Woman caught on CCTV performing drunken BJ blew right to privacy Ofcom has rejected a claim that Channel 4 infringed the privacy of a pregnant Southampton woman by broadcasting CCTV footage of her administering drunken oral pleasure to a chap in a tower block lift. "Ms K" lodged a complaint of "unwarranted infringement of privacy" to the TV watchdog regarding the 9 June 2014 episode of CCTV …
Not their finest hour, I'm sure. But broadcasting it on national tv is lower than low.
Is this what we have become as a nation? Titillation at others expense, so we can maybe feel a little bit of righteousness in our otherwise pathetic little lives? When I was nearly murdered, the police laughed at me for suggesting maybe, just maybe they could have a look at the cctv. 'Piss off' they said. 'You're not rich or famous, go away'. I paraphrase, of course, but that was the general gist.
That's point one - that isn't what cctv is for. It is for catching criminals who 'really' break the social contract. These fuckwits are hardly a shining example of humanity, but they got their punishment enough without it being open season on them for national ridicule.
Point two is this - what the chuff is TV meant to be for? For showing the misfortune of others so we can revel in it? Feel superior? Talk about dumbing it all down!
A good few years ago when I was just getting into computer programming and had the bug real bad, I lived without a tv. But I went around a mate's house who was having a bit of a private party and everyone was dropping ecstasy. So, you know, always hating to the party pooper...
However, I ended up watching this absolutely amazing program on television about computer programming through the ages. Starting off with Ada Lovelace and going through the decades, to the time when it was mainly women (coz men had little patience for the job) who actually hard coded the binary into machine instructions for the processors to be able to do all that adding up and subtracting malarkey. I was thoroughly fascinated, not least because I was attempting to learn assembler at the time as well. Not only had I learned something that I didn't know before, of historical importance, but I also understood how much I had learned and truly understood at a fundemental level with how computers actually work. I also learned things that I didn't understand at all. It was an amazing education. All crammed into an hour or so.
My mates tried to tempt me with more apples from the tree and to come and join the party in the other room, but I was awestruck with wonder at what I had just experienced. Why is there no channel dedicated to this on TV? I wondered. Why isn't this shit on all the time. Why is it always that odious eastenders with their petty spites and vindictivness, the least amongst us, raised to the level of something to look up to in society. Mmm...
That was one program. We could have stuff like that on all the time. There is a market for hungry minds out there. But no, you have to pay for that. You have to get 30,000 quid into debt for a degree that will never get you a job and won't even tell you half of what you just learned in that hour. You can't be having knowledge for free.
Which is a shame, because it would work. People would pay good money for that kind of quality. Yes, it would take talented and dedicated people to create it. But that would mean jobs, and meaningful ones at that for many people who work in IT. Who study the history of it, who really try to understand it on a fundemental level and not just to become another wage monkey one slip of the tongue to the boss away from not being able to pay his mortgage.
We have had it all in the last century or so. And we have squandered it. We have pissed it all away. Far worse than some silly drunk in a lift, who is the object for the daily hate on the panopticon. Well, you know what I mean.
Some of us would like to better ourselves. Some of us have really really struggled to do that. And we ended up failing. Some of us. We could have used a little help along the way. But some of us didn't get it. Some of us have a deep deep sense of what is important and what is right though. And this girl and her boyfriend being pilloried and put in the 21st Century equivalent of the stocks for us all to throw rotten fruit and vegetables at, will not enrich my life any further. Or those of a young lad or lass who has a deep passion and commitment to learning. To being taught by those who have a deep passion for teaching. Now any man that goes into teaching is eyed with suspicion of being a pedo. Or one that can't do, so teaches. How very very wrong this society has things. How twisted people have become in their outlooks. You realise there's no easy path back from here now, don't you?
This is what we have become. I feel truly ashamed of my fellow man. People who piss in lifts may not be the greatest amongst us. But they aren' the least amongst us either. And btw, that is why ecstasy is illegal and shall remain illegal, because it gives people deep insights into things that are truly fucking dangerous for the powers that be. You will not be educated. You will not better yourself. And you will do as you are told. Don't get ideas above your station. And they wrap it all up in a big ball of double think of getting an education and 'bettering yourself'. Meanwhile, keep on tuning into channel 4 and get your kicks there. It was wrong what they did to those people in the lift. But not as wrong as what they do to society as a whole, diminishing us and debasing us further than those we think ourselves better than.
The Open University home-learning programmes started in 1969 - and eventually became "The Learning Zone" which was transmitted on BBC2 throughout the night. By then you could either record them - or be a night owl. The lecturers and props were often not of the best presentation quality - but they all gave insights even if you didn't want to study the subject in depth.
They finally stopped re-transmitting them in 2007 - but the Open University logo can still be seen on many of the BBC Four science programmes. The factual content of many of those original programmes are still relevant to their subjects.
Relieving oneself in a lift that other people have to use is disgusting by any standard; and having any kind of sex in a situation where people who might not want to see it is at the very least selfish and inconsiderate.
But that does not make it OK to broadcast CCTV recordings, which are made for a specific purpose -- usually, the prevention and detection of crime -- which must be displayed on signs wherever CCTV in in operation. The contract is that we agree to allow ourselves be filmed, in certain circumstances, in return for a specific benefit. And those recordings cannot be used for any other purpose, except upon the order of a Court of Law. There is such a thing as due process, and it is there for a reason.
It's easy to see why TV companies might be tempted to make programmes as cheaply as possible. The shows are not the real product, but a mere vehicle for what they get paid for: advertisements. The only reason there are any actual programmes on TV at all is that they have got to have something to interrupt for advert breaks. And unfortunately, the same number of viewers now have more channels to choose from; facing TV companies with the need to make more programmes, even although they are still only receiving the same amount of money from advertisers. The end result is cheap programmes made to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
But none of that gives them the right to broadcast video contrary to the stated purpose for which it was acquired. And if that stated purpose did not include "entertaining the general public by appealing to their base instincts", and no court of law ever ruled that broadcasting the video to a wider audience served a more important purpose, then Channel 4 had no business broadcasting it.
This time around, it was something pretty abhorrent. But ask yourself this one question: Can you really be sure that there is nothing you do, that someone, somewhere might find a reason to think reprehensible?
Because if you can't, then you're only one very small step away from being the next unwitting exhibit in the modern-day carnival freak show.
Do something in front of a camera and of course it's not going to be private.
BUT surely if these images are for crime prevention and safety why are they touted to TV channels. It is not a choice to be filmed these days, but surely we should expect some protection from our footage being used outside of these parameters without our consent.
For all those going on about 'doing things in public don't expect privacy'.
How would you feel about the TV broadcasting your movements in real time: based on car number-plates being tracked by CCTV, your Oyster card, or your mobile phone. I mean, you were outside, in public, anyone could see you. So what are you complaining about?
The video did NOT have to be aired. But it was and it was done intentionally to cause harm through public shaming.
Certainly the video was not aired to benefit the woman in question but rather her indiscretion was used to benefit the production.
She should be at least paid for the use of that video.
I don;t know what lible law is in the UK but in the States libel is based on intent to do harm.
...have pointed out that the CCTV installation was not meant for taking candid shots of salacious behaviour to be sold to a TV station for entertainment.
I note that CCTV operators have to register under the Data Protection Act and have a code of practice covering this sort of thing, which seems pretty obviously broken to me. If she had complained to the Data Registrar I think she would have won her case easily.
The other justification I found fantastic was OfCom's argument that "this was not a private occasion, but occurred in a communal lift, accessible to all residents and visitors.. But it seems obvious that once the doors had closed the occupants had a reasonable expectation of privacy until the lift stopped, which usually gives one a 5-10 second warning. If OfCom are going to treat 'communal provision' as meaning that there is no privacy expectation, what about public lavatories, which are communal and accessible to all residents and visitors...?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
