Wait so do you actually have anything constructive to say, or do you want to keep on making smart-alecky responses to people's posts?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is photography a crime? Are we Criminals?
- Thread starter eddx
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wait so do you actually have anything constructive to say, or do you want to keep on making smart-alecky responses to people's posts?
It was a joke… really the post wasn't grossly over-hypenated. When you see me attack people like that I'm mocking someone. In this case it was people who get nitpicky in online forums about grammar. Later in the thread it was conspiracy theorists. It's a cruel ("caustic") sense of humor, and I have issues repressing it.
and anyways, I was kinda hoping someone would pick up on the irony/hypocrisy of me using "over–hyphenation".
"The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population, especially by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive."
Wikipedia.....................................
Um, no. Nothing like THAT going on in the US. No way man. Not at all. Not even close. Happy happy, joy joy.
Wikipedia.....................................
Um, no. Nothing like THAT going on in the US. No way man. Not at all. Not even close. Happy happy, joy joy.
The poster is silly. Plain and simple. I personally think it was a message of awareness more then a specific message about photographers. But that message was obviously lost....
I do like the revisions especially the one about the "odd cops."
Anyways, I think there is couple of people who have commented on here who have no concept of the "greater good." Whether you live in the US, UK, Canada or any other Civilized Nation you need to consider what has happened to our world in the past couple of years and give your head a shake. Terrorism has happened and is happening as we speak. It is a part of our lives now and it will forever be a looming threat over our heads.
The police officer who approaches you is just trying to do their job and it is that simple. They likely received a complaint from an unknown person and they are obligated by law to investigate. Whether or not the allegations are true the officer has no choice but to at the very least speak to you about the concern. If they fail to do so they are neglecting their duties as a police officer and can be disciplined.
They are not trying to "take away your rights," nor are they trying to "infringe on your rights," by speaking to you. As police officers they have the authority to speak to anyone their wish. They further have the authority to investigate a concern and your best not to obstruct them while they are doing so. The quicker you answer their questions or concerns the quicker they will be back on the road doing "more important things" (as one poster put it). Hell, seeing as "your paying their salaries" you should be happy that you are getting your monies worth.
I do like the revisions especially the one about the "odd cops."
Anyways, I think there is couple of people who have commented on here who have no concept of the "greater good." Whether you live in the US, UK, Canada or any other Civilized Nation you need to consider what has happened to our world in the past couple of years and give your head a shake. Terrorism has happened and is happening as we speak. It is a part of our lives now and it will forever be a looming threat over our heads.
The police officer who approaches you is just trying to do their job and it is that simple. They likely received a complaint from an unknown person and they are obligated by law to investigate. Whether or not the allegations are true the officer has no choice but to at the very least speak to you about the concern. If they fail to do so they are neglecting their duties as a police officer and can be disciplined.
They are not trying to "take away your rights," nor are they trying to "infringe on your rights," by speaking to you. As police officers they have the authority to speak to anyone their wish. They further have the authority to investigate a concern and your best not to obstruct them while they are doing so. The quicker you answer their questions or concerns the quicker they will be back on the road doing "more important things" (as one poster put it). Hell, seeing as "your paying their salaries" you should be happy that you are getting your monies worth.
That has a name. It's called being a denouncer. Aka informer, snitch, grass and squealer, and is a feature of totalitarian regimes--as in, Fascist Italy. Or Stalinist USSR. It's the person who goes around telling the blackshirts that the neighbor missed mass, so he must be a commie. It's also the person who teaches the child to betray his parents.
If you think this is a tendency that should be encouraged in a society that aspires to be democratic, then God help you, and God help your fellow citizens. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
I hope you know who said that.
I'd want to know about it if some idiot terrorist stole one of my images. That'd be an intellectual property violation!
It's also a feature that causes criminals to go to jail. Many children who are victims of child abuse have "betrayed" their parents, betrayal isn't *always* a bad thing, just like it's not *always* a good thing.
In a free society, reports of abuses of freedom almost always come from informants, snitches and squealers. Most especially governmental abuses- but also social ones- racism, sexism, bullying, criminal ones, etc.
That poster is wrong and stupid. A good criminal acts normal, fitting in with the crowd and not attracting attention. Bad criminals attract attention to themselves by acting stupid.
I don't tolerate this photography paranoia anymore. Some venues like to claim that it's a privilege to be there and use my camera. They will not receive my support again. It's better to take my camera where it will be appreciated than to waste time with venues that are infested with paranoia.
I've been harassed several times by law enforcement. The first two times were very embarrassing and inappropriate. Now I don't care anymore.
I don't tolerate this photography paranoia anymore. Some venues like to claim that it's a privilege to be there and use my camera. They will not receive my support again. It's better to take my camera where it will be appreciated than to waste time with venues that are infested with paranoia.
I've been harassed several times by law enforcement. The first two times were very embarrassing and inappropriate. Now I don't care anymore.
While I empathize with the OP, being in a "free country" is not license to "do what you want". You can't beat somebody, or steal something, or ... to the point of this discussion, break whatever laws may be in place.
Personally, I would challenge those policemen. Show them ID, tell them what you're doing, and then - if they persist, ask them what ordinance you are violating by taking those pictures.
Being in a free country is not license to do whatever you want. But being in a free country does mean that the police have an obligation to conduct themselves within well defined constraints. Simply feeling that what you are doing might be the same as what a terrorist might do, and telling you to "shoo" ... that won't cut it.
Neither in Britain, nor here in the US, do we have a "right" to take pictures. But unless taking those pictures is breaking a specific law, then neither do the constables have a right to prevent you from doing so.
Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. I never spoke of abused children when I mentioned betrayal of parents. I was referring to the active encouragement of small children to report their parents for criticizing the country's self-appointed leader. Imagine saying Bush is a poor president or Blair was no good for Britain within earshot of your child, then next thing you know it's boots on the front door door at 3 in the morning and you getting hauled out of bed to be summarily tried and sent to a work camp to toil like an animal away from your spouse and offspring, who will be separated from both their parents and tossed about from here to there with no link to their identity. Ever heard of the Stasi?
Maybe you don't know a lot about totalitarianism, but my own parents lived through a dictatorship, and while they were lucky enough never to do anything that crossed the 'authorities', it was still a time of fear for self and constant worry for loved ones and country. I've been raised not to trifle with civil liberties.
And there is no such thing as 'abuses of freedom', if you please. That's the dangerous language used by totalitarian regimes, and exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned informers. Freedom is by definition limitless and non-negotiable, or it is not freedom. There are however such things as abuses of power, and searching people and confiscating equipment used in a public space, without a warrant, is a prime example.
perhaps, but you weren't exactly avoiding melodrama in your original post
Every rightinalienable, natural, or notcan be abused.
Your definition of freedom seems to tend towards anarchy; I would never want to live in a society with truly unlimited freedoms.
The problem is that these lists don't mean anything. I've looked at that Krages list and there's nothing in there that could help if I was detained for using a camera. The laws can be interpreted however law enforcement or any camera-phobic idiot wants to look at them.
These camera-phobic idiots want to make you go away and stop using your camera, and to worry about using it again. They'll use any lie that they want to get the attention of law enforcement and make you look like a criminal. Then it's your cost to handle the harassment after that, while the accuser sneaks away and gets satisfaction from watching you being questioned and otherwise searched. These camera-phobic laws only make it easier for the paranoid idiots to label everybody as suspicious.
Guy... take a pill.
You are way over the top with your post and subsequent ones.
We are talking about someone making a complaint of someone else taking pictures. Not an "informant" calling the police to tell them "that the neighbor missed mass, so he must be a commie."
I just don't see the big deal with a cop talking to someone for taking pictures. So what.. the cop talks to you and walks away. Wewp...
Just thought I'd share an experience I had a few years ago. I was at an airshow, and they had a World War Two era B-17 bomber on display. I wanted to get a close photo of the ball turret on the belly of the aircraft ( a sphere-like enclosure armed w/2 machine guns used to shoot at aircraft attacking the bomber from below).
There were lots of people there, and I grew impatient waiting for a clear shot,as there were other things I wanted to see. So I just went ahead and snapped a photo of it, just to have a picture, and there happened to be a few kids looking at the turret when I took the photo.
Immediately after I took the photo, some woman came up to me and said "are those your kids?". I said no, and she gave me a look. I moved on.
So you know what she was thinking. All I wanted was a picture of the freakin' airplane and next thing you know someone is thinking I'm a sick perv. That's the world we live in now. Unfortunate but true.
And to the OP - I don't think it necessarily wrong (the poster). I would think that if you can provide some evidence that you're a professional photographer, or at least trying to be one, they'd back off. Something as simple as a business card or a membership card to a photography club/association (both, perhaps) would help convince people/police you're not trying to harm anyone.
There were lots of people there, and I grew impatient waiting for a clear shot,as there were other things I wanted to see. So I just went ahead and snapped a photo of it, just to have a picture, and there happened to be a few kids looking at the turret when I took the photo.
Immediately after I took the photo, some woman came up to me and said "are those your kids?". I said no, and she gave me a look. I moved on.
So you know what she was thinking. All I wanted was a picture of the freakin' airplane and next thing you know someone is thinking I'm a sick perv. That's the world we live in now. Unfortunate but true.
And to the OP - I don't think it necessarily wrong (the poster). I would think that if you can provide some evidence that you're a professional photographer, or at least trying to be one, they'd back off. Something as simple as a business card or a membership card to a photography club/association (both, perhaps) would help convince people/police you're not trying to harm anyone.
That's very nicely put
, and exactly what I meant farther up. encouraging the paranoid camera-phobic idiots' paranoia (lol) in order to stop just decent ordinary citizens from doing something totally legal is what authorities with a totalitarian bent do. I mean seriously guys, I got pissed off yesterday when I wrote, and thought this morning I'd feel totally different, but even seeing it again with fresh eyes this morning, this is really just basic, middle-school level civic education. Maybe lots of people don't get that, gawd knows--for some reason some schools believe it's more important to cram yet another 100 equations even after everybody's understood them perfectly well, than to go through the civ. ed. curriculum, but still... (and then they wonder why kids don't bother to vote lol
)I've read that this can come in handy.
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf
The poster does seem to complicate for us who have photography as a serious hobby or aspire to become professionals. I've been stopped by a homeless in front of Seoul Station who was very upset that I was photographing some men sitting a bit away discussing something. He told me that they were gonna get very upset with me, forget the fact that they hadn't even noticed me.
Unfortunately I couldn't just pretend to be a foreigner and got another scolding after informing him of the photographer's rights in Korean
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf
The poster does seem to complicate for us who have photography as a serious hobby or aspire to become professionals. I've been stopped by a homeless in front of Seoul Station who was very upset that I was photographing some men sitting a bit away discussing something. He told me that they were gonna get very upset with me, forget the fact that they hadn't even noticed me.
Unfortunately I couldn't just pretend to be a foreigner and got another scolding after informing him of the photographer's rights in Korean
When she asked if those were your kids, I think it would be funny in a cheeky kind of way to answer back, 'no, are they yours?', to sort of put it to her that she shouldn't get mixed up if they ain't. OK I know people will say you still care if there might be someone out to harm kids even if they aren't yours, but it would be funny to put the awful little busybody in her place
About your other point though: that makes a lot of sense, but at the same time, shouldn't amateurs be allowed to take pictures unmolested too? I mean especially in things like photography, it's pretty hard to define what makes a pro as opposed to an amateur, most of all if we're talking about being on the way there. I've seen lots of amateur pictures (ie people who don't shoot for a living) that are oodles better than pro stuff--and not one-offs either, but consistently better work. I know I've shot rolls of buildings, which was mostly things I did for myself, without the backing of a photography school or a phone number for whoever commissioned the gig. I've done some of that too (the latter, not the school), but in terms of time spent doing it, it's been but a fraction of the total. I mean, you kinda have to go through a time of being a random amateur before you get anywhere near even thinking about going pro, right? At least, this is how it's been for me, it may look totally different for someone who did say a photography degree straight outta high school after fiddling about with a camera for a couple of years, shooting friends and family (couldn't do that, myself, they're all sooo camera-shy it's crazy. Not even if I promised to hand over the negs lol)
What do you think?
Was the plane picture any good though? Or was the hassle all for nothing after all?
I didn't put words into your mouth, and I'm sorry you're not able to see it.
My point remains that "betrayal" isn't an absolute evil. There are times when it is and it isn't appropriate and correct behavior. If you can't see that, then more's the pity for you.
Betrayal is a class of social action, not a narrowly defined set of circumstances- and sometimes the 3am door kicking is absolutely warranted.
It doesn't matter if it's a gang member betraying a gang, a child betraying a parent, or a neighbor betraying a neighbor- the goodness or badness of the betrayal is situational, and there are often overriding societal concerns that make it valid and warranted.
Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is an abuse of freedom of speech, it's long been held as such, and is the basis of the US laws which restrict certain speech. One can, and indeed everyone on the planet does have limited, not limitless freedom. You don't have the freedom to kill another human of your for no reason other than to kill them, without repercussions for instance. You don't have the freedom, as an individual to take another individual's property without their consent without repercussions. In the US, you have some freedom of speech in regards to the government, but none in regards to an employer.
Even your example- "confiscating equipment used in a public space, without a warrant" shows a lack of ability to distinguish a particular issue (using a camera in a public place) from the generic overriding issue (say using a machine gun in a public place.) Even going further down that path- using a camera in a public place- there are times when it is and isn't appropriate, and in most countries times when it is and isn't legal. There are also times when seizure does and doesn't require a warrant be issued- such as items seized in the commission of a crime, or even protecting evidence of a crime- photograph up a woman's skirt in a public place and in some jurisdictions you'll be arrested and your camera seized. Catch an abduction on your memory card and see if it's seized and if they wait for a warrant to bag and tag it...
As far as "hearing of the Stasi"- while you've heard of them, I spent a portion of my life in the Federal Republic of Germany to ensure their regime and their totalitarian allies didn't cross the border en mass into Western Europe.