Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > a question of ethics

Reply
Thread Tools

a question of ethics

 
 
timeOday
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006
Paul Rubin wrote:
> timeOday <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>>Re-read the original post. "I did not see any of the injured." We
>>are talking about pictures of an overturned car, not people.

>
>
> The police and rescue workers were still active on the scene. They
> are people too.


I hope we do not need to debate whether public employees in a public
place can be photographed in performing their official duties!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Unclaimed Mysteries
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2006
timeOday wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>> timeOday <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> Re-read the original post. "I did not see any of the injured." We
>>> are talking about pictures of an overturned car, not people.

>>
>>
>> The police and rescue workers were still active on the scene. They
>> are people too.

>
> I hope we do not need to debate whether public employees in a public
> place can be photographed in performing their official duties!


A futile hope. Everything's on the table now, including - as of last
week - the Magna Carta.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"Being an Auburn fan explains a lot about what is wrong with you,
Unclaimed ... You didn't chose to address any of my post except this
last little piece where I ridiculing you for being an idiot." - "Altie"
on rec.sport.football.college, 2006
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2006
Unclaimed Mysteries <the_letter_k_and_the_numeral_4_doh@unclaimedmyste ries.net> wrote:
>timeOday wrote:
>> Paul Rubin wrote:
>>> timeOday <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>>> Re-read the original post. "I did not see any of the injured." We
>>>> are talking about pictures of an overturned car, not people.
>>>
>>>
>>> The police and rescue workers were still active on the scene. They
>>> are people too.

>> I hope we do not need to debate whether public employees in a
>> public place can be photographed in performing their official
>> duties!

>
>A futile hope. Everything's on the table now, including - as of
>last week - the Magna Carta.


You can photography it (the copyright has expired), but I doubt
they'll let you use flash.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2006
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:32:03 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Bill Funk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:11:34 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>>Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Rubin <http://(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
>>>>> >Who gets to decide where to put a police barrier?
>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. Being able to put up a police barrier means being able to
>>>>control where photography is allowed from.
>>>
>>>Barrier are *not* located to control photography, and are
>>>clearly ineffectivee at that anyway.
>>>
>>>>Why is anyone allowed to do that? Why is there such a thing as a
>>>>police barrier?
>>>
>>>(Are you playing silly games?)
>>>
>>>There is a need to protect others from injury. There is a need
>>>to avoid interfering with scene control and other activities,
>>>such as rescue and cleanup. There might also be a need to
>>>protect evidence.
>>>
>>>Nobody has any need to exclude photography though, so I don't
>>>see your point.

>>
>>Well, he did say, "Being able to put up a police barrier means being
>>able to control where photography is allowed from."
>>Not to control photography, but to control where photos are taken
>>from.

>
>You still insist on playing silly word games... are you an idiot?


Ah! Another person who doesn't understand that words have meaning.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2006
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:47:04 -0700, "Ken Davey"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:46:08 -0700, "Ken Davey"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:31:51 -0700, "Ken Davey"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG!
>>>>>>> There is nothing inherent about rights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're putting yourself out on a long, thin limb with that.
>>>>>> You have no inherent right to life?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayup!
>>>>> Rights are granted by society or maintained by force.
>>>>> The right to life is only granted (suffered) if you subscribe to
>>>>> the laws (note - not the ethics) of the society you live in.
>>>>> Perhaps your take on this is colored by what you perceive in 'your'
>>>>> society/country. Consider what your 'rights' are in, for example,
>>>>> Iran (or North Korea or (name the place).
>>>>> Your right to life is, at best, an illusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken.
>>>>
>>>> You're not in the US, are you?
>>>> Even so, the idea that the right to life is an illusion is wrong;
>>>> witness that even in the places you list, taking a life is deemed
>>>> wrong by the law.
>>>> Religion is another thing entirely.
>>> We have strayed somewhat from what you said and my reply.
>>> You implied that there was an inherent right to life.
>>> I replied that that is an incorrect notion - that society (the state
>>> (usually) confers this right.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>> Ken.

