I found these articles interesting, and I agree with most of them. In the case of Christopher Drew who was arrested for recording his own arrest I don't think that is right. I think that there is a double standard in place for photographing public events, specifically police events, in these cases that we read about. I believe that the double standard is that the images and videos are okay if they portray the police in a positive light, and they are illegal if they are shown as anything that can be read as questionable. I think the clearest example of this is of the motorcyclist who had a helmet camera on at the time of his arrest, but the police officer said nothing about it until almost 2 weeks after when he posted the video and it showed the officer in an unflattering way. I think that trying to control what people record in public is wrong, and also improbable. What about news stations, are they allowed to cover police happenings? And what about breaking news events, like the Boston Marathon Bombing. There is no way that the anyone could have controlled the type of visual coverage that was recorded.
What I found a little unsettling is the images by Cheryl Sourkes, especially the webcam images. It seems to me like she obtained many of these images possible through hacking into other peoples computers and looking through their webcams (even when the viewer thinks it is off). Which is bothersome to me, even though I never leave my computer open when I am not using it, I still feel like it is an invasion of privacy. And I think that this is a completely different issue than that raised with police trying to control public photography.
No comments:
Post a Comment