tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570657419530288007.post4094446873710738129..comments2009-04-19T12:35:09.349-04:00librarian@playhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08867036183259827462noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570657419530288007.post-301588392749146632009-04-19T12:35:09.349-04:002009-04-19T12:35:09.349-04:00btw, not entirely true that "Even film crews and photographers working on a public street ... must get signed or recorded waivers from all passersby whose images they capture"<br />I have worked in places that were being used by film crews (particularly Metropolitan Hospital). Signs were posted in the lobby saying that if anyone entered, it constituted permission. In sum, if I went to work, they had permission. My alternative was not to go to work. Definately a Hobson's choice. <br /><br />I can't remember who it was, but during the last couple of Supreme Court nomination hearings, someone made the claim that the questions of the nominees were way off the mark. The claim was that during the next generation, the important cases before the court would focus on privacy rights (or whether or not there even were such rights). <br /><br />Given the present make up of the Court and the current fears of much of the population, it is entirely possible that "privacy" will become an outdated concept.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570657419530288007.post-16630676237900349022009-04-17T18:03:38.880-04:002009-04-17T18:03:38.880-04:00More like the panopticon. Someone is watching you so behave.porpentine11noreply@blogger.com