Video streaming etiquette and privacy violations
February 7, 2008 //
James Corbet made a wild assumption which I’d like to address. In summary, James blogged that I violated a friend’s privacy by streaming live to the Web using a mobile video service called Qik.
I’ve pasted James’ blog post along with the comments left by other bloggers. I’ve done this because James doesn’t have email subscription to posts which means commentators aren’t informed of other comments being left. I really wish all blogs had this feature, including TechCrunch.
James said
So you’re out with a group of friends in a pub, enjoying a few drinks, letting your hair down. As you do. And then one of them pushes a camera phone in your face and starts streaming video live to the web. And immediately announces the fact to 518 other people. Not only that but he’s oblivious to your protestations and pleas to stop.
I don’t mean to pick on Segala’s Paul Walsh because I’ve certainly enjoyed and appreciated his video coverage of events like the inaugural Irish Digital Industry Association Dinner in Dublin recently. But Paul is a guy who writes regularly about online privacy and is CEO of Segala, a company developing technology which, among other things, is designed to help you find websites which follow best practices for privacy and copyright.
However, it seems to me that during last night’s broadcast Paul crossed the line by invading the privacy of at least one friend. If someone asks you to stop, puts their hand in front of the camera and looks clearly uncomfortable when you refuse is that not a blatant violation of their privacy? I don’t presume to know Paul’s friends so perhaps I’ve misread the situation but if someone did likewise to me I’d be very tempted grab their camera phone and dunk it in my drink!
Comments left by other bloggers
In particular, the live aspect means there is no opportunity to undo the posting of something you immediately regret doing. I can imagine a similar problem with Shozu when people are out on the tear. Qik Content Labels? “Warning, this video may contain scenes of drunk people”
Posted by: Conor O’Neill | Feb 6, 2008 12:26:35 PM
Damn, that last line would have been a much better post title than mine! Yeah, I only bring the issue up for discussion because I think it’s something that we’re going to have to be increasingly concerned with. As I say I thoroughly appreciate informative videos like Paul’s other ones and your Cork OpenCoffee ones and Pat Phelan’s travel ones, etc. But I’m thinking ahead here and realizing we’ll probably have a few QIKers at the Irish Blog Awards and similar sociable events this year and wondering if we’re going to have people streaming video from inappropriate situations? What are the ground rules? What etiquette applies?
Posted by: James Corbett | Feb 6, 2008 12:47:48 PM
It’s a discussion that has to happen and I think it’ll be a major issue as services like Qik are adopted by the greater web community. Over time, though, people will become comfortable with such invasions the same way we don’t think twice now about the plethora of CCTV cameras watching our every move.
Posted by: Eoghan McCabe | Feb 6, 2008 1:09:17 PM
Having had people shove cameras into my face and say “Can I put you on my Flickr?” I’m pretty used to this, but there is a time delay between the act of recording and the act of uploading. Qik, and others like it, destroy that delay (as you point out), and without immediate web access - like in a bar - you can’t delete something that fast, and even if you could it would be already online. Once on the the Internet, always on the Internet, right? Mind you grown-up, ‘digital savvy’ people in a bar will pale beside what will happen when more nefarious people get hold of this mobile tech. Interesting post!
Posted by: Mike Butcher | Feb 6, 2008 2:20:59 PM
My response
@James - I think you’re right. We do face a potential problem and a lot of care should be taken when streaming live to the Web. I’ve since removed my videos of last night but for different reasons.
Please note that everyone around the table were aware up front, that I was going to stream live. In fact, I spent about 5 minutes trying to change the SIM from my iPhone to the N95 so I could do it. With this post in particular I think you should have asked if anyone genuinely didn’t want to be filmed.
Some people put their hand in front of the camera when in fact, they love it. No, I’m not saying that no means yes or maybe
Do you use Qik and if so, do you worry about the privacy you just happen to capture in the background?
Andy Oakes says 
James Pearce says 
Joe Scanlon says 
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
February 7th, 2008
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
February 7th, 2008
FYI TechCrunch does have this email feature for comments.
February 7th, 2008
@Mike - really? That’s great. How do I sub to comments by email? I still can’t find it.
February 7th, 2008
Interesting discussion. I think Conor and Mike nail it with the comments that the lack of any time-delay or room for consideration makes things very different. Qik marks a step-change in internet publishing, and we need to take time out to consider the implications, IMHO. In particular, it means people need to consider carefully whether to film other people. If a documentary crew were following us around 24/7, most of us would probably alter some aspects of our behaviour. Now, that crew can pop out of your mate’s pocket at the drop of a hat.
February 7th, 2008
@Ian but has it though. I mean, Robert Scoble has been capturing people on film for ages, with and without their consent. I don’t mean to point the finger as clearly, people love to be on the receiving end of his camera.
Ok so there’s a time delay between filming and publishing. But, as far as the person being captured is concerned, there’s no time gap.
Take Google for example, it has captured walking in the street all over the world. The fact that Qik enables streaming shouldn’t be questioned. It should be privacy itself.
February 7th, 2008
A lot of people are really quite anxious about Google Maps (especially the new street-level stuff), and being tagged on photo-sharing sites as an invasion of their privacy. Qik takes that to the next level, and yes, people are rightly concerned. Saying that previous things invaded people’s privacy isn’t really a good defence of continuing to do so.
"as far as the person being captured is concerned, there’s no time gap." Yes, there is - enough time to say - I’d really prefer it if you didn’t publish that. Qik eliminates that.
Check out the dog shit girl story as a great anecdote about why this is really quite alarming.
February 7th, 2008
A link might have been helpful:
http://populargusts.blogspot.com/2005/07/dog-poop-girl-redux.html
February 7th, 2008
I have to say I enjoy watching videos of the entrepreneurs talking about their startups.
However personally I’m shy so if I was at a tech meetup I wouldn’t like to be on any camera either broadcasted live or to be later uploaded online. However there is no way for any of the qikers or video bloggers to know.
So I think it would be good idea if there was some sort of "opt out" policy at tech events/meetups when it comes to video, podcasts and even photos.
February 7th, 2008
@Ian "as far as the person being captured is concerned, there’s no time gap." Yes, there is - enough time to say - I’d really prefer it if you didn’t publish that."
There isn’t if they never get the opportunity. BTW, I’m playing devil’s advocate. I agree that privacy is a serious issue that people should take more seriously. I recently consulted the Office of Fair Trading on this subject - believe me, I was very harsh with them. Privacy Statements on Web sites is a grey area in the UK - whilst it’s black and white in other countries such as Ireland.
I don’t think Qik brings it to a new level. I think it’s emphasising an issue that has been around for a while. An issue we should continue to discuss.
@D You should be asked to sign a form in an ideal situation. You should at least be asked for permission.
February 7th, 2008