Slashdot Mirror
Police Restrict Public Photography
An anonymous reader writes "News.com is reporting that in Australia, recent attempts by a photo club to take pictures of industrial installations was met with police resistance. From the article: 'Club member Hans Kawitski was told not to photograph industrial installations and was ordered to inform members of the camera club to follow his lead. Liberty Victoria said its advice to photographers would be to ignore the directive. "The police have got no place making such warnings," president Brian Walters SC said.'"
Should it go under, "Your rights offline"?
... but CCTV is fine. Mmmm, double standards.
I believe "Do not photograph under pain of severe penalties" was at one point a standard sign on 1950s era train stations and other installations in the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries. As the saying goes: "Check you hate at the door or you will become that what you hate most"....
Club member Hans Kawitski was told not to photograph industrial installations and was ordered to inform members of the camera club to follow his lead.
They should just stick to the upskirt pics. That's not illegal in most places.
It wasn't a "Police ban" or "restriction".
Some cops just warned them against it. They can photograph all they want and theres not a damn thing the police can do about it.
One of my friends was taking pictures of an industrial facility at night for a photography class - security detained him and destroyed his film.
But we'll all be thankful when terrorism goes away for good, though, right guys?!
The article mentions being 'hauled away by security' for taking photos inside Eastland shopping center. Well, that one's understandable. The shopping center is private property... can't take photos without the property owner's permission.
That the article fails to mention the difference between photots inside someone's property, and from outside the property, is poor journalism.
They should arrest people taking pictures of Federation Square http://www.federationsquare.com.au/, a travesty of modern design that the gov't here seem to think is the best feature of Melbourne. The old architecture here is great, the best terrorist targets are few and obvious, so forget about the whole photography issue and get a grip. Better aiport, border, and sensitive location security to prevent wankers from barging in and actually terrorizing, that's what's needed.
Not sure which makes more sense though.
If it's the government or some corporation, it's good. If it's you, it's bad.
For other examples, look at rootkits, spying, lying... the list goes on.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I was at the tollbooths on the Staten Island side of the Verazzano Bridge, photographing someone on a motorcycle waving his E-ZPass aroud trying to get the thing to read. I never saw anything like that so I took a picture as I got up to the toll the police stopped me and threatened to fine me if I didn't delete the picture. It's been like that for as long as I can remember going over the bridge, dunno what the rules for at all. Also, I'm always afraid taking photographs at the ferry terminals. When they had the 100 year celebration, I had my camera with me but I was afraid to use it because I just assumed photography wasn't allowed. Eventually I started taking pictures, and just figured they had nothing posted about photography so it's allowed, or if I get in trouble I can tell them to put up some signs.
This is from a few weeks ago and more careful examination showed that it was a storm in a tea cup. A few people were warned by an individual officer. They were not stopped from taking photos and it is not police policy.
It was simply one police office making a comment.
It must be a slow news week.
"Do you think we could wipe out world hunger forever if scientists figured out how to make AOL's Free CD's edible?"-
One day I got lost at night and so walked up and down a block a few times trying to figure out where in the hell I was. A police officer stopped me. He asked me if I knew why he stopped me. I told him no. He said I was "walking suspiciously". I blinked at him like he was an idiot and asked him if he was going to arrest me for "walking suspiciously".
At that point I think he realize that he was being a complete fucking idiot, as I wasn't breaking any law and he sure as hell couldn't arrest me for anything. He muttered some vague threat about "keeping an eye on me" and then waddled off to eat donuts, go bust an underage drinking party, or confiscate marijuana from college students and cancer patients.
My point? Australia might be different, but at least in the US, they can't drag you off without a charge. Hell, a street officer can't even search you without some justifiable suspicion that a law has been broken. If there is no law in the books against taking pictures of whatever, you can take pictures of whatever. If the police are really giving you a problem, go grab your Australian ACLU equivalent and bring a member with you. Let the police do something stupid, then tack their balls to the wall and make an example out of them.
People don't realize how eager the ACLU is to throw in a helping hand. When I was young, we had a local guy get the beat up by the town sheriff for insulting him. The ACLU was down before weeks end. They had a trial that ended with the Sheriff losing his badge and paying restitution. I would be amazed to learn that there exist first world democracies without an ACLU equivalent. Honestly, if you are really having problems, just give them a friendly call. If nothing else they will give you some good advice and inform you on the legal limits of your position.
We've got to stop and ask ourselves 'How many photographs do we need?'
Trust me, I work for the government.
For those who haven't heard the term before, sousveillance refers to the use of technology by members of society to watch and record the activities of others, particularly authority figures. It seems like it's becoming increasingly futile for organizations to try to resist sousveillance, as the police in the article attempted to do. As technology progresses, cameras and cameraphones are just getting smaller, cheaper, and harder to detect. Eventually it gets to the point where people have things like retinal implants and little remote-control cameras, and it becomes absurdly impractical to try to keep them away from all the things you want to keep secret.
I've recently started reading David Brin's The Transparent Society, which proposes the somewhat counterintuitive notion that instead of resisting government invasions of privacy, we instead ensure that everybody is able to watch everybody. In effect, the answer to the question "Who watches the watchers?" becomes "Make everybody a watcher." This of course has its problems and I'm still not sure what I quite think of it, but it's certainly an interesting idea. The first chapter of his book is available online. I highly recommend skimming through it.
I'm pretty sure that if they gave this order under the guise of deterring "terrorism" it's pretty much in vain, in that more valuable intel is already available in the public domain, weaknesses in any event should be known, just as code audits are released in the public domain. I can think of 1 site off the top of my head that is pretty big on releasing "Eye-Ball-Series" on industrial, government, and public facilities
Liberty Victoria is the aussie's version of Amerika's ACLU, I've always envisioned AU's law as pretty right on and have taken a liking to most of their politics (with the steady decline of my countries) altho this seem just to be some unrelated bullying more than an overt government policy to prevent terrorism.
On a completely unrelated side note, I heard from a friend of mine in AU said that the Adelaide Museum director said they couldn't seel the $200,000 AUS valued whale vomit ball as under federal law it's part of a whale and therefore protected. She also went on to say that they could donate the item to the Adelaide Museum for display indefinately.
"... after he photographed gas storage cylinders at the city's Shell oil refinery" This seems to be sensitive and could have caused trouble if such pictures land up in the hands of terrorists. I have seen terrorists blowing up gas pipelines at oil-refineries in my country, and believe me, it is really an issue. But the fact that were told not to photograph industrial installations seems too stretched. The police don't have the right to ban public photography anyway.
Do we own the right to our own image? I was always under the impression that anyone could photograph anything as long as they didn't break any laws to acquire it. Here is another interesting, related story of a couple guys charged with taking pictures of a girl on the beach in Sydney. They were charged with "offensive behaviour in public".
When I was photographing the beautiful old federal buildings in downtown Denver (probably about 3 years ago), a federal officer pulled up and told me to stop taking pictures. When I asked him what law I was breaking, he refused to answer, but demanded my ID and told me I was now going to have a "record with the FBI." When I then asked him for his name and/or badge number, he got back in his car and drove away.
Luckily, mine had a happier ending then this guy.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Speaking as a freelance photographer, things are worse than people think. Not only can you not sell, but nobody will help you to publish such photos. It wasn't too many years ago that any photo except those that were truly "private" could be taken and used, if for nothing else than at least for documentary purposes.
...and any representation of anything or anyone, anywhere, is subject to lawsuit unless you have their name, signature, and fingerprints signing off on it. No wonder the news media never gets into real issues anymore. The list of things they can't discuss/photograph without permission of "the owners" under penalty of endless lawsuits and liability is virtually endless. And thus, they're left photographing/describing those people that WANT to be publicized (i.e. endless human interest and movie-star footage and news).
Now, however, the list of things that nobody will buy and nobody will publish (printers even refuse to handle these if you try to self-publish books or similar works) includes:
- Any person (unless model contract is present, even if it's YOU!)
- Any item (unless property contract is present, even if it's YOURS!)
- Any building, patch of land, or piece of water (see previous item.)
- Any manufactured item (because industrial design = intellectual property.)
So, a partial list of things that can't be photographed without a contract on file includes: all people, all property (if it's not owned by the government, it's private and needs a signed release; if it's owned by the government, it's too dangerous to shoot or use anyway), all places (nearly all land and half the water in the world is owned by individuals or nations), all manufactured items (because all of them had to be designed by someone, and such design is intellectual property -- even things like soap bars with logos washed off them or empty containers without labels), all logos, text, phrases on signs, etc. (because thanks to copyright law, any piece of writing created by anyone is copyright by them, even if only three or four words long and done in graffiti in a public place).
I think stock and editorial photographers are probably more aware than most of just how much intellectual property now affects our culture/society. Take a picture of a graffiti-covered shed in the middle of nowhere? You need a signed release from the shed manufacturer (for the industrial design), the owner of the land (for property release), and the graffiti "artist" (for text release). You basically need 2-3 signed contracts for EVERY PICTURE YOU TAKE, even of a ping-pong ball from the back floating in your own bathtub in the dark, because of all the intellectual and real property (and thus potential liability) involved in every photograph of everything.
Basically:
- Take a world in which ALL things are owned by SOMEBODY
- and add intellectual property on top of physical property
- and add a culture of litigation
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
They lend a helping hand to what they are interested in.
They oppose the death penalty, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States since 1976. They have attempted to keep people from getting political asylum in the United States. They are offically neutral on Gun Rights, but for the most part will not take part in gun ownership cases in which someone is defending thier right to keep and bare arms. They pretty much want all references to religon removed from the government, all the way to suring to have cities remove Crosses from seals or flags.
In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC) threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU/SC argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state.
I'm shocked they haven't sued to get LA"s name changed. El Rio de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula, The River of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels of the Porciuncula. Since it has references to Christanity in it.
Okay, let's assume for a minute that the article supports your statement that "some cops just warned them" or that you merely forgot to cite a secondary source which includes this information.
You're okay with the police "just warning" people not do things they have every legal right to do, even though doing those things won't cause anyone any harm? What exactly are they warning them about then? A warning implies a threat, and in the lack of any other threat, whose left but the very police doing the warning? That's intimidation.
You seem to be arguing that just because the police can't legally stop people from taking the photographs that it isn't a "ban" or "restriction". It certainly sounds like they're trying to restrict people to me. They're just not doing so legally and their reasons are unclear.
And, by the way, there are plenty of "damn things" the police can do if you don't cooperate - especially if they're corrupt.
Unfortunately this is all too common these days. Everyone with a camera is automatically a paedophile or a terrorist (more even more.
However they still ask the public for photographs when it suits them.
He should have called the police, filed a report for false arrest and sued the company for destruction of property.
The actions of a private security force are not the responsibility of the government, and they are restricted by the same laws as the rest of us. This isn't the government cracking down on terrorist bogeymen, this is a private security force that needs to be informed they aren't cops.
Learn your rights, and stand up for them.
Now this is, of course, assuming your friend wasn't doing something illegal while taking the pictures like tresspassing, which is illegal and would get him in trouble. This would actually be what I would suspect, given my past experiences with such things. I've had a number of "rent-a-cops breaking the law" stories related to me in my life, most in person. Initally, it always sounds like the security force was in the wrong and, of course, I advocate standing up for one's rights as always. However it then usually comes out that the person involved was doing something they shouldn't have: Tresspassing, shoplifting, whatever.
Either way, my advice for the future: If private security tells you to stop taking pictures while you are on public land, tell them to get lost (do make sure you are on public land, not their property). If they try to detain you, get your cell phone out and threaten to call the police, while backing away. If they push the issue, make the call. If they do detain you and take your property, file a police report, and contact a lawyer about a civil suti. It IS illegal.
