HN Explorer

Ask HN: Would you support a law banning filming people in public?

1 points by dfps ↗ HN
(Except for purposes of newsworthy events)

Or do you think people should be allowed to just film anyone and everyone and upload it to YouTube, have everyone's faces scanned, etc? As currently in most places.

26 comments

[ 1.0 ms ] story [ 3.2 ms ] thread
spottedmarley
Yes I would. Furthermore, I'd support banning all cameras of all types (excluding cctv security cameras) anywhere in public.
d3Xt3r
But that would include dashcams too, and those are a must if you're operating any sort of vehicle.
MiroslavPokorny
Do insurance companies even watch dash cams ? From what ive heard they just pay out and dont care.
chistev
Really? They are intent on looking for reasons to not pay, from what I know.
bruce511
We have dashcams (and GPS trackers) in our business vehicles. They're a really important tool when our drivers are reported for "driving badly", or for situations where the vehicle was damaged.

Most reports are not supported by the evidence, but some are, and that helps us improve driver behavior, while at the same time protecting drivers from bad reports.

It's not an insurance thing, but more a "manager confidence in drivers" thing.

dfps
Is the dashcam footage local to the dashcam or the users private data storage, and is gone when the user deletes it?

Or is the dashcam managed by a company that collects and stores the data up uploaded to a cloud of an insecure company?

bigyabai
It would be impossible to enforce, and create an inevitable purity spiral when security cameras and the like get involved.

So I'd put myself down for a no, but I'd support a ban on government-owned dragnet cameras a-la Flock.

dfps
It wouldn't be impossible to enforce, but like all laws it is impossible to enforce 100%, while they have an effect and provide at least government and ethical support and remedy for those affected.

Also it would allow people to sue YouTube creators who do so, whereas currently there is no recourse because YouTube can just ignore complaints.

softwaredoug
Leaving this stuff at the discretion of courts will mean a lot of routine filming of police will just get thrown out by right leaning courts.
dfps
All police interaction is newsworthy.
verdverm
What about when ICE murders people in the street like Alex and Renee?

Are you glad we have video evidence from ordinary citizens?

dfps
See 'newsworthy exception'
verdverm
Who defines newsworthy? How does one know if it will be newsworthy or not before something happens? Can a citizen be arrested or fined for recording police when they record just in case?

Are people using video chat apps going to be fined? How do you know if that is being recorded or not?

I could go on with many examples

You're doing a lot of handwaving, there are many reasons recording in public is legal

dfps
Newsworthiness is already a defense in some parts of law. It is a matter worked out by society through cases over time. I know I'm talking to someone who hasn't studied law much so I'll just say you can read a lot about this when you study it, especially the history of constitutional law. But you could start with the idea that it is an event that later might be subject to debate or controversy.

Yes, chat app users could be fined if they identifiably capture the images of strangers (but, as you know, it is not required to video strangers in order to use chat apps). You would sometimes know and sometimes not, like many crimes, but it provides recourse for those affected and chills those who would otherwise do it without considering the effect on others.

nicbou
https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/photography-laws-germany

It's already illegal in Germany and I love it.

perilunar
I read through that and think it's balanced and well-thought out. Especially this bit:

> You don’t need their permission if ... the people in the picture are participating in a public gathering, parade or similar event, and they are not the focus of the photo

And this bit:

> The permission can be implied: ... If everyone in the picture is smiling at the camera

It doesn't stop you taking photos in public if other people are present. You just have to take care that they are not identifiable.

dfps
In practice, that qualification allows people to walk around with a cellphone or 360 degree video camera in front of them, film everyone, and upload it as a 'walking through a city' video to monetize on YouTube. They don't blur the faces, and people presented in it, who are clear and identifiable, have no recourse (mostly because YouTube and Facebook ignore complaints). If it were people taking individual photos it would be different, because photo taking is more limited (but still too privacy invasive if strangers are identifiably photographed) and the focus is usually on the person or his companions, but when video, cloud, and YouTube enter the picture it becomes a different practice.

It also doesn't protect people's data privacy. Capturing their image in an iPhone or most Android phones means, for basic people, the photo is scanned and stored in the cloud. All identities (on a 50 megapixel camera) are marked and stored automatically.

These two issues are the heart of my question. Those European laws were arguably adequate in addressing the issue 20 years ago, but technology has changed the shape of the issue.

softwaredoug
No because then courts would litigate what “newsworthy” means leaving your 1st amendment rights in the hands of random judges. I can imagine filming ICE doing routine operations being seen as “not newsworthy” by a conservative court.
runjake
This is the correct answer (from a US perspective).
codegeek
No. Because that won't do anything and we will have yet another stupid law on the books. How far will go anyway ? What about banning Smart Glasses ? What about cameras that are installed everywhere ?

As far as privacy is concerned, that ship has sailed. When you are out in public, you should assume that someone/something is always recording you. You cannot beat them all. A fact of modern life in 2026. I don't necessarily like it but thats the way it is.

dfps
That's not the case, but is just a common attitude/excuse for ineffectual/lazy citizens. Simply by making a law you allow offended citizens to act against privacy invasion, and they can chose to expend their efforts to remedy such abuses, which chills the will of offending people to video strangers and upload the videos, and we can also mention the de-monetization effects, since many people video all strangers as they walk to fund their travel, for example.
kypro
If I'm judging what's allowed and not, then yes, absolutely.

If you're asking if I'd be in favour of the government taking my right to film in public away then obviously not.

If I'm in public then I think people have a right to try to speak to me when I don't want to be spoken to or look at me when I don't want to be looked at. I even think people have a right capture me in the background of a film or photo they're taking. It might be a bit weird to film me specifically, but it's also a bit weird to stare at people or to randomly start a conversation about your sex life with everyone who walks past you. The social stigma is plenty to limit me doing this, and I don't personally need the government threatening to lock me in a cage to not do something that might make someone uncomfortable in public.

I think if I were concerned about being filmed in public, I'd probably just wear some sunglasses and a hat or something. Maybe a face mask.

f646993e074382f
I would ban uploading/publishing material without consent of the people that are in the picture or video.
platevoltage
I'm open to some kind of legislation on this, but it can no way include public servants or law enforcement. That's a hard line.