Police Stop Journalists From Photographing Metrorail System 601
schwit1 writes with this excerpt from Reason.com:
"Carlos Miller, who runs the Photography Is Not a Crime blog, and veteran photojournalist Stretch Leford decided to test the photography rules in Miami-Dade's metrorail system. Before embarking on their test, they obtained written assurance from Metro Safety and Security Chief Eric Muntan that there's no law against non-commercial photography on the system. The two didn't make it past the first station before they were stopped. Employees of 50 State Security, the private firm contracted to provide the metro's security, stopped the pair first. They then called in local police. The private firm and the police then threatened the two with arrest, demanded their identification (to check them against a terrorist watch list), demanded multiple times that they stop filming, and eventually 'banned' Miller and Ledford from the metro system 'for life' (though it's doubtful they had the authority to do so)."
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone knows that real (non-mobile phone) camera's are only used by terrorists and pedophiles, duhhh.
Well.... (Score:2, Interesting)
This isn't over (Score:5, Interesting)
This is far from over.
I'm glad to see that part of the article. They even presented to the security guards the very letter that granted the photographers permission, and they were still stopped. The next step is to follow-up on that letter and ask why their guards aren't following their own policies. This was a great experiment: there was no fighting, no harassing the security guards, etc. I really look forward to seeing the result. There is a part of me that hopes hundreds of photographers start going there to try and take photographs.
Re:The free world isn't so free anymore... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's definitely not worth the money. For one thing, 9/11 changed the rules of plane hijackings: no longer can you expect that the terrorists will just land and ransom you if you just keep your head down. It was over on the same freakin' day, before the fourth plane ever reached its target.
It's always about costs vs. benefits [townhall.com], and it's about time we did some economic analysis of our security measures on top of the general effectiveness analysis we're also not doing enough of. Especially since all wars are economic: it doesn't matter what resource you cause your enemy to drain; if you can do it disproportionately, you can eventually win.
Re:It's the sun (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if this is the same outfit responsible for the Metrorail security as it was when I was working on the UM medical campus and lived in Hialeah. Most evenings when I got to the Hialeah stations the guard was in his car sleeping. I was mugged once, and on the second attempt successfully defended myself, all with no sign of the sleeping beauty in the car parked in front of the turnstiles. On one occasion, at the Martin Luther King station, in broad daylight, I was shoved aside and the young man "of color" went through the turnstile on my card. He went over to the young woman guard who was standing watching the whole incident, they did a "high five", and he went on up the stairs, while she tried to accuse me of lying about having a ticket. Actually I had a monthly pass, which very fortunately her friend hadn't noticed. Then she told me I couldn't let someone else go through on my pass! I had to threaten to call the police myself before she let me through.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a little surprised he didn't. I'm not an American, but if the cops arrest you with no reason don't you then turn around and sue them for false arrest? A few expensive lawsuits would probably convince whoever is in charge to train their police officers a little better.
Re:It's the sun (Score:4, Interesting)
Can't be the sun - we have this problem in England.
I don't think we have it to this extent. The summary says they were stopped in the first station -- I've tried taking photographs in stations in London, hoping to get stopped so I can bitch about it on Slashdot, but am so far unsuccessful.
(It's not surprising though -- buses, trains and the Underground are well-known "tourist attractions", so every tourist photographs them, and it's very, very rare for an idiot security person to try and intervene.)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are other crazy laws on the books like this, like being drunk...in public.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
They would try and get you with resisting arrest. So the entire pretense for arresting you is resisting arrest. Doesn't matter what the resistance is; vocal, thought, physical..
Just ask politely if you're under arrest. If not, carry right on doing whatever it is you were doing. .
There are other crazy laws on the books like this, like being drunk...in public.
Um, yes, but there's written laws for that. So far there's no law against photography and a cop really ought to know that.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
So a private security firm AND the police have the right to try and sentence people without so much as a trial? NICE! I bet Miami-Dade PD is going to have to throw up some decent PR on this one... Oh wait, it's in the name of anti-terrorism and public safety...
No, the police have the power to arrest someone without so much as a trial. It's the DA's job to tell the police "FTW!? Let them go! They didn't do anything illegal. Get a lawyer, they're going to sue you for false arrest."
Re:This isn't over (Score:3, Interesting)
Camera flashmob - now that would be something to see.
Why not? Everyone has camera/phones now.
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should they have to try again another day? Why should they even have to ask permission -- it's public property (in the minds of most people anyway, I don't know or care who the railway and buildings technically belong to).
As Compared to Japan... (Score:3, Interesting)
In Japan, I have traveled to every station on the Nagoya Subway, taking pictures. (3rd or 4th largest city in Japan, about 80 stations.)
I stood out, being a giant white guy, carrying what is to American police an "Evil, Terrorist-style" DSLR, with a 10-20mm lens on it.
Not a single security guard or police officer even tried to talk to me. (Actually, the only time in Japan security guards have talked to me is when I was taking pictures in a mall that had "No Photography" signs posted at all entrances)
Why are DSLRs so "Evil", when small point and shoots are just fine? Sure the picture quality might be better, but you don't need Ansel Adams quality to plan something.
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This isn't over (Score:3, Interesting)
Or get the guy that gave them permission to go on a photoshoot with them. That'd be fun.
Already been done. [typepad.com] A news crew was in the process of interviewing the head-honcho for that stuff at amtrak and a guard came up to them and told them to shut off their cameras.
Fuck Da Police! (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's start using those little bitty spy cams. Wireless, so they can't steal and destroy the evidence.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't they have to be trying to arrest you already in order for you to resist, and thus need grounds to justify the initial arrest attempt?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Having an arrest on your background check (for something like trespassing, resisting arrest, etc as opposed to child abuse, etc, or if it is unspecified) is a bad thing for most people, I'm thinking for a journalist it might be considered a good thing. Assuming you are going for an actual journalism job not as a talking head on fox or msnbc.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but trying to prove that is entertaining (in the deeply sarcastic sense) and expensive because you'll have to retain counsel, etc.
In the end, it's a balancing act asking if you're free to go or if you're under arrest (and under what charges)- most LEOs will back down from their position they're taking if they can't find a charge (nailing you for "resisting arrest" when there's nothing else they can do to you opens them up to the selfsame sort of "fun" they exposed YOU to...) and the ones that won't, typically will find some bogus charge to hit you with in the first place, regardless of whether you back down or not.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
The only bullshit part of it is that the fact you were arrested shows up on any criminal background check.
Uh, an unlawful arrest doesn't get deleted from your record? Wow. Just wow. I already had a low opinion of the USA, but I think it just dropped a few floors.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
In truth, they only have qualified immunity with respects to their doing their job. Within the confines of their work and so long as they don't willfully violate the Bill of Rights protections (Typically Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth, as applied by the Fourteenth...) they have a large amount of civil immunity to their conduct. Their organization might have to face the music if they used excessive force within that- keep in mind, though, that's IF they're found doing their jobs like they're supposed to and have a mistake.
If, for example, though, it's found that they lie regularly on things like their Affidavit's for their Warrants, serve defective ones (i.e. They got the address wrong, believed it to be right, and when finding out they had the wrong address, serving said Warrant anyhow, that sort of thing...), and the like- or do what we're discussing here. THAT, is an entirely different kettle of fish and they LOSE their immunity and face at least the music of their misconduct, possible official misconduct charges levied at their org and themselves, and possibly even Color of Law charges.
Just because they've immunity to things, doesn't mean it's complete- or that you can't go after them for misconduct or outright criminal actions.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, right now, only users of DSLRs (and larger point and shoot cameras) seem to be targeted. I haven't heard of any Apple iPhone users being threatened for snapping photos. This means that the amount of people equipped to protest this is more limited. Meanwhile, the rest of the populace isn't impacted so they don't see it as a concern.
I do agree that it needs to be challenged, just that it won't be easy. (Then again, worthwhile goals are rarely easy.) The threat here is a Pastor Martin Niemöller [wikipedia.org] situation. First, they come for the DSLR users. The rest of us don't protest because we don't use DSLRs. Eventually, we begin to see using a DSLR in public as something that only a select few can do and even then licenses are required or else.
Then, they come for the moderate to high end point and shoot cameras. Again, most people aren't using this so they don't care/don't fight it and eventually accept it as the norm. By the time the rules are expanded to their cameras, they'll find that the law is too entrenched to fight and you need to apply to take any photos lest you be labeled a potential terrorist.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, dear. Like sexual harassment policies, the policies on the use of physical force are sufficiently vage, confusing, and even contradictory that the officer on the spot can interpret them with tremendous flexibility. There are actually some good reasons for this: a very strict set of guidelines can be used by a "street lawyer" to manipulate the officer into very serious danger, and an officer does need some flexibility to escalate the situation beyond the detainee's ability to threaten the officer or the public.
The result, however, is sometimes a serious nightmare for reasonable people trying to record or passively demonstrate at a public event, or for very reasonable people who do not understand the rules. Arguing with a policeman is potentially awward: they have to deal with some nasty situations for which a nightstick, or handcuffs, or a taser, is the right response and may be needed in milliseconds.
And by the way, "paid suspension" hurts them surprisingly. They can't do the "officer on site" details that make up a large piece of a normal policeman's salary, and they can't do overtime. For many police, these are a big chunk of their take-home pay, so it can be a surprisingly harge hit in the pocketbook. Like tips for a waitress, it's factored into their salary negotiations, even if the city isn't paying it. And it doesn't count towards a pension, but it sure helps pay the rent and the bills for families of police.
Most cops, in my experience, work their tails off at often boring, often confusing, and sometimes very dangerous work. It's unfair to those police to tar them with the brush of those who are jerks or who are confused by the mixed messages from different layers of management (such as this event seems to show).
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm more provocative, and phrase it "I am leaving now, OK?".
I think there is also a psychological effect with phrasing it like that, rather than "am I free to leave?", as what I am saying implies that the decision about me leaving has been made. With your phrasing, the decision is being passed to the pig.
I used the above just a few months ago, though not in a car. I said the line, they were silent for just long enough for me to claim that I assumed they were OK with what I was saying, and walked off. Nothing happened.
Had I said "am I free to leave?", they might have said no.That phrasing puts them in the dominant position in the conversation, which is clearly what much police training tries to get them to do. It is important that suspects take charge of conversations when with the police, to up their chances of keeping their freedom.
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Be careful how you go about that. If you raise your hands out beyond a certain level, they will call that "flailing" and assume you are moving your hands in preparation for striking the officer. Then you're in for a world of hurt, both physically and legally. It's one of the bullshit tricks they use against people who give them a hard time, like questioning them too much. Right here, in the "land of the free."
An arrest record that might haunt you the rest of your life plus legal expenses is a rather Pyrrhic victory, to be sure.
If you want to do something about the police having excessive power, becoming a test case has to be one of the worst ways to do it. The best way is to take it up with your local/state legislators. Unlike the federal level, you actually have a chance of finding one who really does want to represent your interests. That, by the way, is one of many reasons why the Founding Fathers wanted most government that citizens experience to come from the local and state levels.
Flash crowd fun (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems like a perfect venue for a flash crowd. Imagine hundreds of people showing up at once, snapping pictures of everything in sight. Just to liven things up, some percentage of them could just use their cell phones to text, which if held in the right position would look like they're taking pictures.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
The only bullshit part of it is that the fact you were arrested shows up on any criminal background check.
Uh, an unlawful arrest doesn't get deleted from your record? Wow. Just wow. I already had a low opinion of the USA, but I think it just dropped a few floors.
By default, no it does not. You can hire a lawyer at your own expense and pray that the judge will agree with you that it should be purged, but that's it.
On most employment applications, they ask if you have ever been arrested. If you say yes, there is a section where you can explain why and that'd be your chance to write "I was found not guilty" or "the charges were dropped" etc. But, you better believe that if an employer has two equally good applications except that one has such a statement, where the other was never arrested, the employer is going to favor the latter.
Many people have bought into authoritarian thought whether or not they are aware of it. Even if you were found not guilty, they will assume "well, he must have been doing SOMETHING wrong to get the attention of the authorities". The stigma of this is very real.
I have a tremendously low opinion of the USA myself. Somewhere along the line we embraced authoritarian philosophy and we no longer really believe in freedom. At best we believe in license, not freedom. Despite the tremendously long track record of abuses and excesses, we for some reason believe that our government represents us and always acts in our interests, so we let it have more power anytime it feels like acquiring it.
I believe that where we screwed up big-time was when we ever allowed the government to have any input whatsoever into how we educate our children. Take a hard look at our public schools. These are places where American citizens are threatened with suspension or expulsion for wearing a t-shirt of the American flag, since that might offend an immigrant. Places where kids are expelled for pointing a french fry at another student and saying "bang", since that violates a zero-tolerance rule about guns and violence. Places where a young girl can be forcibly strip-searched for having an aspirin or a Tylenol because that violates another zero-tolerance rule. We are throwing our children into an environment where authority can be as unreasonable and hypocritical as it likes, has a very low burden of proof if any, and can take drastic swift action with no appeal. When they grow up in that environment, they are likely to think it's normal when they see their government doing the same thing.
If you have children and give a damn about them, save them from this madness. I have a family member who is a hero in my eyes. Do you know why? Because he works three jobs and makes sacrifices so he can send all of his children to private school. He was careful to choose one that does not exhibit this kind of institutionalized madness. When he says he loves his children and cares about their well-being, he's willing to do whatever it takes to back that up with action. If only having that much of a spine were more common.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
And this is why they don't want photography in public places. For example, when beating suspects with handcuffs on their knuckles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ2cLyblhpc [youtube.com].
Re:What terrorists are those...? (Score:3, Interesting)
No kidding. The idiot didn't even bother to think 'Hey, wait, I wonder if there are any safety things that keep propane tanks from exploding.'.
There are only two groups of terrorists that really are dangerous. The military trained ones, like the OK City bomber and the DC sniper, and non-Americans, who probably got training 'on the street', as it is, or at least belong to organizations that know how to plane.
We've never had home grown terrorist who actually had a 'good' plan to kill people, and actually did kill people, and wasn't trained by some professional group to kill people in that way. (And probably no foreign terrorist either, but that's harder to track down.)
Even going back to the left terrorism in the 60s, look at what the Weather Underground managed to do...blow themselves up. And other bomb making groups managed to take out...single offices, with maybe a few people inside them. (And, hell, you can do that with a grenade.)
And look at Eric Robert Rudolph, who did join the military, but was flunked out. Without training, he managed to...totally screw up the Olympic Park bombing, and kill only two people...one via heart attack as the entire park fled, because the idiot didn't bother to hide his bomb. With a tiny bit more knowledge of security, he could have killed at least 100 people, but he managed to flunk out of 'terrorist' also.
There is no evidence that 'amateur terrorists' pose any threat at all. You might have a greater chance to be killed by lightning than terrorists, but you probably have a greater chance being killed by lightning while winning the lottery than being killed by an amateur terrorist.
Re:As Compared to Japan... (Score:4, Interesting)
Standard photoflash lamps emit actinic light with plenty of UV. This has a negative effect on just about everything.
I believe there has been multiple cases where this was observed over time - flash photography causing material changes in some sort of artifact. Based on this experience lots of museums allow photography, just no flash. Some places keep the light levels higher than they would otherwise (intentionally) so it is possible to take pictures without a flash.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is a video of a citizen doing just that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BwQQSo9YX4&feature=player_embedded [youtube.com]
For more information about civil disobedience visit:
www.copblock.org
www.cdevolution,org
www.freetalklive.com
Accepting their tyranny without ANY resistance is simply telling them it's right.
Re:The free world isn't so free anymore... (Score:2, Interesting)
Cost-effective?
More air marshals have been arrested than the number of people arrested by air marshals. [schneier.com]
Re:The free world isn't so free anymore... (Score:3, Interesting)
You know what, I'll trust Israelis on this. They have a real terrorist threat of a much more significant magnitude, and they aren't renowned for money waste. And they do have air marshals.
That said, a better question might be whether you actually need to spend a billion dollars a year on an air marshal program for it to be efficient. I suspect the real cost of operation could be trimmed down significantly.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
So what's the proper response to these brain-damaged, evil cowards? I need to know, because a majority of my fellow citizens, my elected representatives, military, appointed officials, and their officers of the law are increasingly resorting to violence when interacting with normal citizens in my country and in others. Can a nonviolent minority change a country (even a democracy) where violence is the accepted answer to just about any problem?
Re:The free world isn't so free anymore... (Score:3, Interesting)
"The post that you've linked to just states matter-of-factly that it doesn't scale, but doesn't explain why it doesn't scale (which is noted repeatedly in the comments to that post). Merely providing a bunch of big numbers is not particularly useful - yes, of course, more resources would be needed for a country the size of US compared to Israel, but then US has more of those resources in the first place!"
Every hear of the phrase "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer"? While often intended as a joke, I think it is very applicable here. It should be painfully obvious that this cannot scale to the US. The system would require a large number of highly trained professionals (intelligent, multilingual, etc) and accountability. It would be totally unlike the current TSA and any current police or investigative force. Even if we could recruit and train enough people it would likely take years. And it would be difficult to retain them because they would be ideally suited for a wide range of intelligence work. All this to prevent something that essentially never happens.
The air marshall program is essentially worthless. They have committed more incidents (workplace discrimination) than crimes prevented (zero?). Once again, spending money to prevent something that really doesn't happen.