Arrested for taking "dirty" pictures?

[Ophiolite]

Do any of you believe what you are going on about, or have you so solidly decided that anything that the Baron wishes to defend, you must attack?

I think you'll see that I've agreed with Baron. And I've previously invited him to leave the planet, experiment with self euthenasia, and those have been the positive moments in our relationship.

 

[Bells]

This was an outdoor, public festival! How could one take "inappropriate" photos? And of what?

Yes it is an outdoor public festival and yes one can take inappropriate photos of others. Here we have a man with a digital camera taking photos of specifically women and children, without their consent. You used the example of a woman wearing a revealing top later in a later post. That woman may wear the top for others to look at, but not to take photos of, unless she consents to her image being captured on film.

There was a case here in Queensland (Australia) where a man was spotted taking photos of small children in their bathing suits at a public pool and park in the city. He took these photos without the consent of the parents. The police were called and it was discovered that he had been doing this for a long time and uploading the images on his website (which contained images of small children at play). While the images themselves were not all of a sexual nature, the images of small children in all states of undress at the beach and pool were deemed to be of a sexual nature and while he may not have been a paedophile, such people could have access to his website. In short, you should not specifically take photos of other people without their consent.

I'm also curious about a law that says you must have the person's consent to take their photo ....but what about the surviellance cameras all over town and in stores and subways, etc? Has everyone given their consent?

When you enter into a store or subway where surveillance cameras are used, there is usually a sign indicating that these cameras are in use and if you proceed to enter the premises or area upon seeing those signs, your consent is said to be implied.. as you have entered knowing that your image may be taken on a surveillance camera. The same applies for when you enter into a store where a sign out the front tells you that your bag may be searched upon exiting the store. By entering the store after seeing that sign, you have therefore consented to your bag possibly being searched when you exit said store.

Unless the guy in the article had a sign hanging around his neck or floating around him stating that he may take people's photos and they stand still for him to do so (therefore implying their consent), then what he has done is illegal. The images of these people were not taken by accident (eg in the background as you take the photo of something or someone else). He specifically aimed his camera at strangers and took their photo (and it seems he took photos that were of a sexual nature), and the images were deemed inappropriate by the police... in doing so, he has also infringed upon the privacy of the people he photographed. The key issue here is consent. Had he gone up to the people and asked them first before snapping away, he would have been fine.. but he did not.

 

[dr. cello]

Do any of you believe what you are going on about, or have you so solidly decided that anything that the Baron wishes to defend, you must attack?

i believe firmly in the strength of the boolean operator and.

other than -that-, i'm more explaining than attacking.

 

[Mystech]

Do any of you believe what you are going on about, or have you so solidly decided that anything that the Baron wishes to defend, you must attack?

Well one could do much worse in the world than to develop their opinions by basing them on the opposite of what Baron Max supports.

 

[john smith]

Eloquently put, and very true