On 2009-05-21, MIG wrote:

As was alluded to elsewhere, taking a snap doesn't really get a person
any closer to being able to target a particular child.

CCTV, on the other hand, does. Any low-paid worker in CCTV control
can spot a child waiting with a football kit bag at the same corner
every week and learn enough (to sell to whoever) to be able to say
"your dad's blue Mondeo broke down and he asked me to pick you up from
football; he said you won last week" etc etc.

So why all the fuss about taking snaps and not about the fact that
CCTV is a genuine threat to your children? Bizarre.

I suppose because CCTV seems impersonal: you don't see the person
"behind" the camera. That's irrational, of course; you can see the
photographer and judge whether he looks respectable, whereas you can't
tell whether there's a drooling menace in the surveillance room.

"Miles Bader" wrote in message
...
Tony Polson writes:
Photographing other people's children has only relatively recently been
considered "entirely unacceptable".

I know there are insane and/or stupid people like the "distressed" woman
in the story, and one can never know what bizarre charges they will
bring -- but one shouldn't make generalizations based on the actions of
the extreme fringe. Is it really the case that merely taking a picture
of a child on the street is "socially unacceptable"?


Does "socially unacceptable" = "illegal" ?!?!

Envo

"Envo" writes:
Is it really the case that merely taking a picture of a child on the
street is "socially unacceptable"?

Does "socially unacceptable" = "illegal" ?!?!

Obviously not. Why do you ask?

-Miles

--
History, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are
brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

"Envo" wrote:
"Miles Bader" wrote in message
...
Tony Polson writes:
Photographing other people's children has only relatively recently been
considered "entirely unacceptable".

I know there are insane and/or stupid people like the "distressed" woman
in the story, and one can never know what bizarre charges they will
bring -- but one shouldn't make generalizations based on the actions of
the extreme fringe. Is it really the case that merely taking a picture
of a child on the street is "socially unacceptable"?


Does "socially unacceptable" = "illegal" ?!?!


It depends on how "unacceptable" it is. That's more or less the basis
of the Common Law, I think you will find.

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 05:55:46PM +0100, Adam Funk wrote:

I suppose because CCTV seems impersonal: you don't see the person
"behind" the camera. That's irrational, of course; you can see the
photographer and judge whether he looks respectable, whereas you can't
tell whether there's a drooling menace in the surveillance room.

And respectable-looking people never do anything wrong, do they:

http://www.biography.com/notorious/i...ld-shipman.jpg

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

Wow, my first sigquoting! I feel so special now!
-- Dan Sugalski

On May 22, 1:10*pm, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 05:55:46PM +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
I suppose because CCTV seems impersonal: you don't see the person
"behind" the camera. *That's irrational, of course; you can see the
photographer and judge whether he looks respectable, whereas you can't
tell whether there's a drooling menace in the surveillance room.

And respectable-looking people never do anything wrong, do they:

http://www.biography.com/notorious/i...ld-shipman.jpg

Please can you not post photographs of Tony Polson to the group?
kthxbye

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Photography is more than just a hobby for many people, and can be a lucrative career. There are different areas of photography you can work in, with wedding photography as one of the most popular. Wedding photography can be incredibly stressful, as you get hired to capture memories for the most special day of a couple's lives. They are not going to get this day back, and are expecting you to take beautiful pictures they can treasure forever.