The library is now showing at YouTube

[depechemodefan]

Actually, the guy took it down but here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/user/yolipslookin2hot

Security Alert - Please read!!! UPDATE

The customer in question was confronted by Cpt. L****** and F***** L**** yesterday. The offensive video had been removed from YouTube. The customer has not been banned because--without this video--there is no evidence to support a suspension. Instead, he has been warned that what he is doing is a violation of policy and if it continues, he will be suspended. If you see the person in question, please be vigilant in watching him. If he violates the rules, please report him to security. I apologize for any confusion on this.

Thanks,
M C

One of our regulars from the 1st floor has been secretly videotaping library patrons and staff and posting them on YouTube. He has been banned and we need to call security if we see him. If you'd like, you can click here to view his YouTube profile.

[sms001]

One of our regulars from the 1st floor has been secretly videotaping library patrons and staff .

Creepy! Seems harmless, but creepy all the same.

[candyshopgirl]

Sicko man!!!!
You better hope that he never videotapes me and my husband catches him.He will cease to exist. All I can think of is these poor women.

[LostMyMind]

Assuming it's a public library (not too many private libraries around). Well, isn't a public library a *public* area and thus no expectation of privacy? I don't see how a policy of "no video recording" can be enforced. Specially since the library probably has it's own video recording devices running. It's a public area, payed for by tax payers. Which like it or not include video boy. It's no different if he was at a public park videoing. Yes it's creepy. But no different than someone video everyone that walks down the street and then posting it. That's was just a waste of police time.

I would understand it if he was videoing up people's dresses, bathrooms, etc... If it's banned in your state, which it isn't banned in every state. But videoing people walking around, reading, checking out books????? I guess the library's higher up are lucky the dude don't have money to sue.

[depechemodefan]

Yes, it's a public library

We have a thing where anyone who is recording/taking pictures in the library for a news segment/article have to have the approval of the Public Relations Office. and the PRO officer has to be there to monitor it. I guess to make sure the public doesn't get recorded/photographed, without the individuals permission, since the public doesn't come to the library to get recorded, photgraphed, etc. I really don't know why, maybe the city is afraid of a lawsuit if someone got photographed at the library when he/she should have been at work. I was looking for the policy on it, but I'm not finding it now.

Anyway, the library probably could care less if he took videos, it's just he posted the videos.

Then again, on opening day a lot of people were taking pictures and videorecording, and no one said anything.

And we really don't know what the guy recorded. Maybe he did go into the women's bathroom. I guess I should ask around.

[Kheldarson]

I'd think it would have to do with how he was video taping. Looking at a few of his videos, yes, he's video taping people walking...but it's mostly girls and mostly their lower half. I would be more than a little upset if I found out that some guy was video taping me that way.

We had about the same thing happen at the water park I worked. Had a speed slide where you went down by yourself (no raft). Girls would end up with their tops off or shifted a lot. So the supervisors had to make sure to keep the guys with cameras moving a bit (block their view, etc.) to discourage improper pictures.

[Aethian]

Looks like he watches rear ends.

[Shards]

Your feelings on the issue of part of your body being recorded are not the issue. As long as he didn't record any part of you that is considered universally private (uncovered bust, or unclothed bottom), if you're in a public place you have no legal right to expect privacy of that sort. If he were to record anything that showed it was you, such as your face, then he could be in trouble. I dunno, I see it as creepy, but more suck on the part of the library for trying to over-use authority with frivolous policies. There are a lot of things better left to individuals to sort out than put in the hands of authority interference, and I would say this is one of them.

Just my 2c.

[PossJB]

The main thing to worry about here is escalation. Yes, he's "only" recording women walking around, but this kind of behavior can potentially lead to something else. What I'm saying is, please post a link when he is arrested for sexual assault.

[depechemodefan]

I asked someone about the stuff that was taken down from youtube and pretty much it sounds like what the other recordings are, a lot of booty shots.

I'm kind of surprised the library got bulldog on this. A person might walk in smelling like the locker room of the Dallas Cowboys, or walk in with luggage that is more the 40 in (I forgot diagonal, legnth, what), or with a meat cleaver, and say nothing. Well, the director of the library was here yesterday, maybe she saw it and got angry, I don't know.

[PhotoChick]

I'm not sure which library you work at but there's 3 more videos at a library. Just click the see all button on his videos.

[depechemodefan]

I know one was for a diff. library. I'll look again, though, since I understand there are 3 from our library. I did notice that no one comments on his videos.

edit: I clicked on the link and it says the account has been suspended.

[rerant]

Your feelings on the issue of part of your body being recorded are not the issue. As long as he didn't record any part of you that is considered universally private (uncovered bust, or unclothed bottom), if you're in a public place you have no legal right to expect privacy of that sort. If he were to record anything that showed it was you, such as your face, then he could be in trouble. I dunno, I see it as creepy, but more suck on the part of the library for trying to over-use authority with frivolous policies. There are a lot of things better left to individuals to sort out than put in the hands of authority interference, and I would say this is one of them.

Just my 2c.

Actually, that is the issue.
Here recording in any public establishment is not allowed, period. It doesn't matter if you're not recording an uncovered bust or unclothed bottom, if you're caught in, say, a bar with a video camera you'll either be told to turn it off or leave, or both.
The point is you don't have permission from the other patrons to videotape them, regardless as to how much or how little of them ends up in the footage.

[KabeRinnaul]

The fact that he was posting them was likely the issue. There are a number of factors involved in privacy, slander, and libel (there's a lot of overlap between the first one and second two) in civil law, and publication is usually the central point.

Though I also once got a to see a group of girls get warned about harassment charges when they kept taking pictures of the cashiers when I worked at Krogers, so perhaps the behavior was considered harassment. If anyone he was recording felt threatened by him, I could easily see that coming up.

[sms001]

Another issue that probably bears on him being banned is expectation of privacy. I would hope that a library wouldn't reveal a list of my books checked out, and I certainly hope they wouldn't allow someone to follow me around taping everything I do. I realize that Creepy's intentions are different, but there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a library that I assume the staff is morally, if not legally, expected to maintain.