From: "Cotty" <[email protected]>
My point was that the general public are not only more aware of what's
going on around them, but are not afraid to report it.
Agreed.
1) The general public hear repeated taped announcements on subways, buses,
and airports or are given security recommendations and/or directives in
work, school, and neighborhood environments that TELL them to report
suspicious human activity or alert authorities about packages left alone
etc--and with recent historical events, the average good Joe and Jane
citizen decides it might be a good idea to do so. And when these good
citizens do so, local LEOs have to follow up. Sometimes Joe and Jane are
going to be wrong about what they think they saw. And sometimes they are
going to be right. Sometimes local LEOs are going to behave well in
handling the situation--and sometimes they will behave badly.
2) The plethora of image recording devices--camcorders, cell phone cameras,
DSLRs, video cameras--are more accessible to the public than ever before.
More people are capturing more human activity than at any time in human
history. On the one hand--no problem--photos of friends and family,
graduations and celebrations, tourist travel, and art--not a problem. But
on the other hand, I think it's also made citizens a little suspicious of
*Everyman*--it's created an atmosphere where folks are concerned about who's
recording who and what. They know they can record, and they also know they
can be recorded. So they've got their eye switched on to hyper-alert, and
this hyper-active mode is intensified given the recent historical events
referred to in point number one, making for a very touchy atmosphere--and
when you add the various variations of "anti-terrorism legislation/acts" any
given country might have, it seems to me it makes things even more
touchy--and certainly much more complicated.
3) With respect to the video. It's interesting to me that the police
officer told the photographer "someone" had made a claim of him engaging in
"anti-social use of a camera." I'm not sure how that's being defined, and
it seems to be an important part of the situation. I'd really like a
definition of this.
3a) Moreover, like Cotty, I don't feel quite right about this guy. He
makes the claim that his right do street photography was violated; he makes
a video which tells us the story, and he shows us the photographs he took
which depict humans doing things out in public, he puts the video on the
web--a very public arena, and clearly, based on the statements he makes he
sees himself as standing up for his rights, yet he does all this from the
shadows--he blocks his face to protect his *privacy.* That act weakens his
credibility in my view. We've seen other video stories on this subject, and
if my memory is correct, I think the photographers have not hidden their
faces. What's this photographer hiding from? I mean if you're going to
stand up for your right to make pictures out in public, then claim this
right has been violated, but you make said claim *publically* but with
your face blocked--what's that all about?
3c) Folks who sympathize with the photograrapher are assuming the
photographer is telling the truth about him *just out taking pictures,
minding his own business* and that he wasn't using his camera in an
"anti-social" manner (whatever that means--see point 3). It occurred to me
that one could easily stage this kind of event--a kind of set-up
entrapment--contrive events to provoke behavior of others. Folks do do this
kind of stuff all the time to prove a point--when you study journalism here
in the states you learn them as *staged/contrived media events.* I'm not
saying the photographer did this--but I'm also not saying he didn't. I just
don't know.
4) Coming from Chicago, I can assure all my good PDML friends that I am no
cheerleader for the police. Gosh, we've had some appalling cases of
corruption and abuse of authority--heck, downright criminal behavior from
police officers. But I agree with Cotty. It's a different world, and a
tough one to be in if one is a well intentioned police officer or a
firefighter or a paramedic. And I can assure all my good PDML friends that
I support human rights, and I am VERY concerned about laws that curtail
human rights and freedoms of expression. I think think that both sides of
this discussion have some valid points. And Cotty, if you get tired of
Austraila, come by Chicago. I'll buy ya'a WARM beer! :-)
Cheers, Christine
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
