Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-09-2006, 07:31 AM   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
People taking pictures of your kids

For example, someone's taking photos in a park and your kids happen to be in the shot. How do you all feel about this? I'm not talking posed photos here. I'm talking about people taking general photography, like a playground setting.

In the last week or so, I've heard of several stories of people who are talking photos of picturesque settings, only to have parents freak out because their kids were potentially in the shot. For example, a guy wanted a picture of some pretty elaborate playground equipment in San Francisco and was accosted by some overprotective parents whose kids were playing in the area.

In my mind, these parents are overreacting. I recognize the potential for perverts but aren't we just feeding paranoia here? I certainly don't get worked up when people are taking pictures around my nieces and nephews. Do people really fear this that much?
lindalove is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 07:34 AM   #2 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
I can see their point of view and any photographer should be sensitive to this issue.

All a photographer should have to do is show the shots they took and/or explain what they are doing.

At worst ask for the kids to be taken out of the shot until you are done.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 08:05 AM   #3 (permalink)
 
KnifeMissile's Avatar
 
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
I can see their point of view and any photographer should be sensitive to this issue.

All a photographer should have to do is show the shots they took and/or explain what they are doing.

At worst ask for the kids to be taken out of the shot until you are done.
I don't know if this is realistic. As an amateur photographer, I have been in exactly this situation and I get really pissed off at these overprotective parents. I don't even understand their paranoia and I think they are nothing short of absolutely stupid. I can't very well ask the entire park to clear out because I want to photograph it, not to mention it's the people in the park that make the park interesting.

Personally, I don't think photographers need to be sensitive to the issue, I think parents should grow a brain if they are to raise children...
KnifeMissile is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 08:24 AM   #4 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
First of all, if people want candid pics of kids (yours or others'), they'll get them in a non-chalant way if that's what it takes. If I'm out there with an SLR camera and your kid gets in my shot... well, get over it! I have two boys, (11y and 6m) and I think this is terribly over-protective. How about being a good parent and teaching them about strangers and how to defend themselves and call for help and things that will protect them when you are NOT there, and stop worrying about every camera, phone, playground equipment piece, and all the other ridiculous shit parents worry about these days instead of being parents?!
xepherys is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 08:28 AM   #5 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Like anyone, they have the right to their image. If someone doesn't want you to take their picture. You can't. They have every right to stop you from taking their picture.

I don't think you need to worry about *every* camera out there but as a parent, I don't like the idea of some people taking pictures of my kids. It's a gut feeling.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 08:42 AM   #6 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Omaha, NE
I don't worry so much about my kids' images being captured on film. I think it's largely situational. I mean, some creepy dude in the back of a beat-up white van with a telephoto lens pointed in their direction might prompt a call to the police department... Otherwise it really doesn't bother me. I have inadvertantly gotten pictures of strangers (children included) when shooting my own family or pretty scenery. No one has ever said anything to me about it, but then I'm pretty obviously harmless. (I usually have at least six kids with me and one in a snuggly on my chest. It's obvious I'm taking pictures of MY kids and don't really care overly about theirs.) I don't mind posting my kids on the internet, either, as evidenced by my wonderful website. My kids are 1500 miles away from their grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, so the internet makes a handy way to keep updated. I can't control who sees those pictures and I can't prevent their misuse - and believe me, that really does bother me in a very primal, "mama-bear" type of way. But my actual kids, themselves, are not being harmed and it's just a fact of life that I have to deal with as a Mom with a website... I think the pluses outweigh the minuses. And as long as my kids aren't getting into cars with strangers or walking off into the bushes with camera toting tourists then I'll get by. The vast majority of children who suffer through abuse, neglect, molestation, or kidnapping are victimized by someone they KNOW and TRUST - a family member, friend, or authority figure. SO I take a deep breath and tell myself that I'm being paranoid and weird, then move on with my life.
__________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be.
--Douglas Adams
ClostGoth is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 08:42 AM   #7 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
Fair enough. At the same time, for a person to have "rights" to their image, they must be identifiable in the image. If their back is turned, no rights. If their face is blurry, no rights. It it's only the bottom half of them, no rights. Even then rights only, to the best of knowledge, extend to commercial use. Otherwise, in our litigious society, I'm sure more lawsuits over this would've taken place. Pictures at the beach, lawsuit! Pictures at the zoo, lawsuit! Pictures at a restaurant, lawsuit! It's virtually impossible in public settings to NOT get somebody else in one picture or another. If someone keeps taking picturs of YOUR kid only, or is there regularly, or looks particularly shady, then go over and say something. If the guy is there with photogrpahic equipment, a nice camera, takes a few pictures of something specific (playground equipment, the sports field, the tennis courts), then it's probably nothing... insurance photographer? News photographer? Who knows. Also, how do you stop perverts from taking pictures of your kids with camera phones at the bus stop? School playground during the day? I mean, the truly sick fucks will be much less obvious in most cases.
xepherys is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 08:52 AM   #8 (permalink)
Watcher
 
billege's Avatar
 
Location: Ohio
Charlatan, I think you posted before checking into the legal issues involving photography and public view (at least so far as US law is concerned).

People do not have a right to thier image, and can not stop you from taking thier picture when they are in the "public view." However, there are restrictions on what you can do with such pictures.

From the ""Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert Krages. The short answer is you can take anyone's photo in a public place where they are also in public view, and you can publish their photo in a book of street photography without their permission (or post it on your web site). You can't use it to sell something, however."

Also:
Quote:
In the United States, anything visible ("in plain view") from a public area can be legally photographed. This includes buildings and facilities, people, signage, notices and images. It is not uncommon for security personnel to use intimidation or other tactics to attempt to stop the photographer from photographing their facilities (trying to prevent, e.g., industrial espionage); however, there is no legal precedent to prevent the photographer so long as the image being photographed is in plain view from a public area.

In recent years, some building owners have claimed a copyright on the appearance of their building such landmarks as the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, Pittsburgh's PPG Plaza, etc. United States copyright law, however, explicitly exempts the appearance of standing buildings from copyright protection. See United States Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, 120.a.

120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

Publication

In general, one cannot publish someone's image to endorse a product or service without first acquiring a "model release," which is usually a contract between the publisher or photographer and the subject.

Defamation

It is somewhat difficult to imagine a hypothetical scenario in which a photograph, by itself, would be defamatory, since the key element of defamation is falsity. Perhaps if a person was photographed in such a way that made them falsely appear to be engaging in some indecent activity, it could qualify as defamatory. Digital editing of photographs certainly opens the floodgates for defamation, because it is easy to turn a formerly "true" photograph into one that does not depict anything near the truth.

Photographing someone in front of an adult bookstore even though they were just walking by would be an example of possible defamation of character. It implicitly associates the person with the act of purchasing pornography when he was merely innocently walking by.
Link to source.

So, now we've gotten our facts straight for the purposes of discussion.
__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."
billege is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 09:05 AM   #9 (permalink)
Watcher
 
billege's Avatar
 
Location: Ohio
I think there is a situation where a parent may feel compelled to stop a picture from being taken of thier child.

For example, a photog with a 500mm tele lens, hanging from a tree in your yard, shooting into your child's room. Yeah, that's a beating.

Guy with his pants down, running around the playground, trying to get pics with his camera phone of kids on swings. Yeah, that's a beating.

Guy with a camera follwing your kids around shooting pics of them while offering candy. Yeah, that's a beating.

Guy with camera bag, camera, clothes on and in place, shooting the playground your kids happen to be on...yeah, that's a beating for you if you freak out.

When the person taking pictures has given no reasonable sign that it's...shall we call it..."photography with an ulterior motive" then they should be presumed to be doing just that: taking pictures.

Taking pictures is not a negative act in and of itself. Any motives put upon the photographer, with no reasonable cause, are just that: put on the photographer.
To rephrase that:
With no cause to presume ugly motives, they exist only in the head of the person that put them there.

IE: The parent's mind is so preoccupied with child crimes that they're seeing things that aren't there.

Not everyone is out to molest your kids. In fact, the vast majority are not. It's likely the guy with the camera is doing just what it looks like he's doing, and it's not a crime.

Like was mentioned earlier, the vast majority of abuse is perpatrated by people in positions of trust. Teach your kids to deal with real issues in effective ways. Don't run off guys taking pictures of kids.

It's a sad world when someone can't say somthing like "All children are beautiful" without being suspect.
__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

Last edited by billege; 05-09-2006 at 09:16 AM.. Reason: structure
billege is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 09:12 AM   #10 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Looks like you all did it for me, but yea-- if you're in public you can be be video taped and have pictures taken of you as much as someone wants -- as long as its not demonstrable harassment.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 10:33 AM   #11 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
The thing is, if someone doesn't want you to do it, don't be an ass and keep doing it.

There is no need to be beligerent about it.

If you want to take a picture of some structure and the kid is in the shot and they don't want you to take the picture, ask them politely to move the kid while you get the shot.

I don't care what your rights are. If I don't want you to take my picture, I am damn well going to let you know about it and if you persist I'm going to ask for your film or for you to erase the picture. You see, I don't know what you are going to do with that film. For all I know you *are* going to sell it.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 10:44 AM   #12 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
I don't think we should be too concerned about someone taking pictures in a public setting. From what I understand about the statistics of child abuse, your family, friends and neighbors are the ones to watch out for.
flstf is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 10:49 AM   #13 (permalink)
 
KnifeMissile's Avatar
 
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Like anyone, they have the right to their image. If someone doesn't want you to take their picture. You can't. They have every right to stop you from taking their picture.

I don't think you need to worry about *every* camera out there but as a parent, I don't like the idea of some people taking pictures of my kids. It's a gut feeling.
The notion that people have a right to their image is nonesense.

You are in a public area and, thus, have no expectation of privacy. I don't care what your gut feels, I have every right to document land that I have paid for, regardless of whether you're in it or not. Perhaps you need to examine yourself and see, really, why you fear people so much...

As an aside, I think people need to be careful about teaching their children to fear strangers because, not only does it breed a culture of fear (as demonstrated by this thread), it can also prevent your child from seeking the valuable help of strangers...
KnifeMissile is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 10:55 AM   #14 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
You have missed my point...

"If I don't want you to take my picture."

99% of the time I don't give a damn. But if I don't want you snapping shots? Have some common courtesy. This isn't a fear of others it is plea for politeness. If I ask you to not take my picture... don't do it.

If you are going to be obstinant, so will I.


As for teaching our kids how to fear strangers... I agree, it is a fine line.

As for "being demonstrated by this thread"... I am the only one here raising this as an issue. I think this is hardly a big issue statistically speaking. And when you actually boil down what I am saying, it has everything to do with courtesy and little to do with fear.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 11:03 AM   #15 (permalink)
 
KnifeMissile's Avatar
 
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
I don't care what your rights are. If I don't want you to take my picture, I am damn well going to let you know about it and if you persist I'm going to ask for your film or for you to erase the picture. You see, I don't know what you are going to do with that film. For all I know you *are* going to sell it.
...And perhaps this is the problem. You don't care what my rights are? I find this attitude quite disturbing and, again, I think this warrants some introspection on your part...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
You have missed my point...

"If I don't want you to take my picture."

99% of the time I don't give a damn. But if I don't want you snapping shots? Have some common courtesy. This isn't a fear of others it is plea for politeness. If I ask you to not take my picture... don't do it.
I'm not sure I have. When you say things like "If someone doesn't want you to take their picture. You can't," and "I don't care what your rights are," it really doesn't sound like a "plea for politeness." It sounds like you want what you want, you don't care what...
KnifeMissile is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 11:07 AM   #16 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by billege
With no cause to presume ugly motives, they exist only in the head of the person that put them there.

IE: The parent's mind is so preoccupied with child crimes that they're seeing things that aren't there.
The TV and newspapers have given every parent a thousand reasons to project suspect motives onto other people. They don't need a reason, they don't need a cause, they just need a bullshit "feeling"- driven by irrational fear created by the media.

Oh- and if people talk about "just don't be a dick and stop taking pictures", that's a two-way street. You could just stop being an irrational asshole and let the person continue taking pictures which have nothing to do with you or your kid, and stop letting your fears run everyone else's lives, too.

That's one major part of what's fucked up about this country- people think that their own fears are justification for running other people's lives. STOP LETTING THE FEAR GET TO YOU. These things have ALWAYS happened- there have always been perverts and child molesters, but there weren't always a thousand news vans parked outside every home in america to cover it. Calm the fuck down already.
analog is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 11:50 AM   #17 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
You have missed my point...

"If I don't want you to take my picture."

99% of the time I don't give a damn. But if I don't want you snapping shots? Have some common courtesy. This isn't a fear of others it is plea for politeness. If I ask you to not take my picture... don't do it.

If you are going to be obstinant, so will I.


As for teaching our kids how to fear strangers... I agree, it is a fine line.

As for "being demonstrated by this thread"... I am the only one here raising this as an issue. I think this is hardly a big issue statistically speaking. And when you actually boil down what I am saying, it has everything to do with courtesy and little to do with fear.
If you are in public, and if the picture is not for commercial use, taking photographs are fair game. No release required, photographer can take all the pictures he wants.

Parent has no right to stop photographer from taking pictures, has no right to harass photographer, nor assualt him or confiscate his equipment.

Parent doesn't like it. Parent should leave.

Funny thing about being in public, things happen that are beyond your control.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 12:00 PM   #18 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
1) I said, "can't" because I misunderstood the law. It should be clear that I was wrong to state that.

2) As for not caring what your rights are... you know exactly what I mean. There are rights and then there is being polite. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should.


I take pictures. I take a lot of pictures. I take them in public. If someone asked me to not take there picture I would respect that.

This has nothing to do with fear. This just respect.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Last edited by Charlatan; 05-09-2006 at 12:05 PM..
Charlatan is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 12:35 PM   #19 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Final word on this: There are rights and then there is being polite. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should.
actually here in NYC we have a way to combat this... If you don't have a child in the park, then you don't belong in the park. Helps to keep the park visitors manageable and keep the miscreants away.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 12:46 PM   #20 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Vermont
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
actually here in NYC we have a way to combat this... If you don't have a child in the park, then you don't belong in the park. Helps to keep the park visitors manageable and keep the miscreants away.
Just for clarification (i.e. I'm not from NYC), do you mean the whole park or the playground?
RAGEAngel9 is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 12:59 PM   #21 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAGEAngel9
Just for clarification (i.e. I'm not from NYC), do you mean the whole park or the playground?
<FONT color=#0000ff>Woman Ticketed for Sitting on a Playground Bench with No Kids<!--mstheme--></FONT>
<P align=center><FONT color=#0000ff><IMG height=480 src="http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/education/assets/sandra_catena.jpg" width=640 border=0></FONT></P>
<P>New York - It's an only in New York story.&nbsp; A woman was given a ticket for sitting on a park bench because she doesn't have children.</P>
<P>The Rivington Playground on Manhattan's East Side has a small sign at the entrance that says adults are prohibited unless they are accompanied by a child.&nbsp; Forty-seven-year-old Sandra Catena says she didn't see the sign when she sat down to wait for an arts festival to start.&nbsp; Two New York City police officers asked her if she was with a child.&nbsp; When she said no, they gave her a ticket that could bring a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.</P>
<P>The city parks department says the rule is designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks, but a parks spokesman told the Daily News that the department hoped police would use some common sense when enforcing the rule. The spokesman told the paper that ticketing a woman in the park in the middle of the day is not the way you want to enforce the rule.</P>
<P align=center><IMG height=480 src="http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/education/assets/park_rules.jpg" width=640 border=0></P>
<P align=center><IMG height=10 src="http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/assets/orange_wavy_line.gif" width=600 border=0></P>
<P>It happened to a woman from Jersey City.&nbsp; The ticket was given under city law designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks, but the woman says the city went too far.&nbsp; The Rivington Playground is a lovely place for parents to take their young children.&nbsp; It is even protected by a rule that prevents adults from sitting there without a child - and apparently they mean it.&nbsp; Ask Sandra Catena, a dance instructor from Jersey City who walked into the park on Saturday while she was waiting for an arts festival to begin, when she was approached by two police officers.</P>
<P>Sandra Catena, Dance Instructor: "They said it's against the law, you have to be accompanied by a child to sit in a kiddie park and they were giving me a summons.&nbsp; I said 'you're kidding right?' and he said 'no.'"</P>
<P align=center><IMG height=240 src="http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/education/assets/wabc_092705_bench4.jpg" width=320 border=0></P>
<P>Already guarded by two officers, one of whom had his hand on his gun, according to Catena, two more police officers soon arrived and stood nearby with their hands on their guns in case there was trouble - from the dance instructor.&nbsp; But there was no trouble.&nbsp; They wrote the summons and now the dance instructor has to face the bar of justice for her ... crime.</P>
<P>Source: <A href="http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&amp;id=3480711">abclocal.go.com</A> WABC 27 September 2005 Associated Press all rights reserved</P>
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 01:41 PM   #22 (permalink)
Watcher
 
