| Author |
 Topic  |
|
allnaturalwife
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/06/2006 : 6:50:45 PM
|
The proble with that theory is you have to make sure you ONLY apply it to those who are taking NON-CONsetial pictures. For example my husband and I take pictures of each other and our family all th e time. I might be up on the beach taking of my husband playing in the waves from a distance. One could mistake me for a "voyeur" and start pointing their camera at me and taking pictures, based on the suggestion above. You would have to really make sure that the person taking pictures was in fact being innapropriate, before implimenting the above practice. Otherwise YOU would be doing the very thing you set out to discourage.
Jenn
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 689 |
 |
|
|
Diger
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/06/2006 : 10:10:55 PM
|
You are right Jenn, we don't want to be mistaken for the perv when we are wanting to stop them.
As the years go by my wife and I care less and less if anyone is trying to take our photo. After all we're not doing any thing wrong.
Diger
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1385 |
|
|
|
ToAsTeD
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 12/06/2006 : 10:40:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Admin
Ahhh Toasted, sorry about that.
As you may be aware, we have to deal with an irritating group of spammers somewhere that regularly post phone ads. From time to time, you might see my efforts to spoil their fun.
We have the ability to substitute good words for bad words, it's called a bad word filter. **** p****f***** and s*** are usually considered offensive for instance, so we take that responsibility.
I was just having fun with that. Try typing in some phone brands and look at your preview. I have removed "phones" as a bad word, since I'm sure you guys want to talk about the picture phones. LOL A few more tweaks perhaps...
Thanks Admin for the info!
For a little while there I seriously thought I was going crazy! 
Glad to know there is indeed an explanation!
And thanks for replying so quickly! (You do a GREAT job on this site by the way!)
Back on topic: A "fake" camera could be used to take "pictures" of those trying to exploit nudists... (so NO real pictures would ever be taken...)
I think it would be soooo funny to watch those exploiters running for cover!
-ToAsTeD
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 84 |
|
|
|
nudeisntlewd
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 12:24:56 AM
|
Jenn,
You too, have a valid point. Pete’s suggestion of pointing your camera at the offenders would need to be done cautiously! Just like hunting, “Make sure of your target!” I would think it would be easy enough to identify real offenders. When in doubt, maybe just stare them down. Or begin to approach them and if they stand fast, confront them verbally, not physically. I also think that walking towards them with a friend might be intimidating enough to make all but the boldest with bad intent back off immediately. I advocate diplomacy, but also “Walking softly and carrying a big stick.”
Randy
|
Edited by - nudeisntlewd on 12/07/2006 12:26:46 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1191 |
|
|
|
Pete Knight
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 01:34:11 AM
|
Earlier this year we had a beach meet at Studaland Bay in Dorset, lots of families were there, also lots of officers of British Naturism were in attendance, including the Midland Rep, Angela Russell. Angela noticed a textile guy up in the dunes behaving furtively, and taking photo's, so she called the beach wardens who came along and confiscated his camera, then folowed him back to the car park to note is registration and report him to the police.
You can usually spot the pervy ones, they act furtively and it makes your skin creep. Its unfortunate that there are some people around who are unable to control their urges, but thats what we have prisons for I suppose.
Pete Knight
|
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 297 |
|
|
|
BareDevil1
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 02:09:32 AM
|
Hey, I say if anyone is that desperate to go those extents for some visual entertainment/whacking material then so be it. I actually consider it somewhat flattering. I mean after all, a copy of Playboy or Penthouse can be purchased anywhere for less than ten bucks but if they'd rather have photos of my bare ass than I must look pretty good, huh?
"You know, you could poke sombodies eye out with that thing"
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 30 |
|
|
|
Pete Knight
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 09:10:19 AM
|
Fist of all, welcome to the board BareDevil1, you certainly hit the ground running, although you have a long way to go to catch up with Kimberly's 3235 posts, and Jenn has a head start on you too!
Now,.... lets get down to brass tacks.
The parents of the children that the guy was taking photo's of weren't too happy, even if you don't mind. Like you I have no problem with having my photo taken, but unlike you I don't think I'm quite the material these guys are after.
