[6M8PJigS]

There are privacy laws and harrasment laws in the UK, as to their full extent I'm not sure but I wouldn't be surprised if there was something about a person constantly making tapes of people (regardless who they are) without their consent.

Well, considering the police were in public, and the man was on his property... Besides, this is the UK, where in some places they have cameras on every corner.

[Erunsenef]

If you were a police officer and you have someone filming you, wouldn't you be a little suspicious of them, then when you ask the guy with the camera to stop filming you, he immediately becomes very confrontational and aggressive, what are you going to do? Have to agree with Chrisinthesun 100%.

But its ok for them to film us going about our business?
Double standards i think??

[hacyOrgachbic]

Well, considering the police were in public, and the man was on his property... Besides, this is the UK, where in some places they have cameras on every corner.

So I have the legal right to stand on my driveway and intentionally film every single person that walks past? Or I can follow my postman around recording what he does?

CCTV cameras are different, the bloke picked up his camera when he saw the police (or maybe the boy) and started filming, and only filmed them without their knowledge. CCTV cameras are permanently on and they have to have notices up where there are in use. Just like speed cameras, if there are no signs notifying people of their operation then they are in violation and cannot be used in a court. Even the CCTV vans have big signs on them and are brightly coloured.

[6M8PJigS]

So I have the legal right to stand on my driveway and intentionally film every single person that walks past? Or I can follow my postman around recording what he does?

As long as they are in public, sure.

[intorkercet]

What about if news crew was there and video taped that small incident with the cops and the biker? Would cops tell the news crew to stop filming as well? Unless the cops were doing something illegal they have no reason to tell some one to not to film them. It violates First Amendment, at least in US.

And they have no right to enter some once property unless they have a good reason. And they had no reason what so ever.

[hacyOrgachbic]

What about if news crew was there and video taped that small incident with the cops and the biker? Would cops tell the news crew to stop filming as well? Unless the cops were doing something illegal they have no reason to tell some one to not to film them. It violates First Amendment, at least in US.

Well a news crew wouldn't be skulking around trying to be out of view either, unlike that bloke.

What about the distribution though? If people don't have any legal right not to have their image broadcast then why do so many programs digitise faces?

I find it quite worrying then that an individual can spy on me for no reason and it be perfectly legal.

[intorkercet]

Well a news crew wouldn't be skulking around trying to be out of view either, unlike that bloke.

What about the distribution though? If people don't have any legal right not to have their image broadcast then why do so many programs digitise faces?

I find it quite worrying then that an individual can spy on me for no reason and it be perfectly legal.

The Bloke was on his own private property, he can stand on his hands upside down wearing a clown suit and he's still allowed to fill them. IF he was out of view, then they would not have seen him.

If the tape was used later on for illegal purpose, to harm those officers for example, then the individual can be prosecuted.

Reason peoples faces are digitized is; to hide the identity of a person and or save that person unneeded embarrassment to that person.

[hacyOrgachbic]

Reason peoples faces are digitized is; to hide the identity of a person and or save that person unneeded embarrassment to that person.

So why do they show some and not others. For example, in a Rogue Traders episode once (a program that films cowboy builders, plumbers etc) they allowed the owner of a building company's face to be shown but one of the apprentices had his face blocked. If he's got no right to have it blocked then why do it? Or is it a distribution law (ie you have to get their permission to show their face to the public)?

IF he was out of view, then they would not have seen him.

But then he also wouldn't have been able to see them, so of course he had to be in line of sight otherwise a video camera is useless. If it wasn't in the slightest bit suspicious, even to the bloke, why did he stand far back and zoom in when he could have just walked to the end of his driveway and film them much closer?

[intorkercet]

No one said they have no right block some once face. He could simply have asked not to show his face on tv because he was shy. I havent seen the show thus i dont know the circumstances.



Then he would be fully hidden and camouflaged to the point where you cant see him with a naked eye. If you watch the video again, youll see that female cop saw him with just one glance.

[Erunsenef]

So why do they show some and not others. For example, in a Rogue Traders episode once (a program that films cowboy builders, plumbers etc) they allowed the owner of a building company's face to be shown but one of the apprentices had his face blocked. If he's got no right to have it blocked then why do it? Or is it a distribution law (ie you have to get their permission to show their face to the public)?



But then he also wouldn't have been able to see them, so of course he had to be in line of sight otherwise a video camera is useless. If it wasn't in the slightest bit suspicious, even to the bloke, why did he stand far back and zoom in when he could have just walked to the end of his driveway and film them much closer?

