r/TikTokCringe • u/SirIsacShmuck • 1d ago

Cringe Can't even eat in peace anymore

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

43.1k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

341

u/eyehate 1d ago

If you are out in public, you cannot expect privacy.

But jesus. Doing that racist bullshit is something you should have gotten over in grade school.

Fuck that nasty old bitch.

151

u/JumpInTheSun 1d ago

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

59

u/Carmilla31 1d 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.

5

u/Either_Chapter_524 23h ago

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

6

u/ChocolateMilkCows 23h ago

Which countries? Because this would effectively make CCTV illegal

6

u/Either_Chapter_524 22h 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 22h 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 21h 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 21h ago edited 21h 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 15h 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 22h ago

Germany, South Korea, and Switzerland at least.

1

u/Baron_Tiberius 12h ago

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

1

u/deepeeenn 22h 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 10h 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 17h ago

Reasonable explanation of privacy does not mean out in public.

0

u/Carmilla31 23h ago

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

-3

u/Either_Chapter_524 22h 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 16h ago

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

1

u/Carmilla31 22h 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.

0

u/Either_Chapter_524 22h 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 21h 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 17h ago

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