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)."
Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the only way to really fix this is to go ahead and get arrested. That's what it's going to take to turn this crap around; a lot of journalists getting arrested and writing passionate articles about the experience while hopefully being exonerated.
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: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:5, Insightful)
IANAL. Having said that ... Be careful about that. You can be detained without actually being under arrest. An example is when you are pulled over for a traffic ticket. You are not free to leave until the officer is done with you, yet you are usually not actually arrested. Yet if you tried to leave while still being detained, you're guaranteed to get arrested.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah but driving is a different set of rules.
Driving is a privilege and therefore can be revoked at any time & any reason, even if no crime was committed.
That has nothing to do with a police officer's legal authority to detain you. "Driving is a privilege" is a matter between yourself and the state DMV that issued your license. It's the logic used to take away your license if you refuse a breathalyzer, a way to make sure that the Fifth Amendment protection against incriminating yourself does not apply to being charged with a DUI. It's like "free speech zones" in that it's a clever way to get around that pesky Constitution.
That being said, the purpose o
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:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
So the video starts with a traffic stop that he is videoing. As as emergency responder (EMT) and a driver, I have little sympathy for those using their cellphone while driving. So he pissed me off with his "Santa Fe 'bureaucrats' have deemed cellphone use while driving 'illegal'." (air quotes his).
So what does he do? With a video camera and an openly displayed handgun, he walks right up to the car beside the cop, and loudly proclaims that he is going to "videotape this to keep you accountable". Note that there's no perceived problem on camera, officer is just writing a ticket.
Officer asks him to step back out of the scene, "I'm keeping you accountable!", but he steps back, officer writes ticket, and without even a glance, gets in his car and finishes his paperwork. Evil mean nasty policeman.
A few minutes later, guy is still recording, police officer pulls up, "What was that back there?" "I'm keeping you accountable!" "I told you to step back because you had a handgun at my traffic stop", "It's not illegal to open carry in New Mexico!" "No, it's not. What's your name?" "I don't have to tell you my name! I'm not under arrest! I'm not being detained!" (note at this point that the officer was still in his car, arm dangling out the window, while he was on the sidewalk. "No, you're not." Cop drives off.
Fascist pigs! Kill cops!
This guy needs a slap. It's one thing to hold officers of the law to account when they're abusing their authority. It's another to pretend you're doing everyone a public service by running around, actively seeking out situations in which you can interfere with lawful activities, and antagonize and provoke police into responding to you just so you can say "HA! I TOLD YOU SO!".
Color me unimpressed.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Just ask politely if you're under arrest.
You should ask politely if you are free to go. It's a better question to ask. It assumes goodwill. It assumes a positive outcome. And it doesn't give him any idea about arresting you, because for all you know, the cop does not know about the body in your trunk yet, he was only interested in helping you push your car out of the ditch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse: if a cop uses physical force against you, like mace, a taser, all the way up to a baton or a gun, and then does not charge you with resisting arrest, that cop is effectively admitting that he used force for no reason. That's aka excessive force or police brutality. There's not a cop on Earth who wants to admit he unnecessarily used force, as it would open up his department to liability and effectively end his career.
It's unfortunate that you generally cannot sue the officer personally. They have some sort of sovereign immunity as they are noncivilian government agents conducting government business. You can sue the department or the city/locality/state that runs the department but not the officer himself. Most of the time the very worst thing that can happen to the cop himself is that he loses his job, though it's more typical for him to receive a free paid vacation for misconduct (paid suspension).
The irony is that cops seem honestly puzzled about why so many people don't like them.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Most of the time the very worst thing that can happen to the cop himself is that he loses his job, though it's more typical for him to receive a free paid vacation for misconduct (paid suspension).
Bah. Everyone knows that the really big cases are solved only after the hero turns in his badge.
Re: (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
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: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:5, Insightful)
It's unfair to those police to tar them with the brush of those who are jerks or who are confused
Then maybe they should manage their own- since they make damn sure nobody else can.
Re: (Score:3)
There's not a cop on Earth who wants to admit he unnecessarily used force, as it would open up his department to liability and effectively end his career.>
That's cute, you think cops are accountable to our laws.
I wish some people would address their reading comprehension issues prior to replying to me.
I detailed why they are not accountable. That's very much the opposite of claiming that they are accountable.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>They would try and get you with resisting arrest
Then don't resist. If you voluntarily hold out your arms and say, "Here you may cuff me," the police can't claim you resisted can they? You cooperated fully. As for the actual crime of photography, if police said I'm not allowed to take photos my immediate reply would be: "Oh I'm sorry - I didn't know," and whip out a sketchpad instead. That's how reporters produced newspaper pictures in the past.
If the police then claim "It's illegal to draw the metrotrain," you know they are full of shit. And you would later win the court case (if it went that far). The police would end-up looking like fools and that would please me to no end. It would be like Christmas.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you voluntarily hold out your arms and say, "Here you may cuff me," the police can't claim you resisted can they?
Sure they can. It's called "lying". All humans have the capacity, and the last time I looked cops were still human.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
the last time I looked cops were still human.
That's a very generous assumption you are making!
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmm
That all sounds wonderful, except that you do not have to actually be resisting arrest for you to be charged and convicted with resisting arrest. You merely need the police to state that you were doing so...
Unless the event is recorded, or there are a substantial number of witnesses to the event willing to back your story, the word of the Police is almost always believed by the courts. One reason so many police officers want it to be illegal to record them, though obviously they claim it is for security or privacy concerns and never for accountability reasons...
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.
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)
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: (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).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The metrorail belongs to the government.
The government belongs to the People.
QED the metrorail belongs to the people.
In my opinion if you can see it with your eyes, then you can record it, whether it's with a camera, a sketchpad, or the neural net called the brain.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong - since there is nothing prohibiting their photography they should've been left alone. There is quite a bit of US law that allows public photography. There is no need for "Written permission". We already have it.
But, because of stupid fears we have more bureaucracy, and an increase of the idea of "Any behavior that isn't specifically allowed is prohibited!". The problem here is that isn't how our law actually reads. Not in America. Not yet.
Which was the point of the exercise - to highlight the fact that in actual practice we have a situation where citizens engaged in legal behavior in a public place are having that legal behavior stopped by the threat of force. Employees of this private security firm are not legally empowered to take away the rights of citizens in a public place.
After reading the article, the utter stupidity of this situation is heartbreaking. The motive here isn't to protect the train station. Nor is it to protect the citizens. Every employee of this private security firm just wants to cover their ass - to not lose a paycheck. A classic example of bureaucracy in action.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Second where the two photographers screwed up is they never had written permission to photograph/videotape the facility.
That's the point. They DON'T NEED PERMISSION. By default they have permission to film anything they want in public. Police, Rail stations, Nuclear power plants, etc. They just shot an e-mail off making sure that the security chief knew the law.
Re:Then Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Then why did they take the hard copy of the email with them in the first place?
To test the limits of law enforcements stupidity.
Someday we might find that limit... I'm not hopeful though.
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read the article? Did you read the post I replied to? It doesn't sound like it.
The GP said "the only way to really fix this is to go ahead and get arrested." We both realize they didn't get arrested, because we both read the article. Your "first of all" is meaningless.
"Second," the photographers did NOT screw up by not getting written permission. They asked whether photography was allowed, and were told that yes, it is. That is, they were told they didn't NEED written permission (or any other kind). The point they were making is that security and the police are being overzealous, enforcing laws and policies that don't exist. It was not to acquire pictures of the Miami metro system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your getting all bothered by some rent-a-idiots didn't understand a finer point of the law that isn't covered in their Policy Manual? Get real.
I have a job, in my job I have to make decisions based upon individual situations with respect to policy. If I don't know for damn sure how the policy interracts with the situation, I ask up the chain until I find someone who does. I DO NOT just take a stab at it.
Similarly if I take the decision and I get it wrong I get an earfull about it, and if I kept making wrong decisions I would no-doubt lose my position which allows me to make decisions.
My point being that if they didn't understand the finer points o
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Spot on! This is exactly the way to deal with this. Test it, get arrested, document the whole process and manage to be professional enough about it so you arise the interest of main media journalists, PBS, BBC, etc. Expose, just like they do here, underlying causes, like top security acknowledging of the rights, and private security and local police involved in arbitrary and erratic behavior.
The result: big public embarrassment for those involved, instigating fear of the same for like-minded small-time tyrants doing this everywhere.
