Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,824   Posts: 1,581,964   Online: 903
      
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 94
  1. #21
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggie
    .
    What would be better served would be rallying against the stupidity of officials going beyond normal in their execution of their jobs. The bill in question is good. It far out weighs the few probable times some one might take it too far. There are far more instances of pediphiles, papparazi, and the like that this is aimed at, praying on children and even adults. Those are the ones I care about.
    Those 'few probable times' will become a landslide of false accusation with the backing of this Bill. As for paedophiles, yes I agree they have to be caught and punished severely. But surely current law can already do this? It would be astonishing if it cannot.
    And paparazzi? When is a paparazzi a paparazzi and when are they an investigative journalist? You can bet your bottom dollar those in power will abuse that description as much as they possibly can. If this law was in place during Watergate, do you think the Nixon establishment would have made a distinction between 'paparazzi' and 'investigative journalist' or would they have used this Act for their own good?

    Already new laws are being abused. Read this...

    http://69.93.170.43/index.php#

    You are losing your freedom Aggie. Bin Laden has won.


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  2. #22
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    I haven't lost my freedom. They sky is not falling down either.

    What does the story of the guy who was arab looking taking pictures of a bridge have to with someone taking pictures of naked people in private settings without their permission or knowledge? Is this going to turn into another bash Bush, hate the USA, all religions are evil, and ultimately anyone who does not agree with you are ( fill in the blank)? I leave the political trolling to you.
    Non Digital Diva

  3. #23
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggie
    I haven't lost my freedom. They sky is not falling down either.

    What does the story of the guy who was arab looking taking pictures of a bridge have to with someone taking pictures of naked people in private settings without their permission or knowledge? Is this going to turn into another bash Bush, hate the USA, all religions are evil, and ultimately anyone who does not agree with you are ( fill in the blank)? I leave the political trolling to you.
    So it's ok to persecute people on the basis of skin colour too is it Aggie?

    You cannot have a discussion about Law without also discussing the politics behind that law. The two are directly related.
    If my opinion is different to yours that makes it no less relevant. If you don't want people to discuss politics in a manner you do not like then I suggest you don't join threads about political law, become a communist and move to North Korea. You won't find any opposing points of view there.
    Last edited by Andy K; 09-05-2004 at 07:02 AM. Click to view previous post history.


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  4. #24
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,646
    Images
    4
    The trouble with this law, in my view, is that it is federal. This country for most of its history went with almost no federal criminal law. There were laws against counterfeiting, laws requiring the payment of taxes, etc. but even in 1963 President Kennedy's assassination was not a violation of any federal law. Criminal laws were the province of the states.

    So, the answer is that yes, in most places the behavior this law seems intended to prohibit either is, or could be, punished by state law. It can also be prevented privately. Gyms here in Florida are not allowing people to bring in cell phones because of the cameras built into so many.

    People are no longer taught basic civics or basic government in this country and have little or no concept of federalism any more. Some politicians have learned to play on this ignorance and try to buy votes by proposing legislation that violates the principles of federalism.

    Then there's the issue of the federal Constitution. The very issues of uncertainty raised here could well mean this bill, if it becomes law, will be found unconstitutional because of vagueness. Most of the Internet porno laws have been found unconstitutional for this reason.

    Stop making me think about this stuff.
    juan

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,651
    Goldwater was wrong - just because a bad law is only at the State level doesn't make it any better. Most laws that attempt to regulate moral behavior (beyond the obvious, eg murder, assault) never work totally & therefore justify even more repressive laws. If the majority of Americans want to continue down that slippery slope of moral regulations, I need to find a country that still believes in a Jeffersonian political system. Canada?
    van Huyck Photo
    "Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"

  6. #26
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy K
    You cannot have a discussion about Law without also discussing the politics behind that law. The two are directly related.
    If my opinion is different to yours that makes it no less relevant. If you don't want people to discuss politics in a manner you do not like then I suggest you don't join threads about political law, become a communist and move to North Korea. You won't find any opposing points of view there.
    There is nothing quite like "picking up" on a minor inflection and pumping it up beyond all proportion; and then: "If you don't like my idea (no matter how noble it may be) then off with you to a place where there are NO opinions allowed.

    What I am trying to say, is "Chill Out". Even the most whacko among us should be listened to. We are all intelligent enough here (after all, we eschew "digital" - that has to be irrefutable proof of our intelligence) to separate the wheat from the chaff for ourselves.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,878
    Images
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy K
    Already new laws are being abused. Read this...

    http://69.93.170.43/index.php#
    so what does a suspicious-person photographing a bridge have to do with someone sticking a surveilance camera in the in a woman's gym for broadcast on the internet?

  8. #28
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    The 'suspicious person' was not the only person taking photos of the bridge, there were many others there doing the same, and although everyone involved was american, the others were white and were left unmolested by 'the authorities'. That was a blatant abuse of law. This new legislation is also wide open to abuse. It is far, far too vague.

    How long will it be before neighbour is having neighbour arrested because of a dubiously sited security camera? How long before innocent people have police knocking on the door because their holiday snaps contained some nudity in the background which some lab monkey took objection to? Or because their proud photos of baby offended some perverse minded politically correct idiot? How would you feel if the police knocked on your door checking you out as a possible paedophile because of a photo of your baby in the nude? Somehow I don't believe you'd be very happy about it. I know I wouldn't.

    The 'thought police' are coming.


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  9. #29
    127
    127 is offline
    127's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    uk
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    581
    The point is that while it's easy to see how laws will help prosecute the bad guys you also need to consider how they can be applied to prosecute YOU. Obviously we want to stop the bad guys, and obviously you know you're basically a decent guy, and won't get harrassed, but it only takes someone to get a bit carried away, and your life could be destroyed.

    It's easy to frame a law which gets the bad guy, eg patriot - "we can arrest who ever we like, without giving a reason" - that pretty much solves all law enforcement problems, so why do they need more laws? It sounds great that the government have lots of powers to deal with terrorists, paedophiles, pornographers, and photographers but unless there are checks and balances where does that leave us?

    Suppose you take a snapshot of some friends down the beach. In the background someone is getting changed, and lets the towel slip. Currently it's a bit of a giggle and you forget about it. In the future, the lab guy might report it (and in the future may be compelled to report it). The next day you get a visit (just a precaution of course!). They find thousands of negatives, which of course they're unable to sort through in a reasonable time, so they seize them (just a precaution). While they're at it they'll need to take all of your equipment, including your computer.

    Of course you know it's all just a misunderstanding, but you spend the next 12 months without your equipment. Your photography buisiness goes under, as you've lost all your equipment. You've no negs for reprints, and you can't even contact clients as all of your contact info was on the computer.

    Of course after you've spent your entire savings on legal fee's your equpiment sudenly gets returned without an applogy, and you never hear from the police again. On the other hand word has got round the town that you've been investigated for taking dodgey (exact details a but vaugue) photo's, so you're probably getting bricks through your window by now...

    Far fetched? Maybe, but if you think it can't happen, look at what happed in the late 80's early 90's to Steve Jackson, when the government decided it was time to get tough on computer crime. They passed some far reaching laws, that gave them the power to "get the bad guys", but left it pretty much up to them to decide who the bad guys were.

    Ian

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    464
    Images
    6
    "female breast means any portion below the areola".

    So you are photographing in the street & a girl/woman in a tank top walks by & you snap an image. Due to the cleavage or loose shirt (or wearing a halter top or bikini) the breast section below the areola is showing... you now have a "federal crime". It doesn't matter that you don't intend to even print the image, you took it. A cop sees it & doesn't like photogs in the street for whatever reason. You are now the victim of "the system". Just like Jock Sturges, it may take years & tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees before you get your gear/prints/life back. Meanwhile you are a 'pornographer' and this nice little law is the justification for the stop.
    Those who would 'sneak & peek' do need to be controlled. But as written the law is broad & loaded with language that will only make lawyers rich.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin