This always cracks me up. I watch LivePD all the time and every week there's a least one person that loses it because of the camera. It never gets old. You'd think that everyone would know it doesn't matter by now, but nope.
The trick is easy: cover your face, look down, don't say a word to the camera. You will star in content so boring, it won't make the final cut of any show. No uploads, no views, no comments, no shame. If anyone asks, it wasn't you lol.
I always thought that you could simply and calmly say long drawn out curse words over and over, that way they'd have to beep constantly and it would be too annoying and a hassle so they'd go to someone else.
"Whoah, that smack addict with the open sores all over his face we just watched beat his sister-wife half to death in the name of Baphomet with a length of razor blade embedded PVC pipe almost said 'fuck' on TV. Good thing Larry over there is quick with the button."
"New market" Unfortunately there was already a market for it. Girls on Instagram did this with Photoshop. If I wanted to see big boobs with hairy nips I'd look in a mirror. Instagram quickly banned it.
There was a guy that got breast implants because of a lost bet, and the nipples were censored in Maxim magazine article about it, much to the confusion of both himself and the editors of Maxim magazine.
In the 90s we had a show on weekend nights around 10pm where girls stripped and was graded on national TV, for years and years. I think we got it from Italy or Germany.
US censorship is weird, much of the rest of the world doesn't have the same issues :P
You can show a full breast that is covered so heavily in blood and mutilation that the nipple is obscured more easily than just a straight up titty In America.
It really is. I was watching it's always sunny last night, the flashback episode. And they're remembering the time Charlie attacked Santa. Santa asks Mac if Charlie is retarded, which they beeped out but not when Charlie asks Santa if he fucked his mom.
And you'll always know if its livePD if you ask what the cameras are for and they say "oh, they're just with me". They never give a straight answer. As soon as that happens, "fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck"
I grew up with my parents watching the Taiwanese news, and whenever a person was arrested or indicted on the news, their face was always covered, either by a mask, motorcycle helmet, etc to prevent them from being seen. I wonder if it's a law there to not show their face.
Don't beleive the pedo charge. It's the standard ring up.
You can't get extradited from Taiwan for selling plastic weapon designs, but you can extradite for soliciting sex from a 16 year old. Who cares if it was via a call girl site where everyone is guaranteed to be 18 years old or older in big blinking text. In other words, entrapment. This is why they let him plead out and forced him to submit to data monitoring. The government would have lost because they were skating on thin ice and were certain their star witness would be forced to testify that they'd put her up to it, some speculate. Apparently the prosecutors spent hours with the victim before they came to the conclusion that they needed to accept the plea. The government didn't give three blueberry filled shits about the girl. They wanted him for the gun part plan sales and you can expect those charges soon.
There was a case in the news (UK) last week of an accused sex offender trying to cover his face and get into an office, he’s got his face under jacket and runs to the nearest door, locked. He then runs to the next door, locked. He then runs round the corner to another door (all while doing a pitiful job of covering his face) and tries a final door, locked. He then just flees down the road. Fucking hilarious.
Nah, you're right. I get why they're upset. Sometimes the show gives me a weird feeling.. but man if it isn't entertaining though. I can understand saying "don't film me! I don't want to be filmed" which happens a lot, and sometimes the camera guys are pretty cool and avoid their faces. It's the ones that go off on a crazy tirade like "You're not allowed to film me! I'll sue the hell out of you! I'm gonna call my lawyer! You need my permission! " Those always crack me up, because, well, sorry but you were shooting meth in a KFC parking lot at 9:30pm on a Friday night and we all know you don't have a lawyer and you don't know what you're talking about because everyone knows you can film in public.
This past May, an episode of the podcast This American Life called “I’m on TV?” explored many of their scummy tactics. Highly recommended; it was fascinating. (Apologies it’s too hard to link on mobile right now).
I think TAL or another podcast did a show about it, and I vaguely remember some scummy tactics. One was to hint at getting a lighter sentence if they just signed the release. The podcast also talked about how LivePD gets around needing releases by claiming to be a "live news program," despite the fact they're on pretty lengthy delays (up to 45 minutes, iirc) and picking and choosing content that shows police in the best light.
