Why are so many afraid of people taking pictures?

[rexbobcat]

As technology has advanced, there's more news now than ever, and a lot of it revolves around how said technology is used for eeeeevvviiiillll. Between viral videos that ruin people's lives (see: Star Wars Kid) and the exacerbation of the generally irrational fear of "Is that random guy taking photos a pervert who wants to kidnap my child?" (regardless of the fact that most sexual assaults occur within families/between acquaintances), people have become hostile toward photography.

Those who use cameras for heinous acts are in the minority, but they get the most publicity. Paranoia in the general public is an easy seed to sow.

 

[nerwin]

That fear of taking pictures has invaded this forum.
Count how many of the people who talk at great length never post pictures.

I agree, I gotta share my photos on here more often haha. I'm just lazy...

 

[tecboy]

If you are allow to photograph in public places, there is nothing to be afraid as long as you be courtesy and respectful.

 

[Gary A.]

I've been arrested numerous times but never convicted. I even went to trial once. But, I used to be a photojournalist and it was more about fear of publicity than taking pictures. Shooting Streets in the digital age I have been attacked verbally and physically by many people ... but it doesn't happen very often. I feel the lack of attacks is due to my Street code and the years of shooting Street which has evolved how I shoot and what I shoot and even how I dress.

I will address Street Photography, as I have a good understanding of this subject.

A lot of people in the US are very shallow and would rather have others do their thinking for them. It is easy to identify and attack the photographer by: mothers not understanding that their children have no greater right to privacy than an adult, to security personal and to police who have an unquenchably desire to exercise power.

I shoot a lot of Street. I've been shooting Streets since the film-only days. I do not shoot from the hip. Back in the film only days Streets were easier to shoot than now. Probably for these few basic reasons:

1) The internet. People now think they're being exploited by having the images captured then splashed across the world-wide-net. (In most/many/all cases they are to varying degrees of exploitation.) Only if they agree to being photographed and they allowed some form of prior-restraint can one totally eliminate exploitation.

2) The proliferation of cameras. Today everybody has a camera. When everybody has a camera everything gets photographed and usually with no concern for composition/art or any regard to the respect of others. I imagine Street people are constantly 'harassed' by photogs every jammin' day. And it must get old for them.

3) The ease of processing and publication. This is pretty much self evident. But this ease makes everybody a "professional". A ton of Uncle Bobs, with cheap cameras and kit lenses getting in people faces everyday. (See #2 above.)

4) Younger people have a greater sense of self-importance than older people. Many younger people feel empowered by this sense of self-importance. This translates into, "I don't care what you think ... I don't care what the law states ... Only what I think matters and I don't like you or your camera so get the f*** out of here."

Having covered stories in other countries, I used to think that the security forces in the USA were different than other countries. They seem more reasonable, rational and willing to acknowledge the rights of the average citizen. After 9/11, armed with the Patriot Act, security forces were acting like the security forces from other countries, bullying people, especially photographers, exercising their new empowerment upon those who just by happenstance cross the security forces path. (BTW- there is no reference to photography in the Patriot Act.)

Back in the film only days. Anybody with a SLR and a non-standard (non-50mm) lens was thought of as a professional. The professional was working, shooting for an important reason. The professional had a darkroom and made 8x10 Black and White photographs. And usually a person with a SLR and a non-standard lens was a professional, with a darkroom, shot B&W film and made 8x10 prints. Photography was pretty expensive back then ... I imagine most Street people felt that a pro wouldn't be wasting all that money for nothing. The Street people had a respect for Street Shooters, both the Street people were working and the photog was working.

No need to explain the present state of affairs as most of us know pretty well how things have changed.

Gary

 

[soufiej]

You can certainly "get in trouble" simply by being in a photo; 6 People Who Were Literally Erased From History

It's probably safe to assume at least of few of the photographers who took those shots were also vanished from all political and historical records.

Category:Journalists killed while covering military conflicts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cameras get confiscated quite often and photographers get killed; how many photograhpers have been killed during wartime - Google Search

Cameras and photographers have been assaulted and physically abused throughout the history of photojournalism; how many photograhpers have been killed during wartime - Google Search

One of the most notorious murders of the 20th c/ had photographic evidence taken; John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, of course, once you have photographic evidence, you control the information being released;

Zapruder film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'm far from a "conspiracy nut" but once you understand the importance of telling a message, you understand the importance of providing evidence of the message ...

Misattributed[edit]

• The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.
  • Actually from "War Propaganda", in volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler

• If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.
  • Attributed to Goebbels in Publications Relating to Various Aspects of Communism (1946), by United States Congress, House Committee on Un-American Activities, Issues 1-15, p. 19, no reliable source has been located, and this is probably simply a further variation of the Big Lieidea
  • Variants:
  • If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
  • If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
  • If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
  • If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth.
  • If you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it.
    • Attributed in "The Sack of Rome" by Alexander Stille, p. 14, and also attributed in "A World Without Walls: Freedom, Development, Free Trade and Global Governance" (2003) by Mike Moore, p. 63

Big lie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"To attract people, to win over people to that which I have realised as being true, that is called propaganda. In the beginning there is the understanding, this understanding uses propaganda as a tool to find those men, that shall turn understanding into politics. Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things from what I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths. Those are found in other circumstances, I find them when thinking at my desk, but not in the meeting hall." Joseph Goebbels - Wikiquote

 

[gsgary]

Looking at who have posted it looks like a US problem I've never had trouble shooting street in the UK

 

[Designer]

Looking at who have posted it looks like a US problem I've never had trouble shooting street in the UK

That's because all us Yanks think we know the law. Or if we don't actually know it, then the law is an ass.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Gsgary the average person going about their business (taking pictures or just in general) probably wouldn't make the news or end up online hyped and going viral; those can be isolated incidents but are what people often see and form opinions on.

I think Tecboy's right, treating people in a respectful way is the thing. You're probably right Gary, people on the street might be getting bothered by people with cameras more than they used to be.

And if encountering a problem taking photos of buildings, it's probably better to go thru channels, even if someone feels they're in the right; arguing with security at the time probably won't accomplish much and the person would be better off contacting the agency, building owner, or someone in charge, and making a complaint.

Gary I think moms (and grandmas) are going to make an effort to protect kids. Some might be overreacting at times, and there's plenty online that can feed into that, but there have been situations where a kid has been grabbed frighteningly fast, so yeah, women are going to be vigilant in that regard, protecting ourselves and kids.

And there's so much online that isn't necessarily accurate, including on Wikipedia or YouTube where just about anyone can make a citation or post a comment or a video. And since we've gotten OT by now, here's an interview with the Life magazine writer/editor who first licensed usage of the Zapruder footage and was one of the first people to see it. The reason initially some of it was not shown was because it was graphic and it wasn't considered appropriate to publish considering the President had just been assassinated. I don't remember ever seeing this particular sequence and found it rather unsettling to watch even now.

 

[Gary A.]

@ Sharon- While I have not been on the receiving end, I have seen mothers get in the face of photographers who have photographed their precious child in public. A respectful exchange with the photographer, as in ... "I would appreciate it if you didn't photograph my child.", would probably be more effective than a string of four letter words directed at a person who has done absolutely nothing wrong or unlawful.

When people are disrespectful to me ... I tend to respond in kind. There are a few images on my web site reflecting this response.

 

[The_Traveler]

I think that photographers sometimes make their own problems.
If we swagger around with lots of crap, spending time looking through big lenses on big cameras then we get noticed.
If the object is to take pictures with as little fuss as possible, then take the damn pictures in as inconspicuous a manner as you can and stop making a huge fuss when it happens.
I took a bunch of people to NYC to shoot and my intent was that they split up and we would meet later. Well, they all wanted to shoot in a lump, a big noisy, loud lump that pointed big lenses at buildings and people, attracting attention and getting noticed.
It's like fly fishing. Enter the water quietly, cast the line so it drops softly onto the water and retrieve it quickly when it drags.
Splashing into the water, whipping the surface means you won't catch fish.

They got crap and talk about how hostile the people in NYC were.
No one, except for celebrities, wants to be the object of close scrutiny, so be as quiet and slick and smart. Don't spend time staring through a big lens, just take the picture and get the hell away.

 

[gsgary]

I think that photographers sometimes make their own problems.
If we swagger around with lots of crap, spending time looking through big lenses on big cameras then we get noticed.
If the object is to take pictures with as little fuss as possible, then take the damn pictures in as inconspicuous a manner as you can and stop making a huge fuss when it happens.
I took a bunch of people to NYC to shoot and my intent was that they split up and we would meet later. Well, they all wanted to shoot in a lump, a big noisy, loud lump that pointed big lenses at buildings and people, attracting attention and getting noticed.
It's like fly fishing. Enter the water quietly, cast the line so it drops softly onto the water and retrieve it quickly when it drags.
Splashing into the water, whipping the surface means you won't catch fish.

They got crap and talk about how hostile the people in NYC were.
No one, except for celebrities, wants to be the object of close scrutiny, so be as quiet and slick and smart. Don't spend time staring through a big lens, just take the picture and get the hell away.

Like Bruce Gilden

 

[Woodsman]

Only had one issue back in the 70's when I was shooting at night in downtown Toronto on the sidewalk of the main street and got blind sided from the back by a shop owner who pushed me and started screaming that I could not photograph his store. I was not even looking at nor had any interest in his store front and didnt even know where he came from but I had a camera and that I guess is all it took. He threatened to call the cops but when I said please do it will save me the trouble, I'll wait, things calmed down rapidly.

I guess it also depends on where you are, also back in the early 70's a friend went to visit family in Isreal and was wandering around the taking pictures outside the cities and ended up by a compound with high fences which he took pictures of. Lets just say that did not go over well and he had some explaining to do before he was released.

These days if I want to take city or public I leave the DSLRs at home and take a smaller camera like a P&S or a bridge super zoom.

 

[The_Traveler]

In 1986 I was walking across the end of the fixed wing hangar area on Bien Hoa Airbase carrying a Nikin F, when a U2 came rolling in on its funny belly wheels and the detachable wheels on struts at the end of the wing. It taxied right into a hanger and an aluminum door rolled down.
As this happened a jeep came roaring up to me and the APs confiscated the film from my camera.

Reflections of a Former U-2 Pilot - Schneier on Security

 

[Bebulamar]

people are paranoid including the government. if someone wants a picture to do something bad they could sketch it or commit to memory.

 

[desertrattm2r12]

I was standing in front of the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York City where a pro-Israel group was picketing the President of France because he sold some jet fighters to an Arab county and a protester broke loose from behind some barricades into an area reserved for the press and the police. (I had on me at the time both NYPD and Secret Service press passes). The NYPD rushed in and collared him and I took a couple of steps forward to get a photo and a cop took a swipe at my head with his baton, but it glanced off of my electronic flash. Barely grazed me.
The irony here is that the photo I got showed four harassed and hard working cops using great restraint collaring a screaming, out-of-control burly protester. Any reasonable person viewing the photo would conclude the cops were doing it right. Cest la ve or something like that.
Why are folks increasingly paranoid about a camera in the street? Beats me. Too many people jump to conclusions and believe one bad apple spoils the bunch. They can't get mad at Joe Bad Guy and Jane Bad Gal, it's less brainwork for them to condemn all of "those" people by size, race, religion, manner of dress, what kind of car they drive or whatever.