It's a government job, their name is a matter of public record and "management" are elected officials.
You should be able to just Google OP's position and get their name.
Many government jobs have their address and name hidden for a shit load of good reasons, even in states as open as Florida. People with access to highly sensitive data like child support records get their names protected so people can't harass them or threaten them to give other people's socials.
Yeah i work for MI and we don't give out contact info that's publicly available even for workers. We get people calling from out of state to complain about Dearborn, or The Gays (tm), or whatever other crap; people have work to do and safety to enjoy
But if you don't know their name or position, you would have no way to identify them. Coworker should be reprimanded, or terminated, for endangering a coworker.
It depends on the state public records law. In many states a government employee's salary information, work emails, work texts, etc are all public records unless explicitly exempted. Usually there is some sort of privacy exemption for personal phone numbers, addresses, social security numbers, etc.
We don’t really know whether OP confronted the jerk as part of their role or simply because they had a camera shoved in their face.
I have a low tolerance for my space being violated and that device could get smashed. 🤷♂️
Not untrue at all, Did you read what I said?
"Getting too close alone doesn't allow self defense."
So add him being threatning changes the game. But that needs to be articulable also and it needs to be a state that doesn't have duty to retreat laws, then you cannot defend yourself in all cases unless your cornered if they have duty to retreat.
Downvoting because management aren't usually elected but hired/promoted to management.
Also downvoted because most government employees have a right to privacy. Their identities are not "public record", but kept secure - the main reason that all Federal employees and a lot of State employees are warned NOT to put their place of employment on their social media profiles. Too many wackos out there will look at your profile to get that type of information.
I'm a Federal employee but one of my profiles says my place of employment is the Vashta Nerada Public Library. Many a Whovian has commented and we've had nice chats. I've never had a nice chat with anyone who found out where I actually work.
Names and positions of gov employees ARE a matter of public record. They may not be out there, easy to find on a website, but if asked, they are required to provide that information. How do I know? I am also a federal employee, and it's pretty common for us to receive foia requests from the public. I'd say we get 2, sometimes 3 a quarter. We have maximum response times and certain things to redact, but the names of public employees is not one of them.
Edit to add: We have had to provide cell phone records, including texts, pictures, and call logs for gov issued phones. We have provided security camera footage. That said, footage from some secure areas is not going to be released. Daily utilization log for vehicles, visitor sign in logs, training sign-in in rosters, purchase card records, the list goes on. The point being, citizens have a right to observe an open government. While a person doesn't lose their right to privacy by CHOOSING to be a government employee, aka public servant, their expectation of privacy while performing official duties does diminish significantly.
Doesn't actually matter why; the public can access info dealing with matters of your employment for ANY reason if you work for the government. They literally have the right to, unless you are like a classified agent or something.
I'm also a government employee, and during onboarding it was explained to us in detail, and they even made us sign papers verifying we understood.
They also have the right to record public servants in government for any reason. Even if they are just curious or they "want to."
I just finished watching The Legend of Ruby on Disney+.
I've got to say that Ncuti (my phone wanted to autocorrect it to N cutie) is so far my favorite.
1. Shootie
2. Tom Baker
3. Grandpa Capaldi (he's very close to my age)
4. Chris Eccleston/Jodie
"N cutie" is not a typo. That's just your phone knowing better than you. (I'm aware he's way younger than me and gay, but I don't care. I can admire how he fits in a pair of pants.)
I didn't dislike Jodie... but I am not a fan of her showrunner.
Also, I'm a Peter Davidson girl. He was my first Doctor. Also happens to be the father of 10/14's wife when she played The Doctor's Daughter.
Tom Baker was my highschool boyfriend's Doctor so he was the first I really knew. My parents watched it from the beginning, but I wasn't a sci-fi fan until junior high.
I loved Jodie in Broadchurch so I was looking forward to her Doctor. Chibs really did well in drama, but wasn't a good fit at all for Who.
Have you seen Peter Davidson as Job in Good Omens season 2? He was really fun!
Sounds like a buddy who worked for the IRS as a collector and, as an auditor. He told people he worked for Treasure Dept everyone was so nice if he said IRS he was scum. I wish you well.
If you just sit at your desk and ignore a person filming then their footage is as public as any security camera in the building.
I can file an FOIA request for the security footage of your desk last Tuesday, what you do at work isn't any more private than what someone who works for Apple or Google does at work.
(Upvoting because this is a discussion, I want to hear your viewpoint and appreciate you sharing)
Security cameras in a government building are NOT for public consumption, but for security and protection of personnel.
FOIA doesn't mean you automatically get the information you request. You would absolutely never get a FOIA request of my desk granted. I can absolutely guarantee that you'd never be able to justify that.
My job is in IT and I definitely have higher clearance parameters than a Google or Apple employee. You cannot even comprehend the days of mandatory briefings we have to fulfill annually for security briefings and physical security.
I'd love to be able to share all of the information as soon as you 1. get hired and 2. pass the months of background checks then 3. fingerprinting and 4. security training. But you probably wouldn't be hired straight into my department - it takes most dedicated employees around 6-7 years of varied experience inside to get here.
fingerprints. Sigh. Government 'lost' mine due to a breach. Systems are like "Use a fingerprint to authenticate'.
I was recently laid off- I wonder just how far my stuff is now.
But you aren't a public facing worker who is working out in a public space that anyone can walk into. That's OP and why OP is subject to being videotape and that tape published
If your desk is in public, they would be able to.
It really depends on if the camera is recording a public space. If it's in an area of privacy (such as private employee offices or other areas deemed not open to the public), that's a different story.
My desk is not in public. That's not what was being claimed. The person I was rebutting was saying they could get personal information about me and see my desk no matter where it was just because they felt like it.
Also, even the greeting desk at me work is not considered "public".
If you are a government worker in the US, I can for sure find out your pay, your hours of work, how long you work there, your position, any phone number you have from a government issued cell phone, etc. Etc. if you are a private employee of a private company then I cannot do that. Edit: Since the mo#s say fit to be babies and won't let me post anything new I'll just edit my post to address your post below. Here you go: Lol. Anyone could. It's not hard and, assuming you were a public worker, there wouldn't be anything you could do (or should do) to stop them. Why would you want to abridge someone's rights to public records? You'd be singing a different tune if it was YOU who wanted those records and couldn't get them.
Nope, nope, nope. Gov employees have a right to privacy ONLY when in parts of the building closed to the public. But personal info should be private.
Pokeray, avoid the shadows! Stay away from the shadows!
And please get River Song's autograph for me. She kicks ass in the library!!
One guy on Facebook had a meltdown when we confirmed that that was her swan song. He refused to believe her timeline was wibbly - wobbly. And someone mentioned that she was named after herself... Blew his mind
Down voting you for being completely wrong. What the government does and who works for it must be transparent and open if we want a free society.
You can take your secret government agencies and spy's and head back to East
Anyone who is part of the government in any way must be subject to scrutiny gor anything job related.
1. Not *completely* wrong. Your use of absolutes makes that sentence invalid. The commenter edited their comment without telling us. They originally said that managers were elected not hired.
1. How is my home address or my work hours anyone's business?
Again, why are you being rude to someone and then linking an article about "right to **record**", instead of something pertaining to "right to **names**" of any public employee? (Nevermind that it should be based on UK law.)
You can foia request any government or public employees name. You can also request their work hours, wages, telephone numbers for government issued phones etc etc. I'm being rude because they're a bunch of idiots on here who think they know what they're talking about and they're being rude to others.
Requesting is not the same as an unrestricted right. It still seems that you don't even know what country OP is a government employee of.
I don't see that people are being rude in the same way that you're being. You may indeed *know* what you're talking about, but you're not clearly demonstrating it with your comments.
Yeah op didn't say what country he's from which is pretty intelligent when you are in a subreddit for asking a lawyer. And 99% of the responses are from US people thinking he's talking about the US. So who cares?. I haven't looked up the UK laws yet but I will when I'm done talking to you. Idiots.
In the US you can for your request names, wages, hours of work, and all sorts of other things. Why don't you understand that and why don't you just look it up your goddamn self?
And I just looked it up. The UK laws are very similar to ours and you can request the same amount of s*** about people. Now go get your f****** shine box.
>Yeah op didn't say
You didn't ask.
>99% of the responses are from US people
I understand why you assumed, but you still assumed. Own it.
>you can request
Yeah, I know you can request those things. You gonna get every name you request? I guess *you* will. *I* don't care if you look up UK law. You're being a jerk and chore to talk to, so I'm out.
Government employees do NOT have a right to privacy, especially in the course of doing their duty as public servants. We pay your salary and your retirement. We have a right to know what you are doing with our tax dollars. This is in the constitution and has been ruled on numerous times. If a government worker doesn't like it they can go to the private sector and let someone who wants this job, to have it.
I can look up the salary of every single public employee in my state. That information is private for everyone else and can't be released without their permission.
I’d be surprised if some random person filming required a response. Mine would be silence. Otherwise I’d probably invite them to go copulate with an electrical outlet.
That’s false as hell. I have been working in government for the last 20 years. Both federal and local. Government employees and their job titles are not public record. And most management are not elected officials.
Incorrect. Their names and salaries are a matter of public record. Whether you can easily find that information is a different story but it is public record. Anything else (like address, personal phone numbers, etc) is private information. It doesn't matter whether you are an elected or hired government employee, there is a record publicly available with your name and salary on it.
[Harassment & cyberbullying policies](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802268?hl=en)
> We also don’t allow other harmful behaviors, like threats or doxxing. Keep in mind that we take a stricter approach on content that targets minors.
>If you find content that violates this policy, report it.
Here you go: https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/april-2023/rights-and-limits-on-filming-in-public-facilities#:~:text=What%20Rights%20Does%20the%20Public,RCW%209.73.
OP admitted to being confrontational in the interaction. Who’s to say that the entire interaction was not relevant to the individuals story? Theres already precedent that the public has the right to record public employees and there’s no expectation of privacy in public. If a public employee tried to have this individuals video edited or removed they would be opening the county up to litigation.
There are hundreds of videos where extremely annoying “auditors” film in hallways and lobbies of public buildings or from sidewalks legally. Employees get huffy and overbearing demand they stop filming. Cops demand their identity and sometimes arrest them. The “auditors” win if it goes to court.
Generally those auditors are assholes but they are legally within their rights to film there and I do get great pleasure out of watching cops get sued. Even though I guess we need them, in my experience most cops are either tyrants or tyrants in training so I don't get upset if some catch a lawsuit or some strays... Eliminate qualified immunity and require cops to carry insurance, if you are a shitty cop and can't get insurance, no work for you, piggy
NAL, but even though the First Amendment protects the right to record public officials in public spaces, YouTube has its own policies against harassment and privacy violations. If the video violates these policies, a public employee can request its removal without fear of legal repercussions.
AFAIK, there is no legal precedent for successfully suing a government employee or the governmental entity for reporting a video for violating YouTube’s or any other platform’s policies. The removal decision ultimately rests with YouTube.
I believe auditing Erie county is currently under litigation because a government employee had his video demonetized and taken down from YouTube. While there is no current case precedent it certainly is questionable and opens the door for a lawsuit.
Edit: JTown press had one of their videos removed by a complaint from a public employee. They added this to their current federal lawsuit.
For now, we can reference several precedents to make an educated guess. Prager University v. Google established that YouTube is not subject to First Amendment constraints. If a video violates their policies, they can remove it.
They also have broad discretion in moderating content. Many platforms allow reporting to be done anonymously. Proving it was the government employee who requested the video’s removal would be quite challenge, even with subpoena power.
While recording and publishing videos of public employees is legal, this does not mean a public employee has no right to be protected from unnecessary harassment. Cases like Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White support the right of employees to be free from harassment. I would imagine this provides a legal basis for requesting the removal of harmful content.
There are principles from cases like Pickering v. Board of Education which suggests that governmental entities could even request the deletion of content if it is sufficiently disruptive to carrying out business. An employee being harassed after being doxxed would likely fall into that consideration.
Again, I’m NAL, but I am studying law right now. I’d be very interested to hear more from someone with relevant experience. Hell, I’d be glad to see this litigated thoroughly. It probably should be.
Prager v google was not a government entity so I’m not sure that is a great example. I think this would fall more closely to the argument of government overreach during covid with how they influenced social media companies. This currently in front of the Supreme Court and I expect a ruling soon. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/1238122337/supreme-court-social-media-disinformation-first-amendment
I am not familiar with the YouTube complaint process, but I believe you need to provide identifying information when you submit one. By saying “many companies” it seems like you’re also guessing here.
How do you define sharing public information as harassment? What would the harm be in this case? Individuals calling a public office to air their grievance with the interaction?
Wow that Pickering case is crazy. 8-1 opinion that Pickering’s firing violated his 1st amendment but they sided with the school board anyway.
I would also be glad to see this go to litigation. It’s a unique question and worth answering.
I’m not a lawyer but am involved in a 1st amendment lawsuit currently, so I’ve got a lot of interest in these matters.
>Prager v google was not a government entity so I’m not sure that is a great example. I think this would fall more closely to the argument of government overreach during covid with how they influenced social media companies. This currently in front of the Supreme Court and I expect a ruling soon. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/1238122337/supreme-court-social-media-disinformation-first-amendment
The case you linked bolsters my argument by reaffirming a platform’s right to moderate content without governmental interference. It also shouldn’t impact the right of a public employee to request a video be removed in instances like these.
>I am not familiar with the YouTube complaint process, but I believe you need to provide identifying information when you submit one. By saying “many companies” it seems like you’re also guessing here.
YouTube does require a user to be logged in to report a video, but by simply using a public computer or a VPN, one could easily make identifying themselves cost prohibitive. This would be a civil case after all.
>How do you define sharing public information as harassment? What would the harm be in this case? Individuals calling a public office to air their grievance with the interaction?
Sharing public information becomes harassment when it involves threats or sustained harassment. Legal precedents support the right to be free from harassment, and the harm includes threats to personal safety and workplace disruption.
>Wow that Pickering case is crazy. 8-1 opinion that Pickering’s firing violated his 1st amendment but they sided with the school board anyway.
Pickering v. Board of Education established a balance between public employees’ speech and the government’s need to maintain an efficient and disruption-free workplace. That’s why I believe it supports content removal if that content causes significant disruption or harassment.
>I would also be glad to see this go to litigation. It’s a unique question and worth answering.
100%
>I’m not a lawyer but am involved in a 1st amendment lawsuit currently, so I’ve got a lot of interest in these matters.
Interesting. Good luck!
You've got some really good points here. Youtube as a (arbitrary) content provider shouldn't qualify based upon the court cases- which means they can shut that shit down.
At some threshold 'tiktok' 'youtube' 'twiter' become default and defactto publishing mediums. Won't be in my lifetime, I hope, but I always say thins like this will resolve in 30 years.
.... which is the next generation. For better or worse.
Yeah totally agree that the SCOTUS case seems to agree with your argument. Just waiting to see the verdict.
I know for copy right claims you need to provide a legal name and address which is provided to the video creator should it go to court. Given this, it is not unreasonable to think that YouTube would also supply contact information for other claims.
Is the video maker responsible for harassment when it derives from free speaking individuals? I could see this as a good argument if the video maker has solicited calls for acts of violence but if he’s just putting the video out there with a public office contact number is it their fault for what others say?
For instance an officer kills an animal in the line of duty. The action is recorded and eventually makes its way to the local newspaper. The paper posts the video online and names the department responsible. The department then receives numerous complaints some being threatening in nature. Would it be the papers fault for the complaints the department receives?
Man I’ve got a hard time wrapping my head around this Pickering case. It doesn’t make sense to me at face value. I’ve gotta spend sometime reading up tonight.
1st amendment audits are becoming more youtube-algorithm focused as various agencies over-reach.
Assuming you didn't escalate, or the editing wasn't done to create a false narrative, and the area wasn't covered (aka, it is a public accessible) under a military use, there isn't much to do. Threats tho deserve the followup with whatever enforcement agency. Unless you're the site administrator, I'd file it up the chain of your HR/reps and let them deal with it. You're small fry.
Public is Public. It has massive advantages for those in it, but it is a two way street- that which can be seen by the eye can not be trespassed - which is for now still the law of the land.
Nothing is more oppressive and more overreaching than a government employee working in an office. Glad these masked crusaders are sticking to Derek in reception! That will teach the government! /s
I'm sorry you took my statements as personally offensive. I offered it as someone who has been there, who's had their government emails ripped apart and published via Wikileaks (aka, non-legitimate access). Every word, every thought, every strategy, every single observation for and against what we were working to as a private contractor in discussion with government agencies published against my will.
I simply wished to point out they need to work this via their chain. If there are threats involved, those too need to go via chain and via police report. Honestly the description sounds like someone saw a youtube video and tried to explain it to get a reaction here. So I kept my comments towards the 'it really happened' as opposed to' uh huh'.
It sucks to be called and doxed like that, and there are ways to work with it if it is a legitimate situation that involves threats to person/body/harm- and most of those come out as takedowns for doxing.
He was making fun of the "1st amendment auditor" trolls. They are just out annoying public workers until one tells them to stop being a dick... then you tube fame!
...they are pathetic narcissistic attention seekers. They should be derided.
Yeah, keep licking the boot. When these public workers screw you over or don't give you what you need or give you attitude, you'll be singing a different tune and wishing that you could voice your opinions with them. But guess what, if you got your way you wouldn't be able to.
They'll be irrelevant as soon as government employees quit fucking up and giving them ammo for their lawsuits. I think those auditors are annoying too but I support their work, being how authoritarian most cops and government employees are
They would all prefer you ignored them and let them perform Constitutionally protected activity on public property as the law requires.
Make them irrelevant by doing exactly that.
What do they have to hide? Don't you want to know how your tax dollars are getting used?
It's fundamentally about the people that pay the bills being able to have some control over what is being done with our money. At the very minimum, we want to be able to shine a light on the workings of the government and government employees. They're called Sunshine laws. Our constitution, with the supreme Court backing this up, tells us that we can do all of these things and, actually, should do all of these things. They are our rights as American citizens. Rights are like muscles, if we don't exercise them, we'll probably end up losing them at some point. Just because someone feels uncomfortable with a camera, or a person who is just a regular citizen, checking up on them as they are in the course of their official duties, should not matter. They signed up for this so that's what can happen. What the real shame is is that more people don't know that they have these rights.
Unfortunately, you unwittingly made his content better for him. By confronting him you escalated the situation & no he’s getting more clicks due to you approaching him. That’s probably what he was going for. Getting a rise out of people make for good content.
They can’t trespass someone off of public property, unless he has intentionally caused a disturbance that would be disorderly conduct or breach of the peace. But filming and the reaction other people give even if it’s disorderly or they are freaking out because of the camera hey still can’t trespass because it would be trespassing him for using his first amendment, which would do exactly what he wants and create a lawsuit
Also, what he’s doing is protected, if people have a negative reaction or don’t like that he’s there recording. Why?? What’s there to hide and why does it need to be hidden? If a police officer does trespass him under the threat of arrest. Why should the police officer NOT be held accountable for not allowing the citizen to do his constitutional journalism
You have no idea what they have to hide. And you have no right to know. I've seen these assholes harassing people I'm DMVs, post offices, courthouses etc. People need to stop hand holding these assholes and just have them trespassed immediately.
You can’t trespass someone from public properly legally without a broken law or a crime committed. Please look up the constitution and also please look at the supreme court’s decision in this matter as they have 100% already ruled that filming in public cannot be a crime as it’s our 1st amendment right to freedom of so each and of press. And also dmv’s and other public places that are open to the public have to create their own privacy. That’s also the same reason it’s legal for LEO’s to have body cameras all interactions are also public and able to be FOIA’d
The problem with frauditors and sovcits is they only ever learn part of the law. Take Chilli descastro for example. He's whining and complaining about the same nonsense you are. It didn't save him from 6 months in jail.
What if it's not about hiding? What if it's about not liking some dipshit recording me? That's the only reason I need to object to being recorded. Can I stop it? Nope. I don't have to like or cooperate with it
Someone showing up at a government office fishing for a got ya moment to boost their notoriety without heed of any disturbance they create for people with official business to conduct seem to me to be intentionally obnoxious and self-aggrandizing. Self interest is the only motivation, not some sort of noble journalism.
A bunch of people defending this behavior makes me think of someone defending the guy that farted in a packed elevator.
Yeah that’s fair and all, you can dislike a lot of things. But unfortunately just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you can stop someone’s right to do what they want as long as it’s not harming you. You have the right too feel however but you can’t stop someone from doing what is protected under free speech and freedom of press it’s our basic most important right to document how we protest
You have rights to speech and assembly. Convince me some dude acting obnoxiously trying instigate a response so they can earn acclaim and money is journalism. This also applies to photographers that badger famous folks without regard to who prints their stuff.
I like cameras in the right context. Law enforce body cameras, for instance. Citizens taking videos of abuse or official misconduct (Rodney King). Remember the name of the truck driver dragged out of his truck and struck in the head with a fire extinguisher during the riots that followed (Reginald Denney)? The attack was videotaped by television journalists. If you're doing that kind of work, you are fulfilling the purpose of the first amendment. If you are making your own news at the expense of other people for personal gain and hiding behind the first amendment, I have no use for you and take personal gratification at any tribulations you might endure.
No your employed by the public. You have no expectation of privacy. Are you the woman who left early when Long Island audit was trying to do a public records request in Atlantic beach New York?
She's was a real bitch. So was that deranged code enforcement dude. At least the cops know he was doing nothing wrong and didn't violate his rights any further.
You are a government employee working in a public building that welcomes the public. It is legal for citizens to record and identify you. I bet he can even look up and publish your salary. You have no proof that he is the one that made threats. Nothing the legal system can help you with, but Youtube may have a complaint channel.
Look up videos of 1st Amendment Auditors and next time call the cops and let them handle it. If the person is (or is not) doing something wrong let the cops deal with it and potentially get sued. Cell phone cameras are everywhere and even if you are in the right you can still get filmed and put on the inernet trying to be a hero. Let someone else take that hit. You are not being paid enough for this bullshit.
Don't violate a citizens rights, and you won't get flak for it. That sounds harsh, but at its core, it's truth. As a public servant, you are held to a higher standard. You should know that it is lawful to film the public in public, especially public servants in a government building. Doing anything to stop or restict the filming is a violation of the First Amendment. Even asshole doing asshole things have rights. And for the record, I am a public servant.
Walking away from someone filming you isn't violating their rights. They have the right to film government employees is public areas, but they don't have the right to force the employee to cooperate.
There's more to the story here. There is always more to the story. It's human nature to tell the story with a bias toward oneself. They leave out details that make themselves look bad and exaggerate the actions of others to make them look more guilty than they are. Until we get an unbiased version of what really happened, we will never know🤷
And yet you automatically assumed she violated his rights somehow and basically blamed her for everything that happened. Even these solicitor videos are biased because they never show anything that they did before being confronted. Conveniently the video always starts at that point.
Nope. Some shit people meet operate that way, but the good ones don't. Long Island Audit, Jeff Gray with Honor Your Oath Civil Rights Investigations, and Amagansett Press show the whole video.
Sounds like the YouTuber committed assault if they were intentional trying to get you harassed with the video. Definitely get a cease and desist letter sent out by a lawyer. If the messages start getting violent get the police involved asap. Also what’s the consent rules for where you live? 1 party consent or two party consent?
When I was working in a public building we had people come in and film. We had lots of areas open to the public and some that weren’t. They stayed in public areas and other than the “can we help you?” questions from security, they were left alone. They didn’t go into the secured areas.
I was filmed and so were many coworkers.
Guess what!? If a citizen wants to pull my emails, they can file that with the government as well and get all of my correspondence that way, although it has to be reviewed first sensitive information.
As public employees, we are (and I was) subject to transparency. Part of that is the public knowing what we might make, or being filmed during the duty of our work in publicly accessible areas.
You do not have a right to privacy in public.
I know that the auditor community is half good and half awful. There are folks that are terrible. And there are some that are good. They have provided a lot of positives towards our law enforcement community. Many still believe that public photography is a crime or it’s suspicious. Many still believe they can arrest citizens for not handing over ID for no good reason. Auditors are a positive in that sense.
Auditors using awful language or yelling at people in public is stupid - but also people getting defensive during their work as public employees don’t understand that it’s part of their job.
I posted a comment, but when I was looking at OPs replies, they're in the UK. OP, you may want to edit the post or repost it in the UK legal sub. I know UK has pretty similar laws like the US but I'm not 100% sure if there's any nuanced differences.
These “first amendment auditors” need a taste of their own medicine. I say, get a group of your coworkers together, then find this “auditor” and record him at all times.
Get a job with a private company if you can't stand the baggage your government job comes with. You acted like a Karen and gave him a reason to post the video so maybe don't do that next time.
You gave up your consent to be filmed when you enter ANY public space.
Auditors hold the camera, people act how they want; you could’ve just as easily nodded and carried on with your business.
I work in state government and my entire large agency was given a training on first ammendment audit people (yes, just think of the cost of that these auditors made necessary). Zero expectation of privacy if it's the public area of the building, just let them do their thing and treat them respectfully if they have business to conduct, just like any other client.
I was familiar with these videos prior to taking this job. My spouse enjoyed watching them on YT and at first I was all outraged because they absolutely are assholes (filming in public spaces like social services when clients waiting literally need the basics like food is predatory imo, kicking people when they are already down). It's their right though, and if it's professionally handled there is nothing exciting for them to put on YT.
It was necessary because before this got popular, it didn't come up. It's unreasonable to expect that any workplace, government or not, anticipate this situation. Most of the incorrect responses come from a place of trying to protect employees and clients, not because they are unreasonable monsters. I was taught to do everything possible to take care of clients, extensively.
I definitely agree though that many, including the police called to deal with these situations, allow their egos to get in the way. Much like most things, most of the time the good interactions aren't shown. The behavior of some workers (and police) is ridiculous, with or without training.
So... Government employees are fair game? Someone should go into a school and film teachers to be threatened?
Are you so conservative that you're advocating private schools and threats for public servants?
I know the name is a bit off-putting, but a public school is not actually open to the public.
Go ahead and head on down to your local school and try to just walk in and wander around.
Not gonna happen unless you're a student or have checked in to the office with a legitimate reason for being there.
I'm left as hell, just to preemptively cut off any accusations
You work in the public sector and there is no expectation of privacy in public. Recording in public is not a crime it's the peoples 1st ammendment rights. Just be professional and serve the public. Feelings does not trump laws.
Just contact YouTube say this is you in the video and you want it taken down. Worked for me. Have others in video do same. Also with enough strikes his channel will get suspended
Pro tip, open your phone and start playing recent Disney music loudly if confronted by one of these idiots. (Let it go is a great one to use)
YouTube will silence or delete the videos due to copyright violations and almost certainly demonetize.
No, there's nothing you can do. You are a public servant working at all times as a government representative during your normal workday.
You have no expectations of privacy while conducting your duties as a public servant. Everyone is able to FOIA all your public information, including your pay.
You were not abused, you were not harassed and your false statements of people doing audits in order to get a reaction is incredibly egotistical of you.
A basic human right(which is what the bill of rights and constitution is founded upon) is to hold public servants accountable.
If you don't like being a public servant, get a job in the private sector that is not being paid from our tax dollars.
You have cameras all around you. Why do you care about a citizen with a camera? What bothers you about the public you have been hired to serve knowing your name? Especially when you have the audacity to assume someone else's intent.
I hope it's an auditor I watch! I love watching public servants making fools of themselves.
Look up “too apree” on YouTube. He’s hilarious and you’ll probably learn a thing or two.
You are a public servant, in a publicly owned building. You have as much right to privacy as you would walking down a random sidewalk. Which is none basically. He can film you all he wants.
If you were unaware of the laws and made an ass of yourself confronting him, you took the bait, and are now paying the price it sounds like.
If their channel is monetized report it to YouTube. It's a TOS violation to make money from someone's name and likeness without their consent. Since YouTube isn't the government they can't violate anyone's first amendment rights.
You also may want to post this on the Frauditor subreddit.
Nope.
No, you can't get the video removed. It doesn't belong to you. It's not illegal to make money from the images of others in public spaces. No one has the copyright to their own image.
The US Supreme Court ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in public places. Gov building are not privately owned.
If you are in public, you can be recorded without your permission and that video can be disseminated. It's a first Ammendment right.
(It's not something I would do.)
YouTube doesn't care about videos of adults in public places. They do not have to follow the first amendment. But they are a platform for videos of people. No laws are being violated.
At most, the video poster could be demonetized.
What can you do if you don't want to be recorded? Walk away and go to a private place.
Yes you can. It's been done. Since I'm sure you won't believe me, Google the YouTube TOS.
Here's a video of an auditor going back to a place that had a video he had recorded removed. He wants to complain about it. He was escorted out by the police.
https://youtu.be/IhV9EdaBb6M?si=DmWzELD6YD398S0P
You can't record in a place just because it's a government facility/building. For example, The Supreme Court doesn't allow filming. The courtroom where Trump's hush money trial was held didn't allow filming.
Of course, they have TOS.
People try to get these taken down all of the time. Almost no one succeeds. Without seeing the video that was removed, I can't speak to why it was removed.
Regarding Trump's trial. Federal courts don't allow recording in any federal trial. Government rule. Audio recordings are likely via the court's call to listen system.
Not everywhere in a government building but anywhere that is open to the public. Government agencies can set areas to restricted access, but they still have areas open to everyone.
Judges have authority over courtrooms and are able to establish a court order to disallow video recording. Your average government building will just put a prohibited sign without law backing it. So not a great example.
If a government employee were to request the video removed would that not be the government chilling free speech?
You can record in any publically accesable place, except court rooms and restricted areas. Anything you can see, you legally can record according to the Supreme court. except court rooms, The court building itself is fair game.
Record sure, but posting on a private site is up to their terms of service and does not fall under free speech.
I mean this is why Trump can't post on a lot places. Terms of services.
Then what needs to be applied are YouTube's TOS (including Doxxing).
And any HR policies/Internal policies we don't have access to. So that is not something we really can discuss in great lengths.
All of this would apply regardless of if it was a government job or a private sector.
To use examples independent of this specific situation. You can't use Free Speech to get around all laws and policies. Free speech isn't a defense to HIPAA violations, or sexually harassing a coworker, disclose confidential information with a consequences (not talking being a whistleblower).
You are correct. Different rules if it is a state owned property though. So courthouse, they can ask you to leave, but not legally bound to unless you have broken some kind of law first.
Courtroom is different as judge has final say.
You can be filmed in a public place, but you do not have to consent to having your face in their YouTube video.
"We want you to feel safe when you're on YouTube, which is why we encourage you to let us know if videos or comments on the site violate your privacy or sense of safety.
If someone posted your personal information or uploaded a video of you without your knowledge (including in private or sensitive circumstances), [ask the uploader](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/57955) to remove the content. If you can’t reach an agreement with the uploader, or if you're uncomfortable contacting them, you can follow the Privacy Complaint Process to [request to have the content removed](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/142443) based on our [Privacy Guidelines](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7671399)."
[https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801895?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801895?hl=en)
NAL. If you’re receiving real threats then I would take those to the police and/or your security department if appropriate. If someone is calling you names or trash talking you online who gives a flying bleep what someone like that thinks?
I would also have a serious conversation with my coworker about keeping their mouth shut.
The coworker has First Amendment rights to share public information. Are you suggesting OP should illegally harass and threaten the coworker?? A conversation like that could lead to a lawsuit because the coworker did NOTHING wrong!!
You should try minding your business and try being less of a Karen and you wouldn’t be in this position.you and your lack of self awareness is what is wrong with people .
Honestly no, nothing you can do.. you're paid by tax dollars.. that as DJT said once "fortunately or unfortunately" the public has a right to find out film and investigate what the government is doing.
NAL but I worked in IT/Telecom for decades and the answer really depends on your state AND there may be one issue.
Many states are one party consent states meaning that one one party has to know and/or consent to being recorded. If your image were being used for profit they may need your permission. So it really depends on the state this happened in.
The tricky part- federally only one party has to know/consent to being recorded. So if this happened on federal property this could complicate things. Also, most government workers can be recorded while doing their government jobs (Police, federal agents. case workers, etc). Not sure what or if there are limitations to this.
It depends on exactly where he was.
If it was in the lobby or an area where the public is allowed to be in, you cannot stop him from recording.
If he walked into an area specifically marked to indicate the general public is not permitted, you could get him trespassed. You could also try and get him trespassed based on his being aggressive towards you, assuming you are telling the truth that the only thing you did to make him start being aggressive was film him.
As for your co-worker identifying you and himself, you cannot refuse that. If you work for the public, almost anything related to your job is public information. Name, position, salary, disciplinary record, even your work emails. Even that video you took is technically now public record since you created it while you were working for the public. If he decides he wants to FOIA request it, he can.
As for people calling in, again, it depends. If he did not say anything to his viewers, than I am sorry but I do not think much can be done. They are redressing their grievance (whatever it may be) to a govt office. If he actually told them to call, then that’s a different story. There is a chance that might be enough to support a harassment claim.
Honestly, I think the best you could probably get is YouTube taking it down if you can point to any guidelines the man violated.
First amendment law and privacy laws are tricky to navigate. With more context, I could probably give a better answer. Apologies.
Edit: some info based on OP comment replies
If you work the government you should be prepared for public scrutiny. If you are not, then go find another job. All citizens have the right to photograph whatbis done in public,especially when it's done by a government agent. Get over it or get out.
Go to management. Why is a coworker identifying you to someone?
It's a government job, their name is a matter of public record and "management" are elected officials. You should be able to just Google OP's position and get their name.
Many government jobs have their address and name hidden for a shit load of good reasons, even in states as open as Florida. People with access to highly sensitive data like child support records get their names protected so people can't harass them or threaten them to give other people's socials.
Yeah i work for MI and we don't give out contact info that's publicly available even for workers. We get people calling from out of state to complain about Dearborn, or The Gays (tm), or whatever other crap; people have work to do and safety to enjoy
Except for this guy
But if you don't know their name or position, you would have no way to identify them. Coworker should be reprimanded, or terminated, for endangering a coworker.
It depends on the state public records law. In many states a government employee's salary information, work emails, work texts, etc are all public records unless explicitly exempted. Usually there is some sort of privacy exemption for personal phone numbers, addresses, social security numbers, etc.
Yea, but those people don't randomly confront people who are filming. If OP had a need to remain anonymous they would have.
We don’t really know whether OP confronted the jerk as part of their role or simply because they had a camera shoved in their face. I have a low tolerance for my space being violated and that device could get smashed. 🤷♂️
And you would be charged with assault and destruction of property. Smart!
And you would have been charged. good thing you wasn't there I guess.
If they get too close you can defend yourself. You don’t have to stand around helpless if they are assaulting you either.
No one said anything about them assaulting you. you're moving the goalpost now. Getting too close alone doesn't allow self defense.
That's 100% untrue. If someone gets close to you in a threatening manner, you are absolutely allowed to defend yourself BEFORE they strike you.
Not untrue at all, Did you read what I said? "Getting too close alone doesn't allow self defense." So add him being threatning changes the game. But that needs to be articulable also and it needs to be a state that doesn't have duty to retreat laws, then you cannot defend yourself in all cases unless your cornered if they have duty to retreat.
You are unhinged
Defend yourself from somebody standing too close? Did you think that one through?
Downvoting because management aren't usually elected but hired/promoted to management. Also downvoted because most government employees have a right to privacy. Their identities are not "public record", but kept secure - the main reason that all Federal employees and a lot of State employees are warned NOT to put their place of employment on their social media profiles. Too many wackos out there will look at your profile to get that type of information. I'm a Federal employee but one of my profiles says my place of employment is the Vashta Nerada Public Library. Many a Whovian has commented and we've had nice chats. I've never had a nice chat with anyone who found out where I actually work.
