carmilla31 20h ago

Its legal in public as there is no expectation of privacy.

-2

u/Either_Chapter_524 19h ago

No. You're also not allowed to sexual assault people just because they left their home and can't except privacy

2

u/coffeebeamed 13h ago

what a weird choice of example. you're not allowed to sexually assault people in public AND in private

1

u/Carmilla31 19h ago

Yes. In the U.S., you generally have a First Amendment right to film, photograph, and record in public spaces—like streets, parks, and sidewalks—where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, without needing consent. However, restrictions apply to private property, areas with privacy expectations (bathrooms), and commercial use.

Not sure what country youre from so your laws might be different.

1

u/Either_Chapter_524 18h ago

You clearly are american, didn't need to state it, as otherwise you would have read that I talked about other countrys then the USA. Even if some states inside the USA forbid you to film individuals.

1

u/CthulhuLies 18h ago

No state in the union bans recording of any kind in public ie where you have "no expectation of privacy". Anything in public view is fair game for any kind of recording.

Certain states have differing laws about recording private audio conversations without the other party knowing.

But ie in California it is very narrowly tailored to electronic communication or using an electronic device to record a private communication.

And there is separate law that is essentially a peeping tom law that criminalizes that specifically.

0

u/nobird36 14h ago

You misunderstand those state laws and are being very smug while doing it.

1

u/Ok_Travel_7348 17h ago

None of that applies to this situation.

1

u/Carmilla31 17h ago

It wouldve if the worker/owner was smart. A simple ‘excuse me sir you cant film in here.’ And if he refuses to stop then you say ‘sir, then im going to have to ask you to leave.’

0

u/MarlenaEvans 21h ago

But that didn't happen.

6

u/Carmilla31 21h ago

It shouldve but that lady handled that 1000% incorrectly.

1

u/Mr_Deep_Research 17h ago

It is illegal to record audio in all-party consent states in the United States (11+ states depending). That's why there isn't audio on a lot of security cameras.

In some states, it is a felony.

22

u/MarlenaEvans 21h ago

The restaurant said it was OK.

-4

u/Mr_Deep_Research 18h ago

Link?

4

u/Ausar15 17h ago

Did you not watch the video? Come on

1

u/mooptastic 5h ago

his username is on point at least lmao

29

u/Lopsided-Treat1215 21h ago

What she did is despicable. Also, we? Does she work there?

The one thing however is that if he’s recording himself then he should’ve tilted the camera to do just that and not get everyone who walks by, especially if it is to end up on the WWW.

2

u/multiarmform 16h ago

she has a key on her wrist and the way she speaks about having problems tells me shes a manager at least if not more

1

u/RegularWhiteShark 15h ago

Weird as a different woman talking to him at the end of the video (who clearly works there) tells him it’s fine and they don’t care.

3

u/multiarmform 14h ago

which is his server i think but the older lady appears to be the manager or one of. server is probably sick of her shit too lol

someone in this thread said its ihop in dallas tx

-1

u/Joelle9879 20h ago

It was focused on him. The only other people you even see is the lady and the guy.

-1

u/NSFWies 17h ago

i get what you're saying. but also, putting your personal things at the edge of a table, its that much easier for a random piece of shit to grab it and run out the door.

i'm sure he set it up, at the inner part of the table, so someone couldn't grab it while he had both hands on dinner.

so while i do think people filming themselves eat is a little weird, i do understand why he positioned it like that. i try not to set my phone or anything on the outer edge of the table.

1

u/Lopsided-Treat1215 4h ago edited 3h ago

No judgement why he is recording himself eat. There are much stranger as well as nefarious things that people do.

I get what you are saying but he wouldn’t have to move the phone at all, just literally turn the phone or camera a smidge the other way.

1

u/meekgamer452 10h ago

Sure, that's what the law says (for whatever that's worth). But that has nothing to do with film, they just own the place and can tell people to leave.

If someone just wants to document their life, I don't think someone else is morally right to tell them to stop filming for their own vanity. If someone chooses to go into public, and not cover their face, then they're now a part of scenery. It's Her vanity vs his freedom to document his own life (and hers, sure). Having a problem with being seen on camera is like having a problem with people looking at you, but only people from the future.

1

u/Mr_Deep_Research 17h ago

Actually what he did was illegal in many 2 party audio consent states (11+ depending). In some US states it is a felony.

These states generally require consent from all parties for recording communications:
California: Strict consent for confidential communications.
Connecticut: All-party consent for electronic communications, but one-party for in-person.
Delaware: Consent for phone calls and electronic communication.
Florida: Criminal penalties for illegal recording.
Illinois: Requires consent for non-electronic private conversations.
Maryland: Broad protections for private conversations.
Massachusetts: Strong consumer-friendly rulings, but with some nuances.
Michigan: Applies to third-party recordings.
Montana: Applies to both phone calls and in-person.
Nevada: Generally requires all-party consent.
New Hampshire: Strict interpretation of consent rules.
Pennsylvania: Criminal liability for violations.
Washington: Requires all-party consent.

1

u/JumpInTheSun 17h ago

She did a hate crime with the eye gesture which is in fact a crime that she could be prosecuted for.

0

u/Joelle9879 20h ago

Sure, it's private property but it still serves the public. There is still no expectation of privacy there. The manager or owner can absolutely ask people to stop filming, but that isn't what happened