What happens when a voyeur gets caught?

[Johnny60]

Interesting subject.. I once saw a guy in Greece sat on a beach using a mirror in a fake telephone lens which allowed him to take photographs at a right angle to the camera. The thing was it was so obvious everyone could see this and abused him for it.. he was humiliated.. Later in the evening he was refused entry to a bar as he was recognised as 'that pervert from the beach'...

[Klondike]

Originally Posted by nopubes

One gentleman called the police when another guy I was with, who helped me confront the voyeur, destroyed the memory card. When the police officer arrived I simply said that the individual was taking photos of underage children and it was not anyone's intent to destroy evidence.

You lied to police and falsely accused someone of taking pictures of underage children?

do you do this often?

Klondike

[wildasu]

Originally Posted by nopubes

I'll reply from the other side. Although my wife and I are exhibitionists first and foremost we don't like people taking photos of us without our consent. We've caught people a few times and it's always bothersome.

More often than not I'll simply ask the person to delete any pictures they've taken of us. I do it very level-headed and calm and this approach works 80% of the time. If you don't make a scene then they can continue on with their activities.

If the person refuses or is trying to be evasive I tell them I'm a camera buff, also enjoy voyeur photography and want to check their set-up out. This disarms them and then I remove the memory card and "accidentally" snap it in half or drop it in the ocean. Whoops.

My final tact is to grab my iPhone and begin taking pictures of them telling them, loudly, that I will post their pictures all over the internet so everyone can laugh at how ugly, out of shape, and small their penis' are. This generally creates a scene and since 99% of people on a nude beach don't want to be taped the voyeur is confronted with a mob and generally leaves in shame. On one occasion the mob grabbed the camera and destroyed it.

One gentleman called the police when another guy I was with, who helped me confront the voyeur, destroyed the memory card. When the police officer arrived I simply said that the individual was taking photos of underage children and it was not anyone's intent to destroy evidence. The officer could ask anyone else on the beach whether the guy was taking nude pictures of children (knowing that the mob would go against the voyeur) and the guy spit on me. He was then arrested for simple assault and we've never seen him again (not sure if he was charged with anything else. Since it was witnessed by the officer I didn't have to press charges).

Yes, it's a bit of a double-standard as I enjoy nude beach pictures as much as everyone else. If you're going to take photos, which I respect you have a legal right to do, then be open about it so folks who want to cover up (or opt out) can. The reality is if some people are "caught" in a photograph like this then their personal and professional lives could be put in jeopardy.

If you conceal and are caught the reactions are much more visceral. I've seen some ugly confrontations on beaches from folks who don't try the level-headed route (ironically one of the worst confrontations I every witnessed was from the boyfriend of a lady that's been posted on here, and other sites, many many times). It's not fun for anyone and ends up ruining the beach experience. I know we always question whether we want to go back after a day like that.

I am all in favor of trying to resolve conflicts in a peaceful manner.

However, you are committing criminal acts in destroying photographers property, providing false information to police (on felony matters no less), and inciting mob actions against a legal activity. You are asking for an escalation of violence that will impact all users of the beach and will end up ruining the beach experience for everyone.

I would ask you to consider that photographers have a legal right to photograph on the beach with or without your consent. Your threatening behavior is not good for anyone on the beach, and is unlikely to resolve anything. Your getting spit on is hardly surprising (but still wrong).

I don’t consider myself a perv and would not be intimidated by your silly iPhone tricks. I am not sure why you feel you have a more important right to be at the beach than mine. But, it doesn’t fly with me.

Please think this issue through and decide if the confrontation is really what you desire when you go to the beach. Respecting the legal rights of everyone is a better policy.

[Scott Goodman]

the only safe way to get pics is a hidden cam or some small device that you can get at the spy store....ones that are discreet.

[nopubes]

Originally Posted by Klondike

You lied to police and falsely accused someone of taking pictures of underage children?

do you do this often?

Klondike

There were several children on the beach. It was a plausible accusation that I left up to an impartial person to decide the validity of.

If the individual was doing nothing illegal than they shouldn't have been trying to hide their actions.

[nopubes]

Originally Posted by wildasu

Respecting the legal rights of everyone is a better policy.

I completely respect photographer's legal rights and I mentioned that in my original post, which is why I always nicely ask them to delete photos of us before any other action. My hope in trying this approach first is any photographer will respect our request to not be photographed and our need for discression in exposing our nude activities. I'm very much a conflict avoidance person and always attempt a level headed approach before escalating.

I've destroyed exactly one memory card when I felt the photographer's actions would adversely affect my and my wife's personal life. And I'd do it again if the situation were to ever repeat itself.

I've spent enough time at nude beaches to say that you'd much rather me confronting you than 90% of the other people I've seen confront voyeur photographers.

If everyone is so confident in their impunity for taking voyeur photos on nude beaches, then why conceal the activity? Is it because you fear confrontation or know that there's a moral issue with what you're doing?

Let me flip this on its head and ask, if you were confronted by someone who caught you taking photos of them, and they asked you to delete those photos -- what would your reaction be? Would you comply, fight or flight?

I knew I'd get flamed for my reply to this thread. Just trying to provide a counter-point.

[jc666]

Originally Posted by nopubes

One gentleman called the police when another guy I was with, who helped me confront the voyeur, destroyed the memory card. When the police officer arrived I simply said that the individual was taking photos of underage children and it was not anyone's intent to destroy evidence. The officer could ask anyone else on the beach whether the guy was taking nude pictures of children (knowing that the mob would go against the voyeur) and the guy spit on me. He was then arrested for simple assault and we've never seen him again (not sure if he was charged with anything else. Since it was witnessed by the officer I didn't have to press charges).

So your friend destroyed that guy's property (was said photographer even breaking the law?), you then claimed he was a p********* (or for our USA members p********) and yet you're surprised when he assaults you? Words fail me...

Originally Posted by nopubes

There were several children on the beach. It was a plausible accusation that I left up to an impartial person to decide the validity of.

Yet your friend had destroyed any potential evidence.

Originally Posted by nopubes

If the individual was doing nothing illegal than they shouldn't have been trying to hide their actions.

Maybe if there weren't hypocrites like yourself throwing your weight around he wouldn't have felt the need to do try and hide what he was doing?

[nopubes]

Originally Posted by jc666

yet you're surprised when he assaults you? Words fail me...

Reread what I wrote. I never said I was surprised and I never pressed charges. He assaulted me, in front of a police officer (who he called) and the police officer chose to have the State take legal action. Was I completely right in my actions? Nope, not trying to say I was. Just trying to protect my, and my wife's likeness, from being used against us at some point. I don't expect you to respect my position, I'm simply providing context and clarity to how I, as someone on the other side of the lens, feels.

Originally Posted by jc666

Yet your friend had destroyed any potential evidence.

I think friend is a bit strong. He was another guy on the beach who was sick of this guy taking photos when asked, by multiple people, to stop. The camera in question was hidden in a cookie box.

Originally Posted by jc666

Maybe if there weren't hypocrites like yourself throwing your weight around he wouldn't have felt the need to do try and hide what he was doing?

You're reading what you want to read but not what I posted.

If my wife and I see someone walking down the beach with a camera fully exposed and we don't want to be photographed we cover ourselves. Simple as that. No words are ever exchanged, nor do they need to be. They have just as much of a right to be there, with a camera, as we do.

It's the folks who hide the cameras that creates the animosity and the uncomfortable environment.

I understand I'm in the minority within this board on this position, but take a logical step back. If you survey the average nude beach goer whether or not voyeur photography should be allowed - how many people do you think would say they'd prefer if it was banned? Certainly greater than the majority. I don't advocate for anyone but myself and my wife. If I see someone taking voyeur photos I don't take it upon myself to police the beach, unless I see the camera being pointed at us, at which point - as I mentioned - I ask very politely to erase the photos they've taken of us. The majority of the time the individual complies and we both go on our way.

[tonto2011]

NoPubes,you have been trodding in the HORNET'S NEST.....I would give in if I were you,....on OCC you can never expect to be awarded for your unacceptable behavior...ha!!...I rest my case...

[Klondike]

First of all, regarding a photographers rights to take photos on public property, I found this link helpful:

hxxp://petapixel.com/assets/store/photographersrights.txt

see especially 4, 8 and 10.

The "reasonable expectation of privacy" issue comes up in #4 and I can't say as I really know how to apply this legally. I know that it comes up a lot in voyeur type cases. My interpretation would be that everyone in public has the right to at least some personal space upon which you cannot intrude. I.e holding your camera three inches away from a girls pubes at the WNBR would be a violation of their personal space and an invasion of privacy. Just IMHO, but this seems the most likely interpretation of "reasonable expectation of privacy". The nudity issue would not seem to figure in if you are voluntarily nude. But this would apply to all forms of photography in public. Getting in a homeless persons face, for example, and snapping away from 6 inches away - not advisable.

Photographers opinions on obtaining permission to shoot in public vary. But it is not legally necessary. Also, if you are asked by a potential subject not to take their pic, you should honor their request as a moral courtesy. But again, it isn't legally required that you do so.

No's 8 and 10 address acts of aggression against photographers. Read these carefully. They are pretty self explanatory.

Now regarding nude beach photography, I bet that some would say that because you are nude, you have a greater "expectation of privacy" than if you were clothed. This would seem to be a key issue on a nude beach. And so for help in dissecting this matter, I turned to this article:


hxxp://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/visitors_of_nj_nude_beach_face.html


The key points from this are as follows:

1) According to a spokesperson for the friends of Gunnison Beach, you have "no expectation of privacy" regarding photography there. Remember, this is not coming from the mouth of an OCC member or voy photographer, but from the mouth of a Gunnison regular and a woman to boot. So there goes my notion above, or rather some people's notion, that one might hope to have a greater expectation of privacy if one is nude. It just doesn't seem to be so, however.

2) Park Rangers at Gunnison, who in recent times have taken greater control over the beach "do not want beach regulars taking the law into their own hands" when it comes to confronting photographers. We have stated here that to do so may be breaking the law, and violates #8 and #10 above.

3) Concerning what action you might consider taking if you are a beach regular wanting to prohibit pic taking - there are many examples listed. Most focus on ways you might embarrass a voy with a camera. I.e recall nopubes iPhone solution. But NOWHERE in the article is their any hint that you can legally take things any further than that.
Recall again rules #8 and #10 above. This includes making threats, detainment, mob action, assault, destruction of personal property, removal from the beach, etc. Hell, according to #10, you may not even legally force an individual to delete his pics!

OK, so thats the scoop as far as I can tell.

Anyway, now to turn to the defense of the other side of the argument for a moment. We all want these beaches to remain viable and popular, and so where the legal arguments leave off, some moral ones should kick in. For example, if someone were to come up to me and ask me to delete pics I had taken on a nude beach, i would do so without question. PLEASE HONOR THESE REQUESTS! That is unless that person is being unusually aggressive, obnoxious, insulting or whatever.

Otherwise, I have state personally that I don't like taking pics on nude beaches, and that it can weigh on my conscience at times. A big part of that is the expectation of privacy issue, which, notwithstanding the words of a Gunnison Beach regular, is a moral issue somewhat divorced from the legal one. Professional photographers generally will not take your photo if you request specifically that they do not. It is a moral courtesy. And does this also extend to subjects who you have good reason to suspect DO NOT want their picture taken but are not telling you outright? I think to a fair degree, it should. But again, this is a moral question, not a legal one. So, in conclusion, legally things are quite clear. Morally, not so much so. But the main reason I am putting all of this out there is to address the issue of confrontations with photographers. And here, their legal right to take pics is clearly stated as long as they honor ones "reasonable expectation of privacy" which I interpret to mean you cannot be right in that persons face. Recall again that at Gunnison you have "no expectation of privacy" so I doubt that one could argue in favor of a stricter interpretation of this phrase. You are voluntarily nude in public after all, and are voluntarily naked within sight of others. And finally - once again, you cannot legally threaten, mob, assault, detain, remove from the beach, or destroy the personal property of said photographer.

Klondike