Security forces can temporarily detain a person only under very limited circumstances, such as if they are on the private property they are hired to protect, and they have witnessed the person comitting an illegal act (like shoplifting). Otherwise, they are just civilians in a silly uniform. If they try to grab you for something like taking photos on a public street, they'll lose their jobs at the very least.
Where you can smoke, in Australia at least, is governed by legislation... Under the Australia Summary Offences Act a 'mall' is a public space and there is no 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is how the law states it I believe. (from memory) Enclosed public spaces like 'malls' are designated smoke-free by state governments here... everything is fucking legislated! Whether you like the legislation or not, it's there!
In effect, the answer to the question "Who watches the watchers?" becomes "Make everybody a watcher."
This is going to happen anyway. The proliferation of tiny and virtually free cameras means personal privacy will pretty much become a lost right. Within a few years, people will have to assume somebody is watching them at all times because there will be no way of preventing it.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Not being a citizen of Australia, I'm a bit confused here.
IANAAL, (I Am Not An Australian Lawyer), but isn't there some sort of mechanaism for the people being harrassed to bring some sort of lawsuit against the agents of the state for harassing them?
For a police force to try and intimidate citizens, for taking pictures of bloody PUBLIC buildings or areas, is crazy.
I am actually so disturbed by this article,(and I did RTFA),that I can not post anything without being labeled some kind of libertarian or anarchist crack pot.
Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
i'm a keen photographer, although at the moment I seem to spend more time reading about my hobby than actually doing it. One of the magazines I regularly read has been full of tales of police/security over-zealousness for months now. Unfortunately in Britain at the moment, the police do not need to charge you with anything to detain you - if they have suspicions of any sort that they can relate to terrorism in any way, they can haul you off to the station for questioning. This has happened and been reported in photography magazines several times recently (and that's only the incidents that the victims actually wrote to magazines about). A well known case was of a man taking photos around (I think) Canary Wharf in London (near the Gherkin building and all the new, Norman Foster -esque architecture). He was basically meandering round taking photos of buildings, someone reported him to the police as being suspicious, and that was that: I believe he was taken to the station, questioned and interviewed, but eventually released without charge. I've read dozens of similar reports in the last few months.
The problem is exacerbated in Britain because of (in my view) the scare-mongering tabloid press and their one-upmanship over fantastic headlines; there have been so many over-the-top stories and rumours about paedophiles over the last few years, for instance, that much of the public is now paranoid about the issue, even though such crimes have pretty much stayed at the same level they were at decades ago. Famously, after one paper named and printed photos of known sex-offenders, gangs of vigilantes went round beating up people who looked like the people in the pictures, or had similar names; and in one case, a paediatrician was forced to flee her home because people thought she was a danger to children and daubed threatening graffiti over her house. This eventually led last year to the major of London announcing a plan to erect signs in public spaces such as parks to warn people to be suspicious of anyone with a camera; thankfully he has since backed down.
Unfortunately this does seem to be rubbing off on people: much of the public would now rather not ask questions but just act on their paranoia. In the recent case of an innocent man being shot by police because he happened to live in a block of flats where a terrorist suspect lived, it quickly became apparent that it was all a terrible case of mistaken identity and incompetence by the police; but most of the people I heard talking about it in the following days thought the victim deserved it, either because he was an illegal immigrant (he had overstayed his visa), or because he vaulted the ticket barrier (he did not), or because he had on a bulky jacket (he did not), or just because it's better to be safe than sorry, and a few unnecessary deaths is a price worth paying (!). I had to stop myself from having a big argument with a taxi driver a week after the incident, as he was adamant that even if the man was innocent, was acting innocently and did nothing wrong whatsoever, his death was still OK because we live in dangerous times and if the police think, for whatever reason, that someone *might* be slightly suspicious, shooting him 8 times at point blank range is the best thing to do. Needless to say I didn't tip him.
Unfortunately people are becoming accustomed to paranoia - it seems our governments are in some cases willingly fostering a feeling of unease about anything and anyone, and people are responding.
Spoken like a true slashdotter!
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
Prior to WWII, back when Russia and Germany had relatively friendly relations, a lot of German 'tourists' visited the USSR and had their photographs taken by various strategic landmarks, such as bridges and tunnels. The photographs intentionally included the nearby signs, which provided important parameters such as clearance and maximum allowable load. Once this information was systematically compiled, the Germans had an unprecedented knowledge of their future enemy's infrastructure, enabling them to plan troop and weapon deployments with an incredible level of detail.
Procrastination Man strikes again!
What's next, pictures of a single protester standing in fromt of a T-72 Main Battle Tank earning a photographer a jail sentance?
Do you have a source for that, or did you drag that right out of your ass? A post like that needs to either be sourced, or modded to troll hell.
Apparently it looks exactly like an innocent tourist video, which proves that it's really a cunning tradecraft terrorist video. Yep.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Because if it was private security, the first thing your friend should have done was call the police and have the security guards arrested for theft and/or destruction of personal property. It is not legal for them to do that. They can ask you to stop taking pictures and if you actually are on their property then you must comply, but they cannot take your film. Well, at least not without a court order.
Check out the Photographer's Right.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
If they really don't like you, they can say you threatened them and arrest you for that. If they push you and you reflexively grab their wrists, you might get shot, and at the very least you've now assaulted an officer of the law. They can provoke you with impunity, because no one will believe you. Everyone will take their word for it, because you're just a schmuck with a camera, while they were putting their life on the line to protect and serve. Cops are heroes, and you're just a suspect who stopped them from keeping us safe. Who told you you have these "rights" to take pictures? Wow, another bleeding heart liberal. Haven't you done enough damage to our country without berating the poor police officers?
The ideal situation for cops is where there just about everything is illegal if they want it to be, so they can tell you "move along" and you have no choice. Cops are people, people like power, and people also generally have trouble dealing well with power. It tends to go to their heads. But as long as we always give the cops the benefit of the doubt, we will be falling headlong into a police state. Of course that won't matter until you're the one who gets the stern "move along," and by then it's too late. The only way to protect freedom is to be skeptical of, even slightly hostile to, government power. If abuse of power is considered innocuous, then we're pretty much done with the whole freedom thing.
Prosecutors claimed that this was part of an ongoing economic jihad. I really wish I was joking.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
It's just not worth the hassle anymore. Either it makes you seem suspicious when photographing buildings or bridges, or it makes you seem suspicious when photographing people. I no longer want to walk around thinking that people are suspecting that I'm either a terrorist, paedophile or pervert. In fact, I worry less about the police thinking I'm a terrorist than about people thinking I'm a paedophile or pervert.
Bah... a true slashdotter would have just read the url.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
If the ACLU supports all of the Constitution but the 2nd Amendment, that means they support only 9/10 of the Bill of Rights. How deplorable! The NRA supports the 2nd Amendment zealously, and in my opinion, rightly. The math question for the day is this -- which number is bigger, 9/10 or 1/10? So gun-nuts, who habitually hate the ACLU, are a whopping 1/9th (.1 vs .9) as supportive of the Bill of Rights as those America-hating ACLU-weenies, but that makes them more patriotic? Isn't that a bit odd? Or is my math wrong here?
I had a great time with this, since this co-worker cast himself as such a patriot. I wrote the numbers 1/10 and 9/10 on a piece of paper and went around the office asking people at random which number was bigger. I was scratching my head, muttering "but that can't be right...." He wasn't too amused.
Moral: if you like guns, just say that you like guns. Don't try to pretend that it's because of your fealty to the Consitution. This especially applies if you happen to be a quasi-totalitarian in all other aspects of your politics.
In 2004 a French amateur photographer, Michel Neyrolles, was arrested in Poland and detained for almost a month because he took pictures of some industrial estate. So this Australian bloke is pretty lucky.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
In my country, most shopping centres and many other organizations do not allow taking photos. I do not know why, because they refuse to explain. This was bad surprise for me when I got my digital camera. For example, in UK nobody cares when I take photos in stores or other public places.
...in Geelong. That would be such a waste of effort.
Its a pity that we didn't have terrorists in Victoria when Coode Island went up. Would have been easier to assign blame.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
As somebody pointed out, Australia has different laws than US concerning what is considered to be a "public space". I guess throughout the world something similar occurs for "photography without signed contracts". This nightmare you describe... is it already fairly extended all over the world, or are there still some "free" nations?
And... do you (or anybody here) have any idea of how Wikimedia Commons handle this?
My journal. Mainly about freedom.
When an official lies to the public, it is patriotism. When the public lies to an official, it is perjury.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
And of course a matter of definition.
If you kill an innocent, it's murder.
If the gov't kills an innocent, it's collateral damage.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I read in Amateur Photographer that the solution is to wear a high visibility vest or jacket, the kind that workmen or emergency services people wear. One chap said since he started wearing one while photographing he hasn't been stopped by anyone - I guess because he looks "official" :-)
I though Western ideas won out against totalitarianism. The current situation almost makes you wish for the cold war back again.
The cops/police/fuzz don't always understand what they are allowed to do or not do, under the law.
/. read-through), and campus security busted in, I would not be required to prove that I am of legal drinking age, even if they request it.
I'm a college student here at Ohio University, and as part of the required freshman introduction-to-college course, we had to learn and understand what, under the rules of the college and laws of the land, the police and campus security were allowed and not allowed to do.
Example: Say the president of the college (unlikely) knocked on my door while I had friends over to partake of substances of debatable legality with, I have the right to refuse his request to come in and look around for said substances. He could get all the campus cops and resident assistants he wanted to, but as long as the substances are not immediately visible from OUTSIDE the room, there is no trouble.
Take home: campus police can't bust in, even if they'd like to. if they in any way break with the stated policy, any charges they might want to file are thrown out.
Second example: Any member of campus security is not allowed to request identification that contains your age on it. So if I was at a party (which happens often, even though I take time for classes and the occasional
Take home: There's a set minimum level of compliance that students have to give to campus security, mandated by both on-campus civil liberties and those granted under the Constitution and assorted Amendments.
TFA is an extreme case, I believe. Sometimes police get a bit overzealous, which is why it's up to the townfolkery to know where their rights/liberties begin, and where the police's legal and civil abilities end.
Let's assume a terrorist wants to take pictures of a potential bombing target. Would he unwrap his $2000 Canon super-hyper-60000-megapixel Cam? And if so, and he has that ultramodern piece of digitizing art, why should he get closer than like 500 yards?
What I'd do is to take my trusted cell with built-in digicam, turn 90 away from the object so my ear (and cell-cam) point towards it, act as if I'm having a conversation and take a pic without ANYONE noticing.
Let's be reasonable here.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How?
..
Smaller camera's. Camera's in things you don't know are camera's. Camera's with the ability to send their pictures to anywhere on the planet, instantly.
Can't have a police state then, can we
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I forget the title of the book, but Arthur C. Clarke wrote a book or short story where the ability to see anything in the past was possible. I would imagine the themes would be very similar, but I've never read either.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Whilst I don't condone the boring nature of what they were doing, I thought this might interest people outside the UK or with medium term memory loss.
Plane-spotters 'ignored warnings'
"They were held in prison for almost six weeks, before being released on bail and allowed to return to Britain."
Brocklesby Park Cricket Club
This reminded me of a story my old man told me a couple of weeks ago. Yeah, it was one of those 'back in the old days', but it was kind of interesting.
Anyways, 'back in the old days', he used to go to footy training, and after training he and a few of his mates were chatting on the corner, and the local police guy who was walking the beat (they had cops who walked around?) would soon do his lap and tell them "You boys must just be going home? Good.". At which point they started to break up heading their various directions. Most were locals, so walking (you walked?). Anyways, it happened that he and 2 mates were heading the same direction so off they go. Sure enough, they wander into the same cop. "Well, well, well. You boys must be getting tired. I better not see you again".
