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.

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.

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.

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.

fair enough. the violence seems like it was unwarranted. i don't think anyone is suggesting that a person having a camera entitles them to physically assault that person, either.

the guy should have either turned the camera off or left. he chose to have a camera permanently attached to himself, he should accept that there will be drawbacks inherent to that choice.

Hopefully future builds will include something like a lens cover.




-k

They will but you have to be online for it to close.

Wow. This is one hell of a debate over something I saw a while ago.

The guy in the article isn't really a cyborg. There's no real man/machine interface, he's just chosen to have the thing semi-permanently affixed to his face. Still, he's trying to test the waters, pave the way, and that's interesting.

As regards the folks who physically assaulted him: they should all be criminally charged for violence bestowed upon him. To quote the chief court justice, "My right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins," and they went considerably past the tip of the nose. Also for criminal destruction of property, for destroying a medical notice he kept upon his person for valid reasons (to inform asinine hamhanded assjacks like them that the glasses were, in fact, physically attached to his head,) and criminal damage to property (the damage they inflicted on his butt-ugly glasses rig.)

As far as I'm concerned about the doc wearing them, though, he's a bit of an assjack (if someone connected to the store tells you to take those and leave, you should, even if you don't have a legal obligation to do so,) but he really didn't do anything wrong.

As regards a person's expectation of privacy in public, I have to say that Hermit is espousing a position that I, frankly, find ridiculous and overbearing. You have the right to optical privacy inside of a building or other space which you have control over, inasmuch as you care to physically enforce that right. To my way of mind, if a person in public not engaged in any criminal activity can walk by and observe something with their own, organic eyeballs, then you have no right to complain if it gets recorded for all time by mishap or chance encounter. So if you happen to be doing stretches in the nude in front of an unshielded bay window at ground level, someone could walk by and observe it with their eyes, and now they have seen you in the nude and you have no right to complain. If they happened to be filming something unrelated (say, their friend they were walking beside,) and the camera focused on you, or they were wearing google glasses or had high-rating cybereyes installed, too bad. Draw the shades in the future.

Now, on the other hand, what they do with that picture may be criminal. Posting a picture of you nude to the internet, would and probably should remain a criminal infraction of some nature. Posting a picture of you eating at a restaurant, not so much; the difference being the content of the image. Actually stalking you with intent to surveil you for whatever reasons would remain illegal, and should, but it is the stalking itself which should be illegal, not the equipment with which they do so. Sticking a camera over the top or under the bottom of a bathroom stall should also remain extremely illegal, as should attempting to film you in any space over which you expect to have some measure of control or privacy, such as a hotel room or the changing rooms in a clothing store. Going out of your way to film someone who has asked you to stop should remain criminal, but in terms of public spaces (meaning basically anywhere that isn't your home, hotel room, or other space one reasonably expects privacy,) the onus should be on the person who does not wish to film to be moved, not on the person doing the filming to cease filming whatever it was that the camera-shy person inadvertently stumbled into frame.

So if you're at a museum and someone is recording their time at the museum (or at a restaurant or whatever,) and you don't like that, the onus should be on you to either depart or take care to stay out of frame, not to harass and compel the person who is creating permanent memories to cease.


As far as Shadowrun goes... Nobody has any expectation of privacy anymore. Camera drones the size of a bug. Cybereyes in better than half the skulls you see. You have no expectation of privacy, if you succeed in having any then you have done so at considerable effort and congratulations are in order, much like today one has no expectation of wealth and if they succeed in having it.

I always practise my exorcisms fully clothed.


Actually, he would be legally obliged to do to, or could be removed with appropriate force if necessary, under French law.

For the other stuff, I'm afraid you missed replies to the points you raise there further up. Well, one clarification:


If someone is filming a panoramic view, he has the perfect right to. If I pass by a tourist filming, even close by enough that it arguably WOULD infringe on my self-copyright and privacy, I probably wouldn't (also, I usually take care to not step into tourists' way because that is just damn impolite), but if someone actively films or photographs me, we have a problem, and I will ask the photos to be deleted unless I was asked and granted permission first. Like it or not, Americans, this is the law here.

