[Philoslothical]

But no, legally if it's a public place I can take pics of anything I want, including someone's cute kid, thanks. Helps that I am female though I think.

That photographer may be harmless but then again might not be. Who cares about his rights? We're talking about keeping children safe here.

Cognitive dissonance much? So basically you have the right to photograph anyone you want, because you don't have testicles, and we all know that possession of testicles makes one a rapist or pedophile. Or, at the very least, being in possession of ovaries guarantees that all your motives are pure and good eh? As if women don't abuse children, physically and sexually.

This right here is a perfect example of female privilege, combined with buying into all the media bogeymen needed to erode our rights, for entirely other reasons besides "safety".

[RioRico]

You mean like the real pedophiles do?

Sorry, don't know any pedophiles. Well, just one, legally -- a neighbor was convicted of statutory rape (he was 21, she was 17) and has been Registered Sex Offender for decades, with no further legal problems, but his name-face-address are public record. I never saw him loitering in parks and AFAIK he doesn't own a camera. I could have been in his situation but wasn't caught, and I don't loiter in parks either.

With so much paranoia about photographers and so many powerful lobby groups trying to desensitize people to openly carried guns, I have to wonder if I'll start seeing areas where it'll be more acceptable to carry a gun than a camera.

Back in the day (pre-WW1) gun-cameras were fairly common. Gun laws were much looser (or nonexistent) then too. And 'candid' photographers (those without viewcams on tripods) were denounced as CAMERA FIENDS -- both toggers and unwilling subjects were advised to have bodyguards. Handguns were indeed more acceptable than portable cameras back then.

The basics: If you are in public, you have ZERO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. A woman admonished my for shooting pix of people (including her adult daughter) in a WalMart parking lot. Didn't she know that Wally's has cameras recording everything that happens there? If you are on a public street in many parts of the world, YOU ARE SURVEILLED! The cameras you see are insignificant compared to those you don't see but that see you.

Rampant paranoia: I blame milk cartons. And f*cking pseudo-journalists. Smash your TV.

[GibbyTheMole]

And this is why a child could get killed in front of me and I would do nothing to try to stop it from happening. Better a dead kid than I go to jail for touching one the wrong way while pulling him or her out from in front of a bus.

Sadly, this is the kind of atmosphere paranoia breeds. And that also describes me, and unfortunately a lot of other men. In fact, I make it a point to never even make eye contact with a kid or even be in close proximity of a kid. Lemme tell you a little story of something that happened a couple of years ago:

A knock on the door came one night & my wife opened it up. It was the next door neighbor girl. She was maybe 4 or 5. She told my wife her dad had been beating her, though she didn't have a mark on her. My wife turned around and asked me what we should do. I told my wife to turn on the porch light, leave her alone outside, and call the kid's mother. I sure as Hell didn't want the kid in the house, and I didn't want to be seen anywhere near her. As it turns out, she'd been to almost every house on the block telling anyone who would listen that her dad had been beating her. The mom said to take the kid back to her house, which my wife did. The bullet points of the story are:

1) Kids lie. A lot.
2) If I had been the only one home, I wouldn't have answered the door. Because everyone is so gung-ho to brand any and every man a kiddie-diddler, any kid that gets in trouble in my vicinity is on their own. Sorry... sucks to be you, kid... Not my fault. You can thank your gullible helicopter parents who buy into that "evil around every corner " mentality pimped out by the media.

You also have to ask yourself if any pedo is going to be stupid enough to call attention to themselves by whipping out a pro DSLR with a long lens and take pictures of your kid in plain view in broad daylight.


IMO, if you're going to worry about pervs, you should worry about are the ones you never see. Your coaches, Sunday school teachers, daycare providers... the ones who are with your kid when you're not around. Not to mention that statistically, your kid is also much more likely to be molested by someone they know and even then, the odds are pretty low.

I don't mean to be rude. I don't mean to automatically assume every person doing that is a pedophile, but it's my job as the guardian of that kid or kids to be aware, to ask questions, and to protect them against any possibility of harm however remote, and if that occassionally means trampling on someone's civil right sometimes, so be it.

While I'm quoting: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Ben Franklin

For all of your helicopter parenting and paranoia, our kids aren't any safer than they were 100 years ago. Maybe less so. And the irony of it is, because or the mass-hysteria over crime, they're putting up more and more security cameras to record you and your children's every move in public. But hey.. if living in fear trips your trigger, keep on keepin' on.

[magkelly]

You know the FBI could knock on my door tomorrow and I would cheerfully answer any questions they might have on the subject. I have nothing to hide on that score. (Where I get my TV shows from that's another story, cough, laugh.) For the record the reason I know so much is because I spent a decade taking care of kids. I've been the nanny on the playground watching over my kids. I've seen people I don't know, a lot of them men taking pics and I didn't know why. It made me uncomfortable sometimes and I know my parents that I worked for didn't like that. I've seen them get angry over it and I get why.

I know some of you won't agree with my position on this. I respect that, but I have to disagree. I'm sorry, I don't mean to tick some of you off, but that is my stance on this, kids (and manners) first, my rights later. It's not all things, just kids. I'd happily challenge anyone who told I couldn't photograph a bridge or something like. About the only other exception that I can think of to that would be a military installation, and again, it's a matter of safety. I can respect them not wanting me to go there. Not if it might lead to the death of a soldier. It might be accidental, but stuff gets on the news every day that shouldn't be shown. It bothers me. I worry about the folks overseas. Sometimes these days I think we show too much with all our photographs, social media, and tabloid news...

Paranoia? Maybe, but there are a lot of bad people out there, more than you might think, and yes, some of them happen to be female, though statistically speaking there are a lot more male offenders out there with cameras than female probably, but yeah, I'd ask and I'm happy to be asked actually. Shows me a parent actually gives a f- about their kids. I'd rather they ask than not, seriously. I've been asked, sure, but usually I stop that by asking first. I'm entirely open about what I am doing and I usually get a release if I can and give the parents the photos. I'm polite as heck and if they don't want me to go there I will not.

I hate talking about this but FYI, I was touched and probably nearly raped twice as a kid. Once by someone who was virtually a stranger to us, a new babysitter's husband, and once by the son of some really close family friends. My Mom fortunately for me got what I was trying to tell her both times and did something about it before it got to that point, but still I got touched. Neither guy was prosecuted though and that really haunts me the idea of what they might be doing now, but I have no idea of where they are or how to even proceed about doing something about it. It ticks me off to this day and I'm talking a lot of years ago.

I guess it's those experiences that make me so suspicious and protective of children, parents and their rights to protect said children. I was not the only person I met growing up who was messed with that way. Several of my close friends also had similar incidents in their backgrounds. If in a group of say 6 girls 4 can honestly say they had childhood experiences like that, and mean it, then how careful can we really be? My point is civil liberties can't always be upheld so easily in situations like these.

As a photographer I want to be fiercely protective of my freedom to shoot. I want to be treated as innocent before guilty, but as a person who was touched inappropriately I shudder to think of what might happen if parents feel too embarrassed to ask. Hang civil liberties and being polite. If it saves one kid from being in a situation like the one I was in, from having something like that happen to them? I don't care if someone asks, or if I can't photograph something I want to. Let them.

One kid hurt is too many for me.

Note: In the posts above you all are jumping all over me, but again, and I reiterate here, I ASK. I get permission and that is what makes it "okay." I don't act like some stranger. They get my contact info, photos if they want them. I don't shoot if they object. I act like a responsible photographer, not like a creep. Big difference, okay? And I am fully aware that most of those creeps are working a lot closer to me and their targets than some random guy in the park. But some of them do linger at playgrounds. I've seen that and you cannot be too careful, sorry. Some of you may disagree. Okay, but this is how I feel. Roast me if you feel you must, but at least I am open about it. I'm saying this is the line and I don't cross it even if my civil liberties do get trampled a bit.

---

Last edited by magkelly; 09-30-2011 at 05:06 PM.

[baro-nite]

One kid hurt is too many for me.

Then there are too many hurt kids. Fact of life. Something like 40,000 people die in traffic accidents in the US every year. A disproportionate number of these are teenagers. All have to be considered preventable deaths. How many is too many? One? Then let's all stop driving.

OTOH, while one is legally entitled to take photos in public (in the US, at least), that doesn't mean one is entitled to take photos of strangers without being told to f*** off. Police and pseudo police (fortunately I don't think we have those here yet, not counting the TSA) butt out. Taking photos of people is a social act. If you don't get permission first, expect negative reactions at least some of the time.

[magkelly]

Well, since I am one of the "one" with some pretty bad memories I'll reserve the right to think one is too many okay? I don't want any kid to have memories like mine. Not one if I can help it. I was luckier than most but it's still hard sometimes when things come up that make me remember that one of my mom's best friend's kids could do something like that. He was like a cousin to me for a long time, the sleazeball and incidentally it wasn't just me. He likely did the same to his own sister for a long time. Not a stranger, true, but everyone trusted him too. No one would have ever thought him to be a pervert, but he was. My mom lost her best friend of many years over that in the end...

[alohadave]

Well, since I am one of the "one" with some pretty bad memories I'll reserve the right to think one is too many okay? I don't want any kid to have memories like mine. Not one if I can help it. I was luckier than most but it's still hard sometimes when things come up that make me remember that one of my mom's best friend's kids could do something like that. He was like a cousin to me for a long time, the sleazeball and incidentally it wasn't just me. He likely did the same to his own sister for a long time. Not a stranger, true, but everyone trusted him too. No one would have ever thought him to be a pervert, but he was. My mom lost her best friend of many years over that in the end...

You aren't the only person who has been abused, and some of us manage to be able to separate out our personal feelings from the rights of others.

Your case also illustrates that it wasn't a random photographer in public that abused you, but someone that you already knew and had private access to you.

If you had been molested by a photographer in public, your argument might hold more weight for the rest of us (or for me at the very least).

[TomK]

Don't be a slow lone male in public unless you look like a boring functionary. Be female;

Uhhh, I took your advice. It did not work out.
I was hassled and questioned by the authorities for several hours.
Apparently I misinterpreted it when you said "be female".
An overweight middle aged man dressed in an ill fitting
drag outfit was not the solution.

[TomK]

I ASK. I get permission and that is what makes it "okay." I don't act like some stranger. They get my contact info, photos if they want them. I don't shoot if they object. I act like a responsible photographer, not like a creep.

So, a parent should then feel it is OK for you to photograph their children?
If I was a serious perv I would do exactly these things in order to con the parents into thinking I was innocent.
Put them off guard by asking first.
Explain why I want to take these photos - lying through my teeth of course.
Give out phony contact information - bogus professionally made business cards, etc.
I doubt if one of these concerned parents would sign a general model release which usually states the photographer has the right to use the photo without restrictions.
Even if they did sign a very restrictive model release, would not a real perv have one handy to deceive the parent as to his/her real intentions?
And, yes, a real perv would not act "like a creep". Rather they would act/look like a responsible photographer, a member of the clergy, an ice cream vendor, etc.

You seem to equate some stranger taking pictures of a child with that child being open to molestation. A child is molested because a parent s not present or is not watching.
A parent's paranoia about a stranger on a park bench - with or without a camera - is quite different from a parent's outrage and aggressive defense of a child that some stranger has gotten too close to and is maybe even touching, maybe even innocently touching at first, like holding their hand or patting them on the back. One is paranoia, the other is proper protection.

[TomK]

As crazy as Michael Jackson was, apparently he knew the laws about photographing and "expectation of privacy".
He apparently realized there was nothing he could do legally or by threat of bodyguards, etc. to totally prevent people from taking pictures of his children which he was obsessively opposed to.
We all have heard the stories about how, whenever he took the children out in public, he would cover up their heads and faces.
Sometimes he would use a ski mask; sometimes it was a paper bag,
He realized the solution was not in preventing photographers from taking photos but in taking steps on HIS part to prevent the pictures themselves from being possible.

I can understand a parent saying "We don't go to xyz park anymore. There are too many weird looking people there, some even with cameras."
That is different than demanding that the park be made free from strangers and cameras and "too bad about their rights" because I am uncomfortable with the laws and want the law to bend to my flavor of paranoia.
No Arabs allowed into a train station.
No lone people allowed into a park that may have children playing there.
No cameras allowed in a downtown area because they could be in the hands
of home grown terrorist bombers.
No lone men allowed on a hiking trail as they could be rapists in waiting.
No motorcycles allowed in this town because they could be Hell's Angels members.
No, No, No - - - - - - - -

[magkelly]

So, a parent should then feel it is OK for you to photograph their children?
If I was a serious perv I would do exactly these things in order to con the parents into thinking I was innocent.

That's true but I doubt a real pedophile would give out their real info and I always do when it comes to kids. The parents get my phone if they like. I'd feel weird not offering that actually. But that's just me. Some parents do go a bit overboard I get that, but you and I are just going to have to differ as to whether or not that is their right. In this argument they win with me, period.

I wasn't thinking so much of actual pics taken as kids taken really I guess. There was something in the news not too long ago about a guy who lured young teenage girls into posing with promises of making them up a portfolio and then getting them modeling jobs. He made off with the girls not just the pics. I can still see that happening with younger kids too. Pedophiles use any means they can of making kids trust them. They take photos, they coach softball, hit the roller rink, whatever gets them closer to their target. They can be children's photographers or say they are anyway.

