Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[Koldo]

You don't think sneaking around taking non-consensual pictures to wank to qualifies as indecent? Most other people do, thank heavens.

I was talking about indecent photographs. Not indecent people.

When did I mention anything about people sneaking around by the way?

 

[Alceste]

Wouldn't it depend on the photo itself?



You can't make someone pay for a crime that he has yet to commit though.

No, but it is nevertheless reasonable for police to arrest perverts who are stalking and creeping on children in order to establish whether they are in compliance with the letter and spirit of the relevant laws.

 

[Koldo]

Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly videotaping, photographing, filming, recording by any means, or broadcasting an image of a private area of an individual, without that individual's consent, under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Defines a "private area" as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.)
Makes such prohibition inapplicable to lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s1301#summary/libraryofcongress

This only applies to some situations. If I understood it right, the spectrum being discussed is much broader.

 

[Koldo]

No, but it is nevertheless reasonable for police to arrest perverts who are stalking and creeping on children in order to establish whether they are in compliance with the letter and spirit of the relevant laws.

Isn't 'stalking' a crime anyway?

 

[Skwim]

The exceptions are if there's reasonable expectation for privacy in a public place or if such photographs are to be used for financial gain (without consent/release).

And what is this expectation of privacy that would prohibit someone from taking pictures of others? So far no law that I know of says there is.

he common thread seemed to be that these men were suspect of utilizing such photographs for pornographic material, which is illegal.

Per Wikipedia:

But they were arrested before any suspected use could have been put into effect. Mere suspicion that one will commit a crime isn't good enough reason for arresting a person.

Yes. You've already posted my "work" for me through your examples. These men were arrested for photographs deemed pornographic. Child pornography is illegal.

Photographs of girls in a mall or at a swimming meet are pornographic? Not in my book. The police overreacted.

Yes. If the photographer is suspect of using such material for illegal means or to harm the child.

Which could be said of any act. The ice cream man gave the children ice cream cones so he could befriend them and then bop them on the head later on. All kinds of silly "could be" suspicions can be concocted , but unless such an activity takes place that's all they are, which isn't enough to arrest anyone.

A pedophile cannot legally act upon his/her desires. Explain to me how such actions are not harmful to the pedophile and to the children that have been exploited for selfish gratification.

If they mere pictures of children outdoors explain how they are.

"In law enforcement circles, the term pedophile is sometimes used in a broad manner to encompass a person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims. These crimes may include child sexual abuse, statutory rape, offenses involving child pornography, child grooming, stalking, and indecent exposure."
source: Wikipedia

​

Unless you're ready to define fully clothed girls visiting a mall and girls participating at a swimming meet as pornographic, your point here dead in the water.

Yes. The subject is exploited and the exploitation of children is wrong on moral and legal grounds.

First of all, your morality isn't everybody's morality. And moral differences aren't issues of law. Secondly, how is this exploitation of children harmful to them? I've seen pictures of children taken in the public that have been exploited to a great extent and nothing was thought of it.

​

Granted that a picture may, in the future, be used to a child's detriment, but until that time they can't be judged as harmful. Mere suspicion of future misuse, just isn't enough.

 

[dust1n]

First Source:

Police say Riveire admitted to having child pornography on the phone that “he downloaded from the Internet, but due to the amount of pictures and videos that has not been located yet.”

According to the release, Mercer said a forensic examination will be conducted on the phone. If child pornography is found, then Riveire will be charged with possession of child pornography, Mercer said.

Second Source:

Several people reported that Winn was taking videos and pictures of young girls with his cell phone without the girls knowing. He was asked to leave the area. When police were called to investigate, they found numerous pictures and videos of young females and children involved in sex acts on Winn’s phone.

Third Source:

Parents at a recent children’s championship tournament for the Suburban Swim League allegedly spotted 46-year-old Leandro Encisco using his smart phone to snap photos of childrens’ backsides.

“He was doing it from a low angle and from behind swimmers, and if you are familiar with swimming, swimmers are getting ready to race and bend over,” said Suburban Swim League representative Mike McIntee.

(the law I referenced would most certainly cover this particular instance)

The first two are just cases of literal explicit activity in possession.

Which of the cases don't actually fall under the law?

 

[dust1n]

Or that. Well spotted. There seem to be quite a few laws on the books that try to protect citizens from the behaviour described in the OP. Kind of a fatal blow for Skwim's crude argument that if it isn't illegal, it must not be unethical either.

Thanks, but now the whole internet has seen me looking up these laws. Oh boy.

 

[Alceste]

I was talking about indecent photographs. Not indecent people.

When did I mention anything about people sneaking around by the way?

The men in the OP were covertly taking pictures of specific kids without parental consent. How is that not "sneaking"?

 

[Alceste]

Isn't 'stalking' a crime anyway?

Yes. So we have stalking, creation of child pornography, sexual harassment and violations of laws pertaining to the collection of personal information. Seems like ample reason for police to arrest and investigate the creepers in question.

 

[Koldo]

The men in the OP were covertly taking pictures of specific kids without parental consent. How is that not "sneaking"?

When did I mention 'sneaking'?

