PDA

View Full Version : Lady Not Happy About People Of Walmart Website




dannno
02-20-2011, 01:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWo-WTC-cFc&feature=player_embedded

Michael Landon
02-20-2011, 01:23 PM
People should have the right to shop without the fear of their photos being taken and spread across the internet on a website designed to attack them for their appearance.

- ML

ItsTime
02-20-2011, 01:24 PM
People should have the right to speech.....

guitarlifter
02-20-2011, 01:30 PM
She is truly a person of Walmart.

Michael Landon
02-20-2011, 01:32 PM
People should have the right to speech.....

So, someone posting a photo of you without your consent is "free speech?" What are you saying when exercising your "free speech" by posting a photo on the internet?

- ML

DamianTV
02-20-2011, 01:32 PM
The lady is an idiot. Her mom was in public when her photo was taken, and thus can not have any reasonable expectation that her photo can not be taken. Oh yeah, uh, what about the security cameras? Its their business, and she is volunteering herself on to their property which is open to the public, and has to expect that Wal Mart will do what it will on their property.

Michael Landon
02-20-2011, 01:39 PM
If the FBI were doing this would people be outraged?

- ML

ItsTime
02-20-2011, 01:39 PM
So, someone posting a photo of you without your consent is "free speech?" What are you saying when exercising your "free speech" by posting a photo on the internet?

- ML

They are in public place people are free to take pictures of anyone they wish and make comments on them. Im not the one posting the pictures, you would have to ask the owner of the site what they are trying to say.

Nate-ForLiberty
02-20-2011, 01:40 PM
This is the news making an issue out of something that isn't.

Nate-ForLiberty
02-20-2011, 01:43 PM
If the FBI were doing this would people be outraged?

- ML

Where does it end? If I'm in a store with a friend and decide to take a picture of him or her, and that picture ends up capturing someone else, should I be punished? This is ridiculous. If you go where there are cameras, expect your picture to be taken. You are not required to shop at Walmart.

Nate-ForLiberty
02-20-2011, 01:45 PM
BTW, how did this lady find her picture on that website anyway? Was she looking at it? Doesn't that make her a hypocrite?

angelatc
02-20-2011, 01:45 PM
So, someone posting a photo of you without your consent is "free speech?" What are you saying when exercising your "free speech" by posting a photo on the internet?

- ML

Yes. Imagine what would happen to the undercover expose` genre if photographers needed the consent of their subjects.

angelatc
02-20-2011, 01:48 PM
This is the news making an issue out of something that isn't.

I didn't watch the clip, but since I live in the Detroit area I assume it's the same woman who has been all over the news with her tale of woe. My favorite part was when one of the anchors added that Walmart was not in any way connected to the site. (Duh!)

dannno
02-20-2011, 01:52 PM
BTW, how did this lady find her picture on that website anyway? Was she looking at it? Doesn't that make her a hypocrite?

She found her mom's pic on there, and I imagine you are correct.

Kregisen
02-20-2011, 01:52 PM
lol what an ugly bitch, I bet there's pics of her on the site too.

What is she going to do? Take it to court and lose? lol if you don't want other people to see you, don't go in public.

dannno
02-20-2011, 01:54 PM
People should have the right to shop without the fear of their photos being taken and spread across the internet on a website designed to attack them for their appearance.

- ML

You have the right not to shop at WalMart, and WalMart, as the property owner, has the right to attempt to prevent people from taking photos of other customers. The lengths to which they decide to go to prevent said activity will either drive shoppers away for snooping on them to make sure they don't take photos of other shoppers, or the lack of lengths to which they go through to prevent this activity might drive away people who don't want to end up on the website.

emazur
02-20-2011, 01:59 PM
Her mom was in public when her photo was taken, and thus can not have any reasonable expectation that her photo can not be taken.

Strictly speaking this is private property and if Walmart wanted to it could ban photography/filming in their store (maybe they already do - I've been in plenty of stores that give such warnings on the front door:
http://lzai.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/img_5671.jpg?w=300&h=400 http://retailgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/JCG_20091222_124038_0777_thumb.jpg

It would be tough to enforce such rules nowadays though b/c cameraphones have become so commonplace. But let's suppose a person went to private property, was told 'no photography' at the door, took pictures anyway, and was asked to leave. If this person went on to post the pictures online, is it within the legal system for the property owner to force those pictures to be taken down?

EndDaFed
02-20-2011, 02:04 PM
There is a simple technical fix that Walmart could put into place if they so wanted. They could install lights that dump a ton of IR which would make taking photos with modern digital cameras a pain in the ass. Sure it could be bypassed with an IR filter but the photos would be of degraded quality.

Mini-Me
02-20-2011, 02:07 PM
If the FBI were doing this would people be outraged?

- ML

Yes, because they'd be using unlimited public money, which they extort from us, to spy on us on an absurd scale, and most likely as the prelude to using more government powers against us. You can't reasonably compare a few idiots with cameras taking random pictures in public to a full-blown panopticon.

RedStripe
02-20-2011, 02:08 PM
I hope no one here defends WalMart's "private property" even if the government had overtly taken possession of a former middle-class neighborhood (more likely a poor neighborhood actually) over the resident's objections and given it to WalMart.

Fuck WalMart. Fuck the "rights" of a corporation (non-human) which is directly and indirectly subsidized by government at every level.

As for this "news story", if this lady doesn't want people to see her mom's picture why the fuck would she contact a television station to run a story on it.

Mini-Me
02-20-2011, 02:12 PM
I hope no one here defends WalMart's "private property" even if the government had overtly taken possession of a former middle-class neighborhood (more likely a poor neighborhood actually) over the resident's objections and given it to WalMart.

Fuck WalMart. Fuck the "rights" of a corporation (non-human) which is directly and indirectly subsidized by government at every level.

As for this "news story", if this lady doesn't want people to see her mom's picture why the fuck would she contact a television station to run a story on it.

LOL, +rep for pointing out the irony (assuming I have some left for the day). :)

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-20-2011, 02:19 PM
I'm sure it would have just been easier to contact the webmaster and kindly ask him to remove the picture.

QueenB4Liberty
02-20-2011, 02:27 PM
I hope no one here defends WalMart's "private property" even if the government had overtly taken possession of a former middle-class neighborhood (more likely a poor neighborhood actually) over the resident's objections and given it to WalMart.

Fuck WalMart. Fuck the "rights" of a corporation (non-human) which is directly and indirectly subsidized by government at every level.

As for this "news story", if this lady doesn't want people to see her mom's picture why the fuck would she contact a television station to run a story on it.

+rep

Yeah, the irony is funny.

heavenlyboy34
02-20-2011, 02:32 PM
I hope no one here defends WalMart's "private property" even if the government had overtly taken possession of a former middle-class neighborhood (more likely a poor neighborhood actually) over the resident's objections and given it to WalMart.

Fuck WalMart. Fuck the "rights" of a corporation (non-human) which is directly and indirectly subsidized by government at every level.

As for this "news story", if this lady doesn't want people to see her mom's picture why the fuck would she contact a television station to run a story on it.
+rep :cool:

Mini-Me
02-20-2011, 02:32 PM
Copycats. :p

dannno
02-20-2011, 02:32 PM
As for this "news story", if this lady doesn't want people to see her mom's picture why the fuck would she contact a television station to run a story on it.

Reminds me of this scene from South Park:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154915/kennys-final-wishes

mczerone
02-20-2011, 03:17 PM
That is a great Wal-mart for people watching!

While there is an argument to be made that the girl should complain to Wal-mart about allowing photography, the fact remains that people go out in public looking like total trash. You don't care what you look like to the hundreds of people you'll see in Wal-Mart? Then we'll presume you don't care about a few hundred more seeing you on a website.

You do not own your image, you only own how you present yourself.

Kregisen
02-20-2011, 04:02 PM
Reminds me of this scene from South Park:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154915/kennys-final-wishes

lol I love that episode.

Anti Federalist
02-21-2011, 07:09 PM
I doubt very much that Wal Marx gives a shit about this.

Nor do they give a shit about any form of propriety.

I've been in a WalMarx with food for sale, with people walking around in bare feet, with animals, saw one woman smoking a cigarette over produce with a three inch ash hanging off.

I have mixed feelings about this...I never would support a law or government having a say in things like this, at the same, maybe shame is a concept that should be re-introduced, to prevent things like this:

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2497.jpg

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2476.jpg

dntrpltt
02-21-2011, 07:58 PM
So two thoughts on this one...you are out in public shopping and you should realize your photo might be taken. People take photos all the time, and it is there right to. Having said that, a website posting pictures of random people in public should have some process in which a picture of you can be taken down, after all, while the creator of the website has free speech, the person in the picture has the right to his property, which includes any visual representation of them.

Anti Federalist
02-21-2011, 08:13 PM
So two thoughts on this one...you are out in public shopping and you should realize your photo might be taken. People take photos all the time, and it is there right to. Having said that, a website posting pictures of random people in public should have some process in which a picture of you can be taken down, after all, while the creator of the website has free speech, the person in the picture has the right to his property, which includes any visual representation of them.

Well, to expand on the the idea of "if your employer is demanding things you don't like, you don't have to work there", I suppose in the two pictures I posted, the response would be, if you don't want to find yourself publicly humiliated (not that with a lot of these people that is even possible) then keep your tit in your shirt and if you shit yourself with explosive diarrhea, do not hang around the game and electronics counter, carry your disgusting, cholera spreading ass home and clean yourself up.

Rothbardian Girl
02-21-2011, 09:02 PM
well, to expand on the the idea of "if your employer is demanding things you don't like, you don't have to work there", i suppose in the two pictures i posted, the response would be, if you don't want to find yourself publicly humiliated (not that with a lot of these people that is even possible) then keep your tit in your shirt and if you shit yourself with explosive diarrhea, do not hang around the game and electronics counter, carry your disgusting, cholera spreading ass home and clean yourself up.
http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/01/01/lol_cats.jpg

idirtify
02-21-2011, 10:39 PM
Well, to expand on the the idea of "if your employer is demanding things you don't like, you don't have to work there", I suppose in the two pictures I posted, the response would be, if you don't want to find yourself publicly humiliated (not that with a lot of these people that is even possible) then keep your tit in your shirt and if you shit yourself with explosive diarrhea, do not hang around the game and electronics counter, carry your disgusting, cholera spreading ass home and clean yourself up.

If there can possibly be a worse image than those two, it’s the thought of what/who it took for the lactating mother in the wheel chair to procreate. Look out Idiocracy, here we come!

idirtify
02-21-2011, 10:41 PM
the person in the picture has the right to his property, which includes any visual representation of them.

Although there is some debate about that regarding the legal contract known as the “model release”, I don’t think we have the right to control all use of our image from someone else’s camera taken in a public place.

Anti Federalist
02-21-2011, 10:44 PM
If there can possibly be a worse image than those two, it’s the thought of what/who it took for the lactating mother in the wheel chair to procreate. Look out Idiocracy, here we come!

From the Wal Marx parking lot in VA:

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Redneck-list2.jpg

euphemia
02-21-2011, 10:45 PM
Of course we want to see these people twice. Sheesh, if they don't have self respect, what do they expect us to do about it?

idirtify
02-21-2011, 11:31 PM
But what’s a place like Walmart to do about this trend of publicizing the unpleasant appearance of their customer base? I’m sure they are in a dilemma. While publicizing the pictures does embarrass some of their customers (I’m sure only a teenie tiny percent, since along with not caring how you look goes not caring whether your image is publicized), I’m sure they also realize that it serves as free advertising to millions more who see it as an invitation to “come as you are”. When like minds see everyone else doing it, they feel safe in numbers to leave the house and spend money. In fact, Walmart should start to overtly capitalize on it with slogans such as “WE DON’T CARE THAT YOU DON’T CARE” or “WE CARE ABOUT YOUR MONEY, NOT YOUR APPEARANCE”.

idirtify
02-21-2011, 11:40 PM
From the Wal Marx parking lot in VA:


That’s awesome! Was it on the “people of walmart” website? If not, it should be. What a jewel! I mean I’m guessing there are actually relatively few who can't spell “tomato”, but even fewer who consistently spell it so badly.

Anti Federalist
02-22-2011, 12:06 AM
That’s awesome! Was it on the “people of walmart” website? If not, it should be. What a jewel! I mean I’m guessing there are actually relatively few who not only misspell “tomato”, but also consistently spell it so badly.

Yah, on the POWM site.

The comment was something to the effect of "I could excuse this, perhaps for being drunk. But even blind ass hammered, I know how to spell "castle".

It took me a minute to find it on the page, it's spelled so bad.

"kasul"

*facepalm*

EndDaFed
02-22-2011, 12:11 AM
That’s awesome! Was it on the “people of walmart” website? If not, it should be. What a jewel! I mean I’m guessing there are actually relatively few who not only misspell “tomato”, but also consistently spell it so badly.

This is what happens when people ostracize the eugenics movement.

ihsv
02-22-2011, 12:13 AM
This thread CRACKS ME UP!!!!!