Yes, of course, I think about what happened to me. I'm very glad actually that we didn't have cell phones or digicams and no internet then. I wouldn't have put it past the guys who tried to molest me to have put me on some website or something. We live in a different age now than we did even 5 years ago. Most of my impromptu kid photo sessions were back a while. The ones I've done since have been formal shoots set up for me to learn by my teacher or things I was getting paid for. I'm not too sure those parents I met back then would have been as okay with me taking pics now as they were then. We didn't have quite so many cases coming out of women coming out molesting kids as has been reported recently. Under the circumstances I'd probably watch the women around any kids I had the responsibility a lot closer now too.

I would never do a kid shoot without the parents right there anyhow. I want them involved and knowing exactly what I am getting. Helping a bit if possible. They should be there looking over my shoulder anyway. At this point I don't think I'd ever do a shoot even in a studio without a second person there even with most adults. I'm a door open kind of photographer mostly. I want my clients to be comfortable but I want to be safe too.

Anyway, I think I've said all I care to about this topic.

No offense to anybody....

[RioRico]

Apparently I misinterpreted it when you said "be female".
An overweight middle aged man dressed in an ill fitting
drag outfit was not the solution.

You need to take lessons from Dame Edith, eh?

[Philoslothical]

So how does ANY of that justify the hostility and suspicion against men taking pictures in the proximity of people with their children. It seems you keep shifting what the danger really is (because the danger is imaginary for the most part), now saying it's about kids being taken physically. But when people are shooting in a park, right in front of those kids parents, what justifies it?

Rather than just put it off on paranoia, I'm trying to understand this mentality. Hell, I don't even shoot people, of any age, it's not where my interest is. I mainly shoot bugs, plants, other naturish stuff, and I've got the evil eye just walking along the shore of a river (nobody swimming mind you, just a strip of vacant land). It's not because I have a camera, it's because of what parts I have between my legs, and I'm fed up.

[magkelly]

You've never heard of pedophiles stalking their victims? That guy with the young models he was taking pics of them in malls long before they approached him. Did he have a right, yeah, I suppose so, but he took a lot more than pics ultimately. People who stalk and obsess over kids use cameras too. My point is those cameras aimed at kids might not be so innocent.

Yeah, I'd like to hope that person with a DSLR on the bench behind me is just a fellow shutterbug looking for a cute shot of a kid doing cute kid things. But it could also be a pedophile stalking a kid in prep for snatching one or at least for fodder for composite pics to share with similar people. Most parents and babysitters are pretty aware that they have to watch for anyone who might come into contact with their kids. People who never raised a suspicion before are now being looked at a bit closer now.

Everyone has a DSLR, pocket digital, or at least a smart phone camera. You can't even hardly go to pee in a Starbucks these days without looking to see someone doesn't have a phone camera or a hidden camera on you. You really expect parents not to look at anyone with a camera of any kind who wants to take pics of kids they don't even know and not feel funny? When with one click of a camera and a wifi connection someone can send pics of said kids across the globe? Most parents have to try hard not to think about that too much these days. I get truly scared for the kids I know. I don't feel too comfortable with the vast world they have to live in sometimes. Parents shouldn't have to even worry about pictures of their kids being used in a bad way. But it's a fact of life these days. You do have to be more careful or you could court real trouble.

Anyway I really am done talking about this. I'm trying to make you understand why some people feel this way but I don't think I am finding the right words or whatever. I know it's not easy to take, but the reasons for the paranoia you are encountering are real, and it gets to be more and more of an issue every day. The more connected we get the more danger there is, for all of us, not just the kids. I love tech, don't get me wrong, but the ease with which so many people abuse it these days really gives me pause.

My local gym teacher maybe being a pedo makes me worry. Him knowing and providing pics for 10,000 creeps just like him, and using one of my sibling's kids to do it? It makes me want to lock up all the kids I know until they are of legal age and of no more interest to people like that.

[séamuis]

My local gym teacher maybe being a pedo makes me worry. Him knowing and providing pics for 10,000 creeps just like him, and using one of my sibling's kids to do it? It makes me want to lock up all the kids I know until they are of legal age and of no more interest to people like that.

And that way of thinking and those actions will do more harm to not only all children, but all of society than that one person you assume is a pedophile could ever do. I understand your concerns, honestly I do, but you stent thinking about the big picture. You aren't looking beyond your own fears off which like most others in this discussion agree are irrational, ignorant, criminalising, demonising and just generally paranoia and nothing else) you need to look at the broader spectrum and stop thinking it'd okay to treat others in such a way, because of your own fears. I've read everything you've written, and take it all to heart, and though I know a lot of our respOnses have Ben harsh that have been so for a reason. I suggest you go back and seriously re-read all of the responses, mine and others an do so with a more open mind. Your views and actions will be doing MORE HARM to children than the fears you claim to want to protect them from. I don't know what else to say beyond that.