Slashdot Mirror
Police Restrict Public Photography
An anonymous reader writes "News.com is reporting that in Australia, recent attempts by a photo club to take pictures of industrial installations was met with police resistance. From the article: 'Club member Hans Kawitski was told not to photograph industrial installations and was ordered to inform members of the camera club to follow his lead. Liberty Victoria said its advice to photographers would be to ignore the directive. "The police have got no place making such warnings," president Brian Walters SC said.'"
Re: incident with the taxi driver. I had a massive argument a few weeks back with people I would normally regard to be reasonable thinkers about the shooting incident. Basically they were all the same - "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" kind of thing. But this guy was shot, dead, for no reason! I'm glad I'm not the only person who can see how this could be a problem.
Q.
In many US cities "public intoxication" is a perfectly legal reason to detain someone.
In many localities a public intox detention carries a minimum of 8 hour "drying out" period in detention and no breathalyzer is necessary. By comparison, a "driving under the influence" charge with a BAC lower than the legal limit for intoxication will let people out of detention in as little as 2 hours.
Don't feel so safe doing the right thing and walking home.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
You lied about this
" You can't photograph the Eiffel Tower [fastcompany.com] either. At least not at night."
Many others have posted refutations of your lie, and a simple web search reveals your lie as well.
Yet instead of backing away from your lie, you decided to respond with
"The post is loud, rude, and makes accusations about not getting the facts straight without providing any itself."
Guess what cunt? YOU posted the lie, and YOU refused to back off of it. It's not MY responsibility to refute your lie AGAIN when three other people already did it.
And now, instead of accepting that you got it wrong, you're insisting on MORE refutations.
Fine you piece of lying garbage, here you go
"The Eiffel Tower's likeness had long since been part of the public domain, when in 2003, it was abruptly repossessed by the city of Paris. That's the year that the SNTE, the company charged with maintaining the tower, adorned it with a distinctive lighting display, copyrighted the design, and in one feel swoop, reclaimed the nighttime image and likeness of the most popular monument on earth. In short: they changed the actual likeness of the tower, and then copyrighted that.
As a result, it's no longer legal to publish current photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night without permission"
So, when you lied and claimed, "You can't photograph the Eiffel Tower [fastcompany.com] either. At least not at night." you were completely wrong. It's perfectly acceptable to PHOTOGRAPH the eiffel tower, just not PUBLISH those photographs.
Would you like MORE refutations of your lie, or are you going to continue to stand by the lie you tried to pass off?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?