Perhaps you should look up the laws in question instead of asking us?
If you didnāt want me using an IR camera to film you having sex as as art piece, you should have heated up your houseās exterior walls to body temperature?
3 Likes
well there I go
The sensors have too lousy angular resolution for the imagery to be meaningfully identifiable.
I am not a lawyer and I DO NOT WANT TO BE ONE. The engineering aspects are WAY more fun than the endless plodding through the quagmire of ambiguously written and capriciously interpreted laws.
Except thermal does not penetrate walls or anything. It only shows the heat radiated from a surface. But you know thatā¦ you state as much in your post. I suppose thatās just for the sake of argument. My bad, carry on.
Iāll use the normal human definition of light thatās visible thank you. But you keep arguing. Youāre doing great!
The average persons idea of reasonable is what we use. Excellent work in arguing. Way to go!
Purely your perception, I assure you. I enjoy people making fools of themselves. But you just keep on giving. I applaud your generosity. Itās a schadenfreude wonderland.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, the lawyers in their politician life phase donāt agree. They donāt care about wavelength. They care about practical expectations and historical precedent through previous legal decisions. This is how common law, the English derived system, works. So, a window, which the human eye sees through, if uncovered, negates an expectation of privacy legally in most places in the United States (if not all).
1 Like
A man with no familial connection or parental consent took photos of naked children for his own benefit.
2 Likes
Oh, there are naked child photos? Citation, please.
From what I read, it was more āhalf-nakedā. A little girl not wearing a shirt (not sure of the age, but Iām thinking 5 or less if ācherubā applied). Hereās a bit from a New Yorker interview.
At five-thirty, the little girl was dancing in her tiara; half naked, she looked like a cherub. As she turned away, Svenson took a photograph. āI donāt like it when little girls are running around without their tops,ā he said, ābut this is a beautiful image.ā
Creepy.
1 Like
From the original article (and included in the original post):
The pictures show people in the seven-story modern building in every day activities: taking naps, scrubbing floors, bathing toddlers.
Toddlers have a tendency to be naked when bathed.
So you assume there are such photos?
??? It says there are such photos.
1 Like
Iām interested in how many people calling the artist out have actually lived in New York.
Itās part of the deal, the transparency of the windows. You want to see out? You acknowledge then that others can see in, otherwise youād close your blinds. I look out an office window that shows me another human about 30 feet away. When they (or I) want privacy you do something about it.
Some people even go as far as to pay incredibly high prices to show off. Many acknowledge that it is even something they like doing, still others pay extra to live in those environments.
Given the laws on photography in public places, I have never had any expectation of privacy in town as long as my blinds were open and anyone that says they do are just not thinking about it. Whatāt the difference between this and taking a photo from the street with an open window behind? Your expectations of privacy in front of a window with no blinds is your own fault in this town.
3 Likes
Besides, a young child doesnāt have to be entirely naked on a bed for a photo to be considered child pornography.
1 Like
According to my wife, the guy who lives in the nearby condos walked out onto his balcony naked the other day and loudly wished our neighbourhood a good morning.
2 Likes
It says bathing toddlers. Another mentions a girl in a tutu turning away. It does not say naked children. For perspective on what we are talking about, here is a picture of a child with no clothing taking a bath.
Iām curious if many of the respondents to this would believe that he has an expectation to privacy for these actionsā¦
Iām surprised that wasnāt the angle the family tookāchild pornography/exploitation, rather than the (I think bogus) invasion-of-privacy one. It makes me wonder how benign those images really were.
As creepy as I find the idea of taking pictures of kids through an open window, we have (rightfully so) special rules and exceptions when it comes to minors, and I think that should apply to these āno expectation of privacyā rules just as much as it does to pornography, alcohol, etc.
If a kid is involved in an inappropriate way, deal with it as a special circumstance (ie, child porn laws), but donāt throw the baby out with the bathwater (ha!) by using āprotecting the childrenā as the basis for restricting our freedoms to watch (adult) porn or take pictures of things in plain view of my living room window or street.
This is a painting of somebody bathing (and dead. in the bath. also: not a toddler). They are indeed naked one would presume due to the whole bathing scenario.
#show me the dingus
Just because you could take a picture of me bathing my daughter, in no way implies that my daughter appears in the photos.
And Iāll add this ā if somebody is going to parade their kids around the windows, close the d*****n windows. That building is only 5 or 6 stories tall, with glass walls; itās not the Burj Khalifa. I look at and into buildings like that all time when Iām in a city. If you donāt want people to look in ā close the drapes, the blinds, hand a freaking sheet on the wall. But donāt blame the people who look in your direction. Victim blaming? No.
6 Likes
Are you naked if youāre wearing a hat?
1 Like