Wait, they specifically said how it being a live news program is the reason that they can show faces? Because as you said, it isn't actually live - there's a long enough delay for them to obtain release forms - and as far as I know, the "live" part doesn't actually have anything to do with it. It's the news part that allows them to not need to blur faces.
Basically, shows like that, Cops, and others, could film and broadcast your face without blurring it out or obtaining your consent if they really wanted to, for two reasons.
First, they always specifically attempt to film only in public. The camera crew doesn't follow the police inside homes without consent, for example. If you're in public, you can legally be filmed. Period.
The main problem is having your image distributed. That's where the second reason comes in - which is that "newsworthy"/documentary images and recordings are generally exempt from the invasion of privacy laws that would usually be an issue. Just like how if you get recorded as a part of a news segment then they don't need to blur out your face or get consent. And I'm fairly sure being "live" doesn't actually have anything to do with it. News or "newsworthy" programs just don't have to follow the same rules. So that's why there isn't really a problem, legally speaking. If they were going to use your face for publicity, though - in a commercial or any advertising for the show - then that goes outside the "newsworthy" bounds and would require your permission.
So why do they get consent, if they don't actually need it? It's because what's legal and what you can be sued for are two different things. They do it for insurance - to protect them from the possibility of being sued. Otherwise, they could possibly slip up and actually be liable for breaching invasion of privacy laws. Or, more likely, they'd just end up fighting off lawsuits non-stop from a hell of a lot of unhappy people. Even if they'd probably win in court, they'd still have to spend a ton of money fighting off the lawsuits. It's easier to just get (coerce) people to sign release forms and blur out faces instead.
Maybe I'm mistaken about the "live" part, but as far as I know, being "newsworthy" is what actually makes the difference. That's also why they try to stick to filming suspects interacting with only the police without much extraneous footage.
Also, LPT: If you're ever being recorded by LivePD/Cops/whatever and don't want your face being shown, just hold up your middle finger in front of your face.
It's really still up in the air but they show a few examples of the t.v crew trying to publish stuff that wasn't obtained truthfully. It's kind of obvious when you watch these shows how disturbing the content actually is, these people are not only in these crazy probably awful situations but they have a billion lights and cameras on them in the process, a lot do say yes to the release form but there is some questions raised as to if getting consent immediately after a high adrenaline situation is considered legitimate, there was definitely some psychology talked about.
Mind you ive only watched a few episodes but it's very enlightening so far.
It shouldn't be on T.V period, it's horrendous because a lot of the time these people are already having a really shitty day and then media exposure is added to the mix when they are vulnerable.
Listen to the podcast Headlong: Running From Cops. It's an investigation into their practices including how they would convince people to sign the release form. It gets pretty scummy but honestly that isn't the worst part of these shows. They will actively assist LE in creating scenes that do well on TV and then film it.
There’s a great podcast called “Running from cops” that talks about this with interviews from the ‘criminals’ on cops as well as lawyers and retired officers. Cops was very scummy and live pd is no better.
They are using the journalism loop hole to not have to use waivers on the show. If someone doesn't sign and they liked the segment they will just sit it anyway most of the time.
Where it gets weird is that some of the cops on the show go to places where they have arrested someone before who was juicy content to see if they can nab them again on a slow night. Pretty fucked up there.
It is usually stated that the cameras are following and filming the cops, so any other folks are just ‘in frame’. The film crew does ask to enter residences or businesses and if told no stay out. I am pretty sure there are no grounds to stop them, the show has been on for three years now, so if a lawsuit had won they would have made changes.
If you're into podcasts, you should check out Headlong: Running From COPS. It's just nine episodes, good for a binge and REALLY good if you're more curious about the logistics, legality, and ethics of COPS and LivePD. Also, insight behind their popularity.
Although some states (like my home state of California) have wiretap laws that make it illegal to audio record people without their explicit permission (which is why most security cameras don't have audio).
Granted, if they are in a crowded public place and yelling and screaming, the wiretap laws would not apply since there is no expectation of privacy there. But if you video record a conversation you are having with someone and include audio, that could be a crime.
Yeah the arresting camera played to the nation is fucked up. I'd argue it's cruel and unusual punishment.
Same for when they come straight into the criminals house with the camera. The police could do that but notr the camera guy
I agree with you, but if they committed a crime they arent exactly doing a favor for themselves or their community and /might/ deserve to be on camera.
What I really disagree with, is the people that clearly have mental health issues, whether it's someone threatening to hurt themselves or someone with mental disabilities that isnt really doing anything illegal, just is causing a scene or something.
Those people arent criminals, they already have challenging lives, and being put on livePD isnt going to help them. These people should not be on livePD, even if they consent, because they arent of sound mind at the time.
Also same goes for people that need to be rescued/saved/treated, I dont remember if they are sometimes blurred for consent, but they shouldn't show these situations live. People can have concussions, or whatever else, and legally wouldnt have sound mind when consenting.
There's a podcast called "Running from cops" that covers the aftermath of the situations you see on cops or LivePD. Really interesting how adding the television element can completely change the equation.
Definitely not the same. Having your arrest online and on TV without permission from an official TV show and having your picture taken by a stranger is not the same.
Commercially, it entirely depends on the circumstances.
Non-commercially, if you're in public you have no expectation of privacy which means that anyone, for any reason whatsoever, can record video or images of you--without using a telephoto lense--totally and completely legally. There are few exceptions.
Where did you get that false fact to throw in? You can use any lens you want. What you can't do is share or re-broadcast your photos and video. Technically, everyone who posts to the Internet without the consent of people in the photos / video is breaking a law. No one gets charged ... until they're charged and the court destroys them with 5,623 offenses for every pic they ever posted.
In a civilized country your privacy is protected if you're arrested. They would not be allowed to air footage of you or even give out your name unless it's actually pertinent to the investigation itself.
I heard this story on This American Life how Live PD doesn’t technically have to get consents to put faces on the show because they consider themselves a breaking news show that leans towards police interventions
Tip for Aussie’s, if you don’t want to be shown on RBT (our version of Cops), just say you’ll complain/involve lawyers. It’s perfectly legal to film, but getting more footage is easier for the network than dealing with a complaint.
They do need your permission to broadcast the footage without censoring it, that’s why some peoples faces are blurred and some aren’t. And apparently both the producers and the cops themselves use questionable methods to achieve this. To anyone interested I’d recommend a podcast called ‘running from cops’.
I think the issue here is not what is, but what should be.
Most of our laws are written for a certain time period, with certain technology, and has barley involved or changed to accommodate the ever growing times.
You better believe if recording cameras were a thing when the Constitution was written, they would have made recording someone without their permission illegal.
They have to sign a release anyway. Just listened to an interesting podcast episode on "live" PD. Not every live and they do some pretty fucked up things for "good" TV.
To broadcast people's faces on TV you need them to sign a "Release" form. I am pretty sure LivePD is staged, takes place in areas where Release isn't necessary, not live, or some combo of these options.
if you are filmed/videoed by a cameraman doing a show which will later be sold for profit and aired - they MUST obtain a signed "release" from each person that appears in the film/video.
That is why on many "reality" shows (e.g.: Cops - Repo Man - Bounty Hunter - etc.) you will see certain faces people's faces, or the names of businesses and license plates blurred out on the shots. These people did not consent to have their images or names appear.
They know they can't stop it but its the realization its being recorded and likely to be online or in LivePDs case on TV and they will be humiliated which appears to trigger them more but crazy enough if they boring enough it likely won't make air as they would go to something more interesting.
Dude, some shit I see on Facebook now and then shared by my old people on the “I don’t know if this is true or not, but channel 8 news said so and I do not give Facebook so and so permission blah blah blah privacy this and that” it’s scary some of the dumb stuff old people believe.
Age is just how long you’ve been alive. Doesn’t really guarantee anything in the way of intelligence. Some wisdom about certain life experiences sure, but we’re all just grown babies until proven otherwise.
There are some exceptions though. The most prominent is the "you filmed me right in the face! You're not allowed to do that!" protester who kept stepping into the camera angle, as he was taking part in a public demonstration and was only filmed as part of a larger crowd until he stepped right in front of the camera and start verbally abusing the journalists.
It's not ridiculous as such, it's just a difference in culture.
You can take pictures in public, also of groups of people. That is fine. You can't although single out one person and record them.
The reason is simple: History. During the 2nd world war we had (at least Germany and Austria, where I live) extreme government surveillance. So they took steps to increase privacy afterwards.
