Jump to content

You think you have it bad...


bobatkins

Recommended Posts

<p>If you think your rights as a street photographer in the USA are under threat, read this. It could be worse...</p>

<p>"<em>For example, Article 3 of the law sets a penalty of one-year imprisonment or a fine that does not exceed SR500,000</em> [$133,333]<em> for anyone who uses a cell phone to take a picture that violates the privacy rights of others and then posts the picture on social media websites.</em><br>

<em>Taking pictures as a hobby can lead you straight to prison if you violate the cybercrime law and post the picture online</em>."</p>

<p>http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/digital/2015/02/07/The-downside-of-street-photography-in-Saudi-Arabia.html</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You'd think a society which has beheadings and floggings as punishments for criminals would not be so insufferably precious about having women - mostly covered anyway - photographed in public. But then, Saudi society is insufferably precious about more than just photography. I guess all we Westerners have to put up with are extremely religious parents concerned to tears about the influence and popularity of Harry Potter.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm surprised that they allow any kind of camera at all.<br /> Some people 'of the book' take the second commandment very seriously, and not only Muslims:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, <strong>or any <em>likeness</em> [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interpretations also differ of the Second Amendment, but that's another thing altogether...<strong><br /></strong></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Not sure I understand how the law applies. You take a picture of someone in burka and the eyes are exposed.....you put it on the social media...and end up in jail/fine ? I can see if this was done in the privacy of someone's home/bedroom....and how that would be a violation of privacy.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: Not obsessed with burkas, have no desire to go to S. Arabia....and have no cyber connections to soc media. I'll probably be flogged for that :>).</p>

<p>Les</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The influence of Salafists does have a lot to do with very rigid interpretations of religious injunctions, not only in Saudi Arabia, but elsewhere.<br>

In the old days and as recently as 2007 I even have been able to take pictures in mosques, so it's not all flavors of Islam.</p>

<p>I confess that I personally am more in favor of a Falafelist (فلافل) viewpoint than Salafist. (please just ignore this if you can).</p><div>00d78I-554727684.jpg.bdc7bf8c5021418e521d7d0372a953f3.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's an interesting little article, but it probably has no direct significance to most of us here. It only directly impacts three groups of people: (i) Saudi nationals, (ii) foreigners working under contract, and (iii) Muslim folks making Hajj. Very few others ever get to visit Saudi Arabia. I suspect those three groups would have some idea how to behave, or at least be briefed, but like the article says, you never know!</p>

<p>It touches on a couple of points, though. One is that you have to obey the laws of the country you're in. One sometimes hears laughable stories of tourists who think the laws don't apply to them, because they're a (choose one) westerner/white man/citizen of such-and-such. Often it does not end well . .</p>

<p>Second is the extension <em>ad absurdum</em> of the 'graven image' belief mentioned by JDMvW, when real extremists have destroyed cultural and religious artifacts which have much broader significance. That, I think, is a real tragedy, but he would know better than me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a bag of garbonzo beans in the fridge, but I threw them out...I figured they would only make me felafel (feel awful). Seriously, as

Western culture grows more tolerant, it makes more "traditional" cultures seem even less free. And whether it's religious considerations,

security considerations, intellectual property considerations, politcal considerations, one of today's great ironies is that as the ease of

capturing and sharing images increases, the obstacles to doing so seem to increase as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm not sure I see any problem with the law, if I'm reading it correctly. I've often wondered why we in the U.S. allow posting images of others to social websites without permission. Let's say, for example, you are a teacher in a conservative school that does not allow drinking. You're at a private party, and someone photographs you with a drink in your had then posts it on a social website. Someone at the school sees it, and you suffer the consequences, whatever they are. Why is the person who took the picture and posted it not liable for the damage? And maybe you weren't even drinking, but simply getting a drink for someone else.</p>

<p>It sounds to me like the Saudis are siding in favor of the subject rather than the photographer, which I see as appropriate.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>as Western culture grows more tolerant, it makes more "traditional" cultures seem even less free.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't disagree in general but I think it is a bit more complicated than that. Some of the responses in this thread show little tolerance, but harsh judgement over the alleged inferior culture in the Middle East. This is not something new. Many in the western culture are growing less tolerant, and more convinced of the superiority of our culture and historical luggage. What if we are wrong? Just as a hypothetical question, it is useful to contemplate it before judging the laws of other countries. Not that Saudi Arabia is the shining example to 'measure' up against, far from it, but in general...<br /> While the city is unfortunately famous for other things, Palermo hosts some spectacular sites that should have us all scratching our heads when we talk about tolerance and freedom. 12th century Palermo was ruled by Christian kings, with many Arab scholars at their court who maintained their tradition in science, and passed it on (which are the basis of 'our' mathematics, and the revival of ancient Greek that was part of what spurred the Renaissance), and a lot of their arts. The city hosted a lot of jews, which only later - when the Christians became more convinced of their culture - were forced into their own neighbourhood. Similar history goes for the south of Spain - cultures living alongside, mingling and taking the best of one another. Maybe we just should sometimes question our beliefs in progress and the virtues of our own culture. And a lot of people in the Middle East should wonder about the same thing too, actually... yeah, these Saudi-Arabic laws are hard to rhyme with freedom of expression and free press, basically.</p><div>00d7DR-554751784.jpg.07c1f24bdaeb4ed49165bd3022d6a0c7.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Some of the responses in this thread show little tolerance, but harsh judgement over the alleged inferior culture in the Middle East. This is not something new. Many in the western culture are growing less tolerant, and more convinced of the superiority of our culture and historical luggage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do offer a harsh judgment of the culture, but not of its people. It is a culture that mandates the suppression of women, the stoning of adulterers, etc. that is intolerant, not those of us who are intolerant of intolerance to the point of abjuring brutality and the extinction of freedom.</p>

<p>Next thing, you'll be telling us that we should be tolerant of anti-Semitism, or the Nazis.</p>

<p>Photography? Well, on that narrower issue, cameras can indeed be intrusive. I do not recognize a right to take a photo at anytime and post it anywhere. There do have to be limits, but surely less draconian approaches are possible than that of the Saudis.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My intention isn't to justify anything, Lannie, nor accept everything. I live in a zone where I see the direct results (that is, many people fleeing from Syria and several African countries arrive in the area where I live), so I've got an idea what is going on there.<br /> And at the same time, I know people who visited several of those countries, and they really noticed nothing of this alleged culture of stoning, suppressing women etc. The image drawn to us by the media isn't that accurate. You're right to seperate the culture from the people, yet at the same time, the people is that culture. And that's a bit the point I tried to make: it's hard to generalise the situation as the state-induced "culture" isn't necessary the people's culture, and what we read about or see on TV isn't necessarily the whole story.</p>

<p>[EDIT]: and ooops, Q.G. is absolutely right.... </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Keeping on the topic, I'd like to disagree with Bill:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I've often wondered why we in the U.S. allow posting images of others to social websites without permission. Let's say, for example, you are a teacher in a conservative school that does not allow drinking...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not completely dismiss what you are saying, Bill. But I believe in personal responsibility. You break the school's rules, you pay. If it's a misunderstanding, you will be given the benefit of the doubt. Rules may be enforced, but cannot be enforced though mere perception (I've had people in my former job try several times to get me in deep poop, but even though they really wanted me skewered, they knew they had nothing concrete, so they let it go). If I may be so bold: what next, a ban on photographing police officers in public, just in case they make a mistake?...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the alleged inferior culture in the Middle East.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not guilty. Sure, they can be backwards, but so can we. You could not buy The DaVinci Code in Lebanon (the land of my birth, of which I am proud) for a while, and maybe you still can't.</p>

<p>In at least one European country (perhaps it's Belgium), you can freely take photos of people, including children, but you need their parents' permission to post the photos publicly. I think that's stupid and unworthy of consideration, but I don't make the law.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>For example, Article 3 of the law sets a penalty of one-year imprisonment or a fine that does not exceed SR500,000</em> [$133,333]<em> for anyone who uses a cell phone <strong>to take a picture that violates the privacy rights of others</strong> and then posts the picture on social media websites..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have the Saudi's defined by law what encompasses "privacy rights"? It would be interesting to know if it's similar to westerner's. That's a pretty broad and vague "right" IMO.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I want to make it clear that my judgments were directed solely against the specific abuses in Saudi culture mentioned above, not against Middle Eastern culture in general. I know full well that U.S. culture has problems as well, including what I see as rising militant nationalism, militarism, and the highest rate of incarceration in the world.</p>

<p>In spite of our defects, we do have a pretty open culture by world standards. I believe that that is good. Even there, we are hardly perfect. Repression exists in all cultures, and it exists here.</p>

<p>Photography and the arts in general do flourish better in open cultures. There are places more open than the U.S., of course. The Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries and Finland (among others) could teach us some things.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Karim,</p>

<p>I understand what you are saying, but where do we draw the line then? What if someone photographs me naked through a window in my home and posts it online? What if I'm sunbathing nude in privacy and a drone flies overhead and takes a shot? Why is my privacy potentially overridden by your (not you personally) right to take a photo? The list can go on and on describing situations where someone might not want their picture posted on facebook or the like, and many of them have nothing to do with doing anything wrong. Enough people CHOOSE to post compromising shots of themselves on social media. If I choose not to, that right should not be overridden by someone else making a different choice for me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I understand what you are saying, but where do we draw the line then? What if someone photographs me naked through a window in my home and posts it online? What if I'm sunbathing nude in privacy and a drone flies overhead and takes a shot? Why is my privacy potentially overridden by your (not you personally) right to take a photo?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not an expert on the law, but it is my understanding that in the US your right to privacy in those situations is not overridden by someone's right to take a photo as they both meet the <em>reasonable expectation of privacy</em> test. (Unless, of course, you choose to stand naked in your front window with the curtains open and you are visible from the street. That's a trickier situation and may not meet the test.) </p>

<p>As for Saudi Arabia -- Their country, their rules.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I am not an expert on the law, but it is my understanding that in the US your right to privacy in those situations is not overridden by someone's right to take a photo as they both meet the <em>reasonable expectation of privacy</em> test.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That makes sense. I know that you can take photos of houses, but not necessarily the people in them, depending.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a "right to take a photo" written into law?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No more than is the right to engage in post-modern interpretive dance. However, I imagine that in America this would fall under the First Amendment. It bifurcates from there onwards.</p>

 

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...