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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 22, 2009, 3:16 AM   #261
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

First folks talk about big business and government as being two very separate entities.. They aren't.

While the beauricacys are, at they political level they aren't...they need each other and support each other. To what extent information is share? Who knows, but be assured they are..its how they lobby the back up info needs to be shared.

As for rights...here in BC Canada, it is now (as of 2 days ago) illegal to own or sell body armour (unless you are in a police like business).

Now I'll never have a need to wear it, (I hope) but the option is removed now because of a reaction to gangs here. Supposed I lived in an area that was known to be frequented by gangs. I cannot even decide that perhaps i should wear protection as I am walking to and from work.

How does that compare here? Reactions, and over reactions by others are eroding and limiting my freedoms on a regular basis. Like what harm is there to society for me to wear body armour or to take a photo of a child in a car? None, absolutely none. But I may be limited because some of society feel that my wearing body armour contributes to the gang wars, and taking photos of kids contributes to pedrophilia.

We are all becoming victims of our fears...
littlejohn is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 6:06 AM   #262
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
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.
There are multiple possible outcomes that are unpleasant for the little girl and her family. If your experience and imagination can't conceive of any, I would prefer not to be the one to rob you of your innocence.
__________________
  • 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 22, 2009 at 6:12 AM.
TCav is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 10:12 AM   #263
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
There are multiple possible outcomes that are unpleasant for the little girl and her family. If your experience and imagination can't conceive of any, I would prefer not to be the one to rob you of your innocence.
well I guess I would prefer to keep my innocence also, if that's what it is! But you are saying, specifically because a photograph was taken, that could lead to multiple possible outcomes? I know there are many things that could happen to a little girl, but not because of a random public photograph being taken...
My husband said his concern would be if the person had been following her, or if he was driving slowly around a neighborhood, taking pictures of lots of little girls, etc. If the person was in a park, say, taking pictures of lots of different things, and one of them happened to be our daughter, he probably wouldn't be concerned (unless the person looked suspicious to him for other reasons). In this case, he said, we don't know if the father thought any of those things, or if he thought it would be useful to alert the police as to the license number if there WAS a "watch list" of some kind--because multiple complaints about the same person/car could indicate a reason to be concerned.
I thought he made some good points, probably what you guys are getting at?
He did agree with me, though, that we are the proverbial frog in boiling water and our rights are being slowly chipped away (in other ways), and so he thought the police really didn't need to make the "investigation" since a law really was not being broken, other than if they did want to make note of the license plate in order to track a trend.
javacleve is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 10:47 AM   #264
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

We don't know all the circumstances.

Perhaps the father has already received kidnapping threats.

Perhaps others in the area seem to be shopping for a little girl.

We don't know why the father was suspicious.

We don't know why the RCMP investigated.

But he was and they did and no harm was done. And perhaps, some good was done, too.

We don't know.
__________________
  • 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 22, 2009, 11:35 AM   #265
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Dave - very interesting. Did you look at the photo he posted? Doesn't look like she's "hanging out of a car window". In fact it looks like her face is completely on the other side of the window - i.e. it appears the window could go up and not contact her face. So I think you're skewing reality to suggest she's "hanging out of a car window".

She is in a seat (front or back). Her body is completely inside the vehicle.

So, if the OP confirms she was sitting in the back then my statement the photographer took a photo of a small child sitting in the back seat of a car is 100% accurate. It's not semantics - it's exactly describing the situation.
You are correct. She has lifted her body and has placed her head next to the window. Not a "back seat" shot. The photogrtapher needed to engage in no contortions to take this shot.

I assume from your posts that you haven't tried to take a back seat shot with a virtual camera?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 11:37 AM   #266
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
So, you beleive that a stanger taking a photo of a child is always harmless? Or just this time? It turns out that this time it was harmless, but you want us all to beleive that it's always harmless, correct?
If it's not always harmless, can you find an example of harm resulting from such a picture? I've tried and I cannot. This is an accepted myth. The pedophile, uses such images as a preliminary for causing harm.

Doesn't happen.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 11:39 AM   #267
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Dave - as much as you try to spin the truth - the truth is the girl was in the car and by the looks of the window she was in the back seat. There is absolutely nothing untruthful about the statement "he took a photo of a girl sitting in the backseat of the car next to him". Sorry Dave - spin all you like, that's a truthful statement (note: if the OP comes back and says it was the front seat she was in I'll be glad to ammend my statements). But all your spin job does is demonstrate how you want to contort the truth. Her physical body was in the backseat of the car. Interesting that your spending so much time to spin it differently - after all, according to you it shouldn't matter that she was in the backseat of the car.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 11:43 AM   #268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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.
Ahh, so we agree, a photographer wearing a trenchcoat and no trousers is suspicious. Actually it's MORE than suspicious, it's a violation of the law. And the violation is NOT the photography, but the lack of trousers... ("Gosh officer I was in such a hurry this morning that I forgot my pants.")


Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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.

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?
I really don't care if the guy hasn't gotten the latest Sears Catalogue. The only relevant question is harm to the child! And that doesn't happen from these situations.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 11:45 AM   #269
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
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.
No you wouldn't. Just about everyone on this thread is perfectly happy to take pictures of people without permission as long as they weren't the primary subject. I fail to see the difference.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 11:45 AM   #270
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
... This is an accepted myth. The pedophile, uses such images as a preliminary for causing harm.

Doesn't happen.

Dave
Dave - not that I'm arguing the pedophile angle per se. But you've shown a couple times in this thread that you'll act as though you know criminal justice (smell and probable cause) now the criminology of pedophile behavior. I'm very interested - what is the source of your absolute certainty on the behavior of pedohiles (note I'm not accusing you so don't misread - but you're statement is a fact of how they behave or don't behave and I'm questioning as I did with your probable cause statement the basis on which you can make the claim. This, in my opinion, is one of the problems with debate -when one party introduces their opinion as fact. So, please enlighten us as to how you are certain that people who want to abduct a child never take photos of them first and how you know for certain that pedophiles never take photos of live children.

In other words, just like in a debate - I'd like you to cite your source for this information.
JohnG 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 3:05 PM.