Settled
 

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:54:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2015/03/07/la-t...s-not-a-crime/

I wish the story had a lot more detail. I'd like to know what court
this was filed in, and if there was any court decision at all, or just
an out of court settlement. The other issue is that it also sounds
like the named situations could be taken as homeland security
concerns. There is no question that cops in some places, including
where I live, have become violent with people photographing them
during police activity. That certainly needs to stop, but I don't
think anything will completely stop this sort of thing when there is a
homeland security excuse.

Settled
 

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:17:29 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:54:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2015/03/07/la-t...s-not-a-crime/

I wish the story had a lot more detail. I'd like to know what court
this was filed in, and if there was any court decision at all, or just
an out of court settlement. The other issue is that it also sounds
like the named situations could be taken as homeland security
concerns. There is no question that cops in some places, including
where I live, have become violent with people photographing them
during police activity. That certainly needs to stop, but I don't
think anything will completely stop this sort of thing when there is a
homeland security excuse.


A bit more

https://www.aclusocal.org/supervisor...ee-settlement/

Settled
 

On 2015-03-11 00:17:29 +0000, Bill W said:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:54:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2015/03/07/la-t...s-not-a-crime/


I wish the story had a lot more detail. I'd like to know what court
this was filed in, and if there was any court decision at all, or just
an out of court settlement. The other issue is that it also sounds
like the named situations could be taken as homeland security
concerns. There is no question that cops in some places, including
where I live, have become violent with people photographing them
during police activity. That certainly needs to stop, but I don't
think anything will completely stop this sort of thing when there is a
homeland security excuse.

There is no Court judgement here and no landmark ruling applicable
elsewhere in the USA. This was settled by the L.A. County Board of
Supervisors after the case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. They mae their decision to settle on a
cost assessment rather than spending to defend a lost case in Court. LA
County won this round at a very low cost.
There was never a judge or jury involved, and I doubt that any of the
parties made it into a Court room.

This only has an effect on the LASD. No other agencies, including LAPD
have to abide with any part of this settlement. I suspect that it is
going to take a real Court decision to get some meat behind the issue
of photographer's rights.

....and this is no guarantee of compliance by any LASD Deputy. Whenever
that incident occurs we might be headed back to Court.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Settled
 

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:15:56 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-11 00:17:29 +0000, Bill W said:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:54:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2015/03/07/la-t...s-not-a-crime/


I wish the story had a lot more detail. I'd like to know what court
this was filed in, and if there was any court decision at all, or just
an out of court settlement. The other issue is that it also sounds
like the named situations could be taken as homeland security
concerns. There is no question that cops in some places, including
where I live, have become violent with people photographing them
during police activity. That certainly needs to stop, but I don't
think anything will completely stop this sort of thing when there is a
homeland security excuse.

There is no Court judgement here and no landmark ruling applicable
elsewhere in the USA. This was settled by the L.A. County Board of
Supervisors after the case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. They mae their decision to settle on a
cost assessment rather than spending to defend a lost case in Court. LA
County won this round at a very low cost.
There was never a judge or jury involved, and I doubt that any of the
parties made it into a Court room.

This only has an effect on the LASD. No other agencies, including LAPD
have to abide with any part of this settlement. I suspect that it is
going to take a real Court decision to get some meat behind the issue
of photographer's rights.

...and this is no guarantee of compliance by any LASD Deputy. Whenever
that incident occurs we might be headed back to Court.

Yeah, that's what I needed to know. No precedential decision, so
there's nothing at all.

BTW, did anyone see Nightcrawler?...

Settled
 

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:49:04 -0700, charles wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:17:29 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:54:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2015/03/07/la-t...s-not-a-crime/

I wish the story had a lot more detail. I'd like to know what court
this was filed in, and if there was any court decision at all, or just
an out of court settlement. The other issue is that it also sounds
like the named situations could be taken as homeland security
concerns. There is no question that cops in some places, including
where I live, have become violent with people photographing them
during police activity. That certainly needs to stop, but I don't
think anything will completely stop this sort of thing when there is a
homeland security excuse.


A bit more

https://www.aclusocal.org/supervisor...ee-settlement/

This makes it much easier to understand the position of the police:
“suspicious activity reporting” programs designed to train officers to
report certain activities believed to have a potential link to
terrorism." It kind of looked like that, and I wonder why it was left
out of the other article. It almost sounds like someone at Petapixel
has an agenda. I'm certainly not arguing that the cops did nothing
wrong, but at the same time, you could get the impression from the
other article that they just harassed these guys out of the blue.

I have been on the wrong end of some menacing cops, and it seems clear
to me that cops do not like cameras in general.

Settled
 

"Bill W" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:49:04 -0700, charles wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:17:29 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:54:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2015/03/07/la-t...s-not-a-crime/

I wish the story had a lot more detail. I'd like to know what court
this was filed in, and if there was any court decision at all, or
just
an out of court settlement. The other issue is that it also sounds
like the named situations could be taken as homeland security
concerns. There is no question that cops in some places, including
where I live, have become violent with people photographing them
during police activity. That certainly needs to stop, but I don't
think anything will completely stop this sort of thing when there is
a
homeland security excuse.


A bit more

https://www.aclusocal.org/supervisor...ee-settlement/

This makes it much easier to understand the position of the police:
"suspicious activity reporting" programs designed to train officers to
report certain activities believed to have a potential link to
terrorism." It kind of looked like that, and I wonder why it was left
out of the other article. It almost sounds like someone at Petapixel
has an agenda. I'm certainly not arguing that the cops did nothing
wrong, but at the same time, you could get the impression from the
other article that they just harassed these guys out of the blue.

I have been on the wrong end of some menacing cops, and it seems clear
to me that cops do not like cameras in general.

It's a strange place we have come to when legal activity becomes
suspicious activity. It is perfectly legal to photograph in a public
place.

Settled
 

"Savageduck" wrote in message
...
On 2015-03-11 00:17:29 +0000, Bill W said:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:54:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2015/03/07/la-t...s-not-a-crime/

I wish the story had a lot more detail. I'd like to know what court
this was filed in, and if there was any court decision at all, or
just
an out of court settlement. The other issue is that it also sounds
like the named situations could be taken as homeland security
concerns. There is no question that cops in some places, including
where I live, have become violent with people photographing them
during police activity. That certainly needs to stop, but I don't
think anything will completely stop this sort of thing when there is
a
homeland security excuse.

There is no Court judgement here and no landmark ruling applicable
elsewhere in the USA. This was settled by the L.A. County Board of
Supervisors after the case was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California. They mae their decision to settle
on a cost assessment rather than spending to defend a lost case in
Court. LA County won this round at a very low cost.
There was never a judge or jury involved, and I doubt that any of the
parties made it into a Court room.

This only has an effect on the LASD. No other agencies, including LAPD
have to abide with any part of this settlement. I suspect that it is
going to take a real Court decision to get some meat behind the issue
of photographer's rights.

...and this is no guarantee of compliance by any LASD Deputy. Whenever
that incident occurs we might be headed back to Court.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Do we really need a court decision to bolster the fact that it is legal
to photograph in public as well as to photograph police officers
performing their duty as long as one doesn't interfere? What will it
take for people who took an oath to defend the Constitution and the law
to actually protect people's rights and to know the law before they try
to enforce it? These types of incidents happen over and over again,
I've seen it up close myself. All the training and memos don't seem to
stop this abuse.

Settled
 

| It's a strange place we have come to when legal activity becomes
| suspicious activity. It is perfectly legal to photograph in a public
| place.
|

Interesting issue. It's certainly a problem when
police don't think the public should be able to see
them at work. On the other hand, I find it unsettling
that whenever I'm in public someone might be taking
a picture from their cellphone. It makes me glad that
my reckless youth is behind me. :)

Of course it's always been possible to have one's
picture taken in public, but in the past it was far
more obvious and far less ubiquitous. Someone pointing
a camera at scantily clad bathers, for instance, would
be obvious. Someone walking buy carrying their cellphone
is not obvious.

I think I remember a law being passed in Japan that
requires a click sound when a photo is taken with a cellphone,
so that it can't easily be done surreptitiously. Perhaps more
laws like that will be developed.

Another angle: What about the young men aiming
their cellphones up the skirts of women on escalators?
Those women are in public and I don't think it's
illegal for those men to squat down, pretending to
tie their shoelace while they look up. So how is it
illegal to simply click their cellphone camera in a public
place, on an escalator? If a woman wears a skirt, does she
somehow get legal protection against anyone seeing
underneath it? Again, this wasn't much of an issue back
when photos required cameras. Taking photos up skirts
would have pretty much required harassment. But now
it can be done with no one noticing. It may well
be time that some kind of compromise has to be found
between public freedom and personal privacy.

And as always, I guess the time-tested advice holds
true: Make sure you wear clean underwear when you
go out, in case you get into a car accident and passersby
take photos of you being put into the ambulance. :)