Taking photos in local pool-have I over reacted?

[williwonti]

I don't think so but have a knot in stomach. Basically, glanced at man sat next to me (maybe 18/20 yrs old) and he'd just taken a picture of my son and no other child in shot. He then took a short vid and another picture which included his sister. We were waiting at side during their swimming lessons. It was done very casually and I didn't get any weird vibes. I think he was probably/hopefully messing with phone as that's how it felt. But there are posters saying no photography! Now, ordinarily i have no issues asking people to conform (think mother and baby space offenders) but he was with all family and i was on own with baby. I panicked a bit and then just told the instructor after to pls clamp down on it. She wasn't impressed and insisted on following him and asking him to delete any taken. I know i should have tapped him on shoulder myself and asked him not to but it didn't feel right. He did not know he was my son as i was sitting away a bit. I feel awful that he will have been stopped but thought of random nan with pics of my son would feel worse i'm sure. Did i over react?

since photos of cc are posted and available on the internet, with dates and locations, and since the police say they are used by criminals to gain access to these cc , i doubt many parents feel ok with that. Perhaps that is why it is forbidden to take photos at locations such as pools, gyms, rinks,etc. Strange that i wd be asked to explain this.

Squig you've just said it is wrong not why it is wrong. Simply repeating your position and extending it to all photography does not make it comprehensible. Having an incomprehensible view is also fine - if you up are not bothered, I won't be bothered on your behalf - but expecting it to become a rule which restricts the actions of others is not. Having your photo taken, even without your knowledge, is clearly not harmful and no one has explained in what way you are wronged by it either. Being stopped from taking photographs for no good reason is wrongful as it unfairly restricts the photographer's liberty and may become harmful if the photographer is persecuted for it.

amarmai which police officer told you that criminals use photos on the Internet to gain access to children? And even if that far fetched claim were true, once again, it is not an argument against taking the photos, only against putting them online.

But boob, what good reasons are there for strangers to want photos of children they don't know? Going around taking random photos of children you dont know without the parents permission should be banned full stop, not just at swimming pools.
I don't see how it is restrictive to prevent people from taking photos of strangers children. There is plenty of other things they can photograph. If they really want to practise their photography skills they should go and photograph a tree or a lamppost or a stray animal.

That is not how we go about deciding what should be prohibited. In liberal democracies we only prohibit actions for a reason, usually relating to causing harm to others. We don't prohibit something for no discernible reason and then justify the prohibition by failing to see why anyone would want to do it anyway.

This both a silly prohibition AND one that draws focus and resources from the real circumstances behind abuse.

men taking photos of cc without permission happens all over-not just in places where it is expressly forbidden ,but in parks, malls, school yards, sidewalks etc. I was walking along our street with my gs in his stroller when a man argued that he was doing nothing wrong and wd do it anyway as he continued to try to get a clear photo of my gs. He sounded like the pp who is arguing ridiculously on this thread. I reported to the police altho i knew that he wd be gone -in fact he took off in a car as soon as he saw me phoning- BUT HE WAS DOING NOTHING WRONG?? Wonder who came up with the tactic of coming on threads like this to argue the toss on a topic like this?

I assume that at least some of your questions are addressed at me. I am a moral philosopher with a particular interest in applied ethics and some involvement with the policy making process in medical ethics. Asking why people think something is wrong and expecting a reasonable answer from the part of those who want to ban the wrong action is kind of standard practice in rational debate for the last 2.5 millennia, I don't think we should give up on it now. I am not arguing the toss and discrediting the mere asking of the question does not get you out of the obligation to answer it. What was wrong with what this guy was doing? His running away is not proof of some malicious motive, maybe you scared him away by acting hysterically and calling the police. By the way how seriously did the police take you?

At some point, if the only answer you can give is "But it is obviously wrong!", you do have to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

To the OP YANBU to ask an attendant to enforce clearly stated pool rules at all!

To the wider discussion. I am with boobs. With the exception of children or adults that need to keep their images off of social media for security reasons, I don't understand what damage can be done to general children by pictures being taken of them having fun.

Pictures of child abuse are completely different because a child is harmed in the making of the picture. If someone takes a picture of a child having fun while feeling safe etc. and then manipulates that somehow into a picture of abuse then I can't see the damage done to the child.

Imagine you looked out your living room window one day, and saw a car outside your neighbour's house. You know your neighbours are away on a 3-week holiday. The stranger in the car is not getting out, but is photographing the house.

By your argument Booboostwo, it would be wrong to phone the police and alert them to the presence of this person and their actions. Afterall, he is just a photographer and impacting on his liberty to photograph the many applications of bricks and mortar is wrong.

The act of photographing the house is not in itself wrong, but is potentially indicative of the intention to commit a crime, and as such should be addressed. It is the same with the photographing of our children. If you have no connection with a child, just as with the house, the act of photographing raises the question, 'Why?', and not all potential answers are of pure intent.

to specifically photograph a child with whom you have no connection, without their knowledge, or a responsible adult's knowledge or permission, is wrong.

I don't think it is necessarily wrong but it seems most people disagree nowadays, so if I were an amateur or professional photographer, I would abide by convention.

Amarmai said there was a 'good reason' why most swimming pools have a ban on photography. I asked her to explain what 'good reason' meant and she replied that the police stated that criminals shared these photos and used them to gain access to children and asked why anyone would want her to explain. I'm not too sure about that but am willing to be corrected..

I think the reason why swimming pools ban photography is because most users who express a preference are against it.

But boob, what good reasons are there for strangers to want photos of children they don't know?

Because photography is art or news or both. What harm does it do to photograph someone in a public place or to take photos in a public place that your child might stray into?

Are you sure the first photo wasn't a selfie? Hard to tell

Imagine you looked out your living room window one day, and saw a car outside your neighbour's house. You know your neighbours are away on a 3-week holiday. The stranger in the car is not getting out, but is photographing the house.

I've been in that situation and went and asked him. He said he was from a film company scouting locations. I think he was probably telling the truth seeing as they shot a Jackie Chan film in the next street about six months ago.

If I'd had more suspicions I might have called the police but I expect they would have told me that he was at liberty to photograph buildings from a public road unless he was in a restricted area - you get them but they're generally around places like MI6.

I did take his registration number just in case. I also asked him that if he was interested in my house we could work out an arrangement for a fee. Sadly not.

had a light bulb moment re aggressive photographers insisting on their rightto take photos of other people`s cc and using their cameras to act out , sim to how some people use their dogs,cars,bikes, kids, ----. Then there is the $$ motive as posting on certain sites is pay perview and info re where the photo was taken.

and ignoring signs happens with the aggressive cyclists, car drivers, dog owners,parents, photographers etc.

Is English your first language amarmai?

squig what crime do you think the house photographer is about to commit?! I can't even imagine what it would be. Much more likely to assume he is an estate agent, location scout, architect, likes the colour of the windows, wants to copy the garden design, etc. What would you expect the police to do? And why would you want to live in a society where the police harassed people who just took photos?

As I have mentioned before if you really had malicious intentions towards a particular child and expressing them somehow centered on taking photos of the child (very far fetched but let's allow that someone, somewhere fulfills these requirements) you could just use a long distance lense and take them from a mile away.

amarmai if you can link to one site where you pay to see a photo of a child with information on where it was taken so you can locate the child I will eat my foot. To be fair, I will then call the police and I am a bit shocked you know of such sites and have not reported them.

I have photo shopped my own DC pictures, funny thins like putting their faces on a dinosaur body. Or putting a dinosaur head on the body.

If someone wanted to photoshop something more sinister they can.

Not only that but I am very body conscious, I like the fact that I can go swimming without looking to see if there are camera about and putting me off swimming as this is the only kind of exercise I can do due to Heath problems.

Why has every thing in life have to be documented with photos.

Ive been called a liar by BB2 maybe 3 times -cant be bothered to check-apparently when my gs and i were harrassed by a photographer`` i did not call the police and BB2 demanded the name of the policeman as she did not beleive me. Now apparently i know some sites used by such photographers and shd have called the police , but BB2 says i didnt!
BB2 really does not like liarsdisgreeing with her moral philosophy opinions regarding it being ok for random men to take pictures of other people`s cc even when there are notices forbidding it or when they are asked not to.

amarmai I never called you a liar but you do seem to have a tendency to hysterical exaggeration - I just asked for more details and links for the claims that support your moral opinions. Feel free to link to the websites please.

I have no intention of publicising links to such sites.

Have you called the police about them? Or do you just limit your calls to reports of possible photographers?

(Now I am suggesting you are fibbing)

amarmai if you can link to one site where you pay to see a photo of a child with information on where it was taken so you can locate the child I will eat my foot. To be fair, I will then call the police and I am a bit shocked you know of such sites and have not reported them.

I don't know whether these sites exist or not. But I do know that if they did they would be on the dark web and you wouldn't even be able to access them without specialist software. And you amarmai wouldn't be able to link you to them, even if she wanted to, just downloading the software and accessing the site would be a criminal offence.

But just because something doesn't come up on Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And there is a lot of extremely dark twisted stuff on the dark web. Think drugs, guns, weapons, human trafficking, porn even slavery sales. I don't think I would really pooh pooh the possibility of anything existing on there.

I find the bans on cameras in swimming pools bizarre. It is perfectly normal to take photos at the beach, or the park on a hot day, and even in holiday centres. When we were at center parcs loads of people used cameras in the pool areas and no one batted an eyelid as they were obviously holiday photos.

If a person wants a picture of a child then there are many, many ways of taking one such that the subject is unaware. Hidden cameras and long lenses are fairly cheap. Banning everyone from taking obvious images of their children playing is a massive over-reaction.