Advances in Paparazzi Technology

17 Aug

Fourth article in our series on the Paparazzi/Gossip Industry.

By Comic Relief

Though this article was meant to discuss technological innovations in the craft of paparazzi/celebrity stalking, it’s very hard to discuss the trend without discussing the almost independent culture that encourages it.  Most will agree that British Princess Diana’s death did cause a temporary slowdown of the practice of stalking celebrities, yet it’s also true that this practice has returned to its previous fervor far exceeding the previous excesses in the practice. Even worse many private citizens have joined the herd of celebrity stalkers as though the practice of collecting images was a legitimate leisure pastime.  So prevalent is this activity, that Andreas Tzortzis of the International Herald Tribune coined the term the “reader-reporter” to distinguish the way insatiable tabloid customers have increasingly become producers of this content [1].

Please click here to watch video


Why do citizens think it’s tolerable to invade celebrity private lives?  Is it audience jealously, regarding celebrity notoriety or popularity, audience anger regarding some forms of celebrity professional success, is it audience envy in regard to a celebrity’s ability to sustain prolonged mass media attention?  Whatever it may be, audience members in many cases seem perfectly willing to not only pay for the tabloids that print this material but also play essential roles in collecting this material.

Discussing how “reader-reporters” have become instrumental in collecting celebrity information, the Herald Tribune discussed the way viewers are able to submit their pictures to agencies for sometimes significant fees.  Regarding this trend we have to ask for how long: because many professional Paparazzos are likely to employ everything from lawyers, agents, drivers, assistants, etc. to streamline and professionalize their practice [2].  A cautionary note, the fact that many celebrities fight back can frequently make these reader-reporter ventures all the less lucrative for non-professionals.

Though all of the soon to be mentioned technologies are in fact innovations, in the practice of celebrity stalking one should remember that the intentions of the personality collecting celebrity information determines whether the activities are actually legal.  A personality who can be defined a “public figure” has far fewer rights to privacy than one who cannot.   Though many celebrities have lost legal battles in this regard; telephoto lens, portable and handy cell phones, and wire less video cameras have done a lot to lessen or circumvent celebrity privacy [3].  It doesn’t help refine general public understanding that there are a larger number of professional celebrities who seek gratuitous paparazzi attention regardless of its challenges to professionals who do not seek overt and continuous streams of public attention.

Regardless, some strains of the paparazzi culture relentlessly work to recruit audience members into the voyeur craft.  Websites like Techpaparazzi.com is not uncomfortable about how it seeks to indoctrinate viewers into paparazzi culture.  Their site sells clothes, buttons, mugs, hats and other paraphernalia all geared toward encouraging viewers to enter their paparazzo/stalker cause [4].  All of which, they fully and cheerfully admit to.

Geared toward accomplishing the goal of this article, practices we used to accept as only tolerable for agents in the intelligence field are being readily incorporated to diminish the privacy of celebrities. Techpaparazzi.com, presenting the next generation in celebrity spy tools does more than promote it also does a great job at facilitating also.  James bond like viewing devices can easily be placed in wall clocks, power strips, air fresheners, and other mundane household items so as to not be detected by celebrities while attempting to catalog their non-professional activities and habits [4].

At least those objects seem to admit some embarrassment with the practice of intruding into other peoples lives.  These spy cameras intend to pry and are not the least bit self-conscious about their information collection goals.  These cameras and viewing devices might appear in fountain pens, ties, buttons, or even key chains.

Possibly more insidious for the maturing stalker, why not jam the signal of your potential target to prevent them for calling for help of even seeking the aid of people who might be able to lessen their pursuit by stranger/stalkers.  These “cellular jammers” help scramble cellular signals making the effort to call for support or call to report an intrusion a useless activity.

Since in terms of cataloging, we are far beyond helping anyone to sustain their privacy, these next devices are intentionally aimed toward eliminating boundaries to stranger access.  “Key loggers” are devices that help one record all of the keys used to say define passwords one might have been used to create previously encrypted files.