This is a job of public education and the two photographers involved here are doing the right, appropriate and efficient thing about it. My hat to them!
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Spot on! This is exactly the way to deal with this. Test it, get arrested, document the whole process and manage to be professional enough about it so you arise the interest of main media journalists, PBS, BBC, etc. Expose, just like they do here, underlying causes, like top security acknowledging of the rights, and private security and local police involved in arbitrary and erratic behavior.
The result: big public embarrassment for those involved, instigating fear of the same for like-minded small-time tyrants doing this everywhere.
This is a job of public education and the two photographers involved here are doing the right, appropriate and efficient thing about it. My hat to them!
The only bullshit part of it is that the fact you were arrested shows up on any criminal background check. It's the kind of thing that could deny you employment in the future. Sure, you can explain why the arrest happened, and most management types will listen to your explanation and decide "he's an activist troublemaker who might rock the boat, a loose cannon" and throw your application in the trash. Of course it's unjust.
It's bullshit because a criminal background check should never show arrests. It should show convictions only. To do otherwise is a rejection of "innocent until proven guilty", as anyone can make an accusation. It doesn't mean you actually did anything. Why then should you bear a stigma that has to be explained to all future employers merely because a false accusation was made?
We like to say we believe in things like justice but we, collectively, don't act like it.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)
Spot on! This is exactly the way to deal with this. Test it, get arrested, document the whole process and manage to be professional enough about it so you arise the interest of main media journalists, PBS, BBC, etc. Expose, just like they do here, underlying causes, like top security acknowledging of the rights, and private security and local police involved in arbitrary and erratic behavior.
The result: big public embarrassment for those involved, instigating fear of the same for like-minded small-time tyrants doing this everywhere.
This is a job of public education and the two photographers involved here are doing the right, appropriate and efficient thing about it. My hat to them!
The only bullshit part of it is that the fact you were arrested shows up on any criminal background check. It's the kind of thing that could deny you employment in the future. Sure, you can explain why the arrest happened, and most management types will listen to your explanation and decide "he's an activist troublemaker who might rock the boat, a loose cannon" and throw your application in the trash. Of course it's unjust.
It's bullshit because a criminal background check should never show arrests. It should show convictions only.
You can get your record purged of non-conviction arrests after a few months. I'm no law-talking-guy, but if you're ever arrested for bullshit charges that later get thrown out, remember that you can get the arrest record wiped clean.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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:4, Insightful)
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.
Actually, I have to disagree on that part. Probably because my girlfriend is a teacher, just starting, and I've seen the incredible amount of effort that goes into showing teachers how to teach right. There's a whole science behind that, and not with the best instincts can you be as good as a good teacher.
That said, public schools in the US are probably the mess I keep hearing about. That does not mean the entire concept of a public school is bullshit, just because one specific implementation of it is. Have you ever seen public schools outside the US? Say, in countries that are famous for good schools, such as the scandinavian countries?
The funny thing about girlfriends is that unless you are very careful and unusually aware, then as you are "getting into them" so to speak, they are also getting into you. I am forced to consider you a biased source for that reason. Besides, this is a US story and I am speaking about US schools. Therefore it is I who must ask you if you are familiar with US public schools, and it would seem the answer is "no".
Psychological abuse and humiliation is a staple of US schools, both institutionalized and from other students. It's an integral part of the design. You need a population whose spirits have been broken at an impressionable age before you can embrace authoritarianism.
The main purpose of public schooling in the USA is to create a large underclass of people who are just smart enough to perform useful productive work, and just dumb enough not to think critically or question anything or become very curious. The Carnegies and Morgans and others who backed its founders in the 1800s were amazingly honest about this.
Under this system, the fact that most Americans are short-sighted, egotistical, hedonistic, and emotionally childish is considered a bonus feature. It makes them docile and easy to rule. It makes them feel overwhelmed just living their own lives. It prevents them from being sophisticated enough to understand the Hegelian Dialectic ("Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" aka "Problem, Reaction, Solution"), bread-and-circus, propaganda techniques, and other tools used to expand and maintain state power.
