Woman caught on CCTV performing drunken BJ blew right to privacy Ofcom has rejected a claim that Channel 4 infringed the privacy of a pregnant Southampton woman by broadcasting CCTV footage of her administering drunken oral pleasure to a chap in a tower block lift. "Ms K" lodged a complaint of "unwarranted infringement of privacy" to the TV watchdog regarding the 9 June 2014 episode of CCTV …
Not to defend her initial acts, but to be fair, I don't think any further damage was possible while some gain might have been (if she would have succeeded) - in a similar situation, it's not the 99.9999% of the world that I will never meet is what I would worry about finding out, but the 0.0001% that I personally know, and it seems those people already knew about the whole affair.
"TV programmes can be transmitted many months after the material is filmed. And being "very drunk" is occasionally how pregnancies start."
You are almost certainly right. However I could not resist the Daily Mail style outrage opportunity this gave me...
(Plus I would be genuinely sad if you are wrong)
The Ofcom report says
she had been very drunk and that she had not been 'at the best point in her life'
Perhaps becoming pregnant caused her to change her lifestyle. She certainly cared enough to complain.
I can't be bothered to dive into the report to unearth the delay between the recording of the footage and the transmission of the programme. But if it was more than eighteen months then I would view that an issue. All of us have done silly things in the past and there's no need for them to remain in the public domain in perpetuity. For the same reason, I think it raises an issue about how long this footage can remain available.
"She certainly cared enough to complain."
Or she saw one of the many ads for ambulance-chasing lawyers on television. Maybe even in the ad breaks of said documentary.
Did someone do something you don't like? Call Leeches4U No win, no fee*.
* Disclaimer: we will bill someone, somewhere just not you.
I suspect the WTF in the original related to finding such ladylike behaviour in Southampton - she would be "meeting the parents" material compared to some of the locals...
I particularly liked how she was worried that the programme may hurt her future employment opportunities. Does she really expect us to believe she will seek gainful employment at some point in her life?
IIRC there is, or at least there used to be, a let out in the law which made urinating in a public place an offence along the lines 'but if you're pregnant its OK'.
I think this goes back a very long time when there were few public toilets and the legislators, who tended to think women were a slightly different species anyway, managed to figure out that if you have a foetus sitting on your bladder its capacity might be impaired.
That said, recent overhauls to the law might have closed to loophole on the grounds there are a lot more public toilets and the Council needs the income.
"unexpected outbreak of common sense in a Regulator's judgement."
How on earth is this common sense? CCTV cameras are not there for amusement, they are supposed to be there for protection. I was always under the impression that there were rules regarding what the footage could/couldn't be used for, and that the purpose was supposed to be protection.
Given this usage has now been ruled legitimate, I'm forced to conclude that I am no longer in favour of the millions of CCTV cameras "protecting" us. Regardless of what she was doing, it shouldn't have been broadcast on TV for entertainment purposes.
If she was committing a crime, then use the tape as evidence.
If she couldn't be identified, use just enough footage to ask the public to help identify her.
Given that they don't appear to be prosecuting her for urinating in the lift (the only actual crime described, assuming that's illegal) then the footage should be destroyed.
When did the rules on CCTV change?
> How on earth is this common sense? CCTV cameras are not there for amusement, they are supposed to be there for protection
Exactly. This is just counter-productive.
Besides, if she decides to take this to court I am not so certain a judge will concur with Ofcom's opinion. It seems a clear misuse of security camera footage.
Having now googled it, she really ought to pursue this case under the DPA.
Guidance is at https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf and clearly suggests this is in violation of the rules.
For instance, the signage should tell the public that they are being monitored, and for what purpose. If the lift said "for the purpose of crime prevention" then selling footage to C4 is clearly not that. There are many, many other rules broken here though.
People should also put aside specifics that colour their judgement and realize that the category that Ofcom has just allowed this usage for is not "women giving blowjobs" but "things that the reality TV audiences find entertaining". Anything you do that is embarrassing or which others will laugh at or be titillated by is now fair game if caught on camera. They just have to make a token effort to obscure your identity.
The cameras should not be there to catch people's errors so that your typical Big Brother viewer can find it funny. It's a quick bit of cash for a CCTV company and years of misery for those pilloried on television.
Playing Devil's Advocate here. This is where the law for the masses & the rich differ. Someone who could afford a decent lawyer might argue..
(I haven't seen the footage so below is based solely on ElReg article)
a) the fact she was subsequently identified proves CH4 did not do enough to anonymize the footage.
b) who owned the cameras? (breach of trust, data protection etc)
c) the man tried to cover the camera in order to gain privacy (ie: reverse argument of Ofcom).
d) a crime was allegedly committed - why did CH4 not report it to the police, await the outcome then proceed based upon the result?
(I am by no means a fan of the mentality that pisses in lifts btw)
You and many others with the same kind of thinking should have thought twice before the CCTV wave arrived from Northern Ireland.
You can watch old documentaries and movies to assure yourself of that, if you didn't already know.
Personally, I have no intention of tracking the video down, but it sounds hilariously bad, like an early Paul Morrissey or John Waters effort, except that nobody was acting.
Writing that has changed my mind, I now want to see this tawdry pile of excreta, but if never able to do so, it will not break my heart.
But they ARE protecting us.
They are there to protect us from muggers ... I am sure you would be happy for images of a mugger to be shown on TV
They are there to protect us from vandals ... if someone spray-painted the lift I am sure you would be happy for their image to be shown on TV
They are there to protect us from people who urinate in lifts and make them unusable by the rest of the block ... I am more than happy for that image to be shown on TV.
Please god tell me that now she has come forward and identified herself, the council is going to prosecute her for the damage and costs of cleaning it up etc etc.
It might not have prevented her -
But I'll bet it'll make the next slag think twice .
Err, No, hang on a minute ...........
Actually, fk it. I can see all sorts of potential problems if the principle runs riot - but - (whilst I don't care a monkeys about her giving someone a blowjob) If some antisocial cow pisses all over the lift, plaster stills of the event including her face on local billboards and do the same with all the other low-level arseholes who fk up society. Its cheap, its efficient, and its commensurate.
And for everyone who hasn't been in a piss-stinking lift in a highrise, experience that before you start preaching about her 'right' to privacy. This is not disproportionate.
"Now she has identified herself they can send a bill for cleaning up the mess... + fine
(don't know how the UK is, but here the fine for urinating in public is 60 euro)"
It does rather raise the question of why any mention of a fine is absent, doesn't it? A quick Google suggests a penalty on the order of £80.00.
"It does rather raise the question of what part of Ofcom "ruling" you did not understand."
Ah, self-satisfied AC snarking. Always good value for money.
"cannot have a legitimate expectation of privacy in circumstances where their behaviour is severely anti-social and contravenes public decency in the manner shown in the CCTV footage i.e. urinating on the floor of a communal lift and performing a sex act in a communal lift".
That's likely to be an actionable offence, and I'd reckon any such sentence would have a significant bearing on the outcome of the Ofcom ruling (that I understood just fine, thanks) and would be relevant background. But please, continue to snipe from cover if it shores up your fragile ego.
No offense is committed in the leaving of urine on a floor.
An offense may be committed in the act of urination if the genitals are willingly exposed to other persons, in which case the offence of "exposure" (sexual offences act 2003 section 66) is committed (he also means she).
Having sex with a person who is drunk may well be considered, by a court, to be rape if the person involved is incapable of consenting to sex.
This post has been deleted by its author
"You're waiting for a lift with your child and the doors open on that?"
Luckily for you, your kid doesn't have to chance it now. He can just watch it on TV, or look it up on You Tube, or some other kid will send a link to him. Thanks to the joke that enforcement of privacy laws is in the UK, and thanks to some underpaid (or plain idiotic) CCTV operator, and to a bunch of greedy, miserable, unprincipled, TV producers.
She might have done something rude and stupid (urinating in a lift) or taken part in something that you don't approve of (having sex in a communal, rather than public, space), along with someone else who by the way seems to have escaped any form of condemnation. That does not justify taking advantage of her position and the equivalent of a tarring and feathering. That is not the mark of a civilised society. Is this how you want your children to grow up?
.... you're waiting with your child and the lift door opens on that:
What's that man doing mummy?
(i) Err, he hid a stick of rock in his trousers but she's found it.
(ii) Its a very old fashioned remedy for tonsilitis, but you mustn't try it until you're older'
I declare the caption(?) competition to now be open:
"And this is what passes for 'entertainment' on Channel 4 these days?"
Regrettably so. In the Flex household this sort of stuff is referred to as a caring, sharing, freak show. Add a thin layer of social commentary and you can apparently serve up any amount of bad behaviour from the less fortunate in society. And to think we look down on Hogarth's contemporaries for going along to laugh at the inmates at Bedlam.
Or perhaps you have an intimate medical problem you're too embarrassed to see your GP about? Why not expose your suppurating nads to the whole nation on one of C4's medical shows? The freakier the better.
It's pure unadulterated "poor porn", cheap and easy to make. Get an out of work jobbing actor for £100/day, get them to voice over some PD CCTV footage and you've got yourself a TV show.
The mentality of those who watch, "Ha ha, look at those people they're worse than us, let's laugh at them for entertainment!". Sorry but anyone who sinks low enough to watch this kind of utter shit for entertainment is, in my opinion, lower than the people being shown in these so called documentaries.
Reminds me of the "TV shows" in THX-1138, simply boiled down to the key elements. You want sex? Just watch two people having it off. Want violence? Watch someone being beaten. Why bother wasting time with characters of plots, just show the key elements in the raw.
I'd rather watch my cat take a dump than the shite that spews out of the TV channels these days.
I would rather see the cult of the cat video or photo wiped from the face of the 'net, maybe we have a little of a start with major media playing the same thing up for a few years now, surely that is depriving it of any appeal to coolness?
The video of this sounds a little more interesting than one of your cat having a dump, and the acts likely left less of a stench. Cat shit is putrid, I know cat lovers enjoy the smell, can never understand why.
When a Council, or private organisation, erects CCTV in a public place, they are obliged to inform people that CCTV is present, and why it is being used. Normally this results in a sign saying "CCTV is used in this area for the purposes of crime prevention and public safety". I very much doubt that they added "...and for the puerile entertainment of Channel 4 viewers".
The only legitimate uses for the video recorded of this woman are to support her prosecution for public order offences, and/or as evidence to recover costs for cleaning/repairing the lift etc. So although complaining to Ofcom did not help, she can still take legal action against the CCTV operators.
Next week on Channel 4: "Soap stars who once scratched their arse in public twenty years before they were famous"
Why did the comment by =5 got downvoted, without anyone having the courtesy of explaining their disagreement?
Do you agree with the misuse of security appliances? Do you take pleasure in other people's misery? Do you like laughing at those who are even less fortunate than you? Please explain.
Why did the comment by =5 got downvoted, without anyone having the courtesy of explaining their disagreement?
'Cause it's impossible to explain and so very easy to press the downvote link?
Presumably all the down-voters think that eternal, public humiliation is a proportionate response to the situation, rather than simply paying a fine for punishment and compensation for the actual damage done.
>Do you agree with the misuse of security appliances?
Apparently so. When I was a sprog & RAF Phantom hit the deck.
>Do you take pleasure in other people's misery?
Methinks they ejected.
>Do you like laughing at those who are even less fortunate than you?
I was riding my motorbike when the phantom engine went overhead.
>Please explain.
I was leaving Billinghhay, "when the plane bounced off of the ground to my left", fell into bits over the road then landed in the field to my right.
I noticed a big nasty bit of metal.
No, she can't because she commited a crime by peeing on the floor in a public area (disorderly conduct and/or lewd and lascivious behavior) and providing oral sex (public nudity/lewd and lascivious behavior) and she continued to commit the crime knowing full well she did it in plain sight of the cameras as they tried to block them (Willful Intent). Both are guilty of the second and third crimes.
The cameras were placed legally as they are not in any place where one would ever expect privacy like a lavatory or locker room. An elevator in a public building is a public place.
Otherwise, a certain US football player would have been able to squash the video of him knocking out his fiancee at a Casino.
"disorderly conduct" is on the books in the US, not the UK, the same as "lewd and lascivious behavior". Besides which, Channel 4 isn't a court of law and she wasn't on trial.
Otherwise, a certain US football player would have been able to squash the video of him knocking out his fiancee at a Casino.
That went to court, right? Not just to television? This was broadcast for titillation and it just isn't on. There's no defence.
I've seen girls pissing in the street during Hogmanay and felt a bit self-righteous about it, but to put it in the public domain would never cross my mind. People make mistakes and any punishment has to be proportionate to the harm done.
OK, this woman's an idiot, but that description of their programme....
"examined the use of CCTV cameras to monitor the public areas of 19 council-owned tower blocks in Southampton and included the views and opinions of CCTV operators and residents on the impact of CCTV".
Bullllllllllllshit. Let me correct that for you:
"offered voyeuristic middle class punters the chance to ogle the zoo of poor people doing things they would never ever do not even once, and pontificate about what it all means over their Marks and Spencer TV dinners."
of the role of television to educate and inform.
Not that I'll be tracking the video down. Personally, I think that discretely pissing in public places away from where people live or work when there is no public loo nearby should, other than in high summer, not be treated, legally or socially, as an offense.
It doesn't harm anyone, the temperature quells the stench, and it is easy to be caught short in the depths of winter.
In summer, people deserve a little social shaming if they don't find a place away from where others live or work, or worse, when there is a public toilet in easy reach.
In the elevator of a building, really, WTF was Mrs. K thinking!
I wonder what Mr. K thinks of it all, presumably he was not the target of her oral attention.
> I think that discretely pissing in public places ... It doesn't harm anyone, the temperature quells the stench, and it is easy to be caught short in the depths of winter.
You've obviously never had to push a wheelchair down a street where someone - or their dog - has pee'd across the street.
You may explain the degree of suffering. I do not support people or dogs 'pissing across the street', but dog owners allow it, here most pick up dog shit (thankfully), but most allow their territorial markings.
If I am caught short in cold wind, I generally know where the nearest shop with a toilet or public toilet is.
If not, plants or a drain, which nobody can see.
I guess you are talking about summer, *sincere* congratulations for helping a wheelchair-bound person, but can't see the point of your post.
> If I am caught short in cold wind, ... plants or a drain, which nobody can see. ... can't see the point of your post.
As you correctly point out, public urination is treated, legally or socially, as an offense. You argue that these rules should be relaxed, that it is socially acceptable to urinate in a 'discrete' place.
The problem is, you and I may differ on what we consider to be 'discrete' - hence the need for legislation.
There is also the issue of whether 'discreet' peeing is "cumulatively tolerable".
TV coverage of footballers spitting on the pitch made spitting more socially acceptable. While one sportsman clearing his throat may not present a major health risk, this has led to a rise in people spitting in public, and a corresponding increase in public health issues.
F-N
I didn't correctly point out what you say I did, it is not an offense here, if done discreetly, and away from places where it causes real offense, I don't think it should be an offense at all, except if done in a specifically offensive way.
I live above a small car-park, too many people relieve themselves there in high summer, I do not like it, but I don't think they should be arrested or fined, usually quiet, also, for women, the vehicles provide a little shelter.
BTW, sincere thx for pulling me up on the auto-input slip.
I often tell people when there is a toilet nearby 'excuse me, there is a public toilet/shop with a toilet you can use just a few metres away', including at the afore-mentioned carpark if I happen to be arriving home or departing at the same time, although there, it is understandable if people who are not from the area don't know where they are or are lost, it's a bit like a labyrinth. Would never dream of doing more than embarrassing them.
As for FA players, I don't like the mentality of soccer in general, so I just about never watch it.
While not agreeing on all things, I would truly like to hear in more detail what you meant about problems with guiding a wheelchair-bound person about in the first comment.
People who piss in the car-park that I live above, they make it a little stinky in summer, but I clearly see that they don't make a problem for the people in wheelchairs who live in and travel about in the area.
> In the elevator of a building, really, WTF was Mrs. K thinking!
Yeah, that's some lack of judgement and consideration, but as you hint, it does not justify in any way public broadcast of a private security video.
And btw, what is it with El Reg making it looks like they're talking of some kind of court verdict? Does Mr. Haines know what Ofcom is?
I don't agree with all you say, but some of it is valid.
I must admit, this article and thread have really got me laughing, even though it is disgusting behaviour all around, pissing in a lift on camera (and knowing that), someone at the security company or council selling the video to a major TV channel, the TV channel broadcasting it, the regulator (IMHO) making the right choice against the complainant, although those who sold the footage should also be shown the door by their employers, that wasn't the complaint Ofcom was considering.
Biggest laugh I've enjoyed on the 'net so far this year, will have to watch the video if I can track it down.
> I just assumed that people only use AC when the post may endanger them in some way.
One reason I post AC, in fact, is to raise the "noise level" of AC posts to help out those who may need to use the feature out of a genuine privacy concern. The other reasons are more philosophical than practical in nature.
Unfortunately, it is a shame that there is no moral code that broadcast television is held accountable to. As I have only been on this planet for 50 years... it seems that TV's demise and degradation parallels societies on many levels. It seems to lead to a twisted sociopathy and lack of empathy that tears our world apart even further. We look down on others to make ourselves feel better instead of trying to improve ourselves. One could read about this, but to show it on TV just lacks moral character. It is akin to reading raunchy Hustler Humor cartoons. We know this kind of thing exists, but they do not have to show it on TV. One could read about it instead.
" [...] it seems that TV's demise and degradation parallels societies on many levels."
It is a human character trait. The Romans had it down to a fine art with their circuses to keep the plebs happy. Public floggings and executions were popular social occasions for all classes for many centuries in Europe. The Victorians liked their "penny dreadfuls" and tours of Bedlam or foundling homes.
Find an "outsider" group in any society - and it is too easy to render them fair game for anyone with a grievance about their own lives.
Its a shame and sociopathic when morons and numptys (of ANY social class) think it is okay to spread their virus ridden bodily fluids all over the inside of a public conveyance and made even more so when ANYONE would ever defend that kind of behavior.
I believe that they should take the pixellation off these videos so they completely shame the idiots who did the disgusting deeds in public. If you get caught doing something bad by the camera, be prepared to be on TV. Screw "empathy" as there can be no excuse for that behavior, ever.
Stop apologising for these fools. They lost all right to any "pity" long ago.
Be careful there. You may inspire Mrs. K to a major media career, after all, Kim Kardashian was only copying Paris Hilton by releasing video of herself having sex, and pretending that it was leaked.
Never watched any of that, but I really do want to watch the Mrs. K and not-Mr.-K in the lift video, it sounds so wonderfully tawdry, pissing on the floor of the elevator is a great touch.
I would not want to see that elevator at the time or have to ride it a short time later, but the whole is really making me laugh.
Ched Evans had his life ruined because he had sex with someone who was drunk and therefore unable to consent. This woman was unable to consent to being filmed and the man she was raping* could not give consent to being "pleasured". Don't put her on TV, put her in jail! And tell us her name.
Technically it's not rape, but it would be if our laws were not sexist. She enveloped him, he penetrated her. Only penetration is rape. Because she was unable to consent to penetration it's actually him that's the criminal, and being drunk is no excuse (for a man).
I've long noted the the most bigoted misandrists are mainly men, and you're a prime example. I really hope you end up falsely accused of rape or molestation and have your fucking life ruined as you so richly deserve. Filthy PC suck-up cockroaches like you are the ones undermining real efforts to fight injustice, by causing people to backlash against genuine equality movements. Spewing bigoted male-hate like you are doing is exactly what makes people think wrongly that equal-rights movements are all about hating on whites and males instead of achieving real equality, and so they naturally fight back with even more bigotry.
So do the world a favour and just shut your fucking sanctimonious mouth, and let the reformers who actually possess more than one brain cell do their job. You aren't helping women or any other victims of injustice in your crusade to show how politically correct you are, and you're hampering real efforts to achieve equal treatment for everyone.
Did you read every word, or just every other word? The guy was raped (by feminist standards) but he'll see no justice because our gynocentric laws allow women to rape with impunity. In reality (not the feminist fantasy world the law reflects), there is no justice to be served here because there was consent, but in the Ched Evans case consent didn't matter...because he's a man.
I'm amazed at the level of support for this woman, I dislike the constantly lowering common denominator for TV programs but as far as Ms K is concerned; if you can't take the public shame, don't shame yourself in public, nobody I am sure made you drink until you were drunk so the consequences of your actions are yours (and your elevated partner).
As for these programs 'being for the middle classes to watch the proles', anybody who watches this crap and is entertained by it, has no class.
Whilst there's technically no right to privacy in a public space, using the video for commercial gain without permission from the "subject" of the video brings up all sorts of sideways legal issues probably not covered by OFCOM that could end up in civil court. Complaining to OFCOM isn't really going to get you anywhere in this case.
Also don't suck people off in front of CCTV, don't get that drunk..
There was this girl, who got ripped to the tits
Who decided to pee in a lift
It soon came to be, that she appeared on tv
But this made her a little bit miffed
Her boyfriend was also remiss
He should have settled, just for a kiss
But he trembled his knee, when she sucked it to see
While the floor was all covered with piss
Not their finest hour, I'm sure. But broadcasting it on national tv is lower than low.
Is this what we have become as a nation? Titillation at others expense, so we can maybe feel a little bit of righteousness in our otherwise pathetic little lives? When I was nearly murdered, the police laughed at me for suggesting maybe, just maybe they could have a look at the cctv. 'Piss off' they said. 'You're not rich or famous, go away'. I paraphrase, of course, but that was the general gist.
That's point one - that isn't what cctv is for. It is for catching criminals who 'really' break the social contract. These fuckwits are hardly a shining example of humanity, but they got their punishment enough without it being open season on them for national ridicule.
Point two is this - what the chuff is TV meant to be for? For showing the misfortune of others so we can revel in it? Feel superior? Talk about dumbing it all down!
A good few years ago when I was just getting into computer programming and had the bug real bad, I lived without a tv. But I went around a mate's house who was having a bit of a private party and everyone was dropping ecstasy. So, you know, always hating to the party pooper...
However, I ended up watching this absolutely amazing program on television about computer programming through the ages. Starting off with Ada Lovelace and going through the decades, to the time when it was mainly women (coz men had little patience for the job) who actually hard coded the binary into machine instructions for the processors to be able to do all that adding up and subtracting malarkey. I was thoroughly fascinated, not least because I was attempting to learn assembler at the time as well. Not only had I learned something that I didn't know before, of historical importance, but I also understood how much I had learned and truly understood at a fundemental level with how computers actually work. I also learned things that I didn't understand at all. It was an amazing education. All crammed into an hour or so.
My mates tried to tempt me with more apples from the tree and to come and join the party in the other room, but I was awestruck with wonder at what I had just experienced. Why is there no channel dedicated to this on TV? I wondered. Why isn't this shit on all the time. Why is it always that odious eastenders with their petty spites and vindictivness, the least amongst us, raised to the level of something to look up to in society. Mmm...
That was one program. We could have stuff like that on all the time. There is a market for hungry minds out there. But no, you have to pay for that. You have to get 30,000 quid into debt for a degree that will never get you a job and won't even tell you half of what you just learned in that hour. You can't be having knowledge for free.
Which is a shame, because it would work. People would pay good money for that kind of quality. Yes, it would take talented and dedicated people to create it. But that would mean jobs, and meaningful ones at that for many people who work in IT. Who study the history of it, who really try to understand it on a fundemental level and not just to become another wage monkey one slip of the tongue to the boss away from not being able to pay his mortgage.
We have had it all in the last century or so. And we have squandered it. We have pissed it all away. Far worse than some silly drunk in a lift, who is the object for the daily hate on the panopticon. Well, you know what I mean.
Some of us would like to better ourselves. Some of us have really really struggled to do that. And we ended up failing. Some of us. We could have used a little help along the way. But some of us didn't get it. Some of us have a deep deep sense of what is important and what is right though. And this girl and her boyfriend being pilloried and put in the 21st Century equivalent of the stocks for us all to throw rotten fruit and vegetables at, will not enrich my life any further. Or those of a young lad or lass who has a deep passion and commitment to learning. To being taught by those who have a deep passion for teaching. Now any man that goes into teaching is eyed with suspicion of being a pedo. Or one that can't do, so teaches. How very very wrong this society has things. How twisted people have become in their outlooks. You realise there's no easy path back from here now, don't you?
This is what we have become. I feel truly ashamed of my fellow man. People who piss in lifts may not be the greatest amongst us. But they aren' the least amongst us either. And btw, that is why ecstasy is illegal and shall remain illegal, because it gives people deep insights into things that are truly fucking dangerous for the powers that be. You will not be educated. You will not better yourself. And you will do as you are told. Don't get ideas above your station. And they wrap it all up in a big ball of double think of getting an education and 'bettering yourself'. Meanwhile, keep on tuning into channel 4 and get your kicks there. It was wrong what they did to those people in the lift. But not as wrong as what they do to society as a whole, diminishing us and debasing us further than those we think ourselves better than.
The Open University home-learning programmes started in 1969 - and eventually became "The Learning Zone" which was transmitted on BBC2 throughout the night. By then you could either record them - or be a night owl. The lecturers and props were often not of the best presentation quality - but they all gave insights even if you didn't want to study the subject in depth.
They finally stopped re-transmitting them in 2007 - but the Open University logo can still be seen on many of the BBC Four science programmes. The factual content of many of those original programmes are still relevant to their subjects.
Relieving oneself in a lift that other people have to use is disgusting by any standard; and having any kind of sex in a situation where people who might not want to see it is at the very least selfish and inconsiderate.
But that does not make it OK to broadcast CCTV recordings, which are made for a specific purpose -- usually, the prevention and detection of crime -- which must be displayed on signs wherever CCTV in in operation. The contract is that we agree to allow ourselves be filmed, in certain circumstances, in return for a specific benefit. And those recordings cannot be used for any other purpose, except upon the order of a Court of Law. There is such a thing as due process, and it is there for a reason.
It's easy to see why TV companies might be tempted to make programmes as cheaply as possible. The shows are not the real product, but a mere vehicle for what they get paid for: advertisements. The only reason there are any actual programmes on TV at all is that they have got to have something to interrupt for advert breaks. And unfortunately, the same number of viewers now have more channels to choose from; facing TV companies with the need to make more programmes, even although they are still only receiving the same amount of money from advertisers. The end result is cheap programmes made to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
But none of that gives them the right to broadcast video contrary to the stated purpose for which it was acquired. And if that stated purpose did not include "entertaining the general public by appealing to their base instincts", and no court of law ever ruled that broadcasting the video to a wider audience served a more important purpose, then Channel 4 had no business broadcasting it.
This time around, it was something pretty abhorrent. But ask yourself this one question: Can you really be sure that there is nothing you do, that someone, somewhere might find a reason to think reprehensible?
Because if you can't, then you're only one very small step away from being the next unwitting exhibit in the modern-day carnival freak show.
Do something in front of a camera and of course it's not going to be private.
BUT surely if these images are for crime prevention and safety why are they touted to TV channels. It is not a choice to be filmed these days, but surely we should expect some protection from our footage being used outside of these parameters without our consent.
For all those going on about 'doing things in public don't expect privacy'.
How would you feel about the TV broadcasting your movements in real time: based on car number-plates being tracked by CCTV, your Oyster card, or your mobile phone. I mean, you were outside, in public, anyone could see you. So what are you complaining about?
The video did NOT have to be aired. But it was and it was done intentionally to cause harm through public shaming.
Certainly the video was not aired to benefit the woman in question but rather her indiscretion was used to benefit the production.
She should be at least paid for the use of that video.
I don;t know what lible law is in the UK but in the States libel is based on intent to do harm.
...have pointed out that the CCTV installation was not meant for taking candid shots of salacious behaviour to be sold to a TV station for entertainment.
I note that CCTV operators have to register under the Data Protection Act and have a code of practice covering this sort of thing, which seems pretty obviously broken to me. If she had complained to the Data Registrar I think she would have won her case easily.
The other justification I found fantastic was OfCom's argument that "this was not a private occasion, but occurred in a communal lift, accessible to all residents and visitors.. But it seems obvious that once the doors had closed the occupants had a reasonable expectation of privacy until the lift stopped, which usually gives one a 5-10 second warning. If OfCom are going to treat 'communal provision' as meaning that there is no privacy expectation, what about public lavatories, which are communal and accessible to all residents and visitors...?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
