I was told I couldn't take a picture of Donald Duck!

[Robo]

As for the second I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, not all children in the Foster system have led the most safe and worry free lives and unfortunately they need privacy. Information about their whereabouts could be easily used to take them out of their safe Foster home, and back into a situation of HARM.

Knowing that they were standing in front of the Turkey Leg kiosk on Thursday, the 14th of May, can't alert a snatcher to their location on the 26th of May.

 

[Phibbles]

I have relatives with foster children and they are not allowed to be photographed

At a place like DIsney the kids would wear hats and sunglasses, they wouldn't go to the stage if picked at a show, and they ask the CM to turn off the camera so they can go on the photograph rides.

Foster children? Sounds more like witness protection. That is a lot of precaution to protect a kid from a bad parent.

 

[Phibbles]

Knowing that they were standing in front of the Turkey Leg kiosk on Thursday, the 14th of May, can't alert a snatcher to their location on the 26th of May.

 

[PixieDust32]

Give me a break, god knows in how many pics my kids are in, and if that was the 'rule' how come only that particular handler mentioned? In my case the handler and the character were rude.

 

[PixieDust32]

Yes, but the freaks will get the pictures anyway, they aren't going to give a darn whether or not there is a character in the photo, so I can't think this is entirely about photos of children.

Exactly! If the pervs want to take pics of the children they can do it and we won't even know it, please!

 

[merryweather20]

Knowing that they were standing in front of the Turkey Leg kiosk on Thursday, the 14th of May, can't alert a snatcher to their location on the 26th of May.

Do I have to beat you over the head here? They know they were in Florida, they know what their Foster parents look like etc, etc,

 

[MonicaInFlorida]

I think the point being made is no physical harm can come to a child from having their photograph taken. A photo cannot harm. What someone does with that photo is another thing entirely. BTW, when you take the kids to the store, school, church, etc. someone could be taking their pictures and you'd never know. It's probably more likely that will happen during your every day life, than some pervert following you to Disney. I don't doubt that pedophiles vacation at Disney, but you'll never be able to pick them out in a crowd. There's really not much you can do. And regarding asking a Photopass photographer to shut off the camera on a ride, what about the other people who might want their picture taken? You give up any right to privacy when you're in a public place.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

[Robo]

Do I have to beat you over the head here? They know they were in Florida, they know what their Foster parents look like etc, etc,

A little less beating would make your points seem less outrageous.

I have a picture of ME in Florida, but I'm not there NOW.

 

[dburg30]

I guess I just don't live in the bright sunshiney world that you do. I live in a world where the first situation would be extremely harrassing, terrifying, and cause for psychological problems, and the second situation could return the child to a situation where they were being beaten and abused. How is this not HARM? Its nothing I would want any of my relatives kids to go through. Its nothing any child needs to go through.

It's not HARM because the actul child involved, doesnt know it is involved. Now if it was full body pics of them in a bathing suit and someone posts it with some lewd comments I GUESS it could maybe somehow, possibly, somewhere down the line, in some remote possibility come back to 'haunt them' But let's say someone takes a picture of ONLY their bottom and they post it. That is ALL they take a picture of, HOW could that HARM the child?

Again, I NEVER said it was right OR legal

 

[PrincessKsMom]

Do I have to beat you over the head here? They know they were in Florida, they know what their Foster parents look like etc, etc,

And you apparently know what they look like, so everyone else isn't them. BTW, do you have an order of protection out against these people? If you don't, maybe you should.

 

[merryweather20]

Wow.. just wow..

But the bottom line is, is the USA, if you are in public, you give up certain rights to privacy. Again, showers, changing rooms, bathrooms etc etc you still have the right to expect a certain amount of privacy. But in public, you are fair game, unless you do ask to not be photograhped, and even that can only go so far, like at WDW if you asked not to be photographed, and are standing in front of the castle around the partners statue, you'd have a hard time winning that case if someone was taking a picture of the area and not specificially of you. And if you ask not to be photographed, you cant demand the film, or demand that pictures be deleted from previous pictures..

Legality doesn't much matter does it? Its simply not right. Its not the sort of thing I would expect any reasonable adult to do. As I said before, at best its rude at worst its sick.

In th first situation it was perfectly legal for the persons to maintain the web-sites and lewd comments and photos of the poor kids, but that doesn'tmake it right.

You most certainly can demand the film, or demand that the pictures be deleted. Where is this law that says I can't? In the case of the man that was arrested, he was on the hook for harassing the family and for his inappropriate conduct with the police officer. My Uncle didn't even get a warning for demanding the film, can't say I was surprised.

Reading all these posts with people like Robo and Phibbles who think that sexually harassing children, and maintaining privacy for abused children is a joke, is a little depresing. But I guess I'll try to turn it around and be glad that they live such worry free lives and they don't know the pain of caring for a child thats gone through them.

 

[sbell111]

Do I have to beat you over the head here? They know they were in Florida, they know what their Foster parents look like etc, etc,

I have just a few thoughts about your position.

