Think twice before you shoot random street photography

[babybluetx23]

Man this is kind of scary!!! Makes ya think twice about shooting random street photography without informing people who you are and what you are doing!!!
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/13418814/detail.html

[Wes]

Hmmmmm.... it does sound kind of suspicous. This doesn't sound like "random street photography" to me. Sounds like a potential stalker.

[TxLerman]

Originally Posted by Wes

Hmmmmm.... it does sound kind of suspicous. This doesn't sound like "random street photography" to me. Sounds like a potential stalker.

The truth is we really do not know how to view this incident. Maybe a potential stalker. Maybe a non-custodial parent looking to get a picture of their kid. Or maybe just a photographer taking pictures with no other intent or motivation.

What is alarming is the fact that merely taking a picture on the street is raising concerns these days. I doubt People would have called the police if the girl on the bike was 28 instead of 8.

[Wes]

Originally Posted by TxLerman

I doubt People would have called the police if the girl on the bike was 28 instead of 8.

Exactly! A man shooting pics of an 8 year old girl from a moving car.... I can't think of any scenario where this doesn't spell trouble. A photographer should know better, and a non-custodial parent could get a pic of the kid in a lot less-suspicious way.

Personally, if I had witnessed this same thing I would have contacted the authorities. You can't be too careful with kids these days.

[Paulo]

With the number of incidents of abduction/assaults/violence against both kids & adults shown in the media, it can be very difficult to remain trusting and not leery. I don't have children but I'd probably be the same way if someone driving on a street, just stop and start taking pictures of my wife. That's just seems weird to me.
Personally, it's easier for me to get over the idea of inadvertently hurting an innocent person's feelings than being wrong about trusting a stranger that actually has bad intent. And waiting until AFTER something happens doesn't really work for me.

[markfh]

I concur with the last two post.

[Gordeez]

Since he was driving around, and had a women Passenger,
Yeaaaaaa, id be worried too. If he wanted street Candid Photos,
he wouldn't be driving around. Only Pervs would get Candids of chicks
like that, IMO.

[Dobick]

I have a question, and I don't want it taken the wrong way, because it is not meant as an offense to anyone, parents especially:

What is the harm caused to children by taking their picture?

I am not talking about what it might lead to, or even the morality, or the scary world that exist today where kids get abducted, or abused. I am asking soley about a picture.

There are countless reports that have been posted on this board dealing with a photographer at a soccer game, or in front of their own house, or at wrestling matches, etc.

What harm can be done from that picture, to a child?

Maybe I do not possess a criminal mindset enough to imagine all the possibilities that can come from a photo, but I am having a tough time coming up with anything?

[shawn patrick]

Originally Posted by Dobick

I have a question, and I don't want it taken the wrong way, because it is not meant as an offense to anyone, parents especially:

What is the harm caused to children by taking their picture?

It steals their soul!!!!!

[mjdmike]

I can understand a concerned parent's point of view, but does anyone really know that the person was taking photos of the girl?

Not that she was making up the story, but maybe, just maybe, the guy was snapping photos of a home, car, scene or something else and had the camera pointed in her general direction. Kids these days are (understandably) conditioned to be suspicious of anyone they don't know, regardless of what they're doing. But for some reason, a camera in the vicinity of a child is often associated with an act of perversion.

I completely agree that kids should be taught to be aware of their surroundings and the people within, but having a camera, and/or taking a photo with a child in it does not mean the person is a molester.

I have to wonder if the camera/perv thing is really a valid concern, or is it something that's been planted in our subconscious through the media and movies. I KNOW there have been pervs arrested that were found to have photos of kids, so I'm not questioning that. But is that really the norm, or just what makes interesting news? Do most child molesters really go around documenting their victims before they commit the crime, or is it just popular belief? Does anyone have facts on this?

Last week, I was in San Antonio shooting photos of the Missions. I was at Mission San Juan, and had set up with a tripod to shoot a photo, when some kids on a class field trip came out of one of the buildings. A few of them saw me, one said "Hey, a camera.", and half the class ran over to get in front of the camera and started doing goofy kid stuff. Well, I have kids, and always enjoy goofy kid stuff, so I said, "Get crazy." and shot the photo. I didn't think twice about it until the teacher walked by and gave me "the look", like she was completely suspicious of my intentions. She didn't say anything, but she quickly gathered the kids and hurried them off, telling them that they shouldn't let strangers take photos of them.

I felt like a total jerk, yet I wasn't guilty of anything other than giving those kids a chance to be kids. The shot actually came out great, and I'd thought about sending it to their school, but after seeing the teacher's reaction, I quickly deleted it for fear of having an "unauthorized photo of a minor".

