Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004

[FrankB]

Just a quick response to the station posts from Les and Andy; I've had a couple of shoots at one of the stations in Wigan (with a tripod). I've always asked permission from the station master (just on the "private property" principle) and never had any problems getting it. However, the last shoot was a year ago and I don't know what the answer would be now...

Funnily (or not) enough, I was shooting in the entryway to the building where I work this lunchtime for the APUG anniversary shoot. Now, this is the Port of Liverpool Building and tourists wander through, merrily snapping, every day of the week. I've shot here three or four times before with no issue. *This* time however I get a security guard flapping around me asking whether the shots are for my own personal use, can I show him some ID, etc.

Normally I don't mind too much... However, on this occasion I simply told him that I worked in the building, asked tersely to be left in peace, mentioned the name of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company Buildings Manager and watched him beat a very rapid retreat!

Score one for the snappers!

 

[removed account4]

dr bob.

didn't the madmen who blew up the uss cole just have a tiny boat?

i too have been on secure military installations with a view camera documenting "stuff" for the state of maine. i was in the "enclosed ( highly restricted) area" both pre and post 9-11. the only difference i saw, aside from searching my car from top to bottom & even with a sniffer ( all post 9-11 ) was that a armed guard ran interference for me to make sure i wouldn't get asked for my ID every 40 seconds.

 

[jd callow]

I just returned from Canada -- there is a sane country in North America and it is not the states.

 

[dr bob]

Bob
Just look at your avatar. If that is not the picture of a terrorist I don't know what is. QUOTE]

Yeah, truculent ain’t it?
Thought about black silk...nah!

 

[anyte]

Anyte, the links posted show how recent new Laws already in place have already been severely abused. Those links were used as an example to show how this Bill, if it becomes Law, is open to abuse.

A one sided story of words is not proof of anything. Anyone can say their rights were violated, even if they did something wrong. Anyone embellish a story to gain sympathy.

Those links prove absolutely nothing to me.

 

[mark]

I just returned from Canada -- there is a sane country in North America and it is not the states.

I've spent a bit of time in Canada and have an aunt there who keeps me informed of their wackyness and I can definately say they Ain't sane. Much nicer and far less rude most of the time so their insanity does not stick out as much.

 

[blansky]

Interesting article

http://www.iht.com/articles/537338.html

 

[bjorke]

They aren't going to bring about an end to street photography - it's all used in the news, magazines, and art. Any one who thinks different isn't thinking.

Please tell that to the two street photographers in Chatanooga who were arrested and currently awaiting grand jury arraignment. Their sin: openly using digital cameras (nothing sneeky, no phone cams or hidden buttons) to photograph people at a crowded public fair.

See http://www.photopermit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13

 

[mobtown_4x5]

jesus whatta mess. They need to go after the local news people there with a good attorney. Maybe you could take up a collection on your website?

Matt

 

[mark]

Interesting article

http://www.iht.com/articles/537338.html

I guess there is no sexual inequality among martyrs. Though you would think women would have more compassion. Another styereotype blown to hell. Evil exists in all forms.

Now before anyone gets pissy with me and this is all I am going to say. Children, or innocent people should never die an intentionally violent death, ever, no matter what the circumstances . Whether the perpetrator is an american president, a palestinian, an isreali, A "freedom Fighter", a terrorist or anyone else who feels they need to kill anyone to make a ****ing point! Don't these people realize that those who are giving the orders are not the ones blowing themselves up. And I don't give a damn if it is their job. Goddamnit what the hell is happening in this world? I have the daily job of explaining to children why other children in the world are getting killed because some ******* adult felt their goddamned belief or need out weighed the life of a child, or mother, or father who just wanted to go about their business.

Sorry about the language Sean.

 

[Flotsam]

Please tell that to the two street photographers in Chatanooga who were arrested and currently awaiting grand jury arraignment. Their sin: openly using digital cameras (nothing sneeky, no phone cams or hidden buttons) to photograph people at a crowded public fair.

That case is just bizarre. They weren't even charged with anything to do with photography. Stalking and Illegal Observation? There is something totally out of whack there.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It is so strange to watch people taking photographs with a cell phone, holding it up in the air at arm's length and looking at the screen as if they were receiving messages from outer space. I don't even own a cell phone, but maybe I'd get one if it took Minox film.

 

[anyte]

Please tell that to the two street photographers in Chatanooga who were arrested and currently awaiting grand jury arraignment. Their sin: openly using digital cameras (nothing sneeky, no phone cams or hidden buttons) to photograph people at a crowded public fair.

See http://www.photopermit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13

Isn't that just their side of the story? That's not enough for me to decide whether they have been wrongly charged.

 

[Andy K]

Please tell that to the two street photographers in Chatanooga who were arrested and currently awaiting grand jury arraignment. Their sin: openly using digital cameras (nothing sneeky, no phone cams or hidden buttons) to photograph people at a crowded public fair.

See http://www.photopermit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13

This may or may not be an abuse. It is difficult to comment from the accounts given.

However, I did notice the mention of shooting with something called 'burst mode'. Never having used digital I'm guessing this is a function where the camera takes many shots in a short time? Like using a fast motor drive for multiple exposures? Why? Was it a fast moving festival?

Perhaps if they had been using 35mm SLRs and only had one or two frames of individuals they would not be in it quite so deep now.

 

[Skyguy]

This latest stupidy, coupled with the Homeland Stupidity Act put all of us in the USA in danger. Tourists, street photographers, LF architectural/scenic shooters & anyone with a camera. All are at the mercy of the paranoid idiots with badges. No pretext is too small for them to stop & harass you. Photograph the subway, power lines or a normal street scene & you might find yourself subject to arrest. All it takes on one bad cop... and there are a hell of a lot more than one of them out there. Welcome to the USASSR

Agreed. If you are in a public place, anything your camera is able to capture is fair game, regardless of the content or whether or not the subject is aware or agrees.

 

[Skyguy]

As I understand it, the cell-phone digital camera idiots prompted this law. They were taking photos of women in gyms and other such places and then emailing them or uploading them. I think, rather than the Video Voyerism law, we need one simply authorizing us to shoot people doing such stuff, and also shoot people who are talking on a cell phone while driving.
juan

Good points regarding improper use of a cellphone in the locker room and behind the wheel (the driving being the far worse of the two). However, proponents of this awful bill should note that photography of this sort potentially violates a number of existing laws. Let's concentrate on enforcement and proper interpretation of existing privacy laws.

 

[Skyguy]

This is nothing more than what has been needed. A law to prosecute doosh bags who walk around the mall with a video camera on the end of a cane or their shoe. Up until recently the law was on their side because there is no "assumption of privacy" in public areas. This is intended to keep my private parts, well, private. As the father of a little girl I welcome it. The defenitions are pretty clear.They will work in the best interest of the general public.
The Rat

As the father of two beautiful teenage girls, I expect them to dress and carry themselves appropriately; thus avoiding such possibilities. Honestly, the shoe phone guys don't disgust me nearly as much as the authors of this bill.

 

[rhphoto]

Dear Mr. Skyguy
This thread died 16 months ago. You just joined today. Welcome, and enjoy APUG. Current hot threads are in a link at the top right of the homepage.

 

[WarEaglemtn]

"You do NOT have a right to my likeness or my image. You have no right to my person or my body under any circumstance unless I give it to you first."

If you are in a public area, we do. Even if you are in your backyard & it is open to view from a public sidewalk, we do. You could argue about it if you were in your living room, but stand there with a big picture window where anyone walking by can look in and you will get an argument.

If we can see it, we can photograph it.