If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Click Orlando)   Local 6 in Orlando finds a drone with a GoPro cam containing 2 hours of video - part of which shows woman sunbathing   (clickorlando.com) divider line 341
    More: Florida, GoPro, Altamonte Springs  
•       •       •

13433 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



341 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-25 10:17:44 AM  
But don't worry folks, the NSA would never misuse all that phone and internet data they have on you.
 
2013-06-25 10:19:41 AM  
oops, nevermind.  I thought this was a government drone, not a private drone.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 10:37:24 AM  
I am assuming that they don't realize that you can buy these things on Amazon for under $100.  There are plenty of people flying them.

It's cute that people think they have any sort of privacy out doors.
 
2013-06-25 10:45:15 AM  
and this is news why?  news director should be taken to the set and beaten to a pulp on live TV
 
2013-06-25 10:45:30 AM  
Everyone, please panic.

Thank you.
 
2013-06-25 10:47:07 AM  
and the news folks are so outrage about the drone videotaping the women sunbathing that they show the woman sunbathing
 
2013-06-25 10:47:23 AM  
This is Orlando, you can throw a video camera up into the air and capture footage of a woman sunbathing.

I think we need to see the 2 hour video to make a real determination
 
2013-06-25 10:47:57 AM  
so the toy helicopter I was thinking of getting my son for Christmas is now an evil spy tool of the devil?  Sweet!  I better get two.
 
2013-06-25 10:48:30 AM  
Where can I purchase one of these "drones"?  Strictly for finding terrorists of course.
 
2013-06-25 10:48:35 AM  

vpb: I am assuming that they don't realize that you can buy these things on Amazon for under $100.  There are plenty of people flying them.

It's cute that people think they have any sort of privacy out doors.


Woo!

Wait.  I can't fly a two rotor RC copter.  What makes me think I'd do better with this.
 
2013-06-25 10:49:08 AM  

Waldo Pepper: and the news folks are so outrage about the drone videotaping the women sunbathing that they show the woman sunbathing


In low definition. If they were really that outraged, they would show the HD footage.
 
2013-06-25 10:49:54 AM  
Gopro's have super wide angle lenses. Unless the drone was 20 feet from the sunbathing lady - you wouldn't see much.
 
2013-06-25 10:50:17 AM  
Drones seem fun. I wanna make my own.


//obviously not the raining-death type of drone. Can I program one to follow me when I'm riding my bike? So I can get Tour de France type of footage while I cruise around my neighborhood.
 
2013-06-25 10:50:53 AM  
I wouldn't really call that a drone...
 
2013-06-25 10:50:59 AM  
I_Am_Weasel: Wait. I can't fly a two rotor RC copter. What makes me think I'd do better with this.

Four rotors is more stable and forgiving.

// like 2 wheels vs 4 wheels.
 
2013-06-25 10:52:36 AM  

Waldo Pepper: and the news folks are so outrage about the drone videotaping the women sunbathing that they show the woman sunbathing


Exactly, everyone outrage over stuff happening in public and can be shown on tv without even contacting anyone for permission.  Meanwhile some kid is really bummed about loosing his toy.
 
2013-06-25 10:52:40 AM  
*yawn*
 
2013-06-25 10:56:38 AM  

SlothB77: oops, nevermind.  I thought this was a government drone, not a private drone.


So...These are not the drones you were looking for?
 
2013-06-25 10:56:49 AM  
Why did the kid talk to the news? Now the cop have more than enough to investigate him if they want.
 
2013-06-25 10:56:53 AM  
"Seconds from disaster!!!!"
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 10:58:03 AM  

skinink: Why did the kid talk to the news? Now the cop have more than enough to investigate him if they want.


For what?  Apparently there is no law against it, unless they can prove he was fapping to the sunbathing chick or something like that.
 
2013-06-25 10:58:19 AM  
I wonder witch IT guy at news channel 6 put that together? Make your own news. That's local 6s motto.
 
2013-06-25 10:59:24 AM  

Raider_dad: "Seconds from disaster!!!!"


Is it sweeps week already?
 
2013-06-25 10:59:59 AM  

Local 6 in Orlando finds
owns and operates a drone with a GoPro cam containing 2 hours of video



DRTFA. Just sounds better.
 
2013-06-25 11:01:46 AM  
FTA: "His name is Guimy Alexis -- a student who built the drone, and many other."  Later: "But what happened to Jimmy and his drone was not part of the fun. "

The poor grammar in the first sentence aside, are there two people here?  Jimmy and Guimy?
 
2013-06-25 11:03:54 AM  

Frozboz


FTA: "His name is Guimy Alexis -- a student who built the drone, and many other." Later: "But what happened to Jimmy and his drone was not part of the fun. "

The poor grammar in the first sentence aside, are there two people here? Jimmy and Guimy?


Maybe 'Guimy' is snowflake-ese for 'Jimmy'.
 
PJ-
2013-06-25 11:03:58 AM  
FTFA: Young created Florida's video voyeurism law last year, which makes it illegal to secretly record someone for arousal, amusement, or abuse.

'I'm telling you officer, I wasn't recording those ladies in the shower for amusement or anything like that.  I was conduction research to see how many girls in the shower it would take to get an erection.'

Think it would work?
 
2013-06-25 11:06:30 AM  
So, anything that is unmanned and flies, such as....remote airplanes, helicopters and gyrocopters (Which this is) is now considered a drone?
 
2013-06-25 11:07:32 AM  
I love the flashing "DRONE" in scary red text on the footage, as well as the panicked "it comes within FEET OF AN APARTMENT WINDOW!" (as they zoom in when it stops).  Also, if it died above I-4, how did their reporter find it in a tree?
 
2013-06-25 11:07:49 AM  

lack of warmth: Waldo Pepper: and the news folks are so outrage about the drone videotaping the women sunbathing that they show the woman sunbathing

Exactly, everyone outrage over stuff happening in public and can be shown on tv without even contacting anyone for permission.  Meanwhile some kid is really bummed about loosing his toy.


If I'm in my backyard and find one hovering over me, I'd hardly consider that "public" and thus I will proceed to engage with my own anti-aircraft measures.
 
2013-06-25 11:08:21 AM  

skinink: Why did the kid talk to the news? Now the cop have more than enough to investigate him if they want.


Maybe because he doesn't have $1000 to replace his formerly lost equipment.

also FTA: "from a small, unmanned drone"  - Are there small, manned drones? Do these farking journalists even read their own writing anymore or is it just a contest to see who can click submit the fastest?
 
2013-06-25 11:09:01 AM  
Not a repeat from 2006?
regmedia.co.uk
 
2013-06-25 11:09:06 AM  
img845.imageshack.us

JAFO
 
2013-06-25 11:09:09 AM  
I'm just going to stay in my mother's basement and post on the internet how much I hate the surveillance state.
 
2013-06-25 11:10:06 AM  

SlothB77: oops, nevermind.  I thought this was a government drone, not a private drone.


GoPro didn't clue you in immediately?  :-)
 
2013-06-25 11:10:22 AM  

MBooda: Not a repeat from 2006?
[regmedia.co.uk image 423x314]


If you squint, you can imagine what her nipples look like.
 
2013-06-25 11:13:28 AM  

vpb: It's cute that people think they have any sort of privacy out doors.


You do in your yard, and with a decent fence. If it can't be seen from the street, or a public area, you DO have a reasonable right to privacy. This woman, however, was at the public pool at the apartment complex, and therefore nothing illegal was happening, and her privacy was not violated in any way.

THIS is the part that annoyed me more:

In one shot, the drone races toward an apartment window, getting within feet of the glass.

No, in one shot, the drone files by some apartments, and then someone on the news team zooms the farking camera shot, that drone didn't "race" to the window. They did the same thing with the sanbathing woman, also. Fark "Local 6", they get the sleazeball award for sure here.
 
2013-06-25 11:14:04 AM  
You have no expectation of privacy outdoors.
You have a diminished expectation of privacy in your car.
You have an expectation of privacy in your home.
 
2013-06-25 11:15:02 AM  

Do the needful: Do these farking journalists even read their own writing anymore...


No.

...or is it just a contest to see who can click submit the fastest?

Yes.
 
2013-06-25 11:18:33 AM  

Mikey1969: vpb: It's cute that people think they have any sort of privacy out doors.

You do in your yard, and with a decent fence. If it can't be seen from the street, or a public area, you DO have a reasonable right to privacy. This woman, however, was at the public pool at the apartment complex, and therefore nothing illegal was happening, and her privacy was not violated in any way.

THIS is the part that annoyed me more:

In one shot, the drone races toward an apartment window, getting within feet of the glass.

No, in one shot, the drone files by some apartments, and then someone on the news team zooms the farking camera shot, that drone didn't "race" to the window. They did the same thing with the sanbathing woman, also. Fark "Local 6", they get the sleazeball award for sure here.


Just because it's legal to take picture of people unawares doesn't make it ok.  farking right her privacy was violated.  It's like taking upskirt videos at the mall.  You're a rotten, creepy fark who has no sense of decency.
 
2013-06-25 11:19:16 AM  
Too bad someone can't post a picture of what a girl in a bikini looks like...
 
2013-06-25 11:23:10 AM  

vpb: skinink: Why did the kid talk to the news? Now the cop have more than enough to investigate him if they want.

For what?  Apparently there is no law against it, unless they can prove he was fapping to the sunbathing chick or something like that.


It says right in the article you can fly the drones as long as its in your line of sight. Once you lose sight you're breaking the law. And that's an FAA law he would be breaking.
 
2013-06-25 11:23:27 AM  
On the high-definition GoPro camera that was attached to the drone, you can see each flight starts innocently enough. But you can see the potential for bad behavior.

In one shot, the drone races toward an apartment window, getting within feet of the glass.

Upon viewing the footage, local resident George McFee said, "It could've been a terrorist piloting that drone. What if that apartment building collapsed? This is just like 9/11 all over again."
 
2013-06-25 11:26:06 AM  

Fark In The Duck: Too bad someone can't post a picture of what a girl in a bikini looks like...


Um, that would have to go through NSA first, then CIA, FBI, SEC, IRS, NAACP and your local officials.
 
2013-06-25 11:26:52 AM  
See, Jimmy has to investigate using drones to spy on people in order *stop* nefarious types from using drones to spy on people.
 
2013-06-25 11:27:35 AM  

SlothB77: oops, nevermind.  I thought this was a government drone, not a private drone.


This is the thing... words words words... I could strap my go pro onto a 100 dollar model airplane and fly it around my mountain and it would technically be a "drone".... we've pissed our pants so much as a society that we're afraid of children's toys. God help our great nation if they ever saw the time I was 12 and managed to get remote triggered bottlerockets on a r/c airplane so my big brother and I could have "air battles" over the Chesapeake Bay.
 
2013-06-25 11:28:28 AM  
Oh look, another FAIR and BALANCED article.

I especially like the way it is in NO WAY edited from the raw video. I know this because my raw video contains blinking texts reading "DRONE CAM" and red frame. Also the zoom feature I have on my "drone" which shows me flying within FEET of someones windows with auto highlight feature is a standard item. Oh and the wobbly flight, OH NOES!! Did you see that! The horror!!

But I mostly love the detail I get of the sunbather, yeah baby, that is spank bank material there! No way she had on head phones or was even sleeping.

Great investigative reporting there local news channel, one day CNN will be calling for your stories! You managed to track down this creepy drone pilot, the Iranians must have shared their anti-drone secrets with you! There was no way his name was on this thing, not that you'd admit it I'm sure.
 
2013-06-25 11:28:41 AM  

MNguy: farking right her privacy was violated


No it wasn't, she was in a public place. It's why Google Street View cars can operate.

And no, it's nothing like taking upskirt pics at the mall. She went out in the bikini, and decided to lay in a public place in that bikini. With upskirt pics, you have to work to get around accepted barriers(Outer clothing) to get intimate shots of private areas. Apples and 427 engine blocks, my friend.

skinink: It says right in the article you can fly the drones as long as its in your line of sight. Once you lose sight you're breaking the law. And that's an FAA law he would be breaking.


It was also an equipment failure, as opposed to blatantly breaking the law. Still a violation, but this is 'get a fine' territory, that's about it.
 
2013-06-25 11:30:21 AM  

firefly212: SlothB77: oops, nevermind.  I thought this was a government drone, not a private drone.

This is the thing... words words words... I could strap my go pro onto a 100 dollar model airplane and fly it around my mountain and it would technically be a "drone".... we've pissed our pants so much as a society that we're afraid of children's toys. God help our great nation if they ever saw the time I was 12 and managed to get remote triggered bottlerockets on a r/c airplane so my big brother and I could have "air battles" over the Chesapeake Bay.


Well, if I found out you and your brother were taking pictures of me and my family you best prepare yourself for a beat down.  I don't give a fark if you're having fun and battling in the air, but leave the cameras on the ground.
 
2013-06-25 11:30:42 AM  
"Young created Florida's video voyeurism law last year, which makes it illegal to secretly record someone for arousal, amusement, or abuse "


So as long as you are seriously recording them you're in the clear!

"DID YOU SNICKER WHEN REVIEWING THIS FOOTAGE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!"
 
2013-06-25 11:31:30 AM  

Mikey1969: MNguy: farking right her privacy was violated

No it wasn't, she was in a public place. It's why Google Street View cars can operate.

And no, it's nothing like taking upskirt pics at the mall. She went out in the bikini, and decided to lay in a public place in that bikini. With upskirt pics, you have to work to get around accepted barriers(Outer clothing) to get intimate shots of private areas. Apples and 427 engine blocks, my friend.



How is it different?  You're wrong and a little bit creepy.
 
2013-06-25 11:31:54 AM  
hangout.altsounds.com
 
2013-06-25 11:32:41 AM  
She went out in a skirt, and when I was on the escalator her briefs were visible.  So I took a picture.
 
2013-06-25 11:35:29 AM  
Not a drone.
 
2013-06-25 11:35:35 AM  
So now RC helicopters are considered drones?
 
2013-06-25 11:37:58 AM  

ReapTheChaos: So now RC helicopters are considered drones?


THIS.
We need an Assault Weapon/AK47 meme of "Drone"/RC done up STAT!!
 
2013-06-25 11:38:17 AM  

MNguy: How is it different?  You're wrong and a little bit creepy.


I explained how it was different, I'm not "wrong and a little bit creepy". I'm right, and you're a 'lot bit' dense.

I'll explain it again:
Clothes are the privacy barrier. You violate that privacy barrier by hiding in a place where you can get around the barrier and take pictures. Same thing with people who sneak cameras into bathroons. They are getting around the privacy barrier. This woman is in public, she is wearing her choice of clothing in public(Her privacy barrier), and nobody is getting around that. If you are walking naked in your living room and can be seen from the street because your front blinds are open, you have no right to privacy there. Move from in front of the window, and you do. Once there is a barrier that people have to circumvent or violate(Such as a skirt in this case), you are protected.

You also aren't protected if you have a low fence in your yard and walk out back naked. People standing in the next yard don't have to avert their eyes. If you have a tall fence, on the other hand, and they climb a ladder, or drill a hole in it, then they are violating your right to privacy. The sad thing is; I'm pretty sure my 15 year old stepson can grasp this concept.
 
2013-06-25 11:38:52 AM  

ReapTheChaos: So now RC helicopters are considered drones?


If you are taking pictures of people who didn't explicitly say they wanted pictures taken.
 
2013-06-25 11:39:54 AM  

ReapTheChaos: So now RC helicopters are considered drones?


Yep...

Definition of DRONE1: a stingless male bee (as of the honeybee) that has the role of mating with the queen and does not gather nectar or pollen2: one that lives on the labors of others  :3: an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote controlhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drone
 
2013-06-25 11:40:44 AM  

MNguy: firefly212: SlothB77: oops, nevermind.  I thought this was a government drone, not a private drone.

This is the thing... words words words... I could strap my go pro onto a 100 dollar model airplane and fly it around my mountain and it would technically be a "drone".... we've pissed our pants so much as a society that we're afraid of children's toys. God help our great nation if they ever saw the time I was 12 and managed to get remote triggered bottlerockets on a r/c airplane so my big brother and I could have "air battles" over the Chesapeake Bay.

Well, if I found out you and your brother were taking pictures of me and my family you best prepare yourself for a beat down.  I don't give a fark if you're having fun and battling in the air, but leave the cameras on the ground.


Really, you'd beat me up when I was 12 for putting cameras on their r/c aircraft toys? You have issues, dude.

/if go pros were around when I was 12, damn right I would have put them on my r/c toys... hell even now living in the mountains, people use them for surveying their land all the time... this idea that you're gonna go around beating people up for using their toys in a manner that's not illegal is... just over the top.
 
2013-06-25 11:41:01 AM  

Mikey1969: MNguy: How is it different?  You're wrong and a little bit creepy.

I explained how it was different, I'm not "wrong and a little bit creepy". I'm right, and you're a 'lot bit' dense.

I'll explain it again:
Clothes are the privacy barrier. You violate that privacy barrier by hiding in a place where you can get around the barrier and take pictures. Same thing with people who sneak cameras into bathroons. They are getting around the privacy barrier. This woman is in public, she is wearing her choice of clothing in public(Her privacy barrier), and nobody is getting around that. If you are walking naked in your living room and can be seen from the street because your front blinds are open, you have no right to privacy there. Move from in front of the window, and you do. Once there is a barrier that people have to circumvent or violate(Such as a skirt in this case), you are protected.

