Re: FW: Windows Live and Privacy

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 12/5/06, Richard M. Smith <rms () computerbytesman com> wrote:
> I understand the difference.  However, Brian Loe made the point in his
> original message that we are "free" to take photos in public.  He wasn't
> only making a legal argument.  Our actions are controlled not just by laws,
> but also by social convention.  Clearly there are many settings where taking
> photos are not allowed by these social conventions.  But also people are
> arrested for taking photos when they are asked to stop, but the charges are
> indirect:  disorderly conduct, trespassing, etc.
>
> Richard

And therefore most generally dropped. Its no different than getting
pulled over for a DUI and they throw a bunch of other charges against
you - to either raise the cost of your bail or what have you. No one
ever intends to prosecute you for breaking those laws (because,
namely, you didn't) but they served some other purpose. You are FREE
to take photos.

To address another post without sending 5 individual ones: there are
social and legal rules and they don't always overlap. However, we're
discussing legal rules because social rules can change based on little
more than longitude and latitude. The way New Yorkers get into each
others' faces will get them into trouble in the south where personal
space is more of a social concern. If a New Yorker were to get in the
face of a sheriff in Alabama he might even get arrested for it...but
not because its illegal to invade someones personal space.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.