Man Films People in Public. Interesting Statement on Surveillance and Privacy 2


A very interesting piece to spark debate regarding safety versus privacy.

WARNING: There are one or two minor instances of less than desirable language, mainly due to the state of annoyance of those being videoed.

I do not believe (though I’m not a legal expert) that the person filming did anything illegal, yet people clearly took offence at his actions. The point the cameraman is obviously trying to make is why then do people so willingly accept being recorded by surveillance cameras?

I think the main point this film misses, in my opinion, is that people do not understand the purpose or intent of the cameraman’s actions, and they then assume malfeasance, which then understandably provokes a negative response.

In contrast, for the most part, most people understand the intent and purpose of a surveillance camera in a public place (such as a store or train station): to protect public safety.

The main lesson to be learnt from this (in my opinion) is the importance of education and awareness, and ensuring your users / key stakeholders are aware of proceedings and bought into the concept from the outset.

Thoughts or comments?


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 thoughts on “Man Films People in Public. Interesting Statement on Surveillance and Privacy

  • John Trader

    This is truly a fascinating video. It seems as if people make a clear distinction between being consciously and sub-consciously videotaped and take serious offense when they are knowingly videotaped “without their consent” vs. being taped without even knowing it. You do make a valid point though that being videotaped without knowing purpose or intent does usually provoke negativity.

    On the surface, this seems illogical. If you are going to take offense to knowingly being videotaped without any particular reason and accept being taped without your knowledge for “security” reasons, how can you justify accepting “security” as the reason you are taped without your knowledge? In other words, does the promise from a retail store videotaping you that it is being done for “security” reasons without you truly knowing what is being done with the tape (e.g. – using facial recognition technology to customize special offers on in-store billboards, etc.)hold more weight than a random person on the street approaching you with a camera saying they are “making a video?” Why to we tend to accept commerical use of survelliance vs. indivudal use?

    This video truly does prove a point that without understanding intention, people tend to react with caution and may most likely be negative.

    Fascinating!