Take care, that photography hobby of yours may label you as 'anti-social'
Attachment 70022
Printable View
Take care, that photography hobby of yours may label you as 'anti-social'
Attachment 70022
Ha, ha! Now look what happens if you refuse the nice young lady. And then the other one... Shame on you. ;))
Seriously though, that photographer and his friend are childishly stupid. I understand when child refuses to take medicine even though he's sick, after all that injection hurts some. But these folks look like adult members of similarly sick society, and what they were nicely asked for was not even nearly as painful.
Refusing to collaborate with police in their anti terrorist actions is plain stupid. Now they complain how rude is the police asking for "more detail". But what would they say being injured by terrorist act? Or even worse - losing some friend or relatives? Now they would complain how helpless the police is in being not able to stop the terrorism...
It's the one way or another - either we help and collaborate as much as we can to prevent this problem, or forget about it and protect our privacy more than our life. It's a simple choice. Just like with a sick child - injection or death...
I tend to agree with John.
Some photgraphers are very precious about their 'freedom' to take pics - and [some] often are a damn nusience, and seem to forget that those they are taking pics of may have 'privacy concerns' too ;) So anti-social behaviour it can be - one man's......
If people out on the street are considered 'fair-game' for a photographer, those they take pics of should at least have some redress - no one should have it all their own way
[Snap happy photographers irritate me - can you tell :D]
Some useful reading on Street photography and the Law (in Australia)
► NSW Photo Rights
► Street Photographers Rights
Steve, he was not arrested for the anti social behaviour. He was arrested for refusal to co-operate with police.
Quote:
Patefield was arrested for refusing to give his details, while his friend, who gave in, walked free. Patefield was held for eight hours and released without charge.
John, I did not say that.
The thread title Anti social photographer is arrested doesn't infer arrest for anti social behaviour any more than Xara Developer is arrested infers arrest for being a Xara Developer ;)
Having said that, it's worth reviewing another incident involving a student.
On the face of it, there appears to be a good case for harassment.
► I don't believe you.
No, the problem is that he is not an anti social photographer. He was not even charged in anti social behaviour. How can you state he's guilty?
Oh yes, this one is quite different. Unnecessary use of violence in this case is completely unjustified. She might be cocky and initially not cooperative, but why all the brutality? :eek:Quote:
Having said that, it's worth reviewing another incident involving a student.On the face of it, there appears to be a good case for harassment.
I totally absolutely disagree, people have rights, and they are taken
away from us all the time. I agree with this person, and I don`t find it childish.
I actually find it childish, to call it childish ;)
I take pictures of buildings all the time, basically because I like architecture
and the ornaments of the buildings.
I see this as police harrasment, and I don`t think that these actions actually stop any terrorists.
rotflmao
Yes it is. But would you prefer a terrorists harassment instead? I don't. I would be rather giving my autograph to the nice young lady once in a while than being shot by some brainwashed maniac. :rolleyes:Quote:
I see this as police harrasment
It's not easy to fight terrorism. Police do their best. And it's not an easy job to do. We should rely on them and assist them. They are not enemy....Quote:
and I don`t think that these actions actually stop any terrorists.
And what I'm now saying sounds exactly the way we usually try to convince our children that the doctor is not evil... so... ;)
I think this is really more about people being happy (or not) to tell the police who they are rather than photography rights.
I suspect that the police are probably a bit over-zealous about photographs because I'm sure the bad guys do reconoitre their targets. I think that if I were a bad guy I'd just be subtle about it and not attract attention. it's easy to criticise, but huge organisations like the police need straightforward guidelines that will be ridiculous in some circumstances.
I don't have a problem giving the police my name and I think it's reasonable for them to ask. I think that it's the fact that people refuse that makes them step up the ante to try and get compliance.
I think we'd all look stupid if the police had asked a suspicious bomber his name and taken "no" for an answer.
Do I think the photographer is a potential terrorist? No. Should the police be using terror laws to get his name? No. Would I do so if I were a policeman? I might be tempted.
The photographer wasn't denied the opportunity to go about his business, but he made himself the subject of attention when he wanted to do it anonymously.
I suspect that some parents would also be very happy to know that the police did take notice of people with cameras too, and none too fussy about how the police find out who they are.
I'm not down on photographers and don't want them to be restricted, but I'm happy to let the police ask their name.
On one occassion I was chased by a security guard after taking a picture of an empty office building (just a silly project I never saw through). His orders were to stop anyone taking photographs. Fortunately I took the precaution of taking the photographs from outside the property boundary, but that didn't stop him running into the road to try and stop my car.
We had a discussion where I explained he had no jurisdiction on the public highway and no authority to stop me from taking the photographs. He backed down and I went my way. he was just doing what he'd been told to do, as I guess the PCO was doing with the photographer.
On a similar vein our local council asked for my wifes school to take pictures of the christmas lights in the local town centre. Cameras supplied as well. Class sets off to photograph the decorations, only to have security intervene again quoting the "terrorist" threat and my wife and all the children had an interesting discussion with the shopping centre manager who knew nothing about the arrangement made by the council. Of course, they saw sense and allowed them to continue.
Of course, if I am a bad boy, I just say my name is "Steve" or "John". I always get a knowing look.. ;-)
Oh... I am sorry for misunderstanding your words and for making it look personal, which it was not intended to be. :(
I was not trying to make this thread about you or any one else, really.
I was just trying to discuss this obviously controversial subject.
Take it easy! :-bd
its a lot of fuss for the sake of giving less information to the authorities than he would actually have to give to fly to New York at the moment :eek:
so I guess he was trying to making a point, or just giving his mates good copy :D
personally I would like to travel overland from calais to china along the old spice route, just like a friend of mine did half a decade or so ago but I don't see it happening anytime soon [with or without a camera :rolleyes:] - the times they have a changed
The [presumed necessary] anti-terrorist police tactics (whether supported by formal policy or not) in [over-]policing ordinary citizens in their natural right to photograph national monuments (or anything else, for that matter) is WAY out of hand. Its extremeness is, frankly, insane.
I think the point of these videos and news stories is just that and to point out that the terrorists may have already won.
Please note, that I have not stated which side of the fence my opinion rests in this thread. It's for current affairs interest only.
There is always two sides to stories like these, both of which can make sense but we should not take either the journalist's report or the length and content of video as the complete story.
Wow, I can't believe the response here is lay down and take it???
We people have rights, our natural laws that protect us from harassment from authorities. And it seems a few of us are willing to have our rights trampled for this obscure "terrorism" excuse.
Hitler did the same thing, it was a process that took a couple of years before people started willingly being led to the furnaces.
The Governments are in real trouble, why? because if you actually read about some of the crimes they have committed, and if people realize the fraud they have committed, the people would up-rise and tar/feather them like they did in the old days.
And I believe people are waking up to this and the Government need to take action against a potential up-rising, under a guise of "protecting" us from terrorists.
You think the police are your friends? I'm in Canada where the RCMP themselves dress up in black balaclavas and bust windows in order to make it look like legitimate protesters are anarchists. (Yes they have been caught and charged, as well as charges dropped, due to the fact that RCMP cannot seem to charge their own officers, which the people are trying to change).
And yes, I even have a brother-in-law in the RCMP... boy I bet he is getting a reality check.
Thing is, there should be no reason for this type of police behavior. There are ways to actually pursue to charge this gentleman with the camera, however the Judiciary that they need to gain the warrant from would likely ridicule the officer for wasting his time and the public's money.
A few bad apples within a police force doesn't make the whole force criminals. It's a bit of a stretch going from a policewoman trying to get a photographers name and the association with hitler, goverment abuse and the whole of canada policed by criminals.
I should imagine that your brother in law is a bit shocked, but still confident he is one of the good guys.
My answer to that is - if you want to win a war, fight the right battles ;)
Pie in the Sky - we people [and that is all of us no matter who we are] have responsibilites that provide us with priveleges if we abide by themQuote:
We people have rights, our natural laws that protect us from harassment
out of context hyperboleQuote:
Hitler did the same thing, it was a process that took a couple of years before people started willingly being led to the furnaces.
good old fashioned 'them and us' posturing the curse of mankind throughout its entire existanceQuote:
The Governments are in real trouble, why? because if you actually read about some of the crimes they have committed, and if people realize the fraud they have committed, the people would up-rise and tar/feather them like they did in the old days.
And I believe people are waking up to this and the Government need to take action against a potential up-rising, under a guise of "protecting" us from terrorists.
I don't know if this is true - but if it is, it only shows that this sort of thing can happen anywhereQuote:
You think the police are your friends? I'm in Canada where the RCMP themselves dress up in black balaclavas and bust windows in order to make it look like legitimate protesters are anarchists.
indeedQuote:
There are ways to actually pursue to charge this gentleman with the camera
I think Steve is right - 'divide and conquor' goes back a long, long way....
Well the problem is basic, some people don`t mind giving up their
rights and others do. That is basically it.
And if I was a baddy, there are many ways to coverdly film and
take pictures anyway.
And yes, a policejob is hard, it would be a lot easier if in any home
there was CCTV camera's, you know against domestic violence and
other bad stuff, so I advice anyone who gladly give up their rights,
to make such a system in their home and hook it up to you nearest
policestation, you would make the policemens job a lot easier. ;)
(Yes I know you have nothing to hide. ;) )
:D
here's a little something on the general lines of freedom to photograph that might interest you:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ce-a-lift.html
now, where did I leave that copy of 'DUNE' .......
