Photographing children

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:23:25 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Like most people, you speak as if laws never change. If you find a law
silly, then you should work to get it changed.

Anyone would spoke out against such a law would be seen as a sexual
predator. No thanks. And in most places, the law IS reality.

That is such bull****. You're saying that a defense lawyer in such a
case would be seen as a sexual predator, but you know better. Maybe
you're just not saying this the weay you intend to.

And the law is not reality.
The law is not some monothilic entity, it's a set of definitions of
behaviours. This set is varied, relativistic in many cases, and is set
into many different areas of interests.
Reality is what happens; the law defines what happens as either
acceptable or not aceptable.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:23:25 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Like most people, you speak as if laws never change. If you find a law
silly, then you should work to get it changed.

Anyone would spoke out against such a law would be seen as a sexual
predator. No thanks. And in most places, the law IS reality.

That is such bull****. You're saying that a defense lawyer in such a
case would be seen as a sexual predator, but you know better. Maybe
you're just not saying this the weay you intend to.

And the law is not reality.
The law is not some monothilic entity, it's a set of definitions of
behaviours. This set is varied, relativistic in many cases, and is set
into many different areas of interests.
Reality is what happens; the law defines what happens as either
acceptable or not aceptable.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:01:07 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

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

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.

Because they did so and could not have done so absent police
authority. Especially when they allowed closer access to others.

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.

Bull**** -- they have no reason to believe that, then allow
sightseers to approach more closely.

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.

Irrelevant -- I support their right to suicide in pursuit of
their craft, as long as they're not endanering others.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:07:15 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:08:41 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:00:38 GMT, Owamanga
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:53:19 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

If you photograph a stuntman doing a stunt and he dies doing that stunt,
it isn't your photography that killed him, it's the stunt.

I guess that one could depends on how powerful your flash is. There is
some rule/saying/law somewhere that basically says it's impossible to
observe a system without affecting it. Chaos theory supports this too.

I heard something similar, but "measure" was used in place of
"observe".
it seem to make a lot more sense that way.
The example was that the act of measuring the temp of a liquid with a
thermometer altered the temp of the liquid.
However, there are methods of measuring by observing, which wouldn't
alter the thing being measured, so it's probably a faulty saying,
anyway. :-)

Actually it involves measuring (simultaneously) the position
and energy of an electron. A high frequency light (small wavelength)
light (needed for observation) would allow precise determination of
the position of the electron, while greatly affecting its energy. A
low frequency light (greater wavelength than the size of the electron)
would allow precise dertermination of its energy, while greatly
diminishing the accuracy of determining its position.

Is "it" here supposed to be the measuring of a liquid by a
thermometer? If so, it measures far more than one electron's energy.
If not, then what?

Hence, Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy.

Also of little use at scales larger than those of the
experiment.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:19:08 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Big Bill writes:

However, there are methods of measuring by observing, which wouldn't
alter the thing being measured, so it's probably a faulty saying,
anyway. :-)

Actually, in the strict world of physics at least, there is no way to
observe anything without affecting what is being observed.

Possibly, but you're the one limiting this to the strict world of
physics, not anyone else.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:19:08 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Big Bill writes:

However, there are methods of measuring by observing, which wouldn't
alter the thing being measured, so it's probably a faulty saying,
anyway. :-)

Actually, in the strict world of physics at least, there is no way to
observe anything without affecting what is being observed.

Possibly, but you're the one limiting this to the strict world of
physics, not anyone else.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:04:32 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

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.

You draw your lines where you choose. I believe "strong
recommendation", with a stern warning that others will not be
endangered for their safety, should be the maximum allowed sanction.

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...

Fat chance they'd succeed. Even if you were to be looted of a
million dollars after evecuating, the cops would be held harmless
under the old "using their best judgement" or "acting in good faith"
copouts (intended).

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:07:00 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

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.

Absent a serious crime, nothing could be lower on the police
priority list.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:07:00 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

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.

Absent a serious crime, nothing could be lower on the police
priority list.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:09:26 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

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...

For exactly that reason, I instructed my son to stay well
within the limit while driving through Texas. It was bad enough that
he was eighteen and driving a Toyota with California plates. I saw no
reason to diminish his odds of arriving safely in Florida.