Invasion of Privacy? Ref: Pg 18 - Page 11

Originally posted by: monar

we are moving in a circle.. ain't we? 🤔

Paparazzi won't take private moment from "common men" but "public figures" remove public from there and they are no more interested. Where as Burglars are more human when it comes to prey upon, they don't bother about your socio economical status.

Also candid photography in public places is perfectly legal. People cannot expect privacy unless they are on private property. It becomes hard to draw legal lines on public photography. What next, getting sued because another family accidentally appears in our Disney pictures?

Originally posted by: blue-ice

What do the burglars do with stolen goods...sell them somewhere for money...don't the paparazzi do the same thing...they steal and they sell the goods...

u r more tham welcome to like my posts..😆

You have to blame somebody, and you can't blame the ones who stole, can you, so why not blame the paparazzi who may have taken the pictures of the burglars... 😆

How do you define goods?

Originally posted by: monar

ah! if privacy is that imp for these "celebs" than they wouldnt be a celeb.. cummon you want to be in Sky as well on earth at the same time .. not possible...

OK so if its not important to them then it deserves to be stolen...stealing cannot be justified under any circumstances...I am talking about principles here...stealing is wrong period...I don't have an iota of sympathy for the celebrities or the paparazzi...😆..

How can we compare something ambiguous and abstract like privacy with something concrete and material like hard goods? How can we determine "crimes" based on privacy when the very notion of privacy can be subjective?

Paparazzi can be unethical and questionable, but its odd comparing paparazzi to burglary. The only time paparazzi is crime when it amounts to stalking or invading "privacy" in "private property".

Originally posted by: monar

we are moving in a circle.. ain't we? 🤔

yes we are...we both r thinking from the way we see things...while i agree with almost all that you have said...the only thing i don't agree is on sharing the blame part...I for one do not blame others for my mistakes nor do i take blame for others mistakes...that the gist of it...

[QUOTE=night13
How do you define goods?
[/QUOTE]

what happened to ur dictionary?

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

How can we compare something ambiguous and abstract like privacy with something concrete and material like hard goods? How can we determine "crimes" based on privacy when the very notion of privacy can be subjective?

Paparazzi can be unethical and questionable, but its odd comparing paparazzi to burglary. The only time paparazzi is crime when it amounts to stalking or invading "privacy" in "private property".

Privacy is no more ambiguous and abstract when its in the form of pics and videos or sound bytes...

Originally posted by: blue-ice

Is privacy considered goods... as long as you are not asking me to define private parts...😆
Edited by night13 - 12 years ago

Originally posted by: night13

ya ...when you get paid to steal it ...😆

Originally posted by: blue-ice

OK so if its not important to them then it deserves to be stolen...stealing cannot be justified under any circumstances...I am talking about principles here...stealing is wrong period...I don't have an iota of sympathy for the celebrities or the paparazzi...😆..

ah now you are talking about one sided interest.. Paparazzi and Celebs' relation is need basis where both parties are involved and moreover they know the existence of each other in "public" places, whereas burglary there is sole interest of one party...

@Photography at public place solely depends how and what the motive is... I usually take random photographs mostly sunset or sunrise .. my secret obsession with deep colored sky...