A warning to all

[TCav]

Chato,

As I said, you are free to act civilly, or not. That is, you are free to consider your relations with your neighbors, the community, or society as a whole. Or you can just consider your own selfish needs and motives.

As are we all.

But the reason Civilization has survived is because the vast majority of people have chosen to act at least civilly. Therefore, the efforts of countless generations have culminated in your right to be rude.

Have a ball.

[MrEdinarea51]

I have read all of your posts and I have respected everyone's opinion whether it is pro or con and you have all aided in the healing of my mental health with regards to this issue. I believe have accomplished what I had intended by posting this warning, so that others may learn from what happened to me.

At first I felt guilty, funny how the mere mention of police and you feel like that. However, now I feel empowered. I have done absolutely nothing Illegal or evil minded...I took a photo. Plain and simple I took over Two Hundred of them today and you no what?, they still aren't very good. I'm learning as I go and to quote the Beatles "I get bye with a little help by my friends." Thank you all for your help and remember always be mindful of others.

[littlejohn]

Fort what its worth...a car IS a public place...the mere act of sleeping off a drunk in a car can get you charged with impaired...here in Canada.

The laws around vehicles are strange in a way, and everyone thinks its private space when its not...remember THAT when you pick your nose..

What perturbed me was the fact that the guy CAN call in your licence, and WITHOUT proof, state something about you that MAY or MAY NOT be founded, and yet the RCMP will believe him and call you...

THAT smacks of 'police state' ..NOW for what its worth, the Olympics are in Vancouver this winter. Google earth is taking several thousand pics at street level which will show people in cars, in restaurants and on the streets...it is up to each person to first go looking in thousands of pic. to see if there is one of his kids in the photo, of him and an escort, and he can call google to have the picture altered.

This is much different then some one calling the RCMP and saying...'Oh my god, google earth just took a picture that that little girl over there' AND having the scarce police resources call google and say 'what are you doing sir..???

Again I go back and how does the cop know for sure that the person who called is IN FACT the father of the girl? Couldn't it easily be a abductor who is now scared that someone got a pic of him and the girl..reports it (fake names etc.) and has the cop scare the photographer into deleting the photo???

[JohnG]

What perturbed me was the fact that the guy CAN call in your licence, and WITHOUT proof, state something about you that MAY or MAY NOT be founded, and yet the RCMP will believe him and call you...

Ummmmmm.....
Gee, I dial 911 and say there's been an accident on the highway - send police and an ambulance. Am I required to send proof before the react? A neighbor lodges a complaing because music is playing loud at 2am on a worknight from a neighbor's house. No proof is required for the police to investigate. A person is driving his car with his baby in the backseet and notices someone next to him at a traffic stop snapping photos of the backseat. That's a very odd thing to have happen. The father is concerned about the motives and calls the police. The police weight the situation and call the photographer to question him. They didn't "drag him downtown" - they asked him some questions. Talk to a police detective - see how many people are dumb enough to admit to wrongdoing. No, taking the photo wasn't illegal. But neither is it illegal to ask the photographer some questions. He got a call from police - hardly a trampling of his civil rights against the desire of the community to investigate a potential pedophyle. Again, I'm a photographer - and taking photos out of one car into another where a small child is sitting is not something people are used to seeing.

Again I go back and how does the cop know for sure that the person who called is IN FACT the father of the girl? Couldn't it easily be a abductor who is now scared that someone got a pic of him and the girl..reports it (fake names etc.) and has the cop scare the photographer into deleting the photo???

Oh gee, maybe because the line is traced and they know who the owner of the cell or landline is. And, oh gee, because an abducter isn't going to call the police. Which is really more outlandish - your scenario or the idea that some "freak" is taking photos of children in the backseats of cars. Honestly, weighing those two possibilities I believe most reasonable people that don't watch Lifetime Movie Network would believe the caller whose identity is verified.

[Chato]

Originally Posted by TCav

Chato,

As I said, you are free to act civilly, or not. That is, you are free to consider your relations with your neighbors, the community, or society as a whole. Or you can just consider your own selfish needs and motives.

As are we all.

But the reason Civilization has survived is because the vast majority of people have chosen to act at least civilly. Therefore, the efforts of countless generations have culminated in your right to be rude.

Have a ball.

Well, you're politely dodging the question I asked. Many of my shots are done from my stoop as I watch the parade of humanity go by. Please tell me how this unobtrusive postion is "inpolite," or "uncivil" to the rest of humanity.

All well and good to be appalled by the actions of paparazzi and they stick a camera into you face, and pop a flash into your eyes - But really, can you tell me how my actions above, or similar, meets your criteria?

Dave

[Chato]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Ummmmmm.....
Gee, I dial 911 and say there's been an accident on the highway - send police and an ambulance. Am I required to send proof before the react? A neighbor lodges a complaing because music is playing loud at 2am on a worknight from a neighbor's house. No proof is required for the police to investigate. A person is driving his car with his baby in the backseet and notices someone next to him at a traffic stop snapping photos of the backseat. That's a very odd thing to have happen. The father is concerned about the motives and calls the police. The police weight the situation and call the photographer to question him. They didn't "drag him downtown" - they asked him some questions. Talk to a police detective - see how many people are dumb enough to admit to wrongdoing. No, taking the photo wasn't illegal. But neither is it illegal to ask the photographer some questions. He got a call from police - hardly a trampling of his civil rights against the desire of the community to investigate a potential pedophyle. Again, I'm a photographer - and taking photos out of one car into another where a small child is sitting is not something people are used to seeing.


Oh gee, maybe because the line is traced and they know who the owner of the cell or landline is. And, oh gee, because an abducter isn't going to call the police. Which is really more outlandish - your scenario or the idea that some "freak" is taking photos of children in the backseats of cars. Honestly, weighing those two possibilities I believe most reasonable people that don't watch Lifetime Movie Network would believe the caller whose identity is verified.

"Hello, Police? Well look, I was driving in my car and my daughter was in the front passenger seat. This guy took a picture of her. Can you arrest this pedophile? Yeah, I took down his plate number. Err, no he didn't say anything? Was he naked? No. Did he make obscene movements? No. But I want him canned. He's a dangerous criminal. How do I know he's a dangerous criminal? Why he took a picture of my daughter."

Well, I can imagine the overload of work at 9-11 if all of these suspicious incidents were investigated by the authorities.

How about if I substitute the word "looked," for "photographed?"

Now explain to me how a reasonable police officer is going to allow every person who thinks photograhs are magic to spend my tax dollar investigating these "crimes?"

Dave

[Bynx]

He may not have answered your question to your satisfaction but the point tcav is making is CIVILITY. You have an ulterior motive for taking your pictures of individuals besides just your love of photography. In my short time on this earth I find its not getting to be a better place, in fact far to the opposite. Overcrowding and selfishness are the things I notice most. People who continually figure they can do whatever they want and continually cross that line cause resentment in those they involve in their actions. After a while when enough trouble is caused someone steps in and says enough and they make a law that says this is illegal or that is illegal. Another freedom taken away because of abuse. When you have others unknowingly getting involved in your schemes it may not be illegal yet, but its rude. If you cant make an effort to not be rude then photograph something else. If you must shoot people then shoot them as they are walking away and cant be identified. But talking to you is like pissing upwind, Im just getting my feet wet. And this is going around and around and around and aro............

[TCav]

Originally Posted by Chato

Many of my shots are done from my stoop as I watch the parade of humanity go by. Please tell me how this unobtrusive postion is "inpolite," or "uncivil" to the rest of humanity.

Suppose someone you don't know is sitting on their stoop across the street. Suppose they're taking your photo as you take photos of others. Suppose that, instead of sitting on a stoop, they're sitting in a parked car while they photograph you. Would you change your behavior in any way? Would you ask them what they were doing? Supposed that, as you approach them, they go inside or drive away, only to return later. Would you be concerned about their behavior?

They aren't acting civilly.

That's how the other people feel when you photograph them.

Because you aren't acting civilly.

[Chato]

Originally Posted by TCav

Suppose someone you don't know is sitting on their stoop across the street. Suppose they're taking your photo as you take photos of others. Suppose that, instead of sitting on a stoop, they're sitting in a parked car while they photograph you. Would you change your behavior in any way? Would you ask them what they were doing? Supposed that, as you approach them, they go inside or drive away, only to return later. Would you be concerned about their behavior?

They aren't acting civilly.

That's how the other people feel when you photograph them.

Because you aren't acting civilly.

I would indeed be suspicious if every morning when I went outside there were these guys sitting in a car photographing me.

Would I be suspicious if someone in a double parked car was taking my picture? Naah, would hardly notice.

There are aspects of what you write above which would trigger my suspicions. But this has nothing to do with photography. It's one thing to take my picture, it's a completely different matter if I'm under continious surveillance - with or without a camera.

Now oddly enough, back in the sixties, during the Vietnam War, there WAS a period of time where I was under surveillance. But I was young and stupid, and it really didn't bother me.

You are avoiding my question. You can't give an answer - The very definition of the word I used.

"Taking a picture of someone without permission is uncivil, and impolite."

Ok, why?

Mind you the very same people who say it's impolite or uncivil have no problem taking a picture which includes you in the image, but since you weren't the subject - it doesn't count...

Dave

[Chato]

Originally Posted by Bynx

He may not have answered your question to your satisfaction but the point tcav is making is CIVILITY. You have an ulterior motive for taking your pictures of individuals besides just your love of photography. In my short time on this earth I find its not getting to be a better place, in fact far to the opposite. Overcrowding and selfishness are the things I notice most. People who continually figure they can do whatever they want and continually cross that line cause resentment in those they involve in their actions. After a while when enough trouble is caused someone steps in and says enough and they make a law that says this is illegal or that is illegal. Another freedom taken away because of abuse. When you have others unknowingly getting involved in your schemes it may not be illegal yet, but its rude. If you cant make an effort to not be rude then photograph something else. If you must shoot people then shoot them as they are walking away and cant be identified. But talking to you is like pissing upwind, Im just getting my feet wet. And this is going around and around and around and aro............

I take it you want to close down this thread?

Sorry, I wont bite.

It IS possible for people to sincerely disagree about a subject without assigning ulterior motives.

Dave