>>
>> I didn't stray.
>> Name a country that doesn't say murder is illegal.
>> Name a country that thinks it can confer the right to live.
>> Name a country that doesn't think there's an inherent right to life.

>
>If the right to life was inherent war would be an impossibility.
>
>Ken.


Bumper sticker philosophy at its best.
You honestly don't see the problem with your statement, do you?
Just what do you think "inherent" means in htis context?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2006
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:30:55 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Bill Funk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:22:04 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>Bill Funk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:51:49 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>>>>Davidson) wrote:

>
>>>>>He did *not* say there were no pictures of people. Just that none of
>>>>>them were the victims. He cannot publish a book, for example, using
>>>>>pictures of those people, unless he gets a release.
>>>>
>>>>I think that depends on whether or not the people were the subject of
>>>>the photo.
>>>
>>>I would say that "pictures of people" are pictures where people
>>>are the subject. That is why the statement was worded that way.

>>
>>Maybe we're playing with words.

>
>You are, and it is disrepectful.


As I said earlier:
Ah! Another person who doesn't understand that words have meaning.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Cynicor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2006
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Paul Rubin <http://(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
>>>> Who gets to decide where to put a police barrier?
>>> Non sequitur.

>> Not at all. Being able to put up a police barrier means being able to
>> control where photography is allowed from.

>
> Barrier are *not* located to control photography, and are
> clearly ineffectivee at that anyway.


Well...is that the same as saying that "free speech zones" are there to
protect free speech?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Rubin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2006
(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
> >Not at all. Being able to put up a police barrier means being able to
> >control where photography is allowed from.

>
> Barrier are *not* located to control photography, and are
> clearly ineffectivee at that anyway.


Correct, they are there to keep random people out from underfoot at
the accident scene. If the OP had been shooting from across the
street I doubt that the rescue personnel would have cared one way or
the other.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2006
Bill Funk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:32:03 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>You still insist on playing silly word games... are you an idiot?

>
>Ah! Another person who doesn't understand that words have meaning.


More games.

Words *do* have meanings. You cannot read them with just any
meaning you happen to select, even if you can find it in a
dictionary. You *must* read words using the meanings intended
by the writer.

Anything else is playing silly (i.e., *stupid*) word games.
That is not uncommon for kids at about age 11, or maybe a bit
older. But for adults it is nothing other than disrespectful
and lacking integrity.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2006
Bill Funk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:30:55 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>>Bill Funk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:22:04 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>>Bill Funk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:51:49 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>>>>>Davidson) wrote:

>>
>>>>>>He did *not* say there were no pictures of people. Just that none of
>>>>>>them were the victims. He cannot publish a book, for example, using
>>>>>>pictures of those people, unless he gets a release.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think that depends on whether or not the people were the subject of
>>>>>the photo.
>>>>
>>>>I would say that "pictures of people" are pictures where people
>>>>are the subject. That is why the statement was worded that way.
>>>
>>>Maybe we're playing with words.

>>
>>You are, and it is disrepectful.

>
>As I said earlier:
>Ah! Another person who doesn't understand that words have meaning.


You can say a lot of things, but even repeating it won't make it
true.

It *still* leaves your discussion above as nothing but silly.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
C ethics question Servé Laurijssen C Programming 9 03-31-2007 06:19 PM
Jon Harrop's strange ethics (was Ray tracer) alex.gman@gmail.com Java 0 08-08-2005 09:33 AM
Ethics Doom MCSE 14 07-29-2004 06:28 PM
Ethics (Photography versus life or death, film or digital) Steven M. Scharf Digital Photography 5 02-13-2004 04:01 PM
ethics of braindumps, read this! roYal MCSE 0 09-08-2003 09:07 PM



Advertisments