The media is not above creating news stories from nothing. I recall being interviewed once about something by the media. The account in the newspaper was completely unrecognisable so I took it up with the editor and then the press complaints commission but as the PCC is the wolves governing the wolves, I didn't get far.
Rhys wrote:
I find it interesting that people miss the major issue here...
People are getting more violent worldwide. They're seeing their problem etc going through beaureaucratic channels that take forever and usually end up with something ineffectual being done - if anything. They're taking to violence as a protest/attempt to change/destroy the system etc, having given up on democracy and trying to change the system the way the system is supposed to be changed.
Not in the industrialized world. Violent crime has been falling in the US since the early 90's, and continues to fall, with each year marking all time lows in the rate of violent crime. In some sense, this makes the increasing level of paranoia even less reasonable.
Sometimes I wonder if those 19 people who hijacked those planes 5 years ago didn't win their fight completely and utterly? We use those events to justify every form of increased and often unreasonable vigilance.
The only people to win seem to be those that want to increase their power. We now have a situation whereby the US is more restrictive than the good old USSR.
Rhys wrote:
The only people to win seem to be those that want to increase their power. We now have a situation whereby the US is more restrictive than the good old USSR.
What a very naive thing to say, even irresponsible. I'm hoping it was said out of ignorance. The USSR was a very repressive regime. There was nothing good about old USSR. Don't even think that Putin doesn't control the press in Russia today. Things have changed very much in the last 18 months.
Rick,
The sad truth is, if you were a woman taking pictures in the park, I doubt any call would have been made. If you were a young, pretty female... I can guarantee no call would have been made.
I wouldn't stop what you do, and would keep doing it, and I would keep standing up for your right to take pictures of whatever you want on public property.
Chris Ventura wrote:
Rick,
The sad truth is, if you were a woman taking pictures in the park, I doubt any call would have been made. If you were a young, pretty female... I can guarantee no call would have been made.
I wouldn't stop what you do, and would keep doing it, and I would keep standing up for your right to take pictures of whatever you want on public property.
And the interesting thing is that although there are fewer women paedophiles, the media broadcasts far less abhorrance of them than they do of male paedophiles. Take the female Canadian teacher who raped some boy in Britain as an example. Very little was heard about her in the press and it was often mentioned in the pubs and bars that "she must have been a goer" or "he was a lucky little boy". The whole double-standards thing really annoys me.
Thanks for the liink to the article.. I beleive though that the article may be outdated in regards to taking pictures of children, in that the new Megans Law prohibits taking pictures of minor children with out permission.
JimmyJames wrote:
This thread makes no sense when read backwards and makes very little when read forwards.
Only post that makes any sense to me too. Why drag a bunch of politics and sept 11 into it. If I want to take a picture of a stranger and especially a child I would ask for permission from them or their parent first. Whether it's in USA or Timbuktu. It's just plain old human courtesy.
I agree the paranoia is out of control. A couple years ago I was walking around the Vicksburg, MS civil war battlefield site, with a nikon coolpix 880 I think, and a park ranger drives up and asks me what I'm doing. I said "I'm taking pictures, why?" He said some people saw me from a distance and called in a report of suspicious activity. I said, "Why, is it unusual for someone to get out of their car and walk around?" He said it was. I told him that that was pretty pathetic. I didn't say anything else, and the park ranger seemed at a loss as to what to do next. I think he expected me to be more forthcoming about why I was there but I just ignored him and went about my business, mildly pissed off. Eventually he left without saying any more. How stupid can people be, I mean what was I going to do, blow up a sign in the grass or something? All it is is a bunch of fields and trees.
I've remembered that well, and it entered my mind last week when I was in the airport, it was Boston or Dulles or somewhere, and there was a young couple standing next to the security checkpoint taking a few pictures of all the people going through security with a point and shoot. Pictures like that could be used for planning some sort of foul play, and I considered telling the guards, but I didn't. I reasoned that you don't need a picture to see how it works, all you have to do is look at it in person as much as you like.
Sophisticated Terrorism can require as much research, planning, organisational skills and attention to detail as the most complex modern western type of business needs and sometimes even more (the timescale may be a lot shorter for the terrorist compared with the business).
In fact some terroist types wouldn't have been be out of place in IBM's marketing division back in its Heyday.
(Nothing against IBM, or it's aims or implying it has or EVER HAD ANYTHING to do with terrorism --just commentating on the fact that the skill set required by both types of operations would probably be remarkably similar).
Whilst we can go overboard on this stuff a lot of regs are just stupid as the sophisticated terrorists will easily find ways to circumvent them anyway --and it's usually the everyday law abiding citizens who invariably suffer.
I worry however about "The creeping loss of Freedom" in response to "Terrorism", 9/11 or whatever.
Hard won liberties ceeded back again to the state are rarely if ever regained without some sort of long, difficult and usually uphill struggle and History shows that even the most repressive legislation fails to prevent terrorism in any case.
Mr. Moreland: Consider yourself very lucky because photographing people without their consent is ILLEGAL. Try to publish the pictures of those boys playing and you will be automatically asked for a consent from those kids, in this case their parents.
Here in Miami I like to shoot sunsets this time of year at Key Byscaine. There is a public marina there that we taxpayers contribute to maintain. In more than one occasion, when I have set my tripod to shoot the sunset I have been chased by a security guard. I have been told it is illegal for professionals to shoot there and they point to my camera and my tripod. When I have shot with a point and shoot, I have been ignored. I am a physician and I have shown them my business card and they have left me alone.
I would recommend to anyone to be very careful around airports and sea ports and be extra careful around prominent government buildings to avoid trouble. I do not blame the government for the inconveniences, after all they have the responsability of protecting us and our families and, a professional camera or even a point and shoot, can certainly arise suspicion.
When photographing kids, but especially around the school, take precautions although I would suggest that you ask permission and explain to them that you are on assignment for the community documenting daily activities. Be ready to make copies of your pictures to give them and you should be OK. You do not want to see a furious father after you!
So, whenever possible ask permission to take the picture and do not forget that the right approach and a smile go a long way.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
