JCbiscuit wrote:
that case creeped me out, big-time.

the people he photographed weren't in street-level apartments, and he didn't just catch a glimpse of them as he passed by....

bjay wrote:
Maybe it's to get a recording of someone who doesn't pick up their dog poop. Not a bad idea.

Dolomiti wrote:
User111 is correct. You are in a public place, your image can be captured.

In almost all cases, you have no recourse to stop them unless they are using your image for commercial purposes without your permission.

There was also a case recently where a photographer took pictures of his neighbors for an art project. Their faces were not visible, and he sold the prints in a gallery. The neighbors sued, but did not prevail in court; the judge found that the artists' 1st Amendment rights trumped an expectation to privacy. (http://www.ibtimes.com/arne-svenson-p ... rivacy-court-case-1374381)

While I'm sure that will rub some people the wrong way, and I fully understand that emotional reaction: The simple fact is that if you haven't drawn the blinds, you don't have an expectation of privacy. It's the same as sitting on your stoop. If you don't want your neighbors to see you, it's your job to draw the blinds.

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

Chama wrote:
Well, I personally don't find it "odd"... I actually hope this camera is indeed used for some surveillance purpose and it is just not a fake one (mind you, the fake ones look very real!).

And if you feel it is "odd" you may way want to ask the Brits what they think about the abundance of surveillance cameras in their country:

One surveillance camera for every 11 people in Britain, says CCTV survey
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology ... ain-says-CCTV-survey.html

I think it's odd because this is a private homeowner recording streetlife. The story about Britain appears to be about security cameras installed by stores, government, offices, etc.

user1111 wrote:
When you are in a public place you have ?no reasonable expectation of privacy." Its not illegal to tape or take photos of someone if you are in a public space. Where you start to run in to legal difficulties is if you were to try and use the images. You can always cross the road to avoid the camera.

Chama wrote:
Well, I personally don't find it "odd"... I actually hope this camera is indeed used for some surveillance purpose and it is just not a fake one (mind you, the fake ones look very real!).

And if you feel it is "odd" you may way want to ask the Brits what they think about the abundance of surveillance cameras in their country:

One surveillance camera for every 11 people in Britain, says CCTV survey
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology ... ain-says-CCTV-survey.html

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:

I'm not inherently opposed to security cameras, I don't care all that much about "big brother." But, a random person recording me walking down the street is just...odd.

This is literally the stupidest thing I've read on JCList, and trust me, I've read some stupid shit.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:

I'm not inherently opposed to security cameras, I don't care all that much about "big brother." But, a random person recording me walking down the street is just...odd.

This is literally the stupidest thing I've read on JCList, and trust me, I've read some stupid shit.

jc_dweller wrote:

I'm not inherently opposed to security cameras, I don't care all that much about "big brother." But, a random person recording me walking down the street is just...odd.