Jump to content

Photography,paedophilia and terrorism


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In a previous thread that seems deleted Bruce Mattes wrote: "... my friend ... assumed that regardless of whether one was in the public eye or not; that EVERY person was ENTITLED to some measure of PRIVACY while walking about.."

 

And I responded: "I think here is a germ of the main point for most people, at least this is what I've been thinking for a while reading this thread. Many people now conceptually extend their "right to privacy" beyond their private domicile. Obviously this "expansion" has not been adjudicated by the courts, and I'm not arguing or advocating that it is nor that it should be. However, it's clear that in the "social contract" sense most people seem to believe this extension of "privacy" is reasonable today.

 

My best guess, and I'm not a sociologist nor do I play one on TV, is that this is a result of the fact that a hundred years ago most people spent the vast majority of their time either alone or with close family or friends - essentially in private; going into a "public" place was a clear demarcation recognized by most everyone. The world was far less crowded then, even in metropolitan areas, whereas now most people spend the majority of their time in closer proximity to other "bodies" in what would have previously been considered public places. The human psyche appears to find some way to rationalize the same amount of "privacy time" despite the changes in physical circumstances."

 

I do think that all of this eventually boils down to what people perceive as "public" vs "private" space. I dare say that few people would expect to prevent you from taking a photograph of them while they are up on a stage, but some of them might object to a photo taken as they walk to their car in the parking lot after the event. (The example of one poster above who complaint that parents at school plays refrain from pictures in case they "might" get an accidental picture of another child notwithstanding.)

 

MB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is it ironic that in a society where the government and corporations surveil us and exhaustively warehouse data about our activities and relationships, people cling to the notion of "privacy" and "personal space" when it comes to the shadowy individual potentially lifting the veil on their secret place?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find amazing is the number of dunderheads who attack someone who is obviously out in the open with a

camera, but it never cross their mind to think about the number of cell phones out there that are truly used

surreptitiously every day. Have no fear of the dog that's openly barking; worry about the one you can't see or hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going through life worrying about the ones you cannot see or hear must be rather exhausting. I prefer to limit my worries to the dog which has its teeth in my pant leg. I may end up in more dogs fights that way but at least in between dog attacks I won't be suffering from any stress attacks.

 

As for Ben Franklin; Lex summed me up quite succinctly with option no. 2. No-one has ever bothered me for taking photos. My government seems to have a distinct lack of interest in my daily activities. I don't even seem able to make my neighbors suspicious. I must be the luckiest person alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While crouching down to compose the following image on Granville Street in Vancouver BC in 2004, with my wee

little Pentax LX and 28mm wide-angle lens, I was harassed by several people, and I was accused by several people

of being a pervert.

<br>

<img border=1 src="http://nealcurrie.com/media/van_night/large/15.jpg">

<br><br>

Later that night, no-one even batted an eye when I took a series of photos similar to the following:

<img border=1 src ="http://www.nealcurrie.com/media/van_night/large/12.jpg">

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neal, a lot of guys that hang around adult entertainment shops don't like to have their photos taken for obvious reasons (especially politicians, teachers, ministers etc.). You may want to be a little more discreet next time, be casual, nonchalant and for goodness sake, don't crouch down. Crouching down is a primordial action that implies ambush and aggression.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point Tim, but it wasn't the people hanging around that shop that didn't like my presence. It was the people on the other side of the street, which doesn't have any 'Adult' shops for a couple blocks, while the side I photographed has at least 4 of them on that block. I will remember the crouching point next time, and bring my TLR as Michael uses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I run a chauffeur drive company and we have long wheelbase Mercedes S Class. We are free to go airside to collect passengers who fly in by privete jet with no security checks whatever. They dont look in the boot or anything. Last week I was wearing jeans and trainers photographing one of my cars outside a terminal. Police arrive in force and ask many questions and tell me to go away. Interestingly we also collect the CEO's of global corporations again with no checks made on us. The lesson here is simple. Be white. Wear a suit. Drive a big Mercedes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...