Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 17, 2009, 4:15 PM   #131
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I only said that my mind is made up that being civil is better than being uncivil, and then asked you how you felt about it.

But from your response, can I conclude that you haven't decided?
Since this is your only relevant question, I feel that I am far more civil and polite to people than most others. In other words, I respect and defer to people as long as such an action does not cause harm to me.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2009, 4:41 PM   #132
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
CHATO wrote: I would like to know why we have to watch out for our privacy today as opposed to when I grew up in the Fifties? Certainly attitidudes toward photographers were different. But photography hasn't changed in ANY qualitative manner.

But it has. Digital photography and the internet have completely changed it.
In the 'old days' one took a roll of film and turned it in to be developed. Many of the larger labs censored the pictures. (don't lets get into whether that was right or wrong) You received your prints and were then able to show them to family and friends. Or you shot slides and bored your family and friends with slide shows. End of story. If you were a member of an extremely tiny minoity, you developed and printed your own. Still only could show them to a few people unless you sold them to a news outlet or published a photo book. Either way, it cost you money, and the number of potential viewers was very limited.

Today, with a digital camera, the process is instant, cheap and prolific. Due consideration has gone out the window, and second thoughts occur after the event, not prior. The potential number of viewers is limited only by the number of internet users ( many millions).
/QUOTE]

brian
Digital photography and the Internet have changed things - Granted, but they have only changed things quantitatively, and not qualitatively!

To say that I sneak into your bedroom and photograph you and your wife, is not the question is this discussion.

Photographs of people in public are simply the capture of their image in public. They reveal nothing about the person that they are are not prepared to reveal anyway, for the simple reason that they ARE in public. No one on the net will stare at these image with an eye to making a judgement about that person.

Mark this: Each and every image I have posted has been viewed by less than 300 people (and that is optimistic) while many of these same people might very well be viewed by Thousands of others just in the course of their day to day activity.

Whereas the thousands of books sold, consist of images meant to be stared at, are meant to provoke thought, and they can at least be read by millions. These books have been around long before the Internet, and are around to this day.

Quote:
CHATO also wrote: My rights end when they impose on Your rights.

Exactly. I contend I have the right to determine where and how pictures of me are presented, and that my right to privacy trumps your right to present pictures of me without my consent. I'm also perfectly willing to enforce my right.
Than stop appearing before thousands of people every single day. Or wear a sign saying, "Don't look at me, because I have a bad hair day," or "Don't look at me because I don't like being looked at. Don't you know I'm in a 'private mood?"

And no offense, but are all those thousands of books I refered to an invasion of their subjects privacy?

Please explain to me the magic that converts your appearing in public, to be a violation of your "rights" when someone puts you in a book, or posts your image on this site?

True, an image CAN be harmful to you, but then again, you are protected by Law from someone posting a harmful image of you; one out of context, one with a false caption, etc, etc.

And THOSE violations have nothing to do with politeness or civility. They are a violation of your RIGHTS, and you can seek legal redress.

In fact, some of those violations are not only grounds for civil redress but are actually violations of criminal law.

Again - You cannot explain how an image of you in public somehow defacto violates your rights, while being seen by people is not.

Now I just showed how an image of a subject can ALSO capture people who are not the primary subject. Can capture them in such a way that I can easily crop the image to make that person the subject - Yet there is no one here who argues that unless they get the permission of those people, than they can't post the shot. Indeed, this board is FULL of such images.

And that's another problem when people set out to justify the irrational. Magic contradicts itself.

Look recognisable is recognisable. How can you logically get around that delemma? By hoping it goes away? By burning all the photography books of people?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2009, 6:09 PM   #133
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
... In other words, I respect and defer to people as long as such an action does not cause harm to me.
So, would answering a few questions posed by a police officer cause someone harm. Surely someone could refuse to answer on the grounds that their answers might tend to incriminate them. They could also just lie about their practice of scouting for young girls to abduct. In either situation, the questions are harmless, and they could deal with them however they wanted. But if they simply cleared it with the parent before the police became involved, then it would have caused them even less harm. Wouldn't it?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2009, 7:12 PM   #134
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
So, would answering a few questions posed by a police officer cause someone harm. Surely someone could refuse to answer on the grounds that their answers might tend to incriminate them. They could also just lie about their practice of scouting for young girls to abduct. In either situation, the questions are harmless, and they could deal with them however they wanted. But if they simply cleared it with the parent before the police became involved, then it would have caused them even less harm. Wouldn't it?
Anyone has a right to ask me a question. Police or an individual. I see no reason for me to respond to such questions, as in, "Did you take a picture of someone in public? Which is like asking, did you talk to someone in public?

"You were seen looking at a store window in Mid Manhattan, do you admit this occured?"

Thems MY tax dollars paying for the time involved in this. Now, perhaps I might respond differently if the Police called and said, "We've been getting false reports of crimes from Mr. ______, the latest was a claim that you're a pedophile because you took a picture of his daughter in public.

My response would be dictated by the actual questions, tone of voice, etc. Who knows? Maybe this guy claimed I was naked in the car, and mooning them, while I took the picture...

Look, I have an opinion about the OP's story. I believe him. All well and good - But often enough there are two sides to a story. But if the story has been reported accurately, I fail to see a reason for the Police to do anything more, then say to the guy who complained, "Mr. _____, there is nothing illegal about taking a picture in public. Do you have any details about this incident where there may have been something illegal occuring? No? Well then goodbye."

I don't know what YOU know about US Law, but there is NOTHING inherently incriminating about refusing to answer questions that shouldn't be asked!

Look, People have said on this thread that the Police have to follow up reports of criminal activity. This is true. What criminal activity? And if there was NO criminal activity, what is there to follow up?

Unless the guy complaining added a whole series of lies, I fail to see anything to follow up, nothing to investigate, no crime has even been alledged

Dave

Last edited by Chato; Oct 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM. Reason: Adding an addendum
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2009, 8:05 PM   #135
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
CHATO wrote: I would like to know why we have to watch out for our privacy today as opposed to when I grew up in the Fifties? Certainly attitidudes toward photographers were different. But photography hasn't changed in ANY qualitative manner.

But it has. Digital photography and the internet have completely changed it.
In the 'old days' one took a roll of film and turned it in to be developed. Many of the larger labs censored the pictures. (don't lets get into whether that was right or wrong) You received your prints and were then able to show them to family and friends. Or you shot slides and bored your family and friends with slide shows. End of story. If you were a member of an extremely tiny minoity, you developed and printed your own. Still only could show them to a few people unless you sold them to a news outlet or published a photo book. Either way, it cost you money, and the number of potential viewers was very limited.

Today, with a digital camera, the process is instant, cheap and prolific. Due consideration has gone out the window, and second thoughts occur after the event, not prior. The potential number of viewers is limited only by the number of internet users ( many millions).
CHATO also wrote: My rights end when they impose on Your rights.

Exactly. I contend I have the right to determine where and how pictures of me are presented, and that my right to privacy trumps your right to present pictures of me without my consent. I'm also perfectly willing to enforce my right.

brian
I dont see how any reasonable minded person can argue with this. But the suggestion is, if you dont want your picture taken stay indoors because photographers have rights. But the issue isnt the taking of the picture its what gets done to it afterwards.
Bynx is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2009, 8:39 PM   #136
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
I dont see how any reasonable minded person can argue with this. But the suggestion is, if you dont want your picture taken stay indoors because photographers have rights. But the issue isnt the taking of the picture its what gets done to it afterwards.

Quote:
Exactly. I contend I have the right to determine where and how pictures of me are presented, and that my right to privacy trumps your right to present pictures of me without my consent. I'm also perfectly willing to enforce my right.
Really? You're claiming that he has the right to stop me by force from taking his picture? Which is to say he has the right to violate the law anytime he damn well pleases? Using violence?

Certainly if I get in his face with a camera, in my opinion, that act of mine would be "assualt" (without the accompanying "battery"). In my opinion he would indeed have the right to defend himself from that assualt. In fact I HAVE physically stopped people from doing this, and would be the last person to protest someone else doing the same.

To paraphrase a great semantacist, "The photograph is not the person."

You have rights, your image doesn't. Only where the display of that image causes harm to YOU the person, do you have a right to legal redress.

This is an interesting decision making process. If you're powerful, physically strong, you can determine what is right and wrong? So then, as a continuation of that logic, since I'm a boiler mechanic, trained in martial arts, can bench press almost twice my weight, then I automatically must be right in the postion I hold?

Strangely enough I will defer to someone much weaker than I am if they can show me my errors. Go figure...

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 1:13 AM   #137
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

In response to the original post, my position is " No harm, No foul." The photog took a picture of a child through the window of a vehicle she was travelling in. The parent was concerned, and passed the registration number to the police, along with his concerns. The police investigated. The photographer was not arrested, tortured, threatened, or otherwise inconvenienced, except in the case of answering a few questions. All quite civilized, actually. I see nothing to be concerned about. The photographer was within his rights, the parent was within his rights, and the police were within their rights. All is right with the world.

brian
VTphotog is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 3:24 AM   #138
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
Exactly. I contend I have the right to determine where and how pictures of me are presented, and that my right to privacy trumps your right to present pictures of me without my consent. I'm also perfectly willing to enforce my right.

brian
Actually to DON'T have that right. Never have. Otherwise cameras wouldn't be allowed in parking lots. Ask ANY public figure...some would WELCOME the ability to the right as you suggest. LOL. Ask any celebrity about the 'ability' to to be private.

Once you put your face in a public space, you lose the right to keep it private. And cars are consider public space in N.America.
littlejohn is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 3:46 AM   #139
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
All quite civilized, actually. I see nothing to be concerned about. The photographer was within his rights, the parent was within his rights, and the police were within their rights. All is right with the world.
brian
The words 'police rights' are incorrect. They don't have rights any different then you or I. They are charged with the responsibility to uphold the law. In this instance there was no law broken.

Here's a line from 'legal aid' #1 Silence: I can refuse to talk to police or answer their questions, unless I am in a bar or a cinema, driving a car or they say I broke the law. In those cases, I must give my name, birthdate and address, or show my ID, but I do not have to say any more.

Additionally they suggest you give them a copy of this card or read it to them..."Officer, if I am under arrest or being detained, please tell me so. If I am free top go please tell me so. If I am not free to go, please tell me why. I wish to exercise all my legal rights including my right to silence and my right to speak to a lawyer before I say anything to you. I do not consent to be searched. I wish to be released without delay. Please do not ask me questions, because I will not willingly talk to you until I speak to a lawyer.

Thank You for respecting my rights

Link..http://pivotlegal.org/Publications/index.htm Statement for Police)

Home page http://pivotlegal.org/

Last edited by littlejohn; Oct 18, 2009 at 3:50 AM.
littlejohn is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 3:11 PM   #140
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlejohn View Post
The words 'police rights' are incorrect. They don't have rights any different then you or I. They are charged with the responsibility to uphold the law. In this instance there was no law broken.

Here's a line from 'legal aid' #1 Silence: I can refuse to talk to police or answer their questions, unless I am in a bar or a cinema, driving a car or they say I broke the law. In those cases, I must give my name, birthdate and address, or show my ID, but I do not have to say any more.

Additionally they suggest you give them a copy of this card or read it to them..."Officer, if I am under arrest or being detained, please tell me so. If I am free top go please tell me so. If I am not free to go, please tell me why. I wish to exercise all my legal rights including my right to silence and my right to speak to a lawyer before I say anything to you. I do not consent to be searched. I wish to be released without delay. Please do not ask me questions, because I will not willingly talk to you until I speak to a lawyer.

Thank You for respecting my rights

Link..http://pivotlegal.org/Publications/index.htm Statement for Police)

Home page http://pivotlegal.org/
Quite right.

The Police have no additional rights compared to any member of the Public. They have a responsibility to follow up on reports of crimes. I have yet to hear how this incident is a crime, or even could be a crime. The only possible crime was a false report of a crime. Giving the parent the benefit of the doubt and NOT prosecuting him for a false report is alright with me. Fine. But this call was harrassment by definition.

Now it the great scheme of things it's no big deal, except for the fact that the OP has no idea if his plate number and identity are registered in some list. Probably not, but then again, you never know.

John G, has made some points that this incident could be regarded by the parent as suspicious. Well, that's fine. But what does that have to do with criminal activity? If the parent was that concerned, irrational or not, he could have written down the plate number, and if he saw the same car again, his suspicions would be reaching the rational.

Dave
Chato is offline  
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:38 PM.