由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
_kaleege版 - Re: 在美国公共场所是不是不能随便take photo啊?
相关主题
在美国公共场所是不是不能随便take photo啊?Incidental collection
usps的media能邮寄不是media的东西吗?Breaking: Trump was wiretapped by Obama
哪些周日的报纸有大家所说的ss和rp的coupon啊?Trump的好消息终于来了
查到了- Re: our first recordingSupreme Court to Rule on Immigration Law in Arizona
Obamacare enrollment hits 7.1 million sign-ups奥粑粑监听终于被证实,唉! (转载)
文贵看来有点麻烦啊奥粑粑监听终于被证实,唉! (转载)
一贴:Prop8座谈:Olson 和 Boies奥粑粑监听终于被证实,唉! (转载)
Obamacare的登记人数远远低于预期奥粑粑监听终于被证实,唉! (转载)
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: us话题: court话题: law话题: police话题: boston
1 (共1页)
k*****e
发帖数: 22013
1
【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
发信人: choi (choi), 信区: WaterWorld
标 题: Re: 在美国公共场所是不是不能随便take photo啊?
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Sep 27 14:36:46 2011, 美东)
I am an libertarian. The short answer is as long as you are in the public
space (eg, roadsides), you are all right.
* libertarian (n): "a person who upholds the principles of individual
liberty especially of thought and action"
www.m-w.com
(1) If you are in a private place, you are subject to rules and regulations
of the owner. A day in mid-1990s, I was at Harvard-Yenching Library. Two
Taiwanese reporters arrived and requested to take a few photos inside the
library. A librarian (white, middle-aged male) politely declined but invited
them to look around. One of the reporters shot a photo with a camera anyhow
. The linrarian, angry, shooed booted them out.
(2) Until a few years ago, Taipei 101 was the tallest building in teh world.
The owner would not allow people to take a photo of the building--even from
outside, in the streets--asserting copyright, which is untested in a court
of law and, in my view, dubious.
(3) In US.
photography and the law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
(section 3 United States, together with reference)
(a) After the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attack, it might be problematic if one
takes a picture of infrastructures (tunnel, bridge etc) or government
buildings, for fear of casing in preparation of a terrorist attack. Security
might inquire (who you are, what your purpose of photograph). Explain
yourself and generally it will be all right.
case (transitive verb only): "to inspect or study especially with intent to
rob"
(b) Some people are highly sensitive about their so called privacy. US
Supreme Court ruled long ago that if anybody can see, there is no privacy or
constitutional right to privacy. For example, police need not get a warrant
to take a picture of a person in a public place, doing demonstration or
anything else.
If a citizen, when photographed, stops you, you need to assert your rights--
or face a fight unflinchingly and send the assailant to court.
(c) Peeping Tom or taking photos of a woman's panties with a mirror on shoes
are criminal in Massachusetts.
What is tricky is take photographs of
(a) a woman's chest when she bends forward, or
(b) private parts when the woman is properly clothed (as in a tennis court).
A few months ago, a coach was arrested in a Boston suburb for doing the
latter on female athletes on the sidelines of a sports event, but I was sure
the charges would be dropped.
(d) Matt Friedman, Some NJ Lawmakers Target People Who Photograph Children
Without Parental Consent. The Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ), May 5, 2011.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011
/05/nj_lawmakers_targeting_people.html
Compare:
(i) Adam Liptak, Legal Experts Express Concern About Erasure of Scalia Tapes
. New York Times, Apr 9, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/09/us/legal-experts-express-conc
-erasure-of-scalia-tapes.html?scp=1&sq=scalia%20marshall%20tape&st=cse
(ii) Adam Liptak, Scalia Apologizes for Seizure of Recordings. New York
Times, Apr 13, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/politics
/13SCAL.html?scp=3&sq=scalia%20marshall%20tape&st=cse
In US, one has to stand up for his right. On the other hand, US Supreme
Court has said if a civilian misunderstands or misinterpretes law, he takes
the consequence. Supreme Court also has ruled that if police officers in
question misinterprete law, they take the consequence (when the arrestee
sues them for violating his constitutional rights).
(d) What about photographing or videoing police? Especially when alleged
police brutality was happening.
A lawyer sitting in a park in Boston (called Boston Common--the oldest
public park in US, in fact) used his cellphone to record both sounds and
still images of an arrest. Ploice asked him to stop, he refused and was
arrested--because Massachusetts has a state law criminalizing voice
recording unless all parties to a conversation consent.* Massachusetts
Genral Laws ch. 272, § 99. (In contrast, federal law permits the recording
of in-person conversations with the consent of only one of the parties. 18
USC 2511(2)(d).)
* The state highest court interpreted the state law to mean that secretly
AUDIOtaping police was against that law
Commonwealth v. Hyde, 750 NE2d 963 (Mass. 2001)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1330122.ht
, but that openly audiotaping police was not.
Glick v Cunniffe, F.3d _: _ (CA1, Aug 26, 2011)
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov
/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1764P.01A
The first US Court of Appeals to decide on audio- or video recording of
police in action was lauded in
Editorial: A Vital Liberty. New York Times, Sept 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/opinion/a-vital-liberty.html
(e) Incidentally, it happened to me a handful of times in my time in US (
more than a quarter century) that a private security guard would come out,
when my feet were planted on the sidewalk of a public street in Boston and I
either sat on or lean against the brink of a flower bed. I took down their
names and complain to their supervisors (sometimes threatening to sue);
things did not happen again.
k*****e
发帖数: 22013
2
【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
发信人: choi (choi), 信区: WaterWorld
标 题: Re: 在美国公共场所是不是不能随便take photo啊?
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Sep 27 14:36:46 2011, 美东)
I am an libertarian. The short answer is as long as you are in the public
space (eg, roadsides), you are all right.
* libertarian (n): "a person who upholds the principles of individual
liberty especially of thought and action"
www.m-w.com
(1) If you are in a private place, you are subject to rules and regulations
of the owner. A day in mid-1990s, I was at Harvard-Yenching Library. Two
Taiwanese reporters arrived and requested to take a few photos inside the
library. A librarian (white, middle-aged male) politely declined but invited
them to look around. One of the reporters shot a photo with a camera anyhow
. The linrarian, angry, shooed booted them out.
(2) Until a few years ago, Taipei 101 was the tallest building in teh world.
The owner would not allow people to take a photo of the building--even from
outside, in the streets--asserting copyright, which is untested in a court
of law and, in my view, dubious.
(3) In US.
photography and the law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
(section 3 United States, together with reference)
(a) After the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attack, it might be problematic if one
takes a picture of infrastructures (tunnel, bridge etc) or government
buildings, for fear of casing in preparation of a terrorist attack. Security
might inquire (who you are, what your purpose of photograph). Explain
yourself and generally it will be all right.
case (transitive verb only): "to inspect or study especially with intent to
rob"
(b) Some people are highly sensitive about their so called privacy. US
Supreme Court ruled long ago that if anybody can see, there is no privacy or
constitutional right to privacy. For example, police need not get a warrant
to take a picture of a person in a public place, doing demonstration or
anything else.
If a citizen, when photographed, stops you, you need to assert your rights--
or face a fight unflinchingly and send the assailant to court.
(c) Peeping Tom or taking photos of a woman's panties with a mirror on shoes
are criminal in Massachusetts.
What is tricky is take photographs of
(a) a woman's chest when she bends forward, or
(b) private parts when the woman is properly clothed (as in a tennis court).
A few months ago, a coach was arrested in a Boston suburb for doing the
latter on female athletes on the sidelines of a sports event, but I was sure
the charges would be dropped.
(d) Matt Friedman, Some NJ Lawmakers Target People Who Photograph Children
Without Parental Consent. The Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ), May 5, 2011.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011
/05/nj_lawmakers_targeting_people.html
Compare:
(i) Adam Liptak, Legal Experts Express Concern About Erasure of Scalia Tapes
. New York Times, Apr 9, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/09/us/legal-experts-express-conc
-erasure-of-scalia-tapes.html?scp=1&sq=scalia%20marshall%20tape&st=cse
(ii) Adam Liptak, Scalia Apologizes for Seizure of Recordings. New York
Times, Apr 13, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/politics
/13SCAL.html?scp=3&sq=scalia%20marshall%20tape&st=cse
In US, one has to stand up for his right. On the other hand, US Supreme
Court has said if a civilian misunderstands or misinterpretes law, he takes
the consequence. Supreme Court also has ruled that if police officers in
question misinterprete law, they take the consequence (when the arrestee
sues them for violating his constitutional rights).
(d) What about photographing or videoing police? Especially when alleged
police brutality was happening.
A lawyer sitting in a park in Boston (called Boston Common--the oldest
public park in US, in fact) used his cellphone to record both sounds and
still images of an arrest. Ploice asked him to stop, he refused and was
arrested--because Massachusetts has a state law criminalizing voice
recording unless all parties to a conversation consent.* Massachusetts
Genral Laws ch. 272, § 99. (In contrast, federal law permits the recording
of in-person conversations with the consent of only one of the parties. 18
USC 2511(2)(d).)
* The state highest court interpreted the state law to mean that secretly
AUDIOtaping police was against that law
Commonwealth v. Hyde, 750 NE2d 963 (Mass. 2001)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1330122.ht
, but that openly audiotaping police was not.
Glick v Cunniffe, F.3d _: _ (CA1, Aug 26, 2011)
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov
/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1764P.01A
The first US Court of Appeals to decide on audio- or video recording of
police in action was lauded in
Editorial: A Vital Liberty. New York Times, Sept 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/opinion/a-vital-liberty.html
(e) Incidentally, it happened to me a handful of times in my time in US (
more than a quarter century) that a private security guard would come out,
when my feet were planted on the sidewalk of a public street in Boston and I
either sat on or lean against the brink of a flower bed. I took down their
names and complain to their supervisors (sometimes threatening to sue);
things did not happen again.
1 (共1页)
相关主题
奥粑粑监听终于被证实,唉! (转载)Obamacare enrollment hits 7.1 million sign-ups
请教千岛湖到boston路线文贵看来有点麻烦啊
请教在美国生活的前辈自费读硕士的生活开销,谢谢~!一贴:Prop8座谈:Olson 和 Boies
Bathroom policy is great.Obamacare的登记人数远远低于预期
在美国公共场所是不是不能随便take photo啊?Incidental collection
usps的media能邮寄不是media的东西吗?Breaking: Trump was wiretapped by Obama
哪些周日的报纸有大家所说的ss和rp的coupon啊?Trump的好消息终于来了
查到了- Re: our first recordingSupreme Court to Rule on Immigration Law in Arizona
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: us话题: court话题: law话题: police话题: boston