[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
stuffwehate

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 15432)
Message
File  []
close
Screen-Shot.png
154321543215432
>> No. 15432 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 2:13 am
15432 spacer
This boiled my piss like nothing else.

https://www.youtube.com/user/SurveillantCameraMan/videos

Basically, you have this lad, walking around and filming people - up close and in total silence. What is really unnerving and awkward about this all, is that you get the understandable response coming from those that he films, angry, enraged and upset. What is he trying to prove?

Well from bits and pieces, he and his fans (notably reddit twats), believe he is making some teenlad statement of us all being surrounded by surveillance and that he is no different to that aspect, and in some sense RAIZIN AWARENESS of this...

Bollox.

There is a huge difference between invading someone's space and having a camera stuck meters away from you. I don't know if this shitstain would survive in England, but telling from his predictable appearance - he wouldn't. I probably would tell him to piss off, but bloody hell, watch the videos and tell me you wouldn't want to cave his face in with a claw hammer.
Expand all images.
>> No. 15433 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 2:41 am
15433 spacer
>>15432
> There is a huge difference between invading someone's space and having a camera stuck meters away from you.
He is a twat, but I'm not sure I completely agree with that statement. I think that's the point.
>> No. 15434 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 2:56 am
15434 spacer
>>15432
He is a twat, but his point still stands. We are okay with cameras surrounding us, and the feed being watched by faceless governments and corporations, but we are not okay with a guy pointing his camera at us.
>> No. 15435 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 3:54 am
15435 spacer
>>15434
Yes. We are.
>> No. 15437 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 8:40 am
15437 spacer
>>15432
I really like his videos. I needn't insist there's some artistic statement being made, although I don't discount that possibility. I just find it interesting to observe conflict situations and how people interact with one another. It seems harmless. If I were the one being filmed, it might me make uncomfortable, but it sure as hell wouldn't make me angry. I'm not nearly that emotionally volatile. The only reason SCM might have more difficulty "surviving" over here is the police would likely construe his actions as harassment.

I'm also subscribed to Normal Bob Smith (YT: normalbobnyc). His videos are, relatively speaking, less confrontational and more conversational. He just films the oddballs he encounters in his favourite park.
>> No. 15438 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 9:14 am
15438 spacer
It's odd that people don't like to be filmed, but they have no problem with people looking at them and remembering.
>> No. 15439 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:24 am
15439 spacer
We are forgetting an important element here: motivation.

Because he is just standing there, silently, it's extremely uncomfortable. And even more so when he shoves his camera in people's faces. Unlike the other chap, who interacts with people, they somewhat know his intention.

The chap would get the exact same treatment if he did it without a camera, and just stood and stared at someone up close.

How the fuck is that the same as a camera 3 meters above you? And that privately stores shitty black/white footage? We know it's intention, we find comfort in the fact that it's there to deter crime and if a situation calls for it, to observe recorded evidence for when something happens. A necessary evil as it pains me to say.

What would you honestly do? "Oh, I get it, you're making a comparison between state surveillance and this, what a clever deduction".

Or you'd curse and get angry? Whats the point.
>> No. 15440 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:41 am
15440 spacer
>>15439

C'mon, GCHQlad. Are you seriously implying surveillance couldn't possibly be an invasion of privacy? That it is categorically a good thing?

I understand why shops have it, to catch people taking their shit. However, if you are so certain it prevents crime then show me some figures that back that theory up. I would argue all it does is displace crime to more scarcely populated areas and therefore make them harder to solve because there are no witnesses.
>> No. 15441 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:43 am
15441 spacer
>>15440
How on Earth did you infer all that bullshit from his post?
>> No. 15442 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:46 am
15442 spacer
>>15440
No it's not, but it's far more clear cut then some random wanker taking footage of me.

I don't have any figures - or anything for that matter, I hate to say this but I've become used to seeing cameras. I don't really care that I was seen carrying some shopping, picking my nose, scratching my arse or necking some girl. Because that footage will never be shown and probably nothing will be done with it. As for the lad, who is he? What will he do with it? Will it put me and those I care about in danger?
>> No. 15443 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:56 am
15443 spacer
>>15442
What could he do with it that would endanger you?
>> No. 15444 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 12:00 pm
15444 spacer
It's still going to be more annoying to have a person following you around filming than it is for there to be a motionless one with no consciousness of its own. Forget about the justifications given. That's just what it's like being human.
>> No. 15445 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 12:05 pm
15445 spacer
CCTV is passive, not targeted at anyone in particular and at least has a reasonable purpose.

This guy is shoving his camera in people's face (directly targeted at them) for no apparent reason, acting passive aggressive when asked why and refusing to stop.

There's a pretty clear moral difference there, so I can only assume anyone drawing an equivalence is mentally impaired.
>> No. 15446 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 12:12 pm
15446 spacer
>>15443
I fail to understand why you would even ask such a question.
Would you like someone building an unwanted profile of you? What would they do with the footage, who would they give it to? Jesus lad, stop asking these stupid questions.

>>15445
> I can only assume anyone drawing an equivalence is mentally impaired.

Exactly, I have no idea why people defend this twat. There are literally hundreds of ways you can "RAISE DA AWARENES"
>> No. 15447 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 12:22 pm
15447 spacer
>>15446
You seem very defensive. I've asked one question. It was neither supportive nor critical of the filmmaker. I asked it because I didn't know the answer; an ignorance you seem to share judging by your deflective and hand-waving answer.
>> No. 15448 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 12:35 pm
15448 spacer
>>15447
Calm down, ok, fine how would he endanger me? Probably not directly. I would hope that 99% of cases are harmless dickery, but I would not like the idea of someone possessing footage of me, perhaps in my place of work/home/leisure - the thought of there being no clear intention would frighten me and cause a great deal of unneeded stress.

Why am I so defensive about this, is because it's happened to myself and I feel strongly about it.
>> No. 15450 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 12:48 pm
15450 spacer
>>15447>>15448
Both of you please give the 'you're getting emotional!!!' spiel a fucking rest.
>> No. 15451 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 12:50 pm
15451 spacer
People should start filming him back.
>> No. 15453 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 1:20 pm
15453 spacer
It is very uncomfortable and I suggest you lot stop running away from that point. Does he have a point? Maybe, but he isn't demonstrating that in any meaningful way.
>> No. 15454 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 2:37 pm
15454 spacer
I would hate him to do it to me. That said, his videos are amazing and funny as fuck. The one where he walks into a house where a bunch of Chinese guys are playing Majong? Brilliant. I hope he never stops.
>> No. 15455 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 2:50 pm
15455 spacer
>>15453
Well let me embrace it head-on. I don't think anyone has an inalienable right to feel comfortable at all times. The interactions he has with people are fleeting and I think it important to remember that. It might not be perfectly clear to every subject in the moment of filming, but it's obvious enough to us that he poses no danger to anybody. The truth of the matter is that he's putting himself at considerable risk of assault in producing these videos.

I question the basis OP has for ascribing motivation to the filmmaker. As far as I understand it he intentionally avoids giving any sort of rationale or opinion and it's left entirely up to the viewer to decide what - if any - meaning is intentionally contained within. His first and breakthrough video took place entirely in a private educational setting, not the ideal place to demonstrate and protest the ubiquity of CCTV. Equally possible, he continued exploring this behaviour simply because it was met with positive attention and praise (although ironically enough /r/cringe played a significant role in building him up).

I think it very interesting and worthwhile to observe angry people - who don't know the law - exhibit this duality where they threaten to call the police, but simultaneously attempt to prolong and escalate the experience with threats of - and actual - violence. It's sometimes as if people lose all capacity for rational thought when a camera is pointed in their face. I think it's about a need to feel in control and the angry people fear losing it.

For all the people who say he doesn't effectively raise issues of privacy, there sure is a whole lot of thought and debate about the topic under his videos. We've completely surrendered to the idea of constant public surveillance, and not always knowingly. With drones, microsatellites, real-time image processing and data-mining it's only going to become more common, more invasive and more all-encompassing. So if nothing else it could be said that he's reminding people of this almost inevitable truth that the nature of existing in public is changing. Our mere presence is less and less transient; more and more it's recorded in a database for indeterminate purposes and for an unknown length of time. Though as I've said twice now, this privacy message needn't even be there for me to appreciate his content.

Another example of this genre is the sublime Wonder Showzen S02E08 (Clarence Special Report on Compelling Television). I wouldn't expect to see a negative reaction to that episode, but the difference between the two is slight if you ask me, at least in terms of justifying the filming of strangers and the forms thereof that are deemed acceptable. Putting a blue puppet on your hand doesn't make a person any less dangerous or their intentions obviously more pure.
>> No. 15456 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 3:20 pm
15456 spacer
>>15455
I went back and rewatched his first video. At the end he does point out that cameras are everywhere to someone who was calmly pleading their case, so it's probably not perfectly accurate to say he expresses no opinion at all. I'm reminded of when somebody in /iq/ contrasted Chris Hansen in To Catch a Predator with the young and obnoxious British wannabes that had been posted. He maintains an air of officialdom and completely resists any temptation to enter into an emotive argument. I think some of that is at play here. Most people aren't able to articulate a coherent and convincing argument in a stressful and unexpected situation. That he says so little and the focus is completely on other people is an integral part of SCM's appeal. I suppose what I'm saying is that if he opened his mouth there's a high chance that'd he'd alienate many more people. That Clarence in Wonder Showzen is witty and engaging in the same situation is what sets it above this.
>> No. 15458 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 4:18 pm
15458 spacer
>>15432

The second gentleman in the seventh video sums this individual up perfectly when he says to him: "You're a real fucking jerk, man" (sic).

This is proved when he goes back to film the same gentleman again. If you want to make an artistic point about surveillance, install a webcam in your toilet and let people watch you take a poo. Don't go around persistently annoying random people in the street.
>> No. 15461 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 4:47 pm
15461 spacer
The artistic message is valid, but the art is a bit shit? That seems like an agreeable conclusion.
>> No. 15462 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 5:00 pm
15462 spacer
>>15455
>I don't think anyone has an inalienable right to feel comfortable at all times.
Of course not but it is demonstably cuntish to do this for that purpose, which he is.

>exhibit this duality where they threaten to call the police, but simultaneously attempt to prolong and escalate the experience with threats of - and actual - violence.
I don't see the duality there. I'd probably lamp him personally. Lamping isn't inherently illegal.

I wholly disapprove of this, personally. It's purposefully aggravating, and people don't like being directly filmed without their consent. Quite rightly, too.
>> No. 15463 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 5:01 pm
15463 spacer
>>15455
> I don't think anyone has an inalienable right to feel comfortable at all times.

So you think it's right for someone to feel powerless when they're harassed?

>exhibit this duality where they threaten to call the police, but simultaneously attempt to prolong and escalate the experience with threats of - and actual - violence

Can you blame them for feeling desperate? If someone was committing a crime that is easily preventable (ie, theft, pickpocketing), would you just stand around, or jump in and intervene?

> I think it's about a need to feel in control and the angry people fear losing it.

Why only angry people? What a stupid assertion. It's like saying, "only stupid people get mugged, don't be stupid and it's fine".

>Putting a blue puppet on your hand doesn't make a person any less dangerous or their intentions obviously more pure.

Yes it does, it's easily justifiable when someone explains their intentions to be honest. And any publication of unwillingly filmed persons, meaning not blurring out their faces even after requests, is harassment and illegal.

I really don't follow most of your logic m8.

Post a timestamped picture of yourself if you think it's ok for strangers to collect that sort of material. Put your money where your mouth is.
>> No. 15464 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 5:04 pm
15464 spacer
>>15461
>The artistic message is valid
I don't even think that's true. CCTV is not the same as a guy on the street filming you.

CCTV footage may be passively observed by a security team and then filed away and eventually deleted. I don't need to worry about what I'm doing in front of that camera because chances are nobody will see me.

This guy on the street, however, is likely to have a specific purpose for the footage he is shooting, and that gives me cause to be hyperaware of my actions. I don't like that.
>> No. 15465 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 5:06 pm
15465 spacer
>>15462

> I'd probably lamp him personally. Lamping isn't inherently illegal.

His behaviour is definitely abnormal enough to be perceived as threatening. It would not be beyond the bounds of reasonable probability to say that the sort of people who behave like that are often the same sort of people who hear voices in their heads telling them to stab random grannies.

If someone is acting weirdly, won't leave you alone, and that behaviour is causing you to feel threatened then you are within your rights to use reasonable force to protect yourself against the perceived threat.

Basically I'm just trying to justify the fact that I'd probably lamp the cunt too. I am generally not a violent person, but growing up in London has caused me to instantly perceive anyone acting like a loony as a significant threat.
>> No. 15466 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 5:08 pm
15466 spacer
>>15465
I'm not a Londoner, and come from a small village so I'm well used to lunatics, but I wouldn't take this behaviour. I considered typing out how it could be justified to smack him one but then I deleted it when I realised I couldn't put it into words properly and got bored.
>> No. 15469 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 5:54 pm
15469 spacer
>>15464
I suspect you both misunderstand the purpose and underappreciate the application of CCTV.
>> No. 15476 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 7:41 pm
15476 spacer
I like all the characters in the videos and that someone was willing to do this, but that someone sounds like a complete mong, it bothers me more than the whether this is cool to do or not argument.
>> No. 15487 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 9:20 pm
15487 spacer
I'm assuming he doesn't ask peoples permission to upload the videos he's made. That's what pisses me off, people not respecting other peoples privacy.
>> No. 15488 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 9:24 pm
15488 spacer
>>15487
That's the whole point of his shtick. We don't grant permission to be filmed by CCTV constantly but they do it anyway.
>> No. 15489 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 9:29 pm
15489 spacer
>>15488
I thought you didn't need consent if it's in public?
>> No. 15492 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 9:40 pm
15492 spacer
>>15489
You don't. I should have added at the end "...and nobody cares".
He's highlighting the difference in people's attitudes towards CCTV and personal cameras. This has already been covered extensively in this thread.
>> No. 15495 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 10:07 pm
15495 spacer
>>15488
Yeah but CCTV isn't filming my face up close and posting it for all to see on Youtube.
>> No. 15496 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 10:38 pm
15496 spacer

If it were a pretty 16 year old girl.jpg
154961549615496
Since when do CCTV cameras have legs? If he remained stationary in a park or something and just filmed people going about their day like the puny insects that they are I might enjoy his videos. Maybe he could catch some tender/hilarious moments.

Sage because I'm just waffling on about things already covered.
>> No. 15497 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 10:54 pm
15497 spacer
>>15496

>Since when do CCTV cameras have legs?
Fucking hell, don't be giving GCHQlad any ideas. If I see a walking CCTV camera in Hyde Park next month I'm blaming you.
>> No. 15498 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 10:56 pm
15498 spacer
>>15497
I've already seen avowedly civilian UAVs buzzing around parks and my campus; I have made it my policy to give all such craft the two finger salute and urge you all to do the same.
>> No. 15499 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 10:59 pm
15499 spacer
>>15498
Wont be long until we have personal drones that follow us around filming us, for our own protection.
>> No. 15500 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:02 pm
15500 spacer
Here are the flying cameras lads: >>/g/17556
>> No. 15501 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:03 pm
15501 spacer
>>15499

I for one will enjoy being secure beneath the watchful eyes as I have nothing to hide and therefore nothing to fear.
>> No. 15502 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:09 pm
15502 spacer
>>15495
Not now, maybe. But it is certain TPTB are going to link some sort of facial recognition sooner or later. If it isn't there already.
>>15497
Don't blame him. Some US police departments do already have plans to equip coppers with body cameras.
>> No. 15503 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:10 pm
15503 spacer
>>15502
So do we.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27321913
>> No. 15504 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:12 pm
15504 spacer
>>15502
>plans to equip coppers with body cameras
I think that's more to combat bad policing (brutality, racism etc)
>> No. 15505 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:17 pm
15505 spacer
>>15499
I think you are drastically overestimating the time I spend outside.

>>15504
I believe it has already been used in one US jurisdiction and the resulting cut in complaints has more than justified it.
>> No. 15506 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:17 pm
15506 spacer
>>15504
Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with that, except that the bastards would probably tamper with the things and get away with murder anyway:

http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/04/15/43524/la-police-commission-grills-lapd-over-officers-who/
>> No. 15508 Anonymous
8th June 2014
Sunday 11:45 pm
15508 spacer
>>15503
Does that video see fit to mention that the cameras are not simply bought by the police but the whole thing has been outsourced and the footage is to be uploaded to the servers of an American company (TAZER International)? Ha ha ha. Bring on the microchips.
>> No. 15509 Anonymous
9th June 2014
Monday 12:02 am
15509 spacer
>>15508
Can someone with a background in economics please explain how it can possibly be cheaper to outsource a load of technical jobs to a first world country? I just don't get it.

I understand that they might have the infrastructure in place or the personnel with the experience, but surely we could have all that up and running with a net profit within 10 or 15 years?
>> No. 15510 Anonymous
9th June 2014
Monday 12:50 am
15510 spacer
>>15509

a) economies of scale
b) project risk

It's much cheaper if one company like Tazer builds electronic equipment for a dozen different countries than if each country establishes its own technology companies to do similar work, or contracts out to a specialist to build something especially for them from scratch. Tazer have a proven track record and will deliver the contract at a fixed price per unit, whereas commissioning it yourself entails the risk of all sorts of delays and budget overruns.

Technology is particularly tricky, because of the chicken-and-egg problem of hiring competent people. It's very hard to tell whether someone is a competent programmer or electrical engineer unless you yourself have those skills, which is why successful technology companies tend to be co-founded by at least one engineer. Public servants with backgrounds in law or finance just don't have the knowledge to tell expert consultants from total bullshitters.

Government IT projects tend to be a catastrophe for this reason, which is why there's a big move towards buying off-the-shelf technology with a proven track record wherever possible, rather than commissioning something bespoke. The off-the-shelf solution might not perfectly fit your needs, but at least you know that it works.

I think it is perhaps easier to understand it from the other direction. In the early days of electricity, before the development of a national grid, companies who used electrical power had to have their own generating equipment, powered by a gas or oil turbine. That seems bizarre now, but for decades that was just how things worked. Alternatively, you could think about why the NHS doesn't make bandages and scalpels, why it doesn't have an in-house construction company to build hospitals, why it doesn't own quarries and brick kilns to make their own building materials. Try and imagine the Soviet madness of that situation for a moment.

The BBC are a very good practical example of this. Until quite recently, they were fanatical about designing their own technology from scratch, rather than buying in commercial equipment. They designed and built nearly everything in-house where possible - loudspeakers, mixing desks, plugs and sockets, even some furniture and hardware. BBC equipment therefore tended to be either utterly cutting-edge or hopelessly obsolete, depending on what the Designs Department thought was a priority. The equipment they did buy in usually needed to be specially produced or modified to work with BBC equipment, usually at a substantial cost.

This led to all sorts of idiosyncrasies unique to the BBC, many of which remain to this day. You can spot an engineer who trained at the BBC within five minutes of meeting them, because they speak a slightly different language to engineers who learned to do things the industry standard way. The BBC eventually realised that it made much more sense to buy in standard equipment wherever possible rather than constantly reinventing the wheel.

The debate tends to be over privatisation rather than nationalisation, which skews our perspective. Rather than pushing the boundaries between public and private sector back and forth bit by bit like the Western Front, it makes more sense to ask the more general question "what does the government need to do for itself, and what can it simply buy in from the private sector?". Framed in that way, we can see the question of privatisation as a practical rather than ideological matter, in which the inevitable answer is some sort of healthy balance between two extremes.
>> No. 15511 Anonymous
9th June 2014
Monday 12:56 am
15511 spacer
>>15510
Thanks. Very thorough.
>> No. 15512 Anonymous
9th June 2014
Monday 5:39 am
15512 spacer
>>15510

Because that Siemens contract for VoIP worked oh so well, lad?
>> No. 15513 Anonymous
9th June 2014
Monday 7:45 am
15513 spacer
>>15509
>surely we could have all that up and running with a net profit within 10 or 15 years?

That's far too long-term thinking.
>> No. 15530 Anonymous
11th June 2014
Wednesday 10:12 pm
15530 spacer
>>15498

I don't know if you are aware, but it is actually illegal for such "spy drones" to be operated in public without permission and suchforth red tape bollocks. Don't tolerate it, report the cunts.* The Huddersfield branch of Maplin recently got whacked by a hefty fine by the Civil Aviation Authority for demonstrating their spy drone toys in the car park, for example (regional manager got a right bollocking too 'cos it was his idea).

Regardless, we are not as beholden to this bizarre panopticon as everyone seems to think we are. I think this narrative that we have "already surrendered" is part of the disinformation storm itself.

*Or shoot 'em down with an air rifle. Fragile little bastards at best of times.
>> No. 15531 Anonymous
11th June 2014
Wednesday 10:15 pm
15531 spacer
>>15530

What's the difference between a drone and a model aeroplane? If a drone looks enough like a Supermarine Spitfire is it okay to fly it anywhere?
>> No. 15532 Anonymous
11th June 2014
Wednesday 10:19 pm
15532 spacer
>>15530

Not true. Using a UAV for commercial purposes requires CAA clearance and a certificate of competence, but using them for private purposes is perfectly legal so long as you remain within visual range and avoid controlled airspace. Maplin were fined because they were demonstrating the UAVs to customers, which constitutes a commercial purpose.

Getting CAA clearance really isn't difficult - you need to take a short course (mainly covering air law), then notify the CAA in advance of when and where you intend to operate.
>> No. 15533 Anonymous
11th June 2014
Wednesday 11:30 pm
15533 spacer
>>15532
>Getting CAA clearance really isn't difficult - you need to take a short course (mainly covering air law), then notify the CAA in advance of when and where you intend to operate

Which as I recall a police force somewhere in the North completely failed to do and got bollocked by the CAA to global audible mirth.

It's things like this which are an occasional and gentle reminder that a police state in the UK is reasonably unlikely, because in general, both as individuals and as an organisation, the police are really fucking stupid.
>> No. 15534 Anonymous
11th June 2014
Wednesday 11:34 pm
15534 spacer
>>15533
So is the idea that we can't have a police state because of all the red tape involved?
>> No. 15535 Anonymous
12th June 2014
Thursday 12:15 am
15535 spacer
>>15532

>Not true. Using a UAV for commercial purposes requires CAA clearance and a certificate of competence, but using them for private purposes is perfectly legal so long as you remain within visual range and avoid controlled airspace.

Nope. There are a tone of guidelines that you must meet, even as a private individual, to constitute legal operation of a UAV. These are pretty standard things like being a certain distance away from "public space" and the suchlike, but it's the sort of thing that renders them almost completely useless if you intend to use them legally, because I can't think of very many places in the UK (unless you are a very wealthy landowner) that satisfy the requirements.

Source: I work there, they sent a copy of the CAA regulations out via mass e-mail. I can't remember the details brilliantly because it wasa few weeks ago, but it wasn't just because of commercial use, it was because they were in violation of pretty much every other rule regardless of having clearance.
>> No. 15720 Anonymous
8th July 2014
Tuesday 12:10 am
15720 spacer
>>15438
You don't have crystal clear memory of everything that ever happens, but more importantly filming allows anyone to share that exact same moment and analyse it. It really isn't the same
>> No. 24843 Anonymous
21st January 2017
Saturday 2:53 pm
24843 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJNAvyLCTik
>> No. 24844 Anonymous
21st January 2017
Saturday 11:48 pm
24844 spacer
>>24843
That was good. It was quite obvious how he kept having to cut away when they started turning the questioning on him, or something happened that necessitated he stop filming, though.

The reference to an Internet cafe really dates it.
>> No. 24845 Anonymous
22nd January 2017
Sunday 1:09 am
24845 spacer
>>15432

>Basically
The start of all student arguments

I watched the link, the guy walking round with the camera needs multiple shoeing in the cock whilst being filmed.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password