Author: Michael Madigan
Posted: 2009-01-27 17:32:36 Link
1. I photograph many times where the sound of a camera is inappropriate. Concerts, weddings, etc.
2. Covering the speaker on the camera will circumvent any laws.
3. What's wrong with upskirt photos? LOL
*************************************************
1/20/2013 Eviction Notice
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/6169336
--- On Tue, 1/27/09, Geoff Flight <datades@adam.com.au> wrote:
> From: Geoff Flight <datades@adam.com.au>
> Subject: RE: Stupid law of the year goes to congressman Peter King (R) New York
> To: "'ProFox Email List'" <profox@leafe.com>
> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:25 PM
> The problem with such laws (and we are just as likely to
> follow suit) is
> that the only people who will circumvent it are the people
> who would misuse
> them anyhow. Its not really a breach of any basic principle
> to ban silent
> cameras but it is however an exercise in futility and
> stupidity.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: profox-bounces@leafe.com
> [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
> Of Paul Hill
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2009 8:50 AM
> To: ProFox Email List
> Subject: Re: Stupid law of the year goes to congressman
> Peter King (R) New
> York
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Michael Madigan
> <mmadi10699@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > The Camera Phone Predator alert act.
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10150671-1.html
>
> What's up Mike? Worried you'll have to give up
> your voyeuristic activities
> :-)
>
> In parts of Asia (Japan?) this is already law. I'm
> sure it's easy to
> circumnavigate with a firmware fix or a pair of wire
> cutters...
>
> --
> Paul
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
Author: Pete Theisen
Posted: 2009-01-27 17:52:33 Link
Michael Madigan wrote:
> 1. I photograph many times where the sound of a camera is inappropriate. Concerts, weddings, etc.
>
> 2. Covering the speaker on the camera will circumvent any laws.
>
> 3. What's wrong with upskirt photos? LOL
Hi Michael!
If the skirt wearer has clean underwear on and is not recognizable in
the picture then it is merely tasteless.
--
Regards,
Pete
Author: Geoff Flight
Posted: 2009-01-27 18:03:09 Link
Breaching privacy but not being identifiable is hardly ok. Some things are
just wrong - such as this. The camera sound idea tho is just absurd.
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2009 9:23 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] Stupid law of the year goes to congressman Peter King (R)
New York
Michael Madigan wrote:
> 1. I photograph many times where the sound of a camera is inappropriate.
Concerts, weddings, etc.
>
> 2. Covering the speaker on the camera will circumvent any laws.
>
> 3. What's wrong with upskirt photos? LOL
Hi Michael!
If the skirt wearer has clean underwear on and is not recognizable in
the picture then it is merely tasteless.
--
Regards,
Pete
[excessive quoting removed by server]
Author: Pete Theisen
Posted: 2009-01-27 18:12:06 Link
Geoff Flight wrote:
> Breaching privacy but not being identifiable is hardly ok. Some things are
> just wrong - such as this. The camera sound idea tho is just absurd.
Hi Geoff!
Perhaps if you live in a dictatorship such as Australia or anywhere in
the UK, but we have freedom of the press here. Thus, underwear pictures
per se are not banned. It is tasteless, however.
> If the skirt wearer has clean underwear on and is not recognizable in
> the picture then it is merely tasteless.
--
Regards,
Pete
Author: Geoff Flight
Posted: 2009-01-27 18:22:46 Link
You have an interesting description of 'dictatorship' and 'freedom'. I
believe you were once a doctor. Perhaps you should review the professional
ethics section and see if it gives you any advice on these matters.
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2009 9:42 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] Stupid law of the year goes to congressman Peter King (R)
New York
Geoff Flight wrote:
> Breaching privacy but not being identifiable is hardly ok. Some things are
> just wrong - such as this. The camera sound idea tho is just absurd.
Hi Geoff!
Perhaps if you live in a dictatorship such as Australia or anywhere in
the UK, but we have freedom of the press here. Thus, underwear pictures
per se are not banned. It is tasteless, however.
> If the skirt wearer has clean underwear on and is not recognizable in
> the picture then it is merely tasteless.
--
Regards,
Pete
[excessive quoting removed by server]
Author: Michael Madigan
Posted: 2009-01-27 18:29:01 Link
I'm just kidding about the upskirt pictures being ok
*************************************************
1/20/2013 Eviction Notice
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/6169336
--- On Tue, 1/27/09, Geoff Flight <datades@adam.com.au> wrote:
> From: Geoff Flight <datades@adam.com.au>
> Subject: RE: [OT] Stupid law of the year goes to congressman Peter King (R) New York
> To: "'ProFox Email List'" <profox@leafe.com>
> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 6:03 PM
> Breaching privacy but not being identifiable is hardly ok.
> Some things are
> just wrong - such as this. The camera sound idea tho is
> just absurd.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: profox-bounces@leafe.com
> [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
> Of Pete Theisen
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2009 9:23 AM
> To: ProFox Email List
> Subject: Re: [OT] Stupid law of the year goes to
> congressman Peter King (R)
> New York
>
> Michael Madigan wrote:
> > 1. I photograph many times where the sound of a
> camera is inappropriate.
