I get worried any time the government is going to dictate what photographers can and can't take pictures of - even when the intent is good.
I remember seeing, in the 1950's and 1960's, these tiny micro "spy" cameras for sale. They were about the size of a matchbox, and used 8mm film.
The only thing that has really changed is the medium and the proliferation of computers and Internet access.
Human behavior has not changed, and probably never will.
Stanley has a good point. I'd forgotten about those little Minox spy cameras. This is a 1950's version, and believe it or not this camera is still available from Minox (http://www.minox-web.de). They also make mini night scopes that can fit in the palm of your hand and a mini digital called the DD100 that is smaller than a cell phone.
He's also absolutely right when he says "Human behavior has not changed, and probably never will."
Is this going to affect clothing magazines at all?(ie "Victoria's secret" or "Sports Illistrated") If not then it probably won't affect the regular photographer who has his subject's consent. If it does there will be some serious call from the magazine industry as well as the clothing industry and maybe we won't have to worry about it butI still thinnk that putting hte word reasonable in the law s a bad idea. there are some odd ideas of reasonable out there.
nope i do not think they should be such a law as that here have never hear of anything like that ever befor in my life here as i just had seen here.and think they should not come up with such law .folk who take take pic never do thing like that.David
Since I am unaware of what current laws protect people from paparazzi type interference, I will concede that a new legislation may be necessary. I think that this, like the majority of issues, is a state or local issue and should not be the concern of the federal government.
The issue is basic: can someone invade your privacy, capturing an immodest moment or perspective?
Basic common decency, morals, manners, consideration, and respect demand that we would respect other's privacy. A hundred years ago, any common man would defend the honor and virtue of any woman, family or not. As society has degenerated for many decades now, apparently we have degenerated to a point where this has become a problem. Rather than defending and protecting women, some people tend to exploit them.
This degeneration can affect the public trust of the profession of photography. I am not saying that your average person with a camera phone or point-and-shoot digital is a "photographer" any more than a person who rents a Rider truck is a "truck driver". However, if, as enthusiasts and professionals, we do not monitor our perception as being lumped in with these voyeur opportunists, and possibly offer our "professional" solutions to these dilemmas, then we'll forfeit our right to shape solutions, and yes, legislation, to affect change for the better.
I dislike giving any level of government extra laws to restrict my liberties, but if we defend, condone, or fail to acknowledge that people are feeling a great violation of their privacy by these acts, then we are welcoming outside governmental interference that I am sure will overstep its bounds from time to time.
Finally, your question: "is there really any such thing as 'a reasonable expectation of privacy' anywhere outside of your own home?" Of course there is. Let the person or object be your guide. If he/she is dressed modestly, or the car/house is locked, or if your wouldn't want those pictures of your mother, sister, or daughter circulated, let these be your guide. Would you be proud to show that portfolio to your preacher? ;-) I think this issue is more black and white than many are willing to admit. Don't seek a vast grey area that "pushes boundaries." You're only deceiving yourself.
It is time for a change in Congress. Let's get rid of the ultra-conservatives who keep bringing us one wingnut idea after another.
I believe that the camera, phone or likewise mounted, is but a tool. The ruling should be on the issue of perverse and what is considered decent, not on photography
Under the Patriot Act, it is illegal to take or possess images of any buildings designated as “military targets” and it is illegal to “case” any federal facility. Under the same act, they can arrest you, take away your cellphone camera and toss you in a military brig with no Habeas Corpus rights if they so want to. Just because you walked by a Natl, Guard armory with your cellphone camera in your hand.
No these laws are increadibly misguided - as is the "reasonable expectation to disrobe in privacy". What is the big deal about Americans and nudity? The range of what humans find erotic is so broad, that it is quite possible that even a fully clothed image of someone will be enough to stimulate the voyeur.
Violation of privacy is already trespass (unless of course done in the name of Homeland Security) - so there really is no need for this new law.
This is another example of the continuing erosion of freedom and liberty of the American citizen. Regardless of who may be in office, R or D, the constant growth of the Federal (and many state) governments is turning this country into apolice state. It is really the frog in the cold - then hot water routine.
This proposal, and so much else, must be resisted.
[By the way, growth of government(s) is not measured by the number of employees, as Owl Bore tried to make us think, it is measured in degrees of freedom]!
Freedom can be taken away through revolution or evolution.
I've been around enough years now to have seen many things slip away little by little, one little law at a time. The justification for each little step always sounds sensible. But looking back over forty years at what each of those little steps amounted to can be frightening.
I look at the Patriot Act and Bush's latest laws concerning travel to Cuba and I cringe. This newest law regarding Cuba gives the Coast Guard the right to confiscate your boat and put you in jail if they "think you might be contemplating travel to Cuba." An important line has been crossed. You don't have to commit the crime. The government just has to think you might and they can put you in jail!
I don't want to sound like an alarmist, but between "the war on drugs" and the "war on terrorism" we have lost many basic freedoms.
Should we protect women from harrassment. Absolutely. But we need to be very cautious about HOW we do so. The most frightening thing about this new law is there are no protections placed in the law to protect legitimate photographers from prosecution or persecution. This law could be used by a right wing prosecutor to harrass a legitiamte photographer whose content he objects to. It doesn't really matter if he gets a conviction. Once someone is pulled into the system they're in a living hell for over a year.
I wonder how many of your readers against this bill are for legislation against gun ownership, for gun manufacturers liability, etc. Point is, everybody is against someone else's freedoms until their sacred ox is gored. I totally agree anytime the U.S. Government gets involved in anything, we are going to lose freedoms and be subject to frivilous proscecution whether we be photographers, gun owners, cell phone owners, internet users, etc. Problem is there are those who will always abuse any freedom and right, and they must be dealt with. What a problem, huh???
I am against Congress getting involved with photography. People have to learn to respect other people's privacy. This may never happen, but it sure would be nice.
Whoever,in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent,and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year,or both.
I think the key words in the law are "without their consent". What does that mean? Must the consent be written and signed? Is there any expectation that people most of the time give verbal consent only? Possibly a law that is more precisely defined could one day be passed, I would be shocked if this one is.
This is just another problem of attorney fees and the courts becoming over-burden with more cases (look how long it takes to get a dispute resolved now). The attorneys make money, the courts make money through the fines, and the poor victim has to pay if the case is thrown out. Laws don't assure one on invasion of privacy, unless you can be prepared to go through the hassle of being exposed to more pain and financial burden trying to safeguard and prove your rights (not always judged in your favor). Something is very wrong in our total judicial system in this country...as much as I am an All American Patriot, I have to make this a firm statement. So I say "Let us try and resolve this problem in another way, and not put more money into the Trial Judge Attorneys' hands that are eager to make a quick buck!" Nancy H
I'm always surprised at how many people are opposed to laws that simply ask you to behave rationally and normally.
Don't use your camera in a bad way and thsi law shouldn;'t concern you. Taking pictures, even in a studio, that mimic illeagal behavior is wrong and we all know it.
Behave yourself and you have no reason to fear ANY law.
Do regulations by Congress include regulation of photography within the military, such as the guards in the Abu Ghraib Prison? (note: I am not, by any means, intending to start a firestorm of commentary about this subject. I am merely bringing up a topic of great importance in the news recently, which deals with photography of a voyeuristic nature.)
An attempt at regulation is part of the same hare-brained thinking that blames guns, drugs, cigarettes, fast food, alcohol, digital cameras, or cars for the world's problems. All of these items are merely items, inanimate objects which require human interaction for operation. When these objects are used improperly, it is the gun manufacturers who are responsible for gun-related deaths. Or fast-food companies who are responsible for extremely obese people. Or cigarettes for lung cancer, etc. etc.
The same fingers used to operate a shutter can certainly operate a voting device in November!
Having read the bill as posted on the link, it clearly states it applies to images taken without consent. Any concern about images taken to have a certain "appearance" should be well covered by a model release. Ipersonally see no ig issue with it. P.S. to Evan, Your attitude seems to imply that ANY law the government wants to pass is ok with you and we just need to follow it blindly and we will be ok. Even the founding fathers saw the potential,(if not the eventual probability!) for abuse and tyranny by government and made provisions for the people to protect themselves from it. As a matter of fact that is the primary reason for the seciond ammendment. We all need to be vigilant about the laws our governments pass.
My answer to those who dislike any nudity on the front page is to save the contents page in your favorites....no photos,just text.
The issue with the camera phones is just the tip of the iceberg....hope I'm wrong. Do we need this legislation?
Perhaps....even if it passes the ACLU will be right there to protect the rights of pervs to photograph your wife or child or Aunt Hattie in the fitting room at the local supercenter...
Once again, I hope I'm wrong....I can see it now....SALE on 8 Megapixel phone cams at your local Adult supercenter...get yours now!...I really hope I'm wrong on this one!
You folks are doing a great job....if you weren't,you wouldn't get so much negative feedback!
The idea that if "you behave yourself" you have no reason to fear any law is nonsense. How about the dozens of people who have been released from death row or prison once DNA evidence showed that they had been wrongly convicted.
Look also at the laws in Virginia that prevent introduction of evidence that may clear a person of a crime after a certain time period has passed since the person's conviction. Anyone who has been wrongly convicted should certainly fear those laws.
I am extremely leery of any legislation that extends the grounds for prosecution into the relm of personal behavior. I think that such laws are almost always abused.
I see this not as a photography issue but as a technology issue. These people are hardly photographers, even if they do use a "camera" in their cell phones.
None of these people have model releases, so technically they're already violating photography law. They're breaking privacy law, but you have to catch them at it first. Many are breaking pornography law but the question becomes one of jurisdiction.
I don't like the government butting in, but the internet and cell phone communications are like the wild west these days - anything goes till the sheriff comes to town. People are going to keep pushing the envelope to have their way (sales or use) until someone draws the line.
I don't think real photographers are in any danger, there's already a body of law supporting us. But if any of us are sneaking around shooting up skirts without knowledge or permission, we deserve to be punished not to hide behind "artistic freedom".
I think that we don't need Uncle Sam to be involved in our privicy, as it erodes or freedom. Freedom is what our country was born on, and fought for.
i think the cell phones are pretty good t have its handy having a built in camera and stuff like that because its good for mobile cameras cause most people wont carry around there camera but they take there cell phone so its good
I think that it is good idea to pass new law for new devices because the new devices bring new oppurtunity for exploytation and protect the unsespecting individual.
I think that it is good idea to pass new law for new devices because the devices bring oppurtunity for exploytation and protect the unsespecting individual.
I think that it is good idea to pass new law for new devices because the devices bring oppurtunity for exploitation and protect the unsespecting individual.
So! What's new? There've always been sickos out there. I agree that criminal activity whould be prosecuted. But there is even criminal invasion of privacy. There is a case being tried here in my home town where a man was caught using a camera to take pictures of women in the rest room of a local park. I don't think that it is wrong to make it a criminal act to take pictures of people in compromising situations without consent. It's that simple. We need to consider, debate, and define what is appropriate behavior just as we have had debates defining obscenity laws. These, however, usually do not go far enough to protect the populace from predators.
NO WAY!!!!!!! Any such law would surely be abused and would be aimed at retaliation against some person for some other reason. That would also mean that securty cameras would have to go and they serve a purpose in banks, stores, the mall, casinos because whose to say the operators of those cameras would not misuse them such as zooming in on women's bodies. Congress needs to stay out of it. This would clearly volate the First Amendment of freedom of expression. People have to accept the fact that if they go out into the public they ARE going to be photogrhed whether it be by a security camera or someone else. So if there is anything you don't want people to see--cover up. Wear a Berka.
Listen up People.... I am a straight man with genitals. A woman can really distruct me using her body as a gun... Is it ethical when women come out in public to provoke through their extreme transparent clothes? Its their right you want to say. We live in a free society. I agree. So it is also my right to capture things in my mind, draw it on a paper, or use a device as a tool to help me draw it on a paper. I also have the right to share my experiances with others. The right of Free Speech. I touch nobody. I use my camera as a tool for this expression. An expression of the ERECTION I got from that bitch..... Thats it. You have the right to show your body, to play with boys, to burn your colleagues or your boss, BUT I also have the right to Escape from your seduction by any means!!! Thankz
I think that anybody using a camera phone or any camera at all to do something like use it for up-skirting photo's or putting it under or up a women's skirt,i think would be wrong.then again if they give us technology like people will misuse it for what they think is fun
up-skirting with camera phones and camera's i think is pretty awesome!
Even in the case of upskirts there is no harm done these are just a bunch of feminist who don't wanna give anyone any gratification including a visual one. Women wanna control sex and who gets it. No freebies well to bad technologig is catching up . If they are that concerned mybe they should were a meka and scarfs... otherwise oups...
I don't think the government should get involved. I thought taking pictures of people who are out in public places was perfectly okay. When people are in places where there is an expectation of privacy like bathrooms or dressing rooms then there should be no cameras allowed, security or otherwise. As for a woman wearing a skirt who unknowingly gets "upskirted", I think that's sick and the guy would deserve at least a sharp kick in the tender bits, but legislating a law about it. No.
cGXta7 <a href="http://heeahwnswjvg.com/">heeahwnswjvg</a>, [url=http://jigvskamplwj.com/]jigvskamplwj[/url [link=http://fyxfizhdxonv.com/]fyxfizhdxonv[/link http://mnoftgvqqhrv.com/
Teens porn cams is the best, my fat dick is hard of until I may plop in her wet pussy Are You in searching to free webcam you are on the good site for the hottest porn! We are enjoy porn cams because it's beautiful with a naughty girls that like's porn cams Our http://www.mangaspot.com/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=39026 amateur go to your all the way! There are usually different of webcam women . But Mr transvestites you can find !!
Y6ew5Q <a href="http://kndcxblvrlpm.com/">kndcxblvrlpm</a>, [url=http://mtushfkcsljs.com/]mtushfkcsljs[/url [link=http://nazazriyaoop.com/]nazazriyaoop[/link http://qucnhhrmnnlr.com/
tCTMdP <a href="http://egijbmwvfkwk.com/">egijbmwvfkwk</a>, [url=http://epxepoqhjtak.com/]epxepoqhjtak[/url [link=http://zlvodbyztwms.com/]zlvodbyztwms[/link http://gyqxvryoanpu.com/
7ftf3V <a href="http://eywicojlnlfy.com/">eywicojlnlfy</a>, [url=http://erdrhujchqbs.com/]erdrhujchqbs[/url [link=http://fapatnszdgid.com/]fapatnszdgid[/link http://zvbyevnppbrx.com/
http://diflucan-used.initso.one.pl/index.html|buy cheap aldactone http://order-detrol.initso.one.pl/index.html|hoodia liquid thin http://diet-doctor.initso.one.pl/index.html|eloan phentermine viagra xanax http://effects-side.initso.one.pl/index.html|cheap day delivery next phentermine http://tramadol-dream.naidins.one.pl/index.html|buy tramadol now http://discount-rumalaya.initso.one.pl/index.html|synthroid medication dosages http://cravings-hoodia.naidins.one.pl/index.html|breast enhancement man http://zyban-medication.naidins.one.pl/index.html|hoodia review smartburn http://buy-cheap.naidins.one.pl/index.html|cephalexin use http://order-liv.naidins.one.pl/index.html|xanax abuse http://prednisone-asthm.naidins.one.pl/index.html|accomplia http://discount-ultimate.initso.one.pl/index.html|discount sarafem http://dosage-melatonin.naidins.one.pl/index.html|avodart dutasteride http://cephalexin-entry.naidins.one.pl/index.html|viagra sale online http://ambien-abuse.initso.one.pl/index.html|breast denver enhancement http://hcl-mg.initso.one.pl/index.html|blog cheap synthroid trackback url http://amount-drug.naidins.one.pl/index.html|breast enhancement plastic surgery http://cable-href.initso.one.pl/index.html|augmentin effects side http://discount-male.naidins.one.pl/index.html|medication protonix used http://archive-breast.initso.one.pl/index.html|buy cheap accupril http://adipex-phentermi.naidins.one.pl/index.html|online purchase xanax http://buy-viagra.initso.one.pl/index.html|antidepressant effexor time released http://discount-tramadol.initso.one.pl/index.html|15 mg mobic http://green-in.naidins.one.pl/index.html|canada pharmacy phentermine http://lawyer-louisiana.naidins.one.pl/index.html|cephalexin 500mg http://bad-effects.initso.one.pl/index.html|lamisil digger http://buspar-zoloft.initso.one.pl/index.html|sinusitis zithromax http://discount-rythmol.initso.one.pl/index.html|prednisone medication side effects http://affect-lipitor.naidins.one.pl/index.html|co q10 dosage ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.blackplanet.com/your_page/blog/view_posting.html?pid=417293 http://www.blackplanet.com/your_page/blog/view_posting.html?pid=417294 http://www.blackplanet.com/your_page/blog/view_posting.html?pid=417297 http://www.blackplanet.com/your_page/blog/view_posting.html?pid=417298 http://www.blackplanet.com/your_page/blog/view_posting.html?pid=417300 http://www.blackplanet.com/your_page/blog/view_posting.html?pid=417301 http://www.blackplanet.com/your_page/blog/view_posting.html?pid=417302