Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[Skwim]

Ummm, let's start with the fact that my under aged child is not living on this planet for the sexual gratification of anyone? How is that not rational or reasoned?

Sorry, but the intentions of others are not necessarily binding prohibitions on others. Just because I don't like loud music blaring from cars going down the street doesn't make my dislike somehow binding on those making the music.

There are also laws against taking photos of children without parental consent. So whichever way you want to play it, you've lost this one.

Failing to provide evidence of these laws you spoke of I doubt they even exist, along with your claim of enforcing privacy law in England. As far as I'm concerned, you've just been blowing smoke.

Skwim, 1) YOU insisted we focus on the law. It's not relevant to my argument, but to yours. 2) Two different laws have been cited. One from Canada and the other from the UK. If you missed them, you need to review this thread and read more carefully. 3) You SPECIFICALLY cited English law as the precedent that allows pedophiles with cameras to creep on unsuspecting children. "Anything that is not prohibited is allowed", is how you summed it up. However, taking photos of unsuspecting children to wank over is indeed prohibited in most western countries, including England, so by your own criteria, this behaviour is illegal.

Sorry, but if you're going to evade answering my questions and requests I see no reason to continue with your irrelevancies and ploys to take the thread off track.

Nice avoidance of the question there. Would you mind answering it?

Sorry, I must have misread your post. Please rephrase it without the double negatives.

 

[Alceste]

I'm thinking Skwimmy isn't a parent or he would have never dared to tread these waters. I know you aren't a parent either, but you're smarter than him.

Sorry, Skwimmy.

It's just bad luck for poor Skwim that I happen to be so intimately familiar with the relevant legislation. What were the odds?

 

[Alceste]

Skwim, since you apparently can't read, here they are again. In the UK, the Data Protection Act. In Canada, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. IIRC , the relevant US law goes by the same name or similar.

 

[oldbadger]

Skwim.....

One of those men admitted downloading child-porn, and the two others had child-porn on their phones. So the detaining adults got it right!

 

[Koldo]

Skwim, since you apparently can't read, here they are again. In the UK, the Data Protection Act.

Wouldn't this specific use fall under the domestic purposes exemption?

In Canada, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. IIRC , the relevant US law goes by the same name or similar.

What part of this act deals with this matter? It doesn't sound like it has anything to do with individuals.

 

[Skwim]

I'm thinking Skwimmy isn't a parent or he would have never dared to tread these waters. I know you aren't a parent either, but you're smarter than him.

Sorry, Skwimmy.

Hey, it's a free world.

Has anybody pointed out to you that all three of these men either admitted to downloading child porn or were found to have child-porn images on their 'phones?

No they haven't.

It looks as if the adults who detained or reported these three men got it right, doesn't it?

Not as far as the law goes.

Here.... read these three paras, each relating to one of the three men, in the same order as you placed them:-

According to the articles the first two did have child porn on their PCs, the only "porn" third had appears to be the pictures he was arrested for taking.

Now, if your point is that it's justifiable to arrest the three for taking pictures of girls because they had down-loaded chil-porn on their PCs, then I don't see it. Unless they had been ordered by the courts not to be within a certain distance of children, but they were so, I fail to see any law they may have violated. Possessing child porn doesn't automatically rob one of all other rights regarding children.

Skwim.....

One of those men admitted downloading child-porn, and the two others had child-porn on their phones. So the detaining adults got it right!

Under what law? You can't detain people just because you don't like what they do. There are laws against such behavior.

Skwim, since you apparently can't read, here they are again. In the UK, the Data Protection Act. In Canada, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. IIRC , the relevant US law goes by the same name or similar.

Can't bring myself to care enough about it. It's your argument so it's up to you to make it. Not me. And in as much as you're not making it, and know I won't bother, I going to take it that you are indeed blowing smoke.

 

[Buttercup]

Sorry, but the intentions of others are not necessarily binding prohibitions on others. Just because I don't like loud music blaring from cars going down the street doesn't make my dislike somehow binding on those making the music.

I'm leaving out all the legal aspects because I don't know the jurisprudence on this subject. I signed the required forms at my kid's schools regarding privacy and school photos and have a general idea of legality, but nothing specific. I'll let Alceste take care of that. I'm simply approaching this topic from an ethical/moral angle.

I'm not going to waste too much more time explaining the ethics on non solicited pictures of children by strangers because I think no matter what, you'll disagree with my reasoning. I've already stated my case. It's very, very simple to answer this question from a moral angle. Sorry you don't see that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've heard of men taking pics of their own kids/grandkids being arrested for it.

 

[Skwim]

I'm leaving out all the legal aspects because I don't know the jurisprudence on this subject. I signed the required forms at my kid's schools regarding privacy and school photos and have a general idea of legality, but nothing specific. I'll let Alceste take care of that. I'm simply approaching this topic from an ethical/moral angle.

I'm not going to waste too much more time explaining the ethics on non solicited pictures of children by strangers because I think no matter what, you'll disagree with my reasoning. I've already stated my case. It's very, very simple to answer this question from a moral angle. Sorry you don't see that.

Thanks for your input. You were far more level headed than some of the others posting here, and I appreciate that.

 

[oldbadger]

Hey, it's a free world.


No they haven't.

Not as far as the law goes.

You must be having a bad evening or something.....

Here is part of the UK law about holding, downloading, taking pictures of child-pornography. Your State is going to cover this somewhere, unless it's completely in the dark ages:-

Indecent photographs of children: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
children

Indecent photographs of children

The Law
The two main offence provisions in this area are section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (PCA 1978) and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988). The PCA 1978 addresses certain aspects of the sexual exploitation of children by penalizing the making, distribution, showing and advertisement of indecent photographs of them. The test to be applied in respect of indecent images of children is whether or not it is indecent. The word 'indecent' has not been defined by the PCA 1978, but case law has said that it is for the jury to decide based on the recognized standards of propriety.

Section 1 PCA1978 covers a wide range of offences concerning indecent photographs of children. Furthermore, it extends to the making of 'pseudo-photographs', defined as 'an image, whether made by computer graphics or otherwise, which appears to be a photograph'. Throughout the Act pseudo-photographs are put on the same footing as actual photographs. It is possible to convict a person of making a pseudo-photograph where the dominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child, notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult (section 7(8) PCA 1978). Archbold 31 - 114.

The PCA 1978 and section 160 CJA 1988 deal only with indecent photographs and pseudo-photographs of children. Other statues therefore, have to be used to prosecute offences involving drawings (see guidance on Prohibited Images of Children), sound and text-based stories. The primary law in relation to this is the Obscene Publication Act 1959, (the test is does the material have a tendency to 'deprave and corrupt'?). See the guidance on Obscene Publications.

 

[Koldo]

You must be having a bad evening or something.....

Here is part of the UK law about holding, downloading, taking pictures of child-pornography. Your State is going to cover this somewhere, unless it's completely in the dark ages:-

Considering that: If the photographer uses proper framing in a public setting ( such as not focusing on sexual parts ), it shouldn't be considered 'indecent'.

 

[dawny0826]

Now, according to law you can take a picture of anyone if they're out in public. There are no exceptions I'm aware of.

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).

However, in the three incidents above the police have arrested these men for doing just that.

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

Per Wikipedia:

Photography of certain subject matter can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children.

Any filming with the intent of doing unlawful harm against a subject may be a violation of the law in itself.

If harm is suspect, I consider questioning or arrest to be reasonable

Granted that for various reason the parents of these children and other people don't like such picture taking, but should their mere dislike trump the law?

As a parent to small children, if a man was taking photographs of my daughters at the pool without any explanation or request for participation in whatever project he might be working on, I would immediately assume that he intended to take such photographs for the purpose of illegal acts.

Rational human beings don't just snap photographs of children at a pool without any explanation.

From where I sit, even though their motives may be less than laudable, these men have broken no law. Even if they took them for purposes of sexual gratification I don't believe this rises to the level of prohibition.

I have to disagree. As a parent, I'm responsible for doing what I belive to be in my child's best interest. A man snapping photographs of my child would be concerning. I can't know that his intentions aren't illegal or harmful.

1) Can you justifying the actions of the police? If so, go ahead and show your work.

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

2) Should children be protected from such photographers? If so, on what grounds?

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

3) Is there harm in deriving sexual gratification from pictures of children. If so, please explain ( and please no "it will lead to future child abuse" without showing your evidence).

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.

4) Is there harm in taking pictures of children for later sexual gratification? If so please explain.

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

 

[Father Heathen]

It should be considered a form of stalking or sexual harassment, violation of privacy, etc. I think the notion of taking a person's picture without their consent alone (paparazzi, for example) to be extremely intrusive. That combined with the sexualization of children is far worse.

 

[Skwim]

You must be having a bad evening or something.....

Here is part of the UK law about holding, downloading, taking pictures of child-pornography. Your State is going to cover this somewhere, unless it's completely in the dark ages:-

Thanks.

Just one note. This law deals with indecent photographs of children, which it leaves to a jury to define, on a case by case basis I assume.

" The word 'indecent' has not been defined by the PCA 1978, but case law has said that it is for the jury to decide based on the recognized standards of propriety."
​

And I have no problem with this. However, in the three examples I provided I fail to see where girls visiting a mall or swimming at a swimming event would constitute indecency. If it did then the parents and/or supervisors who must share a good part of the blame.

 

[dawny0826]

It should be considered a form of stalking or sexual harassment, violation of privacy, etc. I think the notion of taking a person's picture without their consent alone (paparazzi, for example) to be extremely intrusive. That combined with the sexualization of children is far worse.

According to the Early, TX article, the photographs were disturbing to police as they appeared to indicate that he had been stalking the kids.

Edit: This article doesn't mention that the man was suspect of taking photos for pornographic material.

 

[Alceste]

Wouldn't this specific use fall under the domestic purposes exemption?



What part of this act deals with this matter? It doesn't sound like it has anything to do with individuals.

The Canadian version applies to government agencies, the UK one applies to all persons and groups. In Canada, the behaviour would likely be prohibited under our laws relating to child pornography. There is no guarantee that the domestic purposes exemption would apply, since many pedophiles and creepers tend to share their images with other pedophiles and creepers.

 

[Alceste]

Considering that: If the photographer uses proper framing in a public setting ( such as not focusing on sexual parts ), it shouldn't be considered 'indecent'.

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

 

[dust1n]

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

 

[Koldo]

The Canadian version applies to government agencies, the UK one applies to all persons and groups. In Canada, the behaviour would likely be prohibited under our laws relating to child pornography.

Wouldn't it depend on the photo itself?

There is no guarantee that the domestic purposes exemption would apply, since many pedophiles and creepers tend to share their images with other pedophiles and creepers.

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

 

[Alceste]

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

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.