Like the last devices GPS trackers also not only help one record where individuals are but also helps place those locations on maps so that others can monitor their whereabouts.  This device allows groups of stalkers to plan to coordinate their efforts while trying to apprehend a fleeing celebrity.

Assuming that you could get into someone’s residence, for people who would want to record someone’s printed material a document scanner is another device one could use to collect private information.  Looking like a ball point pen, it would be difficult for anyone to figure out why you were there.

Though many more gadgets can be found at the website, knowing all of a celebrity’s mobile phone activities is as simple as using this kind of spy software.  With it you can listen to phone calls, check text messages, and review the user’s usage history.

But in case this emphasis on the general public has diminished the focus on the worst offenders of this crime, let’s not forget how many professional news agencies have encouraged the stalking of celebrities.  If all of the previous transgressions were not enough, then there’s one of the biggest public technology scandals of the day, Rupert Murdoch’s media empire’s trial regarding his hacking of phone lines in preparation for celebrity assault by blackmail and intimidation [6].

Given the news media’s savagery and the general public’s willingness to contribute to the expansion of paparazzo culture we may continue to see celebrities struggle for every shred of privacy the legal system will allow them.  As best we can we should do our best to keep the human costs of these photographic pursuits in mind so as to not further jeopardize the sanity, health, and security of otherwise creative and well-meaning contributors to our culture.

Please click here to watch video

Also see: What Does a Mosquito & Paparazzi Have in Common?

 Please join us for a discussion: Thursday 8/18/2011@7pmE/12UTC

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/technology/13iht-pix.2466131.html

[2] http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/paparazzi3.htm

[3] http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/paparazzi4.htm

[4] http://shop.cafepress.com/Paparazzi?

[5] http://www.techpaparazzi.com/topgadgets-unleashing-james-bond-lifestyle/

[6] http://www.smh.com.au/world/hacking-widely-known-at-murdoch-paper-20110816-1iwni.html

Advertisements

128 Responses to “Advances in Paparazzi Technology”

  1. Littlebells August 17, 2011 at 11:21 AM #

    CR, Fantastic!!! Incredible!!!! Thank you for such an informative and disturbing article. I feel sick about people being “fully and cheerfully” stalking celebrities. It’s sick, repugnant and distasteful. I used to pity stupid people who became obsessed with celebrities because they obviously suffer from some major low self-esteem, but after reading this: nope , no more! They are vulchers and I believe one of these days Karma is going to come bit them hard in the a$$!!! (I tried to be creative their OB while still getting my point across 😦 )

    • Littlebells August 17, 2011 at 12:39 PM #

      just thought this fitting….

      • comic relief August 17, 2011 at 1:49 PM #

        LB,

        Thanks.

        You know, the more I read the sicker it made me feel. Eventually I had to say this isn’t remotely glamorous, I’d really be scared if these people approached people I knew like family.

        The paparazzo in the video carries mace for bystander- fans that get in the way of his interaction with the celebrity.

        In the US I imagine there’s a history of allowing psychopaths to have their way until eventually enough evidence comes in to prove they are dangerous to the general public. Then we start demanding that individuals who want to work at nursery schools have background checks. We start making sure sex offenders can’t live within the vicinity of public schools. And after a certain number of accidents we take the driver’s licenses away from drunks. Hopefully we’ll catch up with paparazzi sooner than all of those.

        Thanks, my respect for Anne Hathaway, has jumped considerably. I didn’t know she was a rap fan.

        • comic relief August 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM #

          Sorry he uses pepper spray not mace. He also was nice enough to inform us that group Papparazzi assaults on individual celebrities are called “gang bangs.”

      • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:05 PM #

        love the video btw.

  2. Open Book August 17, 2011 at 3:03 PM #

    CR-

    ITA with LB. Fantastic article on such a sleazy topic. I’m really looking forward to the discussion tomorrow night I have a lot of questions.

  3. Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 6:56 PM #

    Hey! I’m here, just got home and getting my head together for the discussion. 🙂

    • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 6:58 PM #

      I’m here too. Hi Littlebells.

      • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:00 PM #

        Hi CR!

        What did you find THE most disturbing when doing the research for this article?

        • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:05 PM #

          LB,

          I’m not sure. The total disregard for other people, how nasty and entitled the photos seem to feel, the odd glamourous/savage nature of the whole pursuit.

          • Open Book August 18, 2011 at 7:09 PM #

            CR-

            That’s what I thought too and how entitled people feel to stalk other people. I just don’t get that?

            • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:16 PM #

              I’m beginning to really wonder whether it’s jealousy; because though they come from another art field you’d think there would be more identification or sympathy.

          • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:11 PM #

            In the video I posted, the paparazzo claimed he and the celebrity had a “relationship.” I really think that’s sick.

            • Open Book August 18, 2011 at 7:21 PM #

              LOL! Wow…How lost this person is. No the celebrity actually did something legal and worth admiring in some cases I’m sorry holding a camera and shoving it and stalking and harassing a person are not admirable traits nor am I seeing it being a respectable job.

  4. ozzie20 August 18, 2011 at 7:02 PM #

    Hi all, I don’t think I can do tonight’s discussion. Personal problems have arisen and I’m in not going to be able to contribute anything that will make sense. CR your article deserves full attention and I’m just not going to be able to give it my full attention tonight! I’m so sorry. When I can get my head together, I’ll come back and comment as this is a fascinating topic!

    Have fun guys! 🙂

    • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:06 PM #

      Thanks for the heads up Ozzie. Good luck with your “distraction.”

  5. Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:03 PM #

    Hello Everyone!

    I’m here. Let me get caught up.

  6. Open Book August 18, 2011 at 7:05 PM #

    Hi Everyone..

    Welcome new and returning visitors to our discussion.

  7. Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:10 PM #

    CR, I think my problems are the same as yours: I don’t get the “entitlement” and the disregard for other people. Where is it stated that just because you are a celebrity that your life is fair game?

    These folks are truly vulchers, I don’t know what else to call them.

    • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:13 PM #

      …maybe leaches, parasites,…

      strange thing is they don’t expect fully devour their hosts nor believe they are doing the public a service.

      • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:17 PM #

        Supposedly Michael Douglas and Katherine Zeta-Jones did all of this to protect their wedding:

        • Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas took perhaps some of the most famous and extreme set of measures to keep paparazzi out of the picture at their wedding:

        • All of the caterers, help, suppliers and any other vendors associated with the wedding had to sign confidentiality agreements (even the ones that didn’t get the job).

        • No wedding guests were given the time or location of the wedding until the last minute.

        • The day before the wedding, special tickets were hand-delivered or couriered to the invited guests.

        • Each ticket had a code in invisible ink alongside a special design. Only one person, wedding planner Simone Martel Levinson, knew what that design looked like. Before allowing each guest entry, Levinson personally authenticated the design on that guest’s ticket.

        • Once admitted to the wedding, guests swapped the tickets for a gold “guest” pin designed by Jones and Douglas. The ticket swap and the pins were kept secret until the event.

        • No guests were allowed to have cameras inside the event.

        • Other hotel guests staying at the Plaza Hotel were not allowed anywhere near the wedding rooms.

        • Up until the moment the wedding started, all wedding rooms were swept several times for hidden audio or video recording devices.

        • The New York Police Department and Fire Department were on board for security. All of the hotel’s fire alarms were monitored by personnel throughout the wedding to make sure no one would pull them during the event.

        • Three private security guards patrolled the corridors at all times.
        Who thinks these measures are extreme?
        From Robert Valdes from Introduction to How Paparazzi Work
        Printed at http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/paparazzi4.htm

        • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:22 PM #

          Wow! That is truly sad that they had to take such great lengths, but I am glad they were able to do it and have a very private and personal wedding.