> Concerts, weddings, etc.
> >
> > 2. Covering the speaker on the camera will circumvent
> any laws.
> >
> > 3. What's wrong with upskirt photos? LOL
>
> Hi Michael!
>
> If the skirt wearer has clean underwear on and is not
> recognizable in
> the picture then it is merely tasteless.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Pete
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
Author: Pete Theisen
Posted: 2009-01-27 18:47:11 Link
Geoff Flight wrote:
Hi Geoff!
It certainly doesn't take anything to get you into ad hominem outrage.
Australia, and any country that bans private ownership of handguns by
law-abiding citizens, is a dictatorship. It may be dictatorship by
committee, but it is dictatorship nevertheless.
It is interesting that you seem to think that a person "once a doctor",
as you put it, should have some ethical restraint on his or her opinion
of dictatorship and freedom.
In addition to having been once a doctor I was once a professional
photographer. Unless the law has changed, and I have not heard that it
has, it is OK to photograph underwear wearing persons. If they are
recognizable you have to have their permission to publish the pictures
but not to take them. It is tasteless, but not "not OK".
> You have an interesting description of 'dictatorship' and 'freedom'. I
> believe you were once a doctor. Perhaps you should review the professional
> ethics section and see if it gives you any advice on these matters.
>> Breaching privacy but not being identifiable is hardly ok. Some things are
>> just wrong - such as this. The camera sound idea tho is just absurd.
> Perhaps if you live in a dictatorship such as Australia or anywhere in
> the UK, but we have freedom of the press here. Thus, underwear pictures
> per se are not banned. It is tasteless, however.
>
>> If the skirt wearer has clean underwear on and is not recognizable in
>> the picture then it is merely tasteless.
--
Regards,
Pete
Author: Geoff Flight
Posted: 2009-01-27 19:03:27 Link
Like so many gun-loving Americans you get in some sort of frenzy at the
thought of a country that bans them. And then you look at the 50,000 gun
deaths in your country and the <100 in ours. I just wonder if there is a
connection. And then the crime rate which is also vastly lower. Also a
dictatorship goes against the will of the people. Aussies support the ban
(mostly) and don't want it changed. See we like going to Maccas knowing that
not every patron is armed. We like knowing that the brawl outside the pub is
not going to turn into a gunfight.
And we aren't talking about 'underwear photos'. That simplistic term implies
professional model shoots. We are talking about upskirt photos where consent
is not given and is a clear invasion of privacy.
I have been a long-time photographer myself including weddings etc. I get
frustrated at the increasing limits on photography but I cant understand how
what is essentially an invasion of pricay can be merely 'tasteless'. Upskirt
photos here are banned but long before that they were considered
unacceptable.
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2009 10:17 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] Stupid law of the year goes to congressman Peter King (R)
New York
Geoff Flight wrote:
Hi Geoff!
It certainly doesn't take anything to get you into ad hominem outrage.
Australia, and any country that bans private ownership of handguns by
law-abiding citizens, is a dictatorship. It may be dictatorship by
committee, but it is dictatorship nevertheless.
It is interesting that you seem to think that a person "once a doctor",
as you put it, should have some ethical restraint on his or her opinion
of dictatorship and freedom.
In addition to having been once a doctor I was once a professional
photographer. Unless the law has changed, and I have not heard that it
has, it is OK to photograph underwear wearing persons. If they are
recognizable you have to have their permission to publish the pictures
but not to take them. It is tasteless, but not "not OK".
> You have an interesting description of 'dictatorship' and 'freedom'. I
> believe you were once a doctor. Perhaps you should review the professional
> ethics section and see if it gives you any advice on these matters.
>> Breaching privacy but not being identifiable is hardly ok. Some things
are
>> just wrong - such as this. The camera sound idea tho is just absurd.
> Perhaps if you live in a dictatorship such as Australia or anywhere in
> the UK, but we have freedom of the press here. Thus, underwear pictures
> per se are not banned. It is tasteless, however.
>
>> If the skirt wearer has clean underwear on and is not recognizable in
>> the picture then it is merely tasteless.
--
Regards,
Pete
[excessive quoting removed by server]
Author: Pete Theisen
Posted: 2009-01-27 19:43:21 Link
Geoff Flight wrote:
> Like so many gun-loving Americans you get in some sort of frenzy at the
> thought of a country that bans them. And then you look at the 50,000 gun
> deaths in your country and the <100 in ours.
Hi Geoff!
http://www.tincher.to/myths.htm
--
Regards,
Pete
Author: Geoff Flight
Posted: 2009-01-27 20:13:27 Link
You just keep believing that and in the meantime 50,000 each year die from
guns while very few do here.
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2009 11:13 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] Stupid law of the year goes to congressman Peter King (R)
New York
Geoff Flight wrote:
> Like so many gun-loving Americans you get in some sort of frenzy at the
> thought of a country that bans them. And then you look at the 50,000 gun
> deaths in your country and the <100 in ours.
Hi Geoff!
http://www.tincher.to/myths.htm
--
Regards,
Pete
[excessive quoting removed by server]