RoadWarriorFromLP

Of course. As a lefty pinko commie, I care about the nature of the monitoring, not who is doing it. Private or public, it sucks either way.

Tracym

Nowhere did I say I was not concerned with others feelings. In fact, I repeatedly said I was sorry the OP was upset. That is not fair of you.

Again - I believe in the process. You don't like the law - fine, fair enough. Campaign to change it. If the majority agree with you - so be it.

But give a thought to just what you are asking for - if noone can photograph or film anyone else without express permission - just how are journalists going to do their job? There will be basically no pics of celebrities, no pics of criminals at the courthouse, no pics of pedophiles for others to check on - none would likely give their permission. There would be no filming of public events - as you couldn't ask everyone in the crowd for permission. Just how are you going to draw that line?

btw I actually am a very private person. For example, I live where I have a big enough yard that neighbors aren't peering at me all the time. But when I'm out in public, I don't expect privacy - they're basically opposite terms I think.

Tracym

Oh yeah - and what about security cameras in parking lots? Eliminate those too?

RoadWarriorFromLP

Journalists get special treatment, the First Amendment acknowledges the importance of a free press. They should get more latitude than a perv at the pool, because they are protecting democracy in a way that Chester the Molester is not.

Private figures get more protection than public figures. That is true now, and should remain true. Demi Moore has fewer rights to privacy than I do, because she chose to live a public life. I chose to do otherwise, and want to be left alone.

Civil rights are not a function of majority rule, but one of right and entitlement. If a majority voted today to reinstitute slavery or rescind the voting rights of women, it wouldn't matter one whit because freedom is not to be left up to someone else's vote. It's a republic ruled by principles, not a pure democracy subject to whim and the tyranny of the majority.

Tracym

OK - so by your logic, I cannot take any photo in a public event then. But a journalist is privileged to do so. I cannot even take a picture of my friends at a restaurant, because other people are in the background. I guess I can only take pictures in the privacy of my own home. Or just where do you draw the line?

Demi Moore has less rights to privacy than you ro I do. Just how public a figure do you need to be, before you lose your rights?

Sorry, we have this little "all created equal" thing - I don't think the way you would selectively grant both photography and privacy rights works for me.

Disagree on the political bit - thankfully neither of those will happen, but I disagree in principle pretty much. Rules by principles - I guess it would be ruled at the whim of YOUR principles? Because people's principles often vary. Oh yeah - those "someone else's" votes apparently shouldn't count.

RoadWarriorFromLP

When did the OP's kid swimming in a pool become a public event? That's a real stretch.

There's a distinct difference between background subjects being incidental to a photo and someone fixating on a stranger without consent. If we can figure that much out, then we can figure out where to draw a line.

She chose to give them up. I chose not to give mine up. Apparently, you believe that choices such as mine aren't worth respecting and that all of us should get the scrutiny of public figures?

Have you read the Declaration of Independence? The whole notion of rights coming from a creator is not so much a religious principle as it is a statement that rights are inherent unto man, and are not privileges that are doled out like trinkets by kings or the public.

You are born with rights, and you have to do something horrid and nasty, such as committing a felony, before they can be taken from you. We can't hold elections to take them away just because somebody who is indifferent to privacy decides that none of us should have them.

Ray

Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully
from public places:

accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

scrubbedexpat097

I think a lot of you are missing the point here.

A stranger, giving obnoxious reasoning why he is filming the OP's 7 year old daughter for 30 minutes without the OP knowing, is not to me and to most other posters just a harmless photographer.

If he had given a reason why he was doing it, if he had apologized for doing it and if he had agreed to wipe out the film then I'm sure the OP would have felt a lot easier about the whole episode.

Ray

But why should he ..he was doing nothing wrong as far as
we can tell ... filming children is not illegal ...

anotherlimey

Sounds good to me, where do we sign up?

E3only

Tracy,let it go mate. I said I may have reacted when I said grabbing the camera etc. I then also said -everything in my power will be done - may that be calling the police or filing a report or getting as many details of the guy as possible or telling the park authorities etc.

Just for record - I am and always have and always will be law abiding as well....

Octang Frye

Psst/

Anyone wanna buy some pictures I snapped up in Maine this weekend?

willmore

You really are an asshole.....!

willmore

Its like hitting your head against a brick wall.....!

Octang Frye

But you love me for it. It's how I roll.

Don't be hatin'. Don't hate the playa. Hate the game.