billege's Avatar
 
Location: Ohio
I think one of the ideas that should be brought up is how we'd hope the conversation would go.

In this example, let's say I'm a "normal looking" white male with a camera bag, big digital SLR, and I'm taking pictures in a public park. You come up to me and ask why/what I'm taking pictures of.
You start:

"Hey buddy, what are you doing with that camera?"

"Hi there. I'm an amatur photographer, and I'm taking pictures of the kids at play for a "City Life" series I'm posting on my blog."

"You selling those pictures?"

"No, I just post the best ones on my blog."

"Oh, okay. I was wondering what was up."

"That's cool."

"I'd prefer you don't take pictures of my kids."

"I suppose I can handle that. Can you ask them to stay on the opposite side from the swing set, I'm shooting that right now."

"Sure, thanks!"

"You got it."

Now, that's one way it could go. Or, it could go like this:


"I'd prefer you don't take pictures of my kids."

"I suppose I can handle that. Can you ask them to stay on the opposite side from the swing set, I'm shooting that right now."

"FU buddy, they can play where they want."

"Well, then they might be in a shot."

"FU buddy, stop taking pictures."

"No, FU, take your kids out of the public space if you don't want them in it."

etc.

All things considered, there's two ways to the "respect" street. If you ask me to not take pics of your kids and I try to respect your request, you should pay some respect back. That's how things work.

Honestly, I'd be suprised if a parent questioned a photog, recieved a legit answer, and decided to be an ass about it. Then again, with people today...
__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."
billege is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 02:29 PM   #23 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
There is a third way that could happen as well, but I agree that the first way is the best way...

"I'd prefer you don't take pictures of my kids."

"Too bad. The law says I am entitled to take pictures where I want..."

"OK, but I'd really prefer you didn't take them of my kids."

"FU buddy, I'll take pictures where I want" As he continues to snap away.

"I SAID, don't take any pictures of my kids..." Parent scoops up kids as the photographer continues to snap away. "You're really being an asshole, you know?"

"FU buddy!"


What should be clear is that either side of the equation can be an ass.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 03:16 PM   #24 (permalink)
Watcher
 
billege's Avatar
 
Location: Ohio
L0L

That's a funny convo Charlatan. You're absolutely right too! Either side is responsible for a little mutual respect and undertanding.

lol, again. For some reason that really tickeled me. Kick ass, dude.
__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."
billege is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 04:13 PM   #25 (permalink)
 
KnifeMissile's Avatar
 
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Charlatan, I disagree with you in that the main issue is still fear, as can be demonstrated by Cyntheiq's story. For instance, let's take the start of your conversation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
There is a third way that could happen as well, but I agree that the first way is the best way...

"I'd prefer you don't take pictures of my kids."
Why would she give a flying fuck if you were taking pictures of public property? Because she's afraid of you for no reason other than she doesn't know you and she wants to impede your life because of it. There's nothing about this scenario that deserves any respect, whatsoever.

Seriously, where's the respect for me? Assuming I'm the scum of the Earth for no reason is not giving me respect. You might as well cross the street because a black man is walking down it. A fourth and ideal conversation would be none because taking pictures in public is a non-issue and anything less is succumbing to rabid paranoia...


How's this for a conversation:

"Nice day!"

"Yes, it is! Few photographers enjoy taking pictures in bad weather... Sometimes, they can make dramatic photos, though!"

"It looks like you really like photography."

"Yeah, there's just something about capturing a slice of life and sharing it with the world. I love the city!"

This kind of conversation won't make breaking news but it's far more representative of real life than your worst fears...
KnifeMissile is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 04:29 PM   #26 (permalink)
I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot!
 
raeanna74's Avatar
 
Location: Upper Michigan
What about seeing if the photographer can give you their phone number or exchange e-mail addresses or something so that you can get in touch with them later and maybe get copies of the pics?? That's kindof how I'd be looking at it.

Besides - if you get their number then you can look up their name possible. Then you can check the local sexual offender registry.

Either way the parent wins. Get some decent pics of the kids at play. OR find out who's scoping out your kids and if they're a real risk.

No matter what - if both parties can be polite there shouldn't need to be an issue. Both parties can compromise to keep the peace.
__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.
raeanna74 is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 05:13 PM   #27 (permalink)
 
KnifeMissile's Avatar
 
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by raeanna74
What about seeing if the photographer can give you their phone number or exchange e-mail addresses or something so that you can get in touch with them later and maybe get copies of the pics?? That's kindof how I'd be looking at it.

Besides - if you get their number then you can look up their name possible. Then you can check the local sexual offender registry.

Either way the parent wins. Get some decent pics of the kids at play. OR find out who's scoping out your kids and if they're a real risk.

No matter what - if both parties can be polite there shouldn't need to be an issue. Both parties can compromise to keep the peace.
I don't mean to be obstinate about the issue but consider this. If the police don't have the authority to ask for my identity, what makes you think you do?

Honestly, I really think you have to ask the fundamental question, "what are you afraid of?"

If I were to use your own paranoia against you, I would say that I'm afraid to give you my name and/or number because you can do a lot more with a name than you can with just a face. Just ask any investigator with a picture of an unknown suspect...
KnifeMissile is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 07:45 PM   #28 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
Charlatan, I disagree with you in that the main issue is still fear, as can be demonstrated by Cyntheiq's story. For instance, let's take the start of your conversation:Why would she give a flying fuck if you were taking pictures of public property? Because she's afraid of you for no reason other than she doesn't know you and she wants to impede your life because of it. There's nothing about this scenario that deserves any respect, whatsoever.

Seriously, where's the respect for me? Assuming I'm the scum of the Earth for no reason is not giving me respect. You might as well cross the street because a black man is walking down it. A fourth and ideal conversation would be none because taking pictures in public is a non-issue and anything less is succumbing to rabid paranoia...


How's this for a conversation:

"Nice day!"

"Yes, it is! Few photographers enjoy taking pictures in bad weather... Sometimes, they can make dramatic photos, though!"

"It looks like you really like photography."

"Yeah, there's just something about capturing a slice of life and sharing it with the world. I love the city!"

This kind of conversation won't make breaking news but it's far more representative of real life than your worst fears...
I don't understand what the big deal is you seem to be having with charlatan's responses.
it just seems to be basic common courtesy, in the states at least, to respect others' wishes.

people don't like their pictures taken for a whole variety of reasons, not just fear of strangers.
I'm very lucky to get candid shots of my wife and her girlfriends...unless they happen to turn out really good. but it's almost always a reluctant peek at the LCD before acquiescense.


btw, in the states, the police do have the authority to ask for (and obtain) ID.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 07:52 PM   #29 (permalink)
I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot!
 
raeanna74's Avatar
 
Location: Upper Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
I don't mean to be obstinate about the issue but consider this. If the police don't have the authority to ask for my identity, what makes you think you do?

Honestly, I really think you have to ask the fundamental question, "what are you afraid of?"

If I were to use your own paranoia against you, I would say that I'm afraid to give you my name and/or number because you can do a lot more with a name than you can with just a face. Just ask any investigator with a picture of an unknown suspect...
I wouldn't be ASKING for the identity. I'd be offering to purchase a copy of the picture of my kid from the photographer. I'd attempt to make some way of making contact after the picture was printed or at least get it e-mailed to myself. If the photographer thought past sharing the photo of the parents child with the parent then perhaps his motives ARE negative. If he has nothing to hide then why would he refuse ANY form of contact at the expense of loosing money?
__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.
raeanna74 is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 08:24 PM   #30 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by raeanna74
I wouldn't be ASKING for the identity. I'd be offering to purchase a copy of the picture of my kid from the photographer. I'd attempt to make some way of making contact after the picture was printed or at least get it e-mailed to myself.
No, what you suggested was trying to get personal information for the purpose of your own amatuer background check, not to "buy pictures".

Quote:
If the photographer thought past sharing the photo of the parents child with the parent then perhaps his motives ARE negative. If he has nothing to hide then why would he refuse ANY form of contact at the expense of loosing money?
That sounds like a great idea, but i'll do you one better- let's install cameras in everyone's homes so we can find the criminals... because if you've got nothing to hide, why not find the criminals easier?

This is a classic example of the extremely horrible and ridiculous invasion of privacy known as "if you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy?"

With no personal disrespect intended, it is precisely this horrible, backwards, illogical, and self-serving point of view regarding people's right to privacy that allows the U.S. to slip, bit by bit, into a further erosion of civil rights.

Last edited by analog; 05-09-2006 at 08:27 PM..
analog is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 09:01 PM   #31 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
God damn, where the motherfucking hell are you guys when I'm defending privacy rights or attacking those with irrational fears in other threads? I'd gotten the idea that no one gave a fuck about things like freedom of speech or even individual privacy. I knew deep down that there had to be people out there who still believed...
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 09:01 PM   #32 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
When I was a kid, the local newspaper guy took a picture of me at a public event. It didn't seem to bother my parents, and my picture was in the newspaper.

But, now they would have asked to see ID that he in fact DID work for the newspaper and wasn't using that as some kind of cover story.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone just taking pictures, but zooming in or clearly identifing who they were might be a problem if they get posted on the Internet. Someone could look at who registered the site, get their address, look for parks in the area, find out what school the kids go to, watch for them in the parking lot at school, follow them home, find out from public records what the family name is, finding the first name won't be too hard at that point, then they could get the kids e-mail address or mySpace account. But that is how the dramatic fear mongoring media thinks, is it reality or not, I don't know...
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 09:39 PM   #33 (permalink)
 
KnifeMissile's Avatar
 
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
I don't understand what the big deal is you seem to be having with charlatan's responses.
it just seems to be basic common courtesy, in the states at least, to respect others' wishes.
I'm surprised by my own zeal over this issue and, if you look up my other posts, I think you will find this is atypical of me. Perhaps it's because, unlike most other discussions I participate in, I've actually had personal experience in this issue and the original poster struck a nerve...

To speak of respecting others' wishes, how about respecting my wish to photograph public property. If your argument is going to be so one-sided, it should at least be on the side of the one exercising their rights, rather than the one trying to infringe upon the rights of others...

Quote:
people don't like their pictures taken for a whole variety of reasons, not just fear of strangers.
I'm very lucky to get candid shots of my wife and her girlfriends...unless they happen to turn out really good. but it's almost always a reluctant peek at the LCD before acquiescense.
Well, when the original poster uses words like "freak" and "overprotective" to describe people's reaction to their children being photographed, it really doesn't sound like they're being camera shy for their children. I think I made it clear that I was referring to parents who are afraid of "child predators," for lack of a better generic term. In my case, the woman felt I was a potential kidnapper. This is what most of us are talking about...

Quote:
btw, in the states, the police do have the authority to ask for (and obtain) ID.
I had thought that the Fourth Amendment would protect you from this but I'm surprised to discover that requesting ID is not considered a search. However, it should be noted that this is the only right that the police have without probable cause.
Perhaps more importantly, this is not relevent to the topic of the thread...
KnifeMissile is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 09:59 PM   #34 (permalink)
 
KnifeMissile's Avatar
 
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by raeanna74
I wouldn't be ASKING for the identity. I'd be offering to purchase a copy of the picture of my kid from the photographer. I'd attempt to make some way of making contact after the picture was printed or at least get it e-mailed to myself. If the photographer thought past sharing the photo of the parents child with the parent then perhaps his motives ARE negative. If he has nothing to hide then why would he refuse ANY form of contact at the expense of loosing money?
So, it would be okay if I got the parent's name and phone number so I can contact them to sell them photos of their children?

Of course this isn't really what you're talking about. You're trying to say that I should reassure them that I'm not dangerous, as if they have a reason to think I am! All I am saying is how irrational this fear is and how much I wish people would just grow a brain and get over it.

You said, in an earlier post, "No matter what - if both parties can be polite there shouldn't need to be an issue." Let me ask you, how polite is it to assume that I'm a pedophile? I consider it to be quite rude and it may very well be why I'm so adamant over the issue. Please understand, they are the ones being rude, not me...
KnifeMissile is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 10:04 PM   #35 (permalink)
 
KnifeMissile's Avatar
 
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
God damn, where the motherfucking hell are you guys when I'm defending privacy rights or attacking those with irrational fears in other threads? I'd gotten the idea that no one gave a fuck about things like freedom of speech or even individual privacy. I knew deep down that there had to be people out there who still believed...
I don't know, my participation on this forum is somewhat sporadic. Where have you been posting these threads? If it's in Tilted Politics, I no longer browse there. I learned a long time ago that the people there don't actually consider what I post so I gave it up...

Also, as I mentioned to another poster, I am unusually passionate about this subject, probably because it actually affected me, once. I mean, really... I was just out of high school. What would a teenager want with a toddler? Fuck off!
KnifeMissile is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 01:21 AM   #36 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
I'm surprised by my own zeal over this issue and, if you look up my other posts, I think you will find this is atypical of me. Perhaps it's because, unlike most other discussions I participate in, I've actually had personal experience in this issue and the original poster struck a nerve...

To speak of respecting others' wishes, how about respecting my wish to photograph public property. If your argument is going to be so one-sided, it should at least be on the side of the one exercising their rights, rather than the one trying to infringe upon the rights of others...

Well, when the original poster uses words like "freak" and "overprotective" to describe people's reaction to their children being photographed, it really doesn't sound like they're being camera shy for their children. I think I made it clear that I was referring to parents who are afraid of "child predators," for lack of a better generic term. In my case, the woman felt I was a potential kidnapper. This is what most of us are talking about...

I had thought that the Fourth Amendment would protect you from this but I'm surprised to discover that requesting ID is not considered a search. However, it should be noted that this is the only right that the police have without probable cause.
Perhaps more importantly, this is not relevent to the topic of the thread...

I don't think that my or charlatan's stance is one sided. What he said, and I support, is the notion to respect other people in public places. we can hopefully discuss this without getting into a rights v. rights discussion--because all you will do is find that people have conflicting notions of their "rights". and given the hysteria of child abductions in our country right now, inconsiderate actions are likely to result in legislative or local bodies passing more restrictions on photography in public spaces.

the words used in the OP were interpretations by an observer. We don't actually know the motives of the parents. while you were accused of something unreasonably, none of us know whether those parents have actually had experience with molestors actuallly trying to snipe pictures of their children. if they have, or if there were reports of a lurker snapping lurid photos of kids upside down on the jungle gym, would you still argue that they were acting irrationally?

