Looks “definite,” eh?
But it wasn’t.
The owner of the drone is a Portland, OR.-based company called Skyris Imaging, which was doing photography related to a planned apartment building at that site. You can see the picture it took at local Portland news channel KGW, along with a complete and (IMHO) reasonable explanation from the drone operator.
It’s probably illegal to fly a drone with a video camera in a high school girls’ locker room, though. Even if all you’re just interested in is efficient ways to lay out the lockers, showers, and benches.
Spoil sport !!! :mad:
In Jr. High, Coach Larson used to sit on the dividing wall between the lockers and the showers to ‘make sure the boys were actually showering’. :dubious:
Coach Emily Larson? Yeah, she did. What of it? 
If someone’s following you about taking pictures, or taking pictures of you specifically when you don’t know them (and it is reasonable for you to say that they’re of you specifically, like with them standing up really close to you rather than you being in the background) they are usually violating some law relating to harrassment, depending on where you live.
I don’t mean they’ll get thrown in jail, but there are very good odds they’ll be told to stop doing that and delete the photos. Especially if you’re just an ordinary Joe rather than a celeb or politician.
Yes, actually, it is. The camera was high up enough for any pictures to not be of her kids specifically, just of the area.
I’ve been on a beach (in Wales) where I noticed some people setting up a “drone” with a camera and then sending it about on a low level at the other end of the beach (where there were no people). It seemed ike they were going to send it along our end at the same level, and I was concerned, but I was thinking more about the safety aspect of the drone hitting people than anything perve-related.
It didn’t - it went up really high before it got near to people. Like this kid’s camera did.
No, it was a guy.
Um. I know. Sorry for the joke.
Agreed that the reason given is plausible. It doesn’t mean to me that the photo posted was the only one taken, but there was at least a legitimate reason for the drone to be where it was.
I’d be curious to see what Ms. Pleiss had to say publicly (if anything) after her conversation with Vaughn.
This link purports to show a tweet from the company (prior to the hue and cry) about the 20-story building survey mission.
That strikes me as greater evidence that there was a legitimate reason for the drone to be in the air and photographing. It still does nothing in my mind to say that the operators of the drone didn’t later happen upon a naked woman (perhaps by accident) and decide to look for a little while until they were discovered. Probably no proof either way, but again, I wonder if the woman’s concerns were alleviated by the conversation she had with the company owner.
Here’s the thing, if you are in public, you have no right to privacy in regrd to being photographed, filmed, or even having your conversation recored or listened to.
Either they are doing something illegal or they are not. People can ask that you delete your photos but there’s very little anyone can do to make that happen. I can be told all sorts of things, even by the police, but unless ordered legally to do so it’s not going to happen.
Harassment laws are important and exist for a reason. But simply taking photos of someone shouldn’t rise to that level, even if it makes some people uncomfortable. If you are in public you simply don’t have the right not to have your picture taken. What you do with those pictures after (publishing, merchandising) is another story, but taking them is pretty much OK.
A bit like “Bummer” Barnett at my old school making sure they had towelled themselves properly dry. :dubious: [sup]2[/sup]
Yes. We all have agreed on that in this thread. Several times. The discussion is whether it is polite to do so.
No, the discussion is about this kid who wasn’t taking pictures of anyone getting beat up by a crazy person.
That’s a very boring discussion, since everybody in this thread seems to be in agreement that she was insane. The thread derailed long ago into an argument about the courtesy of filming people in the general sense and where the limits are, which I was discussing in the post you quoted.
And it seems to me we’ve pretty much worn out the debate on whether the kid’s level of impoliteness (rudeness) was egregious enough to warrant the woman’s level of impoliteness. I don’t understand why the debate has dragged on for so many pages (50 posts per page!) when it’s pretty-much a globally accepted legal tenet that, while the woman had every right to complain and oppose the filming, she transgressed the law by using violence to do so.
There are legal/moral codes which encourage severe punishment for minor transgressions – the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, ancient Chinese Legalism, and ancient Abrahamic end-justifies-the-means approaches to constituent control come to mind – but modern scholars consider those practices to be outdated and exceedingly harsh. Even the average person today is familiar with the comical lampoon of the Old West gunslinger rationalizing, “I killed him ‘cuz I din’t like the way he was lookin’ at me.”
We consider such an attitude to be the habits of evil characters in our literature; we consider such harsh behavior to be unacceptable in modern society.
Readers’ Digest version: What the lady did was evil. Modern societies tend to separate such evil-doers from the rest of their constituents in order to protect the general populace. I hope we do so with that lady as well.
It’s been a while (and a lot of discussion) since the incident was publicized. Does anyone have any follow-up information?
—G!
I don’t care “What would Jesus Do?”
My bumper-sticker says, “What would Bruce Lee do?”
Gee, I wonder how that happened.
There hasn’t been any debate about that. The specific case is absolutely, 100% agreed by everybody in this thread. The general issue, however…
People like you and me going on a side issue, I guess. It’s how this things tend to end up.