Reading mode: Light Dark

Photographing Children Could be a Criminal Act in NJ

Go to last post
Jim_M said:
Will this law apply at school football or other sports events? How about other school events like choir, I may accidently photograph other children that are standing next to mine. Do they have any amusement parks, like Six Flags, in NJ? Gotta hope no kids are anywhere near you when you take pictures.
Click to expand...
You "teach" the camera to recognise only your kids, every other kid will be blurred out of the shot. Maybe we can write to the legislators making such software mandatory to New Jersey?

Of course I go ballistic when some sick pervert shoots a picture of my dog, so add that on to the software as well.

Better safe than sorry, I always say. :)

Dave
 
Well cameras do have 'face detection' and 'smile detection' so it can't be that hard to engineer 'child detection' into cameras - whereby it will disable the shutter when a child is in the shot. For your own children, you can have their face detected, then create a password that can be used when you want to take a photo of that kid. Maybe only when using an eye-fi card that sends it to the police dept to make sure the child and password are approved and verified as yours, or they'll use the built-in GPS to track you and arrest you.

Of course, it makes taking wide photos at Disney World nearly impossible - as there's usually a kid somewhere in the crowd who will end up in your frame.

It's a good thing I hate kids, so I won't have too many problems with my photography! ;)

--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg
 
Jim_M said:
What is the difference between Peering and looking?
Click to expand...
Camping out and staring at the children wading pool or the entrance to restroom at the children playground is obvious peering. Just looking at children at the mall while doing your own normal activities is just looking. But stop what you were normally doing and follow a child to the restroom to look at him pee is obvious peering.

Dictionary definition of peering: to look narrowly or curiously

--mamallama
 
mamallama said:
Jim_M said:
What is the difference between Peering and looking?
Click to expand...
Camping out and staring at the children wading pool or the entrance to restroom at the children playground is obvious peering. Just looking at children at the mall while doing your own normal activities is just looking.
Click to expand...
mamallama said:
But stop what you were normally doing and follow a child to the restroom to look at him pee is obvious peering.
Click to expand...
You mean they need a new law to prevent this? That all this fuss is about stopping photographers/perverts from going into bathrooms?

Who knew? Here I thought you could get busted for that without a new law.

Now let me ask, if I look observe at kids in a playground for an hour, am I "looking" or "peering?"

Dave
mamallama said:
Dictionary definition of peering: to look narrowly or curiously

--mamallama
Click to expand...
 
zackiedawg said:
Well cameras do have 'face detection' and 'smile detection' so it can't be that hard to engineer 'child detection' into cameras - whereby it will disable the shutter when a child is in the shot. For your own children, you can have their face detected, then create a password that can be used when you want to take a photo of that kid. Maybe only when using an eye-fi card that sends it to the police dept to make sure the child and password are approved and verified as yours, or they'll use the built-in GPS to track you and arrest you.

Of course, it makes taking wide photos at Disney World nearly impossible - as there's usually a kid somewhere in the crowd who will end up in your frame.
Click to expand...
is will old cameras be "grandfathered in," or will we have to toss our existing hardware?
zackiedawg said:
It's a good thing I hate kids, so I won't have too many problems with my photography! ;)
Click to expand...
Well, I'm toast with these new "laws." Yeah, I really like kids, and really like to shoot them. :(

Dave
zackiedawg said:
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg
Click to expand...
 
The presumption is that photography steals the spirit, or that a digital image will lead to some obscene, diabolic debasement of the person.

Don't think of "prowling" a beach, park, public square, or sporting area with a camera in hand. There is no defense or aliby. To say, "I just like to take pictures," is tantamount to confession to the worst. You may be fined, imprisoned, or put on a permanent list that bars you from employment, residence, or vigilante harassment.

Trust cops. They know what constitutes the range of "legit" photos: birthdays, pets, fishing catches, reunions, weddings, retirements, Magic Kingdom, autographed shots of sports heros or celebrities, and criminial suspects. Most "legit" people don't use a camera at all, or very seldomly.

Meanwhile, you can stand in public and shout lewd, profane, filthy language and enjoy complete protection or merely be told "hush." Tote a rifle, shotgun, or pistol, and you'll have a vast lobby prepared to offer you legal protection if anyone complains.
 
Chato said:
mamallama said:
Jim_M said:
What is the difference between Peering and looking?
Click to expand...
Camping out and staring at the children wading pool or the entrance to restroom at the children playground is obvious peering. Just looking at children at the mall while doing your own normal activities is just looking.
Click to expand...
Chato said:
But stop what you were normally doing and follow a child to the restroom to look at him pee is obvious peering.
Click to expand...
You mean they need a new law to prevent this? That all this fuss is about stopping photographers/perverts from going into bathrooms?

Who knew? Here I thought you could get busted for that without a new law.
Click to expand...
What would be the charge for doing this under the old law?
Chato said:
Now let me ask, if I look observe at kids in a playground for an hour, am I "looking" or "peering?"
Click to expand...
If that's what you do at a kid's playground that prohibit adults without children (and many do in large communities), you would be charged with loitering.

--mamallama
 
mamallama said:
Chato said:
mamallama said:
Jim_M said:
What is the difference between Peering and looking?
Click to expand...
Camping out and staring at the children wading pool or the entrance to restroom at the children playground is obvious peering. Just looking at children at the mall while doing your own normal activities is just looking.
Click to expand...
mamallama said:
But stop what you were normally doing and follow a child to the restroom to look at him pee is obvious peering.
Click to expand...
You mean they need a new law to prevent this? That all this fuss is about stopping photographers/perverts from going into bathrooms?

Who knew? Here I thought you could get busted for that without a new law.
Click to expand...
What would be the charge for doing this under the old law?
Click to expand...
Invasion of privacy? Stalking? You name it. There are at least a dozen charges existing for doing that. A bathroom is NOT a public space. I, who am always defending the rights of photographers, don't see this as being deprived of a right.
mamallama said:
mamallama said:
Now let me ask, if I look observe at kids in a playground for an hour, am I "looking" or "peering?"
Click to expand...
If that's what you do at a kid's playground that prohibit adults without children (and many do in large communities), you would be charged with loitering.
Click to expand...
I do it, not often, but I do it. In my community parents prevent people without kids from going into the playground no law about being by the playground. It happens from time to time when I walk my dog.

Why? Is there something wrong with looking at kids?

I can sympathise with parents who don't want adults to hang out in a playground, which is why I never try to go in.

Dave
mamallama said:
--mamallama
Click to expand...
 
Criminal voyeurism

The criminal voyeurism statute of some states cover "a place where [one] would have a reasonable expectation of privacy", meaning:

(i) A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or

(ii) A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.

In New York, video voyeurism has been addressed by a law prohibiting unlawful surveillance. A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second-degree offense, a class E felony punishable by a term of up to 1 - to 4 years in State prison, if he or she:

(i) for no legitimate purpose, uses or installs an imaging device to surreptiously view or record another person in a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, or other specified room; or

(ii) for sexual arousal or gratification, permits, uses or installs an imaging device to surreptiously view a person dressing or undressing when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy; or

(iii) uses or installs an imaging device to surreptiously view under the clothing of a person - commonly known as - upskirting,- or (iv) for amusement, entertainment, or profit, or to abuse or degrade the victim, permits, uses, or installs an imaging device to surreptiously record another person dressing or undressing when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

A person is guilty of the dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first-degree, a Class E Felony punishable up to 1 - to 4 years in State prison, if he or she:

(i) publishes or sells an image that was unlawfully obtained; or

(ii) disseminates an image he or she unlawfully obtained; or

(iii) commits the first degree offense and has prior conviction of the first or second degree offenses.

The federal Video Voyeurism Protection Act of 2004 makes it a federal crime to secretly capture images of people on federal property in situations in which they have the expectation of privacy.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/voyeurism/

Guess what. I don't have a problem with the above. You have a problem with the above?

The above is a clear definition of what is and what is not a crime. It doesn't call for some Cop who had a bad night, doesn't like you, or is just plain nuts, to make a "judgement call."

Invasion of Privacy

1. A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or

2. A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.

Dave
 
must prove their innocence.....Used to be the opposite.
By that standard HCB should have been jailed with a substantial group of
the major photographers of the XXth century.

We leave in a strange world where a crazy Chinese woman, because she is a professor in some important university, thinks she has the right to be an authority in imposing and proposing a typical medieval education based on children's abuse; and, instead of been severely reprimanded and turned to some psychologist for help, she can actually wright and sell a book and be invited in some talk show.

In the same strange world, all people, specially if they have a camera in their hand, have become extremely dangerous for children.

I find everyday stranger how the average thinking and discerning capacity seems to be lost in favor of a zero tolerance policy and the subsequent criminalization of the society we live in.
Kind regards
 
They are being used by pedophiles, terrorists and other criminals to commit their acts.

--
Jorgen, my name is Jorgen
 
Chato said:
mamallama said:
Chato said:
mamallama said:
Jim_M said:
What is the difference between Peering and looking?
Click to expand...
Camping out and staring at the children wading pool or the entrance to restroom at the children playground is obvious peering. Just looking at children at the mall while doing your own normal activities is just looking.
Click to expand...
Chato said:
But stop what you were normally doing and follow a child to the restroom to look at him pee is obvious peering.
Click to expand...
You mean they need a new law to prevent this? That all this fuss is about stopping photographers/perverts from going into bathrooms?

Who knew? Here I thought you could get busted for that without a new law.
Click to expand...
What would be the charge for doing this under the old law?
Click to expand...
Invasion of privacy? Stalking? You name it. There are at least a dozen charges existing for doing that. A bathroom is NOT a public space. I, who am always defending the rights of photographers, don't see this as being deprived of a right.
Click to expand...
I believe the rest room at the park is public, but restricted, like the playground itself to certain users.

How can going to the next pee stall and peering over the barrier be proved to be invasion of privacy or stalking? Just tell the judge you were adjusting your stuck zipper.
Chato said:
Chato said:
Chato said:
Now let me ask, if I look observe at kids in a playground for an hour, am I "looking" or "peering?"
Click to expand...
If that's what you do at a kid's playground that prohibit adults without children (and many do in large communities), you would be charged with loitering.
Click to expand...
I do it, not often, but I do it. In my community parents prevent people without kids from going into the playground no law about being by the playground. It happens from time to time when I walk my dog.
Click to expand...
In the park that I go to the children playground has a large buffer zone that's clearly marked "No adults unless accompanying a child". So you will be SOL there.
Chato said:
Why? Is there something wrong with looking at kids?
Click to expand...
Who said there's something wrong with looking at kids?

--mamallama
 
mamallama said:
Chato said:
mamallama said:
What would be the charge for doing this under the old law?
Click to expand...
Invasion of privacy? Stalking? You name it. There are at least a dozen charges existing for doing that. A bathroom is NOT a public space. I, who am always defending the rights of photographers, don't see this as being deprived of a right.
Click to expand...
I believe the rest room at the park is public, but restricted, like the playground itself to certain users.
Click to expand...
The question of whether it's legal or not, is "A reasonable expectation of privacy."

Wherever you have a reasoable expectation of privacy, you are protected against being a subject of harrasment by a photographer. What does the term "public" have to do with this?
mamallama said:
How can going to the next pee stall and peering over the barrier be proved to be invasion of privacy or stalking? Just tell the judge you were adjusting your stuck zipper.
Click to expand...
The public bathroom I've used have no barriers, if you're talking about taking a dump,and some guy climing up to take a look, that's a different story. That's a crime, and you don't need new laws to make it a crime.

I HAVE glanced over at the person in the next urinal. In fact, I suspect most of us have. What you are now saying is that glancing over to the next urinal is a Class D felony?

You have got to be &%& me here man. They going to hand out blinders and blindfolds at the door? :D

Some some paranoid idiot runs out and calls a Cop screaming, "That pervert looked at me peeing, arrest him officer!!!!"

