You can't even take pictures at a public city beach anymore?

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
JohnCM wrote:
Gee, three obnoxious people and you indict the whole country? You are
in for some ugly shocks if you travel widely. I took 470 shots while on
vacation this year, and no one complained about any of them, even though
some of them might have been of interest to a terrorist. I rather
suspect that some paranoid people decided you were up to no good and
accosted you. Why didn't you offer to let them look at the pictures and
judge for themselves? Or maybe you didn't want to do that for cause?

Regardless of whether he was really taking pictures of their girlfriends, he
has every right to do so. He doesn't have to show them shiite.

Clyde Torres

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:


Why didn't you offer to let them look at the pictures and
judge for themselves?


Because his pictures are none of their business. He doesn't have to
prove he didn't take pictures. And even if he did take pictures ...
it's perfectly legal.


Or maybe you didn't want to do that for cause?


"If you're not with us, you're against us."


His pictures of THEM are their business, if they didn't want them taken.
More likely they thought he was spending more time taking pictures in
their direction than was reasonable (their definition), and felt
invaded. Imagine how celebrities feel about such things, and then apply
that to ordinary people, who also probably were somewhat judgement
impaired at the time.
He is lucky nothing violent happened. I would have offered to let them
see the pictures, and delete any they didn't feel were appropriate.
Most people don't realize that deleted pictures can be recovered if no
more at taken after the deletion....

That would be nice of you.
But there is no law requiring one to be "nice."
I'm all for being nice, and reasonable, but let's not confuse that with what
is legally appropriate.
When visiting public places, you have no right to force others to shoot
around you, and you definintely do not have a right to demand anything when
they take any picture which inclucdes you unless it is a public bathroom or
dressing room, etc. where privacy is assumed.
There is no legal assmption of privacy in open, public places.

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Matt Ion wrote:

JohnCM wrote:

"look me in the eye, I know what you're doing, taking pictures of
girls on the beach undressing". I then said "so what, it's a public
beach and I have every right to take pictures". He continues to
verbally assault me, and threaten to call the cops.


See right there, I woulda told him to go ahead, call the cops... that's
enough to shut up most of these loudmouths. Cops showing up is the LAST
thing they really want.

I would have whipped out the cell phone and called them FOR him.

I did something similar to that, though it wasn't photography related.
It's funny how quickly people shrivel when their bluff is called.

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:Y8iYc.110734$Lj.36076@fed1read03...
There has never been a denial that Bush said, "I am a zombie from the
planet
Zig-Zag" either, but that doesn't mean, imply or prove that he said it, or
that he is a zombie.
I'd suggest you read Woodward's book, and perhaps you'll see that your
favorite little "source" is full of crap.

If George Bush had actually said that, and had Woodward actually quoted
him
as saying that, it would be on literally thousands of legitimate
web-pages,
and discussed to death on the web, as well as every single media outlet on
planet Earth.
There is ZIP.
NOTHING.
Does this tell you anything, or do I have to spell it out for you further?

Thank you, Mr. Mark, for pointing out this obvious thing that people take
things on the internet literally and with total confidence that it is true.
There is so much crap on the internet, and I wonder all the time why people
put such faith in it. Most things deserve scrutiny, and people just don't
do it.

Clyde Torres

writes:

Legally he can defend her maybe by asking politely not to take
pictures of her.

Defend her against what?

Wrong -- someone needs to think of who's at the top, setting
the tone that says anyone doing anything that some psychotic might
consider "strange and maybe even dangerous" should be labeled a
potential terrorist.

What happens if that same logic is _applied_ to the top?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

That would depend on what he took, and how. No, he didn't HAVE to show
them anything, but it might have defused the situation. Or not.

Defusing a situation by throwing away one's rights is a bad long-term
strategy.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

His pictures of THEM are their business, if they didn't want them taken.

Not in public. One of the rights you relinquish when you go into public
and mingle with the rest of society is the right to prohibit having your
picture taken. In many cases and jurisdictions, you also relinquish the
right to forbid publication of your image as well.

More likely they thought he was spending more time taking pictures in
their direction than was reasonable (their definition), and felt
invaded.

They can always leave the beach. If they want privacy, a public beach
isn't the place to find it.

Imagine how celebrities feel about such things, and then apply
that to ordinary people, who also probably were somewhat judgement
impaired at the time.

The same rules apply to everyone.

He is lucky nothing violent happened.

So are the people who were arguing with him. Prison is an unpleasant
place.

I would have offered to let them see the pictures, and delete any
they didn't feel were appropriate.

Would you have offered to lick their boots as well? What other rights
would you have been willing to hand over to them?

Most people don't realize that deleted pictures can be recovered if no
more at taken after the deletion....

Most people don't realize that if you don't defend your rights, you lose
them.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

If you want to be 'dead right', go ahead, but trying to work
your way out of a threatening situation by giving a little
and trying to be reasonable makes a LOT more sense to me.

It's a cowardly way to live, if it requires giving up your rights.

Of course a fully loaded Glock 9mm would also help.

So might makes right?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

Pretty cynical, aren't you?

No, just reviewing the historical record.

I figure that if I become paranoid because of terrorists, then they have
won. I refuse to give them that victory. I will not modify my way of
living to accomodate them.

But you'll modify your behavior if someone yells at you in a scary way,
even to the extent of handing over your rights.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Matt Ion writes:

See right there, I woulda told him to go ahead, call the cops...

That's what I've actually done, and it works amazingly well.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.