It could be to do with a pending legal matter that their face is removed as it could bias a decision.

[JennyStewarta]

It could be to do with a pending legal matter that their face is removed as it could bias a decision.

I do not know about your laws in the UK, but if they are anything like in the states, the reason newshows etc block out someones face are because it is in thier news ethics to do so. In public, in the US, you can be filmed from the second you walk outside of your house until the second you go into somewhere else that is private, as long as the filmer does not impede or threaten you in any way.

in the situation above, the news show likely blurred his face because he was not the focus of the story, ethically, since he is not the focus, his image should not be tarnished if they were doing a negative story about the person who's face was shown.

Think of all the times you have seen many, many peoples faces in a news show about holiday shopping inside a mall or shopping center...none of them are blurred, because there is no negative connitation to a story like that.

[Doncarlito]

maybe they'd like to spend their time tracking down and arresting criminals rather than harassing innocent property owners.

Indeed, amongst other useless activities.
So much for trust and communication with the general public.

[BakerBonce]

I didn't see anything.

He filmed the cops, they came over told him to turn the camera off, he said no, the cops walked away.
________
LovelyWendie99

[pouslytut]

It could be to do with a pending legal matter that their face is removed as it could bias a decision.

It is indeed to do with this. In the UK at least - you can show someones face after they have been convicted/ ound guilty. If legal proceedings are ongoing, or if a individual is present in a report/broadcast about illegal/negative activies, but is either not as yet found guilty - or present but will not be charged, then their face will be blurred out.

[Donadoni1809]

I think the biggest problem in that video was not the fact that they thought filming them was an offence when it wasn't. We all make mistakes. It was the woman (desperately) trying to find any/every excuse to make something out of nothing. What he said wasn't abusive, but she grabbed that and tried to provoke a reaction out of him that she could have used to arrest him for disorderly conduct. A lot of police do exactly the same thing and it's disgusting.

[MP+4]

alot of? for any of you who actually want to do research before posting, its something like 3% (in a large urbanized city) of the police force is responsible for over 40% of the claims against the police. To me that tends to say, that a couple of idiots who someone got into the system are the ones causing all the trouble. Not "Alot of them"

If i was a cop, and i saw some people filming me, in THAT situation, your god damned right id go find out who was in the bushes behind a fence doing something. If he was standing on the driveway, gave a wave and said hello, you wave back smile and move on.

How they handled that once they got over there however, was far less than ideal. This could be explained by 2 things.
1. They are 2 of those "alot of" people you seem to think are behind the uniform or
2. They are probably 2 new-ish officers, possibly fresh off the recruit chain. They might not yet have gotten all the laws down to memory, and remember something from one of their classes, but can't quite remember what the offense is called, or are trying to up their numbers of tickets written to their superiors.

Wow guys, just wow. I can't believe the overwhelming hatred of police i see in this thread. Personally i sleep better at night knowing there are police officers out there doing their job. I guess your a fan of getting mugged/raped/killed on the street and having nothing done about it.

Have a nice complaining whining life.

[intorkercet]

2. They are probably 2 new-ish officers, possibly fresh off the recruit chain. They might not yet have gotten all the laws down to memory, and remember something from one of their classes, but can't quite remember what the offense is called,

Cause they were blowing each other?

Most if not all, new cops, even cops that been in the force for a decade, think that they are above the law, thus what they say must go no matter what. And you want us to give them respect for such behavior? Respect is earned, not given! Remember that.

[syptopsygieds]

The fact that the cops were so worried about being filmed means that they didn't feel 100% comfortable about what they had been doing. It's no big deal, but they did come over as being a bit petty and confrontational. So did they guy with the camera, but he's not the one invested with special powers by the state. Cops need to be above that.

[Rqqneujr]

Cause they were blowing each other?

Most if not all, new cops, even cops that been in the force for a decade, think that they are above the law, thus what they say must go no matter what. And you want us to give them respect for such behavior? Respect is earned, not given! Remember that.

You're damn right. Just because they wear badges doesn't mean they can **** around with peeps taping whatever they want whenever they want from their own doorstep. Most, especially fresh cops are dumbasses who joined the force to get a taste of "power" and this is an example.

[Donadoni1809]

alot of? for any of you who actually want to do research before posting, its something like 3% (in a large urbanized city) of the police force is responsible for over 40% of the claims against the police. To me that tends to say, that a couple of idiots who someone got into the system are the ones causing all the trouble. Not "Alot of them"

...

Have a nice complaining whining life.

I don't even think you read my post properly so I won't bother commenting.