So I said to my dad, "What would have happened if he saw you again or you just ignored him?"
Your exercise for this evening:
- Finish the story
- Compare and contrast this to what you would expect to see and hear today.
- Compare and contrast pre 'war on terrorism' to 'war on terrorism' days.
And I already gave you a couple of points....
ws
PS For those interested I guess it was in the Strathfield area of Sydney around the late 1940s.
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
Can't help you find that murderer. Yeah, I took a pic but your buddy already made me destroy them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
add a google earth link showing the location of the installation inquestion, will you? that would make the police request truly absurd.
Looks like the site has taken the side of the Geelong Camera Club. Look at the Send us your photos link beneath the opening paragraph. :)
Have you not read the dictionary definition of futility? It's called trying to have a conversation with a London cabbie and you have a liberal viewpoint. All conversations of this form end with "You a fackin' queer or sumthin?" and no tip. K.
Train stations here in Melbourne (capital of Victoria) have signs forbidding the taking of photographs. By the looks of it it's not enforced at all, though - I used my phone to grab a photo of a sign just for the heck of it.
-ReK
md5sum -c reality.md5
reality: FAILED
md5sum: WARNING: 1 of 1 computed checksum did NOT match
The FBI agent "said that he checked all the trash bins at Disneyland and that he believed the one on the video was the best one in which to place a bomb."
Actually, i do not really trust people trying to get innocent people in jail, and checking all trash bins to see which is the best to place a bomb.
Being suspect has become a crime, but not for FBI-agents. Very, very scary.
Trust me, I work for the government.
The summer holiday have just passed over there. This is what I think happened:
club member snaps oil tanks.
Police notice him and decide to investigate.
To save his face after finding out it was nothing to worry about, officer makes a stern warning not to do that again. Clubmembers dislike officer and make some waves about it.
Papers need some new and like a row, pick up story.
Except that there was no real news story. Yeah police down under are a bit thick, but that is no news.
fact-void.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
When I went to the Hermitge in St.Petersburg, Russia, the security asked me if my video camcorder was a CAMERA. They told me no cameras were allowed in the building. Well, I told them that my camcorder is not still camera, and they let me in with it, and I could make a home movie of the Hermitage.
this happes all the time... cop says you can't take pictures or you're not allowed to be here/there. while they're talking bullshit..
ofcourse.. you still move or stop.. not much you can do against a cop..
Therefore: the US government considers encryption to be a weapon.
Therefore: the means to defeat encryption is also a weapon.
Therefore: libdvdcss is a weapon.
Therefore: the DMCA is unconstitutional, violating as it does the Second Amendment.
Can we possibly get the huge NRA block vote and lobbying power on our side in this quarrel?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
A few weeks ago I was on vacation and visiting one of the more beautiful suspension bridges in the states. I was using a consumer style digital camera to hopefully get a decent shot for home use. After shooting the bridge and other good angles for maybe 30 minutes from a nearby park area, the local police arrived. They told me that photographing the bridge is "strongly discouraged." I looked at them like they were on crack, and they added, "for national security reasons." To their credit, they were very polite and seemed somewhat uncomfortable with their new job of keeping the world safe from photos.
The bridge had a new lighting system specifically made for aesthetic purposes, funded by donations from the public over the last couple decades, and this is the fruit of those efforts.
I'm too young to feel this damn old. I remember when this kind of bullshit was for those countries that didn't have freedom like the US. When I was in elementary school (in the 1980s), this would have been a scary story about the USSR or Nazi-era Germany, but unthinkable for the "land of the free." I hope to hell that the warning klaxons were louder than this for the Germans 70 or so years back. I'd rather be overly paranoid and bent about the issue than just plain correctly worried. Planet-wide and synchronized, this shit is making me ill.
And take a picture of the statue of Liberty before I forget what it looks like...
I was taking pictures of a Shell gas station to get inspiration for my LEGO creations and I was told not to photograph so close to the gas pumps because I might cause a spark.
No big deal as I already had the photos I wanted that required me to get anywhere near the pumps so I moved back and photographed the rest of the gas station.
Although with todays new society, I wouldnt be surprised if photographs I have taken before would be considered "suspect" if I was to take them today.
A friend of mine was taking tourist pictures of New York City and a city policeman came up and asked him why he was taking pictures of the bridges. He cooperated, talked to them for a while and let them know it was just for fun, but felt strange that he would be questioned about taking pictures of bridges. They left him alone and he continued taking pictures, but he thought it was a bit odd.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
...for infringement of civil liberties! Because if you don't, you will have effectively allowed fascism into the system!
..Also happens in a little island (30miles by 10miles) in the UK called the Isle of Man. I was taking some concept photos for my City & Guilds, the title of my peice was Industrialism.
I was down in the harbour, merely shooting some snaps of a gas cylinder, when the security guard for the gas company drives up to me and tells me to move on. When I argued the fact that the 1000's of tourists coming into the docks each year probably have countless photos of the massive & intrusive structures as well - I was told to move on or face prosecution. I was 15 at the time, what is a 15 year old with a pentax mx going to do with a picture of a gas cylinder...really?
Hmph. For such a small community to join in this totatlitarian stance dissappoints me to say the least.
Something needs to be done! The govornment encourages education, but how am I supposed to become educated when what I am trying to educate myself in classifies me as a terrorist!?
g00p.
The alternative:
/. but it should be made public so the police know what stupid cunts they're being. They've been doing shit like this for ages when it comes to dealing with modified cars. They make rules up left right and centre, especially the traffic management unit.
Policeman is a fuckwit.
Nobody except Geelong camera club finds out.
More police think they can/should do it.
I don't know if it should be on
Fall 2001
Winter 2003-4
You can't photograph the Eiffel Tower either. At least not at night.
