|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:41:13 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>> Why is this discussion making me think "In communist Russia...." lines?
>
> Possibly because we have a PM that's been referred to as Stalin?
LOL, I've actually seen a photo of Brown doctored up to make him look
like Stalin. I think it was on The Daily Show....
> As I said the problem was with the guidelines -
>
> 1. With digital cameras getting smaller and with no need for third-party
> processing the ability to misuse images increases.
Very true. And the software isn't that hard to use, and in the hands of
someone with a good eye, it can be quite convincing.
> 2. Obviously people
> in changing rooms, locker rooms, swimming pools etc are particularly
> susceptible to this.
Yep.
> 3. Therefore make a rule banning cameras from those
> areas.
Our gym is like this - no recording devices of any kind without
management approval.
> This is the rule that the staff get told and they're certainly not paid
> to think (and would no doubt be reprimanded if they did) so the fact
> that the reason for the rule existing does not apply in these
> circumstances has no bearing on the application of the rule.
Also true. Unfortunately, in cases like changing rooms and whatnot, the
rule makes sense, but a Zero Tolerance approach to enforcement can take
this to an extreme - for example, because of the proliferation of phones
with cameras built-in, a ZT-style enforcer of a policy of "no recording
devices" might decide to eject members who have phones with photo
capabilities, even though the phone isn't being used. If the member is
an IT person who is REQUIRED to carry a phone as part of their employment
and the company provides a phone with a camera built into it, that
creates a problem.
When I was looking for a new phone, I settled on the Blackberry 8700.
First because I was able to pick an unused-but-previously-owned one very
cheap, and second because it had no camera. I've been to corporate
facilities in the last 5 years where they *will* confiscate any cameras
or recording devices, no questions asked. There was (and is) the
potential for me to visit government and military installations (not very
likely now, but that could change) and I didn't want to have to make a
choice between being able to be contacted if it was necessary and being
able to do my job.
> Quote: "We have to walk a fine line between protecting the children who
> use this popular paddling pool and the interests of the community as a
> whole. A lot of people are more concerned about the safety of their
> children these days so it is appropriate that our staff are aware of who
> is taking photos in the area."
>
> Not a hint that the guidelines might need tweaking.
Yeah, and that's sad. The possession of a recording device doesn't make
one a criminal (or, more specifically, having one near a paddling pool
doesn't make one a *paedophile*), nor even does taking pictures of kids
having fun at the pool make one a criminal or a paedophile. It's the
pattern of *behaviour* that does.
But as a society (and I think this is a western-societial problem
mostly), we are tending towards the type of "shoot first, ask questions
later" Zero-Tolerance policies that remove common sense and thinking from
the process.
For an excellent essay on ZT problems, if you haven't seen it, have a
look over at http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html
(And BTW, I do subscribe to the 'premium' TRUE subscription and have for
years - it's a very good and often quite funny newsletter - even the free
one is quite good, but I like the additional stories in the premium
edition as well. I think you'd enjoy it, Phil)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |