Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Not the least because she told the cops that he assaulted her, and the cops would have believed her story had he not recorded the incident.
Note to self, market nets you can throw at drones or something.
An amazing number of people seem to be very ignorant about what level of privacy they can expect when they are in a public space. I had a woman (maybe the same nutcase here?) get in my face for video taping on the street on Halloween a couple of years ago. Halloween, seriously.
Of course businesses can ban whatever they like. Likely futile however.
Photographers bill of rights: https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-yo…
This sort of mimics the open carry idiots on the other side of the coin. Just because it is legal does not mean it isn't intimidating or irritating.
I think that Paul is off base on this about needing new laws. In general, it is illegal/actionable to photograph into areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy - even when the photographer is located in public space. So, flying a drone past apartment windows for the purpose of taking images of private space would be subject both to legal action and an ass kicking under current statutes.
Where on a public beach do you have expectation of privacy? If photographer is 15' feet away? 150' feet away?
Nor must you put up with that shit in the present.
I don't think this would work. With these protective coverings in the way, you wouldn't be able to open and close the blinds.
@Julie in Eugene: if someone was obviously/blatantly taking pictures of me...I'd be pretty pissed too.
You'd make a terrible celebrity.
"In general, it is illegal/actionable to photograph into areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy - even when the photographer is located in public space."
What kind of public space is that? Public lavatories perhaps, but not beaches. Heck, there was a case a few years ago where someone was convicted of public nudity because, although they were inside their home they could be seen from outside.
Seems like the type of person who might have done something like this in the past, and is likely to do it in the future. Maybe a record might help out the next poor schlub she runs into that isn't smart enough to record the encounter.
He's lucky he actually filmed his own beatdown too. The cops would have certainly taken her word over his, and he'd be in jail for assault. Paul also neglects to mention that this psycho lied to the cops and told them he'd assaulted her.
The really isn't a need for new laws around this. People can already sue for invasion of privacy, and most states have anti-peeping tom laws that would apply in the case of a drone filming through an apartment window.
In fact, Seattle has already had at least one case of a drone confrontation. It was written about by CHS Blog and Stranger alum Matt Hickey last year.
From Paul's entry:
Uh, cameras are everywhere now. If you think you can walk anywhere in Seattle without being picked up by a camera, you are delusional.
Anti-Google Glass folks are pretty silly, IMHO. Most people already carry cameras (smartphones) everywhere, and the person you think is checking email at the bus stop might just be recording you.
I don't see a big difference between a camera in someone's hand and a camera on someone's face, except the face-mounted cams are incredibly unstylish.
I couldn't agree more. At least you can see someone is wearing Google Glass. The people you need to worry about would be wearing something like this.
Trying to think about why it would be that I would get mad if a guy walked up and started taking pictures. There's something there about objectification, for sure. Like, of course it's always possible on a beach for someone to take photos surreptitiously, but if I don't know about them, I wouldn't feel objectified by that. A person obviously taking photos of me, or obviously using a drone to do so is putting it in my face -- like I am intentionally taking a picture of you for my own personal use.
@19. Aw. The point about the altitude wasn't clear, but I clicked through to the Gawker article and the footage is actually posted in the comments there. Now I feel bad for thinking he was a perv... the video is actually pretty cool.
Are you familiar with Surveillance Camera Man?
https://www.youtube.com/user/Surveillant…
Good theory, but window blind technology just doesn't exist yet.
Perhaps in the future...
I'm sure this is an unfamiliar concept to many here since Seattle homes tend to be as dark and dank as caves, but some of us like natural light.
Maybe the lesson Google needs to take away from Glass-haters is this: Make Google Glass look like normal glasses, and then no one will feel threatened.
Heck, I might even buy a Google Glass if it came in a stylish frame that didn't immediately scream "DORK."
If a grown, white middle-class man attacked a teenage, white middle-class girl for flying her drone over a public beach, he would be in jail. No questions asked.
What if we simply changed the race of the attacker? The teenage white boy would most likely not have been forced to show a video of the black woman beating his ass in order to be believed by the cops. Without her provision of corroborating evidence and witnesses, his word would have sufficed as being equal to that of his female accuser.
White women like this spoiled, entitled princess behave badly because they know that a legislature, judicial system and law enforcement system made up primarily or exclusively of straight, middle-class and upper-class white men may disadvantage the straight, white middle-class and upper-class female when it comes to equal standing with them, but her perceived "dependent" status in that same bias will actually favor her as a perceived victim in an altercation with almost any male beyond puberty or any person of color.
This teenage, white boy who looks every bit the textbook suburban, middle-class white boy lives in a world of privilege where he can fly his drone wherever he wants without a second thought to its impact on others because the law and its enforcers favor him unless he stands accused by a straight, white middle-class or upper-class female.
When we have MORE WOMEN OF COLOR making, interpreting, applying and enforcing the law, we will have fewer entitled white women and privileged white boys getting away with behaving badly.
May that day come soon.
Sidewalks, beaches, and parks are fair game.
It is not, nor it ever has been, legal (legal is a strange word. The FAA doesn't have a law, it has a regulation, and they will fine you) to fly a drone or RC copter or plane over a crowded area where someone could be injured. I think the guy in the vid was just having some fun getting some neat aerial footage, but he should've been there at dawn and done it safely.
The FAA is just now granting drone licenses to quad copter operators for commercial work, but I'm guessing they have carry a massive insurance policy before one flies anywhere near a human being.
@19 Tiny cameras are certainly ubiquitous, I think the difference between wearing one on your face is that when a camera is handheld, you generally send an obvious signal (by holding up the device) that you're about to take a picture. Many businesses have no photography policies, I don't know why anyone should be surprised that extends to headsets.
Google has massively optimistic sales forecasts for glass, but haven't released 2014 figures yet. I think it's a ridiculous product, but a fascinating one.
That we KNOW of - hey, if the NSA can engineer your laptop or tablet cam to record images of you without your knowledge, who's to say what Microsoft, Apple or Android can do?
Staring, even vicariously via technology, has always been perceived as aggression among humans...and most other species.
A camera on the wall is only perceived as staring at you when you imagine the security person at the other end.
A camera on someone's face, though, doesn't require any imagination for you to understand who is staring at you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6R5HrpG…
@28 nails it. You can't stand in public space and photograph into 'private' area - ie someone's living room, a rest room, etc.
If I'm standing in my front yard, the sidewalk, or on the beach then yes, different standards apply. I'm not an attorney, just someone who enjoys taking a lot of photos, so appologize if my first crack at this was not clear.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/civil…
I hadn't yet, and looking at the indiegogo page just now it has changed to say he's reconsidered filing a civil suit. I also looked at the youtube video comments, which reaffirmed my decision to never, ever read youtube comments. Ever.
#2 he deserves to have his ass beat
#3 the little perv is probably a future rapist
it would seem many of the posters here are also just fine with upskirt and downblouse pics being posted on the internet as well? I mean shit, being out in public means you are fair game, right?
there should be ass whooping for these kinds of people doled out in a public square.