This is just yet another nail in the coffin of freedom, in another (once democratic) country.
Dammit, I thought WE won the cold war.
In my hometown of Greenville SC - a unique looking suspension bridge that was recently constructed is a PAID photo ... if being featured in ANY compensated publication or distribution (this even includes wedding/engagement photos) - this structure was paid for by the taxpayers ... the city claims that they have royalty rights to any picture that features it.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Likewise, currently you'll get in trouble if you take photos in the subway station in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. It's a pity because the subway stations there, as in Moscow, are sometimes surprisingly beautiful and photo-worthy. The police, as far as I know, are SUPPOSED to do this. The police also stop people at random and check their documents. It's unpleasant.
There's a lot to like about Uzbekistan, but the current government is not included. I hope I don't get any trouble for posting this.
$META_SIG_JOKE
On my first trip to Australia in 1996 to meet my fiancee's family I was shooting photos of Sydney's Victorian-syled central train station with a digital camera. I was surprised when a couple of policemen came over and started giving me a very polite 3rd-degree about who I was and what I was doing.
I gave them my best "I'm a naive American geek taking photos with this hi-tech toy" story. They were fascinated by my digital camera (this was 1996 and they were not very common) and pretty much dismissed me as mostly harmless. Maybe they didn't make me delete the photos because they had no clue about how one would do that with a filmless camera... I don't know.
I can imagine things are quite different now the cops are a bit more tech-savvy in the post 9/11 era.
If you were a serious terrorist you wouldn't be openly taking photographs.
No terrorist is going to hang around the front gate (of Shell's refinery) taking photos
If I was a serious a serious terrorist, I'd dress up as a tourist and take pictures in broad daylight for everyone to see. If confronted, I would ask why a terrorist would take pictures in broad daylight in front of everyone.
They're arguing semantics when they should be concerntrating on the high moral ground. Oh well, should it come to court, I believe they'll win.
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
How sad that the truly insightful parent post was modded "Troll."
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
But watch for the snipers.
We were in DC for Labor Day weekend this past year, not only was there a barrier setup in front of the White House at least 500 yards out from the doorstep, there were 5 snipers that I could count in my pictures standing on the roof of the White House.
Not just 2 years before that, the barrier was up by the front gate to the lawn.
How can he see my finger from that far out?
Mr. Lincoln didn't seem to complain about getting his picture taken with me.
The presence of a gun instantly escalates any confrontation to a potential deadly force encounter. Carrying one turns you from a minor nuicence into a deadly threat, and you can expect to be treated accordingly.
If you and I are involved in some sort of altercation, and I discover that you are carrying a gun (even if you have not threatened me with it or brandished it in any way) I am going to take steps to see you disarmed *at a minimum* because that gun can kill me (or a bystander) stone dead, and I have no way of knowing if you'll retreat out of physical range and then shoot me. A gun's very presence means my life is in danger and I have to take action *NOW*, before the gun is brought in play - because once it is, I lose.
Carrying a gun is to invite people to use deadly force against you, because you are quite clearly able and willing to use deadly force against them. It is NOT a deterrent.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Last summer, I was harassed for taking pictures of city buses in Ottawa (federal capital of Canada). Here's my account of the... incident:
I was being hassled by OC transpo security types for taking pictures of buses in the street.
One of them, a woman, was practically in tears about "don't you know what happenned in London", just as if photographing buses would make them blow-up. Poor little creature. I almost wanted to hug her to calm her fears (but she looked too much like whe queen of England and I didn't want to smear myself)...
The whole thing got ugly when they demanded to see some identification; I refused flatly, on matters of principle. Nothing illegal was done; then we went through the usual "if you don't have nothing to hide, why don't you give us some ID" bullshit arguments we always hear.
They then said that they would have to call the police on me.
-- Are you arresting me? I asked.
-- No, you're free to leave.
**BINGO!**
This was a dead giveaway that they are security types, not constables. They cannot arrest and detain somebody for nothing...
So I left at once; but less than a block away, I was intercepted by a fuming policewoman whose demeanor was quite arrogant and disgusting. She neatly parked her car blocking the reserved bus lane on Albert, between Bronson and Commissionners street, a most inconvenient place for buses, right as rush-hour was beginning.
As I was walking calmly, she started to yell at me:
-- "Hey, buddy"!!!
Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a very polite way to introduce yourself. So I ignore her and keep walking slowly up the hill. That girl has to be taught a lesson in respect.
She caught up on me right when I was about to arrive to where I was staying. Never before I have seen such a tremenduous display of fury and nastyness. 120 pounds and 120 decibels of pure, hot and tanned unadulterated flaming bitch. She would be perfect on ALT.FLAME.
She was yelling at me, demanding to see identification.
-- Are you arresting me? I asked again.
-- No, I am detaining you.
Not to take chances (what the fuck "detaining" legally means???), I started to dole out information on a piecemeal basis; like a Québec birth certificate, a perfectly legal, yet totally unknown document.
-- You don't have anything with your address? she hysterically blurted, expecting the standard, run-of-the-mill sacrosanct driver's license, which I don't have...
-- This is all I have (heavily implying "this is all you'll get").
As we argued, three transit security types came about (including the slimy one who said that "I can leave", but the sad girl was gone, though), as well as two city cops came to watch the fun go by.
The two cops (guys) were much nicer (which is easy to do, given the terminal nastyness of the first - I guess even Genghis Khan would seem nice compared to her).
She then asks me for my address. Just as I finish saying the number and the street, before I say "Montréal", she disgustingly blurts out "is this in Gatineau???", like if I was living in a toilet bowl.
As I said "No, Montréal", she demanded my address in Ottawa. So I gave her my friend's address, not wanting to be arrested on charges of homelessness (you never know what slimy dirty trick the pigs will pull on you - during all that time, I carefully stayed on the sidewalk alignment so I would not be charged for trespassing), some 20 feet away - because of this, my friend got in trouble; he was told by his condo administrators that he was "put on probation for bringing-in people who cause trouble", as the whole scene was witnessed by about 30 construction workers working on the condo... But this is a matter for his lawyer, though, and not on topic here.
