Creepy Camera Man
- Thread starter Balthazar
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
What a troll. Wait until he videos the wrong guy - like someone in the witness protection program, or some guy hiding out from the mafia. 
Douchebag with a capital "D"
Douchebag with a capital "D"
What a troll. Wait until he videos the wrong guy - like someone in the witness protection program, or some guy hiding out from the mafia.
Douchebag with a capital "D"
I agree to some extent but it's still a good social experiment IMO. There are cameras everywhere and people don't care but when there's a guy behind them then there's a problem. "The right to privacy" doesn't exist outside of your home and people are wrong to assume that you need to ask them permission to take a video of them on the street. Did you see the prostitute in the 3rd vid?
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
There has to be some sort of law for certain things...for instance when we watch Americas Funniest Videos, or the show Cops, sometimes there are people with their faces blocked out.
If it's not illegal then why block out the faces?
I'm assuming the people can sue because they didn't give permission.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
If you use the images/films for commercial purposes, then you have to either have permission, or you block out the faces. Every country is different. When you watch hidden camera scenes on TV in Germany, (exposés for instance), the faces are blocked out and sometimes even the voices are distorted. It's maddening.
But it's true. There are cameras everywhere, but as long as they are an "official" surveillance camera, we accept it. When it's some guy sticking a camera in our face, it's hammer time.
But it's true. There are cameras everywhere, but as long as they are an "official" surveillance camera, we accept it. When it's some guy sticking a camera in our face, it's hammer time.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
Putting a video on Youtube isn't considered commercial purposes then right? I wonder why?
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
I think that if his videos aren't generating cash for him, so he doesn't need permission. The people might complain and have youtube remove them, but that would be like playing "whack-a-mole."
But it's a good social experiment. How do we react when being filmed? These people reacted like so:
1. annoyance
2. violence
3. using profanity telling the guy to piss off
4. calling the police
5. a couple acted confused
the only person who took it lightly and played along was the "prostitute' crackhead. Funny thing. You'd think that she would be the one with issues being filmed - she didn't care.
I loved the scene with the Asian gamers. I thought they were going to lay in on him with some kung-fu.
If that were true every single paparazzi would be rotting in jail, as there's no different set of laws for celebrities and normal people. Commercially or not, they don't have to blur faces (in most countries anyway).
The only illegal thing that I can think of is recording audio when people aren't aware of it. Taking pictures and recording videos are perfectly fine at all time when you're in a public place (and some people from law enforcement don't like that at all, especially when they are the subject being filmed but they can't do anything). The guy taking the videos is within his rights and he knows it.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
I checked into this and I was semi-right
It's true, when you are in public, you can be photographed whether you like it or not - photographers and film crews can use these films for editorial, news-type articles. So if you ride down the street naked on a unicycle, anyone can take your picture and do what whatever they want with it EXCEPT use it for commercial purposes like using your image for a Schwinn Unicycle ad or a beer commercial or whatever. That's when they need a person's permission via a model release form.
This is why photographers who take photos in public of people will ask for a model release form to be filled out. They are hoping that their photo might be distributed at some stock photo place where people purchase these for their business websites, brochures, etc. Paparazzis don't need to do this because they are selling their photos as news, not as commercial endorsements.
And then there is the question of what is public or not
What is interesting is that most people think that it's against the law to be filmed in public if they don't like it or if it makes them feel uncomfortable. If someone could post a city ordinance that covers something like this, I'd like to see it.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
Last edited:
Because they are nice and people asked for it? Of course they can't use your face to sell products without asking you first, but that's a completely different thing. Facebook got in trouble last year (?) because unaware people had their faces attached to advertisements.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
Or camera men can get people fired from their jobs. 
Video below story...
Video below story...
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Or camera men can get people fired from their jobs.
Video below story...
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
I didn't see any kids in danger. I saw some on the shore watching the old guy drag the shark around.
I guess if you're going to go on holidays you shouldn't call in sick first.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
We had a dick here, living downstairs, his cameras pointing out from his windows recording every action every other tenant took, for example, filming with a camera, video or standard, while you walked your dog and it crapped in case you didn't have a baggie. I always scooped, but it drove me nuts. But since I had no expectation to privacy, he could stand on his stoop or inside his window like the paranoid nut he was and film you til the cows home.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
My guess would be the kids ran out, or the adults took them out.
That really sucks for that guy, everyone calls in sick when their not sick, he essentially could have saved lives and he gets fired?
I've never called in sick when I wasn't sick. I've called in sick once in the last 7 years. I've taken off 3 or 4 other days when I wasn't sick for personal reasons and I just said I won't be coming in. And of course I get my regular holidays I can take whenever I feel like booking them.
The last time I wanted a day off for personal reasons I opened the calendar, pointed at the Friday after next and said to my boss "I won't be in on this day." He said "Well, we're kind of busy that week." So I pointed at the day before that and said "Well, you'd better get it all done by this day..." And then pointed back at Friday and said "Cause, I won't be in on THIS day."
The way I see it, if you accept a job you accept the responsibility to be there. That means not taking holidays you're not entitled to. There will be the odd day once in a while that you need to take off which will be out of your control but those are generally few and far between. If it's possible to be at work during working hours then he should be there. I'm sure he's entitled to some holidays over the course of the year. Those are the weeks he should be taking his holidays.
I have no idea what kind of work history this guy has but if you're a valuable employee and you really do need a day off you won't get fired for taking it. If you're not a valuable employee then you probably shouldn't be lying to your boss about being sick and then hanging out at the beach. If this guy has a good work record then firing was a little harsh. I think a suspension would have been more fair. But if this guy had a poor attendance record to begin with then he was playing with fire and he got burnt.
As for the original cameraman video, the issue isn't just privacy. People understand there will be cameras in many public places but they are not focused on you specifically. There are cameras in shopping malls and stores but they are there to capture video of shoplifters for evidence. I'm not a shoplifter so I don't care if they view the tape later on and see me picking out socks.
Walking up to a person while he's on the telephone and pointing the camera directly at him is no longer a public recording. It's a personal recording of him doing something specific. His actions are being specifically recorded and he's well within his right to ask why and to decide if he wants to participate. When a person with a camera singles someone out and films them specifically, that's not a public recording. If a person walks into a classroom with a camera he's not recording in a public area. A classroom is a private area. Even if he doesn't have a camera the teacher is well within his right to ask him to leave the classroom. If you want to film a class being taught you have to ask permission. The camera should not have even been turned on when he entered the classroom. That's a violation of privacy.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Location
- New York, United States
So, it seems, that the law will only be ammended because of a set precedent, due to a case of a violation of privacy...one which only be changed because of media hype that will hit the primetime news hour.
What will it take to take back our privacy due to high-tech, paparazzi and "OMG" and 'You-tube"? and we all glue in, to this .. a.person drowns in his/her own personal embarrassing moment...that we have all had in our lives...but thankfully mine were before cell phones and the internet.
I love the way the 'tech' industry is heading but we have to ammend our privacy laws, or just ammend our 'stupid' ways and , well....think before you open your mouth, legs or any other body part.
What will this world be like in 20 years?....50?, 100,000?
What will it take to take back our privacy due to high-tech, paparazzi and "OMG" and 'You-tube"? and we all glue in, to this .. a.person drowns in his/her own personal embarrassing moment...that we have all had in our lives...but thankfully mine were before cell phones and the internet.
I love the way the 'tech' industry is heading but we have to ammend our privacy laws, or just ammend our 'stupid' ways and , well....think before you open your mouth, legs or any other body part.
What will this world be like in 20 years?....50?, 100,000?
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
I've never called in sick when I wasn't sick. I've called in sick once in the last 7 years. I've taken off 3 or 4 other days when I wasn't sick for personal reasons and I just said I won't be coming in. And of course I get my regular holidays I can take whenever I feel like booking them.
