Good point. As much as street photographers should have the right to
capture images, discernible subjects should be given the right to not be
included in the image. But I wonder how that would work in the legal
system. With reference to John's mention of no ATM cameras in Italy,
would surveillance recording be included in this distinction? Would it
make a difference if it were public or private sector security cameras?
I know some people have taken issue with speed cameras capturing their
image, but I get the impression they're litigious types.
On 3/27/11 2:31 AM, Karl Shah-Jenner wrote:
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Lew <mailto:lew1716@xxxxxxxxx>
*To:* List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<mailto:photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 27, 2011 6:18 AM
*Subject:* Re: Street Photography
Right! And what about the poor photographer whose pictures you
ruin by witholding permission? Surely no one should have the right
to appear in public and treat their appearance as a personal and
private affair while co opting public space for their personal use.
Lew
I thought hard before replying to this with my question, not an
answer.. it's not entirely palatable but it is something that's
bothered me lately.
Here's the guts of a report from The Land Of Oz
"Child sex charges over Port Beach incident
STAFF REPORTER, The West Australian March 18, 2011, 3:51 pm
A convicted child sex offender has been charged by police after he was
allegedly seen using a telescopic device to look at young children
playing naked at Port Beach."
Viscerally we will all react 'damn right, yeah!' . But stop and
think - irrespective of the abhorrence we all feel about adults
interfering with children, this is a blatant attempt by the pursed-lip
brigade to use our gut feelings to 'creep' the laws a little further
and bring about the criminalizing of a thought process.
Forget the guy is a convicted child sx offender for a moment.. the
police 'chased him off' the beach, then 'hunted him down' and arrested
him. For looking.. As much as I too had the original reaction "Damn
right!, go get him and lob him into a cell.. pervert!" I recognized
after a bit that I was being manipulated. And for a moment I was
complicit in a act of deprivation of liberty.
Next step will be the public remember something about child sex
offenses and telescopes, so when they see the photographer lining up
down the beach with a tele lens to photograph a seagull on the
rocks one can probably expect the plods to turn up en mass and hurl
them face down in the dirt for a good kicking. And if they opt for
the defense that they weren't looking at the kiddies on the beach?
ermm yeah right.. The plods have already got themselves a precedent -
a guy convicted of looking at kids, how on earth could they prove they
*weren't* looking at kids??
So I guess the next step is they have their house torn apart and their
computers and cameras seized.. Oh and forget ever having them
returned - they're deemed 'evidence' and retained forever. Chances
are, has been the case already, it would be ruled (without
conviction) they would not be permitted to own a camera again. Ever.
And the public's attitude that perverts carry cameras would be reinforced.
The guy was LOOKING for effinecks sakes.. we have to draw a line don't
we? Or are we prepared to accept the ideology of thought crimes now?
In a calm moment of rational thought, chasing the guy off the beach
should have been sufficient.
Odds are anyone of that persuasion could just as easy stroll the beach
getting an eyeful (why are the parents permitting nekkid romping ?
are they too not complicit?)
I'd rather rugrats were locked away at home and NOT out spoiling my
landscapes, but if they are permitted off the leash in public then
dammit as far as I'm concerned any pretext of privacy is gone.
If you'd accept anything different, you probably can't see the next
inevitable step would be the banning of the use of cameras in
public. In some places this is already the case. It helps the
authorities protect themselves from unwanted attention should they
slip up and kick the wrong person into a coma ..
If I should happen to find myself being photographed in public and I'd
rather not have my image preserved for all time, I'd ask the
photographer if they'd mind terribly deleting the offending image and
refrain from capturing more of my mug. If the photographer declined
to do so, I'd move elsewhere
I think that's reasonable ..
karl