I know you were specifically referring to this particular fear or irrationality. but I was using another example to illustrate that people don't want their pictures taken for a number of reasons. I hope you agree with me that you can't decide what their motives are unless they tell you. and in the case where they say something that's unfounded, coming off like an ass (and I'm not saying you did or would) isn't going to alleviate their concerns.

neither you nor they know what others intend to do with pictures of their children, despite what your intentions are. look, you can't post pictures of children on this forum, regardless of if they are clothed. you can't control what molestors will do with your photos, but you can control the composition and the presentation. let's not get into a discussion of whether parents have a right to protect the image of their children, let's focus on a parent's obligation to protect his or her child because parents will react pragmatically, not legally. and since you are an amateur, I suspect you are unaware of journalist ethics. while not legally binding, they reflect the general consensus of the profession. and since you purport to be acting in that capacity, would you not agree that it's prudent to abide by the ethical considerations the body of professionals have agreed upon?

if the intent is to get the landscape, and people don't want to be in the picture, then wait until the shot is clear.
if the intent is to get a packed park for ambiance, then snap away. but why become irate when anyone, child or parent, desires to not be in your composition? the scene described in these instances is the exception, not the norm so there really isn't too much issue to get all worked up with one another in this thread.

why create a negative impression of photographers? I'm one, and I don't act insensative and haven't ever had a problem obtaining a composition I was seeking (outside the candids I described already).
what could you possibly hope to gain other than creating tension between the public and photographers?

charlatan's point was to be respectful of your "subjects'" wishes and the current social climate surrounding perceived danger to children, and not be an ass. that doesn't sound like a one-sided argument to me, so I chimed in. I think our position is for a balanced and respectful interaction between composer and composed.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 02:35 AM   #37 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
God damn, where the motherfucking hell are you guys when I'm defending privacy rights or attacking those with irrational fears in other threads? I'd gotten the idea that no one gave a fuck about things like freedom of speech or even individual privacy. I knew deep down that there had to be people out there who still believed...
Next time that happens, PM me and I'll see about jumping in. lol
analog is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 04:07 AM   #38 (permalink)
Watcher
 
billege's Avatar
 
Location: Ohio
Original Article

I believe this would be an example of fear trumping rationality.

In this case, enough people decided thier fear of someone doing somthing with a photograph was worth taking away other people's rights. A sincere case of: "I'm afraid of you because you might do somthing, so want all people to stop doing everything I'm afraid of." Even worse, it's not taking the picture they're afraid of, it's what might be done with the picture later. That logic also rules out donating your kids clothes to the Goodwill. Who knows what some could happen to your kid's old clothes after someone purchases them?

Score:
Culture of Fear: 332,124,231
Rational thought: 3

Quote:
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
You've Got to Fight, For Your Right... to Take Photos of Your Own Kid at a Public Ice Skating Rink?

The Record - NYCLU threatens to sue city over new photo policy
The Troy Record is reporting this morning that a public ice skating rink in Troy, New York has banned photography at the rink. The NYCLU is threatening to sue the City over the policy which is apparently designed to prevent pedophiles from photographing kids.

Although photography is banned, apparently individuals can seek permission from the Recreation Director George Rogers.

""As long as they are videotaping their kid I have absolutely no problem and I have given permission to parents and coaches," he said. "We are not going to let them be photographed or videotaped by anyone who comes along and wants to take their picture.""

One parent, Jean Hetman, however is alleging that she is being discriminated against by being disallowed to photograph.

"Melanie Trimble, NYCLU executive director, said the rink is a public place and Hetman is within her rights to photograph children skating. Furthermore, she said the policy, although unnecessary and probably illegal, is not being applied fairly because Recreation Director George Rogers twice denied Hetman permission while granting other parents permission to do the same thing.
"His reasons for denial were neither based upon imminent danger, danger of pedophiles, unwillingness to present identification nor any other legitimate reason for denial," she said. "His denials are both capricious and arbitrary."

It would seem to me that this George Rogers character seems to have a bit of a Napoleon complex. Certainly as a parent I can understand not wanting to have photos of your child taken by pedophiles. But the alternative of trying to ban photography anywhere that kids are present is ludicrous.

Personally I shoot at ice skating rinks all the time. I've gotten some really great shots. Touching moments of parents and kids and just kids doing what they do best, reveling in the beauty of life in all that is innocent. It would be a shame for fear of pedophiles that public areas turn into hostile no photography zones.

Certainly as a photographer I am sensitive to the subject of shooting other's children. I take far fewer shots of kids and many are with the child taking more of an unidentifiable and anonymous role in the photos. Still every so often you find a shot that speaks volumes about life and the role that children play in it. San Francisco magazine will be publishing one example of a shot like this of mine in the next issue of their magazine. It is a photograph of a little girl, sitting on her father's shoulders during the immigrant march in San Francisco on May 1st. It would be a shame to lose the power of images like this.

It is wrong for a public recreation facility in Troy, New York to disallow photography. It is wrong for a power hungry Executive Director to arbitrarily choose who should be able to shoot and who should not. Restricting photography in public spaces is a bad precedent to set. I hope that this ban is challenged and this restriction is proven illegal.

If I lived in Troy, New York, you can bet you'd know where I'd be with my camera this weekend. If you are near Troy New York, perhaps it is time to challenge this capricious ban on photographers and assault on photographers rights. Since I'm not in Troy, New York though I'll just put a link here for you of a collection of some of my shots from ice skating rinks. That handsome guy with the red gloves is my son Jackson.

There is an ongoing discussion regarding this story over at the Utata Group on Flickr. Thanks Carl Johnson for bringing this story to everyone's attention.

posted by Thomas Hawk at 9:03 AM
__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

Last edited by billege; 05-10-2006 at 04:14 AM.. Reason: structure
billege is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 08:15 AM   #39 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Actually, here's the original article from The Record:

Quote:
Jean Hetman, who has a 13-year-old daughter who practices figure skating at the arena, said she has been video taping and photographing her daughter's routines for about six years, but now she is being told she cannot, and even had the police called on her twice.
"I am more than willing to show my ID and go through whatever mechanism they want to use to determine who is a pedophile and who is not," she said "When it gets right down to it, I can take a photo of whoever I feel like taking a picture of. When you are in a public place you have no right of privacy."
The city maintains the new policy is to protect children from pedophiles.
Melanie Trimble, NYCLU executive director, said the rink is a public place and Hetman is within her rights to photograph children skating. Furthermore, she said the policy, although unnecessary and probably illegal, is not being applied fairly because Recreation Director George Rogers twice denied Hetman permission while granting other parents permission to do the same thing.
"His reasons for denial were neither based upon imminent danger, danger of pedophiles, unwillingness to present identification nor any other legitimate reason for denial," she said. "His denials are both capricious and arbitrary.
"In the absence of a local ordinance to the contrary, a public facility such as the rink has no right to limit the ability of its patrons to take photographs or videotape."
In a letter to Corporation Counsel David Mitchell, Trimble asks the city to stop Rogers from denying the requests and prevent other staffers from harassing Hetman with the threat of arrest. Short of that, she said, the group would bring the matter to court.
"The same group that is fighting the use of surveillance cameras to protect residents in high crime areas is now arguing against a policy involving camera usage that aims to protect the youngest and most vulnerable members of our society," said Mayor Harry Tutunjian. "That is very ironic."
Rogers said the city will not allow anyone to sit in the bleachers and take photos or videotape anyone else's kids without permission.
"As long as they are videotaping their kid I have absolutely no problem and I have given permission to parents and coaches," he said. "We are not going to let them be photographed or videotaped by anyone who comes along and wants to take their picture."
Police have been called twice, but no arrests have been made. Hetman said she will continue to tape and photograph her child to "stand up for her First Amendment rights" and dared the city to "... have me arrested."
"As you know individuals cannot be arrested for trespass if they are behaving lawfully on public property," Trimble said.
Hetman maintains she only focuses on her child, but sometimes other skaters do make their way onto her film if they skate too close to her daughter.
She said it all started with a personality dispute between her and the parents of another skater, and the parents called the police on March 8. She said the same parents complained about her photography in the Clifton Park Arena.
"I have not been doing anything different than the last five or six years and now this happens because there are people who dislike me," she said. "But you don't make laws because you don't like someone. If they put the signs up in the arena, are they putting them up anywhere else in the city?"
There are no signs limiting photography outside the rink, near the playground, for example, or the athletic fields that surround the rink.
Items of interest not reproduced in the reprint of the article indicate that there appears to be bad blood between a number of parents and this complainant, that the other parents seemingly support the actions of the city, and that she apparently relishes in exercising her rights to the extent of becoming burdensome to the sensabilities of others around her.

I'll just reiterate that attitudes like hers are more likely to result in legislation limiting her rights rather than "protecting" them in a classic example of winning the battle only to ulitmately lose the war.

How you move from my example of current limitations of digital reproductions and dissemination of photographs of minors (restrictions I'm presuming most members here understand and support the logic and necessity thereof) to claiming such logic prevents parents from donating discarded inanimate objects to charities is beyond me. The analogy is simply not there for myself.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 08:41 AM   #40 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
I wouldn't have a problem with someone just taking pictures, but zooming in or clearly identifing who they were might be a problem if they get posted on the Internet. Someone could look at who registered the site, get their address, look for parks in the area, find out what school the kids go to, watch for them in the parking lot at school, follow them home, find out from public records what the family name is, finding the first name won't be too hard at that point, then they could get the kids e-mail address or mySpace account. But that is how the dramatic fear mongoring media thinks, is it reality or not, I don't know...
So this train of thought is limited to someone outright taking a photo of your kid? If one is to be petrified of such things, I'd say you should be more worried about camera phones. You'd never even KNOW a picture was taken. Oh, and child molesters are just as happy to go to any random park and do their own stalking than to let someone else start them off... Don't you ever watch Law & Order: SVU?

In all seriousness, worrying about shit like this is what removes personal freedoms from our ever shrinking arsenal. It's like the thread about taking equipment out of playgrounds. I mean, your kid could get hit by a car crossing the street. Is the answer to never let them cross? Or pass laws that prevent cars from driving on your street? Or is the answer ot be a fucking parent, teach them to look both ways and pray for their safety... really THAT is the only answer. The same goes for playground equipment, the same goes for predators. Kids are kids, they'll find a way to scrape their knee or break a bone. Sick fucks are sick fucks, and they'll find a way to let loose their shit on society, pictures or no pictures, parents knowing or not.
xepherys is offline  
 

Tags
kids, people, pictures, taking

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:54 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73