What Law IS Being Broken

[Rufus Stone]

gotoPzero said:

All common sense, decency and respect for oneself seems lost these days.

Until someone films them.

[bigpriest]

oyster said:

Getragdogleg said:

Rufus Stone said:

Someone who no doubt posts loads of videos of herself on the internet is upset someone else has posted a video of her too.

"TikTok influencer" no less.

We’re getting there.

We just need ‘drunk’ and ‘scantily-clad’ and we could claim a prize.

Daily Mail prefers "puts on a busty / leggy display". Standards.

[Condi]

gotoPzero said:

All common sense, decency and respect for oneself seems lost these days.

This is clearly nonsense, there were scantily clad men and women laying around smoking pot during the "summer of love" which was pushing 60 years ago.

In the 1980's and 90's you had the rave scene and the rise of ecstasy as the drug of choice.

There are far fewer young people going out on a Friday and Saturday night today than there were 20 years ago, which is why so many nightclubs have shut.

The biggest difference is you have got old!!

[John145]

Dagnir said:

James6112 said:

Rightly banned.
I’m sure you’d be a bit miffed if your wife/sister/granny were featured?

Do you believe people have the right not to be criticised?

Or the right not to be talked about by others?

Is commentting on other people only allowed if its positive?


I can't understand why anyone would want to Iive in a world like that.

For me this is where discussions down the pub are entirely different to uploads to the internet. Even letters can be forgotten by being easily destroyed. However the internet does not forget.

So imagine any mistake you made that someone managed to capture on perfect 4k video is now there, potentially available for anyone to see for the rest of your life.

I was born in the 80's so thankfully such footage of me in my younger years never got onto the internet, but I despair for kids nowadays. Even their parents are uploading videos of stupid incidents for a few likes, nevermind the weirdly creepy videos we're talking about in this thread.

So yes, feel free to criticise, But I do believe we need much stronger laws to protect people from the immortalisation of the internet... Let people do dumb st, but don't let that weigh you down for the next 60 years of your life because some sad tt recorded it and uploaded to youtube...

[P-Jay]

This is one of those odd issues I'd have never of even thought of until it made the news.

I don't think there are any winners here. Young People want to wear what they want, it leaves little to the imagination, but that's their right, and Young people also want to drink A LOT, it seems it's mostly Women these days who are the big binge drinkers, but mostly that's been the way of things for generations. The end result is a lot of young people stumbling around showing a lot of skin.

Other people, lets call them 'weirdos' want to film them in a public place, dressed as they want to dress doing what they want to do and upload it to the socials for attention.

The only real point of order is 'harassment'. I hate being on camera, but if I'm walking around the town centre and someone is filming, I don't like it, but I can claim I'm being harassed, especially if I don't know it's happening? There's a big difference between being subject to something you dislike and being harassed - or is 'harassed' the next trump word after 'offended'? They've no doubt been captured on dozens of CCTV vids all evening and maybe even gurned manically at the 'club photographer' so they can upload it to the club socials. The only difference seems to be the thing that a lot of the current generation of young people hate more than any previous one, consequences. It's not the way they wanted it to happen.

We have to accept that we may be filmed in a public place doing whatever we're doing at the time, if we don't like the results of that, we can either modify our behaviour, or change the laws on filming in public, but there is no special section for "I specifically don't want to be filmed at this time and location because it doesn't suit me personally".

[Gareth79]

It should be pretty easy for police to track the person should they want to - apparently there was a subscription-only Patreon, the YouTube account is almost certainly accessed from their home address, and CCTV could probably be aligned with dates/times people say they were there to prove that the person they have did it themselves.

However the offences would probably need to be quite generic. It doesn't meet the requirements for harassment legislation since it's not targeting any person in particular. It's not voyeurism since the person has no expectation of privacy (even for the 'nip slips' etc), and I don't think it could fall under public order offences since the people were unaware of anything happening.

Having viewed one, it's quite clear that the videos are filmed covertly though from a GoPro-type camera at chest height. The people seem to be completely unaware they are on camera even when walking past at a close distance.

[J4CKO]

CCTV video largely doesnt ever get viewed, isnt targetted by and large onto specific individuals and it very rarely gets posted in this context to the internet.

Same as dashcams and many other cameras out there, we dont have a reasonable expectation of not being on camera when we leave the house.

But someone actively filming you, specifically to post to the internet with the promise of female flesh on show, thats a whole other level.

Not everyone posts pleasant stuff, the world is full of very bitter, disturbed and unpleasant individuals who like to share their hateful personalities

I think in a lot of cases its a way to get at someone young, female, probably pretty, a bit drunk and wearing revealing clothing, possibly jealous women or men who dont have a hope in hells chance of being involved with these women, so if you cant have something, may as well trash them by making unpleasant comments on weight, looks, clothing etc.

And those filming, ewww, you creepy little toads, just dont, have a little respect for the people you film and yourself, what a way to make a few quid.

Imagine someone spotting you and alerting you to the sexual comments and personal insults ?

[GTO-3R]

I'm a strong advocate for free speech and being able to film in a public place, but for some reason I've always found these videos a bit weird. Seems like it's an excuse for certain blokes to be able to film women in skirts for their own benefit under the veil of "content".

[P-Jay]

GTO-3R said:

I'm a strong advocate for free speech and being able to film in a public place, but for some reason I've always found these videos a bit weird. Seems like it's an excuse for certain blokes to be able to film women in skirts for their own benefit under the veil of "content".

Oh yeah, it's weirdo fuel and I imagine the sort of person who pays a patreon fee to watch it needs help. I bet the INCEL lot love it.

[Condi]

P-Jay said:

he only difference seems to be the thing that a lot of the current generation of young people hate more than any previous one, consequences. It's not the way they wanted it to happen.

It's not that at all, it's more than young people who have been around on the internet since they were 5 are very careful about curating an image online. The photos they post are carefully posed, picked, edited and shared. Someone taking a video of them being drunk and walking down the street isn't something they can control.

That said, the Daily Mail go out every bank holiday and take photos of the same people, in the same places, wearing the same clothes, and without asking for permission either, so it does seem double standards that they are allowed to do it for clicks online, but someone else does it for clicks online and there is an uproar.

There are pages and pages of Daily Mail search results....

[Oliver Hardy]

Condi said:

P-Jay said:

he only difference seems to be the thing that a lot of the current generation of young people hate more than any previous one, consequences. It's not the way they wanted it to happen.

It's not that at all, it's more than young people who have been around on the internet since they were 5 are very careful about curating an image online. The photos they post are carefully posed, picked, edited and shared. Someone taking a video of them being drunk and walking down the street isn't something they can control.

That said, the Daily Mail go out every bank holiday and take photos of the same people, in the same places, wearing the same clothes, and without asking for permission either, so it does seem double standards that they are allowed to do it for clicks online, but someone else does it for clicks online and there is an uproar.

There are pages and pages of Daily Mail search results....

They can refrine from getting drunk.

[bitchstewie]

GTO-3R said:

I'm a strong advocate for free speech and being able to film in a public place, but for some reason I've always found these videos a bit weird. Seems like it's an excuse for certain blokes to be able to film women in skirts for their own benefit under the veil of "content".

Of course it's weird behaviour.

You have to wonder why anyone would try to excuse it tbh.

[simon_harris]

bhstewie said:

GTO-3R said:

I'm a strong advocate for free speech and being able to film in a public place, but for some reason I've always found these videos a bit weird. Seems like it's an excuse for certain blokes to be able to film women in skirts for their own benefit under the veil of "content".

Of course it's weird behaviour.

You have to wonder why anyone would try to excuse it tbh.

The absolute state of it eh Stewie?

[bitchstewie]

Each to their own Simon if you'd be happy someone doing that to your wife or daughter that's upto you.

[Jasandjules]

Seems a little pervy does it not?

[simon_harris]

I think it is an odd thing to get worked up about, don't want to be filmed in that state then don't dress like that and don't get drunk like that.

Seems that it is fine when it is a national media outlet doing the picturing and reporting but not when "George from middlesbrough" is doing it?

Is it not okay when it is a pretty young girl, but is okay when it is a pissed up lad?

from the limited clips I have seen in my instagram feed it is just people (girls mainly) walking about in the city centre dressed as they would be for a night out, I don't see an issue with that. If is is someone trying to sneakily get upskirt or downblouse pictures then that would be creepy and i think already (rightly) illegal.

I know someone who did IT support for a CCTV operator - if you really think no perving is going on from that source you are sorely deluded.

[amusingduck]

John145 said:

For me this is where discussions down the pub are entirely different to uploads to the internet. Even letters can be forgotten by being easily destroyed. However the internet does not forget.

So imagine any mistake you made that someone managed to capture on perfect 4k video is now there, potentially available for anyone to see for the rest of your life.

I was born in the 80's so thankfully such footage of me in my younger years never got onto the internet, but I despair for kids nowadays. Even their parents are uploading videos of stupid incidents for a few likes, nevermind the weirdly creepy videos we're talking about in this thread.

So yes, feel free to criticise, But I do believe we need much stronger laws to protect people from the immortalisation of the internet... Let people do dumb st, but don't let that weigh you down for the next 60 years of your life because some sad tt recorded it and uploaded to youtube...

I don't think this holds true any more, if it ever did. There are 500 hours of video uploaded to youtube every minute. Platforms come and go - where is all the content uploaded to MySpace 15 years ago?

For it to follow you around for decades, you'd have to go seriously viral. Or there would have to be someone proactively ensuring that your 4k cringe video is continually republished as time goes by. The chances of your new neighbour being able to find the video of John145 sharting at the works christmas party 10 years ago are so slim it's not even worth worrying about.

15 years ago I could find anything I'd seen previously on the internet, needing only a few words vaguely associated with the content. Now, you can't find a clip you saw 2 weeks ago.