The last time I wanted a day off for personal reasons I opened the calendar, pointed at the Friday after next and said to my boss "I won't be in on this day." He said "Well, we're kind of busy that week." So I pointed at the day before that and said "Well, you'd better get it all done by this day..." And then pointed back at Friday and said "Cause, I won't be in on THIS day."
You do know everyone can't do that right?
The way I see it, if you accept a job you accept the responsibility to be there. That means not taking holidays you're not entitled to. There will be the odd day once in a while that you need to take off which will be out of your control but those are generally few and far between. If it's possible to be at work during working hours then he should be there. I'm sure he's entitled to some holidays over the course of the year. Those are the weeks he should be taking his holidays.
Some people who work as cashiers or waitresses don't have the luxury you do of having holidays.
I have no idea what kind of work history this guy has but if you're a valuable employee and you really do need a day off you won't get fired for taking it. If you're not a valuable employee then you probably shouldn't be lying to your boss about being sick and then hanging out at the beach. If this guy has a good work record then firing was a little harsh. I think a suspension would have been more fair. But if this guy had a poor attendance record to begin with then he was playing with fire and he got burnt.
But if he wasn't filmed he would still have his job
As for the original cameraman video, the issue isn't just privacy. People understand there will be cameras in many public places but they are not focused on you specifically. There are cameras in shopping malls and stores but they are there to capture video of shoplifters for evidence. I'm not a shoplifter so I don't care if they view the tape later on and see me picking out socks.
Walking up to a person while he's on the telephone and pointing the camera directly at him is no longer a public recording. It's a personal recording of him doing something specific. His actions are being specifically recorded and he's well within his right to ask why and to decide if he wants to participate. When a person with a camera singles someone out and films them specifically, that's not a public recording. If a person walks into a classroom with a camera he's not recording in a public area. A classroom is a private area. Even if he doesn't have a camera the teacher is well within his right to ask him to leave the classroom. If you want to film a class being taught you have to ask permission. The camera should not have even been turned on when he entered the classroom. That's a violation of privacy
This is true, the school our daughter goes to sends us permission slips, about if they can have their picture taken, be video recorded, if they can post our telephone, addy, etc...
People are constantly trading away their personal freedom for security and/or "social justice". It's going to be a sad state of affairs for anyone that don't feel well in a restrictive environment.
Even worse.
Now that's an interesting question that would require its own thread. IMO we'll be closer to ants than what we are now. Every human being will be part of a system in place for the "greater good" of the species. Days of personal freedom and acting senseless will be long gone. I'd like to visit the future (mostly to find out what they have discovered about the universe), but most likely wouldn't like to live there.
Most full and part time employees are entitled to holidays. I don't know what the rules are for specific jobs in Australia but if you took a job that doesn't entitle you to holidays, that's the responsibility that you assumed when you took the job. I'm just of the opinion that if a person takes a job they agree to be there every working day. I have the benefit of many years of excellent attendance. I average less than a day a year of missed time. My boss can argue with me all he likes but we both know he can't fire an employee with an excellent attendance record for taking a personal day off so the argument is rather short lived.
This guy called his boss and lied to him about being sick and then pranced around a public beach. That's not the most intelligent thing I've seen someone do. Like I said, if he was a valuable employee he would probably still have a job. Lying to your boss doesn't make you a valuable employee. It makes you an untrustworthy one. He got fired for lying to his boss. He got caught because he was dumb enough to hang around a public beach when he was supposed to be too sick to come to work.
If he wants a job where he's allowed to take days off whenever he feels like it for frivolous reasons he'd be better off starting his own company. Most employers don't like that.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
Not around here.
The sign at our 7-11 up town says..."Looking for help (for whichever shift) must work weekends and holidays"
And when you get hired at a restaurant it's the same.
So no, not all workers are entitled to holidays. I did these types of jobs my whole working history, and never once since I started working at a very young age have ever gotten off a holiday, these types of jobs are required to work them. I would assume you get 2 personal days per year (not sure though) So I would take off a day pretending to be sick, when I wasn't, just to get a day off.
Also, some people don't know, there is a specific law for people who work at convenience stores...they are not required to give them breaks. Like most jobs get 30 minutes for lunch, and two 15 minute breaks. So when you see a cashier eating or drinking, or outside for a quick cig...that's all they get. I've heard people say "why is she eating behind the counter, why doesn't she wait for her break". Well, they don't get one, that's why. I know this because I married my supervisor.
(if a person takes this kind of job, maybe they don't have the skills to do a job with great benefits like you.)
lettingyouknow
Dormant account
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Location
- ocean
Let's compare
Paid Vacation Around the World
The following table lists nine countries and the average number of paid vacation days per year employees receive in each country.
Italy 42 days
France 37 days
Germany 35 days
Brazil 34 days
United Kingdom 28 days
Canada 26 days
Korea 25 days
Japan 25 days
U.S. 13 days LOL if that.............
Source: World Tourism Organization (WTO).
Read more: Paid Vacation Around the World | Infoplease.com Outdated URL (Invalid)
Paid Vacation Around the World
The following table lists nine countries and the average number of paid vacation days per year employees receive in each country.
Italy 42 days
France 37 days
Germany 35 days
Brazil 34 days
United Kingdom 28 days
Canada 26 days
Korea 25 days
Japan 25 days
U.S. 13 days LOL if that.............
Source: World Tourism Organization (WTO).
Read more: Paid Vacation Around the World | Infoplease.com Outdated URL (Invalid)
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2006
- Location
- Edmonton Canada
Awhile back there was a video that went viral - some woman in a mall was so engrossed in her phone she walked out of a store, across the main mall hallway, hit a knee-high wall and tumbled headfirst into a fountain.
She immediately found herself a lawyer and tried suing the mall, because it turned out that the video actually came from the mall security camera. I actually don't know how it turned out, but there were a couple things that struck me about that story.
First of all, the video was taken from quite a ways away and the woman IMO was unrecognizable. But she said she had people calling her and telling her about it. It's possible that she was a little embarassed, but it's also possible that she figured she'd just found the way to easy street.
Why would a video from a mall security camera seems a bit more invasive than some a**hole filming you with his cell phone? In a way I get it, in a way it seems the same.
And last, I was thinking if she won, what would happen to all those sites like people of Walmart where people are photographed or videotaped without their knowledge or consent? I know every time I go to Walmart in a thong and furry boots I have creeps jumping out of the aisles taking pics.
Seriously though - if I ever found a photo or video of myself online anywhere that was taken without my knowledge I'd want to do something about it, but privacy laws don't protect regular people any more than they protect celebrities.
She immediately found herself a lawyer and tried suing the mall, because it turned out that the video actually came from the mall security camera. I actually don't know how it turned out, but there were a couple things that struck me about that story.
First of all, the video was taken from quite a ways away and the woman IMO was unrecognizable. But she said she had people calling her and telling her about it. It's possible that she was a little embarassed, but it's also possible that she figured she'd just found the way to easy street.
Why would a video from a mall security camera seems a bit more invasive than some a**hole filming you with his cell phone? In a way I get it, in a way it seems the same.
And last, I was thinking if she won, what would happen to all those sites like people of Walmart where people are photographed or videotaped without their knowledge or consent? I know every time I go to Walmart in a thong and furry boots I have creeps jumping out of the aisles taking pics.
Seriously though - if I ever found a photo or video of myself online anywhere that was taken without my knowledge I'd want to do something about it, but privacy laws don't protect regular people any more than they protect celebrities.
Not around here.
The sign at our 7-11 up town says..."Looking for help (for whichever shift) must work weekends and holidays"
And when you get hired at a restaurant it's the same.
So no, not all workers are entitled to holidays. I did these types of jobs my whole working history, and never once since I started working at a very young age have ever gotten off a holiday, these types of jobs are required to work them. I would assume you get 2 personal days per year (not sure though) So I would take off a day pretending to be sick, when I wasn't, just to get a day off.
Also, some people don't know, there is a specific law for people who work at convenience stores...they are not required to give them breaks. Like most jobs get 30 minutes for lunch, and two 15 minute breaks. So when you see a cashier eating or drinking, or outside for a quick cig...that's all they get. I've heard people say "why is she eating behind the counter, why doesn't she wait for her break". Well, they don't get one, that's why. I know this because I married my supervisor.
(if a person takes this kind of job, maybe they don't have the skills to do a job with great benefits like you.)
Actually, I get no "personal days." I get statutory holidays and I get vacation. Not many people work 7 days a week. I did for a couple of years just because the work never seemed to go away but just because someone has to work weekends doesn't mean they work every day of the week. If you have to take a Tuesday off instead of a Saturday then Tuesday is your going to the beach day. I also worked a weekend shift. 3-12 hour shifts, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. They just gave me the missing 4 hours as a bonus for working all weekend but when I worked that shift I did my personal stuff during the week and I didn't go out partying Friday or Saturday nights. I agreed to get up very early Saturday and Sunday morning so I went to bed early Friday and Saturday night.
As for breaks, Which state doesn't have a statute regarding meal breaks? Typically it's a half hour after 4 or 5 hours or around that range. If an employee works less than 5 hours a day then you wait until after work to eat. If a person eats before the shift starts I'm sure they won't starve in 5 hours. There are also laws regarding statutory holidays. I'm pretty sure most full time employees get stat holidays. If a person is a part time employee they're not working full weeks anyway so stat holidays aren't really an issue.
Putting that all aside, if an employer really was a jerk and a person really needed a day off for something important then telling him you're sick might be the only option. Going to the beach isn't really that important.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
I live in Mass. There is a specific law regarding convenience stores, there's an exemption, some companies you had to sign a waver. I just asked hubby to make sure I wasn't wrong.
We are not sure if it still exists, we are both out of that kind of work.I would work 8 hours at night alone, (this was about 13-14 years ago) and close the store at 11pm. (this store now is open 24 hours and always has 2 people working) If I got hungry I would eat, BUT I couldn't close the store for a half hour, lol. I had to eat behind the register counter. All my customers were cool about it, small town...if I was outside smoking they would smoke with me, so I could get in a whole cig, or some would just stand outside with me and chat.
Your thinking of places that have more than one worker at a time, back then convenience stores only had one worker.
@Chayton, I saw that woman fall into the fountain, I didn't know she tried to sue.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
Scroll down to middle of page and read questions and answers.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2006
- Location
- Edmonton Canada
Yeah she wanted to sue the mall or the security people who posted the video or whatever. Funny though that I was just looking it up to see if I could find out what ever happened with it, and saw a story that she was just was charged with stealing a credit card from a coworker and buying like $5000 worth of stuff.
hahahah.....that's pretty hilarious when you think about it. So it's pretty obvious now knowing the type of person she is, she was after some cash. Google Cathy Cruz Marrero for more.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Location
- USA
Yeah she wanted to sue the mall or the security people who posted the video or whatever. Funny though that I was just looking it up to see if I could find out what ever happened with it, and saw a story that she was just was charged with stealing a credit card from a coworker and buying like $5000 worth of stuff.
hahahah.....that's pretty hilarious when you think about it. So it's pretty obvious now knowing the type of person she is, she was after some cash. Google Cathy Cruz Marrero for more.
It was pretty funny
I wouldn't want that posted about me, but I sure as hell wouldn't sue!!! It was her own fault, someone didn't throw the fountain in front of her, haha.Did you ever see the one of the young girl texting on her phone and fell into a sink hole? OMG that one was scary, not even a little bit funny.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2012
- Location
- Europe
He raises a valid point, that cameras are everywhere and we don't mind. But he sure is annoying.