If you really, truly want to understand public schooling in the USA, there is absolutely no better reference than John Taylor Gatto. He has an essay available here [cantrip.org] and a complete book, available for free online in its entirety, available here [johntaylorgatto.com]. I think you will find these to be quite an eye-opener.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, the only way to really fix this is to go ahead and get arrested. That's what it's going to take to turn this crap around; a lot of journalists getting arrested and writing passionate articles about the experience while hopefully being exonerated.
Yep. The key to this is to behave calmly and rationally (although one might argue that telling the cops to fuck off is the rational thing to do), and to have someone document the incident on video with a hidden camera from a distance, then post that video on Youtube and other places ASAP. A perfectly reasonable response by the photographers, along with the written assurance, the video and a decent lawyer should go a long way towards getting this shit fixed.
Something similar happend to a good friend of mine in Canada of all places. He was taking pictures of some properties that were for sale to review with his business partner, and the local police pulled him over and general police fuckery ensued, and the harassment continued after he idintified himself and explained his business and what he was doing. He had to call a lawyer.
Sometime the authorities can be stupid beyond belief. Do the think that there isn't any imagery [google.com] of their precious system? Or perhaps that detailed satellite imagery [google.com] doesn't exist with convient, detailed maps of all potential routes of escape and schedules even? Holy shit, look at that! [google.com] Better go arrest Google.
Bunch of fucking retards.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing will turn this around.
Two points. First, I do not recognize that you are correct. Second, by assuming that nothing can turn this around, you have guaranteed that you will not work to turn this around, consciously or subconsciously. You have fallen into a trap of your own devising. I, however, do not believe it to be inescapable.
All getting arrested will do is (a) cost you a shitload of money and time which you will not get back in full, and (b) eventually get you lynched by the surrounding crowd if you give the "authorities" trouble.
Lots of people have lots of time right now. It doesn't have to cost you any money. What we need is legions of out-of-work photographers (they have the time) getting arrested for photographing anything and everything. I'm sure more than a few professional photographers have recently gone all-but-homeless. It's not like they're going to go to PMITA prison for taking a photograph of a subway.
Can't be fixed. They've found a perfect combination of imaginary threats to keep the population in line. You stick your head up, they'll bring out the mallet and smash it right back down where they think it's supposed to be.
You're a negative nancy. More to the point, you're not helping. Well, you are helping, you are helping the powers that be keep the population down by contributing to feelings of powerlessness. Or in short, you are doing evil.
Why don't you find a way to make a positive contribution, or failing that, shut the fuck up? You're only doing harm by repeating their lines for them. Do you get paid for this work you do for the power elite who have the most to gain from the maintenance of the status quo, or is this just some sort of mental disorder that you have chosen to delight us with because you skipped your medication?
I want everyone in America to carry a camera, and to use it. Thankfully, camera phones have made the first part true enough for most purposes. The problem is the second. Don't discourage patriotism. The only way to create the world that you want to live in is to be willing to die for it. You might or might not actually arrive in the world you want to live in, but doing nothing is a sure way to keep you where you are.
Don't buy into your own oppression.
Re: (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 Niem [wikipedia.org]
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's evidence that you're not paying attention, not that I am incorrect. Nor do you present any reasoning that would show that I am incorrect.
I also assume that I will not be able to fly by flapping my arms; that I will not be able to read your mind no matter how hard I squint; and that sticking my head under a multi-ton press will not stop the press face from reaching the base plate. And I am absolutely right to make such assumptions.
The primary fault with your reasoning is that you think that you can reverse something that has enormous force behind it, by exerting a tiny little bit of pressure. You don't recognize the forces involved in the issue at hand here, literally have failed to identify them, nor have you accurately evaluated the amount and kind of pressure they exert, and so you think that some squabbling in a courtroom will get you somewhere.
As someone who has seen his share of courtrooms and then some, I have learned that fighting the system -- literally trying to say that the law, either in statute or in the person of an officer, is wrong -- is the one sure way to get the system to turn around and demonstrate that it has one hell of a lot more power than the defendant does, regardless of if you are actually correct, or not. I have seen everything from alternate charges (resisting arrest, public nuisance, creating a disturbance, failure to comply with, etc.) pressed to the limit, to outright ridiculous "interpretation" of the letter of the law. Review the reasoning behind the current understanding of the commerce clause to see this writ large; or just read up on police officers enticing people outside their homes so that the yelling they're doing changes from ok, because it's in their home, to a public disturbance because it's one inch outside the door, though still on the porch. Which will, in each and every case, be supported by the court.
A secondary fault is that you think (and truly, I don't know why) that the populace and their elected and appointed servants are rational and will support sensible procedure, rational evaluation, and so forth. I have observed that the population is largely superstitious, bases their ideas upon what they think imaginary entities have told them to do in some book, or an astrological forecast, or in the words of some nitwit in a pulpit; and that this leads them to do the wrong thing both as individuals and en masse. Subsequent to this realization, I have also learned that you cannot change the mindset of these people by providing rational input, because they're not rational in the first place. And the very stronghold of those people? The courts and the legislature. Swear by the bible, sonny; pray before we make law; may "god" bless the American people... ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
The tertiary error you're making is the assumption that the political and justice systems are amenable to you mucking about with the power structure they've created, and that they'll simply let it happen. They won't. Those structures have been very carefully tweaked over the years to benefit a particular class (which you and I are not in, nor will we ever be), and trying to screw with them will get you burned.
Lastly, you should keep in mind that they've created a special place just for you. It's the new(ish) permanent low-class citizen; the one with a criminal record. You won't be able to get a decent job; every word you say in public honestly attached to your name and person will be credited to "convicted felon so-and-so" (which will not, sadly, come with any caveats); you won't be able to establish credit; get insurance; go to school; the list goes on. In addition, you'll be listed on the "offender" list that provides special designation for your particul
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you find a way to make a positive contribution, or failing that, shut the fuck up?
I make lots of positive contributions, just one of which is good advice that can keep people out of the meat grinder. The fact that you don't perceive it as positive is only evidence that your perceptions are dysfunctional. As for the "shut the fuck up" remark, my answer is no. How's that work for ya, Sparky? :)
All the unfixable conditions you have described are social conventions. People create social conventions, and people can change them through individual contributions of small pressures. Every time drinkypoo says "we can take back our country," we get a little piece of it back. Every time fyngyrz say "we are all fucked" we give a little more up. This is exactly the "structures [that] have been very carefully tweaked over the years to benefit a particular class" - the class that understands people will go where you tell them, if you just tell them it's too hard to go anywhere else.
In the end, we get the country we deserve, and I'm going to say that we can take our country back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way to permanently end oppression is through violence or the implied or explicit threat of violence.
Sure, because that worked so well for the Irish, and the Palestinians, and the Basque and the Tamil and the Chechyns...
Violence is the best solution for bringing about social change, except compared to all the others.
Creative non-violence works pretty well comparitively. You'll notice a distinct lack of Russians running Poland, and I don't recall any cannon-fire bringing down the Berlin Wall, and then there's that whole liberation of India thing, which was as badly managed as could be imagined, yet still c
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to sue for ONE MILLION DOLLARS, if not more. Sue the city, the transit authority, and the individual thugs themselves.
On what grounds? That your right to take photographs has been denied? No, you need to get arrested, then you sue the city.
The transit authority is going to back up their security officers' right to tell you to leave for any reason until the bad PR becomes significant, and that will never happen unless you were arrested. See, the general public is afraid of jail and terrified of prison, and if they think THEY could get arrested for, say, taking a camera phone picture of their friend with a graffitoed train behind them, then they will think "I could go to jail for taking a picture of my friend!" And that will reach into their subconscious and twist, and that causes the asshole to pucker. And that, my friend, is the true cause of political action.
Or in other words, get arrested first, sue later. I don't promise it will be pleasant; they do what they can to make the opposite true. But I do suspect that it is a necessary step.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone knows that real (non-mobile phone) camera's are only used by terrorists and pedophiles, duhhh.
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."
The free world isn't so free anymore... (Score:5, Insightful)
The free world isn't so free anymore... ... Because we've all been stupid enough to demand 100% safety and security from our nations (I'm European myself). Problem however is that terrorists are the perfect guerilla fighters. They are just a member of the general public, until they strike. So, the only way to work on this increased safety and security is to treat the entire population of the world as a suspect.
I'm not surprised that the world is turning out the way it is... And, there is no way that we can blame anyone but ourselves for it.
Hardly ever have I encountered anyone arguing that we could do with less security. Nobody says that it's not worth the money... But, actually, we can... Which is why I think we've all been stupid. On the other hand, demanding for less security practically brands you as a terrorist, so asking for it is not exactly smart either :-)
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:The free world isn't so free anymore... (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree, a real economic analysis won't be done. If any serious politician proposes this, his opponents will allege that he is:
1) Soft on terrorism. After all, he wants to "weaken" our security. Why does he love the terrorists and hate America?
2) Trying to place a dollar amount on human life. After all, the security saves lives so how can he say that X lives are only worth Y dollars? Is he an inhuman monster?
Yes, both arguments are completely baseless. Someone can love America, think human life can't have a dollar value affixed to it and still want to cut security measures that he sees as ineffective. However, those two above arguments will make for better political sound bites and any politician finding himself in this situation will have to fight for his political life. Therefore, politicians will just go with the flow and, at most, just tweak things as little as possible.
Re:The free world isn't so free anymore... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The free world isn't so free anymore... (Score:4, Insightful)
So to prevent this in the future you don't need the TSA and flight marshal's and no fly lists.
I understand the rest of it, but what's wrong with air marshals? They seem to be an extremely cost-effective way of dealing with any real threats on board.
Re:The free world isn't so free anymore... (Score:5, Insightful)
The free world isn't so free anymore... ...
The irony of this is that this occurs in a country that professes itself to be the "land of the free and the home of the brave", and its citizens seems to get a little angry when people suggest that it isn't in either case
Re:The free world isn't so free anymore... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny how we keep ignoring the people who actually KNOW about this stuff.
Bruce Schneier would call your entire post factually incorrect, this is roughly a summary of his blogposts over the past few years:
The risk of dying in a terrorist attack is far, far lower than the risk of dying from one too many cheeseburgers. Heck you have a much higher risk of breaking your neck from slipping in the shower !
But we don't DEMAND slip-free mats in every shower by law do we ?
The reality is that terrorism is in fact an incredibly rare and unlikely event even at the worst of times an ANY money spent on preventative measures is a guaranteed waste anyway. Terrorists don't do movie plot threats. Secure against the obvious and crucial things - but don't do anything beyond that because your predictions are guaranteed to be wrong and all those excessive measures actually make you LESS safe as they encourage people not to care and to skip steps.
What CAN we do to reduce the risk ? Only this: effective after-the-fact law enforcement with open trials and proper punishment... same thing as for any other crime. Effectively catching the perpetrators, bringing them to justice (with fair trials) and then punishing them is a very good deterrent - just as much so for terrorism, and the only one that has any chance of working.
Banning me from taking a bottled water on an airplane does not make anybody any safer at all.
We got the fear, we got the control - and the sad thing is, we didn't even GET the security for it, we got a farce.
Benjamin Franklin had this right: a nation that would exchange essential liberty for a little temporary safety will lose both, and deserve neither.
Well - now we have neither.
Poor confused journalists (Score:5, Funny)
Stopping pictures is only half the battle (Score:5, Funny)
The train gestapo must prevent passengers from writing down the names of the stops as well. If the terrorists ever get hold of such a list, they've won.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Camera flashmob - now that would be something to see.
Why not? Everyone has camera/phones now.
Re: (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.
Working definition of a police state (Score:5, Insightful)
So far most democracies are somewhere between steps #1 and #2 most of the time. although they make more and more frequent excursions past step #2 and are always trying for their ultimate step #3 (it makes their lives so much easier).
Re:Working definition of a police state (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, not quite! This is perfectly legal!
You must follow orders of the officer if special circumstances occur.
Refusing to follow orders of the officer (in -any- circumstances) creates said special circumstances.
Catch 22 we can make up laws on the spot.
Note there is no restriction on requirement of the orders being physically possible, and the police is entitled to use force upon failure to perform to orders.
Catch 22 we can beat you if we like.
You are free to refuse identification unless you create reasonable suspicion. By the act of refusing identification you create reasonable suspicion. You lose most of your rights the moment you try to assert them in similar way.
Catch 22 we have a way around those pesky citizens rights.
The definition of police state is not when the police can do illegal things and get away with them. That is just plain anarchy, a broken system out of control.