          Other celebrities have done this. It’s sad that they can’t tell their friends in advance, but I guess if you want your private life private, you have to take these steps.

          • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:24 PM #

            it wasn’t so private. I read one pap got in. Douglas and Zeta-Jones sued the paper that the pics were printed in.

            • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:26 PM #

              Paris,

              You are absolutely correct.

          • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM #

            Sorry I did not want to post an entire book.

            After all of that preparation:

            The security bill for the wedding equaled more than $66,000, but even with all of those countermeasures, paparazzo Rupert Thorpe managed to infiltrate the wedding and snap shots of the bride and groom that he later sold to publications Hello! and The Sun.

            • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:27 PM #

              I would have sued as well. I would love to have these vulchers/parasites get a taste of their own medicine.

            • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM #

              just goes to show nothing is fool proof.

      • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:20 PM #

        Yes, those are great words too!

  8. Open Book August 18, 2011 at 7:17 PM #

    Why do people try and elevate themselves by stepping on someone else? That’s what’s so disturbing to me about this. I feel like because of social media people have become savages and want to have power and control over celebrities. CR can u explain what u mean about people being jealous of celebrities and this is why people feel entitled to stalk them.

    • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:23 PM #

      I’m not entirely sure, but you have to remember this is the country that used to believe in public hangings, witch burnings, and public lynching.

      In the real recent past, assault in the day-light was a family affair.

      Maybe with jealosy mixed in; celebrity hunting is a new expression of these pastimes.

  9. Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:23 PM #

    ok i honest to god feel sick to my stomach. What’s the point in having a mobile/cell if they can see who you’ve been talking to and listening to your calls? Where are the laws that protect against this?

    • Open Book August 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM #

      Yes i felt sick when reading this too. Can u believe how fans are being encouraged to stalk celebs? Why? Are people that needy or so little self respect they can’t admire someones work and respect their personal life. The laws really need to change to keep up with the social media stalking and harassment IMO!

      • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:30 PM #

        Yes, yes they are OB, but I think they feed off one another too. I think it’s “mob mentality”. I think the freedom of speech and getting into everybody’s business and thinking you own it has gotten EXTREMELY out of hand.

    • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM #

      Yes, it’s sickening. I wonder if they have to constantly change phones and phone numbers….Shoot, I might just get rid of mine.

      • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:31 PM #

        I remember when Nick and Jessica were married and some girl kept calling their cell phones saying sexually explicit things to them. Jessica went and had their phones put under her corporation. I used to watch Newlyweds when it was on.

    • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:30 PM #

      I don’t understand this either? Are we talking about hunting criminals, terrorist, thieves: no! Most actors are pathetically harmless (in any regard).

      • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:31 PM #

        ITA CR!

  10. Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM #

    I can’t believe that what these paparazzi do does NOT come down to money. No person with a sense of ethics or morals would ever exploit anyone just because…..I still don’t get the “entitlement” thing….

    • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:34 PM #

      Oddly, Little bells many paparazzo’s cant be solely motivated by movie because they need lawyers, agents, drivers, to help them professionalize their practice. When all of these individuals have been paid you can’t possibly be making big bank esspeically while maintaining the technology costs.

      They’re on a mission, I believe driven by more than green.

      • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM #

        What do you think that mission is? Do they intentionally want to destroy others?

  11. Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:26 PM #

    I’d like to know how Rachel Weisz and Daniel what’s his name (the guy from James Bond) dated and got married. I didn’t even know they were married until I read about it.

    • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:33 PM #

      Kudos to them!

      BTW, I’m so frustrated with this bullhonkey business I had to take out my Thrifty brand Chocolate malted crunch ice cream. 😦

      • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:33 PM #

        pass some through the screen please. LOL

        • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:35 PM #

          it’s soooooooo good. 😉

      • Open Book August 18, 2011 at 7:36 PM #

        Thrifty Ice Cream? I love their banana nut flavor. Love them.

        • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM #

          some days you can buy 2 for $5. Ok, back on task: my heart really goes out towards those in the biz who just want to do their work, hang out with their friends, and go home and not get pestered by psycho fans and sleazy scum.

    • Open Book August 18, 2011 at 7:34 PM #

      Maybe it’s because they did not get married in LA? I would think LA would be the worst place to get married. If u want it to be more private then u need to get married in some remote cave. LOL!

      • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM #

        LOL true.

    • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:35 PM #

      Paris,

      “Daniel Craig”. LOL.

      • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:36 PM #

        Thank you! and i saw Cowboys and Aliens yesterday. Still his name escaped me. 🙂

  12. Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:32 PM #

    Take for example Tori Spelling. She lets cameras into her home to document her life with her family but yet shies away from the paparazzi? What’s the darn difference?

    • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:33 PM #

      Nevermind figured it out: MONEY $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    • Open Book August 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM #

      Talent vs. No Talent, that’s the difference.

      • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:39 PM #

        DARNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

        • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:41 PM #

          LOL.

        • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:42 PM #

          it’s true. What has her acting career done for her to earn money?……..pregnant pause……….

          • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:49 PM #

            🙂

  13. Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:33 PM #

    I think she may have control over what gets edited for TV?

    • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:34 PM #

      She may but that’s not the point. She still allows the cameras in.

      • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM #

        True. Very true. It is very hard to find out just how much paparazzi get paid. I mean there are rough estimates and ball park figures, but the big shots have got to be worth so much that the paparazzi live each day for that “special shot”. Ugh, barf, vomit!!!!

        • Open Book August 18, 2011 at 7:41 PM #

          Do any of these paparazzi have other criminal records?

          • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:46 PM #

            It would help if a criminal record was a barrier to being able to practice.

          • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:46 PM #

            aren’t the people from X-17 former gang members? or someone hired former gang members to stalk celebs. Thought it was them.

            • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:49 PM #

              Say what???? Never heard that. Geesh…

            • Open Book August 18, 2011 at 8:25 PM #

              Are u serious? Why not hire hit men or a militia?

  14. Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:35 PM #

    EVeryone:

    What are the paparazzi laws? Do they really exist?

    • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:36 PM #

      not well enough in this country.

      • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:46 PM #

        I read in Germany paparazzi cannot take pictures of celebrities outside of public events without their permission. This was as of 2007….still hunting…

        • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:47 PM #

          correction: cannot take pictures at public events….without their permission.

        • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:47 PM #

          In France they have to ask the celeb if they can post their picture in their paper.

          • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:47 PM #

            Yes, I read that too.

    • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:39 PM #

      Not sure of the exact laws but this is the definition of a public figure:

      Public figures break down into three types:

      • Public figure: A person who has achieved fame or notoriety or who has voluntarily become involved in a public controversy. A public figure (or public official) suing for defamation must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice.
      Example: Movie stars like Brad Pitt or Gwyneth Paltrow fall into this category.

      • All-purpose public figure: A person who achieves such pervasive fame or notoriety that he or she becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. For example, a person who occupies a position with great persuasive power and influence may become an all-purpose public figure, whether or not the person actively seeks attention.
      Example: A company executive such as Michael Eisner or a politician like George W. Bush fall into this category.

      • Limited-purpose public figure: A person who, having become involved in a particular public issue, has achieved fame or notoriety only in relation to that particular issue.
      Example: People involved in a controversy, such as the parents of JonBenet Ramsey, fall into this category.

      From Robert Valdes from Introduction to How Paparazzi Work
      Printed at http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/paparazzi4.htm

      • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:48 PM #

        Seems like if the celebrity can be categorized this way, their actual rights seem to go out the window.

        • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:50 PM #

          that is beyond all comprehension. *throws hands in the air*

          So your status determines how intrusive people can be into your life. Wooooowwww….

          • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:54 PM #

            …seems you’re right…

        • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 7:53 PM #

          Rights? What Rights? Celebs have none. They are just like victims againsts abusers. The abusers have more rights then the victims do. IMO

          • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:56 PM #

            *banging head on desk*

          • Open Book August 18, 2011 at 8:26 PM #

            So true!

      • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:56 PM #

        Well I’m glad having an actor for a Governor was good for something.

        That legislation should be be very useful.

        • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:57 PM #

          Well it supposedly took action this last January, so who knows….

        • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:01 PM #

          LOL!

  15. comic relief August 18, 2011 at 7:50 PM #

    Celebrity assaults recorded or reported by celebrities:

    • A paparazzo intentionally had a car accident with Catherine Zeta-Jones to force her out of her car.

    • Actor Sean Penn was intentionally provoked many times into physical confrontations to get photos and create lawsuits.

    • Paparazzi posed as Michael Douglas’s family members to gain access to the hospital where his son was born.

    • Susan Sarandon found a paparazzi camp hidden on her property.

    • Britney Spears and her mother were surrounded at a pet store. Britney’s mother injured a photographer fleeing the scene in her car.

    From Robert Valdes from Introduction to How Paparazzi Work
    Printed at http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/paparazzi4.htm

  16. Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 7:56 PM #

    Th is just one of my pet peeves regarding this whole issue:

    “Jenny McCarthy buys groceries.” GET OUT!
    “lauren Conrad buys toilet paper.” NO WAY!
    “Jake Gylenhall goes for a jog.” NUH-UH!
    “Jessica Biels eats at restaurant.” OMG! ME TOO!!!!!!

    Wow, I’m so glad there are people taking pictures of these normal, run of the mill moments because I would HAVE NO IDEA that these people do the SAME THING AS ME!!!! Keep me informed US, OK!, Star….

    • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:03 PM #

      I absolutely think you are soooo awesome. LOL! Don’t you know they have been diefied by God himself?????? *eyeroll*

      • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 8:05 PM #

        hahaha!!! Thanks!

  17. Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 8:07 PM #

    Ok, just went back to re-read the article. “Cellular jammers.” The fact that they do this so the celebrity can NOT call for help….I seriously have lost all use of verbal skills!!!!!

  18. Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM #

    CR,

    What was the most frightening tatic the paparazzi use to stalk celebrites so far?

    • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:10 PM #

      is?

    • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 8:21 PM #

      As you said earlier; I believe attacks on cell phones, ease dropping, reading communication history, and trolling for system pass words.

      But how can anyone beat Murdock’s phone hacking/ I heard that sort of intimidation and bribery was only recently outlawed in The UK.

      The US seems to be trailing behind of this crime.

      • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 8:24 PM #

        “on” not “of”

      • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:26 PM #

        the u.s. trails behind on everything nowadays.

  19. Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 8:10 PM #

    OB,
    We need to look into the psychology of these individuals who create and encourage this mob mentality.

    I was talking with a friend today who asked, “Why do more celebrities choose to live outside the US and why not Australia?” Well I know of Tina Turner and Johnny Depp who live in Europe. Any others? And I’m assuming with so many Australian actors, Australia is just as mainstream as the states. Any ideas?????

    • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM #

      Europe has very strict laws because of the death of Diana.

      • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM #

        That makes sense. Isn’t it sad to think that the only way to get paparazzi under some control would be for something similar to happen to one of our Hollywood royalty? That’s absolutely despicable.

        • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:17 PM #

          Hollywood royalty? who is the royalty?

          • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 8:22 PM #

            Well I don’t think there is any, but Brangelina, Jennifer Aniston…blah, blah, blah.

  20. comic relief August 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM #

    Regarding odd audience reactions to the problem, this is the kind of sarcasm that gets vented when the subject of stalkerazzi gets brought up in the media.

    • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 8:16 PM #

      This why I wonder how much anger, envy, jealosy, play a role in sustaing this phenomonon.

    • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:19 PM #

      Is this a joke????????

      • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 8:22 PM #

        I think they think it is.

        • Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 8:22 PM #

          CR, look at them. I think that is your answer.

        • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:24 PM #

          seriously these people don’t think they will be able to change any laws or anything right?

          • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 8:27 PM #

            Paris,

            If the comedians weren’t being harassed by TMZ and the Paparazzi; I would tell those people to leave it to the professinals.

            • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 8:28 PM #

              Sorry,

              “Professionals.”

              • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:30 PM #

                the entire thing is ridiculous though. Just because a person’s job is in FRONT of the camera does not make them any different than the people BEHIND the camera.

                • Open Book August 18, 2011 at 8:32 PM #

                  ITA! Standing O!

                  • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:33 PM #

                    Thank you. Thank you. I’m here all week. LOL

                • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:34 PM #

                  In fact, IMO the make up artists and costume people hold all the tricks. They can make you look good or bad. So be nice the make up and costume people.

                  • Open Book August 18, 2011 at 8:36 PM #

                    Blushing!!

                    • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:37 PM #

                      🙂 🙂

                  • Littlebells August 19, 2011 at 12:05 PM #

                    I always was kind to my hair and costume people and watched them first hand screw others. Honestly it was funny because they people they “helped” would come up to me and say, “I think they did something to my wig” and I would have to say, “NO, no it looks fine.” and then snicker.

                    ALWAYS be kind. ALWAYS!!!!

                    • comic relief August 21, 2011 at 2:27 PM #

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  21. Littlebells August 18, 2011 at 8:23 PM #

    CR, everyone, I need to go.

    CR, thank you for such a wonderful article and discussion. Truly, I love coming here.

    Have a wonderful night!
    🙂

    • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:25 PM #

      bye LB.

      • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 8:28 PM #

        Bye, LB.

    • Open Book August 18, 2011 at 8:28 PM #

      Bye LB!

  22. Open Book August 18, 2011 at 8:31 PM #

    CR!

    The technology is truly disturbing do many celebs hire their own tech experts to combat this.

    • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:32 PM #

      good question OB. What techniques do celebs use in defense of themselves.

    • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 8:37 PM #

      I don’t know. It would be hard to believe they don’t.

      Basically the general public has given the paparazzi the right to break most established expectations of privacy as long as a “public figure” is involved. If an infraction is carried out, the celeb has to be patient and let the courts sort it out later.

      I imagine sought after celebs fight back in many ways. One example: some celebs move out of LA all together.

      • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:40 PM #

        that’s true they do move. but that doesn’t stop the stalking. They have to have some defense. For example, they could hire private body guards (wonder if their is a tax deduction for that. Is that considered a work expense?)

        • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 8:46 PM #

          I guess we’re heading into a whole calculus of professional and personal defense discussion.

          Speaking of moving, I imagine if you move out of town you must disavail yourself of the paparazzi defense law then Governor Swarzenegger drafted or appoved.

          • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:47 PM #

            Why would one have to? Does it only cover CA?

            • comic relief August 18, 2011 at 8:49 PM #

              Sorry, I could be wrong; but I assumed that was the case. California was his jurisdiction.

              I don’t think he can make laws federally or for another state.

              • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:50 PM #

                That’s true. 🙂

  23. comic relief August 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM #

    Thanks everyone for coming.

    I really enjoyed the discussion. If I am able I will answer any other qquestions later.

    Good night.

    Thanks again.

    • Parisienne August 18, 2011 at 8:56 PM #

      Good night!

  24. ozzie20 August 22, 2011 at 8:28 PM #

    Wow, what an interesting and illuminating article and discussion. I agree with what everyone said here. It makes me sick to find out that this so called “reporting” goes so much deeper than I thought it did. I feel sick and frightened at the thought of cellular jammers, hacking and minute cameras. Encouraging everyday citizens to sink to that level is disgusting too! Oh and pepper spray used on people who are kind enough to help a fellow human from this attack? Words are not strong enough to describe what that makes me feel! It makes me wonder how much empathy there is left in the world.

    Excellent article CR! Well done! 🙂

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: