Luke_Y
Member
And I will admit that on the internet, when presented with a lack of smilies or qualifying statements, I am apt to interpret things literally. It's certainly an imperfect form of communication engaged in by imperfect people, myself included.
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
Man Who Was Arrested for Filming Police with Phone Settles for $170,000.
Link Here.
Just thought I would add this to the conversation.
cheers,
db
Link Here.
Just thought I would add this to the conversation.
cheers,
db
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Here's a foolish prediction. Forgive the hyperbole.
Within 3 years... street photography as we know it, unless taken by licensed professionals, will be curtailed to the point where the hobbyist will be limited to shooting family members, pets and back yard BBQ's, for the sake of Homeland Security of course. :bang:
It's my opinion that the camera is rather more of a threat to authority than guns are in these times.
Within 3 years... street photography as we know it, unless taken by licensed professionals, will be curtailed to the point where the hobbyist will be limited to shooting family members, pets and back yard BBQ's, for the sake of Homeland Security of course. :bang:
It's my opinion that the camera is rather more of a threat to authority than guns are in these times.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Luckily there's more to photography than 'street!'
Not that I'm suggesting it wouldn't disgust me if it came to pass but seeing the only option left for hobbyists as pets, backyards and BBQs seems a little blinkered to me!
Obviously your comments were tongue in cheek but no doubt there would be people who may feel this way.
zauhar
Veteran
Randy, I certainly understand that. I have meet them as well. Just never had my civil rights violated by them.
I read the thread about Helen's unfortunate incident. While I feel that there must have been some misunderstanding on either her part or the officers part I am inclined to weigh her account much more heavily and give more "benefit of doubt" if you will to her, as it's first hand information being communicated in open discussion by the person involved. Somehow different than what we have here...
There was a good bit of bias, bigotry, and hatemongering in that thread as well, but not on her part. There was a bit of balance too, and her participation I did not post as I felt I had nothing to add to the discussion.
I will not likely be drawn into another discussion on this topic either. I don't know how I let myself this time. :bang:
Lets talk about photography and cameras
Well said - I also tend to get drawn into heated discussions more than I should.
On the positive side, I can argue with people and have no harsh feelings in the end.
Randy
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Myanmar, Syria, Libya (before/during the Arab Spring uprising), Iran, Northern Mexico (threat from cartels not necessarily law enforcement).
Don't forget that around the world in nations other than those listed above and even here in the US there have been enforced prohibitions on photography at various times in the past.
Specifically, there is NO protection for photographers be they journalists or hobbyists. Look at the SCOTUS. Photography is strictly prohibited while the court is in session yet it is the most publicly accessible (with respect to general security, waiting in line, etc) and represents the very interests of the public that we're discussing here. Same goes for every Federal court at the other two levels.
The medium of photography is not protected at all in any public place because there are other ways to report on the news. So be careful. It's technically not your right, it a privilege.
Phil Forrest