DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> A new bill to make taking photographs of people...
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 35 of 35, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/12/2013 08:50:20 PM · #26
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by citymars:
Does this include security cameras?
Hey, whatever happened to that move to make it illegal to take photographs of the police?

I took a photo of a cop in Toronto, then got his email address so I could send it to him. I took a photo of a cop in New Orleans, and he got up in my face and scared the crap out of me.

I remember that.
 04/12/2013 09:26:40 PM · #27
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by citymars:
Does this include security cameras?
Hey, whatever happened to that move to make it illegal to take photographs of the police?

I took a photo of a cop in Toronto, then got his email address so I could send it to him. I took a photo of a cop in New Orleans, and he got up in my face and scared the crap out of me.

I remember that.

That's stink-eye x 10 !
 04/12/2013 09:30:41 PM · #28
Originally posted by blindjustice:
looks like Vermont wants to sanction people-less advanced editing, and outlaw expert editing...


Challenge suggestion:

Take picture of someone in Vermont. Expert editing.

04/12/2013 09:54:55 PM · #29
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by larryslights:
Sounds like someone took an unflattering picture of Betty. Or Photoshopped one.


My thoughts exactly. How stupid *are* these legislators? This is so wrong, on so many levels. Hell, it pretty much makes photography illegal; even if you have a person incidentally in a photo, you're screwed.


Hey guys, don't pick on Betty -- it's not her bill:

This is her response:

âThis bill, H-233, is BY REQUEST it states it right on the bill, look it up under the Vermont Legislature. What that means is that it is not my bill, it is a bill REQUESTED by a constituent who really wanted it so it is a constituents bill, every Vermont legislator knows this. I do not believe in it but legislators do put in bills that are REQUESTED. This bill is not going to be taken up by the Legislature. Rep. Betty Nuovoâ
 04/13/2013 08:34:06 AM · #30
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by larryslights:
Sounds like someone took an unflattering picture of Betty. Or Photoshopped one.


My thoughts exactly. How stupid *are* these legislators? This is so wrong, on so many levels. Hell, it pretty much makes photography illegal; even if you have a person incidentally in a photo, you're screwed.


Hey guys, don't pick on Betty -- it's not her bill:

This is her response:

âThis bill, H-233, is BY REQUEST it states it right on the bill, look it up under the Vermont Legislature. What that means is that it is not my bill, it is a bill REQUESTED by a constituent who really wanted it so it is a constituents bill, every Vermont legislator knows this. I do not believe in it but legislators do put in bills that are REQUESTED. This bill is not going to be taken up by the Legislature. Rep. Betty Nuovoâ


I was about to say the same thing. People need to READ before making snap judgments. ;-)
 04/13/2013 08:50:58 AM · #31
Sometimes I think my comments are invisible.
 04/13/2013 09:04:43 AM · #32
Originally posted by Kelli:
Sometimes I think my comments are invisible.


Did someone just say something? ;)
 04/13/2013 10:43:49 PM · #33
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by larryslights:
Sounds like someone took an unflattering picture of Betty. Or Photoshopped one.


My thoughts exactly. How stupid *are* these legislators? This is so wrong, on so many levels. Hell, it pretty much makes photography illegal; even if you have a person incidentally in a photo, you're screwed.


Hey guys, don't pick on Betty -- it's not her bill:

This is her response:

âThis bill, H-233, is BY REQUEST it states it right on the bill, look it up under the Vermont Legislature. What that means is that it is not my bill, it is a bill REQUESTED by a constituent who really wanted it so it is a constituents bill, every Vermont legislator knows this. I do not believe in it but legislators do put in bills that are REQUESTED. This bill is not going to be taken up by the Legislature. Rep. Betty Nuovoâ


Yes, I saw her response last night when I first read this online. However, just because a constituent "requests" a bill are the legislators obligated to present it or take it up? Apparently not based on her own words: "I do not believe in it but legislators do put in bills that are REQUESTED. This bill is not going to be taken up by the Legislature". One thing seems clear is that a bill must have a legislator sponsor it or have their name attached. So I'm wondering a couple of things. 1) How did this even become news if the legislature had no intention of even looking at it. 2) If the legislature is not required to consider all requested bills by constituents and Betty appears to be back peddling, why did't she just tell the constituent that she was not interested in even attempting to bring it to the floor. Appears to me that Betty really liked the idea, but once she saw the potential uproar of it she decided to wash her hands of it.

Dave
 04/13/2013 11:41:46 PM · #34
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
If the legislature is not required to consider all requested bills by constituents and Betty appears to be back peddling, why did't she just tell the constituent that she was not interested in even attempting to bring it to the floor. Appears to me that Betty really liked the idea, but once she saw the potential uproar of it she decided to wash her hands of it.

Possibly it was in Betty's interest to please this particular constituent by putting the bill up, all the while knowing it wouldn't be considered anyway. The constituent may be important to Betty for some reason, there could be dozens of reasons. This kind of nonsense happens ALL the time at a local level in a representative democracy... I wouldn't read any more into it than that.
 04/14/2013 01:04:19 AM · #35
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
If the legislature is not required to consider all requested bills by constituents and Betty appears to be back peddling, why did't she just tell the constituent that she was not interested in even attempting to bring it to the floor. Appears to me that Betty really liked the idea, but once she saw the potential uproar of it she decided to wash her hands of it.

Possibly it was in Betty's interest to please this particular constituent by putting the bill up, all the while knowing it wouldn't be considered anyway. The constituent may be important to Betty for some reason, there could be dozens of reasons. This kind of nonsense happens ALL the time at a local level in a representative democracy... I wouldn't read any more into it than that.


I bet those constituents are gonna love Google Glass...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 08:25:18 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 08:25:18 AM EDT.