It’s not about getting good quality photos of good looking naked people. It’s about voyeurism, pure and simple. The photos don’t have to be good quality, all they have to be of is a person in a state of undress who doesn’t know they’re having their picture taken and probably would object to it if they knew it was happening.
The thrill these pervs get is in doing something that they shouldn’t be doing that gives them a sense of power over someone else.
That’s my take on it anyway
Couldn’t you just ban the use of cell phones in the locker rooms at pools? This seems to be the place where people are vulnerable. If your kids are running around in public in outfits that you don’t consider appropriate for pictures, maybe you need to reconsider how you dress them. No cameras at public pools? I don’t get it. Like someone else said, they are PUBLIC. You can GO to the pool and watch these same people in person. You could put your towel down next to them and watch them. OK, you can’t stare at them intently, but thats more due to social stigma than due to any law. So why can’t you take pictures at a pool?
And please understand I am not defending people taking pictures of teens or kids at pools, but if they are out in public where everyone can see them anyway I don’t see why pictures are a big deal.
**Should camera phones be banned from all swimming pools? **
No, they shouldn’t. Sooner or later, with technological advances, nearly all phones will be equipped with this function. Look at the trend. All phones evolved to be SMS-able and are on their way to having polyphonic ringtones. Similarly, camera phones will be an inevitability.
There is no sense depriving people their communications devices just because technology moved foward.
If the pervs want to do it, they’ll still do it anyway, with pinhole/pen-held cameras or whatever.
Sure, banning phones might be a way to stopping them, but is it the most effective? Does the projected intangible benefit outweigh the opportunity cost of inconveniencing the whole swimming community?
I think it’s more sensible to post signs informing the community that there actually IS such a danger, and leaving the community to deal with it.
After all, with the legalisation of firearms, the commmunity evolved to react/deal with it. I feel that a similar analogy applies.
Lizard - I think the difference arises because almost all UK pools are indoor, and you couldn’t get a photo just by driving near them. You have to pay a fee to enter the pool. You also have to pay a fee to enter the viewing area, which is intended for competitions, and staff would quickly start to get suspicious of some guy frequently sitting in the viewing area at normal times, with no child of his own with him.
I didn’t know US pools were so easy to see from the outside. I have no idea whether Australian pools are. They really shouldn’t be, anyway - couldn’t the chain-link be replaced with a proper fence?
Legally in the UK you cannot photograph a child without the parents’ permission. I might have a look for cites on this later if you want - I just remember that it came up with regard to Princes William and Harry. I don’t know what the case is in Australia.
Banning cameras doesn’t stop some paedophiles from just sitting watching the kids, but it does stop them from going a step further, and taking photos (possibly to share with others or post online). I agree that the children don’t come to any immediate harm from having a photo of them available - though you could make a slipper-slope argument: if it’s easy for a paedophile to go and leer at kids, and then it’s easy for him to obtain photos of them, it’s one step closer to actually molesting a child. In any case, I don’t want people getting off on photos of my child.
If your kids are running around in public in outfits that you don’t consider appropriate for pictures, maybe you need to reconsider how you dress them.
Huh? We’re talking about swimming pools. Kids wear swimming costumes to go swimming. How can you possibly dress them any diferently?
** Sorry for the hijack, but here the lockers in all pools are individuals. You get your own little “cubicle”. You undress and leave your clothes there and come back when you leave the pool to put your clothes back on, etc…If I understand correctly what I’m reading, in the UK and the US, people essentially all undress/dress in the same common room? **
Here there’s usually a mixture, cubicles and open changing rooms (single sex). My own pool’s changing rooms are unisex, which I hate, but that’s a different issue.
Apologies for the frelled-up coding.
Not every U.S. pool is that easy to spy on, but many are. Lots of pools are outdoors and only used seasonally, because swimming is not thought of as a “sport” in many places, and considered something to do only when it’s hot out. Pools that are used for competitions, with swimming lanes, etc., are usually indoors. And I’ve never heard of charging a fee to enter the viewing area!
And I have heard of this UK law before. Strangely, in my work as a reporter I ran across all kinds of Americans (usually in small towns) who seemed to think it was that way here, even when children weren’t involved. I remember on one occasion covering a house fire, and a woman behind me called the police because she was offended my photog was shooting the fire and the house’s owner! Most of my fellow citizens have no idea how loosely regulated the U.S. media is, nor do they know why it is that way. Sad, but c’est la vie.
I see your point, but what about the light sensitive area, that captures the image? If it’s only 100x100 pixels, then the image quality will still be poor, no matter how good the lens is. Conversely if it’s better than that, you’ll get a much better quality image. Do camera phones take high quality image?
I see your point. I was thinking of it on a practical level. Could someone sue the alleged voyeur if the quality of the image was such that you couldn’t identify the person in the photo? If you can’t, then would the law be really enforcable?
I don’t disagree with your position, I’m looking at how the law might be practicably applied.
If I catch someone taking pics of me in the shower the next 3 images on the camera will be of their large colon, followed by a broom handle, and then their tonsils.
I like the idea of a clicking sound. Even my digital camera doesn’t make noise (at least it looks like a camera).
“I see your point, but what about the light sensitive area, that captures the image? If it’s only 100x100 pixels, then the image quality will still be poor, no matter how good the lens is. Conversely if it’s better than that, you’ll get a much better quality image. Do camera phones take high quality image?”
You´re right; if the subject is too far away it will look like just a bunch of pixels in the picture. However changing rooms are not usually that large. If the picture is taken from one side of the pool to the oposite then it becomes more obvious.