Do people in public have a right to video record you when you are in public?

[MeganC]

Been seeing a lot of controversy about this topic lately. Lots of video online with people losing their minds because someone is taking pictures or making video. Just wondering where this group see this issue. 

[berdie]

You left  out one option. If a person is acting like an idiot...

[Cyber Liberty]

I voted "Yes" because one has no expectation of privacy in a public space.

[libertybele]

Yes they can record a video of you in public. Specifically, public places, not areas considered private, like bathrooms and dressing rooms.  I'm not sure what a hospital room would be considered?

[Smokin Joe]

Yes they can record a video of you in public. Specifically, public places, not areas considered private, like bathrooms and dressing rooms.  I'm not sure what a hospital room would be considered?

I would think your presence in a hospital room would be covered under HIPAA and that regardless, video in which you can be identified, short of committing a criminal act, would require your signed release to use commercially (yeah, another gray area).

[MeganC]

I would think your presence in a hospital room would be covered under HIPAA and that regardless, video in which you can be identified, short of committing a criminal act, would require your signed release to use commercially (yeah, another gray area).

HIPAA specifically covers healthcare providers who generate healthcare information. Anyone else is not obliged to obey this law. Photographers, Videographers, And other members of the press are not covered by HIPAA.

Meaning that if a photographer is in a public place where they can see a hospital, they can take all the pictures they want of people coming and going from that hospital. Photographers can also take pictures of people with injuries in public like at the scene of an automobile accident.

In areas of a hospital where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy , then no, a photographer cannot take pictures without permission or consent.

[MeganC]

It does my heart good to see a unanimous understanding of the First Amendment.

 

[roamer_1]

I wonder how anything less could be enforced... Especially with pin sized button cams, sunglass cams, forward facing auto cams, drones of all shapes and sizes...

[Sighlass]

I have no problem with filming from a distance, get in my bubble of reasonable private space, then I would rightfully become confrontational. Leftist tend to get within inches of your face and beat drums, loud speakers, or scream obscenities.

Honestly, I would like a photographer to keep at least 20 feet away from me and not follow me around taking numerous pictures.

Not a big fan of government using facial recognition cameras.

[Free Vulcan]

The problem is what people think is 'public' is really private property, like a store, theater, gym, auto dealer, amusement park etc.

You might get away with it, or they may let you, but you have no 'right' to do so under the law.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I cannot recall the verdict of the lawsuit Streisand and others had regarding a drone flying near their residences in Malibu and filming their backyard activities.

The drone was over the ocean as I remember.

[MeganC]

I cannot recall the verdict of the lawsuit Streisand and others had regarding a drone flying near their residences in Malibu and filming their backyard activities.

The drone was over the ocean as I remember.

Streisand lost badly. Not only did she end up birthing the term "Streisand Effect" she also ended up paying out a ton of fine for all of the illegal construction she was doing and for having storm drains emptying direct into the ocean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

The Streisand effect describes a situation where an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information results in the unintended consequence of the effort instead increasing public awareness of the information.

[MeganC]

I have no problem with filming from a distance, get in my bubble of reasonable private space, then I would rightfully become confrontational. Leftist tend to get within inches of your face and beat drums, loud speakers, or scream obscenities.

Honestly, I would like a photographer to keep at least 20 feet away from me and not follow me around taking numerous pictures.

Not a big fan of government using facial recognition cameras.

I can appreciate your views. Especially about someone keeping a polite distance.

However, no end of photographers and videographers have had people and police storm up to them and then demand that they get the camera "out of my face" when in fact they were the ones who approached the camera.

Lawsuits are made of such actions.

Curious, if the camera isn't immediately visible or is hidden would you care so much or is it simply being aware of having your image taken the real issue?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yes but harassment is also a thing.

[MeganC]

Yes but harassment is also a thing.

If someone is silently recording you do you consider that to be harassment?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

If someone is silently recording you do you consider that to be harassment?

Not unless they're following you around all day.

[MeganC]

Not unless they're following you around all day.

That would be stalking. Totally different from someone doing video in a place you might visit.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

That would be stalking. Totally different from someone doing video in a place you might visit.

  Maybe, but also harassment in my view.

[libertybele]

If someone is silently recording you do you consider that to be harassment?

Invasion of privacy.

[Sighlass]

I can appreciate your views. Especially about someone keeping a polite distance.

However, no end of photographers and videographers have had people and police storm up to them and then demand that they get the camera "out of my face" when in fact they were the ones who approached the camera.

Lawsuits are made of such actions.

Curious, if the camera isn't immediately visible or is hidden would you care so much or is it simply being aware of having your image taken the real issue?

There is a reason we don't all use our real image/full-name on TBR (well except a few)... no I don't want some hidden face recognition photo/video tied to my real name and put on the internet.

[MeganC]

Invasion of privacy.

How do you deal with the security cameras that are everywhere these days?

[MeganC]

There is a reason we don't all use our real image/full-name on TBR (well except a few)... no I don't want some hidden face recognition photo/video tied to my real name and put on the internet.

I outed one of the frauds on FR who is still using someone else's photos. Facial recognition led me to the real person.

[Cyber Liberty]

I outed one of the frauds on FR who is still using someone else's photos. Facial recognition led me to the real person.

So you invaded somebody's privacy?

[Hoodat]

Invasion of privacy.

Privacy in public?

[MeganC]

So you invaded somebody's privacy?

Not at all. I have no idea who the person Russian troll is who was misusing the pictures. I only know who the real person is and I tried to notify her of the identity theft going on. Unfortunately the real person is apparently deceased.

Also, if you post pictures in public then they are in public and there cannot be any expectation of privacy especially in a time when free facial recognition tools are ubiquitous.

[MeganC]

There is a reason we don't all use our real image/full-name on TBR (well except a few)... no I don't want some hidden face recognition photo/video tied to my real name and put on the internet.

I agree. That's why I use an anime version of a real picture for my avatar. It's me but it also isn't. 

[rmc51]

If it was illegal, James O'Keefe American investigative journalist, filmmaker, and political activist would have been in jail a long time ago. If they could stop him they would have,
https://okeefemediagroup.com/

Quote:
WHAT IS O’KEEFE MEDIA GROUP?

CORRUPTION THRIVES IN THE DARK. WE MAKE SURE IT DOESN’T.

The truth has power—when it's exposed, it changes everything. We’re building a movement of citizen journalists who won’t stay silent in the face of corruption. Together we:

Uncover deception.
Hold the powerful accountable.
Shine a light where others want darkness.
For over a decade, James O’Keefe exposed corruption where no one else would, breaking stories the powerful wanted buried. Now, he’s building something even bigger: a movement of citizen journalists who will take truth into their own hands—and you can be a part of it.

Corruption thrives in the dark. The government, the media, and powerful industries all have secrets they don’t want you to know…. And they’ll silence anyone who dares to challenge them. If we don’t have citizen journalists exposing the truth, their lies will shape our world unchecked.

That’s why we train and equip fearless citizen journalists and expose corruption in real-time.

We don’t just report the news. We uncover the truth that the powerful want hidden.

The truth only wins if people like you take action. Help expose corruption, fund fearless journalism, and be part of the movement that refuses to stay silent.




 
Be careful, Be ready, Be prepared.
Buy ammo

[MeganC]

 

[rmc51]

 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I agree. That's why I use an anime version of a real picture for my avatar. It's me but it also isn't. 

Same.

[rmc51]

What are They Hiding? — Radical California Democrats Pass ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ to Criminalize Investigative Journalism and Shield Massive Immigrant Services Fraud from Scrutiny
By Jim Hᴏft Apr. 14, 2026 7:15 am
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/04/what-are-they-hiding-radical-california-democrats-pass/

Quote:
The radical Left in Sacramento has finally done it.

In a move straight out of a totalitarian playbook, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 11-2 on Monday to advance AB 2624, the so-called “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” a disgusting Democrat power grab designed to make it illegal for brave citizen journalists like Nick Shirley to expose the rampant fraud bleeding American taxpayers dry in immigrant service centers.

This is nothing less than an all-out assault on the First Amendment by the radical left in the People’s Republic of California.


The bill, authored by far-left Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (wife of Attorney General Rob Bonta), would slap investigative reporters with massive civil sanctions starting at $4,000 minimum if a fraudster from one of these “immigrant service centers” decides they don’t want to be caught on camera committing their scams.

The crook can then run to court for an injunction banning the journalist from filming or exposing them on camera for up to four years.

And if the journalist refuses to take down the original video? Triple the damages, $12,000, just for telling the truth!

In the worst cases, if the journalist is accused of “doxxing” or creating an “imminent threat” by simply reporting the facts, they could face criminal charges and $10,000 fines...



This is exactly what a communist country does to hide.



 
Be careful, Be ready, Be prepared.
Buy ammo

[Cyber Liberty]

What are They Hiding? — Radical California Democrats Pass ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ to Criminalize Investigative Journalism and Shield Massive Immigrant Services Fraud from Scrutiny
By Jim Hᴏft Apr. 14, 2026 7:15 am
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/04/what-are-they-hiding-radical-california-democrats-pass/

Quote:
The radical Left in Sacramento has finally done it.

In a move straight out of a totalitarian playbook, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 11-2 on Monday to advance AB 2624, the so-called “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” a disgusting Democrat power grab designed to make it illegal for brave citizen journalists like Nick Shirley to expose the rampant fraud bleeding American taxpayers dry in immigrant service centers.

This is nothing less than an all-out assault on the First Amendment by the radical left in the People’s Republic of California.


The bill, authored by far-left Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (wife of Attorney General Rob Bonta), would slap investigative reporters with massive civil sanctions starting at $4,000 minimum if a fraudster from one of these “immigrant service centers” decides they don’t want to be caught on camera committing their scams.

The crook can then run to court for an injunction banning the journalist from filming or exposing them on camera for up to four years.

And if the journalist refuses to take down the original video? Triple the damages, $12,000, just for telling the truth!

In the worst cases, if the journalist is accused of “doxxing” or creating an “imminent threat” by simply reporting the facts, they could face criminal charges and $10,000 fines...



This is exactly what a communist country does to hide.



 
Be careful, Be ready, Be prepared.
Buy ammo

That looks like a pretty clear violation of the 1st Amendment!

[MeganC]

What are They Hiding? — Radical California Democrats Pass ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ to Criminalize Investigative Journalism and Shield Massive Immigrant Services Fraud from Scrutiny
By Jim Hᴏft Apr. 14, 2026 7:15 am
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/04/what-are-they-hiding-radical-california-democrats-pass/

Quote:
The radical Left in Sacramento has finally done it.

In a move straight out of a totalitarian playbook, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 11-2 on Monday to advance AB 2624, the so-called “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” a disgusting Democrat power grab designed to make it illegal for brave citizen journalists like Nick Shirley to expose the rampant fraud bleeding American taxpayers dry in immigrant service centers.

This is nothing less than an all-out assault on the First Amendment by the radical left in the People’s Republic of California.


The bill, authored by far-left Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (wife of Attorney General Rob Bonta), would slap investigative reporters with massive civil sanctions starting at $4,000 minimum if a fraudster from one of these “immigrant service centers” decides they don’t want to be caught on camera committing their scams.

The crook can then run to court for an injunction banning the journalist from filming or exposing them on camera for up to four years.

And if the journalist refuses to take down the original video? Triple the damages, $12,000, just for telling the truth!

In the worst cases, if the journalist is accused of “doxxing” or creating an “imminent threat” by simply reporting the facts, they could face criminal charges and $10,000 fines...



This is exactly what a communist country does to hide.



 
Be careful, Be ready, Be prepared.
Buy ammo

This looks like a Federal civil rights lawsuit looking for a place to happen.

[rmc51]

That looks like a pretty clear violation of the 1st Amendment!

I think so! 



 
Be careful, Be ready, Be prepared.
Buy ammo

[rmc51]

This looks like a Federal civil rights lawsuit looking for a place to happen.

Yep!





 
Be careful, Be ready, Be prepared.
Buy ammo