William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gonz"
Subject: Re: More Texas Photo Issues
Umm no. I dont advocate such a thing at all. If our government ever
got to that point, it would be time for the second amendment to do its
job. There is a fine line between privacy and freedom. The news
references are vague,
"more than 12 photographs that depicted
specific parts of women's and children's bodies"
"young girls' cleavage", "Some of their lower extremeties."
Vague is an understatement, but definitely, no mention of a shoe cam,
which I expect would have been newsworthy enough to have mentioned.
In fact, nothing is mentioned that would likely not be in plain and
accepted view in any public place.
No, it does not mention a shoe cam. I made mention of a shoe cam. Only
to make a point that there is such a thing as inappropriate photography.
We cannot make a judgement either way based on the vagueries of this
story, but I was merely objecting to the one sided view of it. I.e. for
example you said:
"Is the simple act of looking through the viewfinder of a camera enough
of a probable cause to give the police unfettered rights of harrassment? "
I dont see that that is what is happening here either.
Or you also said:
"That law is a human rights violation, right up there with anything I
have seen from third world dictatorships.
It is designed to legalize police intimidation."
I mean, comparing it with third work dictatorships is a little over the
top isnt it?
Geesh Bill, no one is gonna take your porn stash. ;)
And no one is going to prevent you from taking pictures of your models
in whatever state of undress you both agree to.
You were noticed at the author of the following....
"There should be no expectation of privacy when we are in public for
someone to see or hear something we thought should be private".
What I meant to say is that its impossible for you to avoid the
occasional disclosure of something you wanted to remain private. The
objection I have is for people hanging out in public with a recording
device with the sole intention of capturing these situations. I.e.
waiting for a child or young person to expose something they or their
parents would object to being made public through the desemination of
the recording.
When you talk on a cell, your conversation is sent over public airwaves,
it may be encoded, but its possible to decode it. Would we want our
private lives being posted or used by the government for nefarious use?
Thats why its illegal.
To be fair, you also were noted as the author of the following:
"I would hope that laws like this are designed to do just that, protect
the privacy of individuals when out in public."
I'm not basing my opinion on the law based on them, but rather on how
I would expect it to operate.
I'm not quite sure I know what your opinion is.
I'm not sure if you know, either.
Your not sure, but I'm sure. Of course, I wish the law was more
specific, but then people get around the specifics, so you have to
enumerate every possible case. Its a difficult balance to strike.
I mean, I havent seen your position except for vague
opposition, but how do you feel about people using shoe cameras to
take pictures of womens nether areas?
They are definitely rude, and I have no objection to users of them being
persecuted.
My problem is when you start persecuting people for photographing in a
public place that which is normally visible and accepted in a public place.
My opinion is that Texas Penal Code Chapter 21.15 promotes this sort of
persecution, and nothing I have read in the news reports I have seen
leads me to believe otherwise.
My fear is that jurisdictions closer to my home may pick up on it as a
good idea.
I think that as long as we, as citizens, make sure that the law prevents
those types of incidents that we consider rude and inappropriate, then
its a good thing. If we as citizens, feel that the law has given law
enforcement too much power to intimidate legitimate undertakings, then
we as citizens have the power to change that. (I hope).
William Robb
