Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/05/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Weighing in on what is turning out to be a contentious issue. Gals and guys, they make little tiny helicopters that will carry something the size of a Nex 7 with more than thirty minutes flight time. If you can see out then someone can see in. There is no expectation of privacy anymore if you are visible to a public space and that is a three dimensional term then you are on display. Canon makes a 1200mm lens equivalent and I don't even know what Google earth uses although I believe resolution is measured in meters. However, I have a friend who consulted with the CIA in the sixties and he could ID individual rail car markings from arial imagery provided. Again, no matter what your personal feelings are, in the U.S. if you can be seen then you are fair game to be imaged. Now, if the imaging is used to inappropriately harm you then there are other items at play. But a gallery show where the only way you could be recognized is that you alway wear yellow knickers then good luck stopping that. Remember, in a law suit both lawyers want to be paid so the stakes have to be pretty big before you will interest the legal profession. Stakes could be monetary, political, constitutional, or a vendetta among other possibilities. Meanwhile, I will still continue to responsibly take pictures on the street of interesting things. On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Herbert Kanner <kanner at acm.org> wrote: > This is really an interesting question. The garden in front of the house > is fully visible from the street. Doesn't that mean there is no expectation > of privacy? Thus, is that different from photographing in a public place, > where both the subject and photographer are in said place? I'm not > questioning the ethical or moral aspect, just the legal one. > > Herbert Kanner > kanner at acm.org > 650-326-8204 > > Question authority and the authorities will question you. > > > > > On May 29, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Ken Carney <kcarney1 at cox.net> wrote: > > > Hi, Ted > > > > I was thinking of responding to Adam with the same line of thought, but > as > > usual you put it more succinctly and eloquently than I could. My wife > was > > working in a flower bed in the front of our house the other day, and > looked > > up to notice someone photographing her from a black Tahoe. I called our > > local PD, and after observing that a black Tahoe narrowed it down to a > few > > thousand suspects, the dispatcher did have some officers drive around > > looking for similar behavior. Never knew what it was about, of course. > > > > Hope all is well there, > > > > Ken > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org > > [mailto:lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > > tedgrant at shaw.ca > > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:35 PM > > To: Leica Users Group > > Subject: Re: [Leica] a photographer sued > > > > HELLO ADAM IN ANSWER: > > WITH IN MY 5 MINUTE COMPUTER TIME ALLOTMENT FOR EACH DAY: > > > > "HERE HERE ADAM AND AFTER YOU FINISH THE SPRAY CAN EFFECT. YOU HOLD > HIM/HER > > FOR ME WHILE I KICK ASS FOR A BLOCK OR TWO ALONG THE STREET." > > > > THEN SMASH EVERY BIT OF EQUIPMENT HE/SHE OWNS! > > > > THE PRIVACY OF OUR HOME IS SACRED, CERTAINLY IN THE USA & CANADA. I DON'T > > CARE WHAT THEY RESPECT IN ANY OTHER COUNTRIES........... HERE? BY GOD > DON'T > > POINT A CAMERA AT ME THROUGH A WINDOW OF MY HOME OR YOU WILL MOST > CERTAINLY > > WEAR THE CAMERA AND LENS WHERE IT REALLY REALLY HURTS! AND THE SUN DON'T > > SHINE!!!!!!!!! > > > > GOOD THAT FEELS BETTER!!! AND ALL WITH IN THE 5 MINUTE ALLOTMENT. ;-) > > > > CHEERS, > > Dr. ted > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Adam Bridge" <abridge at mac.com> > > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:50 PM > > Subject: Re: [Leica] a photographer sued > > > > > >> On May 28, 2013, at 8:57 AM, George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> If "privacy" were my "first concern" - my first response would be to > >>> acquire appropriate window shading. > >> > >> Really? You want to live in a cave do you? > >> > >> If this were about recorded conversations, or sounds, would we be having > >> this discussion at all?? If the final object were a CD of conversations > >> recorded by a laser bounced off a window I suspect we'd think a line was > >> crossed. > >> > >> But, no, it's a photographer - the pure of heart. Can't possibly be > >> something wrong photographing through the window of their HOME. There's > a > >> long history in the US, at least, that a home has special significance. > If > > > >> someone, say you, were standing on the sidewalk shooting through my > window > > > >> with a long lens you might be having a conversation with my local police > >> force very very soon. Or you'd meet Mr Spray Can of black paint which I > >> wouldn't hesitate to use. > >> > >> In crowded urban areas there should be profound resistance to these > sorts > >> of practices. Privacy is what enables us to live together. We don't have > >> to live behind blinds because some things simply should not be done. > >> > >> I hope the suit goes forward and kicks serious ass in court. Maybe next > >> time photographer and publisher will think a little bit before becoming > >> peeping toms. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- Don don.dory at gmail.com