Onson Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 On 10/15/2019 at 8:24 PM, Mitch said: Name: HC Comment: It's not invading privacy in any-way since everything that has happened occurred within public realms, such as public road, public frequencies and public radio channels. No laws broken on Saints part, EA? Most likely. Username: Dani Comment: It is invading their private lives. Their privates lives involve the aforementioned racing, and on top of this; the radio channel isn't public. It's only given to those who are associated with John Monroe, and his friends. The fact the reporter was constantly hiding up on hills, and on roofs just to take pictures and videos of these people (mind you without their consent) is honestly extremely weird and creepy. This literally IS invasion of privacy. Link to comment
Westen Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Onson said: Username: Dani Comment: It is invading their private lives. Their privates lives involve the aforementioned racing, and on top of this; the radio channel isn't public. It's only given to those who are associated with John Monroe, and his friends. The fact the reporter was constantly hiding up on hills, and on roofs just to take pictures and videos of these people (mind you without their consent) is honestly extremely weird and creepy. This literally IS invasion of privacy. Username: Traffic Warden Comment: You should have no reasonable expectation of privacy whilst in public, especially on a road. There is even a supreme court case (Carrol vs US) that states there is a lower expectation of privacy in a car. Link to comment
Onson Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Just now, Westen said: Username: Traffic Warden Comment: You should have no reasonable expectation of privacy whilst in public, especially on a road. There is even a supreme court case (Carrol vs US) that states there is a lower expectation of privacy in a car. Username: DaniComment: She still was invading their private radio, and was constantly taking pictures and videos of them without their consent. It may not be illegal, but its still morally wrong, and very creepy. Link to comment
Westen Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Just now, Onson said: Username: DaniComment: She still was invading their private radio, and was constantly taking pictures and videos of them without their consent. It may not be illegal, but its still morally wrong, and very creepy. Username: Traffic Warden Comment: I think context plays a very key role in this. The purposes of the pictures were investigative; not to be creepy. Is it morally wrong and creepy for Detectives to do stakeouts? Link to comment
Engelbert Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Username: JLixx Comment: unwanted and/or repeated surveillance by an individual or group toward another person - Stalking. Detectives are fine, cause it is official. Sensation hunting however is...not. Link to comment
Onson Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Just now, Westen said: Username: Traffic Warden Comment: I think context plays a very key role in this. The purposes of the pictures were investigative; not to be creepy. Is it morally wrong and creepy for Detectives to do stakeouts? Username: DaniComment: It's morally wrong for a person who has no business in their privates lives to invade said private lives. A detective has no correlation or to this as an example, because that is their JOB. This person is a civilian taking matters into their own hands, and taking recordings and pictures of people partaking in their private lives. She is literally following the people wherever they meet up and just hang out at, and standing on top of roofs and hills to take pictures and videos. On top of that, it's not morally wrong for a detective to do it; because they're doing it for a good reason, to stop crime and arrest a suspect. Link to comment
Onson Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Engelbert said: Username: JLixx Comment: unwanted and/or repeated surveillance by an individual or group toward another person - Stalking. Detectives are fine, cause it is official. Sensation hunting however is...not. Username: DaniComment: Finally a person with common sense, and common decency. Thank you. Link to comment
Westen Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Onson said: Username: DaniComment: It's morally wrong for a person who has no business in their privates lives to invade said private lives. A detective has no correlation or to this as an example, because that is their JOB. This person is a civilian taking matters into their own hands, and taking recordings and pictures of people partaking in their private lives. She is literally following the people wherever they meet up and just hang out at, and standing on top of roofs and hills to take pictures and videos. On top of that, it's not morally wrong for a detective to do it; because they're doing it for a good reason, to stop crime and arrest a suspect. Username: Traffic Warden Comment: One might argue that the investigator in this article had good reason - for the purposes of crime prevention and awareness. Huh. Link to comment
Onson Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Just now, Westen said: Username: Traffic Warden Comment: One might argue that the investigator in this article had good reason - for the purposes of crime prevention and awareness. Huh. Username: DaniComment: It's not an official case, due to the back its conducted by a civilian. Detectives work for the GOVERNMENT, they are MEANT to do things like these, while a civilian on the other hand; are not meant to do these things. If this was taken to a court of law, this would be considered stalking; because the reporter followed the group around the city, and repeatedly took pictures and videos of them, which is literally the definition of stalking. On top of that, writing an entire article on said racing as a hit piece, instead of keeping it out of the public eye and actually doing straight crime prevention; by taking it straight to the police. Link to comment
Engelbert Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 (edited) Username: JLixx Comment: To elaborate on my previous comment. Such footage and photos cannot even be taken into consideration during a trial, as they weren't obtained the official way, rather coming from a civilian source. If this was all cause of prevention and awareness, said imvestigator was obliged to notify the PD cause it's their civilian duty, by not doing so, they failed their civilian duty plus violated the law themselves. Edited October 17, 2019 by Engelbert Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now