reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

A person confronts a group arriving by bus to protest Trump in Washington D.C. The person accuses the group of being an "AstroTurfed" crowd, implying they are not an authentic, grassroots movement. The person questions if they know what International Workers' Rights Day is, calling it "Socialist day." The confrontation escalates with insults exchanged. The person threatens physical violence.

A journalist is recording people marching against Trump. The journalist asks if Reid Hoffman and George Soros paid them to be there. The journalist states they can document stuff on the street and that the people got busted and are paid. One of the people tells the journalist to get out of here and leave, stating they are not welcome. The journalist claims to live there, but the other person repeats that they live in the city and demands the journalist leave.

An individual confronts another, accusing them of doxxing people by taking and posting pictures of their faces online. The accused clarifies they are posting pictures of posters in public spaces. The accuser acknowledges this and recognizes they are also in a public space. The accuser then asks if the other person intends to stay with them.

An individual accuses another of doxxing people by taking and posting pictures of their faces online. The accused clarifies that they are posting pictures of posters in public spaces. The accuser acknowledges that both parties are in public spaces. The accused then asks if the accuser intends to stay with them.

A person states they are not a danger and claims someone is being attacked by a crowd and arrested. They allege authorities are ignoring assaults against Christine, threatening to arrest her, and fabricating conditions while the crowd acts with impunity. The person says they have paperwork and knows her conditions. They state she will be out with them soon and that the authorities are causing a disturbance with a social protest. They ask that nothing happens to the crowd and offer to just talk, saying they don't need to protest.

A journalist is documenting protesters loading items into a van and asks how far they traveled to protest. The journalist claims to be with an independent news agency. The journalist asks where the protesters are from and notes they are wearing masks. The journalist asks if the protesters are paid and how much George Soros or Reid Hoffman paid them to protest. The journalist asks how much the protesters are getting paid and if they are having fun. The journalist states their pay doesn't matter and they are there to document the rally. The journalist asks if the protesters are getting paid to protest. The journalist asks why they don't want them to get the license plate number. The journalist suggests if they were a legitimate grassroots movement, they wouldn't be worried about it, but someone is clearly funding them.

An individual questions why their picture was taken at a public protest. They ask if the photographer's organization taught them the "tactic of geo attacking individuals" and if the picture will be uploaded to a database. The individual expresses concern about being doxxed, especially after being asked to show press credentials. The photographer states they are documenting the protest for an article. The individual questions the reason for the picture, suggesting it's "creepy" to want to look at them later. They then ask for information about the protest, specifically the difference between the orange and yellow groups and who organized the event.

The speaker is filming at a public protest and refuses to stop recording despite being asked not to film people's faces. The other person argues that it's a public space and a newsworthy event, so they have the right to record. The situation escalates as they exchange heated words, with the speaker eventually agreeing to leave. The conversation is chaotic and ends with the speaker continuing to film while making references to "Rick and Morty."

Speaker 0 describes a facial recognition van; a man covered his face to avoid being caught by police cameras. Police stopped him and photographed him anyway. There’s claimed to be no law against covering one’s face, and Speaker 0 says, “you let him go then.” Speaker 1 counters, suggesting it might be because “I don’t consent to being on there,” calling it “government overreach.” Speaker 0 continues: “Don't cover my face. Don't push me over when I'm walking down the street.” The police deemed this disorderly behavior and issued a fine; Speaker 0 shows a £90 fine and notes that “there you go. Look at that.” He asserts that the man has a right to cover his face and can walk away. Speaker 1 adds: “We live in a country which is free. We don’t have to carry ID. So we don’t live in a state where the police have the right to see your ID willy nilly. This takes away my freedom because you're IDing me without asking.”

An individual is questioned by police officers about their presence at a roundabout. The officers state they are present due to intelligence suggesting a potential protest in the area and that individuals sometimes film police activity beforehand. The individual expresses discomfort at being surrounded and denies filming, but admits to taking note of an officer's shoulder number. They question the police about parking on the roundabout and express concern about being filmed, particularly due to a sticker on the camera. The police confirm they are filming as per GDPR guidelines. The individual suggests the sticker should be removed. The interaction concludes with the police stating they are satisfied and the individual claiming harassment.

Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 are taking audio and video when Speaker 0 approaches and demands to know what they are photographing. Speaker 1 refuses to answer and asks Speaker 0 to leave them alone. Speaker 0 refuses, claiming they can't take photos on federal property. Speaker 1 claims Speaker 0 tried to hit them with their car. Speaker 2 says they witnessed the near-hit and that the photography is constitutionally protected. Speaker 1 threatens to have Speaker 0 arrested. Speaker 0 refuses to leave, stating they don't take orders from "schmucks." Speaker 1 tells Speaker 0 they made a mistake and should go home. Speaker 0 asks again what Speaker 1 is photographing. Speaker 1 again refuses to answer.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of taking a photograph without permission, calling it assault. Speaker 1 denies it and claims to be live streaming on Facebook. Speaker 0 demands the phone to delete the alleged photo. Speaker 1 refuses and mentions they are on a train heading to Norbridge. They express a desire for police presence upon arrival. The video ends with Speaker 0 announcing the train's destination as Mayfield.

Speaker 0 finds the behavior of the people following them peculiar and questions their presence. They express confusion and ask why these individuals are following them without any prior introduction. Speaker 0 also mentions that they are trying to take pictures of a building and feels disturbed by the sudden intrusion.

The speaker attempts to define fascism. The other person admits they don't know what it is, identifying themselves as a photographer. The speaker prefaces their explanation with "So is kind of like when United." They then ask if they are being recorded.

They assert that recording is not illegal and proceed with filming. They question why their information is being taken down, and are told, “Because we have a nice little database.” A statement follows, “He is considered a domestic terrorist.” The exchange ends with, “So We're videotaping you? Are you crazy?”

In the exchange, Speaker 1 indicates they are checking up on them and have received keys, while Speaker 0 asserts clear boundaries about entering the property. Speaker 0 repeatedly states: “You cannot come to my house,” and “This is my property.” They insist that Speaker 1 cannot walk onto the premises, cannot ring the doorbell, and cannot visit; they caution about needing to pass a background check to come to someone’s house, and insist Speaker 1 must leave immediately. Speaker 0 clarifies that they have kids and expresses concern about potential criminal activity, saying, “Call the police and say hi. I have kids. I don’t know. I’m not sure if you’re a criminal.” Speaker 1 agrees to leave after these warnings. The children’s safety is a recurring theme in Speaker 0’s statements, with multiple refusals for access and visits, including a claim that Speaker 1 cannot use childcare or be a friend to gain entry, underscoring the need to leave. During the confrontation, Speaker 0 also notes that they are recording because they do not want their face shown on social media, and claims to have Speaker 1’s information and “saw it already in the system.” Speaker 1 responds with a remark about privacy rights and asserts there is no right to privacy in that context, while continuing to attempt polite closure by saying “You guys have a good day.” Despite the tense exchange, Speaker 1 maintains a calm demeanor and explains they are simply visiting local daycares and that “everybody’s been very nice.” They insist this is not harassment, recounting that they knocked on doors to say hello. They offer New Year’s greetings at the end, repeatedly saying “Have a good day” and “Happy New Year,” and remark that the area feels “very friendly here.” Overall, the interaction centers on a strict boundary set by Speaker 0 regarding entry to the home, safety considerations for children, and the assertion of recording and monitoring, contrasted with Speaker 1’s attempts to explain their benign intentions and to end the encounter with courteous farewells.

The speaker discusses the importance of freedoms in New Zealand, referencing Germany's history. They ask for their name to be stated, question the law being broken, and request a photo be deleted.

I spotted a guy with a sign that seemed to threaten CEOs. I asked him if Julone, or Luigi, was his hero, considering the message he was putting out. He didn't want to talk, but I pressed, asking who his hero politician was. I asked the group to raise their right hands. I asked if their cause involved killing CEOs because that's what the sign implied. They called me an extremist while holding up pro-Luigi signs. They seemed angry and exposed. They started blocking their original sign with an "F Trump" sign. I pointed out they didn't want to answer if they thought killing Elon Musk was a good idea. Then, they began taking pictures of me. I simply asked if they were cool with a sign that threatened the president's life, and they freaked out. All I wanted was an answer on whether they thought threatening the president was appropriate.

A person confronted two individuals photographing on federal property, warning them about potential arrest and claiming to have them on camera with a witness. The same person is later recorded telling a 911 operator that the two individuals were filming people at the post office. A separate 911 call reports that the two individuals with cameras sprayed the caller in the face with pepper spray after the caller asked why they were being filmed. The caller describes the individuals and expresses concern about their agenda. One of the photographers claims the caller attempted to assault them and requests to file a report. They describe the caller as a white female, approximately 60 years old, and state that no one made physical contact.

A journalist is seeking clarity on rules of engagement after an incident. While filming, someone handed them a flyer, then a comrade told her to stop talking to them. The woman returned and allegedly grabbed at the journalist's camera and tried snapping his tampons. The journalist believes this was assault. The journalist is concerned about potential escalation if they encounter the masked woman again and wants to know her identity or have a record of the incident. They ask the police for help in identifying her. The police suggest going to 11 Division, but the journalist points out that this would require leaving the protest. The journalist feels the police should be able to at least identify the woman.

The speaker confronts someone filming in front of a building and tells them they don't have the right to film there. The person being filmed asks who the speaker is and why they can't film. The speaker insists that they don't have the right and threatens to knock them out. The person being filmed asks for the speaker's name and badge number, and the speaker provides it. The person being filmed tells the speaker to leave them alone and not give them orders on the sidewalk. The speaker tells them to go back inside and not bother them.

Speaker 0: The speaker expresses frustration about attempts to discourage voting through violence. They criticize those who engage in racist actions and invade people's privacy. The speaker warns that if their vote is stolen, they will remember the person responsible. The speaker then asks if they can take a picture of the person they are speaking to. The person agrees, mentioning that it is a one-party consent state. Another speaker advises against being friendly with certain individuals, claiming they support hate groups and religious extremism. The conversation ends with one person requesting a Republican sample ballot.

The speaker states they are being doxxed because they posted their address online while allowing strangers to use their apartment as a bathroom for protesting against the "Gestapo." They anticipated this due to people targeting those associated with the protests. The speaker recounts a story of a 12-year-old girl whose parents, legal green card holders, were allegedly "abducted" by authorities. The speaker draws a parallel to 1933 Nazi Germany, claiming that the Nazis initially targeted criminals and those who did nothing to stop them. They believe people who are annoyed by the protests are like Nazi citizens. The speaker claims they are trying to make the protests "cohesive" and "not annoying," and that the news portrays them as violent criminals, but they haven't broken anything, only done graffiti. They mention anarchists are involved, and there is a policy among anarchists called don't police other people's actions.

A person confronts a group arriving by bus to protest Trump in Washington D.C. The person accuses the group of being an "AstroTurfed" crowd, implying they are not an authentic, grassroots movement. The person questions if they know what International Workers' Rights Day is, calling it a "Socialist day." The confrontation escalates with insults exchanged, including calling the protesters "losers." The person threatens physical violence. The presence of children at the protest is mentioned.