Greetings from your friendly, neighborhood, TERRORIST!

Nomen Nescio wrote:

"You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly.

Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
military personnel?

On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Nomen Nescio wrote:

"You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly.

Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
military personnel?

On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?

None whatsoever. Nor did he have authority to take pictures.

What authority is needed to take pictures?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Nomen Nescio wrote:

"You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly.

Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
military personnel?

On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?

None whatsoever. Nor did he have authority to take pictures.

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
What authority is needed to take pictures?


There are privacy laws in most states prohibiting people taking pictures of
you if you don't want them taken, especially if the pictures are being taken
as a form of intimidation or some other threat such as embarrassment. I
don't know about Massachusetts but across the state line in New York the
privacy laws are very strict indeed. Courts have held that celebrities must
have a lower expectation of privacy, but even then the celeb's image cannot
be used to promote a product or service without permission. After all, the
only real asset many celebrities have is their image, and it is not fair to
allow just anyone to make commercial use of it.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
What authority is needed to take pictures?

There are privacy laws in most states prohibiting people taking pictures
of
you if you don't want them taken, especially if the pictures are being
taken
as a form of intimidation or some other threat such as embarrassment. I
don't know about Massachusetts but across the state line in New York the
privacy laws are very strict indeed.

The law in New York (or anywhere else in the US) prohibits photographing an
unwilling subject in public? That doesn't sound credible. Could you cite the
statute please, or some other source of information concerning it?

--Gary

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:09:21 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
What authority is needed to take pictures?

There are privacy laws in most states prohibiting people taking pictures
of
you if you don't want them taken, especially if the pictures are being
taken
as a form of intimidation or some other threat such as embarrassment. I
don't know about Massachusetts but across the state line in New York the
privacy laws are very strict indeed.

The law in New York (or anywhere else in the US) prohibits photographing an
unwilling subject in public? That doesn't sound credible. Could you cite the
statute please, or some other source of information concerning it?

--Gary

I have to agree with Gary. When you are in public, you are fair game
for any photography. Infact, there was a case that went to court a
year or so ago where some perv had a camera on his shoe and was
actually walking up to women with skirts on and getting "everything"
on film. He actually won the case because they were in public. I
would have hoped that they would have taken it to the supreme court
but I dont know how far it actually got, but it just goes to show that
when you are in public, you can be photographed, even if you dont
agree to it or not.

Scott D.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:kNh6d.274288$Fg5.152282@attbi_s53...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
What authority is needed to take pictures?

There are privacy laws in most states prohibiting people taking pictures
of
you if you don't want them taken, especially if the pictures are being
taken
as a form of intimidation or some other threat such as embarrassment. I
don't know about Massachusetts but across the state line in New York the
privacy laws are very strict indeed.

The law in New York (or anywhere else in the US) prohibits photographing
an
unwilling subject in public? That doesn't sound credible. Could you cite
the
statute please, or some other source of information concerning it?

In 1998 California passed the first anti-Paparazzi legislation, prohibiting
any "attempt to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other
physical impression of the person engaging in a personal or familial
activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable
expectation of privacy," "even without physical trespass," "where the
physical invasion occurs in a manner offensive to a reasonable person."
"Personal and familial activity is defined to include intimate details of
the plaintiff's personal life, interaction with the plaintiff's family or
significant others, and other aspects of the plaintiff's private
affairs..." -- Leonard D. Duboff, "The Law for Photographers," p. 52. I
submit that a National Guardsman attempting to intimidate people by taking
their picture would be "offensive to a reasonable person."

Warren and Brandeis had previously written that unless the facts were
newsworthy, individuals have a right to expect protection of "private
facts," including their images taken in public. Since then the Supreme Court
has ruled that the burden of proof falls on the individual to prove that the
facts were not newsworthy, but I doubt that a National Guardsmen is
moonlighting as a press photographer.

In Galella v. Onassis, the Court ruled that intrusion of a person's privacy
even in a public place can be so egregious as to warrant control.

New York itself has a right of privacy law which prohibits intrusion of a
"reasonable expectation of privacy." A National Guardsman attempting to
intimidate law abiding citizens clearly falls into this category.

California and some other states also have what is called the Jackie Coogan
law, which prohibits photographing minors for commercial purposes unless the
photographer meets several rather stringent and expensive requirements.

Quite honestly, the prosecutors who would not prosecute individuals who were
taking pictures up ladies' dresses and the judges who would not put a stop
to it showed a distinctive lack of imagination and abominable legal research
skills.

I can legally get a telephoto lens, stand in the street and take pictures
through your windows, as long as I don't have to take extraordinary measures
to gain a line of sight. And there's nothing (legal) you can do about it.

mike regish

P.S. Don't worry. The last thing I want is pictures of you.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
What authority is needed to take pictures?


There are privacy laws in most states prohibiting people taking pictures
of
you if you don't want them taken, especially if the pictures are being
taken
as a form of intimidation or some other threat such as embarrassment. I
don't know about Massachusetts but across the state line in New York the
privacy laws are very strict indeed. Courts have held that celebrities
must
have a lower expectation of privacy, but even then the celeb's image
cannot
be used to promote a product or service without permission. After all, the
only real asset many celebrities have is their image, and it is not fair
to
allow just anyone to make commercial use of it.

I'm pretty sure the picture taking was legal and within anybody's rights.

mike reigsh

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:PfydnVM0Qcg1CMXcRVn-
On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?

None whatsoever. Nor did he have authority to take pictures.

Were you in a "no parking" zone?