I'm mildly surprised the skin barrier break does not cause frequent fluid leakage and inflammation. Also, are his recordings from that incident online somewhere (unedited)?

Not sure about the Louvre, but in case of him filming the Reichstag and you just walking through the frame it's not: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/__23.html

But really, this has as much to do with the case at hand as hypothetical cybereyes. Continuous filming at face level is a clear no-go, period. And I still wonder how people can parrot the claim that a few transdermals make a cyborg without breaking into laughter...

Panoramic views are exempted, yes, as are performances, demonstrations, all kinds of public appearances (though this gets iffy with the IP rights laws) and "art", which has to be determined by courts. I guess Mann could try and default on himself as an artistic project, but he'd need to see this through the courts. And as you say, perpetual face-level filming is not covered by this.


Oh yes. By that reasoning, everyboy who has bridges is a cyborg.

Wow. I have never had the inclination to visit Europe, but these kinds of 'privacy' laws makes me never want to get on a plane across the ocean. In fact, I'm surprised that all cellphones haven't been completely banned in Europe because of this kind of thing. I mean, anyone holding up a smartphone and trying to get a signal or just holding it up and trying to use an app on it could be considered 'filming' something. And that microphone catches conversations while it's out, if you just turn it on. Burn Notice has taught me all about cellphone bugs and just how easy those damn things are to plant. Legal or not, you'll never know what's happening to you half of the time.

And as thinly made as Tanegar's strawman is, getting mad at him or throwing out his idea on a forum where 50% of the political debates can involve dragons and magical theory is quiet honestly moot. No, his discussion has no basis in real life at this time, because cybereyes aren't a thing. That doesn't mean that five, ten, or twenty years down the road they won't be. Trying to find parallels between current culture and laws and what could happen in a 'what-if' setting are the reason cultural philosophy changes over time. Debate and discussion of things that could or could not happen are real things that real people do all the time. And that's what we're doing on this forum. I don't think Tanegar is trying to prove a legal point about this. I think the laws are as ridiculous as he does. But, I agree with Hermit. The laws are the laws. They care not for your opinion, right or wrong. We have a lot of 'wrong' laws in the US. Makes it kind of hard to function sometimes.

Maybe we all need to come back down and give everyone a hug. Or a high-five. Maybe just a high-five.

...as well as basically any other kind of landmark, which for example includes a housefront.

@Crystal: I don't know about you, but I don't keep my cellphone cam on all the time...

Or a bunch of trees. If there is a person in the focus or covering a certain part of the image, though, this changes. There sure have been court decisions about precise measures, too.

And probably a safe guess that a lot of those come from Hamburg (the local court being infamous for strongly prioritizing individual privacy over freedom of press and opinion)


Anyway, a very much related vid I came across today: http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joy...gal-system.html


PS: And it's always fascinating how all those universities built in the 70s look identical...must have been one hell of a contract for the architect...

The early 70's saw a big boom in education spending under Chancellor Willy Brandt as the school system went away from more private schools to larger more open institutions and with it the need to massively expand the actual structures as well.

So yeah it did sort of result in a bit of a cookie cutter look sometimes.

And that's, kind of, my entire point. I've met people that will assume that just because their cellphone is in the air or they can see the camera lens of the phone, they're being photographed or filmed. Which is the problem about having laws like this. They protect the 'victim', not the person with the technology. Which automatically makes everyone with a cellphone or a camera a potential criminal. Law or not, that doesn't sound fair to me.

No, it was just a very conformist time in architecture. Conformist and terrifying.

An addendum on student fees: Since they were calculated illegally in Berlin, I recently filed for and received ~500 Euros in payback on student fees paid too much. It was ~215 per month at that time, and should not have exceeded some 160 euros. Just for a perspective on the dimension of student fees.


Actually, waving a cell around makes for sucky films. Most people can differentiate between a steady-held cell and someone waving for network (also, most cities here have quite reliable network; it's in the countryside where things can get spotty. I've never had less than 3 bars in Berlin proper. So if someone is holding up their hipsterphone in your direction constantly, odds are they're not looking for better reception. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

The problem with not having laws like this are creepshots, peepshots, and internet-based harrasment resulting in suicides. I'll trade that for unhappy hipsters any time of the day. YMMV. And that - the deregulation of a lot of these technologies (cyberware, weapons, surveillance devices) - is a good deal of what makes Shadowrun a modern dystopia, in my eyes.


Why should potential criminals be better protected than victims of crimes? A lot of devices have malicious use punished. Cars, weapons, tools. It's like saying speed limits are horrible because they criminalize everybody with a car.

Only if you also believe that laws against scratching cars criminalize everybody with keys in his pocket.

And I know why the universities from the era look like they do, but it's still fascinating how you can look at inside shots from a random university and immediately think "hmm, looks like mine"...

Yeah, indeed. I immediately recognised the style too. Looks a lot like HS 1 at Organic Chemistry, FU Berlin. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

But you consider it to be fair that the person with said technlogy under your prefered law situation can violate personal rights / feelings by using his/her technology without consent of the 'victim'?

The personal freedom should always end where the freedom of others begins. Individual freedom of recording (and potentially publishing) will always be diametral to other individual desires of not being filmed. Being in 'public' doesn't give either side a stronger position. European / german laws quite obviously prefer an "better safe than sorry" approach with a basic definition that favours the 'victim' and then starts to loosen up depending on situation ... and it works and actually isn't as ridiculous as you claim it to be.

Frankly, under most circumstances noone over here actually will bother if he/she ends up on some random guy's holiday picture. Nor will they demand removal just because they walked into a scene where someone uses his video camera for a similar purpose. But people over here will - rightfully - have issues when being filmed/photographed full face and the person doing so outright refuses to accept their wishes of being left alone. And yes, Google Glass isn't received that well over here either. One of the first (actually not too) 'long term' test has shown, that the majority of people felt highly uncomfortable in the presence of a Glass wearer. Now the question in regards to the lesson of such incidents is: Will we - as society - demand that people give up their personal feelings so that people can film/photograph to their heart's desires or do we continue to demand that people politely ask for consent and then abide to the expressed wishes?

It might seem 'weird' to you, but Google Glass doesn't sound like it's being all that accepted over here either. There's been a number of news stories I've heard of people outright wanting to ban the use of them and forbid people even walking into their stores if they so much as have them on their person. I don't think it's going to do very well, no matter how hip Google tries to make them.

But I'm not trying to argue the point of which is right. I'm saying that, given a one-on-one basis, both arguments have merit. Certainly, a lot of European countries that I've heard of (I'm no expert by any means) have been taking the "better safe then sorry" approach to dealing with these kinds of things. I'm not faulting them for it. I'm just saying that it's not my cup of soycaf. Both freedoms should be respected. I don't claim that the kind of situation I've described would happen all the time. Nor do I think every European is walking around, eyes darting to and from cell phones and cameras to see if they're being video recorded. I'm saying that making a precedent and sticking to it is what causes outbursts like what the article describes.

I mean, in some people's eyes, owning and carrying a gun around with them is a precedent that you're going to commit a crime. Why is it that Europe doesn't think very highly of the right to carry firearms? I know that's a thing. And the US has been battling this for a long time. There are loads of people here and in other countries that think gun = criminal.

I don't make the opinions, I just point them and their flaws out.

Actually that doesn't sound weird to me at all, since I can't make myself see americans as truely being as obnoxious about their personal feelings as conventional clichés would certainly allow me to.



Yet you initially claimed ridiculousness on "our" side of the fence and that's what's rubbing it wrong for us ... just as the OP's assertion of the incident being an indication of "bigotery" or trying to make it look as if this story was about a "cyborg" being socially shunned.



Interestingly enough it "your" law system that is rather fond of using precedent due its "Common Law" basis, wheras "we" tend to favour or codized laws that stem from "Civil Law".



Not so much because of the fear/precedent that any person carrying a gun is actually a criminal by virtue, but rather because of the fears concering the escaltion when tensions arise and the resulting (colateral) damage.

I have the ability to think something is ridiculous. Unless it's a law for me to not have an opinion. And, last I checked, I don't live in North Korea. Trust me, I hear enough from Europeans to the point that some won't talk to me on the principal of being an American, regardless of how I conduct myself. I never claimed that all Europeans are X or Y. I simply said that the sentiment that I got from everything that's been discussed makes those laws seem ridiculous. You have every right to think our laws are ridiculous as well. Yay, free will.



I'm sorry...did I specifically mention your legal system and leave the United States out of it? I don't believe I did. Our legal system is riddled with holes, so I usually don't place them in that high of regard anyways.



Again, not an expert. Though, that kind of thing can be helped by better training with firearm safety. Though, that's getting into another debate that I think will blow out of proportion, so I'm going to leave that alone.

Ill never get what people hang-up is on being filmed or photoed in public.

But i would really like to see somewide statistic on how many of those people vehemently protesting about their privacy also read gossip magazines with tons of paparazzi photos.