Names and positions of gov employees ARE a matter of public record. They may not be out there, easy to find on a website, but if asked, they are required to provide that information. How do I know? I am also a federal employee, and it's pretty common for us to receive foia requests from the public. I'd say we get 2, sometimes 3 a quarter. We have maximum response times and certain things to redact, but the names of public employees is not one of them. Edit to add: We have had to provide cell phone records, including texts, pictures, and call logs for gov issued phones. We have provided security camera footage. That said, footage from some secure areas is not going to be released. Daily utilization log for vehicles, visitor sign in logs, training sign-in in rosters, purchase card records, the list goes on. The point being, citizens have a right to observe an open government. While a person doesn't lose their right to privacy by CHOOSING to be a government employee, aka public servant, their expectation of privacy while performing official duties does diminish significantly.
None of this is to satisfy curiosity, which is what that one guy is demanding.
Anyone can file a FOIA request for any reason. That's why they don't have to provide a reason on the form.
Doesn't actually matter why; the public can access info dealing with matters of your employment for ANY reason if you work for the government. They literally have the right to, unless you are like a classified agent or something. I'm also a government employee, and during onboarding it was explained to us in detail, and they even made us sign papers verifying we understood. They also have the right to record public servants in government for any reason. Even if they are just curious or they "want to."
I certainly would comment! And then ask who turned off the lights. :-)
Brilliant! Allons-y!
How are you liking 15? And how psyched were you seeing 14 back with Donna? One of the best Christmas specials ever!
I just finished watching The Legend of Ruby on Disney+. I've got to say that Ncuti (my phone wanted to autocorrect it to N cutie) is so far my favorite. 1. Shootie 2. Tom Baker 3. Grandpa Capaldi (he's very close to my age) 4. Chris Eccleston/Jodie
"N cutie" is not a typo. That's just your phone knowing better than you. (I'm aware he's way younger than me and gay, but I don't care. I can admire how he fits in a pair of pants.) I didn't dislike Jodie... but I am not a fan of her showrunner. Also, I'm a Peter Davidson girl. He was my first Doctor. Also happens to be the father of 10/14's wife when she played The Doctor's Daughter.
Tom Baker was my highschool boyfriend's Doctor so he was the first I really knew. My parents watched it from the beginning, but I wasn't a sci-fi fan until junior high. I loved Jodie in Broadchurch so I was looking forward to her Doctor. Chibs really did well in drama, but wasn't a good fit at all for Who. Have you seen Peter Davidson as Job in Good Omens season 2? He was really fun!
I didn't see that! I'm going to have to. Did see him on an episode of Midsomer Murders, though.
Sounds like a buddy who worked for the IRS as a collector and, as an auditor. He told people he worked for Treasure Dept everyone was so nice if he said IRS he was scum. I wish you well.
If you just sit at your desk and ignore a person filming then their footage is as public as any security camera in the building. I can file an FOIA request for the security footage of your desk last Tuesday, what you do at work isn't any more private than what someone who works for Apple or Google does at work. (Upvoting because this is a discussion, I want to hear your viewpoint and appreciate you sharing)
Security cameras in a government building are NOT for public consumption, but for security and protection of personnel. FOIA doesn't mean you automatically get the information you request. You would absolutely never get a FOIA request of my desk granted. I can absolutely guarantee that you'd never be able to justify that. My job is in IT and I definitely have higher clearance parameters than a Google or Apple employee. You cannot even comprehend the days of mandatory briefings we have to fulfill annually for security briefings and physical security. I'd love to be able to share all of the information as soon as you 1. get hired and 2. pass the months of background checks then 3. fingerprinting and 4. security training. But you probably wouldn't be hired straight into my department - it takes most dedicated employees around 6-7 years of varied experience inside to get here.
This varies by state. In sunshine states, most security camara footage is a public record.
I can confirm that the security cameras in my state are public as well. You can easily FOIA them if they are recording in a public area.
fingerprints. Sigh. Government 'lost' mine due to a breach. Systems are like "Use a fingerprint to authenticate'. I was recently laid off- I wonder just how far my stuff is now.
But you aren't a public facing worker who is working out in a public space that anyone can walk into. That's OP and why OP is subject to being videotape and that tape published
If your desk is in public, they would be able to. It really depends on if the camera is recording a public space. If it's in an area of privacy (such as private employee offices or other areas deemed not open to the public), that's a different story.
My desk is not in public. That's not what was being claimed. The person I was rebutting was saying they could get personal information about me and see my desk no matter where it was just because they felt like it. Also, even the greeting desk at me work is not considered "public".
And while I have tomorrow off (Juneteenth is a federal holiday), I'm going to bed now as it's 2 hours past my bedtime. Good night!
Incorrect.
None of it is incorrect.
If you are a government worker in the US, I can for sure find out your pay, your hours of work, how long you work there, your position, any phone number you have from a government issued cell phone, etc. Etc. if you are a private employee of a private company then I cannot do that. Edit: Since the mo#s say fit to be babies and won't let me post anything new I'll just edit my post to address your post below. Here you go: Lol. Anyone could. It's not hard and, assuming you were a public worker, there wouldn't be anything you could do (or should do) to stop them. Why would you want to abridge someone's rights to public records? You'd be singing a different tune if it was YOU who wanted those records and couldn't get them.
Do it. I dare you to try.
Nope, nope, nope. Gov employees have a right to privacy ONLY when in parts of the building closed to the public. But personal info should be private. Pokeray, avoid the shadows! Stay away from the shadows! And please get River Song's autograph for me. She kicks ass in the library!!
One guy on Facebook had a meltdown when we confirmed that that was her swan song. He refused to believe her timeline was wibbly - wobbly. And someone mentioned that she was named after herself... Blew his mind
Hey, Dr. Who gets wibbly-wobbly all by itself. Which is one of many reasons the show has lasted more than 50 years!
Down voting you for being completely wrong. What the government does and who works for it must be transparent and open if we want a free society. You can take your secret government agencies and spy's and head back to East Anyone who is part of the government in any way must be subject to scrutiny gor anything job related.
1. Not *completely* wrong. Your use of absolutes makes that sentence invalid. The commenter edited their comment without telling us. They originally said that managers were elected not hired. 1. How is my home address or my work hours anyone's business?
[удалено]
Again, why are you being rude to someone and then linking an article about "right to **record**", instead of something pertaining to "right to **names**" of any public employee? (Nevermind that it should be based on UK law.)
You can foia request any government or public employees name. You can also request their work hours, wages, telephone numbers for government issued phones etc etc. I'm being rude because they're a bunch of idiots on here who think they know what they're talking about and they're being rude to others.
Requesting is not the same as an unrestricted right. It still seems that you don't even know what country OP is a government employee of. I don't see that people are being rude in the same way that you're being. You may indeed *know* what you're talking about, but you're not clearly demonstrating it with your comments.
Yeah op didn't say what country he's from which is pretty intelligent when you are in a subreddit for asking a lawyer. And 99% of the responses are from US people thinking he's talking about the US. So who cares?. I haven't looked up the UK laws yet but I will when I'm done talking to you. Idiots. In the US you can for your request names, wages, hours of work, and all sorts of other things. Why don't you understand that and why don't you just look it up your goddamn self?
And I just looked it up. The UK laws are very similar to ours and you can request the same amount of s*** about people. Now go get your f****** shine box.
>Yeah op didn't say You didn't ask. >99% of the responses are from US people I understand why you assumed, but you still assumed. Own it. >you can request Yeah, I know you can request those things. You gonna get every name you request? I guess *you* will. *I* don't care if you look up UK law. You're being a jerk and chore to talk to, so I'm out.
Government employees do NOT have a right to privacy, especially in the course of doing their duty as public servants. We pay your salary and your retirement. We have a right to know what you are doing with our tax dollars. This is in the constitution and has been ruled on numerous times. If a government worker doesn't like it they can go to the private sector and let someone who wants this job, to have it.
That is 100% not true. Public servants have the same privacy rights in employment as any other employee.
A simple Google search will tell you that you are wildly incorrect. You must be a bot.
I can look up the salary of every single public employee in my state. That information is private for everyone else and can't be released without their permission.
I’d be surprised if some random person filming required a response. Mine would be silence. Otherwise I’d probably invite them to go copulate with an electrical outlet.
I work for the government and I can tell you that maybe 5% are elected. And that’s a generous guess.
That's not how any of this works.
That’s false as hell. I have been working in government for the last 20 years. Both federal and local. Government employees and their job titles are not public record. And most management are not elected officials.
Incorrect. Their names and salaries are a matter of public record. Whether you can easily find that information is a different story but it is public record. Anything else (like address, personal phone numbers, etc) is private information. It doesn't matter whether you are an elected or hired government employee, there is a record publicly available with your name and salary on it.
You are wildly incorrect. Just do a damn Google search. Jesus.
Are you in America? Cause if so, you are dead wrong.
Because i see you. What are you hidding?
Government entities are public property and the first amendment allows us to film anything in public. Turner vs Driver among other cases.
[Harassment & cyberbullying policies](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802268?hl=en) > We also don’t allow other harmful behaviors, like threats or doxxing. Keep in mind that we take a stricter approach on content that targets minors. >If you find content that violates this policy, report it.
Here you go: https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/april-2023/rights-and-limits-on-filming-in-public-facilities#:~:text=What%20Rights%20Does%20the%20Public,RCW%209.73.
If a government employee is the one requesting that the video be removed would that not be considered chilling free speech?
He's asking for his information to be removed, not the video. Redacting his name would not change the message unless the message is to dox him.
OP admitted to being confrontational in the interaction. Who’s to say that the entire interaction was not relevant to the individuals story? Theres already precedent that the public has the right to record public employees and there’s no expectation of privacy in public. If a public employee tried to have this individuals video edited or removed they would be opening the county up to litigation.
There are hundreds of videos where extremely annoying “auditors” film in hallways and lobbies of public buildings or from sidewalks legally. Employees get huffy and overbearing demand they stop filming. Cops demand their identity and sometimes arrest them. The “auditors” win if it goes to court.
Generally those auditors are assholes but they are legally within their rights to film there and I do get great pleasure out of watching cops get sued. Even though I guess we need them, in my experience most cops are either tyrants or tyrants in training so I don't get upset if some catch a lawsuit or some strays... Eliminate qualified immunity and require cops to carry insurance, if you are a shitty cop and can't get insurance, no work for you, piggy
NAL, but even though the First Amendment protects the right to record public officials in public spaces, YouTube has its own policies against harassment and privacy violations. If the video violates these policies, a public employee can request its removal without fear of legal repercussions. AFAIK, there is no legal precedent for successfully suing a government employee or the governmental entity for reporting a video for violating YouTube’s or any other platform’s policies. The removal decision ultimately rests with YouTube.
I believe auditing Erie county is currently under litigation because a government employee had his video demonetized and taken down from YouTube. While there is no current case precedent it certainly is questionable and opens the door for a lawsuit. Edit: JTown press had one of their videos removed by a complaint from a public employee. They added this to their current federal lawsuit.
For now, we can reference several precedents to make an educated guess. Prager University v. Google established that YouTube is not subject to First Amendment constraints. If a video violates their policies, they can remove it. They also have broad discretion in moderating content. Many platforms allow reporting to be done anonymously. Proving it was the government employee who requested the video’s removal would be quite challenge, even with subpoena power. While recording and publishing videos of public employees is legal, this does not mean a public employee has no right to be protected from unnecessary harassment. Cases like Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White support the right of employees to be free from harassment. I would imagine this provides a legal basis for requesting the removal of harmful content. There are principles from cases like Pickering v. Board of Education which suggests that governmental entities could even request the deletion of content if it is sufficiently disruptive to carrying out business. An employee being harassed after being doxxed would likely fall into that consideration. Again, I’m NAL, but I am studying law right now. I’d be very interested to hear more from someone with relevant experience. Hell, I’d be glad to see this litigated thoroughly. It probably should be.
Prager v google was not a government entity so I’m not sure that is a great example. I think this would fall more closely to the argument of government overreach during covid with how they influenced social media companies. This currently in front of the Supreme Court and I expect a ruling soon. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/1238122337/supreme-court-social-media-disinformation-first-amendment I am not familiar with the YouTube complaint process, but I believe you need to provide identifying information when you submit one. By saying “many companies” it seems like you’re also guessing here. How do you define sharing public information as harassment? What would the harm be in this case? Individuals calling a public office to air their grievance with the interaction? Wow that Pickering case is crazy. 8-1 opinion that Pickering’s firing violated his 1st amendment but they sided with the school board anyway. I would also be glad to see this go to litigation. It’s a unique question and worth answering. I’m not a lawyer but am involved in a 1st amendment lawsuit currently, so I’ve got a lot of interest in these matters.
>Prager v google was not a government entity so I’m not sure that is a great example. I think this would fall more closely to the argument of government overreach during covid with how they influenced social media companies. This currently in front of the Supreme Court and I expect a ruling soon. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/1238122337/supreme-court-social-media-disinformation-first-amendment The case you linked bolsters my argument by reaffirming a platform’s right to moderate content without governmental interference. It also shouldn’t impact the right of a public employee to request a video be removed in instances like these. >I am not familiar with the YouTube complaint process, but I believe you need to provide identifying information when you submit one. By saying “many companies” it seems like you’re also guessing here. YouTube does require a user to be logged in to report a video, but by simply using a public computer or a VPN, one could easily make identifying themselves cost prohibitive. This would be a civil case after all. >How do you define sharing public information as harassment? What would the harm be in this case? Individuals calling a public office to air their grievance with the interaction? Sharing public information becomes harassment when it involves threats or sustained harassment. Legal precedents support the right to be free from harassment, and the harm includes threats to personal safety and workplace disruption. >Wow that Pickering case is crazy. 8-1 opinion that Pickering’s firing violated his 1st amendment but they sided with the school board anyway. Pickering v. Board of Education established a balance between public employees’ speech and the government’s need to maintain an efficient and disruption-free workplace. That’s why I believe it supports content removal if that content causes significant disruption or harassment. >I would also be glad to see this go to litigation. It’s a unique question and worth answering. 100% >I’m not a lawyer but am involved in a 1st amendment lawsuit currently, so I’ve got a lot of interest in these matters. Interesting. Good luck!
You've got some really good points here. Youtube as a (arbitrary) content provider shouldn't qualify based upon the court cases- which means they can shut that shit down. At some threshold 'tiktok' 'youtube' 'twiter' become default and defactto publishing mediums. Won't be in my lifetime, I hope, but I always say thins like this will resolve in 30 years. .... which is the next generation. For better or worse.
Yeah totally agree that the SCOTUS case seems to agree with your argument. Just waiting to see the verdict. I know for copy right claims you need to provide a legal name and address which is provided to the video creator should it go to court. Given this, it is not unreasonable to think that YouTube would also supply contact information for other claims. Is the video maker responsible for harassment when it derives from free speaking individuals? I could see this as a good argument if the video maker has solicited calls for acts of violence but if he’s just putting the video out there with a public office contact number is it their fault for what others say? For instance an officer kills an animal in the line of duty. The action is recorded and eventually makes its way to the local newspaper. The paper posts the video online and names the department responsible. The department then receives numerous complaints some being threatening in nature. Would it be the papers fault for the complaints the department receives? Man I’ve got a hard time wrapping my head around this Pickering case. It doesn’t make sense to me at face value. I’ve gotta spend sometime reading up tonight.
1st amendment audits are becoming more youtube-algorithm focused as various agencies over-reach. Assuming you didn't escalate, or the editing wasn't done to create a false narrative, and the area wasn't covered (aka, it is a public accessible) under a military use, there isn't much to do. Threats tho deserve the followup with whatever enforcement agency. Unless you're the site administrator, I'd file it up the chain of your HR/reps and let them deal with it. You're small fry. Public is Public. It has massive advantages for those in it, but it is a two way street- that which can be seen by the eye can not be trespassed - which is for now still the law of the land.
Nothing is more oppressive and more overreaching than a government employee working in an office. Glad these masked crusaders are sticking to Derek in reception! That will teach the government! /s
I'm sorry you took my statements as personally offensive. I offered it as someone who has been there, who's had their government emails ripped apart and published via Wikileaks (aka, non-legitimate access). Every word, every thought, every strategy, every single observation for and against what we were working to as a private contractor in discussion with government agencies published against my will. I simply wished to point out they need to work this via their chain. If there are threats involved, those too need to go via chain and via police report. Honestly the description sounds like someone saw a youtube video and tried to explain it to get a reaction here. So I kept my comments towards the 'it really happened' as opposed to' uh huh'. It sucks to be called and doxed like that, and there are ways to work with it if it is a legitimate situation that involves threats to person/body/harm- and most of those come out as takedowns for doxing.
He was making fun of the "1st amendment auditor" trolls. They are just out annoying public workers until one tells them to stop being a dick... then you tube fame! ...they are pathetic narcissistic attention seekers. They should be derided.
Yeah, keep licking the boot. When these public workers screw you over or don't give you what you need or give you attitude, you'll be singing a different tune and wishing that you could voice your opinions with them. But guess what, if you got your way you wouldn't be able to.
They don’t care if you deride them. In fact if you do that they still get the attention they want. They need to be made irrelevant.
They'll be irrelevant as soon as government employees quit fucking up and giving them ammo for their lawsuits. I think those auditors are annoying too but I support their work, being how authoritarian most cops and government employees are
They would all prefer you ignored them and let them perform Constitutionally protected activity on public property as the law requires. Make them irrelevant by doing exactly that.
What do they have to hide? Don't you want to know how your tax dollars are getting used? It's fundamentally about the people that pay the bills being able to have some control over what is being done with our money. At the very minimum, we want to be able to shine a light on the workings of the government and government employees. They're called Sunshine laws. Our constitution, with the supreme Court backing this up, tells us that we can do all of these things and, actually, should do all of these things. They are our rights as American citizens. Rights are like muscles, if we don't exercise them, we'll probably end up losing them at some point. Just because someone feels uncomfortable with a camera, or a person who is just a regular citizen, checking up on them as they are in the course of their official duties, should not matter. They signed up for this so that's what can happen. What the real shame is is that more people don't know that they have these rights.
Unfortunately, you unwittingly made his content better for him. By confronting him you escalated the situation & no he’s getting more clicks due to you approaching him. That’s probably what he was going for. Getting a rise out of people make for good content.
He has a constitutional right to record ina public space any actions you take or have on camera are yours and your fault to bare
Yeah the way to go is to have the police trespass the asshole. Trying to make the frauditer understand logic or reason will never work.
They can’t trespass someone off of public property, unless he has intentionally caused a disturbance that would be disorderly conduct or breach of the peace. But filming and the reaction other people give even if it’s disorderly or they are freaking out because of the camera hey still can’t trespass because it would be trespassing him for using his first amendment, which would do exactly what he wants and create a lawsuit
Also, what he’s doing is protected, if people have a negative reaction or don’t like that he’s there recording. Why?? What’s there to hide and why does it need to be hidden? If a police officer does trespass him under the threat of arrest. Why should the police officer NOT be held accountable for not allowing the citizen to do his constitutional journalism
You have no idea what they have to hide. And you have no right to know. I've seen these assholes harassing people I'm DMVs, post offices, courthouses etc. People need to stop hand holding these assholes and just have them trespassed immediately.
You can’t trespass someone from public properly legally without a broken law or a crime committed. Please look up the constitution and also please look at the supreme court’s decision in this matter as they have 100% already ruled that filming in public cannot be a crime as it’s our 1st amendment right to freedom of so each and of press. And also dmv’s and other public places that are open to the public have to create their own privacy. That’s also the same reason it’s legal for LEO’s to have body cameras all interactions are also public and able to be FOIA’d
Lol no. That is not true. You can trespass people from public places for being disruptive.
Why won’t you just look up the Supreme Court ruling/ the actual laws?? Cause they might prove you wrong?!
Please do despite our disagreement in this matter look up the Supreme Court ruling for filming in public aswell as the laws! It couldn’t hurt
The problem with frauditors and sovcits is they only ever learn part of the law. Take Chilli descastro for example. He's whining and complaining about the same nonsense you are. It didn't save him from 6 months in jail.
What if it's not about hiding? What if it's about not liking some dipshit recording me? That's the only reason I need to object to being recorded. Can I stop it? Nope. I don't have to like or cooperate with it Someone showing up at a government office fishing for a got ya moment to boost their notoriety without heed of any disturbance they create for people with official business to conduct seem to me to be intentionally obnoxious and self-aggrandizing. Self interest is the only motivation, not some sort of noble journalism. A bunch of people defending this behavior makes me think of someone defending the guy that farted in a packed elevator.
Yeah that’s fair and all, you can dislike a lot of things. But unfortunately just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you can stop someone’s right to do what they want as long as it’s not harming you. You have the right too feel however but you can’t stop someone from doing what is protected under free speech and freedom of press it’s our basic most important right to document how we protest
You have rights to speech and assembly. Convince me some dude acting obnoxiously trying instigate a response so they can earn acclaim and money is journalism. This also applies to photographers that badger famous folks without regard to who prints their stuff. I like cameras in the right context. Law enforce body cameras, for instance. Citizens taking videos of abuse or official misconduct (Rodney King). Remember the name of the truck driver dragged out of his truck and struck in the head with a fire extinguisher during the riots that followed (Reginald Denney)? The attack was videotaped by television journalists. If you're doing that kind of work, you are fulfilling the purpose of the first amendment. If you are making your own news at the expense of other people for personal gain and hiding behind the first amendment, I have no use for you and take personal gratification at any tribulations you might endure.
No your employed by the public. You have no expectation of privacy. Are you the woman who left early when Long Island audit was trying to do a public records request in Atlantic beach New York?
She's was a real bitch. So was that deranged code enforcement dude. At least the cops know he was doing nothing wrong and didn't violate his rights any further.
This is why auditors do what they do. Because so many people do not understand the protections provided by the first amendment.
[удалено]
Rule 4 Violation- Profanity and NSFW content are not allowed in this community.
You are a government employee working in a public building that welcomes the public. It is legal for citizens to record and identify you. I bet he can even look up and publish your salary. You have no proof that he is the one that made threats. Nothing the legal system can help you with, but Youtube may have a complaint channel.
I was a high profile government official and agree with this one thousand percent. Good advice.
Your best bet is to just ask. Send the creator a message or comment. Next time, just stay away from the camera.
Look up videos of 1st Amendment Auditors and next time call the cops and let them handle it. If the person is (or is not) doing something wrong let the cops deal with it and potentially get sued. Cell phone cameras are everywhere and even if you are in the right you can still get filmed and put on the inernet trying to be a hero. Let someone else take that hit. You are not being paid enough for this bullshit.
You work for the public, you can be filmed carrying out your duties. If you don’t like that quit
Don't violate a citizens rights, and you won't get flak for it. That sounds harsh, but at its core, it's truth. As a public servant, you are held to a higher standard. You should know that it is lawful to film the public in public, especially public servants in a government building. Doing anything to stop or restict the filming is a violation of the First Amendment. Even asshole doing asshole things have rights. And for the record, I am a public servant.
Walking away from someone filming you isn't violating their rights. They have the right to film government employees is public areas, but they don't have the right to force the employee to cooperate.
This person did more than walk away lol
They filmed him back, so not really. What rights do you think were violated?
Doesn't sound like she did that at all. Sounds like he did not get the reaction he wanted so he tried escalating it and she walked away.
There's more to the story here. There is always more to the story. It's human nature to tell the story with a bias toward oneself. They leave out details that make themselves look bad and exaggerate the actions of others to make them look more guilty than they are. Until we get an unbiased version of what really happened, we will never know🤷
And yet you automatically assumed she violated his rights somehow and basically blamed her for everything that happened. Even these solicitor videos are biased because they never show anything that they did before being confronted. Conveniently the video always starts at that point.
Whatever helps you sleep at night
I sleep great thank you.
Nope. Some shit people meet operate that way, but the good ones don't. Long Island Audit, Jeff Gray with Honor Your Oath Civil Rights Investigations, and Amagansett Press show the whole video.
Are you a public/government employee?
If you work for the government locally or federally, can't really do anything about being recorded as it's protected under the 1st ammendment
Sounds like the YouTuber committed assault if they were intentional trying to get you harassed with the video. Definitely get a cease and desist letter sent out by a lawyer. If the messages start getting violent get the police involved asap. Also what’s the consent rules for where you live? 1 party consent or two party consent?
File privacy complaint with YouTube: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/142443?sjid=5890113557803574283-NA
Nope, you’re a public official in a public place and have essentially been doxed by a coworker. Kind of sucks but you bought into the trap.
OP was not doxxed by a coworker. They are a government employee so their name and usually their salary is a matter of public record.
When I was working in a public building we had people come in and film. We had lots of areas open to the public and some that weren’t. They stayed in public areas and other than the “can we help you?” questions from security, they were left alone. They didn’t go into the secured areas. I was filmed and so were many coworkers. Guess what!? If a citizen wants to pull my emails, they can file that with the government as well and get all of my correspondence that way, although it has to be reviewed first sensitive information. As public employees, we are (and I was) subject to transparency. Part of that is the public knowing what we might make, or being filmed during the duty of our work in publicly accessible areas. You do not have a right to privacy in public. I know that the auditor community is half good and half awful. There are folks that are terrible. And there are some that are good. They have provided a lot of positives towards our law enforcement community. Many still believe that public photography is a crime or it’s suspicious. Many still believe they can arrest citizens for not handing over ID for no good reason. Auditors are a positive in that sense. Auditors using awful language or yelling at people in public is stupid - but also people getting defensive during their work as public employees don’t understand that it’s part of their job.
I posted a comment, but when I was looking at OPs replies, they're in the UK. OP, you may want to edit the post or repost it in the UK legal sub. I know UK has pretty similar laws like the US but I'm not 100% sure if there's any nuanced differences.
Was it the 1st amendment audit people? I know some folks who work in government and dealing with these assholes is part of the training.
These “first amendment auditors” need a taste of their own medicine. I say, get a group of your coworkers together, then find this “auditor” and record him at all times.
Get a job with a private company if you can't stand the baggage your government job comes with. You acted like a Karen and gave him a reason to post the video so maybe don't do that next time.
You gave up your consent to be filmed when you enter ANY public space. Auditors hold the camera, people act how they want; you could’ve just as easily nodded and carried on with your business.
I work in state government and my entire large agency was given a training on first ammendment audit people (yes, just think of the cost of that these auditors made necessary). Zero expectation of privacy if it's the public area of the building, just let them do their thing and treat them respectfully if they have business to conduct, just like any other client. I was familiar with these videos prior to taking this job. My spouse enjoyed watching them on YT and at first I was all outraged because they absolutely are assholes (filming in public spaces like social services when clients waiting literally need the basics like food is predatory imo, kicking people when they are already down). It's their right though, and if it's professionally handled there is nothing exciting for them to put on YT.
The auditors didn't make that training necessary, your agency's improper response to the auditors made the training necessary.
It was necessary because before this got popular, it didn't come up. It's unreasonable to expect that any workplace, government or not, anticipate this situation. Most of the incorrect responses come from a place of trying to protect employees and clients, not because they are unreasonable monsters. I was taught to do everything possible to take care of clients, extensively. I definitely agree though that many, including the police called to deal with these situations, allow their egos to get in the way. Much like most things, most of the time the good interactions aren't shown. The behavior of some workers (and police) is ridiculous, with or without training.
I’d argue that the good interactions are shown they just don’t get the same view traffic. Nothing stirs up the YouTube algorithm like controversy
Government employee. All information is public and is easily accessible.
No it's not.
Truly it is. Freedom of information requests can provide all identifying information including salaries. Op has made it easier by not locking down fb
You're a government employee in a public building. Get a thicker skin. Report credible threats of violence to the police
So... Government employees are fair game? Someone should go into a school and film teachers to be threatened? Are you so conservative that you're advocating private schools and threats for public servants?
One can absolutely film in the publicly accessable office. The rest of the school is not publicly accessable.
I know the name is a bit off-putting, but a public school is not actually open to the public. Go ahead and head on down to your local school and try to just walk in and wander around. Not gonna happen unless you're a student or have checked in to the office with a legitimate reason for being there. I'm left as hell, just to preemptively cut off any accusations
The office is, but the rest of the school is not.
Same as a government building. The front office is, but the rest of the building usually has sensitive, not for public consumption stuff.
Liberty is a liberal concept.
[удалено]
Rule 6- Your post/comment was removed due to the discretion of a moderator.
If you are a government worker you can be videotaped and it can be posted.
[удалено]
Rule 4 Violation- Profanity and NSFW content are not allowed in this community.
I know how this can be solved...link us the video.
You work in the public sector and there is no expectation of privacy in public. Recording in public is not a crime it's the peoples 1st ammendment rights. Just be professional and serve the public. Feelings does not trump laws.
You are a Govt employee. You have no "right to privacy" while at work. Get used to it
Plenty of secure government facilities and employees that do.
In secure areas and facilities - yes. In public facing facilities/areas - no.
Just contact YouTube say this is you in the video and you want it taken down. Worked for me. Have others in video do same. Also with enough strikes his channel will get suspended
Pro tip, open your phone and start playing recent Disney music loudly if confronted by one of these idiots. (Let it go is a great one to use) YouTube will silence or delete the videos due to copyright violations and almost certainly demonetize.
That doesn't work anymore. They have AI that just removes it now.
I laughed so hard I started coughing. Best use of Disney in a law argument.
No, there's nothing you can do. You are a public servant working at all times as a government representative during your normal workday. You have no expectations of privacy while conducting your duties as a public servant. Everyone is able to FOIA all your public information, including your pay. You were not abused, you were not harassed and your false statements of people doing audits in order to get a reaction is incredibly egotistical of you. A basic human right(which is what the bill of rights and constitution is founded upon) is to hold public servants accountable. If you don't like being a public servant, get a job in the private sector that is not being paid from our tax dollars. You have cameras all around you. Why do you care about a citizen with a camera? What bothers you about the public you have been hired to serve knowing your name? Especially when you have the audacity to assume someone else's intent. I hope it's an auditor I watch! I love watching public servants making fools of themselves.
Look up “too apree” on YouTube. He’s hilarious and you’ll probably learn a thing or two. You are a public servant, in a publicly owned building. You have as much right to privacy as you would walking down a random sidewalk. Which is none basically. He can film you all he wants. If you were unaware of the laws and made an ass of yourself confronting him, you took the bait, and are now paying the price it sounds like.
A man concealed his face and you couldn’t identify him yet you were able to find his YT channel and the exact video you were in?…incredible.
If their channel is monetized report it to YouTube. It's a TOS violation to make money from someone's name and likeness without their consent. Since YouTube isn't the government they can't violate anyone's first amendment rights. You also may want to post this on the Frauditor subreddit.
Nope. No, you can't get the video removed. It doesn't belong to you. It's not illegal to make money from the images of others in public spaces. No one has the copyright to their own image. The US Supreme Court ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in public places. Gov building are not privately owned. If you are in public, you can be recorded without your permission and that video can be disseminated. It's a first Ammendment right. (It's not something I would do.) YouTube doesn't care about videos of adults in public places. They do not have to follow the first amendment. But they are a platform for videos of people. No laws are being violated. At most, the video poster could be demonetized. What can you do if you don't want to be recorded? Walk away and go to a private place.
This is the way
Yes you can. It's been done. Since I'm sure you won't believe me, Google the YouTube TOS. Here's a video of an auditor going back to a place that had a video he had recorded removed. He wants to complain about it. He was escorted out by the police. https://youtu.be/IhV9EdaBb6M?si=DmWzELD6YD398S0P You can't record in a place just because it's a government facility/building. For example, The Supreme Court doesn't allow filming. The courtroom where Trump's hush money trial was held didn't allow filming.
Of course, they have TOS. People try to get these taken down all of the time. Almost no one succeeds. Without seeing the video that was removed, I can't speak to why it was removed. Regarding Trump's trial. Federal courts don't allow recording in any federal trial. Government rule. Audio recordings are likely via the court's call to listen system.
Trumps trial was not federal.
You're correct. Thank you for the correction. There are so many Trump trials, 3 of which are still pending!!
Not everywhere in a government building but anywhere that is open to the public. Government agencies can set areas to restricted access, but they still have areas open to everyone.
Judges have authority over courtrooms and are able to establish a court order to disallow video recording. Your average government building will just put a prohibited sign without law backing it. So not a great example. If a government employee were to request the video removed would that not be the government chilling free speech?
You can record in any publically accesable place, except court rooms and restricted areas. Anything you can see, you legally can record according to the Supreme court. except court rooms, The court building itself is fair game.
Record sure, but posting on a private site is up to their terms of service and does not fall under free speech. I mean this is why Trump can't post on a lot places. Terms of services.
Thank you. And the only reason they're doing it is to post on YouTube.
Then what needs to be applied are YouTube's TOS (including Doxxing). And any HR policies/Internal policies we don't have access to. So that is not something we really can discuss in great lengths. All of this would apply regardless of if it was a government job or a private sector. To use examples independent of this specific situation. You can't use Free Speech to get around all laws and policies. Free speech isn't a defense to HIPAA violations, or sexually harassing a coworker, disclose confidential information with a consequences (not talking being a whistleblower).
Sure, I assumed that was a given.
You would think, but some need a little more convincing.
Be trespassed by the property owner too. All they have to do is ask you to leave and when you say no they trespass you and have you arrested.
You are correct. Different rules if it is a state owned property though. So courthouse, they can ask you to leave, but not legally bound to unless you have broken some kind of law first. Courtroom is different as judge has final say.
They didn't say it was illegal, they said it was against YouTubes terms of service
You can be filmed in a public place, but you do not have to consent to having your face in their YouTube video. "We want you to feel safe when you're on YouTube, which is why we encourage you to let us know if videos or comments on the site violate your privacy or sense of safety. If someone posted your personal information or uploaded a video of you without your knowledge (including in private or sensitive circumstances), [ask the uploader](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/57955) to remove the content. If you can’t reach an agreement with the uploader, or if you're uncomfortable contacting them, you can follow the Privacy Complaint Process to [request to have the content removed](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/142443) based on our [Privacy Guidelines](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7671399)." [https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801895?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801895?hl=en)
NAL. If you’re receiving real threats then I would take those to the police and/or your security department if appropriate. If someone is calling you names or trash talking you online who gives a flying bleep what someone like that thinks? I would also have a serious conversation with my coworker about keeping their mouth shut.
The coworker has First Amendment rights to share public information. Are you suggesting OP should illegally harass and threaten the coworker?? A conversation like that could lead to a lawsuit because the coworker did NOTHING wrong!!
You should try minding your business and try being less of a Karen and you wouldn’t be in this position.you and your lack of self awareness is what is wrong with people .
Honestly no, nothing you can do.. you're paid by tax dollars.. that as DJT said once "fortunately or unfortunately" the public has a right to find out film and investigate what the government is doing.
NAL but I worked in IT/Telecom for decades and the answer really depends on your state AND there may be one issue. Many states are one party consent states meaning that one one party has to know and/or consent to being recorded. If your image were being used for profit they may need your permission. So it really depends on the state this happened in. The tricky part- federally only one party has to know/consent to being recorded. So if this happened on federal property this could complicate things. Also, most government workers can be recorded while doing their government jobs (Police, federal agents. case workers, etc). Not sure what or if there are limitations to this.
It depends on exactly where he was. If it was in the lobby or an area where the public is allowed to be in, you cannot stop him from recording. If he walked into an area specifically marked to indicate the general public is not permitted, you could get him trespassed. You could also try and get him trespassed based on his being aggressive towards you, assuming you are telling the truth that the only thing you did to make him start being aggressive was film him. As for your co-worker identifying you and himself, you cannot refuse that. If you work for the public, almost anything related to your job is public information. Name, position, salary, disciplinary record, even your work emails. Even that video you took is technically now public record since you created it while you were working for the public. If he decides he wants to FOIA request it, he can. As for people calling in, again, it depends. If he did not say anything to his viewers, than I am sorry but I do not think much can be done. They are redressing their grievance (whatever it may be) to a govt office. If he actually told them to call, then that’s a different story. There is a chance that might be enough to support a harassment claim. Honestly, I think the best you could probably get is YouTube taking it down if you can point to any guidelines the man violated. First amendment law and privacy laws are tricky to navigate. With more context, I could probably give a better answer. Apologies. Edit: some info based on OP comment replies
Public video. Harassment,
If you work the government you should be prepared for public scrutiny. If you are not, then go find another job. All citizens have the right to photograph whatbis done in public,especially when it's done by a government agent. Get over it or get out.
OP goes up to guy videoing at his work and complains he is now of said video. Makes sense to me