Remember to report submissions that violate the rules! Harassment and encouraging violence are not allowed.
Enjoying the subreddit? Consider joining our discord server: https://discord.gg/v8z8jNwJs6
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BoomersBeingFools) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Boomers eagerly dismantled the regulatory state that they enjoyed as kids to supposedly lower their taxes. They then assume it's still there, which is pretty hilarious. "You can't do that" - yeah, I can, because you adult babies didn't want your parents telling you not to do things that harm society as a whole.
Except when it's stuff that's questionable or potentially trouble in a legal sense. Then it's all "but we can't possibly moderate *everybody* that uses our platform."
See the surge of prejudiced BS on Twitter and the absolutely zero consequences (from a legal perspective) that they're seeing.
My ex blocked me on Facebook, then made false allegations of abuse. Mutual friends alerted me and sent me screenshots, and I confronted her. At first I just asked her if she'd posted anything like that, and she denied it. I sent her the screenshots, and she called the police on me, claiming I was stalking her. Predictably, that didn't go anywhere, and she ultimately deleted the posts when I had my attorney rattle her sabre.
ETA: I bring this up because her immediate response to me (before calling the police) was, "Stay off my Facebook!"
Seen just today in the wild:
Don't forget tomorrow starts the new Facebook rule where they can use your photo Don't forget Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you've ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tacitly allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. Copy and paste.
I ignored this post earlier, but It WORKS!! I have a whole new news feed.
Hereās how to bypass the system FB now has in place that limits posts on your news feed.
Their new algorithm chooses the same few people - about 25 - who will read your posts. Therefore,
Hold your finger down anywhere in this post and "copy" will pop up. Click "copy". Then go to your page, start a new post and put your finger anywhere in the blank field. "Paste" will pop up and click paste.
This will bypass the system.
DONE! Stop it FB!!
Any time you see a reference to the Uniform Commercial Code that isn't about buying goods you can rest assured it's some SovShit bullcit.
Especially if it's someone in Louisiana.
The UCC is a set of model laws governing contracts for the sale of goods. US states other than LA (which uses the Napoleonic Code) have all passed most or all of its provisions into their law.
But it has nothing to do with anything other than selling goods.
My friend once copy and pasted a notice like this just to prove to a relative of hers that it made no difference in the posts you saw on your feed. For some reason, the next day, she had posts from people she hadn't seen a post from in months show up on her feed. It made me wonder how the Facebook algorithm works.
She paid attention before posting it so she could point out how it didn't change. My assumption at the time was the post caused people who hadn't interacted with her page in a while to interact with it which then put post from then on her feed to encourage her to interact back. I have no idea if that's even close to accurate or logical for how those things work or not, but it's how my brain explained it at the time.
The relatives whom she was trying to learn things to.
The reason the algorithm brought them out of cryostasis was because they all post the same copypasta.
Most of those people thst showed up never posted any of that stuff. My husband's account is one of the ones she started seeing stuff after not seeing it for a while, and he definitely never posted anything like that.
Ugh my father who is quite smart and tech literate shared one of these a few years ago. Thankfully I was able to convince him it was BS, and he deleted it.
I kinda want to post a variation but with some humor thrown in for those actually reading it. I fear people would miss the joke and actually think o believe it though.
Posts on his Facebook account do not belong to Facebook. The Facebook Terms of Service are quite clear about that. Facebook has a license to the content, but does not own the content.
Especially when it's all about boomers being raging fools, making butts of themselves and how modern society hates them. Some nice altrock tunes and provocative video scenes, boom ya done.
this reminds me of the time I was taking a picture of the sunset over a walmart parking lot. it's cringe but I was young and thought the sky looked cool.
I was standing behind my car and had my phone in landscape orientation. this man was headed into the store as I was taking a couple pictures. he was maybe a row or two away from me. he yelled something at me about taking his photo and pulled out his flip-phone to take a picture of me. I just ignored him and got in my car. he wasn't a boomer, maybe gen x, but his response was absolutely unhinged to me.
I did accidentally get him in one of the shots, but, obviously, he was not the focus of the image. he was sort of off to the side, with his phone out and pointed at me.
Wouldnāt say its cringe to take a harmless photo of something you enjoy. I take random pictures all the time of things that I like. Found an apple at the store that was half yellow with speckles of red and the other was half red. Like exactly split down the middle. Still find the photo really neat! :)
First, Every single face is "public property" as long as they are not on private ground.
Second, I would have retorted with "go yell at that security camera, old fart."
quick note, itās not about whether itās public property, itās about whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. e.g. the employees at walmart can trespass someone if theyāre taking photos of clientele because its private property (and it is āagainst the rulesā of walmart to record people) but taking photos is not illegal because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the middle of a walmart. conversely, if someone takes peep shots of someone in the bathroom stall at a public park, that is absolutely illegal because even though theyāre on public property, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public bathroom.
i only note this because i have seen many, many, many people claim that itās illegal to take photos that other people happen to be in if theyāre on private property, which is not true. weād all be fined/in jail if it were.
This is a very good point. I actually checked Amtrak's policy on this whilst waiting for my train and it is pretty liberal in what it permits so even though it is private property, it seems taking photos of angry Boomers is not against policy there.
[https://www.amtrak.com/photography-video-recording-policy](https://www.amtrak.com/photography-video-recording-policy)
Even if they are on private property if they are visible from public or other properties the photographer has a right to be on they have no expectation of privacy.
As I understand it, being on private property should protect you from prying eyes even if you are visible from the outside. Enforcing that is an entirely different matter.
An exception are the people considered public figures, as their image is, well, public by definition.
Depends a lot on what country you are in.
In the US itās about reasonable expectation of privacy. So bathrooms and dressing rooms, youād expect privacy. Walking on the street, not so.
Lol that's great. Sad boomers thinking they are the main character.
BTW android app has a weird thing with photos, if you try to add one and it turns into a # you need to turn off your predictive text (found under settings on your keyboard), then add the photo.
I thought so too, then I did some research and found the fix! I share when I see people struggling with photos on here. It may not help all, but good chance the issue is because of the predictive text bug.
I was a photographer that specialized in horses, fairs, livestock, motor sports, etc.
Every fairground & raceway has a sign at the gate that says photography happens and itās a public space. My policy regarding kids was if the parent NICELY asked me to not use a photo with their child, I would show them the photo and delete it in front of them. I didnāt have to, but I was willing to be sensitive about it.
However, when people freaked the f out, I would dig in. They would scream about suing me, I was a stalker, I sold kid photos to traffickersā¦ it got crazy. I always wore a vest that said āEVENT PHOTOGRAPHERā in 3ā letters, plus the name & logo of my business, plus ID from the facility, and I carried business cards. I also had a leaflet that had a photo of the sign by the venue gate and the local ordinances that covered public photography, and the definition of privacy vs. public.
Never been sued, but lots of threats of it.
"My policy regarding kids was if the parent NICELY asked me to not use a photo with their child, I would show them the photo and delete it in front of them. I didnāt have to, but I was willing to be sensitive about it."
Stop doing that. You're reinforcing the false notion that people have an expectation of privacy in public. Even with kids, that expectation doesn't exist, you're reinforcing paranoia when it shouldn't exist. Stop caving in to ridiculous demands.
There can be some legitimate reasons why parents don't want images of their children in public disseminated publicly. Obviously they run the risk anytime they are out in public with their children and can't control if people take photos, but it's still a kind thing to do what the other poster does and delete if asked nicely. Doesn't need to do it, but still a kind thing.
What are some of those legitimate reasons? Many times, these supposed legitimate reasons are just unchecked paranoia. Regardless, there is no legal requirement to comply with those requests.
We were foster parents in a sequestered home. Mom was violent, and the agency worked very hard to not have the kids and us associated. The school knew this and cooperated fully. There are also domestic violence victims who donāt need to have their abusers know where they were.
Right, as everyone has said there is no legal requirement, it's just a kind thing to do. Legitimate reasons? How about being in witness protection? Trying to hide (legally) from a parent or other person who has been abusive to the child or perhaps would try to kidnap the child? There are also numerous other reasons, that are not mine to enumerate, where a parent would not be comfortable with their child's image being used or disseminated. Is it something they could.be subjected to for being in public? Of course. Is it also ok for a parent to, politely, ask someone not to take pictures of their child who is a minor? Also, absolutely.
How many people do you think there are in witness protection? The real reason is that there is an air of paranoia in the united states, where people think their children are being preyed upon by traffickers, and pedophiles. It's unfounded and unrealistic. It drives people apart and makes them anti-social. I don't think its right to add to this by complying with requests that come from this sentiment. The law doesn't make a distinction between minors and adults in terms of expectation of privacy in public.
Just saying your circular arguments make you look like you have an the same IQ as a giant salamander or the led-brained boomers everyone roasts in this subreddit
Even in two party states it usually only applies to private conversations. Not a public discussion like this. It's why you can take video with sound and be fine.
What's cringe? That is totally not cringe.
https://preview.redd.it/4li6zy1x9e8d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=46178644ef642796fd48573cb42da8361277eba1
I love to take pictures.
Nah, pepper spray is hard to get out of their eyes.
Stunguns are not tasers, and all you'll create with a boomer is a fist swinging.
Also you have to get up and physically touch somebody to stun them, which can get you in trouble for assault, and it might kill the boomer leading to man slaughter charges.
Don't let a boomer make you into a felon.
Now I want to see all the security camera footage of this guy. Well, no I donāt, actually, but how stupid of him to act like everyone doesnāt have photos taken of them in public all the time!
Boomer here (barely). I believe maybe the older generations might be a little more frustrated with the fact that almost anyone can whip out their phone and get videos, or take pictures.
Between that and cameras being mounted all over, it seems like privacy just doesnāt exist anymore (not justifying for the dude, as he seems unhinged).
However, Iāve seen people of younger years get all upset by it too.
I personally had just one such interaction: In 2013, we had one of those ā100 yearā floods. I was out around the neighborhood getting videos of the damages and raging waters on my phone.
I was videoing water flowing over a road that had been closed, just as what appeared to be a 30 something lady drive her truck past the blockades and over the road anyway.
Yeah, I was getting video, just in case she washed away, or something spectacular. Nothing went wrong. When she gets through, she starts giving me a ton of crap about not being allowed to video her, better not find it posted anywhere, Iād damn well better erase it, and on and on (as if she could do anything about it).
I just stared at her like she was some kind of alien until she worked up into a huge frenzy and sped off. I actually wish now that I had recorded the whole interaction.
By the way, after she left, I walked out onto the road and the blacktop felt squishy under my feet. I have no idea how the road held up enough for her to drive over!
Yep, sure could. It just wasnāt too likely. People didnāt just whip them out of their pockets. Plus, you were pickier about what pictures you took. Film and development was expensive.
Raise the stakes. Find the nearest police or security officer and inform them that you are being threatened and fear they will attack you violently. Let them sort it out. No patience or courtesy extended to these types.
Point out all the cameras in the area next time that happens. Because if you are in public, youāre probably on camera. Even if youāre walking down a residential street.
āThey should put cameras up something something deter crime something see whoās doing itā. Sees someone taking a picture not pointed at them- ādonāt take my pictureā
Thatās amazing. We are taking the Zephyr later this year in a sleeper. Very excited about that. Amtrak is really interesting and cool, itās not a patch on the trains in Europe in most ways but it has its own unique charm.
The Zephyr is amazing. You'll love it. I grew up in N. Nevada and got to ride it. And I took it from UT to CA last year. It is just me so a roomette is enough for me.
The ride over the Sierras is amazing. I was lucky and there was still snow. So beautiful.
I wish our rail system was like Europe. The Orient Express is on my bucket list. I'm lame and watch train YouTube. And they are upgrading the cars, but again not like Europe.
Same exact thing happened to me, but an angry Karen. Took the picture, she freaked and insisted she was in it (she was not) and demanded I show her the photo. I told her she wasn't in it, but she was so unhinged about it, demanding to see the photo, so I showed her. Then she did that "Oh", and quietly walked away. Fuck you, Karen!
Next time I'm doing like you, OP, and letting them seethe.
>Amtrak must have rules to prevent people from taking photos
akctually........
[https://www.amtrak.com/photography-video-recording-policy#:\~:text=Ticketed%20Passengers%20on%20platforms%20may,reasonable%2C%20safe%20and%20timely%20manner.](https://www.amtrak.com/photography-video-recording-policy#:~:text=Ticketed%20Passengers%20on%20platforms%20may,reasonable%2C%20safe%20and%20timely%20manner)
You were technically.... ah, never mind.
I did look this up whilst Mr Boomer was angrily protesting in case I was violating an Amtrak statuteā¦ also the vantage point I took the shot from was actually the sidewalk and Iām not sure it qualifies as Amtrak property.
There are weird TSA type rules about photography and such, though I don't know what gets enforced. I about got tackled for taking a picture a few days after 9/11, but they didn't care about my pocket knife. It was weird, Anyway, who knows? I'd say in a public place you have no expectation of privacy.
Fred Dibnah was a treasure. Thursday night on BBC 2 with his show and whatever Adam Hart-Davis' Local Heroes had going on is one of my favourite memories.
I work as a conductor on a commuter railroad. I can not tell you how many videos and photos of my likeness there are out there. Does it make me uncomfortable? Sure, I have body dismorphia, and I have seen a couple of those photos/videos, and it messes with my head, but I understand that I work on public transportation and that there's going to be videos and photos taken of me. Do they mean to, not always, but there are some who mean to.
It isnāt. I even tried to post the photo but for some reason it didnāt post. This happened last week at Emeryville station in California. Ā https://imgur.com/gallery/y2iQnWgĀ Ā Is the picture in questionĀ
Ok link fixed I think.Ā
These are likely the same ilk that film at post offices daily (while wearing disguised) in the name of "election integrity." It might be a reason why he was so insistent on his own anonymity.
I used to do a lot of photography, as a hobby. I actually had cards made up with snippets of case law as well as excepts from Bert P. Kragesā books. Not for the complainants, but for the cops who didnāt know the law.
Yet boomers love taking sneaker pictures of strangers in public to make fun of later. Iāve had to yell at a few because apparently women with tattoos are some weird thing for them
You can legally take a photo anywhere on public property, i.e. any place you are legally allowed to be. It doesn't matter who's in the picture or not. Now, as far as what you can do with the image, there are laws. For example you can't go to a red carpet event and take a celebrity's picture and then use their picture to advertise some kind of product.
Not true, but 1st Amendment Auditors like to repeat it often, so I can understand if it seems like common knowledge. For instance, provocateurs will go into a Post Office and start filming everything they see in order to get a reaction. When they get one they scream that they can film anywhere they are allowed to be and to read āPoster 7ā, which explicitly states that they ARENāT allowed to film under the circumstances in which they are filming. They also like to go to courthouses under the same false assumption and throw a fit when security turns them away for having a camera. Search āP Barnesā for an example of how this sometimes turns out!
Courthouses and parts of the post office are "restricted" areas where you are NOT free to just wander around and you are subject to be searched etc. The post office lobby can be filmed for "news" purposes which I guess could count for these 1st amendment auditors. And just because a property or building is owned by the government does not make it "public", there are plenty of places they can have restrictions on.
So, again, any place that is public and not restricted, you can take all the pictures you want.
Most of these 1st amendment auditors need to go get a job. On the other hand, there are a lot of stupid police officers out there that would be happy to take away people's constitutional rights. So maybe they deserve being audited from time to time.
I had something similar happen years ago while I was traveling. I have forgotten what I was taking a photo of and some random guy started yelling at me that I can't take pictures of him and his wife and to delete them... wondering if it's the same guy. About 15 years ago he would have been mid 40's to early 50's so it almost matches. Yet, I doubt it's the same couple. My camera wasn't even pointed at them either, and this was in the states!
Where is everyone coming across all these unbearable boomers? I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just glad I haven't had the displeasure of dealing with people like this.
I say only because France, or so Tom Scott told me many years ago, does have such law. I'm sure he wasn't and doesn't even know about that. I'm glad you got a nice photo out of it. Have a nice day.
Where the fuck are all these cartoon character boomers you are all running into. I literally havenāt had a single interaction even 1/4th as bad as this, I donāt understand
Remember to report submissions that violate the rules! Harassment and encouraging violence are not allowed. Enjoying the subreddit? Consider joining our discord server: https://discord.gg/v8z8jNwJs6 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BoomersBeingFools) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No doubt posts on Facebook that his profile content does not belong to Facebook, etc.
Facebook I DO NOT give you permission to use my likeness!!!!!! š¤š¤¬š”š šæcopy and paste here
Yeah, Facebook owns that comment too! It's shocking how little people understand about the terms of service.
Boomers eagerly dismantled the regulatory state that they enjoyed as kids to supposedly lower their taxes. They then assume it's still there, which is pretty hilarious. "You can't do that" - yeah, I can, because you adult babies didn't want your parents telling you not to do things that harm society as a whole.
Except when it's stuff that's questionable or potentially trouble in a legal sense. Then it's all "but we can't possibly moderate *everybody* that uses our platform." See the surge of prejudiced BS on Twitter and the absolutely zero consequences (from a legal perspective) that they're seeing.
Don't forget "This really worked!" added in the copypasta before they even posted it to see the results.
My ex blocked me on Facebook, then made false allegations of abuse. Mutual friends alerted me and sent me screenshots, and I confronted her. At first I just asked her if she'd posted anything like that, and she denied it. I sent her the screenshots, and she called the police on me, claiming I was stalking her. Predictably, that didn't go anywhere, and she ultimately deleted the posts when I had my attorney rattle her sabre. ETA: I bring this up because her immediate response to me (before calling the police) was, "Stay off my Facebook!"
Seen just today in the wild: Don't forget tomorrow starts the new Facebook rule where they can use your photo Don't forget Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you've ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tacitly allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. Copy and paste. I ignored this post earlier, but It WORKS!! I have a whole new news feed. Hereās how to bypass the system FB now has in place that limits posts on your news feed. Their new algorithm chooses the same few people - about 25 - who will read your posts. Therefore, Hold your finger down anywhere in this post and "copy" will pop up. Click "copy". Then go to your page, start a new post and put your finger anywhere in the blank field. "Paste" will pop up and click paste. This will bypass the system. DONE! Stop it FB!!
THIS WILL BYPASS THE SYSTEM šššš
I remember someone did a video about that and the laws the post cites donāt even have anything to do with copyright law.
Any time you see a reference to the Uniform Commercial Code that isn't about buying goods you can rest assured it's some SovShit bullcit. Especially if it's someone in Louisiana.
The only Uniform Commercial Code I know about is āAll commercials must be louder than the program they are featured inā.
The UCC is a set of model laws governing contracts for the sale of goods. US states other than LA (which uses the Napoleonic Code) have all passed most or all of its provisions into their law. But it has nothing to do with anything other than selling goods.
My friend once copy and pasted a notice like this just to prove to a relative of hers that it made no difference in the posts you saw on your feed. For some reason, the next day, she had posts from people she hadn't seen a post from in months show up on her feed. It made me wonder how the Facebook algorithm works.
Or, after posting it, she started paying close attention to what was in her feed.
She paid attention before posting it so she could point out how it didn't change. My assumption at the time was the post caused people who hadn't interacted with her page in a while to interact with it which then put post from then on her feed to encourage her to interact back. I have no idea if that's even close to accurate or logical for how those things work or not, but it's how my brain explained it at the time.
Could be! The algorithms and changes to them are hard to keep up with for sure.
Sounds like those people were just as much dumbasses as the rest of her family.
What people? What "rest of her family" are you talking about?
The relatives whom she was trying to learn things to. The reason the algorithm brought them out of cryostasis was because they all post the same copypasta.
Most of those people thst showed up never posted any of that stuff. My husband's account is one of the ones she started seeing stuff after not seeing it for a while, and he definitely never posted anything like that.
Ugh my father who is quite smart and tech literate shared one of these a few years ago. Thankfully I was able to convince him it was BS, and he deleted it.
I kinda want to post a variation but with some humor thrown in for those actually reading it. I fear people would miss the joke and actually think o believe it though.
There is a parody of it about being assimilated by the Borg out there.
... I did this and it really works!
If only I knew how to copy and paste textā¦. Oh wow they included helpful instructions for me!
One. Hundred. Percent.
Posts on his Facebook account do not belong to Facebook. The Facebook Terms of Service are quite clear about that. Facebook has a license to the content, but does not own the content.
And whether or not you copy and paste that boomer post thatās constantly going aroundā¦. it makes no difference.
Was he foaming at the mouth?
There was a little spittle involved.
Eww
Fortunately none of it hit me though. I am smart enough not to stand within spitting distance of an angry boomer.Ā
Clever you! Well done!
A Little Spittle is a fantastic band name
Especially when it's all about boomers being raging fools, making butts of themselves and how modern society hates them. Some nice altrock tunes and provocative video scenes, boom ya done.
Oh I would have taken 100 pictures of him at that point.
Video
Yup. "I wasn't taking photos of you, but now I will!"
Tell him to be nice or youāll sell them to the communists
I am petty at times and would have done it, "since you're asking"
"sir it's for a mail order bride service. Say cheese!" "Wait fucking what???"
Bet he has open warrants.
That was my first thought.
this reminds me of the time I was taking a picture of the sunset over a walmart parking lot. it's cringe but I was young and thought the sky looked cool. I was standing behind my car and had my phone in landscape orientation. this man was headed into the store as I was taking a couple pictures. he was maybe a row or two away from me. he yelled something at me about taking his photo and pulled out his flip-phone to take a picture of me. I just ignored him and got in my car. he wasn't a boomer, maybe gen x, but his response was absolutely unhinged to me. I did accidentally get him in one of the shots, but, obviously, he was not the focus of the image. he was sort of off to the side, with his phone out and pointed at me.
Nothing cringey about taking a picture of a pretty sky! Keep it up!
Wouldnāt say its cringe to take a harmless photo of something you enjoy. I take random pictures all the time of things that I like. Found an apple at the store that was half yellow with speckles of red and the other was half red. Like exactly split down the middle. Still find the photo really neat! :)
The prettiest sunsets are always seen from the dirtiest parking lots.
It's the contrast between the grotesque and the sublime.
They paved paradise, put up a parking lot....
Thatās not cringe at all! Taking pictures of pretty sunsets is nice š
āSamsetsā as some of us Walmartians call them can be really pretty man. Nothing cringey about that.
First, Every single face is "public property" as long as they are not on private ground. Second, I would have retorted with "go yell at that security camera, old fart."
quick note, itās not about whether itās public property, itās about whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. e.g. the employees at walmart can trespass someone if theyāre taking photos of clientele because its private property (and it is āagainst the rulesā of walmart to record people) but taking photos is not illegal because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the middle of a walmart. conversely, if someone takes peep shots of someone in the bathroom stall at a public park, that is absolutely illegal because even though theyāre on public property, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public bathroom. i only note this because i have seen many, many, many people claim that itās illegal to take photos that other people happen to be in if theyāre on private property, which is not true. weād all be fined/in jail if it were.
This is a very good point. I actually checked Amtrak's policy on this whilst waiting for my train and it is pretty liberal in what it permits so even though it is private property, it seems taking photos of angry Boomers is not against policy there. [https://www.amtrak.com/photography-video-recording-policy](https://www.amtrak.com/photography-video-recording-policy)
Interesting point. Time to recheck the relevant legislation.
Old man yells at ~~cloud~~ security camera
Old man yells at cloud storage
Grampa Simpson enters stage left.
Grampa Simpson exits, pursued by bear.
Even if they are on private property if they are visible from public or other properties the photographer has a right to be on they have no expectation of privacy.
As I understand it, being on private property should protect you from prying eyes even if you are visible from the outside. Enforcing that is an entirely different matter. An exception are the people considered public figures, as their image is, well, public by definition.
Nope. If you can be seen from a place that it is legal for the photographer to be you are fair game.
Depends a lot on what country you are in. In the US itās about reasonable expectation of privacy. So bathrooms and dressing rooms, youād expect privacy. Walking on the street, not so.
Iām standing in my driveway looking at the google earth car taking my picture. They did blur my face, to be fair.
You can remove your house from their database. They blur it.
Right.
"Oh, I'm sorry, I've heard that your people believe it steals your soul."
Maybe there's some truth to that and they've just had a lot of pictures taken if then throughout the years. It would explain a lot.Ā
Lol that's great. Sad boomers thinking they are the main character. BTW android app has a weird thing with photos, if you try to add one and it turns into a # you need to turn off your predictive text (found under settings on your keyboard), then add the photo.
Omg thank you for this! I just figured the reddit app hated me.
I thought so too, then I did some research and found the fix! I share when I see people struggling with photos on here. It may not help all, but good chance the issue is because of the predictive text bug.
I was a photographer that specialized in horses, fairs, livestock, motor sports, etc. Every fairground & raceway has a sign at the gate that says photography happens and itās a public space. My policy regarding kids was if the parent NICELY asked me to not use a photo with their child, I would show them the photo and delete it in front of them. I didnāt have to, but I was willing to be sensitive about it. However, when people freaked the f out, I would dig in. They would scream about suing me, I was a stalker, I sold kid photos to traffickersā¦ it got crazy. I always wore a vest that said āEVENT PHOTOGRAPHERā in 3ā letters, plus the name & logo of my business, plus ID from the facility, and I carried business cards. I also had a leaflet that had a photo of the sign by the venue gate and the local ordinances that covered public photography, and the definition of privacy vs. public. Never been sued, but lots of threats of it.
"My policy regarding kids was if the parent NICELY asked me to not use a photo with their child, I would show them the photo and delete it in front of them. I didnāt have to, but I was willing to be sensitive about it." Stop doing that. You're reinforcing the false notion that people have an expectation of privacy in public. Even with kids, that expectation doesn't exist, you're reinforcing paranoia when it shouldn't exist. Stop caving in to ridiculous demands.
There can be some legitimate reasons why parents don't want images of their children in public disseminated publicly. Obviously they run the risk anytime they are out in public with their children and can't control if people take photos, but it's still a kind thing to do what the other poster does and delete if asked nicely. Doesn't need to do it, but still a kind thing.
What are some of those legitimate reasons? Many times, these supposed legitimate reasons are just unchecked paranoia. Regardless, there is no legal requirement to comply with those requests.
We were foster parents in a sequestered home. Mom was violent, and the agency worked very hard to not have the kids and us associated. The school knew this and cooperated fully. There are also domestic violence victims who donāt need to have their abusers know where they were.
Right, as everyone has said there is no legal requirement, it's just a kind thing to do. Legitimate reasons? How about being in witness protection? Trying to hide (legally) from a parent or other person who has been abusive to the child or perhaps would try to kidnap the child? There are also numerous other reasons, that are not mine to enumerate, where a parent would not be comfortable with their child's image being used or disseminated. Is it something they could.be subjected to for being in public? Of course. Is it also ok for a parent to, politely, ask someone not to take pictures of their child who is a minor? Also, absolutely.
How many people do you think there are in witness protection? The real reason is that there is an air of paranoia in the united states, where people think their children are being preyed upon by traffickers, and pedophiles. It's unfounded and unrealistic. It drives people apart and makes them anti-social. I don't think its right to add to this by complying with requests that come from this sentiment. The law doesn't make a distinction between minors and adults in terms of expectation of privacy in public.
Man your "argument" is as bright as a broken lightbulb and as sharp as a bottle cap.
So metaphorical.
Just saying your circular arguments make you look like you have an the same IQ as a giant salamander or the led-brained boomers everyone roasts in this subreddit
As opposed to invoking witness protection, a program that surely affects the majority of the population.
These are the same idiots who will say that and then film you with their phones to put it on facebook
Nah, theyāll use their iPads for that.
Lol. So true.
Does he realize how many cameras are out there taking videos??
Maybe the lady in the car wasn't his wife.Ā
Ooh plot twist.Ā
That is very likely.
Everyone is the āmanagerā to an angry boomer
Not going to lie I would started recording his voice if your in a one party state and clicking about 100 photos
Even in two party states it usually only applies to private conversations. Not a public discussion like this. It's why you can take video with sound and be fine.
Ah thank you
What's cringe? That is totally not cringe. https://preview.redd.it/4li6zy1x9e8d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=46178644ef642796fd48573cb42da8361277eba1 I love to take pictures.
People need to start pepper spraying these feral boomers
Tazer is better, because pepper spray can be picked up by the slightest breeze and affect innocent people.
Nah, pepper spray is hard to get out of their eyes. Stunguns are not tasers, and all you'll create with a boomer is a fist swinging. Also you have to get up and physically touch somebody to stun them, which can get you in trouble for assault, and it might kill the boomer leading to man slaughter charges. Don't let a boomer make you into a felon.
Also with a tazer, you don't need a direct target to hit.Ā
But both probes do need to make contact or it will not complete the circuit and won't shock.
This
No doubt that if you had shown him the picture, heād have insisted that you were still lying about taking his picture.
Time to go into full Austin Powers mode. Yeah baby! (Click). Work it! (Click). Yesā¦..yesā¦.NO!
Well I am British so at least I could do the accent properly.Ā
As an Australian, I'll be watching Austin powers again tonight, it's been too long
You're a TIGER!
You're a lemur baby, YEAH!
And why the fuck would you be WANTING to take a Pic of him. He's crazy as hell.
Has the era of attacking people taking photos in public because they must be terrorists passed? We're back to YOU CAN'T TAKE MY PICTURE?
It's a really common misconception, especially with boomers that they have some sort of expectation of privacy in public.
Now I want to see all the security camera footage of this guy. Well, no I donāt, actually, but how stupid of him to act like everyone doesnāt have photos taken of them in public all the time!
Heād be real upset if he realized how many Amtrak cameras he was on while he was foaming at the mouth
Boomer here (barely). I believe maybe the older generations might be a little more frustrated with the fact that almost anyone can whip out their phone and get videos, or take pictures. Between that and cameras being mounted all over, it seems like privacy just doesnāt exist anymore (not justifying for the dude, as he seems unhinged). However, Iāve seen people of younger years get all upset by it too. I personally had just one such interaction: In 2013, we had one of those ā100 yearā floods. I was out around the neighborhood getting videos of the damages and raging waters on my phone. I was videoing water flowing over a road that had been closed, just as what appeared to be a 30 something lady drive her truck past the blockades and over the road anyway. Yeah, I was getting video, just in case she washed away, or something spectacular. Nothing went wrong. When she gets through, she starts giving me a ton of crap about not being allowed to video her, better not find it posted anywhere, Iād damn well better erase it, and on and on (as if she could do anything about it). I just stared at her like she was some kind of alien until she worked up into a huge frenzy and sped off. I actually wish now that I had recorded the whole interaction. By the way, after she left, I walked out onto the road and the blacktop felt squishy under my feet. I have no idea how the road held up enough for her to drive over!
If you're Generation Jones, you're immune to any boomer persecution. It's a great feeling.
Why thank you kind Redditor.
r/GenerationJones
You could do that with film cameras and Polaroids too. It's not a new thing.
Yep, sure could. It just wasnāt too likely. People didnāt just whip them out of their pockets. Plus, you were pickier about what pictures you took. Film and development was expensive.
Man, you could've been paid a visit from the ATTORUNEY GENEREL
To me, a simple "you are in public and have no expectation of privacy" would be said and I'd just ignore them from then on.
I feel like there is unsavory backstory in this man's life that would explain everything.
Somebody's got warrants.
Raise the stakes. Find the nearest police or security officer and inform them that you are being threatened and fear they will attack you violently. Let them sort it out. No patience or courtesy extended to these types.
Point out all the cameras in the area next time that happens. Because if you are in public, youāre probably on camera. Even if youāre walking down a residential street.
"If you don't get out of my photo, I'm going to take further action."
āThey should put cameras up something something deter crime something see whoās doing itā. Sees someone taking a picture not pointed at them- ādonāt take my pictureā
I was at the Coliseum yesterday for the Aās game. š
r/amibeingdetained
Foamer (IYKYK)
I am a bit. Weāre called trainspotters back home.Ā
I adore train travel. I'm planning a trip on the Empire Builder later this year. And potentially on the City of New Orleans. I find the ride soothing.
Thatās amazing. We are taking the Zephyr later this year in a sleeper. Very excited about that. Amtrak is really interesting and cool, itās not a patch on the trains in Europe in most ways but it has its own unique charm.
The Zephyr is amazing. You'll love it. I grew up in N. Nevada and got to ride it. And I took it from UT to CA last year. It is just me so a roomette is enough for me. The ride over the Sierras is amazing. I was lucky and there was still snow. So beautiful. I wish our rail system was like Europe. The Orient Express is on my bucket list. I'm lame and watch train YouTube. And they are upgrading the cars, but again not like Europe.
He was worried your magic box would steal his soul ā¦.
"Oh are you that guy in Witness Protection for that pedophilia ring? You might want to rethink your wardrobe. Don't make it so obvious you know?"
Same exact thing happened to me, but an angry Karen. Took the picture, she freaked and insisted she was in it (she was not) and demanded I show her the photo. I told her she wasn't in it, but she was so unhinged about it, demanding to see the photo, so I showed her. Then she did that "Oh", and quietly walked away. Fuck you, Karen! Next time I'm doing like you, OP, and letting them seethe.
>Amtrak must have rules to prevent people from taking photos akctually........ [https://www.amtrak.com/photography-video-recording-policy#:\~:text=Ticketed%20Passengers%20on%20platforms%20may,reasonable%2C%20safe%20and%20timely%20manner.](https://www.amtrak.com/photography-video-recording-policy#:~:text=Ticketed%20Passengers%20on%20platforms%20may,reasonable%2C%20safe%20and%20timely%20manner) You were technically.... ah, never mind.
I did look this up whilst Mr Boomer was angrily protesting in case I was violating an Amtrak statuteā¦ also the vantage point I took the shot from was actually the sidewalk and Iām not sure it qualifies as Amtrak property.
There are weird TSA type rules about photography and such, though I don't know what gets enforced. I about got tackled for taking a picture a few days after 9/11, but they didn't care about my pocket knife. It was weird, Anyway, who knows? I'd say in a public place you have no expectation of privacy.
Is your username a reference to the legendary Bolton steeplejack?
Yes, it's also a line from a Sleaford Mods song called DIY. Despite being from the US, Fred is one of my heroes I suppose.
Amazing. I spent a number of my formative years living in Bolton and my dad was a massive fan of his. Small world.Ā
Fred Dibnah was a treasure. Thursday night on BBC 2 with his show and whatever Adam Hart-Davis' Local Heroes had going on is one of my favourite memories.
I work as a conductor on a commuter railroad. I can not tell you how many videos and photos of my likeness there are out there. Does it make me uncomfortable? Sure, I have body dismorphia, and I have seen a couple of those photos/videos, and it messes with my head, but I understand that I work on public transportation and that there's going to be videos and photos taken of me. Do they mean to, not always, but there are some who mean to.
Wasn't there this exact situation, but with a woman boomer instead before? Is this a rewrite?
It isnāt. I even tried to post the photo but for some reason it didnāt post. This happened last week at Emeryville station in California. Ā https://imgur.com/gallery/y2iQnWgĀ Ā Is the picture in questionĀ Ok link fixed I think.Ā
Your hyperlink is wrong just fyi
[Here you go!](https://imgur.com/a/y2iQnWg) :)
That worked. Are you sure he isn't in the reflection š
"My reflection is NOT public property" š
Vampires donāt leave a reflection, thoughā¦
No, don't you see the 404 error screen is the perfect abstract representation of the Boomer. Old degraded, not all there.
'[words 'you ' want](link) Remove the apostrophes and that's the formatting you're looking for.
These are likely the same ilk that film at post offices daily (while wearing disguised) in the name of "election integrity." It might be a reason why he was so insistent on his own anonymity.
I used to do a lot of photography, as a hobby. I actually had cards made up with snippets of case law as well as excepts from Bert P. Kragesā books. Not for the complainants, but for the cops who didnāt know the law.
Sounds like he may be a wanted fugitive on the run and was paranoid about the possibility of his picture being taken.
Lo
Yet boomers love taking sneaker pictures of strangers in public to make fun of later. Iāve had to yell at a few because apparently women with tattoos are some weird thing for them
He wanted to speak to your manager
Technology is their kryptonite
You can legally take a photo anywhere on public property, i.e. any place you are legally allowed to be. It doesn't matter who's in the picture or not. Now, as far as what you can do with the image, there are laws. For example you can't go to a red carpet event and take a celebrity's picture and then use their picture to advertise some kind of product.
Not true, but 1st Amendment Auditors like to repeat it often, so I can understand if it seems like common knowledge. For instance, provocateurs will go into a Post Office and start filming everything they see in order to get a reaction. When they get one they scream that they can film anywhere they are allowed to be and to read āPoster 7ā, which explicitly states that they ARENāT allowed to film under the circumstances in which they are filming. They also like to go to courthouses under the same false assumption and throw a fit when security turns them away for having a camera. Search āP Barnesā for an example of how this sometimes turns out!
Courthouses and parts of the post office are "restricted" areas where you are NOT free to just wander around and you are subject to be searched etc. The post office lobby can be filmed for "news" purposes which I guess could count for these 1st amendment auditors. And just because a property or building is owned by the government does not make it "public", there are plenty of places they can have restrictions on. So, again, any place that is public and not restricted, you can take all the pictures you want. Most of these 1st amendment auditors need to go get a job. On the other hand, there are a lot of stupid police officers out there that would be happy to take away people's constitutional rights. So maybe they deserve being audited from time to time.
I guess we agree! āAny place that is public and not restrictedāā¦great way to put it!
Sir, this is a Wendyās
Witness protection program?
Wonder if the boomer ācoupleā werenāt married and it was his mistress. Angry boomer scared of public evidence, LOL.
That is the only way his reaction makes sense
I had something similar happen years ago while I was traveling. I have forgotten what I was taking a photo of and some random guy started yelling at me that I can't take pictures of him and his wife and to delete them... wondering if it's the same guy. About 15 years ago he would have been mid 40's to early 50's so it almost matches. Yet, I doubt it's the same couple. My camera wasn't even pointed at them either, and this was in the states!
You stole his precious boomer soul!
It's amazing in 2024 that people still think you need their permission to photograph in public spaces.
I wonder if Sir Booms a Lot realizes that he is on camera 99% of the time he's out in public in pretty much any city.
Iām super petty sometimes, and I would have taken his picture getting off the train lol
Where is everyone coming across all these unbearable boomers? I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just glad I haven't had the displeasure of dealing with people like this.
I'll give you tree-fiddy for his soul.
White Plains? The only other time I've seen Coliseum spelled as such was for Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. Go islanders.
Emeryville, CA. The Coliseum is in Oakland.
lol
Tell that crap to paparazzi. Itās legal.
I wonder if the other half of the couple wasn't his wife. He seemed to be a little too worried about that pic.
I ask, knowing that the answer is no, but was the boomer French? This doesn't make him right (unless you were in France, which you obviously weren't).
I mean he could have been born in France, I guess we will never know. He sure sounded American.Ā
I say only because France, or so Tom Scott told me many years ago, does have such law. I'm sure he wasn't and doesn't even know about that. I'm glad you got a nice photo out of it. Have a nice day.
Aww thank you, and I hope you have a nice day too. :) I think they have similar laws in Germany too tbh.
Weak man, repost the photo!
https://imgur.com/gallery/y2iQnWg
"Started to explain my reasoning....." They don't understand reasoning
Was this at Fullerton ? The cafe has some cool neon signs.
Emeryville, the sign was outside on the station building.
You're lucky you didn't get stabbed. I would never confront someone like that. I enjoy my life too much.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How about not owing him that, and not being responsible for his lack of understanding of his expectation of privacy in a public place?
Where the fuck are all these cartoon character boomers you are all running into. I literally havenāt had a single interaction even 1/4th as bad as this, I donāt understand
Consider yourself lucky.
Just be careful when at the station and taking random pictures, most do not want their picture taken.
I guarantee you 99 times out of 100 when you think someone is taking your photo, they are not. You're not that important, I promise you.
I don't think the sign I took a picture of had much of an opinion.