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  
•       •       •

13390 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 341 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report