Intent is important. Being surveilled when in public doesn’t mean that its appropriate to record people on your personal device for your own use. Thats particularly true if you intend to publish that footage.
If some vapid insta bimbo was making an annoying noise, and recording people on her phone to get their response, and a guy broke her phone, I would absolutely applaud that.
Im aware that the law does not prohibit this behaviour, but the law ever was a poor indicator of “appropriate” behaviour.
The rest of your comment is just a bad take. You have absolutely no expectation of privacy in public. It doesn’t matter if I’m recording what I can see for reporting purposes, or to go home and furiously masturbate to the color of your lapel.
Now, if someone were recording upskirts, or in a private area? Different story completely. But my understanding is, that isn’t what was happening here.
Apparently, it’s a “bad take” I share with a great many people.
It’s true that I have no “expectation of privacy in public”, but I do have an expectation not to be a prop in someone’s content production hustle. If you can’t tell the difference I’m not really sure I can help you.
You might want that, but it isn’t reality. In reality, you do not have any kind of “don’t record me” rights in public outside of the extremes like upskirts.
I’m kind of astonished that you don’t seem to be able to discern between laws, rights, and societal expectations. There’s nuance here that seems to be completely lost on you.
You’re correct that recording people in public is legal. However, while most people don’t mind being recorded for surveillance / security purposes, they sure as fuck do mind being recorded as content for someone’s tiktok following.
Like any anti-social behavior, most people might just ignore you, some people will tell you to knock it off, but sooner or later you’ll encounter someone who doesn’t give a fuck and they’ll retaliate, perhaps violently. This shouldn’t be surprising.
Is it “right” or lawful to assault someone who is recording you? Of course not, but it’s a manifestation for society’s distaste for this shit.
The guy was acting as a citizen journalist. And he reacted like someone that lucked into a story. It’s a non-negligible risk that violence will occur on the subway in a lawless sanctuary state run by despots and inhabited by Karens and the third world. So wearing surveillance glasses is completely warranted in this situation.
Maybe he identified the threat? Turns out he was right. What if it turns out the footage is him doing risk assessment?
Not everyone is forced to think from the one perspective, Uh she's hot so ... creep perv blah blah blah'. People thinking like this are doing so have the luxury of being in a safe place.
Made 2-3 other rollercoaster commentary in this thread. Hopefully entertaining. Presented passionate believable arguments for both perspectives.
For the point of showing both positions could have well reasoned credible arguments. Based solely on the evidence presented rather than possible hypothetical situations that might be applicable given hypothetical evidence we don’t have.
Nah thats bullshit.
Intent is important. Being surveilled when in public doesn’t mean that its appropriate to record people on your personal device for your own use. Thats particularly true if you intend to publish that footage.
If some vapid insta bimbo was making an annoying noise, and recording people on her phone to get their response, and a guy broke her phone, I would absolutely applaud that.
Im aware that the law does not prohibit this behaviour, but the law ever was a poor indicator of “appropriate” behaviour.
Well she didn’t commit a crime and you violently assaulted her.
Correct.
Intent is important yes.
The rest of your comment is just a bad take. You have absolutely no expectation of privacy in public. It doesn’t matter if I’m recording what I can see for reporting purposes, or to go home and furiously masturbate to the color of your lapel.
Now, if someone were recording upskirts, or in a private area? Different story completely. But my understanding is, that isn’t what was happening here.
Apparently, it’s a “bad take” I share with a great many people.
It’s true that I have no “expectation of privacy in public”, but I do have an expectation not to be a prop in someone’s content production hustle. If you can’t tell the difference I’m not really sure I can help you.
Yeah, lots of people have bad takes on lots of stuff. Are you new to this planet?
I’m merely pointing out that saying someone’s opinion is a bad take is meaningless. “I disagree with your opinion”.
That’s a good point and I agree but I feel like bringing it up in the first place hurt the rest of your argument
I don’t care?
Want and have are different things.
You might want that, but it isn’t reality. In reality, you do not have any kind of “don’t record me” rights in public outside of the extremes like upskirts.
I’m kind of astonished that you don’t seem to be able to discern between laws, rights, and societal expectations. There’s nuance here that seems to be completely lost on you.
You’re correct that recording people in public is legal. However, while most people don’t mind being recorded for surveillance / security purposes, they sure as fuck do mind being recorded as content for someone’s tiktok following.
Like any anti-social behavior, most people might just ignore you, some people will tell you to knock it off, but sooner or later you’ll encounter someone who doesn’t give a fuck and they’ll retaliate, perhaps violently. This shouldn’t be surprising.
Is it “right” or lawful to assault someone who is recording you? Of course not, but it’s a manifestation for society’s distaste for this shit.
Lol, what you got 7 upvotes there? WOOOOOWW
I hate this phoney “everyone’s on my side” arguments.
Saying someone’s opinion is a “bad take” is just another “everyone’s on my side” argument.
i agree.
The guy was acting as a citizen journalist. And he reacted like someone that lucked into a story. It’s a non-negligible risk that violence will occur on the subway in a lawless sanctuary state run by despots and inhabited by Karens and the third world. So wearing surveillance glasses is completely warranted in this situation.
Maybe he identified the threat? Turns out he was right. What if it turns out the footage is him doing risk assessment?
I just wanted to mention, this was a rollercoaster of a comment for me.
Thank you.
Not everyone is forced to think from the one perspective,
Uh she's hot so ... creep perv blah blah blah'. People thinking like this are doing so have the luxury of being in a safe place.Made 2-3 other rollercoaster commentary in this thread. Hopefully entertaining. Presented passionate believable arguments for both perspectives.
For the point of showing both positions could have well reasoned credible arguments. Based solely on the evidence presented rather than possible hypothetical situations that might be applicable given hypothetical evidence we don’t have.