People have come to accept surveillance cameras as a part of everyday life. But what happens when someone is carrying the surveillance camera instead?

That’s the question raised by a series of online videos in which an unidentified man takes a camera around Seattle and other parts of Washington state, walking up to people and recording them for no apparent reason other than to make a point: How is what he’s doing different than those stationary surveillance cameras tucked away in buildings and public places?

He has been called the “Creepy Cameraman,” and for good reason. It’s clearly more than a little unsettling for the subjects of his surveillance. Just check out the angry reactions in these videos.

It’s not clear who the person is, or what type of camera he’s using, but technology author and blogger Brian S. Hall makes the point that this could be a preview of our future, with technology such as Google’s Project Glass making cameras and recording devices even more pervasive in our daily lives.

What do you think about that concern, and the Creepy Cameraman’s tactics? Here are a couple more videos. If anyone has more information or background on this, drop us a note at

Like what you're reading? Subscribe to GeekWire's free newsletters to catch every headline


  • AnnoyingCameraMan

    That’s just annoying and attention seeking.

  • Harkonnen

    He could get hurt, seriously. This is a dumb idea but I get the message.

  • Manny

    I do not see any reason for someone trying to get attention or trying to get shot, cos he can get really messed up by some crazy guy. You don’t just walk around recording people for fun and trying to justify your action by saying that this is a preview of future of technology. Surveillance cameras in restaurants, public building, banks or cafes are for security reasons in case of robbery or violence. You can take a personal video if you find yourself in situations of violence, fight or robbery for evidence purposes, but you don’t just walk around recording people right in their faces and thing it is right. You are no news reporter. You can get hurt. Your action are just stupid and uncalled for.

    • Gamer

      Manny, you are wrong sir. There is no law against filming people in public. You certainly can “just walk around recording people right in their faces” – reporters and citizens have the same rights. Maybe you need to study yours?

      • Privacy?

        Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

        • davidgeller

          Unfortunately, without people doing things like this you get police departments thinking they have the right to evade public scrutiny by preventing the public from filming their actions – which are, sometimes, things they don’t want be seen.

          On a related note, do you want to be told what to record from your own property? I don’t. Sometimes it takes bold tests of our laws to help drive changes and stronger ones.

          Or this:

          • YOU_ARE_WRONG_SIR

            Exactly, David.

        • Marvin Martian

          YOU… are what’s wrong with this country.

          • YOU_ARE_WRONG_SIR

            Nope, Marvin, YOU are what’s wrong. Go to Russia & take an accounting of what THOSE people are allowed to do.

          • Rick Lopez

            Marvin above was replying to “Privacy?” above (take note of the reply indicator) He’s on your side. He was saying someone who says ‘you can but you shouldn’t’ is wrong.

      • YourRights

        He wasn’t on public property most of the time. The sidewalk is a right of way, not public property.

        • imaguest

          dear learn the difference, sidewalks are public access.

          stop the ignorance, learn the laws.


          Nope. The sidewalk is 100% public property. Right of way IS public, dumb dumb.

      • Frank White

        However, it is illegal to threaten or intimidate, or loiter, which it could pretty easily be argued this guy is doing.


          How is he threatening? Have you read criminal statutes that reference “threat”? Please…..

        • Rick Lopez

          Loitering is subjective bullshit and he wasn’t threatening or intimidating anyone, you moron.


      It’s perfectly legal. If someone shoots him that’s essentially like killing your TV – just because you don’t agree with the message doesn’t mean you can take a life or react physically.

  • Bluesdealer

    It’s annoying, but it raises an excellent point. I’ve never understood how so many people are just “ok” with constant surveillance by corporations. This is no different. It’s just more obvious.

    • Marvin Martian

      THIS, a million times. Someone needs to review his videos and point out all the cameras that are visible. In the opening scene of the one with the security guards, Scientologists, etc. You can clearly see two cameras… in their own building! And they are security… so aren’t they the ones LOOKING at the camera feeds??? You can also infer that another 3 are potentially looking on the scene, based on cameras usually on the upper corners of buildings.

      • YourRights

        The difference being is that all these places (ie: Restaurants, Businesses, etc.) are actually private property. Private property does have the reasonable expectation of privacy from the public. And surveillance cameras installed by the property owner is legal as you are on their property being watched by their cameras.

        • Scritti Politti

          Well, much of the time, this guy is on PUBLIC property. Like the whole second clip. This guy has every right to aim his camera through windows as long as he’s on public property. And the woman is bitching at him on a public sidewalk, while limitless numbers of cars and pedestrians go by and see her.

          This is nearly as dumb as people thinking they have to blur out license plates in videos. Your license plate is seen by potentially millions of people every year. You PUBLICLY display it. Not to mention that you can’t just go and look up license plates’ owners anyway.

          • M.M.H


          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            I may not be able to go and look up license plate owners, but I can assure you LOTS of corporations and ALL “Law Enforcement” can. Even the ones that a couple of weeks before were working at Wal-mart pushing shopping carts! Government is PEOPLE. When will folks understand that? And those PEOPLE are typically brain dead automatons who couldn’t make it in the private market place.

          • Balazs Dibuz

            true dat!

          • Balazs Dibuz

            And the irony is that anyone who punches him, hurts him or damages his camera is committing a crime – and it is caught on camera.

        • M.M.H

          Wrong, wrong wrong wrong.

          Nothing is PRIVATE PROPERTY, unless it is owned in ALLODIAL TITLE.

          If you dont own it in ALLODIAL TITLE, you are RENTING it. End of discussion .

          • Top Scientist

            Get help.

          • C Erler

            Yeah, because the people above obviously weren’t referring to the definitions used by courts in their decisions. They were referring to THE TRUTH.

          • Victoria L. Baxter-Caballero

            However, renting entitles the renter a certain amount of privacy (the same as if it were private, for the most part).

          • Balazs Dibuz

            Good point. That’s why there can be laws about smoking in restaurants. It is really public space.

          • Jay

            Almost no one on the planet has allodal property, maybe the prince of Monaco.

        • Balazs Dibuz

          There is no law against photographing or videotaping people who are visible from a public location. Many cities have cameras in streets and alleys because there is no restriction against this.

      • Borislav Petrov

        I think that we are “OK” with security surveillance because we understand that it is mostly there (naive as this may sound) for our safety. On the other hand, the man shooting these videos is clearly aiming to provoke a response from his subjects, and is violating their privacy without offering anything in return.

        • Disgusted

          exactly. this asshole is just doing it to be an ass. besides, if you’re not doing anything wrong or embarrassing (and you shouldn’t be, if you’re in public!) you have nothing to worry about.

          • Arkch

            so… you mean that if we are doing nothing wrong, we sould not be concerned about being filmed, watched and somehow suspected ?

          • Victoria L. Baxter-Caballero

            It makes folks feel uncomfortable, even if they aren’t doing anything wrong/embarrassing. No one wants to think of strangers watching and judging them.

          • M.M.H

            The person in the video is doing something, unlike you.

            The only thing you’re doing is complaining, and using your ideals to compare yourself and what you might or might not do.

            So why dont you shut up, and do something?

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Yes, what if I am telling the person that a psychopath has infiltrated the white house who isn’t a citizen, is a communist and was born in Kenya. Is that doing something to worry about? Maybe! I TOTALLY Dislike THE CONCEPT OF BIG BROTHER. You may like it so go lick his boots.

          • Balazs Dibuz

            so, this creepy cameraman is actually doing something to make us think about big brother and why it is a problem. he is what we “old timers” would call b r a v e.

    • tryingtocalmdown

      “constant surveillance by corporations”??? I’m much more worried about constant surveillance by gov’t. corp. surveillance can mean many things but usually there is some level of disclosure that corps are surveilling you (such as monitoring internet usage at work) but mostly it is done to protect their own property. When gov’t does it, it is just spying and there is no disclosure or discretion about who is being surveilled.

      • Copro Filia

        Corporations often provide their video feeds to the government on request. So there’s really no difference between corporate and government surveillance.

      • C Erler

        While spying obviously happens, it’s not so clearly delineated. Government surveillance is sometimes done to protect people’s property as well, and it usually is disclosed, as with the blinking lights above CCTV cameras in some US cities.

        This is why some people support it, not because they want to be spied upon. When you argue as if that use doesn’t exist when they can see that it does, you’re not likely to convince them of anything.

    • Todd Unctionious

      This is very different! Surveillance differs from recording. This is basically using a camera as a weapon of harassment. Yes, there are surveillance cameras around but most of them either don’t work, are simply there a preventative measures or are just camera casings. In the event that the cameras are real the footage they record is probably re-recorded over every day or 2. What corporations do you think are keeping this footage of you? What value do you think they are gaining from it?
      Todd Bishop is not making a valid point. He’s being an irritating dick to people who don’t deserve it.

      • Dan ‘milkybar’ Druggan

        Some people have a strange idea of “harassment” hah Everybody’s so sensitive these days!

        • Balazs Dibuz

          The irony is that many people are dying to be on camera!

      • Naive, Trusting Fool

        Do you think it’s still 1998? Video cameras aren’t expensive anymore, and VHS has long been obsolete. Modern CCTV systems record to hard drives, which can store up to a year’s worth of video. Because of Moore’s Law (hard drive capacity doubles every 18 months), this means it’s reasonable to expect surveillance footage taken today to NEVER be erased or recorded over.

        • awerg

          Moore’s law states that he number of transistors on an integrated circuit will double every 18 months. It has nothing to do with hard disk space.

        • ogickas

          Do you know what you are talking about? I work where there are security
          cameras. we receive a certain catalog for various tools of business,
          including security cameras. Most of the camera options in that catalog
          are empty non working casings. That is today, 2013.

      • Rick Lopez

        How is it a ‘weapon’ or ‘harassment’? Please explain with citations and proof.

    • C Erler

      This is quite different. The issue isn’t just surveillance, it’s physically entering into people’s space, which is distinct. Cameras on the wall don’t do that. In several of the videos, people react because he is physically barging into their personal space, not because he’s recording, which could be done from a distance.

      If he wants to show in a convincing way how people react to recording by surveillance cameras, he should probably not add extra stuff to it.

      • Rick Lopez

        You don’t ‘own’ your space around you, sorry.

  • Gamer

    Creepy? Maybe, but those security guards are idiots. You don’t need permission to film anyone from a public sidewalk. And the woman yammering on about ‘this is america’ should just shut up and go inside if she doesn’t want to be on camera.

    I suspect the cameraman is either doing some sort of photographers rights thing, or is from Anonymous (because of the scientology piece). The homeless person – that is just sad.

    • Marvin Martian

      She’s already on camera… look at the opening scene… cameras in ceiling. The security guard that came out… probably watches those same feeds.
      People are idiots… whether you see them or not, the second you cross the first major intersection in just about ANY city in the US… you are ON CAMERA!

    • YourRights

      Doesn’t matter.. Private property and he violated it repeatedly.

      • Brendon J. Wilson

        Actually, he didn’t – he recorded her from public property. The fact that the woman was on private property while he recorded her is immaterial – she can’t claim a right to privacy when she is clearly visible from public property. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. If she truly wanted privacy, then they would have pulled the blinds on the windows.

        The point he’s making becomes even more evident when the woman exits the building. She claims a right to privacy, yet is standing on public property, in plain view of anyone on the street. What privacy is she expecting to return if he turns off the camera?

        • Rick Lopez

          Thank you for wording that so well.

      • Rick Lopez

        Only in the first video in a few of the clips, and he left as soon as he was asked. The only one he trolled repeatedly deserved it (Scientology Church).

  • Gamer
  • themanwecalldave

    This is just silly and the guy is being an ass. People don’t mind surveillance cameras because there’s an implicit trust about how the video will be handled: Some half-asleep security guard might look at it, and some other people might look at it if something really notable (like a robbery) happens. If every boring surveillance camera shot of people picking their nose made it viral on YouTube, that would change. But walking into a classroom and filming people without telling them what you’re going to do with the video is totally different.

    • Gamer

      LOL @ “implicit trust”. There are thousands of surveillance videos on YouTube.

    • rapidfx

      themanwecalldave you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Thousands of security cam vid’s end up on the net. What he is doing is no different from a guy filming you …

    • Rick Lopez

      Hey Dumbshit, ‘surveillance’ videos from businesses get put on youtube and vimeo all the time and facebook and vine. Have you not paid attention to any of those sites? Google any ‘fight at x business’ like ‘fight at waffle house’ or ‘mcdonald’s drive thru’ and you can see the footage used in the video is CCTV.

  • Denis Du Bois

    “If you boil a frog slowly…” — These videos do emphasize an important issue about the gradual public acceptance of an increasingly Big Brother society. If that is indeed the videographer’s message it would be stronger if he included publicly owned surveillance cameras in his shots and engaged his subjects more in conversations about the perceived difference between surveillance cameras and his handheld camera. Imagine a day when what he’s doing is considered OK because it’s done by tiny drones purportedly for our security.

    • flodadolf

      He’s not interviewing. He’s just taking a video.

    • Victoria L. Baxter-Caballero

      It IS considered NORMAL to do what he’s doing… Anyone w/ a camera phone can record anything at any time… It can be posted all over the net, five mins. after it’s been recorded, if done so by someone w/ accounts on multiple social media sites.

  • Kaylix

    Every time I hear someone blathering on their cell phone I want to scream. What about my rights to your privacy in public?

    • Ernie Mc

      I carry a small recorder on which I keep my grocery lists. If I’m disturbed by someone talking on a cell, I whip out my recorder and play a grocery list at hi volume. As above, so below…

  • davidgeller

    It’s certainly creepy, and eerie to watch people’s expressions. But, the people being filmed need to chill out and take a civics lesson. The guy filming is in public. He’s allowed to do it. You don’t have to like it. You do, though, have to respect the law. Funny how people go about their business every day being filmed in lobbies, by their employers, in buses, bus tunnels, elevators, etc. – and don’t seem to care.

    The photographer has clearly researched the topic and the law – and you can tell by his simple answers and refusal to volunteer anything but obvious information.

    • YourRights

      That’s not true. Just because businesses serve the public, it doesn’t mean that it’s public property. Most of the time he was invading private property. Property lines do extend out onto the sidewalk but are deemed a “right of way”.

      If he has the balls to prove his alleged point, he should walk into a public grade school and video tape. Let’s make it interesting and say a K-6 primary school. We’ll then see how far he studies his law on the topic.

      • Mason Bially

        But public schools are not public spaces… this isn’t about public property, it’s about public spaces. The classrooms are actually the ones where he is most likely breaking the law (since they aren’t public spaces). Companies that have lobbies have public spaces, which fall under the laws of public spaces (albeit, privately owned public spaces), not private property.

      • Rick Lopez

        No, he didn’t record on private property more than a handful of times and those times were only like in the first video or the second a little and the University videos ARE public space as public space can be considered things like a city faire, a community college, etc.

