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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 11, 2009, 5:14 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiro1963 View Post
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
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 11, 2009, 5:25 PM   #12
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

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.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 11, 2009, 5:38 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
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
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 11, 2009, 9:47 PM   #14
Member
 
MrEdinarea51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cloverdale B.C. Canada
Posts: 47
Default

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.
Attached Images
 
MrEdinarea51 is offline  
Old Oct 11, 2009, 10:09 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

After all you've told us now you go and publish an unauthorized pick of a minor on the net? You gotta be nuts.
Ordo is offline  
Old Oct 11, 2009, 10:29 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrEdinarea51 View Post
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 is offline  
Old Oct 11, 2009, 10:34 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordo View Post
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
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 11, 2009, 11:35 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
... 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.
__________________
  • 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 12, 2009, 12:50 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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

Last edited by Chato; Oct 12, 2009 at 12:55 AM. Reason: addendum
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 12, 2009, 12:55 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,640
Default

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.
Attached Images
  
Bynx 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 6:48 AM.