• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI releases photos of Boston blast suspects

Ikari said:
I did not deny what I said, it remains true. You may not steal my identity in public, this is true. This demonstrates that I have some above ZERO expectation to privacy in public.

The real problem here is that you think you said something you didn't.
Click to expand...

It's clear that just because you are in public you haven't waived all rights to privacy, however, any part of you or part of your property that is readily visible to others in the public no longer has an expectation of privacy or right to privacy. If you're naked in public, you have waived your right to privacy of your person. If you carry a bloody knife openly in public, that may be used against you in a trial if that bloody knife is material to a crime. Likewise, if you invite police into your home and they see a bloody knife on a table in plain view, they don't need a search warrant to take that bloody knife as evidence of a crime.

By going out in public, you are waiving your right to privacy of that which you display in public.
 
bubbabgone said:
Hey Paul ... ya think James D Hill would be ticked off if someone told him they were glad Obama lost on guns because it ticked ant-gun nuts like him and Obama off?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure James has a sense of humor...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'm really surprised that the hats were not specifically emphasized. What's up bubba?
Click to expand...

Yeah. What's up with that? Seems like a natural thing to focus on. Maybe they assumed it might be a red herring.
 
bubbabgone said:
Speaking of Canada ... doesn't that look like a Toronto Bluejay bird on the side of cap of suspect #1?
Looks like some kind of bird or fish but I couldn't find a cap that looks close enough to the one he was wearing.
Click to expand...

Good evening bubba - no, that's not a Jays hat, at least not one I've ever seen - the symbol on the side looks more like a Nike emblem or if it's a bird a seagull or an eagle - if it's an eagle, it could be an American Eagle brand hat, but I couldn't say.
 
clownboy said:
You're free to try, but you won't win, ask any Hollywood alum. Btw, those paparazzi, they sell those photos and make money from them.
Click to expand...

If the photog doesn't give me a release to sign, I WILL win.
 
clownboy said:
Read that while looking in a mirror and you'd finally have it.

Look, I know now what you were going for, but you're still wrong using the word "identity" and going for "steal". This isn't a society that subscribes to the idea that your soul can be stolen with a photograph. Even the founders wouldn't have believed that.

Now, show us ANY law that says you cannot be photographed in public. Or how about a court decision?

For your education:
Click to expand...

Yes, none of that BTW said ZERO expectation to privacy. You have demonstrated my exact point. I have reduced expectation, I do not have reasonable expectation to the full of my privacy in public. True. But it's not zero.

you need to understand what it is that you are saying.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'm still at a bit of a loss that it wasn't done...
Click to expand...

I just play detective on the internet but you'd think with our unlimited tax money they could sharpen up those photos a bit more. Maybe it's the sequester cutbacks. Yeah ... that must be it.
 
apdst said:
If someone uses a photograph of me in the wrong manner, without my permission, I can sure the dog **** out of them.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are specific uses that are legal, and others that are not.

I cannot take a photo of a random person on the street, and use it for commercial purposes without their permission.

I can take photos of a public figure in a public place, and use those photos for commercial purposes, without their permission.

I can take pictures of a crime in progress, as long as it is visible from the street. The pictures I take can, without question, be used in a legal proceeding.

I can take videos of a police officer performing his or her duties, as long as I am not interfering with the officer.

Is any of this unclear?
 
bubbabgone said:
I just play detective on the internet but you'd think with our unlimited tax money they could sharpen up those photos a bit more.
Click to expand...
You watch too many episodes of "CSI." You can't create detail when the camera didn't capture it.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, none of that BTW said ZERO expectation to privacy. You have demonstrated my exact point. I have reduced expectation, I do not have reasonable expectation to the full of my privacy in public. True. But it's not zero.

you need to understand what it is that you are saying.
Click to expand...

Get shown wrong and then move the posts to avoid anyone noticing. It's not working for you. We were talking about cameras and photography in public. You remember, your argument about photons?

Game over, let's move on.
 
clownboy said:
Again, not if it was taken while you were in public. No release necessary.
Click to expand...
If it's a journalist and you're at a news-worthy event, you can't sue.

If the photographer uses your image for commercial purposes without permission, they have a case.
 
Visbek said:
You watch too many episodes of "CSI." You can't create detail when the camera didn't capture it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my brother winds up the crime lab folks all the time with that show. "How come you can't, they do it on CSI?"
 
Visbek said:
Yes, but there are specific uses that are legal, and others that are not.

I cannot take a photo of a random person on the street, and use it for commercial purposes without their permission.

I can take photos of a public figure in a public place, and use those photos for commercial purposes, without their permission.

I can take pictures of a crime in progress, as long as it is visible from the street. The pictures I take can, without question, be used in a legal proceeding.

I can take videos of a police officer performing his or her duties, as long as I am not interfering with the officer.

Is any of this unclear?
Click to expand...

Purdy much what I said, only better.
 
clownboy said:
Get shown wrong and then move the posts to avoid anyone noticing. It's not working for you. We were talking about cameras and photography in public. You remember, your argument about photons?

Game over, let's move on.
Click to expand...

There was no moving of posts, you're just making things up now.
 
Visbek said:
If it's a journalist and you're at a news-worthy event, you can't sue.

If the photographer uses your image for commercial purposes without permission, they have a case.
Click to expand...

Nope, not if it's a photo taken in public. Nothing newsworthy about Sheryl Crow say, getting a cup of coffee and walking back to her car. And the paparazzi are not journalists. Yet every day such photo content is bought and sold without release.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It's clear that just because you are in public you haven't waived all rights to privacy, however, any part of you or part of your property that is readily visible to others in the public no longer has an expectation of privacy or right to privacy. If you're naked in public, you have waived your right to privacy of your person. If you carry a bloody knife openly in public, that may be used against you in a trial if that bloody knife is material to a crime. Likewise, if you invite police into your home and they see a bloody knife on a table in plain view, they don't need a search warrant to take that bloody knife as evidence of a crime.

By going out in public, you are waiving your right to privacy of that which you display in public.
Click to expand...

bubbabgone said:
Yeah. What's up with that? Seems like a natural thing to focus on. Maybe they assumed it might be a red herring.
Click to expand...

AlabamaPaul said:
I'm still at a bit of a loss that it wasn't done...
Click to expand...

Good evening, gentlemen.:2wave:
 
clownboy said:
Nope, not if it's a photo taken in public. Nothing newsworthy about Sheryl Crow say, getting a cup of coffee and walking back to her car. And the paparazzi are not journalists. Yet every day such photo content is bought and sold without release.
Click to expand...

The reason movie stars don't sue, is because it's free publicity. They would be stupid to sue the paparazzi. However, the paparazzi sell their photos to magazines, which means that they're not for commercial use.
 
Visbek said:
You watch too many episodes of "CSI." You can't create detail when the camera didn't capture it.
Click to expand...
I hear ya but that's not entirely true. They can sharpen using nearby pixels to enhance. But, yes, there certainly are limitations. And, yes, I do watch too much CSI.
 
clownboy said:
Nope, not if it's a photo taken in public. Nothing newsworthy about Sheryl Crow say, getting a cup of coffee and walking back to her car. And the paparazzi are not journalists. Yet every day such photo content is bought and sold without release.
Click to expand...
Sheryl Crow is a public figure. A photo of Ms Crow in a public place can be purchased and published by a media outlet.

However, you cannot take a photograph of Ms Crow drinking a soda, and using that photo in an advertisement.

You may not like the paparazzi, but they have the legal right to take photos of public figures when they are in public.
 
These two are clearly right wing conservative extremist types. They definitely fit the stereotype.
 
Visbek said:
Yes, but there are specific uses that are legal, and others that are not.

I cannot take a photo of a random person on the street, and use it for commercial purposes without their permission.

I can take photos of a public figure in a public place, and use those photos for commercial purposes, without their permission.

I can take pictures of a crime in progress, as long as it is visible from the street. The pictures I take can, without question, be used in a legal proceeding.

I can take videos of a police officer performing his or her duties, as long as I am not interfering with the officer.

Is any of this unclear?
Click to expand...

Only one part, how is "public figure" defined by law? AND I will point to these being legislative restrictions not constitutional restrictions (in case Ikari wishes to ressurrect the busted identity argument).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom