If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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?... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chat! & Marry Homely, Well Settled Indian Girls & Boys | andhralo3 | Digital Photography | 0 | April 9th 08 09:49 AM |
Settled on D40x, now what? | Mark Katz | Digital Photography | 4 | September 20th 07 05:53 PM |
Sun vs Kodak : they settled! | Mike Henley | 35mm Photo Equipment | 13 | October 11th 04 03:48 PM |