Is this rational thinking? Is it crazy to be so fearful of taking a photo of a child? What's so wrong with it?

Yet, there is a completely opposite point of view, one from a parent. And one I can understand. Why do you want a photo of my child? What are you going to do with it? Why can't you take the photo without my child in it? Why don't you just take photos of your own kids?

Rational thinking from a protective parent.

It's not a simple equation, and there's no simple resolution. That's why I'll simply try to take photos with no kids in them, and leave the shooting to their parents.

Sorry to rant, but this subject is interesting -- and scary...

Thoughts anyone?

[Rick Waldroup]

Mike, you bring up some really good points. Fear is a huge factor in our society now. Fear of the unknown. Fear that somehow, everyone is out to get everyone else. Fear that there is a pervert on every corner, behind every bush, hiding in every closet.

What is really weird is that a a child being molested or abducted by a total stranger is really a pretty rare occurence in this country. It happens, but not nearly as much a as people may think. Instead, a child is much more likely to be molested by someone they know- a relative, family friend, etc.

I am a street shooter and have been for many, many years and I cannot begin to tell you how hard it has become sometimes not to be questioned or even followed when I am out shooting. And forget about pointing a camera at a child. This has really become a problem since 9/11.

[mjdmike]

I agree, unfortunately fear is a huge factor in our everday lives.

[jeffkohn]

What gets me is that fears such as this are completely irrational and without merit. I mean OK, if somebody is taking up-skirt shots, or shots at a public beach or situation where kids (or people in general) are not fully clothed or are in some compromising situation, I can maybe see some cause for concern. But taking a picture of a kid walking down the street or playing on a playground? Please tell me how that can possibly harm a child. And why is it just kids that are at risk here, what about pretty women, interesting-looking people, the homeless, or just any person in general. If photographers start caving to this type of pressure, next thing you know we won't be able to take pictures in public places if there's another living soul within a square mile. It just doesn't make any sense. There are far more pressing concerns that people should be worried about than some dude with a camera out on the street.

[Dobick]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

What gets me is that fears such as this are completely irrational and without merit. I mean OK, if somebody is taking up-skirt shots, or shots at a public beach or situation where kids (or people in general) are not fully clothed or are in some compromising situation, I can maybe see some cause for concern. But taking a picture of a kid walking down the street or playing on a playground? Please tell me how that can possibly harm a child. And why is it just kids that are at risk here, what about pretty women, interesting-looking people, the homeless, or just any person in general. If photographers start caving to this type of pressure, next thing you know we won't be able to take pictures in public places if there's another living soul within a square mile. It just doesn't make any sense. There are far more pressing concerns that people should be worried about than some dude with a camera out on the street.

That was the exact point of my question. Unless you are of the belief as stated earlier that a photograph steals the soul, I can think of no instance at all where a photograph can cause harm. I can see that posting a photograph online might cause some issues, but from everything that I can tell, that is not what is at issue here.

A child (nor anyone else for that matter) has ever been harmed by the act of photography without the presence of some other crime being committed, no more so than the act of looking at someone. They involve the exact same principles of physics, and until someone develops a retinal laser, it will remain a benign activity.

[Trinitee]

Originally Posted by Dobick

That was the exact point of my question. Unless you are of the belief as stated earlier that a photograph steals the soul, I can think of no instance at all where a photograph can cause harm. I can see that posting a photograph online might cause some issues, but from everything that I can tell, that is not what is at issue here.

A child (nor anyone else for that matter) has ever been harmed by the act of photography without the presence of some other crime being committed, no more so than the act of looking at someone. They involve the exact same principles of physics, and until someone develops a retinal laser, it will remain a benign activity.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the physical picture of the child, it's all about the intent of what this individual has in mind (if any) to do with it.
This same principal applies to guns... "Guns don't kill... people that use them do" and many other scenarios. It's all about INTENT. Since we don't live in a "Leave it to Beaver" neighborhood, one must question everything and everyone.
I guess until one becomes a parent or a parent that has lost a child due to kidnapping (I have... but got her back) one wouldn't take this action lightly and try to make justifications about it, (no offense intended towards anyone.. just speaking as a 3rd party) because all one would have in mind is the well being of the child before anything else.
This is the second story in this week posted about a photog stalking and taking pictures of a child. Yes, it's a very sad and dangerous world out there... extra precaution is necessary.
If I had witnessed this... I would have reported him or questioned his intent myself, without any doubt in my mind. Even if it wasn’t my child.