You also aren't protected if you have a low fence in your yard and walk out back naked. People standing in the next yard don't have to avert their eyes. If you have a tall fence, on the other hand, and they climb a ladder, or drill a hole in it, then they are violating your right to privacy. The sad thing is; I'm pretty sure my 15 year old stepson can grasp this concept.


You're parsing words, and coming off like a farking creep who takes pictures of people who are unsuspecting.  It should involve an explicit agreement to allow photos, not some tenuous 'privacy barrier'.
 
2013-06-25 11:41:08 AM  
Well, if I found out you and your brother were taking pictures of me and my family you best prepare yourself for a beat down

Paging Dr. Tyson... Paging Dr. Tyson...
 
2013-06-25 11:42:35 AM  

MNguy: ReapTheChaos: So now RC helicopters are considered drones?

If you are taking pictures of people who didn't explicitly say they wanted pictures taken.


So now paparazzi are considered drones?
 
2013-06-25 11:44:02 AM  

MNguy: ReapTheChaos: So now RC helicopters are considered drones?

If you are taking pictures of people who didn't explicitly say they wanted pictures taken.


Public, how does it work\? The idea that you're private on your roof or in your backyard, that you have some reasonable expectation that nobody will ever utilize the airspace over you is just... wacky. If someone uses tech to penetrate your home (thermals or whatever), then by all means, go after them... but you don't have some weird right to wander around in publicly view-able areas and not be photographed/recorded... your expectation of privacy is not some giant bubble that encompasses everywhere you go.
 
2013-06-25 11:44:27 AM  
Aside from the scale and location of the pilot, how is this any different than "News Chopper 6" patrolling the skies?
 
2013-06-25 11:45:34 AM  

Mikey1969: MNguy: How is it different?  You're wrong and a little bit creepy.

I explained how it was different, I'm not "wrong and a little bit creepy". I'm right, and you're a 'lot bit' dense.

I'll explain it again:
Clothes are the privacy barrier. You violate that privacy barrier by hiding in a place where you can get around the barrier and take pictures. Same thing with people who sneak cameras into bathroons. They are getting around the privacy barrier. This woman is in public, she is wearing her choice of clothing in public(Her privacy barrier), and nobody is getting around that. If you are walking naked in your living room and can be seen from the street because your front blinds are open, you have no right to privacy there. Move from in front of the window, and you do. Once there is a barrier that people have to circumvent or violate(Such as a skirt in this case), you are protected.

You also aren't protected if you have a low fence in your yard and walk out back naked. People standing in the next yard don't have to avert their eyes. If you have a tall fence, on the other hand, and they climb a ladder, or drill a hole in it, then they are violating your right to privacy. The sad thing is; I'm pretty sure my 15 year old stepson can grasp this concept.


And I bet he is working on circumventing barriers.  Without your knowledge of course.
 
2013-06-25 11:46:14 AM  
The pedo taking pictures at the park says what?
 
2013-06-25 11:46:21 AM  
The camera may have had 2 hours worth of footage, but those toy drones only have about 10 minutes of flight time per battery.  Either that kid had a lot of spare batteries or there is non-drone footage on that GoPro as well.
 
2013-06-25 11:46:34 AM  

MNguy: Mikey1969: MNguy: How is it different?  You're wrong and a little bit creepy.

I explained how it was different, I'm not "wrong and a little bit creepy". I'm right, and you're a 'lot bit' dense.

I'll explain it again:
Clothes are the privacy barrier. You violate that privacy barrier by hiding in a place where you can get around the barrier and take pictures. Same thing with people who sneak cameras into bathroons. They are getting around the privacy barrier. This woman is in public, she is wearing her choice of clothing in public(Her privacy barrier), and nobody is getting around that. If you are walking naked in your living room and can be seen from the street because your front blinds are open, you have no right to privacy there. Move from in front of the window, and you do. Once there is a barrier that people have to circumvent or violate(Such as a skirt in this case), you are protected.

You also aren't protected if you have a low fence in your yard and walk out back naked. People standing in the next yard don't have to avert their eyes. If you have a tall fence, on the other hand, and they climb a ladder, or drill a hole in it, then they are violating your right to privacy. The sad thing is; I'm pretty sure my 15 year old stepson can grasp this concept.

You're parsing words, and coming off like a farking creep who takes pictures of people who are unsuspecting.  It should involve an explicit agreement to allow photos, not some tenuous 'privacy barrier'.


I should be rich, but things aren't as they should be. As it stands, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy/non-recording/no photos when you are in publicly viewable areas. Whether we're talking about cities or companies using cctv systems, tourists taking pictures, or buzzwords like "drones" the reality is when you are in an area that can be viewed from a public place, you're putting yourself out there. If you don't want dirty nudie pics of you going around, be a nudist *inside* your house.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:48:42 AM  

Mikey1969: vpb: It's cute that people think they have any sort of privacy out doors.

You do in your yard, and with a decent fence. If it can't be seen from the street, or a public area, you DO have a reasonable right to privacy. This woman, however, was at the public pool at the apartment complex, and therefore nothing illegal was happening, and her privacy was not violated in any way.

THIS is the part that annoyed me more:

In one shot, the drone races toward an apartment window, getting within feet of the glass.

No, in one shot, the drone files by some apartments, and then someone on the news team zooms the farking camera shot, that drone didn't "race" to the window. They did the same thing with the sanbathing woman, also. Fark "Local 6", they get the sleazeball award for sure here.


Having a right to privacy and actually having privacy are two different things.   Besides, you could easily fly high enough to see over a fence while remaining over your own property.

These drones are too cheap and they will only get cheaper.  Good luck stuffing that genie back into the bottle.
 
2013-06-25 11:49:17 AM  

Unoriginal_Username: So, anything that is unmanned and flies, such as....remote airplanes, helicopters and gyrocopters (Which this is) is now considered a drone?


I hate to tell you this, but the U.S. government, in collaboration with the Q branch of the British Secret Service is also working on a mobile land-based drone:
www.wired.com
 
2013-06-25 11:49:28 AM  
So let me get this straight, MNguy, anyone with a camera on an RC aircraft is a pedophile now?
 
2013-06-25 11:51:07 AM  

firefly212: MNguy: Mikey1969: MNguy: How is it different?  You're wrong and a little bit creepy.

I explained how it was different, I'm not "wrong and a little bit creepy". I'm right, and you're a 'lot bit' dense.

I'll explain it again:
Clothes are the privacy barrier. You violate that privacy barrier by hiding in a place where you can get around the barrier and take pictures. Same thing with people who sneak cameras into bathroons. They are getting around the privacy barrier. This woman is in public, she is wearing her choice of clothing in public(Her privacy barrier), and nobody is getting around that. If you are walking naked in your living room and can be seen from the street because your front blinds are open, you have no right to privacy there. Move from in front of the window, and you do. Once there is a barrier that people have to circumvent or violate(Such as a skirt in this case), you are protected.

You also aren't protected if you have a low fence in your yard and walk out back naked. People standing in the next yard don't have to avert their eyes. If you have a tall fence, on the other hand, and they climb a ladder, or drill a hole in it, then they are violating your right to privacy. The sad thing is; I'm pretty sure my 15 year old stepson can grasp this concept.

You're parsing words, and coming off like a farking creep who takes pictures of people who are unsuspecting.  It should involve an explicit agreement to allow photos, not some tenuous 'privacy barrier'.

I should be rich, but things aren't as they should be. As it stands, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy/non-recording/no photos when you are in publicly viewable areas. Whether we're talking about cities or companies using cctv systems, tourists taking pictures, or buzzwords like "drones" the reality is when you are in an area that can be viewed from a public place, you're putting yourself out there. If you don't want dirty nudie pics of you going around, be a nudist *inside* your house.


Well, then my 11-year old niece has no protection from some asshole when she goes swimming at a public pool?  What about in our own backyard?  Our fence is only five feet.  Get a grip, there is an expectation of privacy, and violations of that public trust are some of the worst.
 
2013-06-25 11:51:41 AM  
I worry that someone will do something stupid," says Alexis. "But if someone does do something stupid, they're the bad apple, the bad egg.

Like some guy who records a woman sunbathing in her back yard?
 
2013-06-25 11:51:52 AM  

smoothvirus: So let me get this straight, MNguy, anyone with a camera on an RC aircraft is a pedophile now?


Potentially, yes.  A voyeur at best.
 
2013-06-25 11:53:11 AM  
When I am outside I demand 100% privacy. Make eye contact with me, I'm going ground and pound brah.

Spy on me with your fancy drone, it's on like Donkey Kong.
 
2013-06-25 11:53:15 AM  
Get a farking life, don't take pictures of people when they have not explicitly given permission to do so.  I guess this is difficult for weirdos and creeps to understand.
 
2013-06-25 11:55:30 AM  

SlothB77: But don't worry folks, the NSA would never misuse all that phone and internet data they have on you.


SlothB77: oops, nevermind.  I thought this was a government drone, not a private drone.


Trying too hard
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:56:09 AM  
What can one of these things lift?  An M-67 grenade weighs 14oz/400g.

Wait until the NRA gets in on this!  I see some epic fark threads coming up!
 
2013-06-25 11:56:35 AM  
fanbladesaresharp
If I'm in my backyard and find one hovering over me, I'd hardly consider that "public" and thus I will proceed to engage with my own anti-aircraft measures.


12 gauge ought to do it. #6 shot, #00 would be more devistating.
 
2013-06-25 11:57:12 AM  

MNguy: Mikey1969: MNguy: You're parsing words, and coming off like a farking creep who takes pictures of people who are unsuspecting.  It should involve an explicit agreement to allow photos, not some tenuous 'privacy barrier'.

You know, you're giving "stupid" a whole new definition. I'm not coming off as any kind of "creep", except to you, and I'm not really concerned about what mental defectives think. I'm not defending anyone, I'm explaining how the law works and why. If you're too stupid to figure that out, take it up with your parents, thank 'em for the lead paint ships, and try harder to grasp simple concepts next time.

You are not explaining it well, and you're defending creeps, stalkers and weirdos.  Godspeed.


Why should it be illegal for me to take family pictures in the park of my family without going and getting written consent from all of the people in the background? At my cousins graduation, I took a picture of him that had a good hundred people behind him... under your wackadoo standard of privacy, I'd have to go get consent from every one of them before taking the pictures, then be damned sure nobody else wandered into the shot. I took a picture at a hockey game that probably had a good thousand people in the background of the Avs playing, should I have asked all thousand of them? Even here where I work, when they have the R/C race helicopters, they have consent from the (bike or ski) racer they're following, but they don't get consent forms from the whole audience.
 
2013-06-25 11:59:32 AM  

MNguy: Get a farking life, don't take pictures of people when they have not explicitly given permission to do so.  I guess this is difficult for weirdos and creeps to understand.


sinoconcept.com
That's one farkload of release forms, but I'm sure they got them all signed, as per your definition of "reality".
 
2013-06-25 11:59:52 AM  
Yeah, cause you can see soo much from 250 feet up on a camera with no zoom.

"Hey look! A person-shaped blob of pixels!"
"OMG YOU VIOLAYTED MY PRIVACEH!!"
 
2013-06-25 12:00:53 PM  

firefly212: MNguy: Mikey1969: MNguy: You're parsing words, and coming off like a farking creep who takes pictures of people who are unsuspecting.  It should involve an explicit agreement to allow photos, not some tenuous 'privacy barrier'.

You know, you're giving "stupid" a whole new definition. I'm not coming off as any kind of "creep", except to you, and I'm not really concerned about what mental defectives think. I'm not defending anyone, I'm explaining how the law works and why. If you're too stupid to figure that out, take it up with your parents, thank 'em for the lead paint ships, and try harder to grasp simple concepts next time.

You are not explaining it well, and you're defending creeps, stalkers and weirdos.  Godspeed.

Why should it be illegal for me to take family pictures in the park of my family without going and getting written consent from all of the people in the background? At my cousins graduation, I took a picture of him that had a good hundred people behind him... under your wackadoo standard of privacy, I'd have to go get consent from every one of them before taking the pictures, then be damned sure nobody else wandered into the shot. I took a picture at a hockey game that probably had a good thousand people in the background of the Avs playing, should I have asked all thousand of them? Even here where I work, when they have the R/C race helicopters, they have consent from the (bike or ski) racer they're following, but they don't get consent forms from the whole audience.


You know that you're making a false equivalency.  Yet, you're still farking that chicken.  Are you also taking pictures of an unrelated  girl in a bikini?  Do you not think that taking pictures of a person, when they are not aware, is creepy?
 
2013-06-25 12:01:10 PM  

stuffy: I worry that someone will do something stupid," says Alexis. "But if someone does do something stupid, they're the bad apple, the bad egg.

Like some guy who records a woman sunbathing in her back yard?


Who knows? this woman was sunbathing next to the public pool at her apartment complex, a common area where anyone can go.
 
2013-06-25 12:01:54 PM  
And explaining how the law works means that you are "defending creeps, stalkers and weirdos". I never once actually defended anybody, I explained how the law works to that moron.

Your logic withers in the face of his strawman argument. ;)
 
2013-06-25 12:02:05 PM  

Mikey1969: MNguy: Get a farking life, don't take pictures of people when they have not explicitly given permission to do so.  I guess this is difficult for weirdos and creeps to understand.

[sinoconcept.com image 850x680]
That's one farkload of release forms, but I'm sure they got them all signed, as per your definition of "reality".


I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that you know when a private moment is captured on film.  Maybe I shouldn't.
 
2013-06-25 12:02:47 PM  

Mikey1969: stuffy: I worry that someone will do something stupid," says Alexis. "But if someone does do something stupid, they're the bad apple, the bad egg.

Like some guy who records a woman sunbathing in her back yard?

Who knows? this woman was sunbathing next to the public pool at her apartment complex, a common area where anyone can go.

And take pictures.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 12:04:51 PM  

The Loaf: Aside from the scale and location of the pilot, how is this any different than "News Chopper 6" patrolling the skies?


Because "chopper" doesn't provoke the same knee jerk reaction as "drone".
 
2013-06-25 12:08:58 PM  

MNguy: I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that you know when a private moment is captured on film.  Maybe I shouldn't.


Not what you said, Einstein. Here is your 100% DIRECT quote. Point to the word "private", please:
"...don't take pictures of people when they have not explicitly given permission to do so."

See how the internet works?

PS: Given the nature of the traditional kiss at the drop of the New Year's ball, I can guarantee you that there are some "private moments" in that picture. And once again, hanging out in a PUBLIC area negates your expectation of privacy.
 
2013-06-25 12:10:09 PM  

MNguy: firefly212: MNguy: Mikey1969: MNguy: How is it different?  You're wrong and a little bit creepy.

I explained how it was different, I'm not "wrong and a little bit creepy". I'm right, and you're a 'lot bit' dense.

I'll explain it again:
Clothes are the privacy barrier. You violate that privacy barrier by hiding in a place where you can get around the barrier and take pictures. Same thing with people who sneak cameras into bathroons. They are getting around the privacy barrier. This woman is in public, she is wearing her choice of clothing in public(Her privacy barrier), and nobody is getting around that. If you are walking naked in your living room and can be seen from the street because your front blinds are open, you have no right to privacy there. Move from in front of the window, and you do. Once there is a barrier that people have to circumvent or violate(Such as a skirt in this case), you are protected.

You also aren't protected if you have a low fence in your yard and walk out back naked. People standing in the next yard don't have to avert their eyes. If you have a tall fence, on the other hand, and they climb a ladder, or drill a hole in it, then they are violating your right to privacy. The sad thing is; I'm pretty sure my 15 year old stepson can grasp this concept.

You're parsing words, and coming off like a farking creep who takes pictures of people who are unsuspecting.  It should involve an explicit agreement to allow photos, not some tenuous 'privacy barrier'.

I should be rich, but things aren't as they should be. As it stands, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy/non-recording/no photos when you are in publicly viewable areas. Whether we're talking about cities or companies using cctv systems, tourists taking pictures, or buzzwords like "drones" the reality is when you are in an area that can be viewed from a public place, you're putting yourself out there. If you don't want dirty nudie pics of you going around, be a nudist *inside* your ...


The swimming pool... good god, I took pictures of my nephews first swimming lesson the other day... there was like 20 kids in the picture, and two lifeguards, and even three or four swimming instructors I didn't bother to get the names of! The thing is, I understand your worries about the... perversions of others... I get that it's a dangerous world out there... but just like with actual terrorism and everything else, we can't let our fears dictate the rights of others. I'm sure other people took pictures of their kids (it was first day for all the 5 year olds), and I'm sure my nephew was in more than a few of those pictures. I can't really control what some bad person might be thinking when they see a picture any more than I could stop them from seeing it irl and having... inappropriate thoughts... about it later. Your job as a parent (I do some of the parenting b/c my big brother is blind) is about physical and emotional safety, making sure nobody touches them inappropriately, kidnaps them, or emotionally damages them. That's already a million things on the plate to do while you're trying to foster a safe environment and have fun with them... adding "thought police" into the mix, that would just put you into the realm where you're paying far more attention to the world around the kid than you are to the kid himself/herself.  At some point (unspecified), hyper-vigilance detracts from the rest of parenting, takes away from your ability to share great times with your kids, and fosters the wrong attitude in them (if you're so afraid, I'd wager your kids are overly wary too, even if they don't understand why).