Pete Knight
|
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 297 |
|
|
|
Jim in Boston
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/16/2006 : 9:13:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexmol
With the massification of cell camera phones naturists have been confronted with people using them to take unwanted pictures on nude beaches. 
It's making naturists avoid public lands and beaches and becoming more difficult to get new people into this lifestyle. 
What can we do ?
Suggestions on how to deal with camera phones on nude beaches would be helpful.
Alexandre in Portugal
This is probably why US Immigrations and Customs forbids the use of cell 'phones in their areas of airports. They don't want people to be able to document what they do for a living.
As for cell phones on beaches, I recommend seeing if they can swim.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 79 |
|
|
|
Digital_Cowboy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 9:42:54 PM
|
To all of you who seem to advocate throwing the cell phone/camera/person into the water. Need to listen to what I believe it was Randy who said that it is THEY (the throwers) who could/would end up in trouble, particularly IF you are in a public place.
Why do you think that the poparatze(sp) can legally ply their trade? Or that the vast majority of businesses can have so many security cameras in place. It's because when your out in public you have no expectation of privacy.
Also stop and think about this for a second, IF as we keep saying, that we have nothing to hide when nude. Why make a big fuss about a cell phone/camera? By making a Big deal" out of cameras/cell phones "we" are encouraging them to try and "get away with it."
Also stop and consider the following:
1) IF you and/or your children were at the local textile park/pool/mall you wouldn't be upset about someone snapping some pictures, right? So why be upset if it happens in a nudist/clothing optional environment? Especially IF you have nothing to hide?
2) Let's also not forget that not all pedophiles get off on the same sort of pictures. Whereas one gets off on nude pictures of children, another does with children in swim suits, and another of them in underwear.
Consider this, we cannot control the thoughts/actions of others, so why assume that they're up to no good? Why not instead assume that they're curious about the lifestyle but are unsure of how to approach the participants. Or assume instead that they're either reporters, or are artists? Now granted it's unlikely that a reporter or artist is likely to use a cell phone to take pictures, but sometimes that may be the only option open to them. Also a good photographer knowing the limitations of his/her equipment can take striking photographs with any cameras. It's just that "newer" cameras will make it easier to do. And of course the reverse is also true i.e. Someone who doesn't know what they're doing is going to take crappy/poor quality pictures no matter what they're using.
The bottom line is that the bigger a deal you make of it, the more they're going to want to do it. IF they are doing nothing more then taking pictures ignore them as you would in any other environment. Also just because someone is doing something you don't like/approve of does NOT give you the right to break the law to stop them. Not too mention the negative image that doing so will leave non-nudists with OF nudists. IF we're to be accepted then we have to work within the law, and NOT act like a bunch of vigilantes, this isn't "the old west" where arguments were settled with either fists or gun play.
Herman
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 310 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 01:56:29 AM
|
That's "Papparazzi", I think. My Italian isn't perfect beyond a few words like "Pizza" and "Fortissimo." LOL.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
nudeisntlewd
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 03:18:32 AM
|
Herman,
You're quite right. (And so am I.) It was I. And you are right on all points. What's to hide? You're on a nude beach. Are you shy for God's sake? And I speak from experience. I used to be a Deputy Sheriff and I know for an absolute fact that you can photograph anyone or anything in a public place. If you don’t like it, don't go public.
As to cell phones, the quality of the best of phones is marginal at best. I’ve taken pix on my phone and emailed them to myself. They look great on the phone, crappy on the computer or printed. Big threat.
You can whine and cry about it all you like, but the facts are the facts. And the facts are: Steal or destroy someone's property and you're a criminal. Take a picture and you're NOT.
Theft of, and/or destruction of property is a crime. In Minnesota,
"Theft or Damage to Property (up to $250), are misdemeanors and are punishable by a fine of up to $700 and/or 90 days in jail.
Theft or Damage to Property ($250-$500) are punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or 1 year in jail.
Theft or Damage to Property (over $500) are felonies and are punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and/or up to to 5 years in penitentiary."
That's right, a felony. Better hope your victim's camera isn't worth $501. The statutes are similar in all the states. I have a nice camera. Willing to pay?
I’m not so inclined as to take photos of people without their consent, just out of courtesy. But I have taken pictures at the beach and I will again. Some of which are of myself, where I set the camera in the sand and run out in front of it. Some are of non-human scenery. The water, gulls etc. Obviously many of you have too. You have them posted here. Did anybody try to steal your camera? In any case, in a situation where someone was mugging me in an effort to divest me of my property, I might defend myself and my property, (my legal and moral right), and break somebody’s face or get myself hurt trying. Or I might call the police. It’s a coin toss which as to which would happen. Depends on the size of the mugger and my mood. In either case, you lose. Willing to take the chance?
If I seem combative, the long and short of it is this: KEEP YOUR MEATHOOKS OFF MY STUFF! Somebody tries to take my towel, and I might become aggressive.
Smile and have a nice day.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1191 |
|
|
|
nudeisntlewd
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 9:08:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by allnaturalwife
Like I said at our local beach there is VERY little unwanted photography. It probably has a lot to do with a group of very large men who surf there 4-5 times a week. They DO NOT tolerate any nonsense and it is well known amoung the crowds who attend that if you dont want your camera to fly into the ocean( with maybe you following close behind) that you just dont take pictures of people without their permission.
Like I have said before, and will say again: What you're advocating is illegal. I know you want to ignore that fact. So they're big. Call a big cop.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1191 |
|
|
|
StuffedTiger
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 02:13:06 AM
|
If you are not a public person, you actually do have a right to privacy when out in public. A photographer may snap your picture incidentally, but has no right to harass you with a camera or turn you into his model without your consent.
Reverse photography by taking pictures of such harassment in action is a valid basis for police to consider an investigation. Very often there will be incriminating or illegal activities involved that the harassing person would not want exposed, and they will depart quickly.
Come to think of it, someone harassing people by taking pictures of their children is unlikely to be just snapping a few shots, whether the kids are naked or clothed. The police might be very interested in that photographer.
OTOH, if the photographer is legit and harming nobody and not harassing anyone, then who cares?
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 246 |
|
|
|
Digital_Cowboy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 03:27:39 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by StuffedTiger
If you are not a public person, you actually do have a right to privacy when out in public. A photographer may snap your picture incidentally, but has no right to harass you with a camera or turn you into his model without your consent.
ST, please reference the passage in the Constitution that grants privacy as a "right." As there is no passage in the Constitution that grants such a "right."
Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld lower courts rulings, but that is NOT the same as saying that it's a "right."
quote:
Reverse photography by taking pictures of such harassment in action is a valid basis for police to consider an investigation. Very often there will be incriminating or illegal activities involved that the harassing person would not want exposed, and they will depart quickly.
Come to think of it, someone harassing people by taking pictures of their children is unlikely to be just snapping a few shots, whether the kids are naked or clothed. The police might be very interested in that photographer.
Why, IF all they're doing, is taking pictures? Surely you're aware that statistics show that a child is far more likely to be abducted, molested, or abused by either a friend or member of the family then they are by strangers. Which also goes back to my statement about peoples willingness to assume that others are up to "no good" rather then giving them the benefit of the doubt.
quote:
OTOH, if the photographer is legit and harming nobody and not harassing anyone, then who cares?
Exactly, but as you, yourself have shown, you're more willing to think ill of someone until you learn their motives.
Herman
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 310 |
|
|
|
later
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 11:55:21 AM
|
Both my wife and I have cell phones with camera feature, if the subject of the picture is more then twenty feet away the clarity sucks.If some one takes your picture from fifty feet away, it would not be clear enough to tell who it is. On top off that if you down load the pictures and enlarge them, they become a blur of pixals.
I agree it's rude for people to take your picture in the first place, but the quality from a phone camera is so bad I don't know what they'd do with them.
Plus as others have said your in a public place nude, you have to know some boozo is going to try to take pictures.
As a camera buff I can tell you if must worry, think about the person with a 35mm, mirror lens and tripod, 1000 feet away clicking away. That's person who is going to get crystal clear photos and you will never know.
For myself I don't care. Someone wants to take photos of me nude, go for it. I don't know why they would want pictures of an old fart like me anyway.
Bottom line is, if your going to be nude in public places, you take your chances, like it or not.
|
Edited by - later on 03/22/2007 12:06:52 PM |
|
Country: Canada
| Posts: 100 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
How to deal with camera phones on nude beaches ?