Probably close to the number of articles in magazines about how it is okay to be yourself right across from pictures of the wafer thin models. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

And it's my right to view that expressed opinion as being inconstistant. Because in a later statement you actually acknowledged that both systems have their merits. From a logical standpoint shouldn't "ridiculousness" and "merit" exclude one from another?



No, but you obviously didn't quite catch what I was refering to: You explicitly stated that "our" way has the tendancy of creating "precedence" and then "sticking to it". I find that again slightly amusing because of the differences in how we usually implement our respective laws. I'm not saying that "our" system doesn't have it holes or gets my highest regards either. I t just strikes me as odd that you'd assume "precedence" as being of that much importance when it it comes to how we deal with legal stuff. And we're talking a legal situation here, aren't we?




I certainly wasn't going to start a debate about gun control, since that would violate this board's ToS. I merely tried to answer your question by provding an explaination that cannot be reduced the the train of thought where "gun = criminal".

To each their own I guess ...



Looking at the sold numbers of magazines: More than enough ... They will however make claims about the paparazzi photos being shot of persons of (public) interest. They'll even claim that the people in question have willingly engaged a profession or social status where they have to endure such treatment. And at that point I'll more than happily concede to the situation being "ridiculous". But then I see that a certain american actress just recently demanded a similar jurisdiction to be implemented in the US for persons of public interest. Would that be "ridiculous" as well? I can't tell for sure ...

Let me try to be as clear and concise as I can be without saying too much, since I can't seem to get more then a sentence out before someone chews up my words and doesn't actually read what I'm trying to say.

The laws that have been expressed and discussed, about what is considered an invasion of privacy, are, to me, ridiculous. No matter where those laws are and how they got there, the adherence to those laws that have been demonstrated here seem (again, to me) to be over the top and blown out of proportion. In no way am I making any nationality or government better then another.

I'm not a dumb person and I'd rather not be treated like one.

unless you've invented a machine that can read minds with 100% accuracy, it is extremely difficult to prove intent when charging someone with a crime. oh, you can *speculate* what a person's intent is, but proof? not bloody likely. unless they were dumb enough to write down somewhere what their intent was, and you are able to find it.

as such, you can either make it illegal to record someone without their permission, or especially when it is explicitly against their will, or you cannot really charge stalkers with anything until they actually act in some way to harm someone else. given a choice between respecting the above-average need for privacy of some people or allowing stalkers to commit serious invasions of privacy with little to no recourse, well, i'm inclined to think that by far the better decision is to provide more protection of privacy, not less.

furthermore, why is it silly to give people the right to decide whether they want to be on camera? what seems silly to me is thinking that because you have purchased a camera from some random third party, who has absolutely no right to make decisions on behalf of the people you wish to film or take pictures of, the person who gets to decide whether others want to be on camera is you. how does it end up with you gaining rights to decide on behalf of someone else? if i buy a chair, and you don't want to sit in it, do i have the right to make you sit in that chair? in fact, let's make this a general case: if i buy something, do i have the right to decide whether it is used on you?

i can understand from the perspective of not thinking it's a big deal in relation to cameras. most of the time, it isn't, and most of the time, i don't care if you take a picture and i'm in the background or something like that, personally (i'm sure there are theoretically times i would care, but i'm trying to avoid ridiculous corner cases). but, with that said, if it matters to someone, then quite frankly... it's absurd to claim that buying a camera somehow entitles you to take their picture or film them against their will.

it may or may be a bit ridiculous how protective of their privacy some people are (some people do have legitimate reasons). however, to suggest that you get to use your property on them in ways that they don't want is by far more ridiculous. unless of course you do actually support their right to bash your skull in with a tire iron, in which case i suppose you at least have a consistent opinion, albeit one which i personally don't share.

And I'm not saying that it's good or bad, one way or another. Nor am I saying that someone with a camera is 'within their right' to take someone's picture without their consent and do with it what they will. I am saying that the grounds that people are taking about the freedom of privacy seem to be a bit extreme for the given scenario we have from the OP. I see no reason why physical confrontation should have happened in this instance, nor do I see reason for the suspected fury and anger of those around him. Ask him to leave. If he won't, you call the police and charge him with things. If he himself got violent, then you have a right to defend yourself or, in the case of a business, your customers. End of story.

I'm just glad that Microwaves and Pacemakers have finally found peace.

Dad loves his Cybernetic Defibrillator. Even if it has yet to go off. He doesn't even miss duck hunting.

That is the one point of real life cyber-tech we could probably use for physical enhancements.
A cybernetic Defibrillator that you can set to a pace you like within specified limits so as not to be dangerous.
So you want to calm down after a stressfull situation, you set your heart down to rest-speed.
You need a push of energy, you set it to straining physical workout levels.