The police state is when whatever the police does is legal, no matter what they do, and any action (or inaction) you take can be declared illegal (and punished accordingly), at will.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To be fair, I believe these were merely security guards. Does this mean we're living in a "Security Guard State"? Sheesh.... we can't even form a Police State without mucking it up and outsourcing!
Seems to me photographers expose terrorists.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that how it worked in this case? They revealed a camera, and all of the sudden they were terrorized by ignorant, arrogant, bullies pretending to "serve and protect" the public welfare of our citizens. I think its quite clear these cops are acting just like domestic terrorists - and paid for with our tax dollars! Who is in charge of our country anyway? Citizens or government bankrolled thugs without a clue?
What is so strange about this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake up lemmings.
It's normal that government has a public friendly official policy line, yet in reality has a completely different mentality.
I'm impressed with the response time. And I hope you Brits never have to go through the experience of terrorism again in your lifetime.
Re:What is so strange about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but if you Merikans want to go ahead and play Terrorist Top Trumps, we've got about 150 years of history with the Provisional IRA to play with.
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/List_of_terrorist_attacks/ [knowledgerush.com]
Is the metrorail public property? (Score:3, Informative)
The terrorists won. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just another example of how the western world has shown just how effective terrorism is. Especially if your goal is to make your enemy into a police state and loose every human right they once had.
Free travel, the right to privacy, free speech, innocent until proven guilty all of them are on the way out. It wont happen over night but we are going there much faster than i thought people would allow.
This was the very goal of the 9/11 attacks and we have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker.
Biggest winner are China and other suppressing states that nowadays seem pretty innocent. Its very hard for other countries to demonize them when they in many regards are just as bad, compared to China they are just a lighter shade of gray.
In essense its like a criminal complaining when someone steals something from them.
Re:The terrorists won. (Score:5, Informative)
This was the very goal of the 9/11 attacks and we have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker.
That's what bin Laden wrote, years before 9/11. That was his plan. Read Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America. [amazon.com], published in 1999.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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.
"Personal Photography" = People (Score:3, Informative)
On the "personal photography" (okay) vs. "commercial or terrorist photography" (not okay) question -- A couple years back I was taking pictures of an interesting fountain in the corridors linking a Chicago convention center with a Metra station when a cop came up and told me I couldn't take photographs of the interior of the building because "since 9/11" etc etc. I never did check to see if the city was trying to enforce such a rule, but I doubted it was her bright idea -- she was fairly apologetic about it, said she could see that I was just taking photos of the fountain, but had to ask me to stop anyway.
While we were talking, she mentioned that it would have been okay if I had been taking pictures with my girlfriend (who was standing next to me while this was going on) in them, instead of specifically photographing the architecture. I suppose that could have been this particular officer's personal guiding philosophy, but it sounded like an institutionalized rule. Apparently if you're taking posed, touristy "look at us in [place]" pictures you're not doing it for terrorist plotting purposes, and it seems fairly obvious that you're not planning to sell the photos.
tl;dr: To placate security, professional photographers should always drag along an assistant whose job is to stand around close to the shot and grin inanely at the camera.
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:It's the sun (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's the sun (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh sure, trying to pay for your train journeys in a law-abiding manner is awfully bigoted.
His choice of adjectives (and quite frankly, what adjective isn't open to deliberate misinterpretation here?) had nothing to do with the causation of the incident, which was that someone wanted a free ride, and apparently did so with the tacit approval of the guard.
The fact that you are assigning bigotry to this poster despite the fact that his choice of adjective could be construed to be in order to cause the least of
Re:It's the sun (Score:5, Insightful)
His choice of adjectives (and quite frankly, what adjective isn't open to deliberate misinterpretation here?) had nothing to do with the causation of the incident,
That's the whole point. The addition of "of color" added absolutely nothing to the discussion. To an American it immediately invokes "colored", and it would be fair to assume he meant the guy was black. But the real catch is why did he choose that adjective? Why not "of height" or "of great mass"? What exactly did his ambigous adjective add?
It added a tone of racism, as if the color of his skin had to do with act of the person. Let's not try to support a racist comment.
Well, here's a guess (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly because he feels that noting (politely) the race of the person is, in fact relevant? Perhaps, in that station or in that neighborhood, there is a crime problem largely associated with a particular race?
