Reading mode: Light Dark

Anti-Pedophile Terror - fresh air from Pop Photo

Go to last post
marcuson said:
That basic technology is there already. I recall reading a few
years ago where employers were using software to catch their
workers who were surfing for porn - the adult variety :). The
software could detect an abundance of naked flesh and sound the
alarm.
Click to expand...
and don't think that CBIR (Content Based Image Recogntion) research has stood still in the meantime, either - or that the technology used there was even probably particularly state of the art. I guess that for those purposes, a very quick and dirty algorithm to just notice when colours within a range for typical skin tone make up a substantial portion of the image, that's enough to notify an administrator who can make an informed decision.

A quick google scholar search
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cbir%20pornography&num=30&hl=en&lr=

shows that there are, indeed, several papers published recently on this topic of automatically spotting child pornography.

I'm absolutely not saying that that's a bad thing. Just that now is a time when the public needs to be conscious of what's going on, and the kinds of decisions that are being made about rights and privacy...

--
Peter

 
dipics said:
So, treating innocent people as suspects is a good way to lower the
crime rate? That's a new one on me.
Click to expand...
And you are the one who says who's innocent? You are somehow clairvoyant?
dipics said:
My responsibility as a citizen includes making sure that the rights
of the citizens are upheld. If I think that the police have reason
to suspect me for something, I'll likely cooperate. If not, I most
likely won't.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a typical person who has no respect for laws or authority, but as you are a pot smoking libertarian I'm not surprised.

--

 
I may be interpreting your response incorrectly, but I only stated that studies from Pro or Con this, will be more focused and biased towards their ideology. The best way to get your data to show the statistics is from third party observations.

It's like the tobacco industry creating reports saying that smoking is perfectly fine for your health. Entirely biased. And well, in this case, inaccurate.
--
http://tednghiem.smugmug.com . My smug for your mug.
 
Roshni said:
Can I say - B* y Y s on this forum?

Get over the nth amendment - I wasn't meant for your hobby.

There is no such thing as the right to take photographs -
photography is not a basic human right. It is a priviledge of a
few relatively rich people on this planet with too much time on
their (our) hands.
Click to expand...
Actually, while there is no such thing as a universal right, in this country it can be easily inferred from the 1st amendment (the government cannot determine who is and who is not press plus photography IS expression and the "speech" in the 1st amendment has been expanded to "expression"). And, in this case, the 4th (photography in public places IS legal, no matter the subject (assuming the subject is not committing an illegal act).
Roshni said:
Actually, the right Not to be photographed is probably more real
than the Right to take photographs (trespass and privacy LAWS CAN
apply in public places as well). However, niether of them are
fundamental rights of existence (at least according to the UN).
Click to expand...
I'm sure in some countries, there are restrictions in public places. But here in the U.S. that isn't the case. Privacy laws DO NOT apply to public places here unless you are in your private vehicle or somesuch, then you STILL do not have any "right" not to be photographed.
Roshni said:
And again - having the police, or members of the public, talk to
you about your photography does not Need to be a bad thing. They
aren't accusing - they are just making sure. I think you will
agree that a crime prevented is much, much better than a crime
solved (no victim).
Click to expand...
At what price? I'm sure that many crimes could be prevented if they put monitored cameras in every room of every home. My "bull" line is much lower than that of course. I feel that police should have some evidence of wrongdoing before they question someone.
Roshni said:
I say this having been pinned to the ground and having a police
revolver pointed, in anger, at my face for no other reason than a
traffic cop freaked out 20mins after attending a domestic dispute
and I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Click to expand...
I've never had any real problems with the police. I HAVE told one basically to leave me alone when he questioned me because I shot photos of a bridge. He did.
Roshni said:
On the other hand, I have wonderfull interactions with members of
the force. Form a relationship with them, and you'll begin to
appreciate what it's like for them to otherwise only deal with the
dark side of our society.
Click to expand...
I know quite a few policemen. I shoot 5 or 6 police weddings every year, just on word of mouth advertising. I find that they hate fools calling about people shooting photos in parks too.
Roshni said:
Build and maintain the society that you want to live in - don't
expect it to stay up without help. That means making the effort to
communicate with other people.
Click to expand...
The society I want to live respects the rights of individuals against unwarranted government intrusion. This requires that each and every one of us stand up for those rights.

DIPics
 
brent collins said:
dipics said:
So, treating innocent people as suspects is a good way to lower the
crime rate? That's a new one on me.
Click to expand...
And you are the one who says who's innocent? You are somehow
clairvoyant?
Click to expand...
No, I do realize that the police should have some evidence of wrongdoing BEFORE they question someone. This isn't that hard of a concept to comprehend. Clairvoyance not needed at all.
brent collins said:
brent collins said:
My responsibility as a citizen includes making sure that the rights
of the citizens are upheld. If I think that the police have reason
to suspect me for something, I'll likely cooperate. If not, I most
likely won't.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a typical person who has no respect for laws or
authority, but as you are a pot smoking libertarian I'm not
surprised.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a pathetic sheep who enjoys having someone else run his life. I not only don't do drugs, I don't even drink. I AM a libertarian though, I believe that people should be responsible for their own lives. Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their own children and that the government's law enforcement responsibilities should be limited to protecting the populace from attacks against their person or property. But, if you think that the government should run your life, well, feel free to let them.

DIPics
 
Why should artists have more class? It's not like we are members of the clergy or something....oh wait...those guys are having problems with large numbers of pervs in their midst as well. Seriously. Every group has scum bags. If you have a large gathering of men in any one place and an attractive woman passes through, there is going to be a reaction. Don't think that this is letting women off the hook. I have heard some seriously off the wall things come out of the mouths of women in the presence of an attractive man. I've also received some very lude comments from both men and women relating to pictures I have posted of both male and female clients. All in all, people will say horrid things. Get over it. There are people with a tendancy toward pedophilia in every thing you do in life. You're kid is still most likely to get molested by a coach or family member than any other person and that includes random creapy people at the park. This topic is completely pointless. As long as our rights given under the first ammendment are in tact we have nothing to discuss, and yes, in every state out there you can still shoot anything you want as long as you are on public ground. Anyone that says otherwise is full of it. The only exception I have heard are school yards and even then you can't be prosecuted for shooting at them.
 
Every country will have it's own laws on these matters.

Every court will have it's own interpretation of the law.

The US has a bill of rights. Australia does not - they still survive.

The UK as a "Right of Way" which allows people to walk over private land along defined routes.

The UN has a statment on "Human Rights" - can't say I remember much of it anymore, but it does not, if I recall correctly include photography.
 
The US is is not the Whole Forum, and is cerainly not the whole world.

I see the role of police, in part, to prevent crime. In some countries that is what they do. In order to do that they go out and talk to people.

I guess, therefore, that when an officer comes up to me I don't talk offense quite so much.

It's all about context, I suppose.
 
brent collins said:
I'm innocent until proven guilty and if I were accused there would
be ZERO proof that I'm a pedophile. My proof is relying on the
fact that there is NO proof otherwise. You are right though the
burden is not on me. So in the end I don't worry about it.
Click to expand...
Proof is where it's found as well as the way it's interpreted. Have you

ever taken a photo of anyone 'underage' in a swimsuit? Never mind if it's him or her, son, daughter, nephew, niece, friend's kids at a pool party - that can be used as evidence against you. As can almost any pic of a kid these days; that is how terrified governments have made society.
brent collins said:
brent collins said:
That is called proving a negative and it is generally thought of as
impossible. It is why the burden of proof lies with the
prosecutor, they have to prove that you did something, not the
other way around.
Click to expand...
Right and if they can't (because there is no proof) then I can go
about my business.
Click to expand...
How can you prove that the photos in the above example were used by you for innocent purposes ie to document the lives of those you know and care about? You can't. Once the seed is planted in the jury's mind, the outcome is almost inevitable.
brent collins said:
What stuns me is the total lack of concern for the possible
victims. It's all about our right...blah, blah, blah! What about
the photographers who ARE pervs and pedophiles?
Click to expand...
Actually, you've got it around the wrong way. The perverts are using cameras, yes. But that only makes them photographers because they use a camera, which is much different to those of us who use a camera because we're photographers. Using a camera does not make you a photographer. Kicking a soccer ball around in the park does not make you David Beckham. (Overseas readers, substitiute sport and celebrity of your choice here...).

There is a reason for concern, yes. But I think we're going about it the wrong way, just like we do with all social issues - and this is a social issue. Instead of saying 'It's wrong, ban it, jail them' (which is a good short term response), we should be saying 'Why are they doing this in such numbers? Let's investigate and try to fix it.'

Just my 2p worth.
--
Rob

If you're bored...
http://braveulysses.deviantart.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything.' Sydney Smith (1771-1845)
 
dipics said:
brent collins said:
Photography is FILLED with perverts, scum and pedophiles. Post a
picture on these forums of an ugly guy or girl and you get nothing.
Now post an attractive woman dressed in very little watch and what
you get..."man she's hot...I wish I had her...you're so
lucky....and I could go on and on. Photographers are their own
worst enemy. I had to go as far as putting a password on a page of
my site due to other so called photographers (from these forums)
sending me emails about this babe or that babe. Yes, it stinks
that the honest ones are now just as suspect as the scum, but that
is the way of the world. I don't blame the police, I blame the
actual pervs and pedophile who ruin it for all. And in the end I
believe that if you are innocent you can certainly prove it. As
for the Grandparents being ruined??? All I can say is that age has
little to do with who is and who is not a sex predator or pervert.
I worked in a deli during college and what appeared to be a nice
old man and his wife would come in several times a week and the old
guy would try to grab my crotch every time. I can only imagine
what happened top his Grandchildren. I reported him to my boss,
but who knows what happened from there. This was 20 years ago so I
don't see this as a recent issue. Look on the bright side, maybe
there are more guilty ones caught because of the awareness.?
Click to expand...
Oh horsepuke! Photographers are no more likely than any other
profession or hobby to be perverts. Pretending that the presence
of a camera is any indication that the person wielding it is a
paedophile has all the validity of entrail reading as a predictor
of the stock market.

You say that if you are "innocent you can certainly prove it".
This says more about your lack of logical thought on this than it
does about reality. I'll give you a great example. Prove to me
that you aren't a paedophile. Right now. Tell me exactly how you
would account for every moment of your life to prove that you
DIDN'T molest a random kid.

That is called proving a negative and it is generally thought of as
impossible. It is why the burden of proof lies with the
prosecutor, they have to prove that you did something, not the
other way around.

DIPics
Click to expand...
Well said. You're a star debater.

Whenever, I see your name in a thread I just know I am gonna get intelligent analysis.

Are you a lawyer, or did you study law or philosophy/reasoning at college? Because I have always found your statements well argued; certainly would want you as my lawyer.

Regards,
 
On the flip side are the innocent people falsely accused who went through hell and considerable expense to prove their innocence. I would rather 10 guilty go free than one innocent person found guilty.
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
tbcass said:
On the flip side are the innocent people falsely accused who went
through hell and considerable expense to prove their innocence. I
would rather 10 guilty go free than one innocent person found
guilty.
Click to expand...
http://www.babyreference.com/Breastfeeding%20Crime.htm

--

The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.
  • H.L. Mencken
 
dh steffi said:
I think the opposite is better for crime prevention.
Click to expand...
Which, of course, has little or nothing to do with justice. In the US, the concept of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the burdon of proof on the prosecution is intended to maximize the odds that the innocent go free at the possible expense of a few guilty parties going free, too. There is no greater miscarriage of justice than the punishment of the innocent.

The purpose of the justice system is to punish the guilty for crimes committed, not reduce the chance of future crimes. If you are willing to sacrifice the innocent in the name of crime prevention then just lock up everyone and be done with it.
 
plevyadophy said:
dipics said:
brent collins said:
Photography is FILLED with perverts, scum and pedophiles. Post a
picture on these forums of an ugly guy or girl and you get nothing.
Now post an attractive woman dressed in very little watch and what
you get..."man she's hot...I wish I had her...you're so
lucky....and I could go on and on. Photographers are their own
worst enemy. I had to go as far as putting a password on a page of
my site due to other so called photographers (from these forums)
sending me emails about this babe or that babe. Yes, it stinks
that the honest ones are now just as suspect as the scum, but that
is the way of the world. I don't blame the police, I blame the
actual pervs and pedophile who ruin it for all. And in the end I
believe that if you are innocent you can certainly prove it. As
for the Grandparents being ruined??? All I can say is that age has
little to do with who is and who is not a sex predator or pervert.
I worked in a deli during college and what appeared to be a nice
old man and his wife would come in several times a week and the old
guy would try to grab my crotch every time. I can only imagine
what happened top his Grandchildren. I reported him to my boss,
but who knows what happened from there. This was 20 years ago so I
don't see this as a recent issue. Look on the bright side, maybe
there are more guilty ones caught because of the awareness.?
Click to expand...
Oh horsepuke! Photographers are no more likely than any other
profession or hobby to be perverts. Pretending that the presence
of a camera is any indication that the person wielding it is a
paedophile has all the validity of entrail reading as a predictor
of the stock market.

You say that if you are "innocent you can certainly prove it".
This says more about your lack of logical thought on this than it
does about reality. I'll give you a great example. Prove to me
that you aren't a paedophile. Right now. Tell me exactly how you
would account for every moment of your life to prove that you
DIDN'T molest a random kid.

That is called proving a negative and it is generally thought of as
impossible. It is why the burden of proof lies with the
prosecutor, they have to prove that you did something, not the
other way around.

DIPics
Click to expand...
Well said. You're a star debater.

Whenever, I see your name in a thread I just know I am gonna get
intelligent analysis.

Are you a lawyer, or did you study law or philosophy/reasoning at
college? Because I have always found your statements well argued;
certainly would want you as my lawyer.
Click to expand...
He compliments me by calling me a star debater (thank you sir) then he goes and calls me a lawyer. Sheesh..

Seriously. I'm a photographer and entrepreneur. My only degree is history. I took (and still occasionally take) philosophy classes just for the fun of it.

DIPics
 
Roshni said:
The US is is not the Whole Forum, and is cerainly not the whole world.

I see the role of police, in part, to prevent crime. In some
countries that is what they do. In order to do that they go out
and talk to people.

I guess, therefore, that when an officer comes up to me I don't
talk offense quite so much.

It's all about context, I suppose.
Click to expand...
It is about context. It is more about history though IMHO. Many of us here in the U.S. (and I'm sure other places) realize that freedom is more often lost through the vote, through voluntarily granting government more power, than it is through losing a war. And, the freedom that is given away is often much harder to regain. Granting the police the power to question you without reason, to basically stop you and ask for the equivalent of "your papers bitte" is a very firm step towards giving up freedoms I'm not willing to give up.

DIPics
 
dipics said:
dh steffi said:
Happy you brought this up again, I pesonally am frustrated by the
soft penalties. If guilty, I would favour the death penalty for
perverts, not in a jail lbut on a city square. If ínnocence is not
proven 1005; no mercy for the criminal.
--
Windmills, just do it.
Click to expand...
If innocence is not proven eh? Well, can you prove to us where you
were the night that Jon Bennet (or however she spelled her name)
was murdered? If not, we hereby find you guilty. Which town square
should we use? :)

DIPics
Click to expand...
So one of you 2 stole my camera. Come PROVE that you were nowhere near my house on 16 June 1976. Cant do that, fine, you are both now GUILTY!!!

;-)
 
Hennie de Ruyter said:
dipics said:
dh steffi said:
Happy you brought this up again, I pesonally am frustrated by the
soft penalties. If guilty, I would favour the death penalty for
perverts, not in a jail lbut on a city square. If ínnocence is not
proven 1005; no mercy for the criminal.
--
Windmills, just do it.
Click to expand...
If innocence is not proven eh? Well, can you prove to us where you
were the night that Jon Bennet (or however she spelled her name)
was murdered? If not, we hereby find you guilty. Which town square
should we use? :)

DIPics
Click to expand...
So one of you 2 stole my camera. Come PROVE that you were nowhere
near my house on 16 June 1976. Cant do that, fine, you are both now
GUILTY!!!
Click to expand...
I say it was DH Steffi who stole your camera. As she cannot prove her innocence she must now burn. Please note under current EU law (Witch and Social Deviant Burning Regulations 2007) she can only be burnt in a town square that has an approved environmental impact statement demonstrating that a valid carbon fuel use offset policy is in operation and also that an appropriate risk assesment has taken place.

Shay, son of Che
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top