  • Offbeatmammal

    Wonder how pissed off he’d be if when his little experiment is over someone starts following him around in public and sticking a camera in his face when he just wants a quiet smoke or a coffee. There’s a degree of intrusive behavior in what he’s doing that goes way beyond a simple pole mounted camera

    • Edgeworld

      LOL, I kept wondering when one of his “subjects” would pull a small mirror out of their pocket or their handbag and point it at him.

    • Rick Lopez

      I don’t think he’d mind, you dumbshit. People who know their rights like him don’t get offended by basic shit like this. Way to project your insecurities on him like a strawman. There’s no ‘intrusive behavior’ going on.

      • Offbeatmammal

        Wow. Snappy comeback. Just look at the backlash happening around Google glass. But I bow to your well reasoned logic and deep psychological analysis of the motive behind my comment.

      • Offbeatmammal

        Wow, witty comeback. Why do you feel it’s appropriate to insult people in your responses? Like him are you thinking shock value somehow adds credibility to your statement?

        Look at the backlash against Google Glass users and ask yourself if his behavior is socially acceptable, welcome or warranted? I don’t particularly want to live in a Panopticon society and just because the legal framework hasn’t caught up with technology doesn’t mean that some individuals should flout conventional norms

        • Rick Lopez

          Sorry DUMBFUCK. If you don’t want to live in a Panopticon society, then go live in the woods, the desert, or some other remote local of this country and if that’s not good enough, go fuck off to another one. This is our laws ans our rules and you’re videotaped constantly anyways from a thousand angles all the time- this is a private citizen using the same rules as any press or paparazzo, so shut the fuck up because you’re obviously too thin skinned to handle concepts such as LIBERTY.

          • Offbeatmammal

            Good afternoon Dick,

            I may not like the fact you choose to insult me – a complete stranger – simply because you don’t like my point of view, however one of the great things about freedom of speech is that you have every right to do that.

            However behaving just like a child shouting and insulting people because you’re frustrated doesn’t make your argument any more cogent or compelling.

            Neither does using “local” when you meant “locale”, “this is our laws ans” when you meant “these are our laws and..”

            I did enjoy the final irony of you telling me to “shut the fuck up” because I’m too thin skinned to handle the concept of liberty … yet your very response to that is to deny me an opinion and a perspective.

            I am sure you believe the current legal framework is awesome and doesn’t need to be changed, and while it saddens me that you’re not open minded enough to consider alternatives it really doesn’t have any impact on my life. However if you expect me to respect your opinion at least grow up and engage in civil and reasoned discourse rather than just presenting yourself as a mindless internet troll.

            Have a lovely weekend, and I hope it’s not spoiled for you or your family by having some stranger walk up to you on the street and stick a camera in your face.

          • Rick Lopez

            Wah wah wah cunt, so you found a typo or two! OH MY FUCKING GOD. You are so special. Do you need a gold star? Do you always seek to impress people? Do you need to feel some kind of validation from pretending that you’ve done a good job or been rather clever (from your own perspective)? That’s cute <3 I didn't mean shut the fuck up to infringe on your freedom of speech, we can do this all day bitch- I've got the stamina of a lesser deity. I meant in more the 'jeez, you're embarrassing yourself kiddo' kind of way.

          • Offbeatmammal

            Ha ha! Great riposte. Touched a nerve did I? I’m sure sitting in your parents basement insulting folks on the web is fun. whatever. My parents taught me better.

            Two years ago I came here and made a respectful comment. a couple of days ago you turn up and start insulting people… do you think your approval, or winning a silly little troll battle of wits is going to have any impact on my life?

            if you can’t contain your vitriol and decide to unleash another rant in reply that’s up to you – I don’t feel the need to validate you. if however you can control yourself to articulate a point worth discussing in a manner fitting civilized discourse I would be happy to continue to discuss.

            I understand, and respect, the letter of the law that permits this behavior – for Paparazzi or members of the public to film anything they like in public. However you only to have to look at how they push the boundaries and violate people’s reasonable expectation of privacy (just look at recent instances with Alex Baldwin’s family) to wonder if the current rules need to adapt to the changing technology – when they were written photographers were using film stock and required their subject to remain still, and within a few feet of very obvious equipment. Now in a fraction of a second they can take a dozen shots from half a block away. Where do we as a society want to draw the line?

            I am curious. Have you ever been the recipient of this sort of behavior, been stalked, or discovered it happening to someone you care about?

          • Rick Lopez

            First off, dumbshit. You don’t even know what the definition of troll is, due to you using it incorrectly so don’t use words you don’t know- it makes you look like a dumbshit. I don’t care about having an impact on your life, cunt- I’m not Oprah or some social counselor who gets paid to help miserable, pathetic cunts find their destiny or something like that. I don’t care about the paparazzi that ‘break the rules’ or ‘skirt the edges of the rules’. That’s on them but you shouldn’t strip the rights of everyone else because of a few bad apples. Secondly, get the fuck over being photographed. It doesn’t hurt your soul, it’s not sucking your life force, it’s you being angry about the persistance of being seen in public and while it might be something that’s annoying- deal with it, there’s a thousand shitty things that come with respecting EVERYONE’S LIBERTY (whether you like it or not, because in turn you get the same respect) and if you really feel harassed (like someone’s chasing you in a car, on your ass, causing accidents) then that would be one thing, but going around and standing next to people filming them is nothing compared to REAL harassment, hate speech, and attempted assault (ie: the levels of things we deem ‘too far’ in a legal context.)

  • gseattle

    Quite a way to make a point.

    The laws per state vary and need to be clarified: (you can find your state here)
    (WA is RCW 9.73.030)

    A distinction should be drawn between breathing people taking video vs corporate (“persons”, one of the most ridiculous notions ever to be imposed upon humanity) doing so on their own private property for security purposes only. Could for example say video by real people is ok if parties are aware *and do not object* OR if there is no expectation of privacy. Also consider it from the other direction in formulating the laws — how video is used and/or intended to be used. (Or just replace all laws with one saying you’re not allowed to harm others or be too obnoxious).

    Another question is, what is being done with video sponsored by municipalities. There are (ostensibly) “traffic” cameras at intersections pointing downward seemingly intended to look down through windshields of cars at people’s laps for example.

  • EyeInTheSky

    I don’t agree with the way he his trying to make his point, but none-the-less, it is a valid point. You are recorded just about everyday without your consent. The only difference here is they are seeing it right in their face. Why don’t they complain when they are recorded by the camera mounted on the side of the building parking their car or walking down the street? Some say those videos are solely for security, but that is only an assumption. It’s not like a video of a couple having sex in a parking garage caught by a security camera has never been released on youtube. “Security” cameras are an invasion of privacy, unfortunately, this invasion is on a right that most don’t seem to care about. If they aren’t doing anything bad, then they shouldn’t be worried about being recorded. That’s the same advised I was told by someone who is pro Patriot Act. The simple fact is, this guys antics point out a very disturbing trend that outside of your house there are video surveillance cameras that capture your every move and you should have no expectation of privacy.

    • Disgusted

      ” a couple having sex in a parking garage caught by a security camera”
      Anyone that nasty/disgusting/rude deserves to be embarrassed/shamed online.

      • Raging Prude

        Sex. Is. Absolutely. Disgusting

      • Rick Lopez

        It’s not nasty or rude to have public sex and a majority of adults, over 50% have admitted to doing so in multiple studies. Clearly you don’t know much about human sexuality.

  • Jonathan Bronson

    This has *nothing* to do with the camera. Who *wouldn’t* get pissed off by some creepy dude walking up to them and invading their private space? Even if he *didnt’* have a camera, many of us would want to punch him in the face.

    • Edgeworld

      A valid point perhaps, but the real issue is why the automatic response is violent.

      • YourRights

        Because he was being a douche getting up in people’s grill. Many asked nicely but he persisted. So people perceive that as a threat when the olive branch is ignored.

        • Edgeworld

          Fact remains that he was doing nothing wrong, nothing illegal and nothing even vaguely threatening, really. Trespassing doesn’t justify a violent response (at least no place where I’ve ever lived) without some sort of threat, either implied or actual. If I assaulted every douche I’ve ever run into in my life, I would either be dead or in prison by now.

        • Rick Lopez

          Well that’s their problem, not his.

    • Rick Lopez

      Sorry dumbshit. It’s not ‘their private space’. You don’t OWN your space in public. Go on a crowded subway or elevator and then try and make that claim, you idiot.

  • MrBrother

    I love it. Love it. All legal, and all wrong wrong wrong.

    • YourRights

      Most was illegal. The only one that may have been legal was the arrest in the bus mall and the crackhead giving a show.

      • Rick Lopez

        Actually no, you’re clearly an idiot who doesn’t know anything about the law or the freedom of the press. Sure in a couple of the videos he was IN a business, but 90% of his clips were IN PUBLIC or on public property, so no.

  • Mike Cornelison

    Sociology student right there.

  • Why ask for my name jerkwad

    Awesome. Love how everyone freaks out when this guy tapes, but all the cameras, well uh um. dumbasses,

  • Elizabeth

    Surveillance cameras don’t usually record sound, and this is an important distinction in law. In many jurisdictions it is an offence to “bug” private conversations even if secret filming would be allowed. Of course that begs the question whether it is private – but some of these people were at least attempting to have private conversations (eg. on the phone), and this guy stopped them doing so.

    • Hundycougar

      Except for states that have one party recording – i.e. only one person has to know about the recording – which is you the recorder…

      • Nicholas Criss

        A very good point–however WA is a two-party state with very strict laws. The magic words for any of those people would have been “I do not consent to having my voice recorded”. Assuming he was up to speed on the law, he would have had to at least turn the mic off.

    • Rick Lopez

      That’s not true at all.

  • Wraith Wonder

    Reentering the classrooms was a big no-no that obfuscates the point. The
    matter then is no longer about omnipresent surveillance and the reality
    that people should be made uncomfortable by it, but rather about some
    jackass trespassing. I saw the second video first and thought it much
    better. Recording people and following them, that emphasizes the point
    enough, especially when they go haywire. Trespassing – which is what he
    was doing after he was told to leave the class – not such a good idea.

  • John

    WOW I am supprised he has not been shot yet. But he does make a valid point. I applaud his experiment. Trayvon Martin case comes up in this situation.

  • Kate McCoy

    Well, some comments mention “private space”, and in one video, a man was having a “private conversation” on his cell phone”. My question is, “How can it be private when it’s conducted in PUBLIC?”

    No, I wouldn’t want someone following me around taking videos or pictures of me, but if the law allows it, then we need to change the law if we don’t like it.

    Or, stay out of public places. Sort of like strip clubs; if you don’t like them, don’t go to them.

    And yes, someone’s going to put his lights out, sadly.

    • Victoria L. Baxter-Caballero

      would you hit a guy who would have video proof that you put your hands on him first?

  • Howlin’ Hobbit

    I’m constantly being photographed and video-recorded because of what I do for a living. (busker)

    I’m beginning to have a real fine hate for folks with cameras. I do understand the law on it, but damn it, if you’re going to be right up in my face with your camera, leave a tip.

    it’s not illegal to not leave a tip, merely immoral.

    oh, and in Washington state, if you sell my image(s) without my permission, it IS illegal. it’s called “rights of publicity” and, since I’m somewhat of a small-time celebrity, it applies to me big time.

    in re: to the fella doing these videos… I’m kinda behind him. too many sheeple. they may need to be prodded a bit to wake up.

  • Abacus3000

    For me, this is pretty far from an apples to apples comparison to modern surveillance systems. The physical presence of the shooter introduces a level of unpredictability and just plain weirdness that isn’t present in a fixed/hidden surveillance system. Fixed camera/surveillance systems are predictable–even if you know they are there, you also know that they are inanimate and aren’t going to go crazy, or physically harm you, etc. Having some random guy in your face (video camera or not) introduces a high degree of unpredictability and isn’t the same thing at all. Particularly with all the school shootings in the past 10 years, having some dude drop into your classroom, or place of study, uninvited, is going to be alarming and a borderline security situation. Take away the video camera this guy is holding and I’d hedge to say people’s reactions would be similar (e.g., “why are you here?”, “who are you?”, “get the f— outta here”, etc.). Thus, while I’m sure that our videographer isn’t try to run a proper experiment, there are some huge control variables that he isn’t accounting for. Replacing himself with a remote-controlled camera on wheels would be a better litmus test of how comfortable we are with remote/automated surveillance.

    • Brendon J. Wilson

      Therein lies the rub. How is the data captured by the CCTV system being used? How long will that recording be retained? Who has access to that video? Under what circumstances? And how would you know the answer to any of these questions as you enter a store?

      To me, that sounds just about as unpredictable as some “random guy” taking video of me in public.

      • Disgusted

        what are you planning to do in the store that you would even be that concerned? gonna do a little shoplifting or have a public fap in the back corner? No? then why worry? if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you shouldn’t care. If it helps stop criminals, why be against it?

        • Vaneshi

          Ahh the nothing to fear nothing to hide defence. Ok sunshine. Name, address, phone number. Remember: You’ve nothing to fear because you’ve nothing to hide. No secrets nothing.

          Cough up. I want to make sure you really have nothing to hide.

          • C Erler

            You forgot credit card numbers and bank account access information. The sole reason someone would want information about someone is to check for illegal and shameful activities. There can be no other reasons.

        • Christopher Kahn

          I could say the exact same thing about all those people who don’t want to be recorded by a guy in public.

  • FracturedSoul

    Here is the problem – while he is free to record in a public place (not a crime), he could be civilly liable for an assault. Assault does not require contact – it merely needs to create the apprehension or threat. There is also a charge of intentional infliction of emotional distress, another tort. When people start getting so agitated that they run away, he is probably crossing that line. There is also a criminal assault charge, but as I remember it requires a physical threat. So if he did this, he probably COULD lose some cash to an overzealous person who doesn’t want to be filmed and is distressed by the video (distress or assault). Thus, if I were him, I’d leave when people ask him to, he is dangerously close.

    • frank

      In general, assault has to be produced from a reasonable belief that the person is going to harm you. On its own, being recorded by someone on video does not constitue a reasonable belief that you will be harmed. It needs a verbal or non-verbal cue – e.g. “I’m going to hurt you” or clenched fists and an angry face advancing towards you. Discomfort to an unfamiliar social situation does not grant one leave to be aggressive or insulting. Please note that many of the video subjects have in fact committed assault against the videographer.

      • YourRights

        Doesn’t matter. He clearly showed intent to persistently intimidate people into a violent response. Intent is 9/10th the law.

        But he did in fact violate the law repeatedly:

        “Any person who, directly or by means of a detective agency or any other agent, violates the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to legal action for damages, to be brought by any other person claiming that a violation of this statute has injured his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation. A person so injured shall be entitled to actual damages, including mental pain and suffering endured by him or her on account of violation of the provisions of this chapter, or liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation, not to exceed one thousand dollars, and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other costs of litigation.”

        • jonnywax

          More armchair lawyering. “Intimidate into a violent response”? How does one “intimidate into” ? Are you talking about coercion? You can’t really “coerce” someone to be violent, as that wouldn’t be coercion (coercion requires “compliance”, of which violence is the opposite of). Also, people have a choice here, so he is not coercing anyone. He’s riling them up, but this is not illegal. Also intimidation is not even mentioned in your citation.

          Check your facts.

  • lisa

    He should be beaten to death with his own camera.

    • Edgeworld

      Seek help

    • Rick Lopez

      And you’re not only unamerican but a bad, evil person.

  • DrForBin

    What the poster is doing is making explicit what is already implicit in our society today. We are all recorded everyday in nominally “public” spaces, by stores, by banks, by whatever. The current tacit agreement is that if we enter a place of business we will be videoed. The folks that are freaking out when there is an actual person holding the camera are missing the point that their “privacy” is nonexistent. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance why has that been translated into eternal surveillance?

  • Catastrophe

    a few observations:
    -store video cameras are on the store’s property
    -store and public camera video are not typically posted to YouTube
    -public “security” and store security cameras do not focus in and listen in on private phone conversations

    So, while I don’t like being under constant surveillance by cameras, this guy is clearly trying to provoke when he sits down at someone’s table who is having a personal phone conversation and begins to record him, then won’t leave when politely asked to leave. I would be more on this guy’s side if he were simply walking down the street past the guy at the table and kept on going, but obviously he’s making a big effort to be intrusive into the customer’s “personal space” and within earshot of a private conversation.

    • Edgeworld

      LOL, apparently you and many others reading this article would be shocked at the number of networked “security” cameras freely available online for *anyone* to watch, anywhere, anytime, LIVE, updated in REAL TIME.

      These accessible cameras are legion. They monitor inside private businesses and residences and outside. They are publicly owned. They are privately owned. They provide stills. They provide video. You can save and store the images for posterity. And YOU and everyone else with an Internet connection can access them wherever you are, whenever you want. You don’t need freaking YouTube. The cameras provide a direct connection to your browser.

      You say you don’t know how? Loser .

      I have to say, I am pretty shocked to read comments like yours on a “tech” blog— they reveal how stunningly pig-ignorant people really are about modern networked surveillance cameras. It’s never really been about “security”. It’s ALWAYS been about SURVEILLANCE.

      • C Erler

        No, it has been about security. That doesn’t mean that it’s a particularly good way to achieve it, of course, but the people who support these things aren’t generally doing it because they want to spy on others or be spied upon.

    • Brendon J. Wilson

      Video cameras on store’s property are typically located at doorways, and pointed onto the public sidewalk. What is the difference between this videographer sitting down at a guy’s table (which is on the sidewalk) and the CCTV camera that is undoubtedly located above that table nearby to monitor the entrance?

      Is the difference merely that he’s making the invasion patently obvious?

      • C Erler

        No, the differences are physical invasion of personal space and the beliefs of the person that the people recording are up to no good.

    • Libby Stack

      “public “security” and store security cameras do not focus in and listen in on private phone conversations”

      Unless you’re in a gambling casino where they have all kinds of fun gadegtry along with camera controls that can give you specific views.

      I can’t wait for the google glasses. And for the Dateline reporter to do a story on them.

    • ollieclark

      “public “security” and store security cameras do not focus in and listen in on private phone conversations”

      I think you’ll find they do.

      If anything, this guy is less intrusive than the half hidden security cameras everywhere. At least he’s making it obvious he’s recording people.

  • danca utrell

    …it is not a great leap to envision a world with “state sponcered” roving cameras…in fact, it is already in effect with police taking video at any legal protest rally…It is not coming…it is already here…

  • someone

    The only reason he has not been beaten, stabbed or shot is that his is profiling. You don’t see him filming any thugs or biker dudes.

    • epiphanyp7a

      Folks who don’t beat, stab or shot people are more common than not. On average he can just pick people at random and expect these things not to happen to him. You can’t prove that he’s profiling.

      • C Erler

        On average, I think he would have found one by now.

  • Edgeworld

    LOL, apparently you and many others reading this article would be shocked at the number of networked “security” cameras freely available online for *anyone* to watch, anywhere, anytime, LIVE, updated in REAL TIME.

    These accessible cameras are legion. They monitor inside private businesses and residences and outside. They are publicly owned. They are privately owned. They provide stills. They provide video. You can save and store the images for posterity. And YOU and everyone else with an Internet connection can access them wherever you are, whenever you want. You don’t need freaking YouTube. The cameras provide a direct connection to your browser.

    You say you don’t know how? Loser .

    I have to say, I am pretty shocked to read comments like yours on a “tech” blog— they reveal how stunningly pig-ignorant people really are about modern networked surveillance cameras. It’s never really been about “security”. It’s ALWAYS been about SURVEILLANCE.

    • YourRights

      Not the same comparison. People who have live webcams are the property owners and are usually filming their own property. People who point said webcams out into the street are people who are broadcasting the public in general.

      People don’t setup webcams pointed at their neighbors house and broadcast it. The reason why is because it’s a violation of their privacy and against the law (voyeurism).

      • Edgeworld

        Specious argument. Got any examples of surveillance camera owners being convicted (or even accused) of any of the crimes you suggest? Ever? Zillions of “security” cameras focus on the public area around the business or residence where the camera(s) are mounted. PTZ cameras are specifically made for surveilling multiple locales from one spot.

        “Security” may be a result of video surveillance, but it’s far from its primary goal. Depending on the application, “security” could be several generations down the hierarchical line of purpose. It is practically never at the top.

  • JayWalk

    At least in a government that you hope isn’t Orwellian, it would not be abused and be deleted sooner or later, but wtf is the private guy with the handheld camera going to do with the footage when he gets home?

  • John Greene

    People don’t handle stress intelligently. I thought it was only internet people but it seems to be everybody. I mean, there are levels of threat and corresponding levels of force that’s called for to deal with the threat. There’s no need to explode into aggression and cussing when something more polite would do, you know what I mean? But that’s what they all do (except for the cab drive more or less). They all just get all bent up and panicky. All of them. Total confrontation-aggression. Bared teeth and barking.

    I used to think it was just internet people. You know, safe behind the keyboard therefor free to act out their most cherished childhood dominance/submission scenarios – but no, it’s everybody all the time.

    People, as a rule, handle stress like children. People are nuts.

    That aside – ya, good point. Well made.

  • Ormond Otvos

    This is a perfect example of agency. We don’t mind being watched if God isn’t visible. This dude is onto a great idea. If enough people are turned down for police help with their fear of visibility, maybe the cops will get the message that it’s OK for citizens to surveil the cops. Seattle has a very strong ACLU presence. I know, I was once on the Board of Directors, back in the times of COINTELPRO. see wikipedia

    • YourRights

      Problem is that he hurts the case of filming cops by being a douche about it. Clearly he violated the law, repeatedly.

      Additionally, we hold our law enforcement officers to higher standards. He added nothing to the conversation.

      • Ormond Otvos

        What specific law did he violate? What specific standards do we actually hold LEOs to?

        It sounds to me like you’re just counting on getting a little head-nodding going.

        I think he takes the conversation in a whole new direction. Maybe next he’ll fake having a very lascivious conversation very loudly on a bus.

        As to assault, it would be seriously dumb to attack someone who’s recording your actions. Slam dunk court case for assault.

      • Rick Lopez

        He didn’t violate any laws and he wasn’t being a douche at all. How was he being a douche, please explain?

    • Rich Jones

      Hey Ormond – we should talk.


    Washington is a 2-party consent state for audio recording. I see him mention that he’s “videoing”, but no declaration that he’s making an audi recording. And he does not stop when the other party makes it very clear that they do not consent to this. RCW 9.73.030. In fact I’d be interested to know if this could be seen to apply to video.

    • edgeplot

      It’s not that simple in Washington. The conversation has to be private for the consent law to take effect, and there are many factors to consider for the privacy element. For example, there would be little expectation that a conversation in a public place could be legally regarded as private. Additionally, announcing and recording a statement that the conversation is being recorded also satisfies the consent element because it puts the parties on notice that they can stop talking if they don’t want their statements recorded. The courts have punched many other holes in this statute as well.

      • jonnywax

        Thank you for real legal background on this.

    • Scritti Politti

      That kind of sham claim has been a crutch for dirty cops in Illinois too, and has been finally stricken down. It’s bullshit.

  • Jason R Ross
  • tedsy

    Should not videos of public property be public property?
    Why is it that the police or security firms get to watch them and edit or post or conceal them?
    They should be posted to the web for us all to watch, just as we watch the street as we walk down it, as we watch the people from a sidewalk cafe.

  • Chris Rimple

    Brilliant. And I recognize some of the locations in the #2 video, around Seattle:

    – Guy in truck is at the McDonald’s on 25th Ave NE & NE 53rd Street
    – Drug store is Bartell’s at Roosevelt Square
    – Guy on the phone is at Starbucks in University Village
    – Taxi driver is in an unidentified location
    – Arrested woman is in the underground bus tunnel in downtown (below Nordstrom’s)
    – Van driver is in an unidentified location
    – Man eating might be at the Qdoba restaurant at 12th Ave NE & NE 45th Street, which has a WA Federal S&L next door

  • Florian Bösch

    The term for people like this is gargoyle, coined by Neal Stephenson in 1992 in his novel Snow crash. It means people who record everything that goes on around them all the time and upload massive amounts of useless footage onto the internet.

    • blondeheadedbombshell

      this is a neat story. if anyone likes to be penpals / penfriends our email’s there were security cameras in the stalls in oklahoma rest stops on the turnpike. people complained a lot and they took them out. everywhere you go you’re being watched and there’s no privacy. double mirrors, dressing rooms and even in homes people are watching. we noticed we were being spied on everywhere. stores with mirrored surfaces are realy watching thru there. wal-mart has secuity 24/7 who sits in there watching people and laughing. we did same thing there and it’d be a funny film. people probably don’t know they’re being made fun of there though. maybe they’d stay out if they did.

  • B

    Can’t believe how many people are supporting this guy. To me he is not making some “excellent point” like some people say he is. There are many differences between what he is doing vs camera at a bank or department store. Additionally, Some people’s logic is that “it’s a public place so if you don’t like it don’t go out in public” yet they don’t apply that logic by staying away from said banks and department stores even though they claim they have a problem with the surveillance there. Guess its easier said than done? Or your complaints are justified while anybody who points out that even if this guy isn’t breaking any laws he’s breaking common public courtesy to try and make a statement are just being insensitive morons? I guess someone should follow him around and record him recording other people, follow home home ( totally ok right people? I mean they can stand in the street while they capture a video of his home! Streets are public property!) and then keep tabs on how often the cops are called on this guy and calculate how much time and money was wasted on this guy. I think that would be a better point than the one he is trying to make…..something we already know.

  • Gerry Blargeaux

    Pepper spray is the solution.

  • Charlie Kindel

    Most CCTV cameras have audio these days too. You are being watched and listened to.

  • evil0re0

    Try recording the police like that. It may not be “illegal” but I bet they will “detain” you just because.

  • Scritti Politti

    People have such a misguided idea of privacy. The guy is perfectly allowed to film through the window if he’s standing on public property. Then the woman starts declaring “this is America and I have a choice.” No, you don’t have the choice to infringe on others’ rights. And it’s the cameraman who has the rights here.

    • C Erler

      No, she had a great idea of privacy. She had a misguided view of the law.

  • Jjsquared

    There’s a difference between providing educational examples and being a nuisance. It’s clear this person is the latter. If anything he’s doing a disservice to the real issues at play here.

  • Ward Andi

    Just because someone points a video camera at you, does not mean they are a sick person or have bad intentions, it is only because of the social stigmas around the topic (media and religion, pounding these thoughts into our minds) that if someone were to point a video camera at you, it would mean they are a pedophile or mentally sick.These videos are a clear message to society and how we have been manipulated into thinking, if these thoughts and stereotypes didn’t exist, we wouldn’t even know what the word “privacy” meant. We as humans learn from what we are told and what we see, when we are born we have basic instinctive functions — eat, sleep, reproduce… the rest of our thinking is purely of what we are taught and shown. Even what we now call “morals” or right and wrong, are all man made concepts, everything we know about “life” we have created in our minds. Look at it this way, you ask someone on earth to point to up and then down, sure this form of measurement or reference works on earth because it is relevant to us. You ask this question in “space” left, right, up, down no longer exist, we’ve created our own little dream world.

  • Blackmirror

    Watch Black Mirror – “The Entire History of You” this gives an interesting insite into where our future is heading, especially in regards to a recorded life.

  • Clint

    I’d like to say that I’ve personally stolen from a few corporations in my life, and have never gotten caught on video. They use security cameras to catch thieves, and I think recently cities have used them to catch bad drivers, and maybe to record incidents that happen on the street. I think that there are a lot of conspiracy theories playing into the sci-fi use of surveillance. It’s obvious that TOO much is a bad thing. I don’t see why a little is bad, especially considering if it’s in best interest, and no lawsuits have come about that I’m aware of…

    • Clint

      PLUS! This actually makes me feel more for celebrities than usual citizens. The celebrities are the ones that get hounded by doing daily things by paparazzi. How annoying would that be, to have every household item that you use posted online, or the exact dates and times that you leave and return back to your house? I think people are overreacting a bit to these videos.

  •!/MsWildhack Montana

    Yeah, he stays with people a bit longer than he should and perhaps he’s only uploading the people who reacted angrily, but it seems like most of these people were severely over-reacting.

    That Bartell’s was the one I used to go to the most when I lived in Seattle. Trying to imagine myself in that scenario, I can’t see giving much thought to a guy with a video camera standing there recording when I came out. I’d just go on about my business (which would probably be to go downstairs to Whole Foods to get groceries). If his filming were so pointedly directed at me that it made me feel self-conscious, I’d expect my reaction would be more one of bewildered amusement than anger.

  • Craig

    I think cams are everywhere, look up. I just might join him.

  • free

    I Love this. This guy is a genius. You don’t like it? Neither do I. On the street, In the store, on the freeway, in the couthouse, on the copcar, In the office, ect, ect. Don’t like it? Then fight back, you stupid cowardly Americans and earn the right to be the land of the free. Make corporate surveillance illegal.

  • Sheldon

    I don’t think the issue here is privacy. The issue is assault or menacing. The cameraman is engaging in behavior that does not fit a social norm, that is he is continuing to film an individual after repeated requests not to do so. This might reasonably create a feeling of apprehension or imminent danger in the subject as the cameraman is not adhering to behavioral norms and is therefore unpredictable. In at least some jurisdictions he would be subject to arrest on those grounds.

    • jonnywax

      My guess is you’re playing a wild case of armchair police officer here. The big clue is your claim that “engaging in behavior that does not fit a social norm” is some kind of real law. It sounds more like you just made up that terminology based on a bunch of law shows might have watched. There are no laws about “social norms”, the concept is inherently impossible to regulate. What you’re talking about in your example is IMMEDIATE (keyword) threat to personal safety, but that’s a weak argument, since a camera in someone’s hand poses no IMMEDIATE threat. The best part of this statement is the irony– you seem to imply that he is encroaching on their privacy, and by extension, their freedoms, yet you claim that his behavior “does not fit a social norm”, which shows that you have no respect for *his* freedoms.

      • Victoria L. Baxter-Caballero

        There are some places where, when a police officer tells you to stop filming you stop… Otherwise, you COULD be arrested. If they wanna do the paper work… That doesn’t mean their case will hold water, but they could charge you with harassment, assault, or interfering with a police investigation.

  • Alfa Spider

    There are many instances in society where otherwise normal behavior crosses the line, based on context. Most of us understand that in a pluralistic society you oughtn’t cross those lines.

    The guy filming here is simply being a jerk to tout his particular grievance with society, doing so in a way which is intended to provoke a negative response by crossing one of those lines.

    Nothing really unusual about it. There will always be a small percentage of people who can’t comprehend why their behavior is inappropriate. All we can do is to let them know that their approach is inappropriate in the least objectionable way possible. I don’t imagine this guy has many friends, given the way he tramps on our social sensibilities.

  • Sheldon

    Another take on this is that if he profits in any way from these videos he is definitely legally bound to have a release from all his subjects.

  • Andy

    I don’t see the problem with surveillance if you are a law-abiding citizen. The civil-rights do-gooders need to take a chill pill.

  • joesmith

    We he is dong here is illegal. State laws are still behind the times on taking video but I believe it is illegal in all 50 states to record a conversation without the other parties consent. I hope the guy gets thrown in jail

    • Dan ‘milkybar’ Druggan

      HAHA yeaaahhh throw this criminal in jail!! KEEP US SAFE FROM LENSES!!!

  • stan

    he is a civilian using his personal camera taking videos of people without permission to be used for personal interests such as publishing it on the web. while security cameras are for the sole purpose of security and are only published anywhere with the permission of law enforcement and only when a crime has been committed. not 100% guarranteed, maybe, but it’s not the same as what this guy is doing. he may have a point but he went about it wrong imho, making him a jackass.

  • Yadda

    Well, it is good that it’s provoking discussion about privacy & CCTV & reminding people of the way CCTV has crept in to our every day lives. However, there is a significant difference to the way people respond for a very obvious reason: there is an inferred belief that CCTV is subject to levels of professional care of data & has the sole purpose of preventing crime. Yes, argument can be made that constraints on this aren’t rigid enough but there is a considerable gap between the most likely care & use of video recorded on CCTV & whatever the hell some random person videoing you on the street could choose to do with the video.

  • Clyde Smith
  • Petra Starke

    Why are people saying this is “no different” from ordinary surveillance cameras? The type of video this man has made is very different. Firstly it has audio, which surveillance cameras don’t usually have. Secondly he is deliberately invading people’s personal space to film, getting in their face and even sitting at a table with someone, whereas surveillance cameras are usually fixed, not close range and typically not filming people’s private conversations. He also repeatedly ignores people’s requests to stop filming. I see the point this filmmaker was trying to make, but I think it misses the mark.

  • ElectronicD

    It’s amazing how all of the people just don’t get it …. we are under surveillance near on 24/7 …. we don’t give those people monitoring those cameras for permission! Thumbs up for the dude and major thumbs down for those violent idiots and a special thumbs down to the idiot who called the police

  • Jed

    A few people on this comment section seem very brainwashed by the corporate filming. It isn;t more justified because they have alot of influence or money. The act is the same, filming someone in public, close, or far away, CCTV or handheld camera is STILL filming someone in public, no matter how you sugar coat it.

  • M.M.H

    How is this annoying ?

    This is fantastic, everyone should be doing this.

    I find that, the nicer your camera is, the less people question you. Considering when I use my gopro, people get irate. But if I use my 5D mrk II with a $3000 lens, nobody says anything.

  • Griggs

    It is immensely different. Most corporations and public municpality recordings are not reviewed unless there is just cause (robbery, assault, rape). They are there for protection. This guy is a total turd. He has no consderation for a person’s privacy (even in a public place there is such thing as ‘private space’), and when asked by security to turn the camera off, he refused. This isn’t an example of monitoring. This is an example of anarchy and rudeness.

  • HoppinBill

    The interesting thing to me is that… well, that anyone finds this interesting. Justin Bieber and Kim Kardashian face this a thousand fold, every day. There’s nothing illegal about it. It’s just that most of us aren’t interesting enough to a broad enough group of people that no one bothers to follow us with a camera. The laws regarding public / private “surveillance” and photography are very well understood by most of the people that practice those things.

    It’s annoying, but living in a free society means we get to live with people we like and people we don’t like and even people who are annoying and everyone gets to keep being who they are. I’m okay with that.

  • Jason Gerard Clauss

    I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again. I think in the not-too-distant future people are going to start wearing masquerade masks in public.

  • Shea

    that guy is an idiot and should be arested. A surveillance camera is something else. Is in a private space and you are aware that by entering in that area you will be recorded, but a stupid guy not haveing yout permission to record you is something else.

  • Dmb

    A surveillance camera usually not have a microphone for example. That guy try to record some people talking on the phone with sound . . . That is ilegal even is a public space there.

  • Jay

    He’s not doing it just to be an ass as you state because you watched his video and you are all commenting on it. So his video provided you with atleast some entertainment, and it also has introduced a topic that we/you all feel we/you want or need to comment about. So there are atleast two other good reasons to have taken the videos right there.
    All that said. You need a release from property owners if you intend to shoot video into private property or through private property into public property. If the video line of sight crosses private property at any time you need a release. If, like in the video the lady comes outside onto the public sidewalk then you can video her without a release.
    The law is quite clear and easy to understand. On private property people rightly and legally have a higher expectation of privacy. You may be a customer there, or you may even work there, but if it’s private property you need a release to post the video in public like here or Youtube.

  • Randolph

    OK. I find this so offensive that I can’t even bear to watch all of the first video.

    I am a professional cameraman and I earn my living recording events and shooting documentaries of people who either want to be recorded or whose permission I have asked first.

    This moron is giving my profession a bad image. I don’t care what kind of point he is trying to make or whether he has the right to do what he is doing. When someone asks you to stop recording them, you do it. Period. End of discussion. Anything else is an invasion of privacy and an infringement on the person’s rights. His right to record does not supersede another person’s right to their personal space.
    He may (and usually does) have the right to shoot video in a public space, but, NOT of individuals who ask him to stop.

  • TI puget sound

    He’s got a point. Also, for too many of us, even in our own homes, privacy is a tthing of the past thanks to home invaders who install surveillance equipment without permission. One often only finds out after several people (strangers) start referring to things that happened in the home they could only have knowledge of if surveillance has been installed in the home.

  • cdeeznuts

    i would like this guy to do this in the “dodgy” part of town

  • Ram Thyagarajan

    Surveillance Cameras… don’t target single people in a group atleast the surveillance cameras in public places… and make their videos. Whereas this guy is doing that, he is going to people making their videos which would annoy any one…. People make videos all the time in public places…. look at any tourist in any city… nobody takes offense…… so the whole point of comparing this to surveillance cameras is really stupid… this guy is a creep …. Any thing in a creep’s hand would be would be put to creepy usage….What an asshole…. and he’s trying to peddle this as trying to make point…

  • mvval

    this is fake and these are actors. the point is a good one but it should be acknowledged as fake.

  • Traveler_Lloyd

    The laws state that anyone cane be photographed in a public place. The photos can not be used in commercial advertising. That law has been the same since at least the 1970s. However store and businesses are not public places. They are privately owned. As such, the owner can record anyone in there. You can not legally walk into any business and take photographs without the permission of the owner and the person you are photographing, since you are not the business owner.

    Since I know my rights, I would have taken a baseball bat to the guy for assault (with the camera). I would have also had him arrested for assault. He was attacking me with the camera using Internet Videos as a weapon.

  • Michael Fulton

    Actually this is harassment..? There’s a difference between surveillance by an unmanned camera and having an actual person follow you around after you’ve indicated you don’t want their company.. Surveillance isn’t the awkward part here.

  • Barry Kort
  • Grampy6819

    God I really hope he gets his ass kicked…. prefferably by a woman.

  • Sam Davis

    He will eventually get his ass kicked and i will enjoy watching every second of it.

  • michaelmoore

    this guy is clearly being a dick, but we all must remember, that dicks not only fuck pussies, but they also fuck assholes, right?

  • aphi

    Who is Creepy Cameraman? Does it matter? Google Glass didn’t invent hidden personal surveillance devices, but it promises to make them ubiquitous to the point that nearly everyone wears them. If you want to get hidden camera tech, for more than a decade you could go online to any Spy store and get sunglasses, baseball caps, broaches or other body wear that have digital cameras that can either broadcast or record. Use of these could be regulated someone because of the low volume. Much like cell phone cameras, if everyone has cheap access to the tech, it can make profound changes in societies worldwide. In some ways for the better, in others not so much. I’m sure there will be a new market for personal electronic jammers. Spy vs Spy.

  • Joe

    This guy is looking for trouble. I am surprised no one has decked him.

  • KnightTime

    Yeah, he is being provocative in his method (albeit perfectly legal, as long as it is in public) — I will concede that. What I find stunning is that these people don’t even think twice about the business and government surveillance that intrudes in their lives EVERY DAY, but freak out when some goof with a camera comes around.

  • Victoria L. Baxter-Caballero

    Most surveillance cameras do not have an audio feed, as well. At least, that is my understanding.

    I think we all take it for granted/forget that we are being watched. I once worked for a company where I was informed, in a training class, that there are cameras, and calls are recorded (it was a call center). I was also told that the phones are being recorded all the time, so even when I wasn’t on a call, if a head set near by was connected, I was being recorded. And yes, they do listen to those recordings (there have been people at that particular company who were fired based on what was heard over their/someone else’s headset).

    As I said before, we all forget we’re being watched/listened to, for the most part. Even our internet browsing is recorded some place. There is very little we can do that is not known by someone else.

    My advice: don’t do/say anything that you wouldn’t do/say in front of someone else. Seriously, just be true to yourself, and honest with others. This way, no one is surprised when/if they find out anything you said or did. (The guy in the vid. who was so upset over someone taping his private conversation was obviously talking about something that could cause him/someone else embarrassment/trouble, before the camera came on scene.)

    P.S.–Just look at the kinds of things folks post on FB and G+! Or on their individual blogs. The one place there aren’t cameras (the bathroom) is used for taking profile pics. in the mirror. Seriously, no place is safe! *nervous laughter as I look over my own shoulder*

  • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

    I think it stinks. The founding fathers understood the reason for PRIVACY and put the 4th amendment and 5th amendment into the Bill of Rights because of it. It is an UNALIENABLE RIGHT. We shouldn’t have to let ANYONE KNOW anything about ourselves, government or otherwise. It is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. It burns my rear that some guy who I see pushing shopping carts at Wal-mart a few weeks later is driving a cop car that has access to all kinds of information about me that is none of his business.

  • anon NZ

    I would dislike it if he came up to me and did this without the camera!

    I’m sure most people don’t expect a stranger to sit down at a table with them while they drink their coffee and talk on their phone, or stand outside a cafe and stare at them while they eat (in fact anyone watching me while i eat makes it difficult for me to continue eating). His presence not the cameras is I think what is upsetting many of the people in this video. The fact that he is recording is not my biggest issue with this at all. Seeing a person behind the camera does remind us of something we may forget as our trips to the supermarket and rides in a taxi are recorded on camera – someone is watching! Seeing that someone just makes it a lot more uncomfortable

  • killedbyhope

    I think what is important to note is everybody thinks they have a right to privacy. NewsFlash: YOU DON’T. The Police, ATF, FBI can bust through your door anytime they want. The excuse used: there was information indicating a threat to national security. It does not matter if there is little to no evidence supporting this. Evidence is something that is worried about and found after the fact. Ever since 9/11 and the development of Homeland Security, our rights have been slowly and steadily taken away. Bit by bit, all the while convincing us it is for our protection, our safety. Then one morning we wake up, have chips implanted in our kids for tracking, walk through full body scanners to fly, and are guilty until proven innocent. We wonder how this came to be……and it is because we fail to face the simple fact that rights are not something we are born with. We don’t have rights. We have privileges. And we are not now, nor have we been free. True we enjoy more freedoms than most, but anyone who thinks they are free – try refusing to pay your taxes…..try protesting the WTO……try getting out of a draft if one were reinstated. Try just leaving the country whenever you want. We are not free. It is time people WAKE UP and THINK for themselves. It is time to question. And it is time to demand answers.

  • JahLove

    Doesnt he have to get some consent to broadcast peoples faces like that, putting what they say and do on film for public display or can he do it cuz hes not making money?

  • Lavs

    This is hilarious. Also not illegal. Anyone who has an issue with this must have a quilt complex about something.

  • dsculpin

    God watches everything you do. Kind of creepy don’t you think?

  • Mlambert890

    “Video no longer available due to a copyright claim by SurveillantCameraMan” Ah… the irony.

    The brave crusader of freedom jams a camera in peoples faces to “prove a point” and “fight the power” and yet feels completely justified in making copyright claims on the movies he makes of *their images*.

    So he has a “right” to film whoever he wants whenever he wants and wherever he wants because it is in “public”, and somehow he also has a “right” to profit from these films and make copyright claims on them without securing a release from the folks who he filmed? All while *he* remains safely hidden and completely anonymous?

    *This* is what passes for a “brave crusader”? Yeah no. There are no “brave crusaders” these days. Just self serving narcissists co-opting issues in service of their own ego.

    Given the choice between an ATM camera or a guy like this baiting me into telling him to get out of my face as he “makes a point” only to turn around and copyright the footage and earn money from my moment of frustration I’m gonna say I feel better about the ATM camera, sorry.

  • imaguestsoshutup

    he’s not doing anything wrong. matter of fact he’s coming close to maybe finding someone who may BE voiding an warrant from the looks of it.

  • imaguestsoshutup

    what i have learned is those who make commentary trying to look like experts are the ones who know nothing about anything.

    and are too lazy to do the research in order to make their ignorance enlightened and not so worthy.

    stop it and instead of griping, learn something!

Job Listings on GeekWork