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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 22, 2009, 11:51 AM   #271
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
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.
Why do you keep falling back on the "pedophilia" thing? Is it that you want to incite the very irrational emotions that you blame this episode on?

A stanger might have a multitude of reasons for taking photos of a child, and some of them are not good.

And even some that are good could appear suspicious anyway.
__________________
  • 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, 11:57 AM   #272
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
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.
I agree. The act of photographing a child, in and of itself, does not harm the child, but some other person may or may not consider the possibility that the photogrrapher may have an evil purpose in mind. And they may pass along their suspicions to the police, and the police may investigate. Not because the person took a photo, but because the person looked suspicious while doing so.
__________________
  • 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, 11:58 AM   #273
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
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
My concern is that Government has far more power than a private company. Here is New York we have a card to get through toll booths. When the law was passed we were promised that any information was strictly verbotten, turns out anyone and their mother in law can supeanna these records and use them in civil as well as criminal cases. So much for the promise of secrecy.

Information is a weapon. So? Millions of government records are stolen - Happens all the time. Over 30 million records of veterans just went out into private hands. Government is not a machine, it is composed of people, and people may have their own motives and methods of using information.

Whatever else my politics are, I am also a Libertarian, and object to just about all intrusions of the government in my business. And the protections of the Fourth Amendment is being systamatically undermined. The goverenment now has the power to keep track of your library readings, (without warrants) and when they do so librarians are required not to inform you. Fortunately for Americans the National Librarians Association have announced that they will not obey this patently unconstitutional law.

Almost any household product, like Claritan, can possibly be used for a criminal purpose. Should every transaction then be recorded and used by the government? Should everyone who buys a lot of fertilizer be marked down as a possible terrorist?

The joke here is that the FBI is now complaining about an overload of information - For the simple reason, to quote the wise men,

"When everyone is a suspect, no one is a suspect"

Dave

Last edited by Chato; Oct 22, 2009 at 12:01 PM.
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 12:03 PM   #274
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
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.
I have already posted my opinion on this subject multiple times, in this topic and in others.

I always ask permission to use a photo I've taken of someone. I may ask before I take the photo, I may ask after I take the photo, but I always ask.
__________________
  • 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, 12:04 PM   #275
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
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.
you make a good point, John G (about providing the source of your facts)...
But Tcav, my question is even if an abducter did take a photo first, does that change anything? Would they not abduct had they not taken a photo? How is the photo assisting in the crime? That's what I don't get...and again, I'll allow for my ignorance.
Furthermore, to say "someone somewhere might possibly take a photo before committing a crime" isn't a good enough answer to call the police. Someone somewhere might possibly draw a map before committing a crime, also--but just because you see someone drawing a map doesn't mean it's worth calling the police and the police following up.
I just don't see where taking the photo (specifically) can lead to harm, that's all. Therefore, I don't see where taking a photo would be suspicious. Meaning, if there aren't additional reasons to be suspicious (such as driving slowly around the neighborhood, talking to small children).
I agree that in this case we do not know what caused the father to be suspicious. I just don't see why the police would need to investigate if that's all the father told them ("someone took a photo of my daughter in the back seat of the car"). But, of course, we don't know what the father told the police, either...
javacleve is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 12:09 PM   #276
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
But Tcav, my question is even if an abducter did take a photo first, does that change anything? Would they not abduct had they not taken a photo? How is the photo assisting in the crime?
You're right. Taking a picture of a child doesn't change anything. But taking a picture of a child, and then taking a picture of the license plate of the vehicle the child is in, makes whatever evil purpose the photographer has in mind, easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
Furthermore, to say "someone somewhere might possibly take a photo before committing a crime" isn't a good enough answer to call the police. Someone somewhere might possibly draw a map before committing a crime, also--but just because you see someone drawing a map doesn't mean it's worth calling the police and the police following up.
You're right. Taking a photo, or drawing a map, or just hanging out, are not illegal, and aren't always a prelude to a crime. What matters is if one person thinks another person is suspicious while doing those things.
__________________
  • 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 12:14 PM.
TCav is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 12:11 PM   #277
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I agree. The act of photographing a child, in and of itself, does not harm the child, but some other person may or may not consider the possibility that the photogrrapher may have an evil purpose in mind. And they may pass along their suspicions to the police, and the police may investigate. Not because the person took a photo, but because the person looked suspicious while doing so.

but the question is, do the police always investigate even if no law is being broken? I say, no...otherwise every irrational person out there would be calling the police for their irrational fears, and they'd be too busy chasing false leads to catch the REAL criminals
javacleve is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 12:25 PM   #278
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
but the question is, do the police always investigate even if no law is being broken? I say, no...otherwise every irrational person out there would be calling the police for their irrational fears, and they'd be too busy chasing false leads to catch the REAL criminals
You want the police to screen their calls?

What if it's your call they choose not to respond to?
__________________
  • 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, 12:41 PM   #279
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
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.
This is not rocket science John. I've been interested in this subject for almost thirty years. Starting at the time of the McMartin Case out in California. Shortely after that case I was approached by a number of parents concerned about the childrens director of a day camp in my summer community. This guy was one of those who "invade your personal space." I'm sure you've met such people. they do this without any knowledge or awareness (very annoying). At any rate, the parents were sure he was a potential child abuser. It took me quite a while to disabuse them of this belief.

Now I've read on the subject, used my connections in the field of social work. But it's easy enough to Google this and you can find out that everything I say on this subject is based on fact. Heck, just Google "Pedophilia" and you can learn all you want to on the subject.

I challenge anyone to find where normal photography is actually used to abuse children, or leads to the abuse of children. It's a myth. No doubt somewhere, somehow, someones done it - I just can't find such real life events, accept that it's accepted by everyone as a common event. Not that I doubt that pedophiles take pictures of children - But rather that any harm comes from this.



Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 12:41 PM   #280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
You want the police to screen their calls?

What if it's your call they choose not to respond to?
it's not really "screening" but John G has already allowed that they would not respond to a frivolous call. Now, perhaps we are arguing over the definition of "frivolous."
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 3:14 AM.