A warning to all

[Chato]

Originally Posted by hiro1963

My wife warned me once when I tried to take a pic of a dog in a park. Because, many children were surrounding and petting that dog. I was kind of shocked to hear that. Well, I listened to her. I didn't feel like taking pics anymore though anyway.

A few weeks ago, my sister-in-law asked me take some pics of her daughter as she is a cheerleader for peewee football. So, she is like 6 or 7 years old I think.
Anyway, I went to the field and saw my niece, but not my sister-in-law. There are many parents were there to watch the game and I don't think they knew me at all. The game had started and I wanted to take some pics of my niece, but I couldn't even though no one gave me a suspicious look. A few minutes later, finally my sister-in-law showed up. She told me she had to go to a bank. Now, those parents saw me talking to my sister-in-law and they know her very well. Finally, I thought I was comfortable shooting some pics.

I guess I should wear a t-shirt saying "I'm just Japanese. Pretty much harmless these days." or something like that lol.

- Hiro

This is called the "Chilling Effect" which Civil Libertarians try to warn people about. It has no effect on criminals, but it does create an atmosphere of fear, and paranoia.

Dave

[JohnG]

Dave,

Police can ASK whatever they like. Again, no one said it was criminal - JUST SUSPICIOUS. And, as I stated earlier there is a difference between legal and common sense.

[Chato]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Dave,

Police can ASK whatever they like. Again, no one said it was criminal - JUST SUSPICIOUS. And, as I stated earlier there is a difference between legal and common sense.

I have nothing against telling people you're taking a shot of them. Most of the people whom I take photographs of are well aware of this fact. But, the guys riding around in his car. Why bother? What "harm" could be done, let alone actually was done.

Let's take a worst case scenario. Guys a VERY hard-up pedophile, can't afford to buy a kids fashion magazine; goes home, puts this image on his computer and gets off on it.

And?

Let's go back to the common sense discussion. To take down a license plate number, call the Police, report a possible pedophile on the loose? This is common sense?

If the Police called me, I would keep the conversation short and polite - "Right, yeah, I took a picture, nice talkiing to you."

And I would write a letter to the Daily News asking if the Police have something better to do with my tax dollar.

Dave

[MrEdinarea51]

I can't tell you the picture wasn't revealing but what I don't know. However maybe the father thought the photo was too revealing for his good. This card game could be played with a different hand.

I have decided after much deliberation that I will show the photo just to qualify my motive. This young girl was obviously (too me ) chastized or something before I took the photo. You will see the emotion in her face she had the same expression a moment before she turned her head to face me and my camera.

You make the call.

[Ordo]

After all you've told us now you go and publish an unauthorized pick of a minor on the net? You gotta be nuts.

[Chato]

Originally Posted by MrEdinarea51

I can't tell you the picture wasn't revealing but what I don't know. However maybe the father thought the photo was too revealing for his good. This card game could be played with a different hand.

I have decided after much deliberation that I will show the photo just to qualify my motive. This young girl was obviously (too me ) chastized or something before I took the photo. You will see the emotion in her face she had the same expression a moment before she turned her head to face me and my camera.

You make the call.

The father thought that taking a picture of his baby meant you were a pedophile on the make for hot pictures of his daughter to flash on the net, for all to see....

It's defacto evil, nothing more need be said.

Let me repeat, I do NOT know Canadian Law. But here in the US, this picture is ONLY your business, not his. It's Your picture, not His picture. That's the Law. And the law makes sense. While this image is not particulerly worth showing, you need No Release here, to put it in a book, or post it on your site.

To many, children are sacred objects, and in some strange manner, the act of photographing them is damaging in and of itself. This superstitition has become a shibboleth, in which even discussing the issue is off limits.

On this board, there are presently three threads going on in which adult woman are shown in very revealing costumes. Let us say that I am someone who needs erotic stimulation. Let us say that I am too poor to buy it, and too stupid to know how to get it for free. So I down load the images from this site in order to get my rocks off.

Are the woman demeaned by this act of mine? Are they harmed, damaged, made impure?

There is a small number of people who suffer from the disease of pedophilia. Of this small number, a handful commit actual acts that harm children. These acts fall into two catagories.

1. Those who pay for kiddie porn. They are in fact paying for children to be abused. They are subsidising abuse. They should be canned.

2. Those who actually act out on their fantasies and harm children. They should be tossed in jail for life.

As for those unfortunates who have enough rationality to do neither of the above, I don't care about them. I really don't. They have always been around, and in rational times, they should be object of pity. One need only read Aristophanes, writing 2500 years ago, in "The Clouds" to see how a rational society sees them.

But as a society, we have gone bananas. This is especially true, when one considers the fact that 90 percent of abuse is done by family members and not strangers.

Your story, looked at rationally, is a comedy, in which no one gets the joke.

If I was you, I would learn what the exact law is, and if it resembles US law, I would complain to the police, I would write to a newspaper. This question MUST be brought up for open debate, and to let a little light into this question. We Are harming our children by this fanaticism.

When I was a kid I was warned by my parents to never go off with a stranger. Sound advice, even though this never occurred in my childhood. But to warn children to be afraid of everyone with a camera is to create an atmosphere of fear and paranoia, and this goes well past rationality.

Dave

[Chato]

Originally Posted by Ordo

After all you've told us now you go and publish an unauthorized pick of a minor on the net? You gotta be nuts.

And? Minors are not treated differently under the law. There is nothing in US law which is any way, shape, manner or form, prevents him doing whatever he wants with this picture, short of using her to sell toothpaste.

If you don't like this, write your Congressperson to demand that photographing children should be a Capital Crime, or some other major felony. Right now, it's not a crime at all.

Dave

[TCav]

Originally Posted by Chato

... Right now, it's not a crime at all.

No. It's not a crime.

But it is impolite. And it is an issue of concern for many people.

You are free to be rude. You are free to disregard the concerns of others.

You are also free to act civily.

If you choose not to, don't be surprised if you are ostracized.

[Chato]

Originally Posted by TCav

No. It's not a crime.

But it is impolite. And it is an issue of concern for many people.

You are free to be rude. You are free to disregard the concerns of others.

You are also free to act civily.

If you choose not to, don't be surprised if you are ostracized.

I used the word, "shibboleth" for a reason. Something that is accepted, without reason. It's impolite for me to stick a camera, or an umbrella in your face. It's impolite for me to get in your way. It's impolite to do many things. Please explain to me how my taking a picture of you, without in any way obstructing or impeding you is impolite?

Mind you, I'm not trying to be funny here. There are indeed many ways in which the manner you take a picture can be objectively considered impolite. But I am not talking about those methods (which in fact have nothing to do with a camera).

Many things are of concern to people, that we might very well ignore, for the simple reason that they make no sense. What is so different about this superstition. Sure, if someone poletely asks me not to take their picture, I wont - But should I also ask for permission in advance? Should I also ask for permission to blow my nose, an act that offends some? Eat food in public? A woman in a mini-skirt? Someone asking me to worship Jesus?

Dave

Dave

[Bynx]

Thats a nice shot of innocence captured forever. If you are intent on shooting without permission check this out. It screws on the camera like a filter. There is a hole in the side and a mirrored suface at 45° to the lens. You take shots at right angles to the direction the camera is pointed. Ive had one for over 30 years and the odd time Ive used it, its been a godsend. Today they sell for $50.