 

[Koldo]

Yes. So we have stalking, creation of child pornography, sexual harassment and violations of laws pertaining to the collection of personal information. Seems like ample reason for police to arrest and investigate the creepers in question.

If it is reasonable ( in other words, if they have a justification ) to assume they are suspect of those crimes, indeed.

 

[dawny0826]

And what is this expectation of privacy that would prohibit someone from taking pictures of others? So far no law that I know of says there is.

People have the right to take photographs of people in public. But, society greatly determines what is and isn't acceptable and what does and doesn't constitute privacy at times.

I'll give you an example of expectation of privacy. In public shelters, the department of social services and other agencies will request that residents not take photographs of other people without consent forms.

I use this example when teaching - someone snaps a photograph of a woman and her children and posts it on a social media site not knowing that this woman is estranged from an abusive spouse who is stalking her. There's a safety, risk and liability issue to consider for all residents. Consent forms are encouraged as a protective measure.

You cannot prohibit someone from taking a photograph, but, safety and privacy issues must be considered.

But they were arrested before any suspected use could have been put into effect. Mere suspicion that one will commit a crime isn't good enough reason for arresting a person.

Arrest and conviction aren't one in the same.

The man in Early, Texas was reported by multiple people to have been following children and taking pictures. The photographs, per law enforcement, suggested that he may have been stalking such children. Parents had complained. Workers at the mall had complained.

If he's innocent, he should walk. Stalking isn't legal. If his actions suggested that he was stalking children - police were doing their job.

Photographs of girls in a mall or at a swimming meet are pornographic? Not in my book. The police overreacted.

The man in Early, Texas didn't have just photographs of those girls on his phone, Skwim. The police were responding to multiple complaints and concerns.

Photographs of girls in bathing suits could be construed as a violation of privacy, particularly if the photographs that he took zeroed in on body parts.

Did you catch this from the article that you posted about the guy taking video of girls at the pool?

When police were called to investigate, they found numerous pictures and videos of young females and children involved in sex acts on Winn’s phone.

The evidence found on the man's phone was evidence enough for an arrest.

Which could be said of any act. The ice cream man gave the children ice cream cones so he could befriend them and then bop them on the head later on. All kinds of silly "could be" suspicions can be concocted , but unless such an activity takes place that's all they are, which isn't enough to arrest anyone.

I'm not sure that the examples that you've provided, at least, suggest that police were out of line for making an arrest.

Stalking children isn't legal. Child pornography isn't legal. Videotaping children's backsides in a manner that concerns parents enough to take action is likely illegal.

If a jury disagrees...fine. I think that police were doing their jobs.

If they mere pictures of children outdoors explain how they are.

"In law enforcement circles, the term pedophile is sometimes used in a broad manner to encompass a person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims. These crimes may include child sexual abuse, statutory rape, offenses involving child pornography, child grooming, stalking, and indecent exposure."
source: Wikipedia
​

​

It's exploitation of a child, at least.

Unless you're ready to define fully clothed girls visiting a mall and girls participating at a swimming meet as pornographic, your point here dead in the water.

You're ignoring the rest of the article that you posted. The photographs themselves may not have been a problem at all, if people didn't feel threatened by his behavior and weren't concerned that he was stalking the kids.

Taking photographs of girls at a swm meet doesn't have to be pornographic at all, but, when you choose to zero in on their body parts and concern parents enough to where they react to what you're doing - a line has been crossed.

A man snapping photographs of girls at a pool isn't necessarily wrongful until it begins to concerns people and the police find child pornography on your phone.

First of all, your morality isn't everybody's morality. And moral differences aren't issues of law.

Morality, when accepted by the majority within a society can influence the law.

Secondly, how is this exploitation of children harmful to them? I've seen pictures of children taken in the public that have been exploited to a great extent and nothing was thought of it.

If it causes pain, it's harmful. I had a friend whose husband went to prison for possession and distribution of child pornography. He wrote about doing heinous things to his own children. Whether or not he physically acted upon these things or not doesn't negate the abusive impact of his actions upon his children.

I imagine that such impacts spans a spectrum. If people are none the wiser, I suppose that they can't be impacted by something that they're unaware of. But, that doesn't make the act itself any less abusive in its nature. The intent is to self-gratify. The reality is that one is utilizing an image without consent, which is of concern, at least to me as I'm sure it would be to other parents.

Granted that a picture may, in the future, be used to a child's detriment, but until that time they can't be judged as harmful. Mere suspicion of future misuse, just isn't enough.

Clearly, the videos and photographs mentioned in the articles that you posted were part of the issue. And in one case, the man did have child pornography on his phone. How is it unreasonable to assume that he didn't intend to snap such photos for unlawful purposes?

 

[Skwim]

People have the right to take photographs of people in public. But, society greatly determines what is and isn't acceptable and what does and doesn't constitute privacy at times.

By its very definition, "in public," which is what we're talking about here, excludes the notion of privacy, "in private."

You cannot prohibit someone from taking a photograph, but, safety and privacy issues must be considered.

And they are not applicable here.

Arrest and conviction aren't one in the same.

The man in Early, Texas was reported by multiple people to have been following children and taking pictures.

Your source please.

Parents had complained. Workers at the mall had complained.

Your source please.

If he's innocent, he should walk. Stalking isn't legal. If his actions suggested that he was stalking children - police were doing their job.

But that wasn't their reason for his arrest.

Early police: Man arrested for taking pics of children at mall

​

The police were responding to multiple complaints and concerns.

Your source please.

Photographs of girls in bathing suits could be construed as a violation of privacy, particularly if the photographs that he took zeroed in on body parts.

Not if they are in public. And let's stop surmising possibilities that aren't supported by the article.

Did you catch this from the article that you posted about the guy taking video of girls at the pool?

The evidence found on the man's phone was evidence enough for an arrest.

Yes it was, But as the article said at the outset:

"A Mascoutah man is behind bars accused of making child pornography."
​

implying that the pictures he had taken at the local pool were pornographic, yet the police said.

"When police were called to investigate, they found numerous pictures and videos of young females and children involved in sex acts on Winn’s phone. While police do not believe Winn created those particular pictures and videos,"
​

So, if he was in jail for "making child pornography," when police said they don't believe he created the porn they found on his camera, then one has to conclude that the porn he was in jail for was the pictures he had taken that day. And I don't believe the photos of children at the pool would have been pornographic. If they were then the pool staff must be held accountable.

Videotaping children's backsides in a manner that concerns parents enough to take action is likely illegal.

Then cite the applicable law.

 

[Alceste]

When did I mention 'sneaking'?

I don't know. You're confusing me. Can you think of a way for a pedophile to collect photos of children in bathing suits to wank to without being sneaky about it? Because I can't.

 

[dawny0826]

By its very definition, "in public," which is what we're talking about here, excludes the notion of privacy, "in private."

I fully understand that we're discussing public situations. I'm explaining to you that the notion of privacy is still a consideration within a public setting, within the context of public safety. I provided an example that you're free to take or leave.

Your source please.

From the article in your OP:

Lawren “Larry” Mark Riveire was taken into custody and charged with improper photography or visual recordings after mall staff and the Early Police Department followed up on a tip.

and

Furthermore, Early police have identified several children through their parents.

Okay, so a tip was made and police and mall staff (plural) followed-up on the tip.

But that wasn't their reason for his arrest.

Early police: Man arrested for taking pics of children at mall
​

He was charged with improper photography, after police found photos of kids from multiple locations that appeared to have been stalked.

From your the article in the OP:

“The cell phone contained numerous photos of young girls taken at that location that day,” Early police said in the release.

In addition, the phone contained “many photos of other young boys and girls in various other locations around Brownwood and Early in businesses, residences and churches,” the release said.

“Several of the photos are very disturbing indicating he may have been stalking the children,” the release said. “At this time no evidence has been found where he has assaulted any child.”

Not if they are in public. And let's stop surmising possibilities that aren't supported by the article.

I disagree with you. No one should have the right to take photographs of children's backsides and if it's lawful, it shouldn't be.

“He was doing it from a low angle and from behind swimmers, and if you are familiar with swimming, swimmers are getting ready to race and bend over,” said Suburban Swim League representative Mike McIntee.

Police reviewed the pictures on the phone and must have deemed the photographs to be pornographic in nature, hence the charges against the man.

Yes it was, But as the article said at the outset:

"A Mascoutah man is behind bars accused of making child pornography."
​

implying that the pictures he had taken at the local pool were pornographic, yet the police said.

And the media isn't capable of using erroneous titles for articles?

So, if he was in jail for "making child pornography," when police said they don't believe he created the porn they found on his camera, then one has to conclude that the porn he was in jail for was the pictures he had taken that day. And I don't believe the photos of children at the pool would have been pornographic. If they were then the pool staff must be held accountable.

I don't see why this matters when the primary issues here are the following:

• There was concern regarding his behavior and he was asked to leave
• Police found child pornography on his phone - which would have warranted an arrest anyway

I don't understand your need to defend his photographs taken that day, when clearly, he was in posesssion of child pornography.

Then cite the applicable law.

I felt that Dust1n did a good job in Post #58.

 

[Alceste]

Legally, the concept of privacy includes information collected about an identifiable individual in a public setting. Just FYI.

 

[dawny0826]

Legally, the concept of privacy includes information collected about an identifiable individual in a public setting. Just FYI.

And a photograph can both confirm identity and divulge whereabouts.

 

[Alceste]

Who are you addressing, out of curiosity?

Skwim incorrectly claimed that being in public negates the legal concept of privacy. This is why google blurs out streetview images of people and property on request. It would be illegal for them not to.

 

[dawny0826]

Skwim incorrectly claimed that being in public negates the legal concept of privacy. This is why google blurs out streetview images of people and property on request. It would be illegal for them not to.

Sorry. I realized what you were getting at and changed my post.

I agree with you.

 

[Alceste]

And a photograph can both confirm identity and divulge whereabouts.

Sorry. I realized what you were getting at and changed my post.

I agree with you.

You're exactly right. If any combination of factors allows a viewer to identify an individual, it is legally defined as "personal information" and subject to the applicable privacy laws.