Photographing children

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Hunter writes:


Some empathy is necessary to avoid an emotional distance most people would
equate with 'coldness', and lack of caring.


You're confusing empathy with sympathy.


You must live in a cold, and lonely world.


I live in a world relatively unclouded by useless emotion.

You have my sympathy, but I am afraid you neither care, nor deserve it.


--
Ron Hunter

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:42:49 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:


wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:16:43 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:



Mxsmanic wrote:


Dwight Stewart writes:




Anytime that camera is pointed at, and/or captures images of, something a
person is prohibited by law from photographing - child pornography, posted
military installations, posted government facilities, posted private
property, and so on.


Where does one find child pornography to photograph in public places?
And it's not illegal to take pictures of private property from public
property, posted or not. The same is generally true for military
facilities, which is why military facilities don't conduct classified
operations in places that are visible from public property (remember
Freedom Ridge?).


Humm. There is a military base locally where the entire base can be
observed, and photographed, from a bluff overlooking the base. There is
a public park on the bluff. I haven't taken pictures there for many
years, but I wouldn't think doing that in these days of the Homeland
Security Act would be a wise occupation.


Aha, the security wonks have gotten to you, just as they
wanted to. Self-censorship is the most insidious of all.

No. The main reason I wouldn't do it now is that the base is no longer
a SAC bomber base, so there aren't any more giant B-52s there to
photograph. Would rather take pictures of the lake....


So it's not a situation relevent to this discussion and you
can take all the pictures you want with impunity. How very silly.

Since it IS an active base, and quite a large one, I suspect that it may
still be, technically, illegal to take pictures of it, but enforcement
would be quite difficult. The park is large, and located on a bluff
overlooking the lake and base. Just because you aren't caught, doesn't
make something legal.


--
Ron Hunter

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:44:47 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:


wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:11:17 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:



Mxsmanic wrote:


Ron Hunter writes:




The point is that if the cop wants to see your pictures, he WILL see
them, and you will be a lot less inconvenienced by willingly showing
them than by resisting. A little communication can avoid a nasty
situation.


And doing anything a cop tells you without objection pretty much throws
your rights out the window.


Rights have nothing to do with it. IF you would rather be arrested, and
THEN have them check your pictures, that's your 'right'. Enjoy it.


I repeat -- extortion, pure and simple.

No, they would be quite happy to go through all the legal procedure, and
the end result would be the same, and you would look even more guilty
when that information was shared with a jury.


No, the very clear implication is that you can knuckle under
and give them what they want in a couiple of minutes, Elsewise, they
will pervert their authority to search into a punitive process that
will take long enough to perhaps destroy your business or cause you
grievous inconvenience to restore the situation to normal.

The jury is not authorized to assign guilt to simply insisting
that your rights be respected and lawful process be followed. Just as
a jury is not to consider taking the fifth as an admission of guilt.
Otherwise the fifth amendment is a sham.

In addition, if there were any chance of privileged
information being given up, the citizen is further endangered by
giving it. He would then be liable to a suit by the subject of the
inquiry. By insisting on a court order, he is protecting himself from
such a suit. By giving it up without such an order, he endangers both
himself and his business.

Any evidence obtained by intimidating a citizen into giving up
his rights should be deemed tained from the outset.

they are not SUPPOSED to, but that doesn't mean they don't. Taking the
fifth IS an admission of some kind of guilt (else one couldn't invoke
it). But it (the guilt) may not involve the matter before the court.
Nevertheless, most jurors would tend to discount that person's testimony.

Unfortunately, juries usually don't understand the finer points of law.


--
Ron Hunter

"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Dwight Stewart writes:
... yet you still insist it is not harmful or
only "potentially harmful," can you
provide anything whatsoever to back
that claim?


I don't need to. Whoever asserts that they are
harmful carries the burden of proof. Taking
pictures is harmless. (snip)

(snip) I don't have to. Those who claim it is
harmful must substantiate their claims. And
you have not done so. (snip)


Whoever goes against an overwhelming body of evidence, as you have done,
bears the burden of supporting his/her opposite conclusion. Again, volumes
of books and journals have been written on the social, emotional,
psychological, and physical harm of child pornography, and you have not
shown any of that to be wrong - which is absolutely necessary to prove your
seemingly exclusive conclusion.

Stewart

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:51:19 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:


wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 05:40:55 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:



wrote:


On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:54:00 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:




Ron Hunter writes:




But were you arrested? Charged? Convicted? NO? Then you were, at
most, inconvenienced.

The difference is only one of degree. Being arrested, charged, tried,
and acquitted is only "inconvenience," too, but that doesn't make it
acceptable. All degrees of inconvenience are violations of your rights
if the form of the inconvenience is a violation of your rights.


Especiallynow, at least in Califirnia, where my fellow unatics
have just passed a law to allow the cops to collect a DNA sample at
the time of arrest, without waiting for charges, much less for a
conviction.

Of course, if charges are dropped, or there is no trial, or
conviction, you may "petition" to have your sample destroyed. How
insane -- there should be no sample even taken until you've been
charged. And it should be the responsibility of the government to
destroy the sample if the case stops antwhere short of a conviction.

You should not have to humbly approach the court as a
supplicant, tugging on your forelock, and to "petition" to have your
sample destroyed. As it is, there's no sanction for the copps for
failing to follow through on the destruction. For starters, how would
you verify that they had?

Instead, they'll likely cast a suspicious eye upon you for
trying to deprive them of a "potentially valuable tool" and keep it.
Don't think it's far-fetched. The SC not too long ago defined refusal
to hang around for interrogation as "suspicious behavior" warranting
pursuit and apprehension by the police of anyone attempting to avoid
inerrogation.

And if they DO keep it, you know it couldn't be used against you, right?


In today's legal climate, the good officers would likely be
excused in the assumption that they had "acted in good faith" in
trying to delete the sample.



Also, the fact that they DO have your DNA on file could eliminate you

from consideration as a suspect in the future,

Aha -- the "What have you to fear if your innocent?" canard
rears its slimy head. And you can be damned sure when they do a DNA
dragnet, taking all the samples they can get their hands on, that the
primary motive is not proving you innocent.



unless, of course, you DO
something illegal later. In which case, as I said, they couldn't use it
in court.


Dreamer.

Hummm. Let's see. One crime. They take 500 DNA samples, and get one
match. How many people were proven guilty vs. how many were proven
innocent?


How many had their rights against unlawful search violated
without reasonable grounds for suspicion? Or, more likely, were
intimidated into giving up their rights? You do not go out and
summarily demand fingerprints from everyone in the city just because a
crime was committed in the center of the city.

Not pertinent to the discussion. BTW, that HAS been done in some cases,
most recently in France, if I recall correctly. No match. I suppose it
did make the people living there more comfortable knowing the rapist
they were hunting wasn't a permanent resident.


--
Ron Hunter

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:10:17 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:


wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:55:11 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:



writes:



Because they're cops and have an exemption.

An exemption from what?


Cops are exempt from lots of things. Most outstandingly the
laws forbidding perpetrators of domestic violence from future gun
ownership. Also from things like parking in red zones when they want
to go in for a cup of coffee.

In an amazing display of arrogance, at a nearby shopping mall,
where there is a police "kiosk" near one of the entrances, I saw a cop
car parked alongside a long red zone at the curb. The out of the way
"Police Only" parking space one car length away, was empty. The same
car was parked in the same spot, with the nearby empty space, when I
left half an hour later. So for half an hour, a normal traffic lane
was blocked by some moronic cop.


Then there are the able-bodied people who like to park in the places
reserved for handicapped people. Laziness is the usual reason. For
those who NEED those spaces, this can mean the difference between being
able to do their shopping, or tend their business, or not being able to
do that.


Which has precisely zero to do with what I described. I agree
that anyone using a handicapped parking space without authorization
should be fined heavily and towed as quickly as possible.

To return to what I actually said, a cop blocked a traffic
lane which was entirely a red zone in preference to using the empty
out-of-the-way parking space already reserved for him. For half an
hour. minimum


Yes, he was lazy, and probably disrespectful. Just like people who
illegally use handicapped spaces, or drive up to a store, park in the
fire lane, and run in for cigarettes.


I believed it would be fruitless for me to enter the kiosk and
complain that someone had been obstructing normal raffic for at least
half an hour.

In any case, they are normally exempt from laws against voice
recording.



And in many cases,
it's so they can't misbehave on the call and deny a citizen's
allegation of misconduct.

So why can't the citizen make his own recording for the same purpose?


Statutes prohibiting recording of one's voice without
consent.except when a cop is doing it. Why only voice is involved, I
have no idea. Possibly because video recording was deemed harder to
conceal.



Remember the famous case of the bozo cop who forgot about the
tape and was recorded repeatedly shrieking "Get out of the car right
now", then was seen trying to rip a woman out of the car, except that
she still had a seatbelt on?

No.


Heavily eplayed on TV news some ime back.



Just for grins, I once said to such a call, "I assume that
means I can also tape the conersation." Answer -- I can't give you
that permission.

Why not? All you need is permission from the participants in the call;
and you and the other person are the only participants.


The only other participant was the bank employee. He did not
give permission. If I had insisted, or told him to stop recording,
he'd have hung up. Since I had initiated the call, I was at a distinct
disadvantage.

Don't get me wrong -- I believe in the unfettered right of
people to record calls, especially when there's a power imbalance and
the powerless person can have the recording used against him, but not
vice versa.

When the cop mirandizes you and says, "Anythng you say may be
taken down....", I think you'd have difficulty enforcing any right you
might think you have to whip out a pencil and paper and make your own
transcription. That would be judged as "obstruction".





--
Ron Hunter

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:53:31 -0500, Jer wrote:


wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:39:32 -0500, Jer wrote:



Ron Hunter wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote:



Big Bill writes:




While that would be true here in AZ, many states will not allow such
recordings unless all parties involved know about them.



Then how do the police manage to videotape their calls in so many
jurisdictions?

I suppose it varies from place to place, but it is often sufficient that
_one_ of the parties in an interaction be aware of and consent to
recording.

I'm especially curious as to why anyone would want to prohibit
recordings of interactions between the police and citizens. It seems to
me that it would be good for all concerned.


It might be good for only one, or the other, depending on the
circumstances.




I am unaware of any statute in any state that restricts the open
photography of any law enforcement officer performing his/her lawful
duty, so long as the activity is openly viewable to the incidental
passerby, and the photographer's activities cause no interference to
that of the law enforcement officers. Been there, done that, many
times. As to whether it's good for either party has never been of any
consequence to me since my photos have never been the subject of a
criminal subpoena.


And they can likely escalate the photography to anything they
want.

I don't think so, I'm the one with the evidence.


Screw he evidence -- they'll claim that your presence as a
photographer somehow impeded the speed or accuracy of their response,
hence obstruction.



And can also nail you for voice recording if it's included with
video.

As for what they can do -- there are documented cases where
they told photographers after the WTC situation, "You can't photograph
any of this -- it's a crime scene." Despite there not likely being any
legal grounds for such a prohibition, they knew damned well that
anyone going up against "the heroes" was goung to have tough sledding.

In another case, a photographer was direcrted to a
"specially-designated photography area" which was some three blocks
farther from the scene than people without cameras were allowed to
approach.

Crime scene or not, it was available to view by the incidental passerby,
therefore neither illegal nor in violation of anyone's constitutional
right to privacy to view or photograph the area. The "crime scene"
distinction was an overt and knee-jerk attempt by authorities to make
the area non-viewable to the incidental passerby - and the only way they
could do this without a reeeeally big sheet was to add distance, and
therefore obstructions, to the view. Truth is, as we've all been
witness, there were some photographers that had the presence of mind to
continue shooting despite the risks involved for injury or peril and of
being arrested for merely doing their jobs. Personally, I'm glad they did.


Exactly. And I agree it was mere bluster, and likely an
attempt to cover up their own mal-, mis- or non-feasance, that
prompted their attempt to prevent civilian photography.

You seem willing to impute negative motives to them just because they
are police officers. Why is that? Perhaps they were just trying to
'protect', knowing that photographers often are so preoccupied with
getting the shot that they aren't able to evaluate the whole situation
enough to look after their safety. There are numerous pictures of
people standing in the path of the recent tsunami taking pictures until
it was too late to flee for their lives, or placing themselves in
imminent peril to get one more picture.


--
Ron Hunter

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:56:08 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:


And some who got too close to the scene of the first building fire,
didn't manage to escape the collapse with their lives. Sometimes the
risk is greater than it appears. WHO would have thought that either of
the buildings would collapse. I don't believe that even Osama thought
that would happen. He might have hoped it would, but I doubt he really
believed it.


I have no objection to someone risking his own life to do
that. It's his life and his call.

I particularly object to authorities forcibly evacuating
people from scenes of danger, like natural disasters, or preventing
them from going back to the scene "for their own protection". I
believe they should simply be allowed to say, "We believe it's
dangerous for you to do so and you have n expectation that we will
risk the safety of our people if you coninue to enter (or remain in)
the area."

If someone wants to force their way into a burning building in
a situation where it might endanger the operation of firefighters,
then fine, keep them out of the way. But, absent a danger to others,
allow them to let go with both hands and risk their lives only.

I tend to agree, but that isn't the way things are set up. Many people
are involuntarily evacuated from dangerous situations, even though they
want to stay. Hurricanes are a good example. WE many times stayed home
during hurricanes, in spite of recommendations that we leave, but they
those changed to 'orders', we left. Many people haven't the experience
necessary to understand the danger from some natural disasters, or are
in denial, refusing to believe.
At least if they are forceablely removed, they are around to sue later...


--
Ron Hunter

Jer wrote:
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:03:47 -0500, Jer wrote:


wrote:


For the hell of it, one day, when I got a garbage phone call,
I told the perv telemarketer, "This call will be recorded or monitored
forr blah, blah." He hung up in an instant, because he knew damned
well I could use it to go after his company for violation of the no
call list thing if he stayed on the line.


Actually, you could go after the company for a DNC violation for the
simple fact that your phone rang - whether you answered the call or
not. He hung up for the simple matter that he didn't want to be
indentified as the sole employee that caused his company to get toasted.



If it rang and I didn't answer it, who would I go after? The
phone company certainly would not respond to, "My phone rang one day
and I didn't answer it. Would you find out for me who it was in case
it was a DNC violation?"



I used to get calls from "unknown" on a regular basis as shown on the
CID display. Yes, these calls are truly unknown. But with CID, calls
are no longer unknown, and therefore can be tracked to their source. I
don't know about your locale, but here we have Privacy Manager (a telco
service feature) which automagically weeds out all calls absent CID. And
I love it because the phone rings a LOT less than before. I never met a
telemarketer that offered anything I wanted or didn't already have.

If the call went through an electronic exchange (almost all are now),
then the phone company can tell who called. Police routinely request,
and are provided with, that information.

--
Ron Hunter

Jer wrote:
Just Me wrote:

"Jer" wrote in message
...


I don't think that dog is gonna hunt, Ron. Considering the serious
nature of the issue, it would take more than the uncorroborated plea
(opinion) of a single person. That judge ain't stupid, and is gonna
require some sort of additional reason to issue a bench warrant.



A search warrant indicates that probable cause exists for a search and
authorizes a police officer to search the person/place/thing
identified in the warrant. Search warrants will not be issued by a
complaint alone, but there are several factors which would (IMHO)
result in a search warrant being issued:

* The complaint - (Not enough by itself)
* The proximity of the aleged perpetrator to the location of the 'crime'
* The 'freshness' of the report (i.e. a complaint at 11:00 AM and an
officer contact at 11:15 AM is much more strong than a complaint at
11:00 AM and an officer contact at 5:00 PM)
* The suspect having a camera (independant cooberation of at least
part of the complaint)

With these four factors considered in their enirety, probable cause
*does* exist for the issuance of a warrant. The supreme court will
weigh the interests of the person's privacy (his/her right not to have
his pictures reviewed by the police)with the public safety (the need
of the public to be protected from sexual predators) if it were to
determine the validity of the warrant. In my state random roadblocks
(no basis for a seizure of the person) we permitted because the court
held "the intrusion was minimal" when weighed against the benefit to
public safety.


Just because someone says something so-and-so about
something-or-other ain't gonna fly. I and the nice police officer
both knew this when I refused a search of my car trunk when I and he
both knew the opinion of only him wasn't grounds for a warrant,
especially after he had already admitted there was no particular
reason why we were even having a conversation. Warrants require more
than one source of suspicion to invade someone's right to privacy.



That is correct, but several people are failing to acknowledge there
is more articulated in this scenario than someone's complaint. In
other words if someone calls in a complaint on me for photographing
children in the park, and the police find me at work 15 minutes later
with no camera, they are not likely to get a warrant to search my home
for the camera to check its content. That is a scenario where a
"complaint alone" is being lodged.


Granted. I think the incident I related to at the airport was...

According to the cop... a random stop.
According to me... I was guilty of DWLH (driving with long hair)

Random stops and failed rear lights around here are the excuse to
profile, which has already been decided by the courts to be illegal.
I've been the focus of "failed rear lights" three times, and each time
the lights checked out five minutes later. Except for once when I was
told my brake lights weren't working, and the officer was told it was
impossible for him to know if that were true. He seemed perplexed to
hear me say that, because I then told him the reason my brake lights
weren't on is because I hadn't used my brakes. He then want's to argue
that doing what he observed wasn't possible without brakes, until I
asked him if he had ever heard of down shifting. The poor soul simply
returned my DL and left without another word. shrug


You know that (driving with long hair) is a serious offense in some
places...

--
Ron Hunter