[octagonal]

There is no right to privacy in public spaces and no expectation thereof either. The only thing those cameras do is replace police officers. Another thing you are also forgetting is that people were aware of those cameras the second they were installed. No secret court bullshit. With personal correspondences on the other hand, people expect the contents of their messages to be entirely private. That secrecy should only be invaded upon within the confines of a morally justifiable law, especially when a foreign agency is doing the invading.

[maxerickson]

I think you mean there is no reasonable legal expectation of privacy on a public street. I certainly expect that you will not follow me around videotaping me.

[maaku]

People can't follow me around and videotape me, even in a public place. That's stalking or harassment.

But somehow if it's online, done by robots (no less creepy), and at the direction of the government, such laws don't apply.

[mrmekon]

I don't know about the EU, but in the U.S. your statement is simply not true. Somebody absolutely can follow you around taking photos or videos, as long as you are in a public space and they can come up with any non-malicious excuse (i.e. it's an art project!).

Stalking laws vary state-to-state, but you generally have to prove it is specifically "for the purpose of harassing and intimidating".

See also: paparazzi

See also: http://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource...

[claudius]

> I don't know about the EU, but in the U.S. your statement is simply not true.

Ah, I forgot that we are taking US data protection laws into account when an Austrian group files a complaint against an Irish subsidiary.

E.g. in Germany it is forbidden to take photos in public where people who did not agree to it are the main subject – you can still photograph buildings, scenes etc., just not individual people.

[mrmekon]

Very late response: this comment thread was a general discussion about privacy, it wasn't specifically about the article.

And a maaku on HN could easily be this maaku on github from California: https://github.com/maaku

And the 'online robots' and 'direction of the government' almost certainly refer to the recent NSA case, which is an American issue.

So, yes, the US data protection laws do seem relevant to the conversation.

[PedroBatista]

Your are in a public space, people can videotape you the same way they can look at you instead of everyone closing their eyes the moment put your feet on a side-walk.

Just look at all the photos you have taken, how many strangers are in them?

[maxerickson]

Sure, my point is that there is a technical legal argument and then there are social mores. We shouldn't let the legal argument start leading our values.

I invite you to actively start photographing or videotaping some strangers if you think such behavior is entirely within people's expectations.

[hfsktr]

I thought it was linked from HN somewhere but I can't find it. There are several videos from this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym7x7twSoqc

Some of them he is clearly in a school or something, which may not be public. In others he is outside.

I believe this is how you expected people to react?

Edit: found it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4739152

[criley2]

It gets murky.

I can sue you for using my likeness depending on how you utilize your footage.

You certainly don't have carte blanche to use images of me you took in public.

[PedroBatista]

That's why i said "videotape" not "videotape and sell/distribute it".

But even if you publish it (in Facebook for example) you are protected by some "fair game" clauses, just as you have the right to request that particular photo to be taken down. Either way nothing is absolute and as you said, it gets murky pretty fast.