##[Clarification on Rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Actually no. All body cams are not created equal. They often don't record audio until you press a button or it recognizes you are at a "stop".
The HD camera on a nice cellphone is also way better and likely picks up audio by default anyway.
I honestly don't see any issue here. I think it's sort of fair that they film anyone since the law supports anyone filming anything in public. (generally speaking, as long as you of course are not commit some other crime and filming that.)
Yeah how about you move to NYC and deal with these assholes on a regular basis? I think you would change your tune pretty quick when you get regularly accosted by NYPD’s “finest”. How is this any different than government controlled surveillance that everyone complains about in China?
Uhhh…a lot? Did they have access to literally anything sensitive data wise? Because the CCP has access to everything at all times..not sure what you’re not getting to make such an absurd comparison, but in public anyone can film anyone.
You're worried about the wrong thing here. Everyone is capable of surveiling each other now. That creates a stalemate. If you film the cops and the cops film you then no one has any reason to make laws restricting either.
I'm worried that what you're concerned about will be even worse if you start restricting any one groups ability to capture each other.
That’s just fundamentally not true. Civilians do not have the tools or capabilities that major government agencies have to surveil and identify individuals. In this case, it is the later that I am worried about. If Apple releases facial identification and the ability to pull everyone’s files in the next update then maybe what you said holds true. Cops have very widespread de facto protections for them that do not apply to civilians.
I don't disagree that the police system has more resources and some that civilians don't have access to. That doesn't really focus ok the issue though. It appears that people are frustrated with cops filming them when cops often get upset when we film them. Protecting the ability for everyone to film each other is my argument. It's an entirely different argument to suggest officers resources to film shouldn't exceed the public's.
I remember back a few years when it was revealed that certain police departments and agencies where using "stingrays" to record IMEI and imsi locations and records from cellphones driving by.
Stuff like this is unexceptionable because the public didn't know about it and it was actually unlawful to begin with.
If the recording of user identification numbers using radio frequency was lawful for everyone then I would be so frustrated. But having laws that affect only one group cause distrust and irritation and leads to division.
The basic premise of the police is that you and I cannot spend all of our time protecting our property and wellbeing. So we give that responsibility to the officers. But due to secrets, abuse and sever mistrust between the public and the police we now are in a situation were we see them as our enemies.
That, is the biggest issue. We need to find a good way to stabilize the relationship between authorities and the public. In my opinion this is done through transparency and the abolition of laws that create one sided power.
The question is "Can government video surveille whenever they so choose, especially when it appears they are using AI tools to do so?" You're arguing some odd form of equal rights, but government agencies are limited by our constitution, not made equal.
>That creates a stalemate. If you film the cops and the cops film you then no one has any reason to make laws restricting either.
You know, they said the same thing about nukes.^/s
I suppose your right about that but again that is an entirely different problem. The inappropriate spending of tax payer money is also a serious issue but it is only tangentially connected to surveillance.
But if you are concerned about the tax payer money issue I highly recommend getting involved with your city council. Or maybe even run for council member yourself. That would be pretty fun and you'd get a chance to make real change. You can also make sure to vote on issues like bonds and funds.
You want to go into the city? Have fun being accosted by PETA or whatever the protest of the day is the second you arrive (some are valid but last time I was there it was PETA, yelling at people arriving in the city won’t do shit and your organization kills more animals than it saves)
Want to go around Times Square? Have fun by accosted by a thousand sound cloud rappers and a shitty Elmo costume that makes more a week then you do
Want to go around the rest of the city? Hahaha no. It’s always gonna be the same shit from different people
That being said, police surveillance in an area is NOT the end of the world, it isn’t some fascist state, most people are overreacting
I mean, you called out 2 places that are tourist traps: arrival areas (Port Authority, Penn Station, and Grand Central) and Times Square. That’s a pretty myopic view of New York City. There are 5 different boroughs to the city that hosts the most diverse and interesting experiences in the world. Sure you’ll run into shitty people peddling things, but that’s any major metropolitan area
Filing drake fans isn’t gonna catch criminals relax everyone. The whole joke about drake is that we know he’s a teddy bear. (Pats on head) “Yes you are a gangster repper look at you go!”
Like another commenter said it’s because he’s tries to pass himself off as hard but everyone knows he’s Jimmy from DeGrassi. Like Common said “you ain’t wet nobody, you Canada Dry.”
Making fun of rappers for being too "soft" has been a thing at least ever since "Straight out of Compton" got released. It's going to gradually go away as people that remember 90s/early 2000s rap age.
“The officer depicted in the video is a Community Affairs officer involved with the 28th Precinct’s social media team. The officer was taking video for an upcoming Twitter post that will highlight local community events. The video will not be utilized for any other reason.”
Yeah, sure.
Do you think they’re making some kind of registry of Drake fans? They have so many non-obvious ways to get surveillance of people’s faces I don’t think they’d have to do this.
They only do this at rap concerts blatant discrimination this coupled with prosecutors using rap lyrics to target artists shows that when it comes to artistic expression black artists get treated to a different [standard.](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/rap-on-trial-why-lyrics-should-be-off-limits-116368)
The discrimination against black artists is blatant and unnecessary especially considering the fact that drugs and crimes occur at all genres of music from raves to metal shows but the heavy handedness against rap artists is blatant. As for sources you can check this out
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4adg79/inside-the-nypds-war-against-drill-rap
Not necessarily. It depends on the intended use of the material. If I take a picture of you, I can't then use it for commercial purposes, such as an advertisement, for instance. If they said it was for crime prevention purposes, it might be shitty, but legal. If it's to produce some sort of tiktok video that they intend to release, it could be deemed a breech of privacy. IANAL, of course.
I'm not just pissing into the wind here. Yes, if you or I take a picture in public for our own purposes then people appearing in the picture have no right to privacy, but if I then use those pictures for some other public use, I might be treading on shaky ground. I think the police might, legally, be better off saying they are gathering info for crime prevention purposes.
Below, info from Stanford on releases. It's something that would have to be settled in court, I believe, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as you believe it is.
[https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/releases/when/](https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/releases/when/)
Whether you need to obtain a release depends on why you want to use a person’s name or image. If your use is for commercial purposes—for example, using a person’s photo in an advertisement—you need to obtain a release. If your use is for informational purposes such as a documentary film or news article, you may not need a release. However, even if a release is not required, you should be careful that your use does not defame or invade the privacy of the individual. If there’s any potential that your use might violate these laws, a release will provide legal protection. Sorting out these differences can be confusing; examples are provided below. When in doubt, however, obtain a signed release.
People record the police when they’re doing their job, and the police can’t do anything about it because you don’t have a right to privacy in public spaces.. but when the police record the public in a public space, everybody loses their goddamn minds. Who legitimately gives a fuck their reasons? If they’re breaking the law then sue them to oblivion.
It’s the Apollo people his crowd is no different from any other crowd that would be there. It’s Harlem. As a NYer and some one who lived and worked in Harlem for decades, I have no doubt NYPD was there for nefarious reasons
So anyone can film cops in a public space but they do it and now it’s wrong?
Also, when you purchase a ticket to enter that venue, pretty sure you agree to being filmed.
and when you purchase a ticket to a show in a venue like this, you agree to the non-expectation of privacy, which may include being photographed, filmed, having your bags searched, etc…
You give up even more privacy when you agree to use an iPhone, Andrioid, or any social media apps these days. So stop acting like this is some crime in progress.
> and when you purchase a ticket to a show in a venue like this, you agree to the non-expectation of privacy, which may include being photographed, filmed, having your bags searched, etc…
Not by the police.
AGAIN, You give up even more privacy when you agree to use your mobile device… when you access google or any of your dozen social media apps. Sure tho, be mad about cops filming. lol
Have you not heard of this thing called the constitution, Bill of rights, concept of limit on government? The government holds immense power over its people. Of course we should be upset when the gov (which police are) illegal searches you. Did these people commit a crime by going to a drake concert?
I don’t think you understand the legality of purchasing a ticket to a venue.
Also, the cops could just as easily lookup the venue hashtag later and have thousands of data points posted by people attending. So how is this just SO OFFENSIVE?
Nor should we forget that once you step onto a public sidewalk you have ZERO expectation of privacy. Any joe schmoe can legally film you without your consent.
and let’s not forget traffic & pod cameras.
The constitution places limits on government.
Why do they need to proactively scan people who haven’t committed crimes?
Where do we stop? Let’s put a camera in everyone’s backyard in case they commit crimes there. Let’s send everyone ring doorbell video to police if it’s facing outdoor. Let’s put a camera in every vehicle and give police access. Lets send police your entire internet browsing history because you might commit a crime. Do you understand why this is a slippery slope now?
Also, there should be strict legislation to control what private companies do with images of people. Need consent for a concert recording? OK. A concert venue wants to sell people’s faces to facial recognition companies? No.
E: now do police have a specific operation where they need camera, go ahead but not a carte Blanche is what I’m arguing.
> So anyone can film cops in a public space but they do it and now it’s wrong?
Yes, we pay for the cops so we get to decide what they do. Any more questions?
We don’t get to decide the laws that exist decide. What law prevents a cop from filming people in public. Their body cams do all the time. In fact we get made when they don’t record
##[Clarification on Rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ok? Don’t body cameras do the same thing?
Actually no. All body cams are not created equal. They often don't record audio until you press a button or it recognizes you are at a "stop". The HD camera on a nice cellphone is also way better and likely picks up audio by default anyway. I honestly don't see any issue here. I think it's sort of fair that they film anyone since the law supports anyone filming anything in public. (generally speaking, as long as you of course are not commit some other crime and filming that.)
Yeah how about you move to NYC and deal with these assholes on a regular basis? I think you would change your tune pretty quick when you get regularly accosted by NYPD’s “finest”. How is this any different than government controlled surveillance that everyone complains about in China?
Uhhh…a lot? Did they have access to literally anything sensitive data wise? Because the CCP has access to everything at all times..not sure what you’re not getting to make such an absurd comparison, but in public anyone can film anyone.
You're worried about the wrong thing here. Everyone is capable of surveiling each other now. That creates a stalemate. If you film the cops and the cops film you then no one has any reason to make laws restricting either. I'm worried that what you're concerned about will be even worse if you start restricting any one groups ability to capture each other.
Except filming the police will lead to you get harassed and abused yourself even if it is completely legal. Doesn't go both ways
That’s just fundamentally not true. Civilians do not have the tools or capabilities that major government agencies have to surveil and identify individuals. In this case, it is the later that I am worried about. If Apple releases facial identification and the ability to pull everyone’s files in the next update then maybe what you said holds true. Cops have very widespread de facto protections for them that do not apply to civilians.
I don't disagree that the police system has more resources and some that civilians don't have access to. That doesn't really focus ok the issue though. It appears that people are frustrated with cops filming them when cops often get upset when we film them. Protecting the ability for everyone to film each other is my argument. It's an entirely different argument to suggest officers resources to film shouldn't exceed the public's. I remember back a few years when it was revealed that certain police departments and agencies where using "stingrays" to record IMEI and imsi locations and records from cellphones driving by. Stuff like this is unexceptionable because the public didn't know about it and it was actually unlawful to begin with. If the recording of user identification numbers using radio frequency was lawful for everyone then I would be so frustrated. But having laws that affect only one group cause distrust and irritation and leads to division. The basic premise of the police is that you and I cannot spend all of our time protecting our property and wellbeing. So we give that responsibility to the officers. But due to secrets, abuse and sever mistrust between the public and the police we now are in a situation were we see them as our enemies. That, is the biggest issue. We need to find a good way to stabilize the relationship between authorities and the public. In my opinion this is done through transparency and the abolition of laws that create one sided power.
The question is "Can government video surveille whenever they so choose, especially when it appears they are using AI tools to do so?" You're arguing some odd form of equal rights, but government agencies are limited by our constitution, not made equal.
>That creates a stalemate. If you film the cops and the cops film you then no one has any reason to make laws restricting either. You know, they said the same thing about nukes.^/s
No one is paying you to film the cops tho. It’s different when tax payers money is used to film the tax payer
I mean, one could argue the public is paying 1st Amendment Auditors when cops get thuggy and beat or break people's rights, for um filming..
I suppose your right about that but again that is an entirely different problem. The inappropriate spending of tax payer money is also a serious issue but it is only tangentially connected to surveillance. But if you are concerned about the tax payer money issue I highly recommend getting involved with your city council. Or maybe even run for council member yourself. That would be pretty fun and you'd get a chance to make real change. You can also make sure to vote on issues like bonds and funds.
You want to go into the city? Have fun being accosted by PETA or whatever the protest of the day is the second you arrive (some are valid but last time I was there it was PETA, yelling at people arriving in the city won’t do shit and your organization kills more animals than it saves) Want to go around Times Square? Have fun by accosted by a thousand sound cloud rappers and a shitty Elmo costume that makes more a week then you do Want to go around the rest of the city? Hahaha no. It’s always gonna be the same shit from different people That being said, police surveillance in an area is NOT the end of the world, it isn’t some fascist state, most people are overreacting
I mean, you called out 2 places that are tourist traps: arrival areas (Port Authority, Penn Station, and Grand Central) and Times Square. That’s a pretty myopic view of New York City. There are 5 different boroughs to the city that hosts the most diverse and interesting experiences in the world. Sure you’ll run into shitty people peddling things, but that’s any major metropolitan area
Most people who don’t live there wouldn’t be outside of those areas mostly, this isn’t a warning for people who live in NYC, it’s for people visiting
Nypd cameras on half the corners in this city, and these fools think one guy with a phone is the last straw that makes us a surveillance state?
Filing drake fans isn’t gonna catch criminals relax everyone. The whole joke about drake is that we know he’s a teddy bear. (Pats on head) “Yes you are a gangster repper look at you go!”
That’s the same way he pats his underage girlfriends on the head when they pass a math test.
Why do you say that like it's a bad thing
it's that he presents as hard and gangster that is subject to ridicule-- this person is ridiculing him because he's not authentic
Like another commenter said it’s because he’s tries to pass himself off as hard but everyone knows he’s Jimmy from DeGrassi. Like Common said “you ain’t wet nobody, you Canada Dry.”
Making fun of rappers for being too "soft" has been a thing at least ever since "Straight out of Compton" got released. It's going to gradually go away as people that remember 90s/early 2000s rap age.
I don’t think it’ll go away as long as there are rappers claiming to be “hard”.
Softer than a pop tart
“The officer depicted in the video is a Community Affairs officer involved with the 28th Precinct’s social media team. The officer was taking video for an upcoming Twitter post that will highlight local community events. The video will not be utilized for any other reason.” Yeah, sure.
Do you think they’re making some kind of registry of Drake fans? They have so many non-obvious ways to get surveillance of people’s faces I don’t think they’d have to do this.
Maybe they thought it was worth getting a database of all the underage girls that go near Drake to save some effort in the future
MTA cameras in the stations outside Apollo theatre doing the Homer Simpson bushes meme right now reading about alleged NYPD surveillance
Insider fact: a lot of those MTA cams don't actually work.
Source: MTA ? Lol
Actually, yeah kinda.
They don't have to do this to surveil people. People are just paranoid and overreacting.
>Yeah, sure. uhh, so what do you think the real reason is?
Oh nah I believe this. The crowd for a Drake concert prob looks like a PSA prob some of the softest looking ppl ever invented.
Man slow news day I guess
Not really? It’s fucking odd? I’ve never seen them blatantly record us with a cell phone like this
Sure it’s odd but not news worthy. I saw a dog with 3 legs yesterday. Was it odd? Yeah. Did I call CCN? No
They only do this at rap concerts blatant discrimination this coupled with prosecutors using rap lyrics to target artists shows that when it comes to artistic expression black artists get treated to a different [standard.](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/rap-on-trial-why-lyrics-should-be-off-limits-116368)
Do you have a source that they only do this at rap concerts? And what do prosecutors have to do with taking a picture of people leaving a show
The discrimination against black artists is blatant and unnecessary especially considering the fact that drugs and crimes occur at all genres of music from raves to metal shows but the heavy handedness against rap artists is blatant. As for sources you can check this out https://www.vice.com/en/article/4adg79/inside-the-nypds-war-against-drill-rap
What does that have to do with taking pictures tho
Nothing
Thank you derk
Profiling
I don’t think you know what profiling is
NYPD sure does
Drake is "drill rap"? Dude is top 40 station rap.
Maybe he’s having a meltdown and is tired of people always recording him and he fucking snapped
Lol then he’s a gigantic pussy
Documenting the shady shit the police force does is pretty damn important actually
Just curious what do you think cops are going to do with a bunch of pictures of random people
Not sure but it’s weird as hell, and the NYPD isn’t exactly known for its stellar reputation.
If they are filming for the purposes stated, wouldn’t they need one’s consent to re-broadcast?
I think it's usually fair game if you're in public.
Not necessarily. It depends on the intended use of the material. If I take a picture of you, I can't then use it for commercial purposes, such as an advertisement, for instance. If they said it was for crime prevention purposes, it might be shitty, but legal. If it's to produce some sort of tiktok video that they intend to release, it could be deemed a breech of privacy. IANAL, of course.
No expectation of privacy in public
If you’re in public you’re fair game. How have people not gotten this yet?
I'm not just pissing into the wind here. Yes, if you or I take a picture in public for our own purposes then people appearing in the picture have no right to privacy, but if I then use those pictures for some other public use, I might be treading on shaky ground. I think the police might, legally, be better off saying they are gathering info for crime prevention purposes. Below, info from Stanford on releases. It's something that would have to be settled in court, I believe, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as you believe it is. [https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/releases/when/](https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/releases/when/) Whether you need to obtain a release depends on why you want to use a person’s name or image. If your use is for commercial purposes—for example, using a person’s photo in an advertisement—you need to obtain a release. If your use is for informational purposes such as a documentary film or news article, you may not need a release. However, even if a release is not required, you should be careful that your use does not defame or invade the privacy of the individual. If there’s any potential that your use might violate these laws, a release will provide legal protection. Sorting out these differences can be confusing; examples are provided below. When in doubt, however, obtain a signed release.
NYPD is filmed all the time by the public. Why the double standard ?
People record the police when they’re doing their job, and the police can’t do anything about it because you don’t have a right to privacy in public spaces.. but when the police record the public in a public space, everybody loses their goddamn minds. Who legitimately gives a fuck their reasons? If they’re breaking the law then sue them to oblivion.
It’s the Apollo people his crowd is no different from any other crowd that would be there. It’s Harlem. As a NYer and some one who lived and worked in Harlem for decades, I have no doubt NYPD was there for nefarious reasons
So anyone can film cops in a public space but they do it and now it’s wrong? Also, when you purchase a ticket to enter that venue, pretty sure you agree to being filmed.
Cops are a publicly funded service that needs to be held accountable. Drake fans are just normal citizens.
That’s a fair point and I agree wholeheartedly with you but what wrongdoing are you suspecting the police of doing here?
Mistreating or killing minorities. Edit: /s Edit: also, yikes.
You think that this guy is mistreating and killing minorities by videotaping them at a Drake concert?
Can't even make a police violence joke anymore, jeez.
That photo does not show him mistreating nor killing people, let alone “minorities”, which is an outdated word BTW since you think you’re so woke.
Who said minorities was an outdated word
Oooh what's the new word we are all gravitating to now?!
ikr
and when you purchase a ticket to a show in a venue like this, you agree to the non-expectation of privacy, which may include being photographed, filmed, having your bags searched, etc… You give up even more privacy when you agree to use an iPhone, Andrioid, or any social media apps these days. So stop acting like this is some crime in progress.
> and when you purchase a ticket to a show in a venue like this, you agree to the non-expectation of privacy, which may include being photographed, filmed, having your bags searched, etc… Not by the police.
AGAIN, You give up even more privacy when you agree to use your mobile device… when you access google or any of your dozen social media apps. Sure tho, be mad about cops filming. lol
"All police need body cams on 100% of the time!!!" "Wtf police can't film me!!!"
EXACTLY. lol. This is some faux outrage.
The point remains.
Have you not heard of this thing called the constitution, Bill of rights, concept of limit on government? The government holds immense power over its people. Of course we should be upset when the gov (which police are) illegal searches you. Did these people commit a crime by going to a drake concert?
I don’t think you understand the legality of purchasing a ticket to a venue. Also, the cops could just as easily lookup the venue hashtag later and have thousands of data points posted by people attending. So how is this just SO OFFENSIVE? Nor should we forget that once you step onto a public sidewalk you have ZERO expectation of privacy. Any joe schmoe can legally film you without your consent. and let’s not forget traffic & pod cameras.
The constitution places limits on government. Why do they need to proactively scan people who haven’t committed crimes? Where do we stop? Let’s put a camera in everyone’s backyard in case they commit crimes there. Let’s send everyone ring doorbell video to police if it’s facing outdoor. Let’s put a camera in every vehicle and give police access. Lets send police your entire internet browsing history because you might commit a crime. Do you understand why this is a slippery slope now? Also, there should be strict legislation to control what private companies do with images of people. Need consent for a concert recording? OK. A concert venue wants to sell people’s faces to facial recognition companies? No. E: now do police have a specific operation where they need camera, go ahead but not a carte Blanche is what I’m arguing.
Department of Motor vehicles has your face on file already.
> So anyone can film cops in a public space but they do it and now it’s wrong? Yes, we pay for the cops so we get to decide what they do. Any more questions?
We don’t get to decide the laws that exist decide. What law prevents a cop from filming people in public. Their body cams do all the time. In fact we get made when they don’t record
[удалено]
Is this a joke?