Random Thoughts II

[Redneck]

Originally Posted by zeekiorage

Well it seems the names have been already posted online.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...0529128&pnum=0

"Professor Optican"

Heh

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Then he bans it from all media and not just the online news portals.


And, as it's all about to be published in the print and on TV will be completely negate that attempt at censorship anyway.

Here comes Draco the pseudo intellectual pontificating on something that he knows nothing about again. WHAT. A. FUCKING. SURPRISE.

Here's a question: have you read Judge Harvey's decision? Not the snippets the media gave you but the actual decision. If you want to pontificate on what one of the most senior members of the District Court judiciary wrote, at least have the decency to do this AFTER reading his decision.

Judge Harvey's point (yes I have read his decision, unlike you) is that, amongst other things, the web medium is capable of being captured by search engines and access to materials previously made available is much easier online than offline.

Judges are frequently concerned about prospective jurors going off and researching things on their own and prejudicing the right to fair trial. Generally speaking, human nature tells those of us with a brain and a degree of imagination (you may be necessarily excluded from this class, Draco, but that's anothr matter) that people are more likely to breach the directions of a Judge not to go off and research the case on their own as a juror when such materials are easily available online while hiding behind an IP number and a computer screen. This is as opposed to a situation where said prospective juror might have to go and request the news bulletin featuring the accused from TV 3 in person knowing that this is not permissible or getting the private entity's cooperation much more difficult.

Common sense also suggests to those of us who are normal that memories associated with something as ordinary as a news bulletin on TV or a newspaper article merely read many, many months ago tend to fade by the time the criminal matter goes to trial. This is bearing in mind that most serious indictable criminal matters take at least a year before going to trial.

So bearing in mind all these issues and the Judge's duty to balance the accused's right to fair trials and the freedom of expression of the media, the Judge reached the decision that he did. You can, of course, disagree with his decision but at least demonstrate a degree of intellectual rigour and respect for someone far more learned than you by engaging in some real arguments, rather than delivering some stupid one-liner.

"Oh no people who don't buy newspapers can't masturbate with their friends over the names of these accused. That's denying their right to participate in the community!" Oh the fucking tragedy of it all, Draco. You want a Kleenex to cry into?

[?>Superman]

Cyc vs Draco

[zeekiorage]

I am no lawyer and obviously the Judge and the NZG in-house lawyers have tons more knowledge about law than most people around here. I also accept that the accused are not guilty while the case is still pending.

But most people here do know how affective banning is on the Internet. If you know how Internet works and how everyone on the Internet wants to be a champion of free speech you would know that allowing print, tv and radio while banning online reporting is not going to work.

I am sure there have been many cases where the public interest was huge and the judge still decided to give interim name suppression to the accused. Those cases didn't even receive half of the online attention that this murder case is going to receive. I see that it already made Slashdot front page yesterday.

The judge has good intentions but the effectiveness of online-only ban is questionable. If this was an experiment then I am afraid the results are not going to be good.

[cyc]

^^^^^^

Draco, please see the above as an example of intelligent discussion as opposed to your stupid one-liner-making.

[Rince]

Originally Posted by zeekiorage

I am no lawyer and obviously the Judge and the NZG in-house lawyers have tons more knowledge about law than most people around here. I also accept that the accused are not guilty while the case is still pending.

But most people here do know how affective banning is on the Internet. If you know how Internet works and how everyone on the Internet wants to be a champion of free speech you would know that allowing print, tv and radio while banning online reporting is not going to work.

I am sure there have been many cases where the public interest was huge and the judge still decided to give interim name suppression to the accused. Those cases didn't even receive half of the online attention that this murder case is going to receive. I see that it already made Slashdot front page yesterday.

The judge has good intentions but the effectiveness of online-only ban is questionable. If this was an experiment then I am afraid the results are not going to be good.

Insightful



new topic.... cyc, I know this is not your area of expertise, but do you have any information that might help me with the following?

There is a lot of media reports regarding the UK and their photographers being told (incorrectly, as I understand it) that they are not allowed to take photos in a public place, and in fact, in some cases having their memory cards taken off them and destroyed (which I thought the police had not power to do so without arresting you).
Others have been told as amateurs they have no rights, only pro photographers (ie the press) are protected under law.


I've had a bit of a search around, but I cannot find a definitive statement regarding our rights - or at least in simple layman's terms!


What is the law? I believe, in a public place, I'm allowed, as a very amateur photographer, to take photos of almost anything. Am I right?
Also, UK photographers have a great little booklet they can print off and carry with them, so they are fully aware of their rights: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
Is there something similar for us Kiwis?

[cyc]

Are you wanting info on taking photographs of public places in NZ or the UK? If it's NZ I can certainly clarify the legalities.

[Gentl e]

Originally Posted by Rince

Insightful

new topic.... cyc, I know this is not your area of expertise, but do you have any information that might help me with the following?

Segue sandwiches anyone :>

[Kryten]

Originally Posted by cyc

Are you wanting info on taking photographs of public places in NZ or the UK? If it's NZ I can certainly clarify the legalities.

NZ please - I'm particularly interested in your take on what a "public place" is defined as, having been told by a certain individual at a NZKC dog show that I was unable to record his dogs while filming my own. TIA

[Lightspeed]

I am in love with Lara Logan.

[Rince]

Originally Posted by cyc

Are you wanting info on taking photographs of public places in NZ or the UK? If it's NZ I can certainly clarify the legalities.

sorry - should have clarified - I read a lot of UK websites, and I find they have a lot of people watching their backs, so to speak... so I'm interested in NZ.... which seems to have very little information - especially in layman's terms.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by cyc

stuff

The only ones who are proving themselves stupid are the people who can't realise that such discriminatory rulings undermine the freedom that we, apparently, operate under. Online news organisations get their readership from reporting news, they get their income from selling advertising space and they can only sell that if they have readership. That readership, and therefore their income, will suffer if they can't report the news. The newspapers, TV and radio will pretty much have their advertisement space sold and their income assured because they're not so restricted. So, how many shares in a print only newspaper does the judge have? No, I don't think that's why the judge made his decision but it's a valid question after such a discriminatory ruling.

It was also a bloody stupid ruling - by making it he ensured that it would be over the entire internet within hours of the names/pictures being released. As could easily be predicted and what actually happened.

If he wanted to ensure a fair trial then the only option he had was full suppression. Both to prevent a rather nasty form of discrimination and to try and ensure that the defendants get a fair trial.

[zeekiorage]

The names of accused now on first result page of a Google search.

I hope I am not breaking the law by linking to Google results now.

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by Kryten

NZ please - I'm particularly interested in your take on what a "public place" is defined as, having been told by a certain individual at a NZKC dog show that I was unable to record his dogs while filming my own. TIA

I think it is quite a gray area. At dancing competitions that my daughter enters we are banned from filming or taking photos as its too painful to get people to sign forms saying its ok to film. There is always a few that say no so therefore no one can film anything. Not even the prize giving.

[CCS]

What would they do if you were recording the prize giving anyway?

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by CCS

What would they do if you were recording the prize giving anyway?

Not allowed to take cameras. They ask you to put it away or you can leave. The prize giving is done so that more than one kid is on stage at a time so if one of the little darlings is on the "no filming' list its too much of a pain for them to police.

Totally sucks.

[CCS]

So uhh... what if you just told them to get fucked and got out your camera any way?

Sounds to me like they're being a bunch of precious ninnies.

[Mickey]

Rules are rules I guess. It happens a lot. Even school events are starting to ban cameras as some parents don't want their kids image on the net. Not sure I would want my kid on a website for some pervy old fuck to fap over either.

[CCS]

Sure, rules are rules. They also get broken all the time. Obeying a rule you don't like just because someone said you have to is just sheeplike.

Besides, I really don't think that perverts on the internet are looking for prize giving tapes to jerk off to. It's simple paranoia from people who don't understand technology.

[Mickey]

No but they are looking for kids in leotards with make up on.

It's not a matter of understanding technology, its a matter of being a citizen in society. Im not about to bust out a camera when we sign a thing saying we wont. Its a condition of entry.

Its hardly sheeplike. Its just the way it is.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

The only ones who are proving themselves stupid are the people who can't realise that such discriminatory rulings undermine the freedom that we, apparently, operate under. Online news organisations get their readership from reporting news, they get their income from selling advertising space and they can only sell that if they have readership. That readership, and therefore their income, will suffer if they can't report the news. The newspapers, TV and radio will pretty much have their advertisement space sold and their income assured because they're not so restricted. So, how many shares in a print only newspaper does the judge have? No, I don't think that's why the judge made his decision but it's a valid question after such a discriminatory ruling.

There's no common law right to make a profit. Try a bit harder next time.

Oh BTW, I can just see the flow of advertising to newspapers as a result of them featuring the name of a few accused persons. Yes, Draco said so and I must therefore believe it!

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Mickey

No but they are looking for kids in leotards with make up on.

It's not a matter of understanding technology, its a matter of being a citizen in society. Im not about to bust out a camera when we sign a thing saying we wont. Its a condition of entry.

Its hardly sheeplike. Its just the way it is.

No, it is sheeplike. But hey, if your idea of 'being citizen in society' is to always to as you're told without question, then good luck and have a wonderful life. Just don't complain about things you don't agree with.

[Mickey]

It's called being an adult.

[CCS]

If your definition of being an adult is to never think for yourself, then I don't ever want to grow up.

[Mickey]

Youre easier to bait than Haydos. A++ would trade again.