I believe one of the most important things you can teach your children, is their "Rights", I don't believe this is taught at all in schools. Rights obviously differ from country to country, but you would be amazed at the amount of people, young or old, who have no clue on what police are allowed to do.
To, me, this would be one of the things needed to be done to preserve our rights, for our children's sake.
(Yes the RCMP Montebello story Video-Here is true and is also featured on CBC, and there is some question about the recent Olympics clash being conducted in the same way, yes there are some good guys and bad apples, however then the provocateur becomes a useful tool and seems to be in constant use, you start to question if this is now authorized standard procedure)
As a single example of the gross over-consideration for potential terrorists, give serious attention to the very recent (Christmas day, 2009) example, when a 4-year old disabled child (born premature, has malformed ankles and low muscle tone in his legs ... was just starting to walk at the time of the incident), was forced by the TSA ([U.S.] Transportation Security Administration) to 1) remove his leg braces, and then 2) "walk" through a metal detector on his own volition, to ensure that he was not a terrorist carrying some detonatable explosive.
reference, and elsewhere ...
What kind of irresponsible torture is this for a diabled child who's headed for his first trip to Disney World?
F'ers, or
Q'ers, or
...
Got no problem with the Rights of Man ;)
What I have got a problem with is the assertion that being asked to explain what you are doing, and accounting for yourself when you don't happen to feel like it, is somehow in breach of these.
It isn't. It never has been.
That kind of attitude is soooh self-centered and arrogant, insecure even.
[And lets not go into deliberately provocative - no monopoly on that on any side of a given fence]
As for whether the authorities are going about these things the right way, well maybe not, but this does not mean they are not on your side. It does not mean there isn't a better way to deal with it.
@ CURSOR
I think the comments after the piece sum things pretty well...
[10 bucks and hour - and possibly half a days training?]
That's quite the unnessary (and uninformed) attack, don't you think?
With all due respect (and I'm not at all sure what level is appropriate), I suspect that you don't have a clue what my earmed education level might be, nor what my monetary worth is (as if either value should determine the weight of my expressed opinion as a responsible member of society). Seriously, you really can't possibly know who I am, handrawn.Quote:
@ CURSOR
I think the comments after the piece sum things pretty well...
[10 bucks and hour - and possibly half a days training?
Cursor, I think Steve was referring to Tim in Texas's comment after the article?
I think it would better to close this thread. And never to post such a controversial subjects on these forums again.
It produces unnecessary conflicts inside the otherwise very friendly community which we are lucky to have here. Our political, social, religious and some other points may differ but I'm sure we are all here because of things that unite us - the graphics, the art, the Xara products.
There's a lot of other forums specialised on discussing politics, social and other such aspects of our lives, so removing such subjects from this board will surely not reduce anyones ability to discuss them.
Quote from the forum rules:Thank you for understanding.Quote:
We do not actively restrict topics of conversation, but TalkGraphics.com was not designed for heated debates. We ask you to refrain from volatile subjects such as religion or politics and keep the intended spirit of TalkGraphics.com in mind.
Yes I was, - sorry for the misunderstanding - my original draft mentioned Tim from Texas - seems I missed out the specific reference after revision, but nevertheless the parenthesis certainly refers to that which goes before - the comments after the piece [ie the blog/article/copy - call it what you will]
so..
See above - again sorry for not being clearer :o
I apologize for the apparent misunderstanding. Thanks for the kind clarification, handrawn. :cool:
As with any forum on the web, it's the usually the propensity of some members who initiate arguments to defend their own opinions which injects the potential for retaliation (baiting) who really determine whether a thread is turned into a heated debate or not.
This thread thus far has been civil, it's very easy to keep it that way, we're all friends here at TG and everyone has the option not to participate in a discussion.
The thread was posted as a curious current view about life at street level for a form of 'graphics' (photography) which ordinary people like us have enjoyed for decades. A study of human beings and of their interactions with each other and the environment.....It's anthropology 2010.
I spoke with my 85 year old anthropologist father on the phone just this afternoon. (Seriously ... a PhD with three masters degrees.) Communication is complex, even in person, he reminded me. Effectively communicating in text, and in the company of internet (his emphasis) participants, requires intentional language skills and a genuine personal investment. I will do better in the future. I promise. :cool:
A brief follow up;
► UK minister aims to reassure photographers
As far as I understand, in the originally posted video no one was trying to stop ordinary people from taking pictures. Or even video. ;)Quote:
Terrorist Act should not be 'used to stop ordinary people taking photos or to curtail legitimate journalistic activity'.
The posted video was a symptom was it not?
Well, if you are forced to provide your details to get a ticket on a plane, is it a symptom of someone trying to stop you using the airline transport? ;)