Anti Federalist
02-22-2011, 12:16 AM
This is what happens when people ostracize the eugenics movement.

:confused:

:eek:

dannno
02-22-2011, 12:24 AM
But what’s a place like Walmart to do about this trend of publicizing the unpleasant appearance of their customer base? I’m sure they are in a dilemma. While publicizing the pictures does embarrass some of their customers (I’m sure only a teenie tiny percent, since along with not caring how you look goes not caring whether your image is publicized), I’m sure they also realize that it serves as free advertising to millions more who see it as an invitation to “come as you are”. When like minds see everyone else doing it, they feel safe in numbers to leave the house and spend money. In fact, Walmart should start to overtly capitalize on it with slogans such as “WE DON’T CARE THAT YOU DON’T CARE” or “WE CARE ABOUT YOUR MONEY, NOT YOUR APPEARANCE”.

No shirt, no shoes......ehh fuck it, just make sure and bring your wallet :D

AdamT
02-22-2011, 01:55 AM
"Frito Layed Out" LOL
http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2447Two.jpg

idirtify
02-22-2011, 01:56 AM
This is what happens when people ostracize the eugenics movement.

It’s also what causes people to embrace eugenics. But actually it’s based on misdirected blame. Such devolution is usually blamed on prosperity, but it’s actually a result of the welfare/nanny state and over-regulation.

Texan4Life
02-22-2011, 05:12 AM
LOL how lame... let me guess, she was cruising on people of walmart laughing at everyone else and then gets pissed.

EndDaFed
02-22-2011, 05:40 AM
It’s also what causes people to embrace eugenics. But actually it’s based on misdirected blame. Such devolution is usually blamed on prosperity, but it’s actually a result of the welfare/nanny state and over-regulation.

I wasn't serious. There is no such thing as devolution from a scientific perspective.

idirtify
02-22-2011, 10:10 AM
I wasn't serious. There is no such thing as devolution from a scientific perspective.

OK. Is your second sentence serious? (Please use smilies for sarcasm.)

RyanRSheets
02-22-2011, 10:22 AM
They are in public place people are free to take pictures of anyone they wish and make comments on them. Im not the one posting the pictures, you would have to ask the owner of the site what they are trying to say.

They're actually in a private place. Wal-Mart would be well within their rights to expel any customer caught photographing other customers, and a sign on the door saying that photography of customers is prohibited might be in order. That's about the only legitimate means I can think of to remedy this.

Krugerrand
02-22-2011, 11:04 AM
Strictly speaking this is private property and if Walmart wanted to it could ban photography/filming in their store (maybe they already do - I've been in plenty of stores that give such warnings on the front door:
http://lzai.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/img_5671.jpg?w=300&h=400 http://retailgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/JCG_20091222_124038_0777_thumb.jpg

It would be tough to enforce such rules nowadays though b/c cameraphones have become so commonplace. But let's suppose a person went to private property, was told 'no photography' at the door, took pictures anyway, and was asked to leave. If this person went on to post the pictures online, is it within the legal system for the property owner to force those pictures to be taken down?

Could WalMart not add to a sign like this something to the extent - those in violation of this policy agree to surrender ownership of aforementioned photographs to WalMart. Then, they could make a legal ownership claim of the pictures and force their removal.

(that would not do much for the pictures already out there, though.)

acptulsa
02-22-2011, 11:13 AM
How could Wal Mart possibly develop a dress code when, for most places that have them, the basic dress code is something like 'no clothes that look like they were bought at Wal Mart'?

Danke
02-22-2011, 11:23 AM
i doubt very much that wal marx gives a shit about this.

Nor do they give a shit about any form of propriety.

I've been in a walmarx with food for sale, with people walking around in bare feet, with animals, saw one woman smoking a cigarette over produce with a three inch ash hanging off.

I have mixed feelings about this...i never would support a law or government having a say in things like this, at the same, maybe shame is a concept that should be re-introduced, to prevent things like this:

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2497.jpg

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2476.jpg

mods!!! Please!!

Who girl
02-22-2011, 11:34 AM
Completely agree with you, Nate. There are three questions that people need to ask themselves about today's news:

1) Does it have any affect upon what my actions are?
2) Does it effect the future generations?
3) Why on earth do I believe it?

acptulsa
02-22-2011, 12:00 PM
Completely agree with you, Nate. There are three questions that people need to ask themselves about today's news:

1) Why on earth do I believe it?
2) Why on earth do I believe it?
3) Why on earth do I believe it?

Not that all your questions weren't valid. It's just that this is how I'm affected when I hear someone taking the Echo Chamber seriously.


mods!!! Please!!

Did you get caught eating lunch? Poor Danke...

nunaem
02-22-2011, 12:01 PM
"Frito Layed Out" LOL
http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2447Two.jpg


" The tragic demise of the “Frito Bandito” "

Anti Federalist
02-22-2011, 12:35 PM
Did you get caught eating lunch? Poor Danke...

Danke likes to feign outrage at such things, but in reality he's:

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/laughing-calvin--26-hobbes-337864_504_313.gif

Anti Federalist
02-22-2011, 04:25 PM
Excuse me...Princess Danke. ^^^

http://www.healthbolt.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/huh.jpg

Slutter McGee
02-22-2011, 04:33 PM
I hope no one here defends WalMart's "private property" even if the government had overtly taken possession of a former middle-class neighborhood (more likely a poor neighborhood actually) over the resident's objections and given it to WalMart.

Fuck WalMart. Fuck the "rights" of a corporation (non-human) which is directly and indirectly subsidized by government at every level.

As for this "news story", if this lady doesn't want people to see her mom's picture why the fuck would she contact a television station to run a story on it.

That makes no sense. Believing that it is wrong for the government to take land and give it to another private entity does not necessitate they we must not accept WalMart AS private property.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

LibForestPaul
02-22-2011, 05:00 PM
Strictly speaking this is private property and if Walmart wanted to it could ban photography/filming in their store (maybe they already do - I've been in plenty of stores that give such warnings on the front door:
http://lzai.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/img_5671.jpg?w=300&h=400 http://retailgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/JCG_20091222_124038_0777_thumb.jpg

It would be tough to enforce such rules nowadays though b/c cameraphones have become so commonplace. But let's suppose a person went to private property, was told 'no photography' at the door, took pictures anyway, and was asked to leave. If this person went on to post the pictures online, is it within the legal system for the property owner to force those pictures to be taken down?

Though the store is open to the public. I would presume a private entity (IBM) would have actual legal recourse.
What would happen to a consultant that takes a picture within IBM or ADM or Microsoft currently?

Anti Federalist
02-22-2011, 06:09 PM
Stars and Moons

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/24751.jpg

pcosmar
02-22-2011, 06:13 PM
Stars and Moons

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/24751.jpg

Is that her Mom?

Danke
02-22-2011, 06:14 PM
^ Cruising "People of Walmart" website again I see.

MelissaWV
02-22-2011, 06:19 PM
With most of these people, if this website did not exist another would pop up. You cannot really be seriously telling me that someone with half of their crack out (and a muffin top that threatens to smother any nearby small children) would be shocked to find their nasty outfit was photographed and put on the internet?

I do take issue with some of the photos of people who obviously have a mental disease or defect going on, or a physical abnormality that they can't control and aren't flaunting. *shrugs* I'm not happy about those types of photos, but what to do? Nothing, except point out how low people are for laughing at it when it comes up.

Anti Federalist
02-22-2011, 06:23 PM
With most of these people, if this website did not exist another would pop up. You cannot really be seriously telling me that someone with half of their crack out (and a muffin top that threatens to smother any nearby small children) would be shocked to find their nasty outfit was photographed and put on the internet?

I do take issue with some of the photos of people who obviously have a mental disease or defect going on, or a physical abnormality that they can't control and aren't flaunting. *shrugs* I'm not happy about those types of photos, but what to do? Nothing, except point out how low people are for laughing at it when it comes up.

I try to avoid those...the "Frito Layed Out" fellow in this thread for instance.

The poor guy may be dying, might have just had a stroke or heart attack.

And of course, the two cops standing by giving "NYC mouth to mouth resuscitation" don't help the matter.

Then again, maybe he's committing an act of civil disobedience at rising food prices because of worthless fiat money.

EndDaFed
02-22-2011, 06:25 PM
Excuse me...Princess Danke. ^^^

http://www.healthbolt.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/huh.jpg

The modern day version.

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/9781/freetalklive2.jpg

Anti Federalist
02-22-2011, 06:25 PM
^ Cruising "People of Walmart" website again I see.

I didn't bring it up, Princess.

acptulsa
02-23-2011, 02:25 PM
Danke likes to feign outrage at such things, but in reality he's...

...a princess?!

He's a princess.

I guess you can buy anything these days. I thought it sad when I first heard of titles being sold. But this is ridiculous beyond all reason...