Re: [Leica] "Privacy"

["Dan Post" <dwpost@email.msn.com>]

I agree with Marc here. If you go about in public, on the public way, and
especially on the steps of a public building as was the case of the
courthouse steps, it seems to me that that there is an abrogation of any
expectation of 'privacy'. This is what I think our law states. Just as you
put your trash on the street, you surrender any expectation of privacy. I
would think that here in the US that putting your trash on the street, and
your butt on a courthouse stoop would both be under the umbra of the same
concept of law.
Of course, comparing Us law to Quebecois law is like comparing apples to
oranges, or Leicas to the "N" word cameras ( this makes it an official LUG
post!)
If that is the way of our neighbors to the North, so be it. I am reminded of
YUPPIE hikers who dress up in their L.L.Bean togs, their Doc Martin boots,
North Face backpacks and go into a wilderness area, only to have a member of
the party eaten by a grizzly bear. Such wails of woe, and why can't we be
protected from these hazards!? They never realize that if you insert
yourself into the food chain of another environment, you have to expect
risks... sorta like 'when in Rome do as the Romans...."
If that is the law there, I guess I'll spend my tourist dollars elsewhere!
Dan'l
dwpost@msn.com
- -----Original Message-----
From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] "Privacy"

>At 03:51 PM 4/12/98 EDT, Dave Y wrote:
>> Dan, if you don't already you should be living in one of these antisocial
>>gated communities that have spread like a lesions thruought Southern
>>California. Yes, privacy is a right that belongs to the public, LIKE THE
>RIGHT
>>TO  A FREE PRESS. The right to a free press doesn't belong to the
journalist,
>>it belongs to the public, and you need to protect it. But you would see it
>>gone for such a silly reason.
>> Being photographed does you no harm. The publication of the photograph
does
>>you no harm. Such litigious, selfish attitudes will be the downfall of us
>all.
>
>
>Just a second, here.  The right to privacy AND the right to free speech are
>equal rights;  privacy isn't subordinate to free speech.  And harm is a
>subjective factor, not a universal:  I am the only one who can judge how
>deeply an intrusion into my privacy harms me, not you, not the government.
>To concede the right to assess "harm" to the government is as silly as
>granting them the power to decide what guns I may own and to pass judgement
>on my reasons for owning them.
>
>The enquiry shouldn't be directed at 'privacy' versus 'free speech'.
>Rather, the proper enquiry is whether we surrender our right to privacy
>when we stick our ugly snouts into a public venue and, on this point, I
>believe we do surrender any residual claim to privacy.
>
>Libertas floreat, guys!
>
>Marc
>
>
>msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
>