I don't think you get it. You do not make something a crime, which is only a crime to this Cop, but is not a crime to that Cop.

I stare at a pretty girl on the beach, and one Cop is staring at the same girl, and another Cop arrests me? You have got to be kidding me here - Think this through. You're going to "Catch" a hundred normal people, for every pervert.

Dave
 
Is it time to just give up photography as a hobby.

Most of what I take photos of is school sports, how could I not get other peoples children in the photos.
I think the bad guys are winning.
 
Your post and Cy Cheze's moved me. They are so true and depicts exactly what is happening to our societies where absolutely no one is to be trust. If I was a religious man I would say that the devil is winning. We are all bound to be enslaved in a world ruled by a few corporations. How sad, really.
Eduardo
Sergio944 said:
must prove their innocence.....Used to be the opposite.
By that standard HCB should have been jailed with a substantial group of
the major photographers of the XXth century.

We leave in a strange world where a crazy Chinese woman, because she is a professor in some important university, thinks she has the right to be an authority in imposing and proposing a typical medieval education based on children's abuse; and, instead of been severely reprimanded and turned to some psychologist for help, she can actually wright and sell a book and be invited in some talk show.

In the same strange world, all people, specially if they have a camera in their hand, have become extremely dangerous for children.

I find everyday stranger how the average thinking and discerning capacity seems to be lost in favor of a zero tolerance policy and the subsequent criminalization of the society we live in.
Kind regards
Click to expand...
 
denniswms said:
I won't even take reference Polaroids of a minor when out scouting. I give the minor a business card of mine and an info sheet from the job to give their parents. Anyone under 18. The law won't ultimately interfere with my business or anyone's legitimate business as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
If I'm at the football game taking pictures of my nephew, I necessarily have to take pictures of other kids (many other kids). If I'm taking a picture of anybody in public, there generally are other people in the shot whom I don't know.

I have a right to take pictures in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy. And I don't necessaily have to be courteous about it ("Do you mind?").
denniswms said:
People snaking shots of anyone- let alone kids- for prurient purposes, should be taken out and shot, but I seem to be in the minority when it comes to not finding anything compelling about taking pictures -any pictures- of any strangers, it's just never been my thing.
Click to expand...
You must have a lot of boring landscape and sunset shots in your portfolio. People who want to take people out and shoot them for exercising their rights to capture images should be shot.
 
Chato said:
Why? Is there something wrong with looking at kids?
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong, but many parents are so paranoid today that you may get an angry look or even some abuse.
Chato said:
I can sympathise with parents who don't want adults to hang out in a playground, which is why I never try to go in.
Click to expand...
Parents should worry more about what their kids are doing in their bedroom on the internet and Social network sites with webcams or even with their smart phones than anything else.

Is it not uncommon these days for teenagers posting nude photos of their ex on the net in a sort of payback retribution, or even sharing their own sexual activities on smart phones. So I sincerely think parents should pay more attention to what their darlings are doing with new technology than worring silly about some passers-by in public.

http://www.pbase.com/bingard/galleries
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38519080@N00/sets/72157594443652688/
 
zackiedawg said:
It's a good thing I hate kids, so I won't have too many problems with my photography! ;)
Click to expand...
lol :)

Just wait until you run those neighborhood kids off your lawn and they tell the cop: "That mean old man just 'peered' at us!" or "You better buy these $100 Girl Scout cookies from us, or we'll tell our dad who's a cop that you 'peered' at us."

No photos of planes, trains, kids, farms, airports, Disneyland, public and private buildings, museums. Animals next? Good grief. Police State is becoming a Police World.

Politicians just sit around thinking of some new law with their name on it. How about being required to wear helmets in the bathtub since people slip and fall and break bones and insurance costs skyrocket too? Then will come federal bathtub cameras to deny coverage if you don't wear one and fall.

Yep. Sanity has become insanity. Sell your gear before it's confiscated and worth nothing. New hobby collecting stamps -- until they make that illegal somehow.

Mack
 
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