[DrTiTus]

I just found that Ubuntu has a standard preference built in to map the Windows key to CTRL, so my Apple browsing habits work

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Mickey

Youre easier to bait than Haydos. A++ would trade again.

Lol, you're baiting me? So pretending that you're a sap is your idea of getting one over on me? Haha, I guess you're easily amused.

[Rince]

re ccs v mickey...
The reason I asked cyc to help clarify the NZ position re taking photos in a PUBLIC place, is because in the UK at the moment there is some very heavy debate going on: photographers are losing their rights to pull out their cameras whenever they want... which is as I understand it, the current law.... cops (or even worse community policing support officers) are demanding photographers delete their memory cards... or worse. When in fact as it stands right now, they have no right without arresting the photographer - they are relying on bullying tactics and hoping the public doesn't know their rights..... or they'll attempt to quote the Terrorism Act 2000. El Reg has been covering it now for a few months


And I'd quite like to be 100% of my rights should I'm ever in the situation (in NZ - it's going to be a while before I get back to the UK) of an over-eager Mr Plod

Obviously "piss off fascist" isn't going to get me very far.
But "well, actually officer, The Protection of Rincey Taking Pics That Did Happen Act 2008 states what I'm doing right now is OK. So, no, I won't hand over my camera, nor will I delete the images off my memory card" sounds a lot better.

CCS, if Mickey is at a school-run function - it probably isn't in public, so there you go.
Mickey, what CCS is alluding to in his subtle way, is know your rights - by knowing your rights, you can stand up for yourself and avoid the sheep mentality.


The stupid thing about the UK situation is if it were terrorists taking pics for intel gathering - they would be doing it with covert cameras, not stonking great big dSLRs.
Irony: I was going through my old photos from my OE, and I found 1/2 dozen snaps I had taken of the ziggurat-like SIS Building, aka MI6

[Saladin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith_(novel)

[Ab]

Rincey: this is an interesting post made to the Digital Photography School blog. It contains a bunch of informative links.

http://digital-photography-school.co...rivacy-advice/

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Rince

CCS, if Mickey is at a school-run function - it probably isn't in public, so there you go.

That is correct. All I was trying to suss out initially is whether the people running this dance club actually have any credible recourse if somebody breaks their rules. When the most intelligent thing she could say was "Because it's the rules!" I thought I'd push the issue


Rince, I'm pretty certain there's nothing to stop you taking photos in public... certainly nothing like what seems to be happening in the UK, anyway. I'm sure we would've heard something about people having problems.

[tarzan007]

You are allowed to photograph/film anyone in a public place in New Zealand. Even if they say "don't film me" you are still allowed to.

On private property, you have to have permission.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by tarzan007

You are allowed to photograph/film anyone in a public place in New Zealand. Even if they say "don't film me" you are still allowed to.

On private property, you have to have permission.

Just because you really really want it to be so doesn't mean that it is.

See Police v Rowe, Dunedin, 20 February 2004. Rowe engaged in "surreptitious photographing of high school girls walking to school along a public street", and was charged and convicted. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

[Redneck]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PLPR/2006/2.html

"legitimate purpose"

[pkp|ex]

Django is win

[Rince]

thanks all:
Ab, your Police v Rowe was what made me think about this. Also your blog link is typical of other sites I'd already found: full of great general info but not much NZ-specific stuff, except for....
....Redneck, your link was about the only NZ-based site I could find, and other than the Rowe case, I was finding it not-layman terms enough

Be interesting to see what cyc digs up
I also have an email I'm waiting for a reply to from the CAB. (The quoted text from my first post on this subject).

[cyc]

Originally Posted by tarzan007

You are allowed to photograph/film anyone in a public place in New Zealand. Even if they say "don't film me" you are still allowed to.

On private property, you have to have permission.

Oh dear, Tarzan you really, really haven't got an idea of how misleading that is. As promised, I will do a quick write-up on this at some point.

And I wouldn't take your average CAB lawyer's advice on any point that requires some degree of research...

[blynk]

Originally Posted by Mickey

I think it is quite a gray area. At dancing competitions that my daughter enters we are banned from filming or taking photos as its too painful to get people to sign forms saying its ok to film. There is always a few that say no so therefore no one can film anything. Not even the prize giving.

Screw that. So I can't take a copy of my kids performances for memories because some dumb fk doesn't want there kid filmed. If I was the studio, I would say, these will be filmed, don't like it, seeya.
Of course, if they are worried about dodgy people filming it, you could limit it to the children's guardians. Or do it themselves.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by zeekiorage

The names of accused now on first result page of a Google search.

I hope I am not breaking the law by linking to Google results now.

Only if you mention that it's the 5th link down.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by cyc

There's no common law right to make a profit. Try a bit harder next time.

You do know that all the revolutions that mankind has been through over the last few centuries was to prevent such arbitrary rulings by the King and Judiciary don't you?

The ruling is discriminatory on grounds that are completely baseless.