-- "It's right there, pointing at the condo main door"
-- "I don't believe you, you just made that up!!!!" then blared out of the high-pitched decibel emitter. I suppose I could have borrowed some earplugs from nearb
This madness has occurred in the U.S. too, in the fall of 2003 to cartoonist Wes Oleszewski, who does an aviation comic strip called Klyde Morris. Klyde is the first ant who becomes a commercial pilot. Just as with Doonesbury, the strip often shows well-known buildings with balloons of the conversations inside.
Oleszewski wanted to be able to draw a better representation of the FAA's building.
Oleszewski tried to take pictures of the FAA headquarters building in Washington, D.C. but was told photographs were forbidden for security reasons.
The inital series of three cartoon strips on what happended start here. There's a follow up on the story here.
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
I've had some experience with photography and interested policemen in the UK... see more here: http://occular.livejournal.com/92215.html (in particular, follow the second and third links to see the details.)
I have a friend who was taking photographs of where he lived downtown (Elizabeth City, NC) and a non uniformed officer came up to him and forced him to delete the photos or he'd have to take the camera away. I actually submitted this as a story about 4-5 months ago, but that's not important. What concerns me is that all of these people are starting to treat us as if we're criminals and it's highly upsetting, it's as if they're machines and no longer people.
There are some really sick people out there that who get off to playing police the people and treat us as if we're over-grown children.
$fortune
Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
I just wanted to say, I agree completely. I wouldn't hold your breath to be modded up by the Slashmind, but I think you summed up the problem a lot of people have with the ACLU, myself included.
... by the Constitution and laws of the United States." However they seem to cherry-pick which of those 'rights and liberties' they want to defend pretty selectively, and with a very clear bias. As you pointed out, they'll happily defend you if you can prove that you're somehow a member of a 'victimized' minority class, while seemingly ignoring everyone else. I'm sure that they've done the necessary mental gymnastics to rationalize all this, but I'm not interested in hearing it. If it looks like hypocrisy, smells like hypocrisy ... it's probably hypocrisy.
I support the EFF and the NRA, because they both have objectives that they actually seem to try to live up to. In the case of the EFF, it's "working to protect your digital rights." In the case of the NRA, it's mainly the 2nd Amendment, plus various hunting and land-use rights.
The ACLU, on the other hand, has as its goal to "defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person
Frankly, there are a lot of organizations which I don't support, which I have more respect for than I do for the ACLU. A lot of right-wing anti-abortion Christian organizations, for instance. I probably couldn't disagree with what they have to say more, but I respect that they are mainly doing exactly what they say they do.
Perhaps this is because, in general, I tend to prefer 'specialist' organizations to broadly defined ones, and the ACLU on paper is the ultimate 'broad scope' organization. But I would easily tolerate that if they even seemed to care at all about their princicples, in anything except their own fund-raising literature.
If the ACLU changed its name and its stated goals to be more in line with the function it actually performs, they'd move up a lot in my book. I probably wouldn't cut them a check anytime soon (they'd have to really start from a blank slate -- or better yet, a copy of the Bill of Rights -- if they wanted that), but I probably wouldn't gag every time I heard them mentioned on CNN, either.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
When you can just enter the address in google maps, click on satellite image, zoom all the way in and see who's parked in the individual parking spaces. Try taking your own personalized tour of Area 51!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Having read a newspaper story about the magnificent christmas lights decoration at the US Army housing area not far away, an elderly couple takes a walk to take a look. Too bad they also tried to take a picture. A couple of security guards (not soldiers) come to take the film and look at their ID. The couple refuses, and are forced to wait 45 minutes out in the cold until both MP and local police arrive at the scene. IIRC (from the local news paper article) they could keep their film but the local police checked their IDs and gave the info to the MPs. Guess they will have a hard time getting a visa for the US - if they ever want to go there after this. And all this happened on a public road, no fences, no signs.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
The Light of Other Days.
recommend.
I am interested to see over time how this might affect the use of mobile phones with camera's. Take a photos - then you go, "sorry mate, was making a video call".
Now that most people have these camera phones now, when will we start to see alternative angles on news events - just like the london bombings when people were filming their own rescue. If 9/11 happened today, we would have a video record of people inside the building sending stuff to their loved ones, more footage of the evacuation. I think in general we would get a clearer picture rather than hear say evidence.
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
I suppose that's a valid reason. High power flashes emit a lot of heat and old-style bulb flashes are truly a hazard to everyone. Such rules and regulations usually get written once and never revised.
I'm not a planespotter, but when I found myself booked on a flight on a tiny two-propeller plane I was amused, and wanted to take a photo. So I did, as I was crossing the tarmac to get on board the plane.
Some bag thrower started yelling. It didn't register for a while that he was yelling at me, telling me I wasn't allowed to take a photo of the plane.
This was a great example of stupid security. First off, I was about to get on board the plane, so I was going to have every opportunity to explore it and take notes at leisure. Secondly, the airport had an observation deck, which was where I had just come from. The plane was in plain sight from the departure lounge, where anyone with a camera could have snapped a photo.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
In North Korea, only old people have got no place restricting public photography.
Calligraphy, on the other hand, is totally kewl.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
just said "Don't do that again".
When a cop says 'Don't do that again', how do you interpret that? Do you say 'up yours and do it again'? What happens then? Does he smile and say 'I'm just warning you, have a nice day'? Or does he say 'I told you not to do that! You are under arrest for disobeying an officer! You are getting beaten with a night stick for resisting arrest! You are being shot because I fucking feel angry at your resistance to my orders!'