There are bad people (very few and far between), but the world is a good place, full of mostly good people... raising kids to be terrified of everyone around them is just going to create an even worse generation than this current one in terms of pussies who can't cope with their fears.
 
2013-06-25 12:10:15 PM  
You know, it seems like a go pro or similar camera would be a lot of fun to screw around with. I'd pin one to my cat for sure.

But by the time I have a couple hundred bucks I'm not doing anything better with, they'll probably be illegal. Or at least one of those things where if you buy one, people know you're one of "those" types.
 
2013-06-25 12:10:41 PM  

Mikey1969: vpb: It's cute that people think they have any sort of privacy out doors.

You do in your yard, and with a decent fence. If it can't be seen from the street, or a public area, you DO have a reasonable right to privacy. This woman, however, was at the public pool at the apartment complex, and therefore nothing illegal was happening, and her privacy was not violated in any way.

THIS is the part that annoyed me more:

In one shot, the drone races toward an apartment window, getting within feet of the glass.

No, in one shot, the drone files by some apartments, and then someone on the news team zooms the farking camera shot, that drone didn't "race" to the window. They did the same thing with the sanbathing woman, also. Fark "Local 6", they get the sleazeball award for sure here.


apartment complex pools are private and not public.
 
2013-06-25 12:11:09 PM  

Mikey1969: MNguy: I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that you know when a private moment is captured on film.  Maybe I shouldn't.

Not what you said, Einstein. Here is your 100% DIRECT quote. Point to the word "private", please:
"...don't take pictures of people when they have not explicitly given permission to do so."

See how the internet works?

PS: Given the nature of the traditional kiss at the drop of the New Year's ball, I can guarantee you that there are some "private moments" in that picture. And once again, hanging out in a PUBLIC area negates your expectation of privacy.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.  If you want creepy photos of happy families or couples, more power to you.  Get the fark off of my lawn though.
 
2013-06-25 12:14:26 PM  

firefly212: MNguy: firefly212: MNguy: Mikey1969: MNguy: How is it different?  You're wrong and a little bit creepy.

I explained how it was different, I'm not "wrong and a little bit creepy". I'm right, and you're a 'lot bit' dense.

I'll explain it again:
Clothes are the privacy barrier. You violate that privacy barrier by hiding in a place where you can get around the barrier and take pictures. Same thing with people who sneak cameras into bathroons. They are getting around the privacy barrier. This woman is in public, she is wearing her choice of clothing in public(Her privacy barrier), and nobody is getting around that. If you are walking naked in your living room and can be seen from the street because your front blinds are open, you have no right to privacy there. Move from in front of the window, and you do. Once there is a barrier that people have to circumvent or violate(Such as a skirt in this case), you are protected.

You also aren't protected if you have a low fence in your yard and walk out back naked. People standing in the next yard don't have to avert their eyes. If you have a tall fence, on the other hand, and they climb a ladder, or drill a hole in it, then they are violating your right to privacy. The sad thing is; I'm pretty sure my 15 year old stepson can grasp this concept.

You're parsing words, and coming off like a farking creep who takes pictures of people who are unsuspecting.  It should involve an explicit agreement to allow photos, not some tenuous 'privacy barrier'.

I should be rich, but things aren't as they should be. As it stands, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy/non-recording/no photos when you are in publicly viewable areas. Whether we're talking about cities or companies using cctv systems, tourists taking pictures, or buzzwords like "drones" the reality is when you are in an area that can be viewed from a public place, you're putting yourself out there. If you don't want dirty nudie pics of you going around, be a nudist *insid ...


I guess everyone should stay in a titanium covered basement then.  As it stands, upskirt photos are illegal.  So are graphic nude pics of children.  I don't care about your intent, but can we agree that we don't want those pictures floating around the intertubes?
 
2013-06-25 12:15:06 PM  

Waldo Pepper: apartment complex pools are private and not public.


No, they're not. Otherwise, only one person or group would be allowed at the time. They are private in the way that you have to be a renter or the guest of one to get in, but otherwise, they are completely public.You can limit overall access, but people can't have an expectation of privacy by legal definition. If some woman is sunbathing topless, then she has to live with anybody who is legally allowed to go to the swimming pool possibly coming in and ogling her boobs.
 
2013-06-25 12:15:43 PM  
SENSATIONALISM!!!!
 
2013-06-25 12:16:03 PM  

MNguy: firefly212: MNguy: Mikey1969: MNguy: You're parsing words, and coming off like a farking creep who takes pictures of people who are unsuspecting.  It should involve an explicit agreement to allow photos, not some tenuous 'privacy barrier'.

You know, you're giving "stupid" a whole new definition. I'm not coming off as any kind of "creep", except to you, and I'm not really concerned about what mental defectives think. I'm not defending anyone, I'm explaining how the law works and why. If you're too stupid to figure that out, take it up with your parents, thank 'em for the lead paint ships, and try harder to grasp simple concepts next time.

You are not explaining it well, and you're defending creeps, stalkers and weirdos.  Godspeed.

Why should it be illegal for me to take family pictures in the park of my family without going and getting written consent from all of the people in the background? At my cousins graduation, I took a picture of him that had a good hundred people behind him... under your wackadoo standard of privacy, I'd have to go get consent from every one of them before taking the pictures, then be damned sure nobody else wandered into the shot. I took a picture at a hockey game that probably had a good thousand people in the background of the Avs playing, should I have asked all thousand of them? Even here where I work, when they have the R/C race helicopters, they have consent from the (bike or ski) racer they're following, but they don't get consent forms from the whole audience.

You know that you're making a false equivalency.  Yet, you're still farking that chicken.  Are you also taking pictures of an unrelated  girl in a bikini?  Do you not think that taking pictures of a person, when they are not aware, is creepy?


I understand where you're coming from, but if I'm taking a picture of some legit subject, and some random person wanders in front, it's not like I violated their privacy. I took a  picture of a baby moose the other day and some dude with no shirt skateboarded by right in front of me... it's not like I went running after him to make sure he was ok with it....

Generally though, if you don't want your daughter to have her picture taken in a bikini, don't send her out in a bikini. We can't be the thought police, and if it really bothers you that much that you think some random perv is thinking dirty things about little girls, the pictures themselves are irrelevant. Most states have things to stop dirty jerks from doing things like upskirt pictures or whatever, but generally speaking, whatever you can see in public, you can take a picture of.
 
2013-06-25 12:16:33 PM  
You're not an attorney Mikey, and you are really failing hard at making an argument.
 
2013-06-25 12:17:25 PM  
MNguy I think you're making the mistake of assuming that the only reason someone would put a camera on a quadcopter is to spy on people.

You're missing something important, people are boring. Something like a sunset from 300 feet up, or taking aerial video of a distant lightning storm is much more interesting.
 
2013-06-25 12:18:08 PM  

firefly212: MNguy: firefly212: MNguy: Mikey1969: MNguy: You're parsing words, and coming off like a farking creep who takes pictures of people who are unsuspecting.  It should involve an explicit agreement to allow photos, not some tenuous 'privacy barrier'.

You know, you're giving "stupid" a whole new definition. I'm not coming off as any kind of "creep", except to you, and I'm not really concerned about what mental defectives think. I'm not defending anyone, I'm explaining how the law works and why. If you're too stupid to figure that out, take it up with your parents, thank 'em for the lead paint ships, and try harder to grasp simple concepts next time.

You are not explaining it well, and you're defending creeps, stalkers and weirdos.  Godspeed.

Why should it be illegal for me to take family pictures in the park of my family without going and getting written consent from all of the people in the background? At my cousins graduation, I took a picture of him that had a good hundred people behind him... under your wackadoo standard of privacy, I'd have to go get consent from every one of them before taking the pictures, then be damned sure nobody else wandered into the shot. I took a picture at a hockey game that probably had a good thousand people in the background of the Avs playing, should I have asked all thousand of them? Even here where I work, when they have the R/C race helicopters, they have consent from the (bike or ski) racer they're following, but they don't get consent forms from the whole audience.

You know that you're making a false equivalency.  Yet, you're still farking that chicken.  Are you also taking pictures of an unrelated  girl in a bikini?  Do you not think that taking pictures of a person, when they are not aware, is creepy?

I understand where you're coming from, but if I'm taking a picture of some legit subject, and some random person wanders in front, it's not like I violated their privacy. I took a  picture of a baby moose the other day and som ...


I agree to a degree. It's kind of a social compact type of thing.  We generally agree that, however legal, some things are not ok.
 
2013-06-25 12:18:19 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-25 12:18:28 PM  

MNguy: Get the fark off of my lawn though.


I was never on your lawn. I did violate the fark out of your lawn's privacy by looking at it from the sidewalk though.
 
2013-06-25 12:19:09 PM  
Slow News Day Tuesday - well then lets make some schitt up!   It coulda been bad.  It coulda been horrific.  It coulda been the end of PRIVACY AS WE KNOW IT - yeah, that's better.
Wondering when I'll have to get a permit for that 1200mm lens I've been eyeballin'.  Because you know, I coulda been on a roof, overlookin' the freeway and the park and the beach and -

theoutlawlife.files.wordpress.com

and Fox News was there . . .
 
2013-06-25 12:19:36 PM  

smoothvirus: MNguy I think you're making the mistake of assuming that the only reason someone would put a camera on a quadcopter is to spy on people.

You're missing something important, people are boring. Something like a sunset from 300 feet up, or taking aerial video of a distant lightning storm is much more interesting.


I've got no problem with that.  But if my wife is sunbathing and some 16-year old says 'hey'  well, gtfo and leave my family alone.
 
2013-06-25 12:20:52 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Get the fark off of my lawn though.

I was never on your lawn. I did violate the fark out of your lawn's privacy by looking at it from the sidewalk though.


Sorry, legally speaking, my fence was under regulation and you were totes justified at looking into my bathroom window.
 
2013-06-25 12:21:49 PM  

MNguy: firefly212: MNguy: firefly212: MNguy: Mikey1969: MNguy: How is it different?  You're wrong and a little bit creepy.

I explained how it was different, I'm not "wrong and a little bit creepy". I'm right, and you're a 'lot bit' dense.

I'll explain it again:
Clothes are the privacy barrier. You violate that privacy barrier by hiding in a place where you can get around the barrier and take pictures. Same thing with people who sneak cameras into bathroons. They are getting around the privacy barrier. This woman is in public, she is wearing her choice of clothing in public(Her privacy barrier), and nobody is getting around that. If you are walking naked in your living room and can be seen from the street because your front blinds are open, you have no right to privacy there. Move from in front of the window, and you do. Once there is a barrier that people have to circumvent or violate(Such as a skirt in this case), you are protected.

You also aren't protected if you have a low fence in your yard and walk out back naked. People standing in the next yard don't have to avert their eyes. If you have a tall fence, on the other hand, and they climb a ladder, or drill a hole in it, then they are violating your right to privacy. The sad thing is; I'm pretty sure my 15 year old stepson can grasp this concept.

You're parsing words, and coming off like a farking creep who takes pictures of people who are unsuspecting.  It should involve an explicit agreement to allow photos, not some tenuous 'privacy barrier'.

I should be rich, but things aren't as they should be. As it stands, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy/non-recording/no photos when you are in publicly viewable areas. Whether we're talking about cities or companies using cctv systems, tourists taking pictures, or buzzwords like "drones" the reality is when you are in an area that can be viewed from a public place, you're putting yourself out there. If you don't want dirty nudie pics of you going around, be a n ...


I absolutely agree with laws banning upskirt photos and cp. It's disgusting... I just don't think we really need to have like... "photo police" trying to decide whether I was trying to take a picture of a moose or of the skateboarder with exceptionally bad timing. WRT the r/c toys, like I was saying, we see them all the time up here in the mountains, surveyors use them, firespotters use them, race teams use them to follow racers, and frequently homeowners this time of year will use them to survey where they need to cut standing dead trees. If people happen to wander into their frame of vision, I don't think it's particularly pressing that we need to go track those people down and get consent forms. Same for even google streetviews, if you happen to be on the sidewalk, no matter what you're wearing... you're in a public place, on a sidewalk, google shouldn't have to go to great lengths to get your consent (I do support them blurring faces though). Even insofar as building mounted cameras up high (probably higher than most drones can fly), I see no particular issue with them getting consent from persons within their field of view.
 
2013-06-25 12:23:26 PM  
Back in my day we would have to peak through a window or a hole in the fence. Damn spoiled kids these days
!
 
2013-06-25 12:24:37 PM  
firefly212:

I should be rich, but things aren't as they should be. As it stands, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy/non-recording/no photos when you are in publicly viewable areas. Whether we're talking about cities or companies using cctv systems, tourists taking pictures, or buzzwords like "drones" the reality is when you are in an area that can be viewed from a public place, you're putting yourself out there. If you don't want dirty nudie pics of you going around, ...

The thing is, we do need privacy police.  Too many people think that anywhere out in 'public' is all of the sudden fair game for exploitation.
 
2013-06-25 12:26:01 PM  
I'm not outside waving my dick around because there are decency laws against it.  But if I want to wave my dick around in my backyard whirlpool, I ought to be able to.
 
2013-06-25 12:27:25 PM  

MNguy: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.  If you want creepy photos of happy families or couples, more power to you.  Get the fark off of my lawn though.


Man, why is it that you're so terrified of a camera? They're not going to hurt you.
 
2013-06-25 12:30:11 PM  

servlet: MNguy: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.  If you want creepy photos of happy families or couples, more power to you.  Get the fark off of my lawn though.

Man, why is it that you're so terrified of a camera? They're not going to hurt you.


No, they are not.  But I don't want pictures of my niece on the internet.  Nor do I want upskirt pics of my girlfriend circulating because 'it was in public view'
 
2013-06-25 12:32:00 PM  
If I just chuck a handycam up in the air and get glimpses of the neighbor's yard, is that a drone?
 
2013-06-25 12:32:04 PM  
 

MNguy: Too many people think that anywhere out in 'public' is all of the sudden fair game for exploitation.


How do you have any expectation of privacy while in public?
 
2013-06-25 12:33:09 PM  
"My drone sleeps alone" - P. Benatar
 
2013-06-25 12:33:23 PM  

MNguy: But I don't want pictures of my niece on the internet


Better not let her leave the house.

MNguy: Nor do I want upskirt pics of my girlfriend circulating because 'it was in public view'


Unless she was lifting her skirt up, it wasn't in public view.
 
2013-06-25 12:33:47 PM  
When did everyone start referring to RC toys as "drones"?? I must have missed that memo.
 
2013-06-25 12:34:10 PM  

Mikey1969: Waldo Pepper: apartment complex pools are private and not public.

No, they're not. Otherwise, only one person or group would be allowed at the time. They are private in the way that you have to be a renter or the guest of one to get in, but otherwise, they are completely public.You can limit overall access, but people can't have an expectation of privacy by legal definition. If some woman is sunbathing topless, then she has to live with anybody who is legally allowed to go to the swimming pool possibly coming in and ogling her boobs.


but not when it comes to photos or video. Much like going to a football game as it is a private event. it is a thin line but still a line.

Completely public would be open to the public at large without restrictions.
 
2013-06-25 12:35:13 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Too many people think that anywhere out in 'public' is all of the sudden fair game for exploitation.

How do you have any expectation of privacy while in public?


Fine, let's just do it British style and take pictures every waking moment of every waking person's life.  I have an expectation that my life won't be violated.  It's less intrusive to leave me alone than it is to allow you access to my every waking moment.
 
2013-06-25 12:36:29 PM  
Noticeably F.A.T.:

Unless she was lifting her skirt up, it wasn't in public view.

That honestly made me sick to my stomach.  fark the fark off.
 
2013-06-25 12:36:51 PM  
We now interrupt this privacy flamewar to bring you pictures of women sunbathing

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

Thank you.
We now return to your regularly scheduled flamewar.
 
2013-06-25 12:39:38 PM  

MNguy: It's less intrusive to leave me alone than it is to allow you access to my every waking moment.


I don't have access to every moment in your life. I do however have access to what you display while we're both in a shared space.

Where do you think the boundary is between personal and public space? If we're both in a park, am I not allowed to look at you even when you're standing in front of me? Do I have the right to walk up to you completely nude and tell you to avert your eyes, you farking pervert?
 
2013-06-25 12:41:54 PM  

MNguy: No, they are not.  But I don't want pictures of my niece on the internet.  Nor do I want upskirt pics of my girlfriend circulating because 'it was in public view'


First of all, what's the difference if I see your niece out with you at the grocery store or if I see her in some street photography site on the internet? Second, if you don't want people taking pictures of something, then you need to keep it out of public view. The laws on the subject are very clear, so you can go educate yourself and restrict your movements to the locations where no one will have the right to photograph you.

I think upskirt photos have already been discussed, there are already laws against that, and no one's arguing about it except you (and I don't even know who you're arguing with).

Further reading, should you be interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers
 
2013-06-25 12:42:28 PM  

Banned on the Run: We now interrupt this privacy flamewar to bring you pictures of women sunbathing

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x666]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x333]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x667]

[i216.photobucket.com image 750x500]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x667]

[i216.photobucket.com image 800x531]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x667]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x749]

Thank you.
We now return to your regularly scheduled flamewar.


I'll be in my bunk.

/Totally not just a bookmark
 
2013-06-25 12:42:38 PM  
I have a feeling there will be a solution found really quickly when an important lawmaker's 18 year old daughter is filmed sunbathing topless/naked in their private back yard.
 
