"Creepy Cameraman" pushes the limits of public surveillance.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Feel free to post even a single example of such a consent then. There should be billions out there. Surele some can be found from the net?

Don't really understand what your asking, but if you represent a driver's license, health card, birth certificate, citizenship, bank account and any other form where you use you CORPORATE name you have been tricked into singing a contract thus giving consent, which is billions of people, including me and you.

Look at all of your ID's, they all have CAPITAL letters for your name, that is your consent right there.

Oh we're going down this road again. I dare you to find that law. If it is not written in a law then it only excist in your imagination. Can you source your claims? (I know already you can't cause we've done this before in ATS). I'm asking for comedic effect

reply to post by PsykoOps


Im not sure I can find it online, but the source for that information would be Blacks Law Book, or something similiar to that name.

It is from the dawn of the concept of corporate law.

To believe in that, you have to also believe that there is no expiration on the concept of "precedence". I have no comment either way on that. But it is the lynchpin of the entire viewpoint.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Oh we're going down this road again. I dare you to find that law. If it is not written in a law then it only excist in your imagination. Can you source your claims? (I know already you can't cause we've done this before in ATS). I'm asking for comedic effect

Corporations are spelled with capital letters, UNITED STATES is a corporation so is the FEDERAL government, when your parents register you at birth, they are registering you as a CORPORATION, once you are in that CORPORATION you abide and consent to everything they will for you. The laws they make up only effect CORPORATIONS, so when you get pulled over and they ask you for you identification they are asking you for your CONSENT, there is enough information on the web on this.

This "law" or whatever you like to call it, is being hidden, if you get a chance to talk to a lawyer or a dudge, they would tell you the same thing im telling you, WE have been tricked into slavery by signing a consent form "birth certificate ect ect" for profit by corporations, not a lot of people know this and if they did no one in their right mind would sign of their name and birth to make profit on currency that doesn't exists.

Originally posted by wirefly
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

But running him through the legal system as far as possible would cost you time and money too wouldn't it? I guess that's the thought stream that makes it possible for every business and govt agency to walk all over our rights too. Why don't you feel the same way about cctv? We could fight back, but, meh, it's easier to just let them do it. I really do get it. I'm not saying you're wrong, I am just kind of realizing this as I'm writing it.

I think we all hate it in our core, but, when there is someone right there with the camera, you have a person to complain to. With cctv, it's too hard to find out who it is watching, so, we just submit.

Sure it would cost me money too...and what good are my beliefs and convictions if putting up with some cost in money and time isn't something I'm willing to endure?

I guess I'm just in a whole different place on this. I have 3 CCTV cameras on my own property. 2 of them cover the street out front. Should my neighbors be outraged? If I cared to look, I can review everything they've done outside and...to the extent it's visible from the street..inside their homes. It's not the point by any stretch. They are the background to the street and my own front walk I have them on for. I like my cameras...and put a lot of work into making this system work how I want it to.

So...where does that leave me to sit and cry to high heaven because private business owners use the same thing on their own private property? It's their right..as much as it is mine at my home. The eye can't trespass...and that's a philosophy/legal theory I actually did have to look up on here once. It's there.

However....When Mr. Camera here gets onto my property, in my personal space or in my face...then refuses a polite request to cease violating MY rights...I'll remove the object he's using to violate them with and insure it's no longer capable of being used that way. The cost that follows? Well worth insuring my rights were the last point the man had for his activity that day. (No camera...kinda ends his rampage for the day)

Originally posted by Ghost375

I like how they use the term "creepy" to automatically make the brainwashed masses think what he's doing is bad.

I starred you because you're right.
But, It is creepy in my opinion.

I honestly have no problems in a retail setting about CCTV but somebody walking around with no real reason other than to make a point or possibly worse is a bit creepy. Retail locations don't follow me home and into the backyard.

Does he routinely record his neighbors as well and for what purpose?

reply to post by XaniMatriX


I already said that I want the law in the books. If it's real then you can quote it. If you're making stuff up or copying from fringe sites then you can't. I don't care about your opinion cause I already know it's false. I only care one single tiny little law. Please?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So that same logic goes for anyone wishing to destroy your cameras, right?

reply to post by wirefly
If I take my cameras off their mounts and pursue people with them? yes, it would. If this man wants to plop his camera on a Tripod or stand a distance off and film the street and people walking down it? He has every right.

It's the 'in your face' and confrontational point of what he's doing that crosses every line between free speech or expression and using those terms as an excuse to violate other's rights and grab his 15 minutes of fame on Youtube.

One point: Define personal space or rights related to them. They dont excist in the books afaik. So someone might feel that they've been violated a mile away with a telephoto lens while someone else feels the same only when someone is right next to them.

[Edit to add] I think you only have a case if someone is stopping you from conducting your own business. That would be harrasment in law I think then.

reply to post by PsykoOps

That's fair enough.... In the literal sense, my personal space is what I define as the area around me that I would FEEL your presence if I had my eyes closed and couldn't hear you. Realistically...about 1-2 feet in a circle around me.....and make that 3 feet directly behind me. I react viciously to surprises from behind me and it's reflex more than conscious thought.

In a legal way? Well.. It's all subjective, isn't it? What is a threat until you are physically injured by it? No one suggests someone wait for a threat they see to actually injure them before reacting, and so it is with that personal space issue IMO. For this guy? If someone is reacting badly as he approaches and goes into his thing...then staying outside their physical reach to do something to stop him would be staying outside their personal space, IMO.

Yeah therein lies the problem. What you feel is hard to put down to a law or enforce legally speaking. What really surprises me that this guy is "anonymous". Why hasen't anyone responded in kind when he approaches? Everyone has a camera these days.

reply to post by PsykoOps

it's playing word games and really hiding between the lines of the law though, in my view. He knows what he's doing and by watching the video, his entire point IS to make other people feel uncomfortable, if not violated outright. When that is the point and motive of his actions....how far should he have to go in further crossing the 'technical' lines which someone NOT out for that purpose might be judged by?

He's out looking to upset people. He succeeds to an extreme, by watching...and I'm wondering how he has the right to disrupt the lives of others...on a direct personal level like this? He can't even use a defense like a protester. They aren't picketing or protesting a specific individual person on the street in front of them, and when it DOES go that route at a protest, it's usually about the time arrests are being made in my experience.

I feel like I'm playind devils advocate cause I really hate this guy. However to claim that he disrupts people is bit far fetched legally speaking. Everyone is free to ignore him untill he does something that is physical. Such as stand in their way or preventing their freedom of movement.
As I said in my first reply to this thread there was a post by someone that claimed that he is doing this to change the privacy laws because he was caught doing something in public. Might be that he wants privacy law changed so consent is required from everyone in public too. That doesn't sound like a far fetched theory.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So your perfectly fine if your neighbors, just as you did, set up a camera system that happens to catch anything that you do on your property and to some extent inside your residence. As long as they aren't AT the camera. Is that a fair summary?

reply to post by wirefly

As a matter of fact, one did after I had mine set up. They're on my side of the street so what covers their backyard covers a piece of mine as well. I'm aware of it's presence and have no problem. No. I know the neighbor enough to have no fears they are mouth breathers, sitting there hoping for the brief second someone might cross it's view on 'laundry day' so to speak. lol...

Now I'll be honest with ya... If The City, or high authorities mounted a camera on the Cell tower a half a block away that pointed DOWN onto residential homes or mounted some up on telephone poles? Well.. I wouldn't pay attention when I'm sure other people (I'd never do such a thing) found various ways of destroying them.

This is all 100%, as I've been reading and replying, based on private citizens or businesses mounting cameras for their singular, private use. I see no problem there UNLESS...in a narrow exception (the law sees too) they are mounted for the purpose of violating 'reasonable privacy' as that would generally be defined. I.E...I COULD take my neighbor to task on that backyard one because it's the back, not the front....if I really believed a problem would ever exist by it.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by XaniMatriX

 

I already said that I want the law in the books. If it's real then you can quote it. If you're making stuff up or copying from fringe sites then you can't. I don't care about your opinion cause I already know it's false. I only care one single tiny little law. Please?

What effing law are you talking about? What does your name being a CORPORATION have to do with it being a law?

For example where is the law that people have to pay Income tax? show it to me?

It's common sense dude, when you are born you don't choose your name do you? what actually happens is against your will, you inherit a slave name from you parent's, it is against the LAW to sign a contract while being unaware of it. When a person is born he/she is not consciously aware of the contract, meaning it is being forced upon a free willed man/women to sign that contract, which is ILLEGAL by common law.

When you drive on public roads, you don't have to pay insurance or have a driver's licence unless it is a commercial vehicle. It is against the LAW to pay those bills.

If you don't believe in this, then you are enslaved like the rest of the people and will never wake up from it, you will continue to enslave your children and hence they will learn to enslave their children (your grand children).

No one ever asked ANYONE if they can put up CCTV cameras everywhere, i don't remember anyone asking anyone, do you?

Ok. So now you admid that there no such law that makes everyone a slave? Good.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Ok. So now you admid that there no such law that makes everyone a slave? Good.

I never said there is such a law, i am saying they are enslaving us without us being aware of it, which is AGAINST the law.

Federal tax law? and who gave them that power, they are not even a real government, that's not even a real law you do know that right?


One more thing, all of these laws were created at knife point back in the day, which makes them illegitimate.

Funny that they are not law yet they are fully and legally enforced.
As I said if it's not written in a law it only excist in your imagination. We have another word for it, fiction.