This would not be surprising. Looking at the national crime statistics, blacks commit robbery at a per-capita rate far higher than any other ethnic group. Not mentioning this information because it is politically incorrect only makes the underlying problems harder to address.
The fact that his rem
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, honestly, for easy of discussion, indicating the person was male would allow the use of male pronoun, and keep the poster from having to say 'that person' all the time. Anyone who takes issue with that would be silly.
But, yes, there was no logical reason to include the race of the person. And, FYI, say 'person of color' has become oddly acceptably recently, although I don't actually understand it, and it's somewhat weird to put "of color" in quotes like that, especially as it adds nothing to the stor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But public urination is merely a nuisance. A photographer could be taking photos which might fall into the hands of terrorists. TEEEERRRRROOOORRRRRIIIISSSSSTTTTTSSSSSS!
As sad as it may be, the above is how some people really think. Anyone taking photos is potentially gathering information for bad guys. And since they might possibly be gathering information for bad guys, they need to be stopped. Information isn't free, it's dangerous and anyone collecting it (even if otherwise publicly available) is a t
Re:Look at it like an airport... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Look at it like an airport... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which makes it even more odd that the people who are detained always seem to be using DSLR cameras. If you use a cheap point and shoot camera, you're likely to be left alone but break out the DSLR with a big lens and you'll get security guards demanding that you delete the photos or face Homeland Security. Meanwhile any terrorist who actually wanted to use photos to plan his attack would likely use a cell phone camera or easily-hidden point and shoot camera. Or maybe he'll just have a notebook and pencil and sketch the train station while appearing to be taking notes. Yikes! We'd better ban paper & writing implements in public areas! Quick, before the terrorists use them to destroy us all!!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, Mr Clever Man, DSLRs can have big lenses on them. How can you tell whether or not its got an RPG hidden inside it without stopping them and searching their cavities? ANSWER ME THAT!
Re:Look at it like an airport... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Look at it like an airport... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am fairly convinced that a lot of it comes from two things:
1. Deciding that a place needs more security, and hiring human security guards to provide it.
2. Choosing strategically-shaven chimps as your security guards who feel the need to assert what little authority they're given. (This is more-or-less an inevitable consequence of the fact that most security work is badly paid and intensely boring - it's not the kind of thing that will attract the sharpest tools in the box).
Authority recognises authority, and seldom undermines it. So when the chim^H^H^H^H security guards call for police backup, it's fairly common for the police to back up what they say even if it's patent nonsense. In essence, the law is decided on the fly by the security guard and by the time someone in a higher office has seen sense, it's already been splashed all over the media.
Re:Look at it like an airport... (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly, a train can be far more massive than any airplane!
Imagine what would happen if terrorists took control of a train and flew it into a building!
It would be 911 times a hundred.
Afterall, if the pen is mightier than the sword and a picture is worth a thousand words, then a camera is a veritable weapon of mass destruction compared to a measly box cutter.
Re:Look at it like an airport... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, look at Spain. A lot of people died on the trains [wikipedia.org]. However it doesn't mean that I think law and security forces are not draconian and in short, fucking morons, for stopping these guys from photographing. They are helping the terrorists to win when they violate our freedoms.
Re:Look at it like an airport... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously they were trying to provoke a response, which if someone is acting suspicious and literally trying to get negative response from security and police they will get one
The other side of the story (if you RTFA) is that the protagonists interviewed the head of security of the Metrorail system who assured them that what they wanted to do was allowed and legal. So are you suggesting that "legal" activities are now suspicious and that everyone should just do as they are told? No wonder you are AC.
It was a camera? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, sorry, it looked like an RPG to me...
Re:And if we stop no one.... we blame them.... (Score:4, Funny)
"The pen is mightier than the sword"
"A picture is worth a thousand words"
It's clear that a person with a camera is the equivalent of a thousand people with swords. We all know what happened when a legion of Rome came to town.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I always suspected you were here Hammer.
photographer's rights card (Score:4, Informative)
If I recall correctly, /. had a similar thread some time back and someone posted to something official that was recommended to carry with you in your camera back about having the right to photograph public places.
I've googled and can't seem to find it. Anyone?
Try googling "photographer's rights card":
http://www.billadler.net/Photographer's_Legal_Rights_Card.pdf [billadler.net]
or
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm [krages.com]