2013-06-25 12:45:19 PM  

MNguy: That honestly made me sick to my stomach. fark the fark off.


Then why the fark did you bring it up? Nobody said anything about looking up her skirt until you did, and then half the thread told you that it's not legal to do so, and explained why. There's only one person in this thread who seems to think that upskirt pics are legal, and that's you.

Wait, I understand now. You're a farking lunatic. It's the only explanation for how you came up with a strawman argument and then proceeded to lose to it.
 
2013-06-25 12:46:38 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: I have a feeling there will be a solution found really quickly when an important lawmaker's 18 year old daughter is filmed sunbathing topless/naked in their private back yard.


The solution already exists in the laws that are already on the books.
 
2013-06-25 12:46:55 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: I have a feeling there will be a solution found really quickly when an important lawmaker's 18 year old daughter is filmed sunbathing topless/naked in their private back yard.


The solution will be to ban all the legitimate uses of them, in the interest of privacy... so no more firespotting, surveying land, looking for standing dead (tree) patches that need to be cut on your own land, etc... because privacy.
 
2013-06-25 12:47:40 PM  

Waldo Pepper: but not when it comes to photos or video. Much like going to a football game as it is a private event. it is a thin line but still a line.

Completely public would be open to the public at large without restrictions.


Sorry, at a football game, if I take a picture of my buddy, and you're in the background, you can't sue me. Same thing if I skip my buddy and take a pic of you because you are a "superfan" with an elaborate Broncos Papier-mâché  horse's head strapped on. Same with the pool at an apartment complex. I can take a picture of friends with people in the background, or I can even take a pic of some girl sunbathing, but I risk her getting her boyfriend, husband, or father to beat the shiat out of me.
 
2013-06-25 12:47:51 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: It's less intrusive to leave me alone than it is to allow you access to my every waking moment.

I don't have access to every moment in your life. I do however have access to what you display while we're both in a shared space.

Where do you think the boundary is between personal and public space? If we're both in a park, am I not allowed to look at you even when you're standing in front of me? Do I have the right to walk up to you completely nude and tell you to avert your eyes, you farking pervert?


Potentilly you do, and I'd prefer that you don't.  In my backyard?  Yes, avert your eyes and don't send a camera above me to take pictures.  When I'm wagging my cock in your face, maybe you could have a reaction, but still, keep in in house.
 
2013-06-25 12:48:16 PM  

Banned on the Run: We now interrupt this privacy flamewar to bring you pictures of women sunbathing

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x666]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x333]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x667]

[i216.photobucket.com image 750x500]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x667]

[i216.photobucket.com image 800x531]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x667]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x749]

Thank you.
We now return to your regularly scheduled flamewar.


No, don't return.  Stay on the interruption.
 
2013-06-25 12:49:09 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: That honestly made me sick to my stomach. fark the fark off.

Then why the fark did you bring it up? Nobody said anything about looking up her skirt until you did, and then half the thread told you that it's not legal to do so, and explained why. There's only one person in this thread who seems to think that upskirt pics are legal, and that's you.

Wait, I understand now. You're a farking lunatic. It's the only explanation for how you came up with a strawman argument and then proceeded to lose to it.


Explain why public displays are illegal to film?  You seem to be in favor of really disgusting practices.
 
2013-06-25 12:49:38 PM  

Stoj: If I just chuck a handycam up in the air and get glimpses of the neighbor's yard, is that a drone?


Only if you catch it... otherwise it is just a dumb idea.
 
2013-06-25 12:50:26 PM  

firefly212: TheGreatGazoo: I have a feeling there will be a solution found really quickly when an important lawmaker's 18 year old daughter is filmed sunbathing topless/naked in their private back yard.

The solution will be to ban all the legitimate uses of them, in the interest of privacy... so no more firespotting, surveying land, looking for standing dead (tree) patches that need to be cut on your own land, etc... because privacy.


Look, I'm not against some public interest stuff, but taking pictures of a topless gal for shiats and giggles doesn't seem right.
 
2013-06-25 12:53:35 PM  
I'm sorry if you don't have any family or friends that you would be pissed about clandestine photos.  But some of us do have them and would care to not have that happening.  Even if they are in public.  You farking creeps.
 
2013-06-25 12:57:07 PM  

MNguy: smoothvirus: So let me get this straight, MNguy, anyone with a camera on an RC aircraft is a pedophile now?

Potentially, yes.  A voyeur at best.


"Potentially" nice weasel word, there.
 
2013-06-25 12:57:32 PM  
Is DRONECAMGIRLS.COM taken yet?
 
2013-06-25 12:59:13 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MNguy: smoothvirus: So let me get this straight, MNguy, anyone with a camera on an RC aircraft is a pedophile now?

Potentially, yes.  A voyeur at best.

"Potentially" nice weasel word, there.


Did you see the second word?  I'm sorry if you identify with the voyeur and have no life of your own.  Please stop taking pictures of my niece.
 
2013-06-25 01:01:22 PM  

Banned on the Run: We now interrupt this privacy flamewar to bring you pictures of women sunbathing

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x666]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x333]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x667]

[i216.photobucket.com image 750x500]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x667]

[i216.photobucket.com image 800x531]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x667]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x749]

Thank you.
We now return to your regularly scheduled flamewar.


#4, #6, and #8 need sammiches.  Stat, in the case of #4.
 
2013-06-25 01:03:26 PM  
Taking pictures of people in public is legal, in most instances. Deal with it.
 
2013-06-25 01:05:00 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Taking pictures of people in public is legal, in most instances. Deal with it.


Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.
 
2013-06-25 01:11:57 PM  

mrgawler: Oh look, another FAIR and BALANCED article.


What does 'fair and balanced' have to do with the Orlando CBS affiliate?
 
2013-06-25 01:12:51 PM  

MNguy: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MNguy: smoothvirus: So let me get this straight, MNguy, anyone with a camera on an RC aircraft is a pedophile now?

Potentially, yes.  A voyeur at best.

"Potentially" nice weasel word, there.

Did you see the second word?  I'm sorry if you identify with the voyeur and have no life of your own.  Please stop taking pictures of my niece.


Huh? I'm not taking pictures of anybody, weirdo. Just pointing out that "potentially" is a silly weasel word.
 
2013-06-25 01:13:43 PM  

MNguy: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MNguy: smoothvirus: So let me get this straight, MNguy, anyone with a camera on an RC aircraft is a pedophile now?

Potentially, yes.  A voyeur at best.

"Potentially" nice weasel word, there.

Did you see the second word?  I'm sorry if you identify with the voyeur and have no life of your own.  Please stop taking pictures of my niece.


Also, you seem way too interested in your adolescent niece, dude. Just sayin...
 
2013-06-25 01:15:54 PM  

skinink: Why did the kid talk to the news? Now the cop have more than enough to investigate him if they want.



I don't even think that's illegal... it's just frowned upon like masturbating in an airplane bathroom.
 
2013-06-25 01:16:04 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MNguy: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MNguy: smoothvirus: So let me get this straight, MNguy, anyone with a camera on an RC aircraft is a pedophile now?

Potentially, yes.  A voyeur at best.

"Potentially" nice weasel word, there.

Did you see the second word?  I'm sorry if you identify with the voyeur and have no life of your own.  Please stop taking pictures of my niece.

Also, you seem way too interested in your adolescent niece, dude. Just sayin...


I don't think he has one... pictures or it didn't happen
 
2013-06-25 01:18:40 PM  

MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: Taking pictures of people in public is legal, in most instances. Deal with it.

Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.


If they're in public, I can take pictures.  Deal with it.
 
2013-06-25 01:20:04 PM  
I'm under the impression that those consumer level 'drones' can't really produce enough lift to carry much, right?  I mean a GoPro cam is pretty light, but carrying anything over a few lbs would basically prevent it from flying, right?
 
2013-06-25 01:22:46 PM  

MNguy: Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.


And what if I do? The law will be on my side in any instance, save for where you have an expectation of privacy. Those situations are clearly defined by the law, which I know very well and abide by completely.
 
2013-06-25 01:23:49 PM  

ronaprhys: MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: Taking pictures of people in public is legal, in most instances. Deal with it.

Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.

If they're in public, I can take pictures.  Deal with it.


Ha, sure.  Let me take pictures of your kid.  Also, your wife has a wide stance.
 
2013-06-25 01:24:09 PM  

PsyLord: I'm under the impression that those consumer level 'drones' can't really produce enough lift to carry much, right?  I mean a GoPro cam is pretty light, but carrying anything over a few lbs would basically prevent it from flying, right?


They're just RC toys, you could maybe load 1.5-2lbs on most of the "consumer level" ones at best, so... not much. They do make commercial ones that are bigger, hold more fuel (enough for a couple hours of airtime), and can support multiple cameras including some with gyro stabilization and mounts that can be aimed... they also make variants for ones that need to stay stable in gusty/variable winds. Those commercial ones are neat, but the race crew guy said his was about 40k, so more than your average joe was gonna spend.
 
2013-06-25 01:24:31 PM  

servlet: MNguy: Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.

And what if I do? The law will be on my side in any instance, save for where you have an expectation of privacy. Those situations are clearly defined by the law, which I know very well and abide by completely.


Thanks pedo, for informing me of the law.
 
2013-06-25 01:25:03 PM  

MNguy: ronaprhys: MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: Taking pictures of people in public is legal, in most instances. Deal with it.

Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.

If they're in public, I can take pictures.  Deal with it.

Ha, sure.  Let me take pictures of your kid.  Also, your wife has a wide stance.


Man you are creepy. Yikes
 
2013-06-25 01:25:13 PM  

servlet: MNguy: Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.

And what if I do? The law will be on my side in any instance, save for where you have an expectation of privacy. Those situations are clearly defined by the law, which I know very well and abide by completely.


If you find something like that hovering around your property, do you have the right to bring it down (i.e. shoot it down with an airsoft gun)?  Just curious cause I'm still trying to get my law degree from Fark U.
 
2013-06-25 01:28:10 PM  

MNguy: ronaprhys: MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: Taking pictures of people in public is legal, in most instances. Deal with it.

Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.

If they're in public, I can take pictures.  Deal with it.

Ha, sure.  Let me take pictures of your kid.  Also, your wife has a wide stance.


I don't have any kids, so I'm not sure that matters.  And, if we're in public, you take pictures.  I've no expectation of privacy in public.

Also, speaking of pedo behavior, sounds like you've got that base covered for me.
 
2013-06-25 01:29:08 PM  
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:

Man you are creepy. Yikes

I'm sorry your wife is an exhibitionist.
 
2013-06-25 01:30:41 PM  
You guys need more fiber in your diet.
 
2013-06-25 01:30:56 PM  

ronaprhys: MNguy: ronaprhys: MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: Taking pictures of people in public is legal, in most instances. Deal with it.

Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.

If they're in public, I can take pictures.  Deal with it.

Ha, sure.  Let me take pictures of your kid.  Also, your wife has a wide stance.

I don't have any kids, so I'm not sure that matters.  And, if we're in public, you take pictures.  I've no expectation of privacy in public.

Also, speaking of pedo behavior, sounds like you've got that base covered for me.


Sorry that your mind goes there immediately.  farking creep
 
2013-06-25 01:31:10 PM  
Flab:  #4, #6, and #8 need sammiches.  Stat, in the case of #4.

This one needs a sammich?
i216.photobucket.com


Scuttlebutt:  No, don't return.  Stay on the interruption.

If you insist.

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-25 01:34:12 PM  

MNguy: Potentilly you do,


No, I really don't. You're allowed to be there, and you're allowed to see whatever I put there.

MNguy: In my backyard? Yes, avert your eyes and don't send a camera above me to take pictures.


That's already illegal for me to do. I can't peek over your fence (though I can look at and take pictures of the fence itself), and I can't send cameras over your fence. What more do you want? Extra super-duper illegal?
 
2013-06-25 01:35:10 PM  

MNguy: I'm sorry if you don't have any family or friends that you would be pissed about clandestine photos.  But some of us do have them and would care to not have that happening.  Even if they are in public.  You farking creeps.


If you do nothing that I consider photo worthy in public, I won't take a pic..

do you think all those people with their pics up at peopleofwalmart.com want them to be there?

and you've never looked at a photo where you think the person in the pic wouldn't have wanted it taken?

what kind of creep are YOU?

/nothing to hide
//no reason to worry
//sound familiar?
 
2013-06-25 01:36:07 PM  

PsyLord: servlet: MNguy: Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.

And what if I do? The law will be on my side in any instance, save for where you have an expectation of privacy. Those situations are clearly defined by the law, which I know very well and abide by completely.

If you find something like that hovering around your property, do you have the right to bring it down (i.e. shoot it down with an airsoft gun)?  Just curious cause I'm still trying to get my law degree from Fark U.


Oh I have no idea about that. My knowledge of photography law comes from being a photographer. I think it's prudent to know the laws as they relate to my trade. If I was going to take an assignment that involved flying a camera like that, I'd do the appropriate research before taking on the job, although that's a bit outside my usual work.
 
2013-06-25 01:37:32 PM  

MNguy: Sorry that your mind goes there immediately. farking creep


Dude, you brought it up, not him. The first person to go to the pedo and upskirt discussion was you.

I will say you're at least consistent in your anti-logic. You're allowed to do whatever you want in public while remaining private, and you're allowed to talk about whatever you want in a Fark thread while other people are creepy for talking about it.
 
2013-06-25 01:37:37 PM  

MNguy: servlet: MNguy: Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.

And what if I do? The law will be on my side in any instance, save for where you have an expectation of privacy. Those situations are clearly defined by the law, which I know very well and abide by completely.

Thanks pedo, for informing me of the law.


You're going to accuse me of being a pedophile simply because I know the law? That's a stretch.
 
2013-06-25 01:38:40 PM  

MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: Taking pictures of people in public is legal, in most instances. Deal with it.

Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.


If your family is out in public, and someone wants a picture of them, they can take the picture, and you can cry about it on the internet. How's that sound?
 
2013-06-25 01:39:57 PM  
apparently it's really tough to not take pictures of people who don't want them taken.

sorry, i misunderstood
 
2013-06-25 01:42:06 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Sorry that your mind goes there immediately. farking creep

Dude, you brought it up, not him. The first person to go to the pedo and upskirt discussion was you.

I will say you're at least consistent in your anti-logic. You're allowed to do whatever you want in public while remaining private, and you're allowed to talk about whatever you want in a Fark thread while other people are creepy for talking about it.


Welp, have fun taking pictures of anyone (including underage girls) because you can.
 
2013-06-25 01:43:31 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: Taking pictures of people in public is legal, in most instances. Deal with it.

Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.

If your family is out in public, and someone wants a picture of them, they can take the picture, and you can cry about it on the internet. How's that sound?


It sounds like a pedophile or potential rapist justifying their means.
 
2013-06-25 01:46:02 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Sorry that your mind goes there immediately. farking creep

Dude, you brought it up, not him. The first person to go to the pedo and upskirt discussion was you.

I will say you're at least consistent in your anti-logic. You're allowed to do whatever you want in public while remaining private, and you're allowed to talk about whatever you want in a Fark thread while other people are creepy for talking about it.


I just noticed him trolling in another thread.  He did a pretty good job here, so he's got that going for his pathetic existence.  Now that he's been positively identified, I think we can all safely ignore him.
 
2013-06-25 01:46:45 PM  

MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: Taking pictures of people in public is legal, in most instances. Deal with it.

Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.

If your family is out in public, and someone wants a picture of them, they can take the picture, and you can cry about it on the internet. How's that sound?

It sounds like a pedophile or potential rapist justifying their means.


Would you please stop calling everybody who disagrees with you a pedo/rapist? It makes you sound like an infant.
 
2013-06-25 01:48:57 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: Taking pictures of people in public is legal, in most instances. Deal with it.

Fine.  It's legal.  Don't take pictures of my family though.

If your family is out in public, and someone wants a picture of them, they can take the picture, and you can cry about it on the internet. How's that sound?

It sounds like a pedophile or potential rapist justifying their means.

Would you please stop calling everybody who disagrees with you a pedo/rapist? It makes you sound like an infant.


Tell me who wants to take pictures of people without their acknowledgement? Because I can't think of any who aren't farking creepers.
 
2013-06-25 01:50:09 PM  
Repetitive attack ad hominem does not make a clever troll. It just makes a boring one.
 
2013-06-25 01:53:50 PM  

DirkTheDaring: Repetitive attack ad hominem does not make a clever troll. It just makes a boring one.


This is why I ignored him quite some time ago. You can only take so much repetitive idiocy.
 
2013-06-25 01:54:15 PM  

MNguy: Welp, have fun taking pictures of anyone (including underage girls) because you can.


I will. You enjoy your life imagining that everyone else has the same perverted motivations you do.
 
2013-06-25 01:56:08 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Welp, have fun taking pictures of anyone (including underage girls) because you can.

I will. You enjoy your life imagining that everyone else has the same perverted motivations you do.


You have to take the law to its logical conclusion.  I'd rather have privacy than a camera equipped helicopter, but hey.
 
2013-06-25 02:01:18 PM  
MNguy, stop freaking out. Unless there's a lot more footage they left out of their super sensationalized story, the fact that she was within the camera's field of view was completely incidental and it was very brief. As someone else said, with the super wide angle lens on a GoPro you'd have to get about 10ft away to have better than a human shaped blob of pixels, regardless of recording 1080p.

This is purely a case of a tv reporter hyping up NOTHING because the producer gave them x number of blocks of y length time they have to fill that day and they didn't have real news that matters. I worked in broadcast TV for 11 years and I saw this kind of crap every day. I shudder to think what they would have done with this in sweeps.
 
2013-06-25 02:02:26 PM  

MNguy: I'd rather have privacy than a camera equipped helicopter, but hey.


I'd rather have my picture randomly on the internet than have my first amendment rights restricted.
 
2013-06-25 02:04:32 PM  

MNguy: You have to take the law to its logical conclusion.


Which is what everyone but you did. You 'tarded past that logical conclusion at a dead sprint.
 
2013-06-25 02:04:33 PM  

Banned on the Run: We now interrupt this privacy flamewar to bring you pictures of women sunbathing

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x666]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x333]


i216.photobucket.com

[i216.photobucket.com image 750x500]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x667]

[i216.photobucket.com image 800x531]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x667]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x749]

Thank you.
We now return to your regularly scheduled flamewar.


#3, Whar nipples? Whar??!?!? It's like they are 180 degrees out. Maybe you could use them like handgrips when motorboating.
 
2013-06-25 02:05:11 PM  
I think we can all agree that this could have been much worse.  It could have been a manned drone.


Also, I can't tell if local news is a parody of the onion or if the onion is a parody of the local news anymore.
 
2013-06-25 02:07:41 PM  

MNguy: Tell me who wants to take pictures of people without their acknowledgement?


I use my camera for taking pictures of my car builds, and the ocassional shot of my dog (oh crap! I forgot to get Buddy to sign a waiver!). I have no interest in taking a picture of you, your wife or your underage niece. I just disagree with you telling me that I can't do it, when the law clearly states that I can. For that sin, you have labeled me a pedo/rapist, and yet you expect us to take you seriously?

Step 1) Remove head from ass
Step 2) THEN post on the internet
 
2013-06-25 02:07:58 PM  

MNguy: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:

Man you are creepy. Yikes

I'm sorry your wife is an exhibitionist.


My wife is a saint! Wait... I don't even have a wife...
 
2013-06-25 02:09:50 PM  

Banned on the Run: This one needs a sammich?


Yes.  If it weren't for photoshop, her hip bones and ribs would be showing about as much as #4.
 
2013-06-25 02:10:20 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Tell me who wants to take pictures of people without their acknowledgement?

I use my camera for taking pictures of my car builds, and the ocassional shot of my dog (oh crap! I forgot to get Buddy to sign a waiver!). I have no interest in taking a picture of you, your wife or your underage niece. I just disagree with you telling me that I can't do it, when the law clearly states that I can. For that sin, you have labeled me a pedo/rapist, and yet you expect us to take you seriously?

Step 1) Remove head from ass
Step 2) THEN post on the internet


Look, I've got no problem with you taking pictures of your family.  Even mine, if it's incidental.  But government and rotten assholes use these loopholes to abuse the law and people's good nature.
 
2013-06-25 02:11:44 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You have to take the law to its logical conclusion.

Which is what everyone but you did. You 'tarded past that logical conclusion at a dead sprint.


No, you did not.  You've never been involved in lawmaking and it's obvious.
 
2013-06-25 02:17:44 PM  

MNguy: No, you did not. You've never been involved in lawmaking and it's obvious.


Well, I didn't make it to "it's legal for pedophiles to take pictures of my girlfriends business", but that's not the logical conclusion. The law stops well short of that, and it's pretty damn clear where your expectation of privacy starts and stops. What's obvious here is that you don't have the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about.
 
2013-06-25 02:19:18 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: No, you did not. You've never been involved in lawmaking and it's obvious.

Well, I didn't make it to "it's legal for pedophiles to take pictures of my girlfriends business", but that's not the logical conclusion. The law stops well short of that, and it's pretty damn clear where your expectation of privacy starts and stops. What's obvious here is that you don't have the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about.


Ok, please tell me where the law stops and starts.  Because yu don't have a farking clue.
 
2013-06-25 02:20:31 PM  

MNguy: But government and rotten assholes use these loopholes to abuse the law and people's good nature.


So that justifies your ad hominem attacks on everyone that disagrees with you? Here's a hint: No. No it doesn't.
 
2013-06-25 02:21:14 PM  

MNguy: Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: No, you did not. You've never been involved in lawmaking and it's obvious.

Well, I didn't make it to "it's legal for pedophiles to take pictures of my girlfriends business", but that's not the logical conclusion. The law stops well short of that, and it's pretty damn clear where your expectation of privacy starts and stops. What's obvious here is that you don't have the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about.

Ok, please tell me where the law stops and starts.  Because yu don't have a farking clue.


Your home and your clothes. They cant penetrate/violate either... but if you want your niece to wear a burqa, she has to actually wear it, there  is no legal substitute or virtual burqa option.
 
2013-06-25 02:21:33 PM  
Really, you have no clue.  I'm glad that you're ok with the surveillance state, but I'm not.  How high is your fence?  How thick are your walls?  I've never met a dipshiat as big as you in real life, but ok.
 
2013-06-25 02:21:51 PM  

Mikey1969: Waldo Pepper: but not when it comes to photos or video. Much like going to a football game as it is a private event. it is a thin line but still a line.

Completely public would be open to the public at large without restrictions.

Sorry, at a football game, if I take a picture of my buddy, and you're in the background, you can't sue me. Same thing if I skip my buddy and take a pic of you because you are a "superfan" with an elaborate Broncos Papier-mâché  horse's head strapped on. Same with the pool at an apartment complex. I can take a picture of friends with people in the background, or I can even take a pic of some girl sunbathing, but I risk her getting her boyfriend, husband, or father to beat the shiat out of me.


I can if you try to sell the photo
 
2013-06-25 02:23:14 PM  

firefly212: MNguy: Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: No, you did not. You've never been involved in lawmaking and it's obvious.

Well, I didn't make it to "it's legal for pedophiles to take pictures of my girlfriends business", but that's not the logical conclusion. The law stops well short of that, and it's pretty damn clear where your expectation of privacy starts and stops. What's obvious here is that you don't have the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about.

Ok, please tell me where the law stops and starts.  Because yu don't have a farking clue.

Your home and your clothes. They cant penetrate/violate either... but if you want your niece to wear a burqa, she has to actually wear it, there  is no legal substitute or virtual burqa option.


I guess that's the problem.  How about we don't violate a person's privacy?  I guess this is a tough issue, apparently.
 
2013-06-25 02:23:49 PM  

MNguy: Really, you have no clue.  I'm glad that you're ok with the surveillance state, but I'm not.  How high is your fence?  How thick are your walls?  I've never met a dipshiat as big as you in real life, but ok.


Everyone is walking around with a camera and a connection to the Internet in their pocket. The surveillance state is here. That ship has sailed.
 
2013-06-25 02:24:33 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: But government and rotten assholes use these loopholes to abuse the law and people's good nature.

So that justifies your ad hominem attacks on everyone that disagrees with you? Here's a hint: No. No it doesn't.


Well, it kind f does.  Justify taking pictures of people unawares.  Because I don't think that you can.
 
2013-06-25 02:24:35 PM  

MNguy: Ok, please tell me where the law stops and starts. Because yu don't have a farking clue.


Why don't you read the damn thread? I'm not retyping all the replies to your idiocy just because you can't be bothered to read them. It's been repeatedly spelled out to you in easy to understand words and sentences, if you're not getting it by now, you're not going to.

Wait, no. One last try.

You in public, you not private. You in private, you not public.

That's about as simple as it's going to get. If that doesn't sink through those perverted thoughts you have running through your skull, nothing will.
 
2013-06-25 02:25:11 PM  

MNguy: I've never met a dipshiat as big as you in real life, but ok.


site.richardrothstein.com
 
2013-06-25 02:25:34 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MNguy: Really, you have no clue.  I'm glad that you're ok with the surveillance state, but I'm not.  How high is your fence?  How thick are your walls?  I've never met a dipshiat as big as you in real life, but ok.

Everyone is walking around with a camera and a connection to the Internet in their pocket. The surveillance state is here. That ship has sailed.


Not in my back yard.  And I can help it.
 
2013-06-25 02:26:22 PM  

MNguy: How about we don't violate a person's privacy?


If you've placed something in public view, there's no privacy to violate.
 
2013-06-25 02:27:32 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Ok, please tell me where the law stops and starts. Because yu don't have a farking clue.

Why don't you read the damn thread? I'm not retyping all the replies to your idiocy just because you can't be bothered to read them. It's been repeatedly spelled out to you in easy to understand words and sentences, if you're not getting it by now, you're not going to.

Wait, no. One last try.

You in public, you not private. You in private, you not public.

That's about as simple as it's going to get. If that doesn't sink through those perverted thoughts you have running through your skull, nothing will.


I know that you're a bit of a gun nut, I am not.  But if you really think that it's ok to take pictures of people when they are leisuring or whatever, you are a moran.
 
2013-06-25 02:27:43 PM  

MNguy: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MNguy: Really, you have no clue.  I'm glad that you're ok with the surveillance state, but I'm not.  How high is your fence?  How thick are your walls?  I've never met a dipshiat as big as you in real life, but ok.

Everyone is walking around with a camera and a connection to the Internet in their pocket. The surveillance state is here. That ship has sailed.

Not in my back yard.  And I can help it.


No one in this thread has argued otherwise.
 
2013-06-25 02:28:35 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: How about we don't violate a person's privacy?

If you've placed something in public view, there's no privacy to violate.


Everything that is not in the basement of your mother's house is fit for public consumption.
 
2013-06-25 02:29:49 PM  

MNguy: Justify taking pictures of people unawares. Because I don't think that you can


Here ya go: It's perfectly legal, therefore I can do it if I want. I have a right to photograph stuff that is in public view. If you don't want your picture taken, it's YOUR responsibility to not put yourself in a position to have your picture taken, but MY right shall not be infringed.
 
2013-06-25 02:29:52 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MNguy: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MNguy: Really, you have no clue.  I'm glad that you're ok with the surveillance state, but I'm not.  How high is your fence?  How thick are your walls?  I've never met a dipshiat as big as you in real life, but ok.

Everyone is walking around with a camera and a connection to the Internet in their pocket. The surveillance state is here. That ship has sailed.

Not in my back yard.  And I can help it.

No one in this thread has argued otherwise.


F.A.T has kind of argued that it's ok.  I do not think that it's ok.
 
2013-06-25 02:31:05 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Justify taking pictures of people unawares. Because I don't think that you can

Here ya go: It's perfectly legal, therefore I can do it if I want. I have a right to photograph stuff that is in public view. If you don't want your picture taken, it's YOUR responsibility to not put yourself in a position to have your picture taken, but MY right shall not be infringed.


Ok, fine.  You take a picture of me and my family while we're in the park.
 
2013-06-25 02:31:34 PM  

MNguy: But if you really think that it's ok to take pictures of people when they are leisuring or whatever, you are a moran well within your legal rights to do so.


Fixed that for more accuracy
 
2013-06-25 02:31:40 PM  
You all are not understanding the law at all.  You cannot do that.
 
2013-06-25 02:32:46 PM  
no.  you really can't.  and if you think flying your little airplane or whatever is legal,, you're in for a nice surprise.
 
2013-06-25 02:35:10 PM  

MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Justify taking pictures of people unawares. Because I don't think that you can

Here ya go: It's perfectly legal, therefore I can do it if I want. I have a right to photograph stuff that is in public view. If you don't want your picture taken, it's YOUR responsibility to not put yourself in a position to have your picture taken, but MY right shall not be infringed.

Ok, fine.  You take a picture of me and my family while we're in the park.


Sorry to burst your bubble, dude, but no one gives a shiat about your ugly ass family. We're really not interested at all in photographing them.
 
2013-06-25 02:36:02 PM  

MNguy: Everything that is not in the basement of your mother's house is fit for public consumption.


False. Completely and blatantly false.

MNguy: F.A.T has kind of argued that it's ok.


I haven't even kind argued that. You have said that I have, but that doesn't make it true.
 
2013-06-25 02:36:36 PM  

MNguy: Really, you have no clue.  I'm glad that you're ok with the surveillance state, but I'm not.  How high is your fence?  How thick are your walls?  I've never met a dipshiat as big as you in real life, but ok.


I'm sure there is a difference between whether you can take the photo and what you can do with the photo.   you are pretty much free to take whatever photo you wish on public or even sort of public private property, it is what you do with the photo afterwards that can be the difference
 
2013-06-25 02:36:46 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Sorry to burst your bubble, dude, but no one gives a shiat about your ugly ass family.


www.citizenx.cx

Hee hee. Ugly ass-family.
 
2013-06-25 02:39:32 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Everything that is not in the basement of your mother's house is fit for public consumption.

False. Completely and blatantly false.

MNguy: F.A.T has kind of argued that it's ok.

I haven't even kind argued that. You have said that I have, but that doesn't make it true.


Define 'public" for me then.
 
2013-06-25 02:40:09 PM  

Waldo Pepper: I can if you try to sell the photo


I'll make sure to give you a cut when I sell it.   ;-)
 
2013-06-25 02:40:36 PM  

Waldo Pepper: MNguy: Really, you have no clue.  I'm glad that you're ok with the surveillance state, but I'm not.  How high is your fence?  How thick are your walls?  I've never met a dipshiat as big as you in real life, but ok.

I'm sure there is a difference between whether you can take the photo and what you can do with the photo.   you are pretty much free to take whatever photo you wish on public or even sort of public private property, it is what you do with the photo afterwards that can be the difference


What's the difference between taking a photo and choosing what to do with it?
 
2013-06-25 02:40:41 PM  

MNguy: Mikey1969: MNguy: How is it different?  You're wrong and a little bit creepy.

I explained how it was different, I'm not "wrong and a little bit creepy". I'm right, and you're a 'lot bit' dense.

I'll explain it again:
Clothes are the privacy barrier. You violate that privacy barrier by hiding in a place where you can get around the barrier and take pictures. Same thing with people who sneak cameras into bathroons. They are getting around the privacy barrier. This woman is in public, she is wearing her choice of clothing in public(Her privacy barrier), and nobody is getting around that. If you are walking naked in your living room and can be seen from the street because your front blinds are open, you have no right to privacy there. Move from in front of the window, and you do. Once there is a barrier that people have to circumvent or violate(Such as a skirt in this case), you are protected.

You also aren't protected if you have a low fence in your yard and walk out back naked. People standing in the next yard don't have to avert their eyes. If you have a tall fence, on the other hand, and they climb a ladder, or drill a hole in it, then they are violating your right to privacy. The sad thing is; I'm pretty sure my 15 year old stepson can grasp this concept.

You're parsing words, and coming off like a farking creep who takes pictures of people who are unsuspecting.  It should involve an explicit agreement to allow photos, not some tenuous 'privacy barrier'.


This isn't Ireland. (Where they DO have that law)
 
2013-06-25 02:42:18 PM  
Once it's on my camera I can do whatever I want with it.
 
2013-06-25 02:43:29 PM  
Another Government Employee:
This isn't Ireland. (Where they DO have that law)

It's a bad law?
 
2013-06-25 02:46:58 PM  

MNguy: Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Everything that is not in the basement of your mother's house is fit for public consumption.

False. Completely and blatantly false.

MNguy: F.A.T has kind of argued that it's ok.

I haven't even kind argued that. You have said that I have, but that doesn't make it true.

Define 'public" for me then.


Any establishment or area that is not privately owned. Establishment or areas that are privately owned can allow or disallow certain degrees of behavior or actions, including but not limited to taking photos. Unless you own the property or are legally the resident of the property/area, it isn't your call. While you might not agree with someone taking pictures of your family, saying it is illegal for them to is not the case. You can yell at the person(s) taking photos, but you would be in the wrong from a legal standpoint. I think most people would agree with you on the creepy factor but not legal. With that said it is legal to take the photo, but there are numerous limitations on what can be done after the fact with the image(s). You asking me not to take a photo is essentially telling me not to look and remember that image. A photograph is a memory of that image. What if I were to say draw your family, and I can assure you I can achieve fairly close to photo-realistic image quality?
 
2013-06-25 02:47:03 PM  

MNguy: Waldo Pepper: MNguy: Really, you have no clue.  I'm glad that you're ok with the surveillance state, but I'm not.  How high is your fence?  How thick are your walls?  I've never met a dipshiat as big as you in real life, but ok.

I'm sure there is a difference between whether you can take the photo and what you can do with the photo.   you are pretty much free to take whatever photo you wish on public or even sort of public private property, it is what you do with the photo afterwards that can be the difference

What's the difference between taking a photo and choosing what to do with it?


well you can take all the photos you desire of the hollywood sign but once you try to sell it as a print you have a copyright issue on your hands.  but you can take a photo of the hollywood sign and sell it for editorial purposes such as newspapers

I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission

so it makes a big difference.  You can photograph pretty much anything for your private use and even posting on places such as facebook or flickr as long as you don't use it for commercial purposes.
 
2013-06-25 02:48:04 PM  

MNguy: What's the difference between taking a photo and choosing what to do with it?


Absolutely everything, where the law is concerned. There are certain situations where I would need a model release from anyone recognizable in the photo. Those situations mostly cover advertising and other commercial use. For editorial and artistic use, I don't need anyone's permission but my own (as the copyright holder) to publish the photograph.

Keep cowering in fear of the pedophiles that are after you and your family.
 
2013-06-25 02:48:53 PM  
 
2013-06-25 02:49:01 PM  

Waldo Pepper: I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission


If that were true, TMZ wouldn't exist.
 
2013-06-25 02:49:20 PM  
more than likely, you can't draw a good picture.  anyway, leave me and my family alone.
 
2013-06-25 02:50:16 PM  

MNguy: Define 'public" for me then.


pub·lic
/ˈpəblik/

Adjective Of or concerning the people as a whole.

Noun Ordinary people in general; the community.

Synonyms adjective. common - open - national - general - communal - overt noun. audience - people - house - community


Now you explain to me how any of that could possibly be construed as "Everything that is not in the basement of your mother's house", and where anyone but you in the thread said anything like that.
 
2013-06-25 02:51:14 PM  

servlet: MNguy: What's the difference between taking a photo and choosing what to do with it?

Absolutely everything, where the law is concerned. There are certain situations where I would need a model release from anyone recognizable in the photo. Those situations mostly cover advertising and other commercial use. For editorial and artistic use, I don't need anyone's permission but my own (as the copyright holder) to publish the photograph.

Keep cowering in fear of the pedophiles that are after you and your family.


derp.  I'm glad we have clueless folks in the world to keep litigation going.  you stupid, ignorant fark.
 
2013-06-25 02:52:11 PM  

MNguy: leave me and my family alone.


If you want complete isolation, then completely isolate yourself. If you want to join other people in shared spaces, you're going to give up some privacy. Deal with it.
 
2013-06-25 02:52:28 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Define 'public" for me then.

pub·lic
/ˈpəblik/

Adjective Of or concerning the people as a whole.

Noun Ordinary people in general; the community.

Synonyms adjective. common - open - national - general - communal - overt noun. audience - people - house - community

Now you explain to me how any of that could possibly be construed as "Everything that is not in the basement of your mother's house", and where anyone but you in the thread said anything like that.


Oh, sorry.  I meant anywhere outside.
 
2013-06-25 02:53:21 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: leave me and my family alone.

If you want complete isolation, then completely isolate yourself. If you want to join other people in shared spaces, you're going to give up some privacy. Deal with it.


I can't wait until your mom shows up on you porn.
 
2013-06-25 02:56:37 PM  

Waldo Pepper: well you can take all the photos you desire of the hollywood sign but once you try to sell it as a print you have a copyright issue on your hands.  but you can take a photo of the hollywood sign and sell it for editorial purposes such as newspapers

I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission


You're actually wrong on both accounts. You can't use the picture of the girl at the beach in a commercial capacity (think "advertising") without getting a model release from her, but selling the photo as art is completely okay. The hollywood sign falls under derivative works, so you can do whatever you'd like with the photograph.
 
2013-06-25 02:57:56 PM  
Y'all done been creep/upskirt trolled
 
2013-06-25 02:59:46 PM  

MNguy: derp.  I'm glad we have clueless folks in the world to keep litigation going.  you stupid, ignorant fark.


Clueless? Man, this is my job and my LIFE. I can't afford to not know the law. I guarantee that every photograph I shoot is within the law and every way that I use the photographs I shoot is also within the law. That includes my professional work as well as my personal "for fun" work.
 
2013-06-25 03:03:05 PM  

MNguy: Oh, sorry. I meant anywhere outside.


Ok, explain how "Of or concerning the people as a whole." or "Ordinary people in general; the community." can possibly be construed as "anywhere outside".
 
2013-06-25 03:03:55 PM  

trappedspirit: Y'all done been creep/upskirt trolled


Oh no. An idiot convinced us all that he's an idiot. I feel so ashamed.
 
2013-06-25 03:06:14 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Oh, sorry. I meant anywhere outside.

Ok, explain how "Of or concerning the people as a whole." or "Ordinary people in general; the community." can possibly be construed as "anywhere outside".


Besides the plain language?  I can't help you, sorry.
 
2013-06-25 03:12:33 PM  

MNguy: I can't wait until your mom shows up on you porn.


What's wrong with you?
 
2013-06-25 03:13:01 PM  

MNguy: Besides the plain language? I can't help you, sorry.


So you think that your enclosed back yard (which is presumably outside, what with it being a back yard) is a public space?
 
2013-06-25 03:13:38 PM  

MNguy: more than likely, you can't draw a good picture.  anyway, leave me and my family alone.


i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-25 03:16:09 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Besides the plain language? I can't help you, sorry.

So you think that your enclosed back yard (which is presumably outside, what with it being a back yard) is a public space?


No, it is not.
 
2013-06-25 03:17:14 PM  
Hmmm... that's gonna leave a mark.
 
2013-06-25 03:17:18 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: I can't wait until your mom shows up on you porn.

What's wrong with you?


I'm sure your mother was on camera sometime.  Did she ever see the light of day?
 
2013-06-25 03:28:19 PM  
Ban cameras from them.  Make it legal to shoot them down if they're over your property.

Free-roaming farking cats are bad enough.  Don't need this shiat too.
 
2013-06-25 03:28:21 PM  

vpb: What can one of these things lift?  An M-67 grenade weighs 14oz/400g.

Wait until the NRA gets in on this!  I see some epic fark threads coming up!


You know, that is actually a really disturbing thought. Imagine if the Boston bombers had used drones instead of walking the streets personally to plant the bombs, for example.
 
2013-06-25 03:29:42 PM  

MNguy: Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Besides the plain language? I can't help you, sorry.

So you think that your enclosed back yard (which is presumably outside, what with it being a back yard) is a public space?

No, it is not.


So, you think that the definition of public says that it's public, but you don't think it's public?

Yeah, it's everyone else in the thread who is confused and ignorant, you've got a complete handle on the situation. Sure, we'll run with that.
 
2013-06-25 03:31:41 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: Besides the plain language? I can't help you, sorry.

So you think that your enclosed back yard (which is presumably outside, what with it being a back yard) is a public space?

No, it is not.

So, you think that the definition of public says that it's public, but you don't think it's public?

Yeah, it's everyone else in the thread who is confused and ignorant, you've got a complete handle on the situation. Sure, we'll run with that.


I never thought you were this stupid.  But ok.
 
2013-06-25 03:31:49 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: How about we don't violate a person's privacy?

If you've placed something in public view, there's no privacy to violate.


You can tell him the Earth is round all day long, and if he thinks you're wrong, he'll just keep digging that hole. Incidentally, if you call him out for being a totally stupid moron after going around and around with him trying to explain this, he'll cry to the mods because that's easier than admitting that you are in way over your head.
 
2013-06-25 03:33:48 PM  
I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.
 
2013-06-25 03:34:38 PM  
derp derp derp. I love the police state.
 
2013-06-25 03:40:18 PM  

Rangeley Tourist Hunter: JAFO


If that's what I think it is, then I must say that the scene with the naked yoga lady would be a better, if NSFW, reference.

/the only scene worth remembering in that movie
 
2013-06-25 03:49:31 PM  

MNguy: I never thought you were this stupid. But ok.


You know that your posts don't get deleted and we can all scroll back up and see what you've said, right? You said that "Of or concerning the people as a whole." or "Ordinary people in general; the community." can be construed to mean "everything outside" (in other words, everything outside is public), and you also said that your yard isn't public. Is your yard indoors?
 
2013-06-25 03:53:55 PM  

MNguy: Get a farking life, don't take pictures of people when they have not explicitly given permission to do so. I guess this is difficult for weirdos and creeps to understand.


You might want to read up on privacy laws involving photographing people in public.

Of course, it varies from country to country, but generally speaking if you're visible in a public area, I can take a picture of you without your explicit permission. All the more so if you have some amount of fame or notoriety.

Remember the case a few years ago where some of the girls in the Girl Gone Wild videos sued the producers? They lost their case after the judge pointed out that they had no lawful expectation of any right to privacy while exposing themselves in public.
 
2013-06-25 03:54:20 PM  

MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.


I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.
 
2013-06-25 03:55:08 PM  

servlet: Waldo Pepper: well you can take all the photos you desire of the hollywood sign but once you try to sell it as a print you have a copyright issue on your hands.  but you can take a photo of the hollywood sign and sell it for editorial purposes such as newspapers

I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission

You're actually wrong on both accounts. You can't use the picture of the girl at the beach in a commercial capacity (think "advertising") without getting a model release from her, but selling the photo as art is completely okay. The hollywood sign falls under derivative works, so you can do whatever you'd like with the photograph.


from wiki  The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce claims trademark rights over the sign's image and demands license fees for commercial use

I don't believe you could take a photo of a girl at a beach (the photo would be of just her and showing her face) and sell it without her permission even as art, she owns her image. Now if the photo is of the beach and she happens to be in it and isn't the main point of the photo, I believe this would be okay
 
2013-06-25 04:00:35 PM  

firefly212: MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.

I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.


when I go to the beach I feel everything is free to shoot but not everything is free to post online.  A lot of what photographers are shooting is just learning their craft, also candid street photography is a well known and accepted art form.
 
2013-06-25 04:01:36 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: I never thought you were this stupid. But ok.

You know that your posts don't get deleted and we can all scroll back up and see what you've said, right? You said that "Of or concerning the people as a whole." or "Ordinary people in general; the community." can be construed to mean "everything outside" (in other words, everything outside is public), and you also said that your yard isn't public. Is your yard indoors?


You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.  Really, you're a jackass.
 
2013-06-25 04:02:30 PM  

Loadmaster: MNguy: Get a farking life, don't take pictures of people when they have not explicitly given permission to do so. I guess this is difficult for weirdos and creeps to understand.

You might want to read up on privacy laws involving photographing people in public.

Of course, it varies from country to country, but generally speaking if you're visible in a public area, I can take a picture of you without your explicit permission. All the more so if you have some amount of fame or notoriety.

Remember the case a few years ago where some of the girls in the Girl Gone Wild videos sued the producers? They lost their case after the judge pointed out that they had no lawful expectation of any right to privacy while exposing themselves in public.


The Girls Gone Wild guy is on the losing end of a major lawsuit.
 
2013-06-25 04:04:24 PM  

firefly212: MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.

I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.


It does basically boil down to 'I don't like it'  but yeah, how about you don't take my picture and fap, and I won't take yours.
 
2013-06-25 04:07:36 PM  
F.A.T may be the biggest jackoff I've ever seen on here.  It is not ok to take unsolicited pictures, no matter how much you fark the chicken and think that it is.
 
2013-06-25 04:08:16 PM  

Waldo Pepper: firefly212: MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.

I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.

when I go to the beach I feel everything is free to shoot but not everything is free to post online.  A lot of what photographers are shooting is just learning their craft, also candid street photography is a well known and accepted art form.


That's an interesting interpretation of the law, that you're free to take the picture and possess the picture, but not to put it online, even for non-commercial purposes. I don't think I agree with that assessment at all (I'd argue you could put it online), but I'd derfer to servlet on this particular question.

WRT you shooting at the beach or parks, I'm aware that many people are just shooting landscape or architecture and working on their craft, and I'm a-ok with that. Like I said, I don't feel it would be reasonable for me to tell someone not to take pictures of the bridge I hung out on just because I was hanging out on it... take all the pictures you want, you can even post them in a non-commercial manner with relative impunity. The only caveat is if an image in which I am the main subject matter gets used for a commercial purpose and I found out about it, I'd come looking for my royalties, which would almost certainly be higher in court than what I would have sought had prior consent been asked.
 
2013-06-25 04:09:59 PM  

MNguy: firefly212: MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.

I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.

It does basically boil down to 'I don't like it'  but yeah, how about you don't take my picture and fap, and I won't take yours.


IDGAF if you take a picture of me having fun mountain climbing and fap to it.. it doesn't in any way take away from the fun I had climbing the mountain.
 
2013-06-25 04:10:09 PM  

firefly212: Waldo Pepper: firefly212: MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.

I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.

when I go to the beach I feel everything is free to shoot but not everything is free to post online.  A lot of what photographers are shooting is just learning their craft, also candid street photography is a well known and accepted art f ...


No.  It's not necessarily 'private' but it is most certainly not for public consumption.  No way.
 
2013-06-25 04:11:33 PM  
firefly212:

IDGAF if you take a picture of me having fun mountain climbing and fap to it.. it doesn't in any way take away from ...

You're right, but the line gets drawn where?  Can anyone just start taking pictures and fapping?
 
2013-06-25 04:11:47 PM  

MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.


That really wasn't as clever as it sounded in your head.

MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.


That may be, but I'm also correct. Again, I can still see what you've typed. I don't have to make shiat up to show that you've been incorrect, inconsistent and antagonistic. I just have to scroll up and copy & paste. If you don't like people pointing out that you can't put together a decent argument to save your life, the internet is a really poor place to argue. Try your local local hospital, I'm sure they have some coma patients who won't counter your arguments.
 
2013-06-25 04:12:40 PM  
HOW ABOUT YOU DON'T TAKE PICS OF PEOPLE IN PUBLIC SPACES AND RESPECT OTHERS' PRIVACY.
 
2013-06-25 04:13:33 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.

That really wasn't as clever as it sounded in your head.

MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.

That may be, but I'm also correct. Again, I can still see what you've typed. I don't have to make shiat up to show that you've been incorrect, inconsistent and antagonistic. I just have to scroll up and copy & paste. If you don't like people pointing out that you can't put together a decent argument to save your life, the internet is a really poor place to argue. Try your local local hospital, I'm sure they have some coma patients who won't counter your arguments.


yOU'RE NOT CLEVER, AND YOU'RE NOT MAKING AN INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT.
 
2013-06-25 04:14:57 PM  

MNguy: You're right, but the line gets drawn where? Can anyone just start taking pictures and fapping?


Yes, as long as the fapping doesn't take place in public (though that has nothing to do with privacy laws). Don't like that? Talk to your local lawmakers and get the laws changed. But don't come here and say that it's illegal to do something just because you think it should be, especially when it so easily proven that you're wrong.
 
2013-06-25 04:15:40 PM  
CAPS LOCK DOESN'T CHANGE LAWS.
 
2013-06-25 04:15:53 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.

That really wasn't as clever as it sounded in your head.

MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.

That may be, but I'm also correct. Again, I can still see what you've typed. I don't have to make shiat up to show that you've been incorrect, inconsistent and antagonistic. I just have to scroll up and copy & paste. If you don't like people pointing out that you can't put together a decent argument to save your life, the internet is a really poor place to argue. Try your local local hospital, I'm sure they have some coma patients who won't counter your arguments.


You are full of derp, and you can scroll all you want.  You are defending child pornography, do you get that?
 
2013-06-25 04:16:32 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're right, but the line gets drawn where? Can anyone just start taking pictures and fapping?

Yes, as long as the fapping doesn't take place in public (though that has nothing to do with privacy laws). Don't like that? Talk to your local lawmakers and get the laws changed. But don't come here and say that it's illegal to do something just because you think it should be, especially when it so easily proven that you're wrong.


What did I say that was wrong?
 
2013-06-25 04:16:38 PM  

DirkTheDaring: Waldo Pepper: I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission

If that were true, TMZ wouldn't exist.


It's not exactly true. What you guys are talking about are "publicity rights" which are a tricky area that has a lot of caselaw behind it. There's no standard nationwide as far as what constitutes publicity rights, and there's also first amendment questions which enter into the analysis. A quick example: I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach, then frame it and hang it in my photography gallery - I'm probably fine. I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach and use it in an ad for whatever beach-related crap I'm hawking - I'm probably violating her publicity rights by falsely implying she's endorsing my product.

In other words, people have a (property) right to their own image, but I also have a copyright to art I create capturing that image. There's a balance between the two that's pretty complicated. And it's also how EA gets away with putting college kids and old athletes in its games without paying them, like when Jim Brown sued them over using a black running back wearing #32 on the All-Browns historic team in Madden and lost.
 
2013-06-25 04:17:13 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: CAPS LOCK DOESN'T CHANGE LAWS.


That was my bad, CAPS LOCK
 
2013-06-25 04:18:36 PM  

phyrkrakr: DirkTheDaring: Waldo Pepper: I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission

If that were true, TMZ wouldn't exist.

It's not exactly true. What you guys are talking about are "publicity rights" which are a tricky area that has a lot of caselaw behind it. There's no standard nationwide as far as what constitutes publicity rights, and there's also first amendment questions which enter into the analysis. A quick example: I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach, then frame it and hang it in my photography gallery - I'm probably fine. I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach and use it in an ad for whatever beach-related crap I'm hawking - I'm probably violating her publicity rights by falsely implying she's endorsing my product.

In other words, people have a (property) right to their own image, but I also have a copyright to art I create capturing that image. There's a balance between the two that's pretty complicated. And it's also how EA gets away with putting college kids and old athletes in its games without paying them, like when Jim Brown sued them over using a black running back wearing #32 on the All-Browns historic team in Madden and lost.


Derp.  Have you ever played Madden?
 
2013-06-25 04:19:51 PM  
My head hurts from reading all that & I'm exhausted chasing after those continually moving goalposts.  However I can't really decide if MN is just a magnificent troll or someone who is that thickheadedly stubborn about something that he thinks is right (even when shown again & again he's wrong), it really is puzzling.

Whatever though, he is someone who in his profile brags about putting thousands of people on ignore (to create his own version of reality where everyone agrees with him I guess...), so I say we return the favor & then get back to talking about pretty women in bikinis...
 
2013-06-25 04:20:08 PM  

MNguy: derp derp derp.


You said it, brother. Actually, that's pretty much all you've said in this entire thread. While everyone else in this thread is trying to have a logical, rational discussion, here you are shiatting in the thread, attacking everyone with a different opinion than yourself. You are coming across as a petulent child, who can't come up with a reasoned argument so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
 
2013-06-25 04:20:11 PM  
Look, there is public  and private.  If you're going to defend the exploitation of the private there's nothing I can do for you.
 
2013-06-25 04:21:01 PM  
Someone get sinbox and The Stealth Hippopotamus in here, stat. This thread needs a serious redirect.
 
2013-06-25 04:21:04 PM  
Sin_City_Superhero:  ad hominem attacks.

Show me one.
 
2013-06-25 04:24:29 PM  
Oh, your pretty little face couldn't come up with an ad .hominem, but I'm sure you tried
 
2013-06-25 04:27:45 PM  

phyrkrakr: DirkTheDaring: Waldo Pepper: I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission

If that were true, TMZ wouldn't exist.

It's not exactly true. What you guys are talking about are "publicity rights" which are a tricky area that has a lot of caselaw behind it. There's no standard nationwide as far as what constitutes publicity rights, and there's also first amendment questions which enter into the analysis. A quick example: I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach, then frame it and hang it in my photography gallery - I'm probably fine. I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach and use it in an ad for whatever beach-related crap I'm hawking - I'm probably violating her publicity rights by falsely implying she's endorsing my product.

In other words, people have a (property) right to their own image, but I also have a copyright to art I create capturing that image. There's a balance between the two that's pretty complicated. And it's also how EA gets away with putting college kids and old athletes in its games without paying them, like when Jim Brown sued them over using a black running back wearing #32 on the All-Browns historic team in Madden and lost.


well stated but I would add that you probably can't sell the photo as a stock image. Also if lets say the girls bikini top fell off in the surf you have the right to take the photo (regardless of her age) but as the photo might cause her embarrassment you wouldn't be able to sell even in your gallery (assuming her identity is clear in the photo)

I'm still not 100% sure you can take said photo of the girl and sell it in your gallery without her permission if she is the main focus of the photo.

Assume her face is facing the photographer. Would it be legal to sell this photo without her permission. perfectly legal to shoot and I would fill up a cf card with her lol
www.insidesocal.com
 
2013-06-25 04:30:02 PM  

MNguy: Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.

That really wasn't as clever as it sounded in your head.

MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.

That may be, but I'm also correct. Again, I can still see what you've typed. I don't have to make shiat up to show that you've been incorrect, inconsistent and antagonistic. I just have to scroll up and copy & paste. If you don't like people pointing out that you can't put together a decent argument to save your life, the internet is a really poor place to argue. Try your local local hospital, I'm sure they have some coma patients who won't counter your arguments.

You are full of derp, and you can scroll all you want.  You are defending child pornography, do you get that?


are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..
 
2013-06-25 04:31:16 PM  

MNguy: Oh, your pretty little face couldn't come up with an ad .hominem, but I'm sure you tried


Jesus Tits, you're full-bore retarded.
 
2013-06-25 04:31:36 PM  
Waldo Pepper:

are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..

I'm saying you shouldn't take a picture of a kid who isn't yours, yes.  Are you saying that you should?
 
2013-06-25 04:31:40 PM  

MNguy: Look, there is public  and private.  If you're going to defend the exploitation of the private there's nothing I can do for you.


Too bad you can't seem to figure out that when you're in PUBLIC, you have no expectation of PRIVACY.
 
2013-06-25 04:32:56 PM  

MNguy: Waldo Pepper:

are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..

I'm saying you shouldn't take a picture of a kid who isn't yours, yes.  Are you saying that you should?


you have no clue what child pornography is do you?
 
2013-06-25 04:32:57 PM  
Clutch2013:

Jesus Tits, you're full-bore retarded.

Do you even speak english?
 
2013-06-25 04:34:08 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Look, there is public  and private.  If you're going to defend the exploitation of the private there's nothing I can do for you.

Too bad you can't seem to figure out that when you're in PUBLIC, you have no expectation of PRIVACY.


Well, how about fark off, and you'd best not start snapping pics of me and my family creep.
 
2013-06-25 04:35:14 PM  

MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero:  ad hominem attacks.

Show me one.


MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be. Really, you're a jackass.


There's one right there. Not to mention the countless accusations you've made that everyone in here is a pedo or a rapist.
 
2013-06-25 04:35:38 PM  

Waldo Pepper: MNguy: Waldo Pepper:

are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..

I'm saying you shouldn't take a picture of a kid who isn't yours, yes.  Are you saying that you should?

you have no clue what child pornography is do you?


No, I don't know what pedophiles find interesting.  What do you all like?  Because don't take pictures of my family and I don't care what you like.
 
2013-06-25 04:36:11 PM  
 
2013-06-25 04:37:00 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero:  ad hominem attacks.

Show me one.

MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be. Really, you're a jackass.

There's one right there. Not to mention the countless accusations you've made that everyone in here is a pedo or a rapist.


You are an attorney?  No, you are not, and you are trying to come across as one.  Quit it.  And if you like to take pictures of little girls you are a pedo.
 
2013-06-25 04:37:04 PM  

MNguy: Well, how about fark off, and you'd best not start snapping pics of me and my family creep


Or what? You'll cry about it on the internet? Woooo!
 
2013-06-25 04:38:36 PM  
Look, the logical extension of these laws are going to allow some asshole to pohtograph your daughter.  If you're ok with that then fine.  But I am not.
 
2013-06-25 04:38:40 PM  

MNguy: You are an attorney? No, you are not, and you are trying to come across as one.


No I'm not. And stop calling me a pedo.
 
2013-06-25 04:39:22 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Well, how about fark off, and you'd best not start snapping pics of me and my family creep

Or what? You'll cry about it on the internet? Woooo!


Some creep like you will eventually reveal himself.
 
2013-06-25 04:40:40 PM  

MNguy: Waldo Pepper: MNguy: Waldo Pepper:

are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..

I'm saying you shouldn't take a picture of a kid who isn't yours, yes.  Are you saying that you should?

you have no clue what child pornography is do you?

No, I don't know what pedophiles find interesting.  What do you all like?  Because don't take pictures of my family and I don't care what you like.


don't fret I have no intention of interfering with you taking your own pedo photos of your family.  you know since you consider all photos of children to be pedo photos I assume you have them of your own kids
 
2013-06-25 04:40:52 PM  
I'm just calling you a creepy fark.  Maybe you're a pedophile, I don't know.  But there's no way in hell you're getting anywhere near anyone I care about.
 
2013-06-25 04:42:11 PM  
Waldo Pepper:

don't fret I have no intention of interfering with you taking your own pedo photos of your family.  you know since you consider all photos of children to be pedo photos I assume you have them of your own kids

I hope you felt dirty typing all of that.
 
2013-06-25 04:42:54 PM  
 
2013-06-25 04:44:17 PM  
You ARE aware that not every photograph goes in someone's spank-bank, right? I mean, some of us use pictures for stuff other than jerking off. Me thinketh the dude doth protest too much...
 
2013-06-25 04:45:05 PM  

MNguy: Waldo Pepper:

don't fret I have no intention of interfering with you taking your own pedo photos of your family.  you know since you consider all photos of children to be pedo photos I assume you have them of your own kids

I hope you felt dirty typing all of that.


nope not at all. you are the one claiming that all photos of children are pedo.  Now I don't consider children photos to be pedo, but I do have to wonder about a parent like you who I believe doth protest too much
 
2013-06-25 04:45:50 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: You ARE aware that not every photograph goes in someone's spank-bank, right? I mean, some of us use pictures for stuff other than jerking off. Me thinketh the dude doth protest too much...


LOL man i swear i did not see your post before typing mine
 
2013-06-25 04:46:21 PM  
I don't doth nothing except I'd rather not have my kids be exploited.  But hey, to each their own
 
2013-06-25 04:47:07 PM  

MNguy: I don't doth nothing except I'd rather not have my kids be exploited.  But hey, to each their own


don't worry we will leave that up to you
 
2013-06-25 04:49:10 PM  

MNguy: I don't doth nothing except I'd rather not have my kids be exploited.  But hey, to each their own


Taking a picture is not "exploitation". Seriously. It's not.
 
2013-06-25 04:52:08 PM  

MNguy: I'm just calling you a creepy fark.  Maybe you're a pedophile, I don't know.  But there's no way in hell you're getting anywhere near anyone I care about.


so how often do you let the kids out of their cages?
 
2013-06-25 04:57:53 PM  

MNguy: What did I say that was wrong?


Here:

MNguy: farking right her privacy was violated. It's like taking upskirt videos at the mall.


Here:

MNguy: F.A.T has kind of argued that it's ok.


And some more here:

MNguy: You are defending child pornography,


All of that is false. I've already pointed out your inconsistencies, no need to repeat them.

MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero:  ad hominem attacks.

Show me one.


Ok. Here's the defenition, before you go asking for it:

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.

Here's a sampling of just the ones against me:

MNguy: You seem to be in favor of really disgusting practices.


MNguy: F.A.T may be the biggest jackoff I've ever seen on here.


MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.


Those right there are attacking me, not my arguments, and are irrelevant.. It'd be difficult to come up with better examples of ad hominem attack if you tried.
 
2013-06-25 04:58:40 PM  

Waldo Pepper: from wiki  The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce claims trademark rights over the sign's image and demands license fees for commercial use


It still falls under the same situations as using someone's likeness. If you're using it to endorse a product or service, you'll need their permission to use the trademark for that purpose. If you're displaying (or selling) art or using the photo for editorial purposes, they can sod off because trademark doesn't apply.

I don't believe you could take a photo of a girl at a beach (the photo would be of just her and showing her face) and sell it without her permission even as art, she owns her image. Now if the photo is of the beach and she happens to be in it and isn't the main point of the photo, I believe this would be okay

Same thing applies here. The situation where you need a model release is when the person is recognizable in the photograph (this one, you play on the safe side, because it's easy for a friend or acquaintance to say "yeah I recognize them" in court) AND you're using the photograph for commercial purposes. Note that selling the photo to a magazine is NOT a commercial purpose. That's editorial. You can put it in a book of your photographic work all you want, as that's also not commercial, it's art. You may run into some gray area putting it on the cover of said book, as someone could argue that the cover is advertising the book, which is a commercial product. So I'd stay away from using a cover photo that includes a recognizable person without a model release.
 
2013-06-25 05:03:52 PM  
I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.
 
2013-06-25 05:08:29 PM  

servlet: Waldo Pepper: from wiki  The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce claims trademark rights over the sign's image and demands license fees for commercial use

It still falls under the same situations as using someone's likeness. If you're using it to endorse a product or service, you'll need their permission to use the trademark for that purpose. If you're displaying (or selling) art or using the photo for editorial purposes, they can sod off because trademark doesn't apply.

I don't believe you could take a photo of a girl at a beach (the photo would be of just her and showing her face) and sell it without her permission even as art, she owns her image. Now if the photo is of the beach and she happens to be in it and isn't the main point of the photo, I believe this would be okay

Same thing applies here. The situation where you need a model release is when the person is recognizable in the photograph (this one, you play on the safe side, because it's easy for a friend or acquaintance to say "yeah I recognize them" in court) AND you're using the photograph for commercial purposes. Note that selling the photo to a magazine is NOT a commercial purpose. That's editorial. You can put it in a book of your photographic work all you want, as that's also not commercial, it's art. You may run into some gray area putting it on the cover of said book, as someone could argue that the cover is advertising the book, which is a commercial product. So I'd stay away from using a cover photo that includes a recognizable person without a model release.


I understand editorial and I agree except if she lands on the cover as it could be argued that her likeness is being used to sell the magazine (think non famous person on the cover of time).

I guess the art angle makes sense.  keeping with the hollywood sign, You could sell it in your gallery or on a photo site for personal use but you couldn't sell it to Ikea to sell.would that be correct.

so you are also saying that I could take a photo of at the beach and if MN kids are in the background of the photo there would nothing he could do from me selling the photo?
 
2013-06-25 05:08:48 PM  

MNguy: I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.


Hello, Kettle? This is Pot, calling you black.
 
2013-06-25 05:09:36 PM  

MNguy: I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.


He's in the tugboat business is that something to be sorry about?
 
2013-06-25 05:14:52 PM  

MNguy: I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.


isn't your time spent here on fark taking away from you keeping your kids safe
 
2013-06-25 05:15:45 PM  
When did they stop calling these things radio controlled aircraft and start calling them drones?
 
2013-06-25 05:22:09 PM  

Waldo Pepper: I understand editorial and I agree except if she lands on the cover as it could be argued that her likeness is being used to sell the magazine (think non famous person on the cover of time).


Yeah, that's correct. I'm not sure that the magazine/book cover issue has been settled yet. Most court cases rule that magazine and book covers are editorial in nature, but personally, I'm not going there. If I don't have a model release, I'm not putting it on a cover.

I guess the art angle makes sense.  keeping with the hollywood sign, You could sell it in your gallery or on a photo site for personal use but you couldn't sell it to Ikea to sell.would that be correct.

Absolutely correct. If you're selling it as art or licensing the photo to illustrate a magazine article or something, you're safe. You just can't license it for someone to use in an advertisement, because then it looks like Hollywood endorses the product.

so you are also saying that I could take a photo of at the beach and if MN kids are in the background of the photo there would nothing he could do from me selling the photo?
Yeah. Sounds like we're on the same page. I can sell the photo itself (of the beach with MN's family) all I want (it's art). I can also license it to a magazine, book, or newspaper so they can use it in an article. I just can't license it to a company for use in advertising unless the people in the photo are unrecognizable (too small, back turned, etc) or I have a model release.
 
2013-06-25 05:25:54 PM  

servlet: Waldo Pepper: I understand editorial and I agree except if she lands on the cover as it could be argued that her likeness is being used to sell the magazine (think non famous person on the cover of time).

Yeah, that's correct. I'm not sure that the magazine/book cover issue has been settled yet. Most court cases rule that magazine and book covers are editorial in nature, but personally, I'm not going there. If I don't have a model release, I'm not putting it on a cover.

I guess the art angle makes sense.  keeping with the hollywood sign, You could sell it in your gallery or on a photo site for personal use but you couldn't sell it to Ikea to sell.would that be correct.

Absolutely correct. If you're selling it as art or licensing the photo to illustrate a magazine article or something, you're safe. You just can't license it for someone to use in an advertisement, because then it looks like Hollywood endorses the product.

so you are also saying that I could take a photo of at the beach and if MN kids are in the background of the photo there would nothing he could do from me selling the photo?
Yeah. Sounds like we're on the same page. I can sell the photo itself (of the beach with MN's family) all I want (it's art). I can also license it to a magazine, book, or newspaper so they can use it in an article. I just can't license it to a company for use in advertising unless the people in the photo are unrecognizable (too small, back turned, etc) or I have a model release.


it might be difficult to get that model release from MN to clean for his taste
 
2013-06-25 05:27:07 PM  

MNguy: I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.


More ad hominem, huh?
 
2013-06-25 05:30:39 PM  

Waldo Pepper: it might be difficult to get that model release from MN to clean for his taste


LOL
 
2013-06-25 05:41:26 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.

More ad hominem, huh?


that was the first one, tard
 
2013-06-25 05:43:48 PM  

MNguy: that was the first one, tard


So all the ones before don't count?
 
2013-06-25 05:45:27 PM  

MNguy: Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.

More ad hominem, huh?

that was the first one, tard


well at least he doesn't take child porn photos of your kids like you have admitted to do
 
2013-06-25 07:02:09 PM  

Guadior42: DirkTheDaring: Repetitive attack ad hominem does not make a clever troll. It just makes a boring one.

This is why I ignored him quite some time ago. You can only take so much repetitive idiocy.


Yes but I'm sure he'll try and one-up you on that. He states in his profile that his ignore list is up to 1000 people now. Because that's serious business, and you farking pedos need to be informed!!!!

Look MN, are you going to troll EVERY thread this week, or just this one? We need to plan our boredom around that.
 
2013-06-25 07:14:36 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: Guadior42: DirkTheDaring: Repetitive attack ad hominem does not make a clever troll. It just makes a boring one.

This is why I ignored him quite some time ago. You can only take so much repetitive idiocy.

Yes but I'm sure he'll try and one-up you on that. He states in his profile that his ignore list is up to 1000 people now. Because that's serious business, and you farking pedos need to be informed!!!!

Look MN, are you going to troll EVERY thread this week, or just this one? We need to plan our boredom around that.


I'm surprised he didn't join the pixar threads and accuse those who go to pixar movies without having kids as being pedo
 
2013-06-25 07:22:44 PM  
I read some 100+ posts at the top, figured I'd add my 2 cents.

Quad-copters or multi-rotor copters look like a lot of fun, I'm thinking of getting one for my GoPro.  I never considered hovering over people in their back yards....of course in my neighborhood, it be old people....so screw that.

These flying machines and their on-board brains have gotten pretty spiffy it seems.  They have gyros for stability, they are able to return home when commanded.  The systems can auto correct for wind, tilt and weight load.

From what I've been reading/listening to on youtube, flight times are pretty limited because of battery life and battery weight.  You are not going be able to fly your quad for 2 hours at a time....more like 6-10 minutes, I think.

The quad in this story had what looks like a First Person View ( FPV ) which means you watch your flight from a remote view system (ipad, goggles, etc.)  This guy could likely see where he was going through the camera, which means he probably did see the girl on the side of the pool.  She'd have to be deaf not to have heard the quad....they are no whisper quiet.....at least not on the videos I've watched.  However, I don't know what kind of quality you can get from a fpv camera.  I sorta doubt they are go pro quality.

So there is your quick lesson.  Check out Quad copters on youtube.  Looks like a lot of fun, or it will be until some jackwagon mis-uses his quad and some equally goofy politician passes a law against them.
 
2013-06-25 08:16:42 PM  
Man, this is one of the worst Fark meltdowns I've seen year.
 
2013-06-25 09:22:26 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Man, this is one of the worst Fark meltdowns I've seen year.


LOL ... I know what you mean...  I have just been shaking my head this whole thread.
 
2013-06-25 09:40:54 PM  

Waldo Pepper: fanbladesaresharp: Guadior42: DirkTheDaring: Repetitive attack ad hominem does not make a clever troll. It just makes a boring one.

This is why I ignored him quite some time ago. You can only take so much repetitive idiocy.

Yes but I'm sure he'll try and one-up you on that. He states in his profile that his ignore list is up to 1000 people now. Because that's serious business, and you farking pedos need to be informed!!!!

Look MN, are you going to troll EVERY thread this week, or just this one? We need to plan our boredom around that.

I'm surprised he didn't join the pixar threads and accuse those who go to pixar movies without having kids as being pedo


The worst are the ones who go WITH kids... now there's a pedo!
 
2013-06-25 09:58:18 PM  

firefly212: Waldo Pepper: fanbladesaresharp: Guadior42: DirkTheDaring: Repetitive attack ad hominem does not make a clever troll. It just makes a boring one.

This is why I ignored him quite some time ago. You can only take so much repetitive idiocy.

Yes but I'm sure he'll try and one-up you on that. He states in his profile that his ignore list is up to 1000 people now. Because that's serious business, and you farking pedos need to be informed!!!!

Look MN, are you going to troll EVERY thread this week, or just this one? We need to plan our boredom around that.

I'm surprised he didn't join the pixar threads and accuse those who go to pixar movies without having kids as being pedo

The worst are the ones who go WITH kids... now there's a pedo!


and even worst than that are the ones who go with their own kids plus bring kids along who aren't theirs and whoa beyond to the adults who might catch a glimpse of other kid in a dark theatre
 
2013-06-25 10:26:52 PM  

MNguy: Mikey1969: vpb: It's cute that people think they have any sort of privacy out doors.

You do in your yard, and with a decent fence. If it can't be seen from the street, or a public area, you DO have a reasonable right to privacy. This woman, however, was at the public pool at the apartment complex, and therefore nothing illegal was happening, and her privacy was not violated in any way.

THIS is the part that annoyed me more:

In one shot, the drone races toward an apartment window, getting within feet of the glass.

No, in one shot, the drone files by some apartments, and then someone on the news team zooms the farking camera shot, that drone didn't "race" to the window. They did the same thing with the sanbathing woman, also. Fark "Local 6", they get the sleazeball award for sure here.

Just because it's legal to take picture of people unawares doesn't make it ok.  farking right her privacy was violated.  It's like taking upskirt videos at the mall.  You're a rotten, creepy fark who has no sense of decency.


Exactly, and thank you very much for being a voice of reason. I think the woman might have grounds to have him arrested under Peeping Tom or harassment laws, but those are very spotty. He was obviously using it to invade the privacy of others, and that's the problem with these things. Use 'em to survey your OWN property, or in a national forest or something. I hope someone tries this on my future hopeful property, so I can shoot it down and do my best to have the operator arrested. PULL!
 
2013-06-25 10:36:22 PM  

Vector R: Use 'em to survey your OWN property, or in a national forest or something.


So it's ok to use them on private property you have legal access to, or on public property?
 
2013-06-25 10:38:25 PM  

MNguy: The pedo taking pictures at the park says what?


That's a very good point. If some guy was taking pictures of little kids at the park, you bet your shiny metal arse the parents will call the police, and they will do everything in their power to stop those freaks. How is

smoothvirus: So let me get this straight, MNguy, anyone with a camera on an RC aircraft is a pedophile now?


If you're using it to spy on others when those people do not want to be spied on, yes, you are a creepy, nasty, perverted fark.

Another point on the article - the woman lives at that apartment complex, and the pool is within that complex. The pool is likely only open to residents of that complex and their guests. So she was sunbathing at her home when Peeping Tom there decided to do a fly-over and closeup.
 
2013-06-25 10:44:44 PM  

Vector R: The pool is likely only open to residents of that complex


Residents like the guy running the camera?
 
2013-06-25 10:50:23 PM  

Vector R: MNguy: The pedo taking pictures at the park says what?

That's a very good point. If some guy was taking pictures of little kids at the park, you bet your shiny metal arse the parents will call the police, and they will do everything in their power to stop those freaks. How is smoothvirus: So let me get this straight, MNguy, anyone with a camera on an RC aircraft is a pedophile now?

If you're using it to spy on others when those people do not want to be spied on, yes, you are a creepy, nasty, perverted fark.

Another point on the article - the woman lives at that apartment complex, and the pool is within that complex. The pool is likely only open to residents of that complex and their guests. So she was sunbathing at her home when Peeping Tom there decided to do a fly-over and closeup.


a lot of folks take candid photos of others for no perverted reasons what so ever.  According to some on here National Geographic should be banned for being child porn.
 
2013-06-25 11:30:34 PM  

Banned on the Run: Flab:  #4, #6, and #8 need sammiches.  Stat, in the case of #4.

This one needs a sammich?
[i216.photobucket.com image 500x749]


Scuttlebutt:  No, don't return.  Stay on the interruption.

If you insist.

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x607]

[i216.photobucket.com image 720x539]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x654]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x564]

[i216.photobucket.com image 600x900]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x709]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x500]

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x333]


The interruption is certainly nice, but every single picture you posted was obviously taken with the subject's consent. If Joe Q Nasty Perv that refuses to understand the difference between proper behavior and "oh well not illegal yet I do whut I wants!!!111" runs all up on me, shoving his phone in my face at the beach, that phone is going in the water. Or better yet, I'll grab it and run to the cops. Who do you think they're going to believe? :)

/Has to be perks to being female somewhere
//I can buy my own damn drinks
 
2013-06-25 11:40:34 PM  

Vector R: Who do you think they're going to believe?


Probably not the phone thief.
 
2013-06-26 12:05:47 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Vector R: Use 'em to survey your OWN property, or in a national forest or something.

So it's ok to use them on private property you have legal access to, or on public property?


It's okay to use it wherever you have permission. It may not be technically illegal to snap pictures of people, but if they tell you they don't want their picture taken and you do it anyway, then you are a nasty perverted creep of the lowest sort.

Furthermore, the cop will believe me - in that situation, I'd haul ass up to him and immediately hand over the phone to the officer. Then I would tell him alll about Mr. Perverted POS and how he's stalking and harassing me and making me afraid for my life. Bonus points for tears, and if they REALLY pissed me off, then it's off to small claims court. If it makes you feel better, normally I abhor that sort of female behavior, but if you're going to bend the rules to be a creep, then I'll bend them to defend myself.

I very deeply value my privacy, and I really don't think it's right that I should have to wear a burka or be forced to stay home all the time because many people here don't seem to understand that just because something is legal doesn't make it right. This thread has been a real wake-up though - no bikini for the 4th party at the public beach. I don't want some creeper snapping pictures of me.
 
2013-06-26 12:18:23 AM  

Vector R: but if they tell you they don't want their picture taken and you do it anyway, then you are a nasty perverted creep of the lowest sort.


Your opinion of the person is completely besides the point. If it's not illegal and you don't like it, then you leave.

Vector R: Furthermore, the cop will believe me - in that situation, I'd haul ass up to him and immediately hand over the phone to the officer. Then I would tell him alll about Mr. Perverted POS and how he's stalking and harassing me and making me afraid for my life. Bonus points for tears, and if they REALLY pissed me off, then it's off to small claims court. If it makes you feel better, normally I abhor that sort of female behavior, but if you're going to bend the rules to be a creep, then I'll bend them to defend myself.


So, instead of just moving along to somewhere else where the guy isn't allowed to do what he's doing, you're willing to commit actual crimes (assault and/or theft) and then lie about it to get the guy in trouble? You're not really coming off as the better person here. Also, you're going to need some insanely good luck to get a cop dumb to believe your obvious horseshiat. You're not going to be any more trustworthy than the other guy, and you have his property.

"Officer, help me! This guy was going around and, well, not doing anything illegal, but I really don't like him! So, I took his stuff and ran to you! Now please arrest him!"

On second thought, you're right, this plan has a 0% chance of failure, and I encourage you to attempt it as soon as possible.
 
2013-06-26 12:52:18 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Vector R: but if they tell you they don't want their picture taken and you do it anyway, then you are a nasty perverted creep of the lowest sort.

Your opinion of the person is completely besides the point. If it's not illegal and you don't like it, then you leave.

Vector R: Furthermore, the cop will believe me - in that situation, I'd haul ass up to him and immediately hand over the phone to the officer. Then I would tell him alll about Mr. Perverted POS and how he's stalking and harassing me and making me afraid for my life. Bonus points for tears, and if they REALLY pissed me off, then it's off to small claims court. If it makes you feel better, normally I abhor that sort of female behavior, but if you're going to bend the rules to be a creep, then I'll bend them to defend myself.

So, instead of just moving along to somewhere else where the guy isn't allowed to do what he's doing, you're willing to commit actual crimes (assault and/or theft) and then lie about it to get the guy in trouble? You're not really coming off as the better person here. Also, you're going to need some insanely good luck to get a cop dumb to believe your obvious horseshiat. You're not going to be any more trustworthy than the other guy, and you have his property.

"Officer, help me! This guy was going around and, well, not doing anything illegal, but I really don't like him! So, I took his stuff and ran to you! Now please arrest him!"

On second thought, you're right, this plan has a 0% chance of failure, and I encourage you to attempt it as soon as possible.


Honestly, you guys are so set on being able to violate the rights and comfort of others that it makes me think it's not even about the boob shots. No, we have countless boobs on the internet. You guys just want to control and exert power over someone else.

Also, if I tell him to fark off and stop bothering me and he refuses, then it becomes harassment. I bet I could have that hypothetical guy hauled away in cuffs, particularly with the photographic proof on HIS phone. Even if the charges are dropped later, it still wrecks his day just as he did mine. Bottom line, just like so many other things in life, just ask. Don't go around creeping.
 
2013-06-26 01:19:37 AM  

Vector R: Noticeably F.A.T.: Vector R: but if they tell you they don't want their picture taken and you do it anyway, then you are a nasty perverted creep of the lowest sort.

Your opinion of the person is completely besides the point. If it's not illegal and you don't like it, then you leave.

Vector R: Furthermore, the cop will believe me - in that situation, I'd haul ass up to him and immediately hand over the phone to the officer. Then I would tell him alll about Mr. Perverted POS and how he's stalking and harassing me and making me afraid for my life. Bonus points for tears, and if they REALLY pissed me off, then it's off to small claims court. If it makes you feel better, normally I abhor that sort of female behavior, but if you're going to bend the rules to be a creep, then I'll bend them to defend myself.

So, instead of just moving along to somewhere else where the guy isn't allowed to do what he's doing, you're willing to commit actual crimes (assault and/or theft) and then lie about it to get the guy in trouble? You're not really coming off as the better person here. Also, you're going to need some insanely good luck to get a cop dumb to believe your obvious horseshiat. You're not going to be any more trustworthy than the other guy, and you have his property.

"Officer, help me! This guy was going around and, well, not doing anything illegal, but I really don't like him! So, I took his stuff and ran to you! Now please arrest him!"

On second thought, you're right, this plan has a 0% chance of failure, and I encourage you to attempt it as soon as possible.

<b>Honestly, you guys are so set on being able to violate the rights and comfort of others </b>that it makes me think it's not even about the boob shots. No, we have countless boobs on the internet. You guys just want to control and exert power over someone else.

Also, if I tell him to fark off and stop bothering me and he refuses, then it becomes harassment. I bet I could have that hypothetical guy hauled away in cuff ...


You just advocated beating a guy up, taking his phone, then filing a false police report to get him falsely imprisoned... and you think it's the people who take pictures in public places who are so set on violating other people's rights?

That, sir, is some weapons grade stupid.
 
2013-06-26 03:20:16 AM  
Let's say a drone is bugging you, and either you're in city limits, or you're not on your own private property.  How would you go about disabling or catching the drone in a legal manner without getting in trouble?  I'll note that while many jurisdictions have forgotten to disallow shooting arrows with a bow, many have not, so we'll have to leave them in the forbidden category, along with guns, fireworks, and laser pointers.

Hm, getting good with a boomerang is an idea.  Got any better ideas?
 
2013-06-26 06:53:46 AM  

firefly212: Vector R: Noticeably F.A.T.: Vector R: but if they tell you they don't want their picture taken and you do it anyway, then you are a nasty perverted creep of the lowest sort.

Your opinion of the person is completely besides the point. If it's not illegal and you don't like it, then you leave.

Vector R: Furthermore, the cop will believe me - in that situation, I'd haul ass up to him and immediately hand over the phone to the officer. Then I would tell him alll about Mr. Perverted POS and how he's stalking and harassing me and making me afraid for my life. Bonus points for tears, and if they REALLY pissed me off, then it's off to small claims court. If it makes you feel better, normally I abhor that sort of female behavior, but if you're going to bend the rules to be a creep, then I'll bend them to defend myself.

So, instead of just moving along to somewhere else where the guy isn't allowed to do what he's doing, you're willing to commit actual crimes (assault and/or theft) and then lie about it to get the guy in trouble? You're not really coming off as the better person here. Also, you're going to need some insanely good luck to get a cop dumb to believe your obvious horseshiat. You're not going to be any more trustworthy than the other guy, and you have his property.

"Officer, help me! This guy was going around and, well, not doing anything illegal, but I really don't like him! So, I took his stuff and ran to you! Now please arrest him!"

On second thought, you're right, this plan has a 0% chance of failure, and I encourage you to attempt it as soon as possible.

<b>Honestly, you guys are so set on being able to violate the rights and comfort of others </b>that it makes me think it's not even about the boob shots. No, we have countless boobs on the internet. You guys just want to control and exert power over someone else.

Also, if I tell him to fark off and stop bothering me and he refuses, then it becomes harassment. I bet I could have that hypothe ...



forget it, he's rolling...
 
2013-06-26 06:55:18 AM  

Vector R: Noticeably F.A.T.: Vector R: Use 'em to survey your OWN property, or in a national forest or something.

So it's ok to use them on private property you have legal access to, or on public property?

It's okay to use it wherever you have permission. It may not be technically illegal to snap pictures of people, but if they tell you they don't want their picture taken and you do it anyway, then you are a nasty perverted creep of the lowest sort.

Furthermore, the cop will believe me - in that situation, I'd haul ass up to him and immediately hand over the phone to the officer. Then I would tell him alll about Mr. Perverted POS and how he's stalking and harassing me and making me afraid for my life. Bonus points for tears, and if they REALLY pissed me off, then it's off to small claims court. If it makes you feel better, normally I abhor that sort of female behavior, but if you're going to bend the rules to be a creep, then I'll bend them to defend myself.

I very deeply value my privacy, and I really don't think it's right that I should have to wear a burka or be forced to stay home all the time because many people here don't seem to understand that just because something is legal doesn't make it right. This thread has been a real wake-up though - no bikini for the 4th party at the public beach. I don't want some creeper snapping pictures of me.


You do realize that the SCOTUS has given the photographer the right to photograph you in public and by taking his/her (keep in mind it isn't just male photographers snapping shots) phone/camera and lying you are denying his/her rights.  Now almost all photographers will stop taking your photo if you ask them nicely unless you part of the background of what they are shooting i.e. standing in front of a landmark, lying on beach during a sunset right in the perfect spot something of that nature.

just out of curiosity what happens if you grab his phone and go lie to the cops and lo and behold he wasn't taking a photo of you but of what was behind or in front of you?  Maybe during your hysterics some well intentions guy comes over and beats the guy down thinking her was trying to rape you or something.

stop thinking you are that important that you are above the law.
 
2013-06-26 01:40:21 PM  
Do you guys have any reasonable complaints at all that aren't already addressed by current laws?

"I don't want people flying drones over my property"

Already illegal (to a point, there are airspace issues but consumer grade stuff isn't going to hit that)

"I don't want upskirt pics of my wife"

Already illegal.

"I don't want pedophiles distributing pics of my kids online"

Already illegal.

"I don't want people looking over my fence or through my bathroom windows"

Already illegal.

"I don't want people trespassing on private property to take pictures"

Already illegal.

"I don't want to be harassed*"

Already illegal.

It sounds like the only thing left is a 20' anti-photography bubble around you. You're essentially asking for a law that makes it illegal to look at you while you're in public. That ain't happening, ever. So, if you don't want pictures of you, keep your paranoid, perverted, projecting selves inside. Public spaces don't belong to just you, and you're just going to have to deal with that fact, because it's not changing.
 
Displayed 341 of 341 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report