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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> New "legal" restrictions on photographing in U S?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 49, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/09/2010 09:32:50 AM · #1
Don't shoot the cops.
06/09/2010 09:50:17 AM · #2
Devil's advocate here...

As an amateur photographer I can see one side of the story, but I can also see another. I have a friend who is a sheriff's deputy (and a dad who is a retired corrections officer) and someone is always trying to nail his butt to the wall. He has to constantly look over his shoulder and document everything. If the police are worrying more about staying on the safe side of public opinion than about keeping the peace, then they cannot do their jobs effectively. Ideally, you would say "If they are doing nothing wrong, then they have nothing to be worried about". I ask this: Do any of you do your jobs without ever making an error in judgment? When I make a mistake on the job it doesn't get blasted out on youtube and hundreds of blogs.

That doesn't make it right. It makes it reality and before everyone else blasts the police on this, I felt it important to illustrate the police perspective on this. It's not right, but not without good reason.
06/09/2010 10:05:58 AM · #3
I do believe we should respect officers and the BS they have to put up with daily. But I also believe that they shouldn't have this kind of power. It is against the right of the photographer.
06/09/2010 10:07:18 AM · #4
I do understand the police perspective, but I cannot support or condone disallowing photos or video of on-duty police activities. Such documentation is the *only* way that the public has to protect themselves against police abuse, which can and does occur. Instead of looking at public photos and/or video as damning evidence, police should support and encourage documentation as a way to support the professional, proper exercise of police power.
06/09/2010 11:14:46 AM · #5
The local sheriff is a friend of mine. I played music with his dad 40 years ago, and know him well. I will ask his opinion on this when I see him again.
Public officials, including police officers are tax supported with our money. I see no reason to think that their activities when in public places should create any reason to arrest anyone who wants to photograph them as they work, as long as it does not create a situation that would endanger someone, or interfere with an ongoing investigation.
The ruling gives the police the power to suppress another of our freedoms. I would agree that it's not right to post a vid or photos of police officers having a bad day to youtube or one of the networking sites. It should not be illegal to photograph them for your own collection of work, or to show to a judge or other higher authority.
In a way, shooting the photos or video gives J Q Public a power that the officers may want to challenge. It tends to limit what they can get away with if they want to abuse their authority and position of power.
This is a hard question, and I see both sides. I don't feel that it should be a "blanket" policy where anyone who photographs officers in action will be arrested. That's a huge step toward creating a police state by making their actions visible only to eye witnesses, and making any evidence against them "their word against yours".
06/09/2010 11:58:17 AM · #6
I am alarmed.
06/09/2010 12:02:13 PM · #7
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Do any of you do your jobs without ever making an error in judgment?

Most people's errors in judgement aren't life-altering for others.
06/09/2010 12:28:12 PM · #8
Originally posted by Louis:

Most people's errors in judgement aren't life-altering for others.

Agreed. But it still happens. I'm not making excuses, what I am doing is explaining the other side of the story. How would one walk such a narrow line of public opinion, but still be effective and tough when needed? In addition, even when actions are appropriate, photos and videos can be presented out of context. Glad I'm not a cop.
06/09/2010 12:30:25 PM · #9
this is not good...

just the other day i was riding through a large city with a friend of mine, snapping sidewalk scenes. one of them included a man passed out on the sidewalk with three cops standing around maybe five feet away. when one of the cops noticed me, he started yelling, loudly, "NO PHOTOGRAPHY! YOU CANNOT TAKE PICTURES!!! YOU CANNOT TAKE PICTURES!!!" so, rather than get into it, i lowered my camera.

at the time, i thought that if push came to shove, i would be right and he would be wrong.

after reading that article, i'm damn glad i didn't try to find out.

this is not good...
06/09/2010 12:35:33 PM · #10
My suspicion is that First Amendment rights will eventually trump these anti-photography laws, although before that happens, anti-photo enforcers can still be a real pain.
06/09/2010 01:12:17 PM · #11
Hmmmm...I guess such laws effectively give the police a free hand to give the "Rodney King" treatment to anyone, anytime, just because they're "having a bad day" or "make an error in judgment".

Not good.
06/09/2010 01:18:40 PM · #12
"I'm sorry Mr. Gestapo that your dog peed on the kitchen rug." *Punch*
06/09/2010 07:03:42 PM · #13
Does that mean that citizens can object to the use of traffic cams? Dashboard cams? Surveillance cams in those jurisdictions based on all parties not consenting?
06/09/2010 07:18:43 PM · #14
Originally posted by Quintus:

Does that mean that citizens can object to the use of traffic cams? Dashboard cams? Surveillance cams in those jurisdictions based on all parties not consenting?


Great idea but I suspect some are more equal then others will be the root excuse for keeping them legal.
06/09/2010 07:27:35 PM · #15
How embarrassing for us U.S. folk to live in a society where this is becoming acceptable and the norm. Never had this long ago. Wow.
06/09/2010 07:59:10 PM · #16
Originally posted by PGerst:

How embarrassing for us U.S. folk to live in a society where this is becoming acceptable and the norm. Never had this long ago. Wow.


It's not acceptable and I'd say it's far from the norm. I just hope we can keep it that way.

Especially with police departments beginning to use technology like this
06/09/2010 09:37:18 PM · #17
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by PGerst:

How embarrassing for us U.S. folk to live in a society where this is becoming acceptable and the norm. Never had this long ago. Wow.


It's not acceptable and I'd say it's far from the norm. I just hope we can keep it that way.

Especially with police departments beginning to use technology like this


Could you elaborate on what exactly about this that you find so offensive.

Ray
06/09/2010 09:42:34 PM · #18
This issue will ultimately be decided by the courts who should be able to establish that the police action in this instance is clearly based on a total misunderstanding of the "Two Party Consent" principles.

Ray
06/09/2010 10:42:02 PM · #19
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:

The local sheriff is a friend of mine. I played music with his dad 40 years ago, and know him well. I will ask his opinion on this when I see him again.
Public officials, including police officers are tax supported with our money. I see no reason to think that their activities when in public places should create any reason to arrest anyone who wants to photograph them as they work, as long as it does not create a situation that would endanger someone, or interfere with an ongoing investigation.
The ruling gives the police the power to suppress another of our freedoms. I would agree that it's not right to post a vid or photos of police officers having a bad day to youtube or one of the networking sites. It should not be illegal to photograph them for your own collection of work, or to show to a judge or other higher authority.
In a way, shooting the photos or video gives J Q Public a power that the officers may want to challenge. It tends to limit what they can get away with if they want to abuse their authority and position of power.
This is a hard question, and I see both sides. I don't feel that it should be a "blanket" policy where anyone who photographs officers in action will be arrested. That's a huge step toward creating a police state by making their actions visible only to eye witnesses, and making any evidence against them "their word against yours".


I keep telling a person I know that this can't be happening.
I always hate to see scales of justice tipping to extremes. I just hope things eventually get balanced correctly. Years ago we had a bicycle helmet law. I'm sure photos of cops ticketing children ended that quickly.

Very similar power abuse below, but remember don't be an abusive papparazzi either.

In OH a week ago the courts ruled that cops don't need radar evidence to ticket speeders, "Visually Trained Officers" (guessing, I think about 15 out of 20 right, pass training) just have to say their word and you pay. I'm not sure if appeal right were also taken away or not.
06/09/2010 10:49:49 PM · #20
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by PGerst:

How embarrassing for us U.S. folk to live in a society where this is becoming acceptable and the norm. Never had this long ago. Wow.


It's not acceptable and I'd say it's far from the norm. I just hope we can keep it that way.

Especially with police departments beginning to use technology like this


Could you elaborate on what exactly about this that you find so offensive.

Ray


It's not that they check for criminals or stolen vehicles with it, or even tracking suspects. That's fine. It's the retention of the data about every single license plate the system scans that amounts to the state tracking people via their license plates. As long as I'm not violating any laws, the state has no business tracking where I go and what I do.
06/14/2010 10:02:28 PM · #21
You missed the point of the discussion. It is not about Big Brother and governmental intrusiveness. It is about the police using a loop hole to their advantage. Who watches the watchers? As well as the limitations this places on journalistic photographers. My previous post was "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" or "turnabout is fair play". This is the issue.
06/14/2010 10:22:48 PM · #22
Originally posted by Quintus:

You missed the point of the discussion. It is not about Big Brother and governmental intrusiveness. It is about the police using a loop hole to their advantage. Who watches the watchers? As well as the limitations this places on journalistic photographers. My previous post was "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" or "turnabout is fair play". This is the issue.


Ricardo has a good point. If they are going to enforce the "all parties" rule about recording an event then that would put major sources of income (traffic cams) as well documentation (dash cams) in jeopardy. You can't call foul in one and not the other.
06/14/2010 10:35:19 PM · #23
How do you call the Cops on the Cops

The Fonz is a staple in Phoenix, a true fighter on the front lines for good old #1! Preach on brotha!
06/14/2010 10:52:28 PM · #24
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

How do you call the Cops on the Cops

The Fonz is a staple in Phoenix, a true fighter on the front lines for good old #1! Preach on brotha!


Wow! That's insane!
06/15/2010 01:37:43 AM · #25
This was today about lunch time. No problem here with taking photos, but they were not beating anyone up.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 12:01:36 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 12:01:36 PM EDT.