Something something glass houses, something something.

It's spelled "Practice," by the way. And I realized I horribly mangled the spelling and corrected it, thank you.



I don't give a good goddamn about French law, since I used that post to explicitly point out the ways in which I feel the French laws on the matter are ridiculous, and am not, in fact, French, nor subject to French laws on the matter.



Yes, because we really care enough to photograph you. I'm not sure what that implicit assumption implies about your way of thinking. Perhaps you're excessively attractive and feel self-conscious about it.

I thought I made it clear enough in my post that I didn't give a damn about the laws of whatever country you hold to in the last post, and that what I was espousing was my general belief on the topic. Allow me to clarify.

I, ShadowDragon8685, do not give so much as half a damn about the laws of the land to which any other poster here, specifically including you, Hermit, but not excluding others, are beholden, inasmuch as it applies to my previous post and only to my previous post's stated views on the topic of the expectations of privacy (and in those places where I feel you have no reasonable expectation of privacy and it is my belief that any expectation of having privacy in such places is, in fact, unreasonable,) because my previous post was espousing my views about the way the matter should be, and I do not subscribe to any other. I would obey the laws of such a land, were I to find myself in such a land, but only under duress of the fear having those laws enforced against me, and in nothing but complete and utter contempt for the overly-paranoid, harsh manner in which they are written.

It is my belief that if you are willing to place yourself in a place in which you may be seen by the eyeballs of other human beings going about their business, you forfeit any right to object if that same sight is recorded on digital or other media. If you find yourself in a place where it would be unacceptable for another human being to behold you with their naked eyeballs (such as the interior of your own home, inasmuch as you take care to prevent yourself from being seen from the sidewalk outside, or in a publicly-accessible restroom stall or clothier's changing room,) then you have a right to object to being photographed, but not because your image has been recorded (though that is an aggravating factor,) but because you have been spied upon in a place where you have a reasonable expectation of being free from casual surveillance.

If you find someone's gaze or photography in a public place unacceptable, the onus is on you to move. If they proceed to tail you, then they have crossed the line into stalking, and you should have the right to have them detained by law enforcement, their images deleted, etcetera.

Actually her spelling is also correct. In the UK and many other English speaking regions (including but not limited to Canada and Australia) “practice” is the noun, “practise” the verb. In the states we tend to use practice for both noun and verb.

Once again showing how the English language overall is just way too confusing some days.

Course it still beats ancient Egyptian I imagine.

Imagine arguing over *symbol of crane with one leg raised* vs. *cat headed women holding an urn*

Doesn't someone have it in their sig about how English is the language that has been known to chase other languages down dark alleyways to bludgeon them and rifle their vocabulary? Hrm.

Still, as I said, I realized my error and corrected it. Before she replied, no less.

Bah, the only way to do it properly is Skyclad!

Hrm. I wonder if there's a magical tradition that has a geasa of "you must be buck nekked to cast magic."

Can a geasa only apply to ritual spellcasting?

You didn't realise I usually use British English spelling, though. Also I can be inconsistent there, I'll give you that.


The incident in the article happened in France, where American laws are not applicable. Nobody is talking about you here, except yourself.


Some form of Tantrism probably.

The Secret Society of Sorority Sorceress' probably


Normally it has to apply to all your magics or you would have people loading up geasa for one particular spellcasting without really limiting their other magics.

That said, nothing says you couldn't take a Limited spell option for the ritual spell in question and use two tasselled pasties for the fetishes to be worn while otherwise nekkid.

What happens in Las Magus stays in Las Magus.

"Realize."



How many times do I have to iterate and re-iterate exactly how little of a fuck I give about the laws of the land of France? If I gave less fucks, I would be giving negative fucks, which would mean I would be getting fucks on the topic.

I do not care about the laws of France on this topic because I consider them to be as wrongheaded and stupid as laws that state that women are forbidden from speaking with men or showing their faces in public. I think that they are as extreme, and extremely wrong-headed, as wrong-headed as if it were perfectly legal to install spycams in public toilets. Like, literally inside the toilet.

I do not care what the laws of France have to say on the topic, nor the laws of Germany, or the United Kingdom, or those of Italy, Greece, Canada, the United States, the Holy See, Australia, China, Japan, or freaking Zimbabwe. That the generally-espoused laws of the United States on the topic happen to line up more or less with my views on the topic is a pleasant coincidence for me. I am not saying that the laws of the United States should be enforced elsewhere, I am saying that the views I hold on the topic, which coincidentally are shared by the United States, are the only reasonable views to hold on the topic, and every sane country in the world ought to implement them because they came to the conclusion that if you're anywhere someone who is not going out of their way to surveilate you can see you with their eyeballs, you have no right to complain that they see you with a lens.

Because obviously everyone who doesn't agree with you has to be American

Actually they already do, it's called Reality Shows

Or seems like it somedays.

Because the impolite, vocal ones have all been.


I got that the first time. You are not going to convince me you are right. You made your point. Leave it at that. All the profanity only makes you look like an idiot.


Which, of course, is respectful and not at all condescending to say.

Generally the rule of law in the U.S. is, if you can see it from the sidewalk (i.e., public property), you can photograph it, and in most cases, you can publish it. Nudie pics you catch from the sidewalk will probably depend on your state's pornography and slander laws. There is some debate of how much privacy you can expect if you're in your house with the curtains open, so it'll just vary by state.

HOWEVER, if you are in an establishment, which includes a house, a restaurant, a taxi, an airplane, a YMCA, a government office, etc., you follow the rules set by the owner of that establishment. If I own a restaurant, I can require you to wear shirt and shoes, I can require you NOT wear shirt and shoes, I can require no cameras, whatever. The exception here would be if it is medically necessary as covered under the ADA. So most restaurants must provide a wheelchair ramp or provide justification as to why they can't. However, camera glasses are not recognized as a medical device, and they were not medically required for the individual in the story, so it doesn't apply here (as much as he wishes it did). I've worked in locations which banned all cameras, including cell phones. It's quite legal, although not so practical. The fact that all my customers are doing is eating sandwiches has no relevance. All that is relevant is that it's my restaurant, and I said no damn cameras. If that case above were in the US, the manager would have been in his right to arrest the fellow for trespassing. (Still not right for the staff to break his stuff, of course.)

I do expect that people will learn how to turn things like Google Glass into a medical device, and I'm guessing it will be on The List of approved medical devices soon. The people who make that list don't normally talk with anyone outside of their community. It'll need to go to court; hopefully in a case like NSA v. Bob the Blind Fellow, so the government can establish stringent requirements on medically necessary cameras. But until then, American law hasn't really dealt with that issue.

There is also an exception to that first rule, above. Somehow (of course) government believes it's exempt from its own laws, so some buildings CANNOT be photographed from the sidewalk, and they will take your camera and break it if you do that. If that fellow walks by those buildings, he'll probably be arrested. I expect in SR, this will extend to some megacorp buildings. I don't know how they'd deal with it though when 2% of the population has cybereyes, and they can't be easily detected. Probably just selective enforcement.

Excepting those parts which are specifically attributed elsewhere, these are all US laws, and fully applicable to you, Shadowdragon.

And since it is entirely out of your hands what others do with an image once it has been taken, the barrier is set at taking images...

Well with the megacorps polarized mirrored windows are pretty much standard so even if you walked by Ares Regional Office in D.C. you wouldn't be able to see anything anyway so the passerby issue is probably moot. If the guy is standing there staring at said windows they might check him out assuming he is trying to astral perceive or use some other vision range/xray device/other...

But the things about building exteriors that the occupants don't want photographed are generally on the outside of the building, so polarizing the windows tends not to matter. They're looking to stop people from photographing card reader locations, tendancies to allow shoulder surfing, camera blind spots, crash barricade spacing and locations, and other assorted security measures. The FBI doesn't care if you take a picture of Janice behind the reception desk, unless you happen to take enough video to notice that she puts on her headphones and zones out for fifteen minutes, every morning at 1015.

The funny thing about that is, because of Extraterritoriality, the megacorp has no enforcement jurisdiction if you're taking video, images, photos, reconnaissance, whatever, of their property from a place which is not-their-property. So they actually don't have any legal recourse against it, the laws of the nation they bought their slice of their-sovereignty from apply. (Unless that slice of not-their-property is a different extraterritoriality, of course.)

Naturally, they'll just send legbreakers to enforce their requirements for privacy instead.



Was I somehow nonspecific when I stated above that "I do not care about the laws of ... the United States ..." in my previous post? No, really, I would like to know, was that somehow not specific enough for you? Did I need to append "of America" to get the point across, or should I have also appended "that one sandwiched between Canada and Mexico, bordering both Atlantic and Pacific oceans?" I am not talking about the law of the land, or any land, but of how things ought to be.



Nope, sorry.

"Because someone might take a picture which is not criminal but then do something criminal with it" is the same as criminalizing keys jangling in a person's pocket because he might scratch up cars with them.

When and if someone does something which is criminal with the picture he's taken, then you have a case to take him to court and have him stretched over a barrel. Not before, and you certainly don't have the right to make him stop whatever he's doing. You do have the right to depart (if you're in public) or enhance your private space's ocular security (drawing the shades), of course. If he persists (following you in public; moving around your house to get more pics,) then he's being a stalker and you can (and should!) bring the full weight of the local law down upon his head. But not before.

And no, you should not have any right to demand he delete his images.

Actually, isn't that one one of the sample Condition geasa IN Street Magic? I could be misremembering, it's been a while!

Yes you can use going nekkid as a condition geasa.

It was the followup question about using that JUST for ritual that we pointed out that geasa affect all of your magics, so either cast all the time in the buff or break the geas.

Still could prove to be a useful distraction.

'So let me get this straight, you two mooks were on guard duty when 6 attractive co-eds approached our eastern check point right by the R&D department, proceeded to undress and in your words 'cavort about'. Somewhere during all this cavorting you found yourselves in a similar state of undress but with only 4 of the young 'ladies'. And that was right before the ... hold on.. what was the phrase.. ah yes.. the 'moving mountain' crashed out through the wall of the facility being ridden by the two missing girls AND the prototype? And at no point during this entire fiasco did it occur to you to call this in or... oh... you were GOING to but you found yourself strapped to the gate just out of reach of your clothes and comm. <remainder of interview terminated as were the two security personnel... footage was lifted from the guards cybercam and is currently being 'reviewed' by the Head of Security, VP Johnson and a number of senior execs>

If it's good enough for Naruto....

Extraterritoriality does not presume they have no other protections. I suspect if you wandered around DC filming the British embassy, you'd find yourself in hot water even though they aren't a U.S. government building, and they rely on extraterritoriality.



This may come as a mild shock to you, but I don't take notes on every thing you say in every post. You said several times that you're not in France and you don't care what the laws of France are, and I was responding to that.




You mean like the laws limiting your and my ability to wander around in public with a firearm, or to own machine guns, etc., due to the possibility that we MIGHT cause harm with them?

I'll agree with you that your view on things is certainly the ideal, but it's not very useful for determining what the actual laws are, or what would be the smartest way to operate under those laws.

Nekkedness is often the best distraction.



Poor bastards. Bwahahahaaaaaaah!



Yes, but Embassies are rather a rare and unique deal these days. In Shadowrun, every Weapons World, DocWagon clinic, and probably Stuffer Shack is Extraterritorial (okay, maybe not the Stuffer Shacks,) so they simply cannot rate the same level of host-country protection. Also, an embassy can be rejected by ordering the personnel there to depart, whereas in Shadowrun, the UCAS can't just say "we're tired of you guys stinking up our soil and then running back to your storefront and shouting "Base," so get lost."

I don't imagine that the same rules apply.



Funnily enough, if you only skim what someone says and then respond to them bitingly, you may find yourself looking a mite foolish when it turns out that they did, in fact, cover your exact point earlier.




Nice strawman there. First of, those laws are not universal. There are states where you need literally no permit whatsoever to walk around with a firearm about your person, and in most others you may still receive license to so do. Secondly, a camera is not a weapon in the sense that it causes immediate physical harm.