The chinese guy becomes a huge moron when he claims he touched her, but the pianist is a big jerk as well.
Calling "freedom" the right to film (and publish on YouTube) anyone is ludicrous (yeah I know how many Americans do that).
Your freedom ends when others' freedoms begin, and if you had to assume that everything you do in public would be stored forever for the world to see your freedom just tanked.
These guys were literally just filming themselves playing the piano, when they were approached by people completely outside the view of the camera telling them to stop.
Largely yes, but then the pianist did approach and have them specifically filmed
I think the Chinese didn't move because they were recording something and wanted to do it in that place, but most of all they wanted what had already been recorded of them to be deleted / blurred.
Sure it's a little ironic if they were recording themselves, but in many countries you expect it to be a right to have recordings of you at least not distributed (and it is ironic for PRC people to talk about rights).
In the UK filming in public and publishing the film anywhere is indeed a right and freedom, so you're mocking British concepts of freedom and the pianist for defending it.
It's ludicrous to claim you have a right to force others to avert their cameras when you are out in public, and that otherwise, your rights are violated. If you don't want to be seen, wear a mask. The public and its eyes/cameras don't belong to you.
You're not forcing people to act in any way by filmimg them. Filming is not an act of force, and yet you advocate employing state force to restrict it.
You haven't described any aspect of filming you that forces you to do something, yet still maintain a right to use force against those who film in public.
Unacceptable behavior would be unacceptable camera or no camera, since you're in public (even in countries that limit recording you generally can record illegal behavior, if it's to report it to law enforcement).
But the minimal standard for simply walking among strangers and for being recorded forever for the world to see is very different, if you care about your dignity.
And that's all assuming there are surveillance cameras to limit other actions in the first place
That's already what your assumption should be.. don't go out in the public if you don't like to be filmed. We have freedom laws specifically for this so I am failing to see your point for this? Public spaces are _public_ .
My point is, you're being filmed in most all public spaces all the time. Some rando filming doesn't really change the amount of privacy you do or don't have.
Then send me a link of a CCTV camera around your local mall or train station. They only publish it if it will be used for the news / evidence of a crime.
You mean to say CCTV footages in its entire duration gets profit?
Your freedom to not be recorded in public ends where others' freedom to record still pictures and live video begins. I am surprised that your are learning about competing interests so late in life. Some countries come down on the side of the person doing the recording, and other countries come down on the side of the person not wishing to be recorded.
Since not recording (or blurring) is a much lesser sacrifice, and for millennia you could rely on cameras and YouTube not being around, it's easy to decide which side to favour.
At this point I wonder if this recording freedom idea was one of those used to spread surveillance cameras (I wasn't following English media at the time)
Calling "freedom" the right to film (and publish on YouTube) anyone is ludicrous (yeah I know how many Americans do that).
Your freedom ends when others' freedoms begin, and if you had to assume that everything you do in public would be stored forever for the world to see your freedom just tanked.