First, what would stop this nefarious PI from taking your picture while you weren't talking to Donald? After all, if one was trying to snap a pic of a particular party, it would be easy peasey to set up a shot of some bit of theming and 'accidently' have you in the shot. Since the mouse doesn't have cast members out and about scolding people for taking pictures on Main Street and, in fact, pay cast members to take snaps that pretty much always have random people in them, I suspect that Donald's attitude has nothing to do with child safety.

Second, your presumption is that the person taking the pic would be somehow involved with the child's parent, since it would not matter if your face was in some random person's pics. If this were the case, the parent would a) already know that the child is in Florida, at WDW, and hugging on Donald and b) know what you look like because he followed (or had you followed) to Florida, to WDW, to Donald.

Third, as a foster parent who is, apparently, scared that the parent is going to abscond with the child and place him/her back into 'a situation of HARM', I would think that your primary concern would be keeping the child under your control so that he/she cannot be removed from your care and placed into a 'situation of HARM'. It would not be the monitoring of people taking photos in the most photographed location on the entire planet.

Finally, if you are truly concerned about being in rnadom people's photographs, perhaps WDW is not the best vacation spot for you.

 

[LadyDuchess]

I'm a little confused about the foster parent thing, are you a) concerned that there are people roaming WDW specifically in search of these kids or b) that a stranger is going to take a picture and it is going to somehow land in the hands of these people?

Also, it seems based on this thread that a lot of people ARE concerned about strangers getting pictures of their children. So I wonder: how many of those concerned have posted "cute" pictures of their children on Disboards or somewhere else? Just because someone didn't snap the photo themselves doesn't mean they can't do weird creepy things with images they saved to their desktop off a website.

 

[livndisney]

Originally Posted by livndisney
... I guess this guy has been banned from the entire state of California and various other places. So as disgusting as it is to think about-freaks are out there. (Not suggesting that is what the OP was doing)

I'm pretty sure that the Constitution still allows for travel across state lines. Therefore, I don't believe that anyone could possibly be banned from a state.
.

You can believe what you want.

The wording on the permanent injuction says he "can't come within 30 feet of any person under 18 anywhere in California." Sounds like a "BAN" to me.

The new order also prohibits him from contacting, videotaping or photographing children without written consent from their guardian or parent.
Sounds like people DON'T like it when strangers take pictures of their children.

 

[dburg30]

In th first situation it was perfectly legal for the persons to maintain the web-sites and lewd comments and photos of the poor kids, but that doesn'tmake it right.

No I actually believe that can be illegal, but still no HARM to the child.

You most certainly can demand the film, or demand that the pictures be deleted. Where is this law that says I can't? In the case of the man that was arrested, he was on the hook for harassing the family and for his inappropriate conduct with the police officer. My Uncle didn't even get a warning for demanding the film, can't say I was surprised.

First off, I'm sure there is more to this story. If someone asks me to stop taking pics, I have to, but show me a law where I have to delete / turn over my pictures? Or better yet, WHERE did this take place? If I dont stop, THEN it is harassment.

Reading all these posts with people like Robo and Phibbles who think that sexually harassing children, and maintaining privacy for abused children is a joke, is a little depresing. But I guess I'll try to turn it around and be glad that they live such worry free lives and they don't know the pain of caring for a child thats gone through them.

Again, not really seeing where they said protecting children or sexually harassing children is a joke? There is a difference between protecting, and flat out basically holding them hostage from the world.

 

[sbell111]

Legality doesn't much matter does it? Its simply not right. Its not the sort of thing I would expect any reasonable adult to do. As I said before, at best its rude at worst its sick. ...

You are actually taking the position that one should not ever take a photograph at WDW if there is going to be a random stranger in it? You are further taking the stance that taking a picture that has a random stranger in it is unreasonable, rude, and sick?

Should everyone just leave their cameras at home? After all, there is virtually no way to avoid getting strangers in park photos.

You most certainly can demand the film, or demand that the pictures be deleted. Where is this law that says I can't? ...

You can demand all kinds of things, but you can't enforce those demands. If you demanded that I delete pictures that I took in public areas of WDW, I'd tell you to get bent. If you tried to force your demands, you could find yourself in the pokey.

 

[dburg30]

You can believe what you want.

The wording on the permanent injuction says he "can't come within 30 feet of any person under 18 anywhere in California." Sounds like a "BAN" to me.

.

Doesnt sound like a ban, sounds like a restaining order..

 

[ArieLTruPrincesS]

that does sound crazy

 

[sbell111]

Doesnt sound like a ban, sounds like a restaining order..

It also sounds like something that might not hold up on appeal. Either way it does not stop him from being in the state.

 

[Phibbles]

Reading all these posts with people like Robo and Phibbles who think that sexually harassing children, and maintaining privacy for abused children is a joke, is a little depresing. But I guess I'll try to turn it around and be glad that they live such worry free lives and they don't know the pain of caring for a child thats gone through them.

My comment was a joke about sexually harrassing children? Really?
I think you may be stretching it a little, no. Perhaps a little? Well, I'll let it go. I can see you are distraught over this thread.

I would suggest though, if a child needs THIS MUCH privacy protection, that the child be relocated to a remote island or wooded area. You take them to any public or private gathering of people, you need to assume they will end up in a photograph or two. Even if the photographer has no intentions of putting them in a photo.