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  
•       •       •

13400 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 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 41 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