Agreed.. I approached a guy once on a community beach at a lake up in Washington State. He thought he was being somewhat surreptitious while shooting footage of children playing in the water. That was all he was doing.. was apparently there alone. A pot bellied balding guy wearing a speedo shooting pictures exclusively of pre-adolescent children that clearly did not know him... He tended to stand out from the norm.

I asked him if he was an acquaintance of the children. He retorted that it was none of my business and wasn't doing anything illegal.. Or maybe he used the word 'wrong'... He seemed to be resistant to me getting a good look at the camera and viewfinder, dropping it to his side and turning away from me. Probably because I was making eye contact with it rather then him.

Seeing as I had experience with buying, selling, and implementing video equipment in it's raw form, for video surveillance, I recognised it to be an older Sony Nightshot model with a filter adaptor attached to the lens. The CCD on these cameras is very sensitive to natural infrared and gives the appearance of being able to see through thin clingy cloth when used with a combination of filters and in 'night' mode during day light. I know that while playing with one of the first ones on the market during evaluation of the ccd, which were often sent to us by the manufacturer. I was able to make out the image of the edges and some of the pictures of a newspaper under a layer of cotton t-shirt without using any filters. That was 10 years ago.

I replied to the guy.. You're right. It isn't my business, but can the images on that camera sustain the scrutiny of the children's parents or the police? Maybe a civil case? Can you sustain the possible publicity? What do you do for a living? Are you married? Do you have children of your own?

He didn't answer me.. Just quickly walked to a van as I followed... Nearly dropping the camera in the dirt a few times trying to work the controls. Got in the van and drove away. I noticed him looking at me through the mirror, while I was memorizing his plate number.

I called the local police non-emergency number and they said that although it was awfully suspicious and seedy... There is nothing legally they could do. I asked if the call was a matter of record though.. They said it was.

but my point again...where were the parents of these kids and why weren't they doing anything???? I personally (as a parent) would at the very least get between the camera and my child to make a point and if he said something...i would ask if he had permission to tape my child. and if he didn't stop...i have the choice to confront him more or get my child and move locations while telling the parents of the other kids what was going on while they weren't paying attention

you are like me...i step up for other parents at times.

They did not realise what was happening.. until I brought attention to it. He may have spent the day there.. doing what he was doing.. He was trying to blend.. and was pointing his camera 'at times' to less innocuous subjects. But I had noticed that the viewfinder was either not entirely white or entirely black when he did that.

Entirely white meaning that the nightmode was on.. Entirely black meaning that the camera was off.

By the by....I have no children of my own. Both my niece and nephew though.. I consider them to be of my own. They are adults now. However? That does not prevent me from being aware.

Im no pervert but I also have right to videotape anything that I want as well. Im sorry but it shouldnt be illegal to videotape kids playing. I hate weirdos too but I feel that a person can videotape whatever they want

mirror...you are right unless it's used for publication etc. but as a mom...I have a right to block someone from taping my child. and will do so because it's my right and duty as a mom. i would prefer someone coming to me and asking if it's ok....that's just respect. But it does cross over to the rights of the ones being videotaped without permission.

Yup.. in a way.. legally, you have a point. Public domain is public domain. However.. Civilly? It is different.

Not that photographing children is wrong.. As a photographer and videographer, I have taken candids of people in public. I find it to be a subject that I can't repeat in a studio. However.. If I piss someone off? Enough to talk to a lawyer? Then it becomes public. Then it becomes threatening to my financial state. If I was a perv? The subject matter on my camera could be subject to scrutiny.
So.. If I am walking around on a beach with a camera? I would be pretty careful about what I photographed.

I have NO problem if my child is on video while a tourist is taping the scenery etc...but if someone fixes on my child...then mom here will stand up. but if I'm not mistaken...I believe (for purpose of a documentary or broadcasting) that waivers have to be signed to use someone's image. but it's still common respect to me. and if someone isn't using it for those purposes (or type of purposes)...why else fix on a child not your own????

Nope.. You are mistaken. If you are out in public? Your right to privacy is restricted to private places. Someone can legally photograph you and publish those photos. However.. If it pisses you off enough? You can take civil action. Which can cost a great deal of money to defend yourself from.
So if I photograph you in public? I would try to ingratiate you with my work and tell you why I want to publish it.

i don't know all the laws but I know if a show uses someone...they need consent to show it (example cops and cheaters for a few) now if someone is just background and happens to be in the picture....then no. that's why you see all the bubbles on some faces. they aren't OUT of the show but the image isn't used...btw i want to be a cheaters investigator lol...sorry off topic. but unless you are doing it for a show or to investigate someone (which I think you need a license...again not sure about all states)...why else would someone fixate on a child on camera??? the only other reason is they are weirdos...IMO...either way...I will get between my child and the camera (if he's fixated on)

This might be a little off topic, but I received this e-mail and found it quite amusing yet bewildering:

My, how times change!!

SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2007

Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot
with shotgun in gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and
gets his shotgun to show Jack
2007 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never
sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and
teachers.

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2007 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them
with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario : Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal.
Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2007 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD.
School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario : Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a
whipping with his belt.
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and
becomes a successful businessman.
2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care
and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers
being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with
psychologist.

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 - Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2007 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car
searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario : Pedro fails high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally
explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against
state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core
curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living
because he cannot speak English.

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them
in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2007 - BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic
terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers c
confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to
fly again.

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is
found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3
years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy

??????????????? Which one?

Lindyy

How true. I grew up fighting with my friends in stl, and I wouldn't have it any other way. We got over it, and it made for great stories down the road.