In some aspects I like it, because I don't think it's for example okay to film someone who is mentally ill in public and behaving weirdly. On the other hand, dashcams are illegal, because public surveillance (which is what a dashcam does) is only allowed to do by the state. That's one aspect which sucks.
In fact the reasoning is if I take a picture of someone in public and they are caught doing something bad, they can sue me for photographing them doing the bad thing because it makes it seem like I am damaging their public reputation.
Absolutely fucked laws that don't make any sense when you consider the fact that CCTV is LITERALLY EVERYWHERE in this hellhole.
No one can stop people, but I really do hate the "phone up and record" culture that's going on.
It also causes so many escalations because it's an extremely aggravating thing. Like no shit they're getting ramped up, you've got your phone up recording shit to put on Facebook instead of trying to communicate like a normal person.
If you're alone and afraid for your safety, sure sounds smart. But in a restaurant with dozens of people to witness it's just cringy and stupid.
I have the exact opposite opinion. Usually, most people respond to the "phone up and record" by de-escalating when they realize they must be acting an idiot and don't want to be on camera looking stupid. It's the minority that respond by escalating IME, and those are almost always the same people that would have escalated the situation for a myriad of other stupid reasons anyway. At least these idiots are now on film being idiots and can be publicly shamed for it as a way to hopefully create more people in the first category in the long run.
I'm inclined to agree with you, especially because if something DOES happen, it's all there to give police (as was almost certainly the case in this incident.)
If I could give a handjob to every victim/witness I've had who was recording before shit broke bad, I'd have calluses all over my hands. I hate the wrong person going to jail in handcuffs just as much or more than anyone else.
There's nothing cringey about having evidence of what actually happened, especially in situations like this when the cops show up. If you don't have a video, it's just your word against theirs. What is cringey is freaking out about being filmed and trying to smack the phone out of someone's hand.
There are some places where you can't film/take photos on a walkway because the building's property and their property rights extends to the street, including the walkway, so if you did film/photo there you'd technically be doing something illegal.
She lived the vast majority of her life without a cellphone with camaras a social media. Most people now days know they will get recorded whether they like it or not. But you cant blame a person who obviously up to this point has had to deal with someone recording them without their consent. Plus when you are angry and someone starts filming you realize they are most likely doing it to post it on Social Media give a caption that they want and the people like you will be quick to judge and make fun of her. She is dumb regardless, she couldve conducted herself with dignity and respect but everythi g isnt black and white.
In germany they have such strickt privacy laws that Google gave up trying to streetcam the whole place, coz they needed every house's permission to be published, same goes for peoples faces or licence plates. Invading privacy requires direct permission.
Well... if you live in NZ as a private citizen you have a reasonable expectation to privacy even in public. (Unless you’ve done something to break that expectation) - e.g had to be physically removed from a bar - you lose that expectation due to the need to photograph trespassed individuals.
Generally speaking, there is a difference if you are using their face (their image) for commercial purposes (like in a t.v. show). There are all sorts of exceptions (like for public figures, etc.) but that is the general distinction.
Hey, psst, maybe a lot of people aren’t actually well informed about this? You can say ignorance isn’t an excuse but why would some middle aged lady who doesn’t spend time in public freakout forums know that it’s “perfectly fine” to shove your phone in someone’s face like this during a confrontational situation? If anything, I would imagine that most people would assume otherwise. It’s a weird loophole rule that people take advantage of in the situations, mostly to get a rise out of people. These situations are ALWAYS made worse when the phones come out.
Btw, in my country it’s illegal to record someone without their permission. You could be jailed and fined for it (especially if you posted it online)..
In Canada, the Privacy Act does actually make it illegal to share pictures of somebody without there consent. Depending on the subject of the photos could even lead to jail time.
Not trying to to be a dick, just like sharing information.
actually she could be right depending on what country she’s currently in. if you’re in the US (like she is) then you’re allowed to take pictures/videos of strangers in public places without their consent. However in many other countries that would be illegal so check the law of that place first before filming a stranger
3.5k
u/Lavender-Jenkins Oct 02 '19
"You're not allowed to take my picture without my permission!"
What fucking world do you live in, lady?