Roger! Sorry. I see the words "right to privacy" in a different context so
often, that I went off "half cocked" resulting in a "flash in the pan."
(Need any other clichés?)
In general, no one should have an expectation of privacy in an open public
place - save the obvious "shoe cams" sometimes used by perverts. If anything
is in ordinary view of the public from public access property, there is no
privacy issue - even if the subject is on private property. Take all the
photos you want. It may be fine, it may be wholesome, or, it may be
disgusting, in poor taste or even embarrassing, but it's fair game.
Regards,
Bob...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy;
if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
- Socrates
From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bob Blakely wrote:
From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The law does not offer protection of peoples' privacy. There is no such
> right guaranteed in any government document. I would rather take
> responsponsibility for my own safety and live freely than live in a
state
> where police are a bigger threat than the criminals.
In this country, the United States that is, the 4th Amendment to this
Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This is your basic
right to privacy.
Whoa, you misunderstood the context of what I said. My "right to privacy"
statement was in response to Eleanor's statement that the guy taking
pictures was violating peoples privacy. My statement meant "anyone in
public
is subject to having their picture taken."
I have been arguing against abuse of the 4th amendment rights.
