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