Tracym

Thank you for that I was once told I couldn't take a photo of a friend from the outside of a store, that had the store in the background. I didn't think that was legal (but didn't make a scene).

I think it is most important what is legal. You apparently would be willing to resort to theft and perhaps assault in order to deal with what YOU have decided is unacceptable. Rather than abide by the law. I think I might be more worried about you than the photographer.

Who, in fact, might have been enjoying kids at play. Might have been shooting various footage of all sorts of things. Or might have been a creep. We have no way of knowing.

But I generally do aim to be law-abiding (yeah, I've probably gone over the speed limit a few times) - and I am not in favour of people who think when something is unacceptable to THEM, even if legal - that it's ok to break the law. Not ok with that one.

elfman

My FIL got politely thrown out of our local YMCA for taking pictures from the spectators gallery while my Mrs was giving our daughter (16 months at the time) a swimming lesson in the pool.

RoadWarriorFromLP

If you were on their property, they have every right to prevent the photography. From a public street or sidewalk, it would be legal. The legal issue is that of the location of the photographer.

There are times when laws are wrong or are dysfunctional. Our laws are clearly unprepared to cope with digital video and the internet, and their negative implications for our privacy rights.

Privacy rights are no less sacred than are rights to expression. The ability to take a video of a private individual and to exhibit it to millions of people without that individual's consent is a very recent problem, one to which the courts have given little thought because it is such a new phenomenon.

The ultimate intents of the First Amendment were to protect the press because of the policing function that they serve for democracy, and to protect the rights of individuals to believe and say what they choose. It was not intended to allow one to capture a video image of a reluctant or unknowing third party and to circulate it at will.

I should certainly have the right to film those who wish to be filmed, but my rights should stop somewhere at the point at which they impede others. The courts need to play catch up.

Tracym

I was not on their property. I totally agree that they have the right to forbid me on their property. But I was on public property, and the store was just in the background.

You may think that the law is incorrect, or hasn't caught up. That does not give people the right to take it into their own hands though. I'm sure there are many laws that someone doesn't agree with. So I'm afraid I do not agree with you there.

I disagree as to the intent of the law not being to allow videoing of reluctant parties. Plenty of people are filmed when they don't want to be - think of the celebrities who are hounded. And I'm sure some criminals have been filmed, who would quite prefer not to be.

Sure, a child is different in a way. But I think the correct solution is that the private facility should have not allowed it - the problem isn't with the law.

kins

It didn't seem like sarcasm or wit, just crassness. I don't think I need a dictionary to recognise that but thank you for your kind advice.

I don't remember saying it was a horrific trauma, I think maybe you assumed that? But I'm coping fine thank you.

Yes I already worked out how to be more proactive next time, as I said in my previous post. You mentioned something about being more... was it careful? Like I asked before, do you have more concrete suggestions?

No I don't think it was about baiting or power, having actually talked to him and seen his reaction. But it's a possibility I did consider along with some others.

I'm glad you don't mean to sound like an asshole, if you keep working at it you might achieve your goal

Octang Frye

<Ooof!> Two to the nuts <stumbles>.

I'm loved here, dammit. Go easy.

RoadWarriorFromLP

As it turns out, the OP was using a public facility, so that wasn't an option for her.

In any case, this public-private divide creates its own problems, because it encourages the privatization of public space so that rules can be imposed where laws cannot.

You dislike HOA's, but this is exactly why they exist -- because they want to impose restrictions that wouldn't be legal in public areas.

Without the ability to protect privacy in public spaces, we will motivated to continue to replace public streets and parks with malls and private land where restrictions of all sorts are permitted, and where beneficial expression is restricted.

You end up with a two-tiered system, in which people willingly forfeit their rights to unelected corporations and property owners with private security forces because their alternative is to have no privacy rights in the "real" world. The disease is much worse than the cure.

That privatization trend is far more dangerous than preventing some perv from misusing his camera. I would much rather have a public square with active speech and exchanges of ideas, but no unwanted filming, than more malls and faux "towne squares" owned by real estate trusts that ban the ideas along with the filming.

Tracym

Sorry, I'm not in favor of more restrictive laws.

And I think the idea of privacy is public places is frankly an oxymoron - not really in favor of that either. I think one should behave in a public place in such a way as one would, when not expecting privacy.

This idea of forfeiting rights ot private security forces, two-tiered systems, banning ideas - isn't that just a bit OTT? Don't think it's likely, I'm afraid I'm not going to waste my time worry about such.

Honestly, other than the slightly creepy factor - I don't really see the problem with filming anyone in public - happens all the time. If it was another parent filming their kid, and the OPs kid was in the film too, I doubt we'd be hearing about it.

I'm not sure I'd let my child play in public in her underwear - but that's much more widely accepted in Europe I believe, so I can see why it happened.

Again, I am sorry the OP was upset and felt threatened. But I'm not sure that anything that horrific actually happened.

RoadWarriorFromLP

It's already happening right now, it has been underway for decades. Have you ever been to a mall?

In much of the country, we have replaced the traditional downtown with the private mall. Go try having an antiwar protest at a mall and see how far you get.

Tracym

No, I grew up in the Chicago area and don't know what a mall is.

I'm not interested in having an antiwar protest at the mall. And I'm not interested in being disturbed by one there either - so if they throw them out, good.

If they want to demonstrate, go to the courthouse or somewhere else appropriate. Suits me fine.

btw... if you shop in the mall instead of a downtown, you don't get wet when it rains.

pejpm1

wow. I'm simply amazed. Time and time again you seem to want to live in this bubble under an authoritarian regime. Hey Tracey, if the government want to record your phone calls or take your fingerprints, is it OK because you have nothing to hide? I know, how about if someone wants to have a protest they write to the government first and ask for permission! That would be effective wouldnt it!

RoadWarriorFromLP

You don't seem to follow the point.

If you truly care about the First Amendment, then you should cherish the right to gather, exchange ideas and protest.

This is not permitted in all of these private spaces that have sprouted up here. In effect, we have taken police power and handed it over to rent-a-cops on the payroll of corporations, who will absolutely not permit these things to happen.

At the same time, we have degraded our public spaces so that they aren't as suitable to the task, because they are not the gathering points that they used to be.

What we need are more public spaces, not fewer of them, while ensuring that the privacy rights of individuals are protected in the age of the internet. Outsourcing our liberty wholesale to private operators is anathema to what a republic is supposed to be about.

Tracym

Wow, I'm amazed. You didn't even read well enough to get my name right. That's ok, matches the rest of it.

pejpm1

I remember recently when I went to the mall in a Milwaukee suburb, and for some reason they had put a curfew into place for under 18's. They were actually stopping people asking them for ID as they went in. I was amazed that people were simply agreeing to it without even questioning it. Even my girlfriend (who is American) couldnt see what the problem was. This was in a place where aside from the mall, there wasnt a whole lot there. I've been to malls in the states that are almost like little towns in themselves, with streets and even housing...and they are run by private companies that can decide what is and isnt acceptable behaviour. I just dont understand why a country that talks so much about freedom is so willing to give it up.

pejpm1

Great response there. Well done.