|urbanelf - 2014-04-07 |
|exy - 2014-04-07 |
Fairly disturbing and interesting and I'm glad it didn't happen to me
Ha ha ha! Silly poesters, of course I have been filmed--every time I've gone outside the house probably because the government knows I am the second coming of Christ.
No, but there is a difference between being filmed by the panopticon and by a person, namely in that most people respond to questions and this guy is evidently mutely ignoring all questions put to them. I'm not too surprised when the traffic signal camera won't respond to any of my queries.
My wife, who is smarter than me, called this a great statement on how people do not like being surveilled without any input or output available to them. Sounds good to me. All I'm saying I'm glad hasn't happened to me was someone coming up and sticking a camera in my face and then refusing to explain themselves at all. I would be as uncomfortable as these people, and there would be a video record of that discomfort, and we'd all be watching it now. THAT'S what I'm glad hasn't happened to me. Sheeze, you guys.
That's what I just said, right?
But really, you know that if somebody did this to you, you would assume it was him. If it were me, I'd be all "SHOUT OUT TO LIVELEAK! HOW'S MY POE FAM?! GIMME A DAP BRO, YOU AN ANNOYANCE LEGEND!"
exy: Is your wife OK with the guy in the panopticon at Target jagging off while he watches y'all? At least this guy has the decency to make himself visible. I find him far less creepy than whatever fucknut hides behind the monitors.
|infinite zest - 2014-04-07 |
Might be my browser (chrome for linux) but I could see it in the hopper but can't see it anymore. I can click on "Original" and go to the liveleak link, but it always runs slower on the liveleak site than it does embedded on poetv.. Oh well.. I love this guy.
Semi-related, but the argument's been made that if you're being filmed in a store, it's the same whether you're being filmed directly by a person with a camera, because especially these days, you're on surveillance tape anyway.
So if I owned a shop and had my own surveillance equipment, could I start a youtube account and just have random videos of customers inside and out not committing any crimes? Like let's say a really attractive girl walks in, looks at some stuff, and leaves.. I post that video without permission, but also don't say something in the title like referring to her attractiveness, people see it and it goes viral because she's so stunning, couldn't I still get in trouble for that?
Surveillance Camera Man doesn't own a brick and mortar establishment, but ostensibly he is making at least a little revenue off the ads and such, thereby making it a business of sorts. Don't get me wrong, I want to continue to see more of these, but I'm just curious as to how this all works.
re: paragraph 3
I *think* it's a lot of different civil suit gray areas on top of each other, but it's mostly about whether or not you can "publish" the video if it's a non-celebrity.
Like the last thing you'd want to do is publish a video of a bunch of rich people who aren't newsworthy and then make fun of them in a handful of specific ways in a voice-over and make money off of the video and contact them and tell them you did it. This is a recipe for lawyers crawling up your ass. I think if I remember right, the main ways you wouldn't want to make fun of them is to call them syphilitic sluts who are crooked and incompetent in their professional lives- basically everything you'd be tempted to say.
|Azmo23 - 2014-04-07 |
i gotta catch a bus
|Jet Bin Fever - 2014-04-07 |
I hope he lives long enough to finish his art project. I enjoy these and feel bad for the people he's filming.
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious - 2014-04-07 |
Why hasn't anyone whipped out their cell phone and start recording him in return?
|ashtar. - 2014-04-08 |
This Google Glass ad is weird.
|Adham Nu'man - 2014-04-08 |
|chumbucket - 2014-04-08 |
next step, soundtrack by Philip Glass
| Register or login To Post a Comment|