Friday, October 10, 2014

Case at Lincoln Memorial stirs more debate on photography issues; Jennifer Lawrence swings at voyeurs, too; more on "selling"

The question of photography in public, and the idea that there is no real right to “privacy” in a public place, came to a head in Washington Thursday when a judge dismissed charges against a Virginia man charged by Park Police of “attempted voyeurism” near the Lincoln Memorial.  WJLA has the news story here.
The case is “United States v. Christopher Cleveland”.  The defendant was accused of “upskirting”, taking pictures of women seated above him in potentially embarrassing ways.  While the judge said she was personally disturbed by the defendant’s supposed conduct, it did not break the letter of the law, because it photographed only what was already publicly visible without any attempt at technical enhancement. More court papers from Scribd show on the WJLA news story.  
This week (regarding the "involuntary porn" issue) , Jennifer Lawrence made statements to the effect that people who hacked nude photos from the Cloud, posted them, or even viewed them at home, as well as the people who ran the sites that hosted them, had committed “sex crimes”, but that view has been challenged, as in this story.  

In another matter, I got a small catalogue from Angie’s List in the mail.  Is hosting an audience rating site, and then selling products that the people rated, an ethical conflict of interest?  I would have thought so.  I don’t like to pimp things at all, but I understand people have to make a living, before retirement, and sometimes afterwards.   One could say to someone like me, “you shouldn’t publish something until you can sell it and make it pay for itself” because that shows that I care about my customers enough to give them something they want to actually pay for.  Or that I shouldn’t enter the debate until I have my own dependents, my own skin in the game.  You see how that kind of thinking goes.  

No comments: