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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 21, 2009, 7:26 PM   #251
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
but wouldn't this make you think twice next time you want to take a photograph? You don't think that's a shame, if so?
Not me. But then I would never take a photo of a child inside another car while I'm in my car in the first place. If this event causes people to question whether or not that behavior is a good idea, then I don't think it's a shame at all. Adults should always think before they act.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 7:34 PM   #252
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
These are suspicious picture? Tell me how?
The pictures aren't suspicious. But if the photographer were wearing a trenchcoat and no trousers, I would call that suspicious.

And I would like the police to investigate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
So then, someone should call the police to investigate these images for possible criminal intent?
Images are inanimate objects; they do not have "intent". People, with or without cameras, have "intent". If they are acting suspiciously, with or without cameras, the police should investigate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Waiting for what?
Your answer:

... isn't it at least possible that one person, in the act of photographing a child, could, in the judgement of another person, appear suspicious?

And in that situation, wouldn't the police be doing their duty by invesitgating the behavior that someone else judged to be suspicious?
__________________
  • 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.

Last edited by TCav; Oct 21, 2009 at 7:53 PM.
TCav is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 7:36 PM   #253
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
but wouldn't this make you think twice next time you want to take a photograph? You don't think that's a shame, if so?
I would always think twice about taking someone's picture without asking them. I think it's a shame that someone thought it was ok.
__________________
  • 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 21, 2009, 7:38 PM   #254
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
I respectfully say you make these statements blissfully unaware of what meth does to a community, to the people it addicts and to the damage even the creation of it does. The impact to communities where the manufacturing is prevalent is devastating - more devestating than prostitution is. Respectfully I suggest you investigate what the meth labs and drug manufacturing does to a community.

Fortunately, the courts operate in the real world - not in the world of absolutes. At this point in time, there is no evidence anyone's rights are being violated. No one suffers from it. And, actually they do catch people. What you also may not understand is that many criminals are stupid. This benefits society greatly. It also benefits law enforcement. Think about it. If you use a credit card, that credit card company knows infinitely more about your buying habits than a database tracking purchases of certain cold medecines. But you don't have a problem using a credit card do you? Let's say in the past month I've used my credit card 30 times. There's a record of every one of those purchases. Now, let's compare that to the record of the single cold medecine purchase I made. If big brother really was trying to invade your privacy they'd use credit card and cell phone records to do it - not bother with a database tracking the sale of cold medecine.

Fortunately the court system is well aware of the damage of this drug problem is. And for the time being they have concluded civil rights are not being violated. And such a tracking measure is not an undue burden. Do you have any prescriptions? Guess what - that's on a database. No different than what's going on with the cold medecine. Are you writing congress that prescription drug databases are a violation of your rights? So, we have credit card records plus prescription drug databases - all which track infinitely more of your behavior than a database for certain cold medecines. But those are OK?
Perhaps I am less aware than you are; however, I did have a fairly close family member who was a meth addict so I am not completely ignorant.
And, no, I am not happy with those other invasions of privacy that you mentioned, either. The big difference is that, for now at least (and hopefully it will remain so), that information is in private hands rather than at the disposal of the government. Therefore there are still limits to its use, and if they MISuse it, then they are breaking a law. It's still not perfect, in my eyes, but it's better than the government having the access with no one above them making sure it doesn't get abused.
javacleve is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 7:39 PM   #255
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
In the type of situation we are discussing (a public photograph), I believe he is saying it is always harmless. If you want to get into other situations, sure there could be harmful situations. But that's not what we are discussing.
In the situation we're discussing, it turned out ok. In the type of situation we're discussing, do you deny that it could have turned out very differently?
__________________
  • 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.

Last edited by TCav; Oct 21, 2009 at 7:50 PM.
TCav is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 7:42 PM   #256
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Not me. But then I would never take a photo of a child inside another car while I'm in my car in the first place. If this event causes people to question whether or not that behavior is a good idea, then I don't think it's a shame at all. Adults should always think before they act.
why? Why is it different if you are in the car? Or, are you saying that you always ask for permission before taking anyone's photograph, in any circumstances? If so, I can respect that. Not arguing about that, really. Just addressing the definition of "harassment" and why it can be a problem even if it's not excessive. As someone said earlier, it's the chilling effect.
The proverbial frog in boiling water--he will die because he doesn't notice the heat is going up. We also can become numb to the infringements upon our rights, and allow them to eventually become excessive without noticing it. I think it's good for someone to point out when that might be happening, also. I am just asking questions here, not telling you that you are wrong...
javacleve is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 7:57 PM   #257
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
In the situation we're discussing, it turned out ok. In the type of situation we're discussing, do you deny that it could have turned out very differently?
I have a hard time seeing how any harm could have been done to this girl by having her fully clothed, public photograph taken. But I do understand the concern...I am just trying to ask questions and not accept everything at face value.
javacleve is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 8:00 PM   #258
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I would always think twice about taking someone's picture without asking them. I think it's a shame that someone thought it was ok.
I hear you, you have been standing up for civility all along, and I agree with what you are saying about that, too... I just asked my husband what he would have done in the situation, and while he agreed that it would have concerned him (though he can't really explain why), he said he wouldn't have thought to call the police.
javacleve is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 8:38 PM   #259
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
And, no, I am not happy with those other invasions of privacy that you mentioned, either. The big difference is that, for now at least (and hopefully it will remain so), that information is in private hands rather than at the disposal of the government. Therefore there are still limits to its use, and if they MISuse it, then they are breaking a law. It's still not perfect, in my eyes, but it's better than the government having the access with no one above them making sure it doesn't get abused.
In point of fact, the U.S. government is far more restricted in the use of private information than are most private companies. (in most cases) Financial institutions do have a lot of restrictions on what they can do with your personal info. Law enforcement needs to have a court order to look at how you spend your money, and where. Most larger retailers track your purchases at their stores, watch your spending habits, and work on ways to get you to spend more. Big, bad business is more involved in invading your privacy than big, bad government, mainly because there is more to gain.

brian
VTphotog is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 11:02 PM   #260
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
In point of fact, the U.S. government is far more restricted in the use of private information than are most private companies. (in most cases) Financial institutions do have a lot of restrictions on what they can do with your personal info. Law enforcement needs to have a court order to look at how you spend your money, and where. Most larger retailers track your purchases at their stores, watch your spending habits, and work on ways to get you to spend more. Big, bad business is more involved in invading your privacy than big, bad government, mainly because there is more to gain.

brian
yeah, and I don't like it one bit! LOL But like you said, there are limits on the use of that information. If the government did have access to it, the sky would be the limit, really. Really, it's all a trade off and we all have to think about these issues and decide if it is worth it; sometimes it is worth it. But my feeling, and perhaps that of the others arguing in this direction, is that we cannot fall asleep at the wheel and be the proverbial frog, and allow our rights to be slowly taken away. Each step will not seem too big, and so it will be easy to say, well I guess it's what's necessary...but in the long run, it becomes too much. We are already well down that path, and I hope TCav is right that the pendulum is swinging back. The only way that happens, though, is through such dialogue and individuals questioning the status quo...
That's all I'm trying to say

Last edited by javacleve; Oct 21, 2009 at 11:07 PM.
javacleve 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 8:01 PM.