Here is a video of a police office in the United States shooting a man three times while the man is obeying the officer's orders! Do you think that this is the first time that this has happened? And yet you seem to think that it is insignificant when a policeman gives a warning against legal activity! Are you fucking stupid?!?!?!? When a cop gives you a warning/order you are taking your life into your own hands if you disobey. A warning from a police officer, legal or not, is a direct threat to you and if there is no legal grounds for that threat and you are not outraged by it, then you deserve the night sticking that so many others have gotten!
I don't know how it is now, but in the 1990s in Russia I got shouted at for taking a photograph above ground level. That used to be prohibited, along with taking photographs of bridges.
Photography in St Petersburg is noticably restricted when you can't include bridges in the shot...
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Somebody mod the parent up.
+5 Insightful
+5 Informative
+5 Interesting
I can't understand how people don't see the danger even when they have video in TV.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to take "urban" photographs in my home city (Montreal, Canada).
:)
Unless I want to join an army of sheepish photographers taking landscape shots in designated places... I have to pretty much dodge anyone who even resembles a security guard.
But, who can blame them. Toursists with little snapshot credit card sized cameras seem harmless, yet my bulky digital SLR stands out like a soar thumb. Ironically... if someone was taking photographs for malicious purposes, don't you think he would bring the tiny credit card camera as opposed to the 12megapixal Digital SLR? Idiots.
Now when I'm in a shopping center, regardless of how dumb their policies are... I have to obey... they can kick out whoever they want.
But when I'm on a street corner taking shots of a building, and the building security walks outside to harass me... that's pretty angering. Sometimes I stand my ground... sometimes I don't. Sometimes I just say... "ok, if you want me to leave call the cops." Naturally, the cops never come
"if people are wearing dark clothing, and hiding in the woods taking long range telephoto lens pics of stuff, then maybe they are suspicious"
There are a bunch of bird and wildlife photographers, myself included, who need to do just that. And yes, they too are being hauled away for suspicious activites. You, like the police, are beginning to assume guilt based on behavior instead of proof.
I know a guy who is a professional news photographer/videographer in the Washington, D.C. area who barely escaped getting his equipment confiscated the first time he tried to take a picture of White House in the Winter of 2001. The rule is still in effect but it effects pro and serious-amateur photographers and hardly any tourists since its a prohibition against using a tripod or other apparatus to take a quality picture of the White House.
This was a guy who has been personally known by each D.C. Police Chief for the last 20 or so years!
A police officer can draw his gun and shoot you at any time for no reason other then that he doesn't like your face. Hell, I can shoot you at any time. Neither is legal. Certainly people have been arrested unlawfully. Hell, my original post talked about in instance where a police officer illegally beat the piss out of someone. The larger point is that such actions are illegal. In fact, if you read that story you would notice that the ACLU is in fact taking issue with what happened and has initiated a legal resolution.
People will break the law. As long as police officers are people, they are going to break the law too. What is important is that there is an actual law broken and that civil institutions help to expose these breaches of the public trust. I think that the story you cite is an example of how the system is working, not failing.
I don't want to take the steps necessary to prevent all laws from being broken, regardless if it is by police officers or civilians. There are not steps you could possibly take to achieve such a thing. I don't care what society you live in, people (police officers and civilians) will break the law. What I do want is a legal system and civil institutions that seek legal remedies when laws are broken. This is exactly what is happening the case you cited. Reading in the news of an instance where the ACLU has stepped in to represent someone who was subject to an illegal search, seizure, and arrest is a good thing.
One way to find open water, of course, is to be near the runoff from a power plant -- a "sensitive location" if ever there was one.
I've been interrogated multiple times by security guards and a couple of times by cops, and I don't even really frequent those spots much. When I do I have my Swarovskis and a medium-sized digital camera with a long lens, though. Bird shots need a long lens.
It sort of goes with the territory, I guess. I'd rather know they're awake, anyway. Taking me away would be another thing.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
To which he says... "Yes I understand, but the Patriot Act adresses a lot of that."
You've obviously been trolling a bit in the past, what with all your -1 posts, so I don't know if your story is true. But if it is, then what the pig said to you is a perfect example of how a person with power is happy to get more (and desires more power). Obviously to that copper, an individual's rights get in his way of being able to do what the fuck he wants!
Car analogies break down.
Lots of good information, and is nice to have on hand, just in case.
Obviously for the US only:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Anyone planning an attack on an industrial facility would be better off bribing/blackmailing an insider into providing descriptive plot plans, equipment layouts and process flow diagrams. This restriction is just silly, ridiculous security theatre.
If you reflect light at me no one should have the right to prevent me from capturing it.
These private property - fotography laws aren't just to create draconian restrictions. Some part of the reasoning is to protect the privacy of people who believe they are on private property. By your argument, toilet cams should be acceptable. If I visit your home and say I'm going to use the restroom in the master bedroom, I should be able to drop a wireless X10 camera in the master bedroom to supervise you and your spouse reflecting light at my device.
In Texas and many other states, this is a felony.
Of course you do have rights if I photographed your copyrighted material. I should still be able to photograph it if I'm allowed to see it but I cannot sell/distribute said photos because the work belongs to you.
Unlike a book you've purchased and photocopy per your fair use rights, when you pay to see a topless dancer or a stage play, you have not purchased fair use rights to their works. Those performers depend on repeat ticket purchases to fund their apartment rent. If the property owner forbids photography of one of these performances, they may ask you to leave the premises... that is their right as a property owner.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Given that we are in a war, given that our enemies like to attack civilian targets, given that an industrial target would be tempting to them--this makes perfect sense.
If my house floods, does it become public property?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Yet here is a picture of FAA headquarters. From the FAA.
I heard of not being able to take pictures of prisons and that sorta makes sense. This is a brute force method of trying to deter terrorism and it just won't work. Just for giggles I googled "brooklyn bridge" and it came up with 41,600 hits. 3,275 hits on flickr.com and 9 with one mispelling. Google Earth, Microsoft's version are also pretty good at this so are you telling me they will be shutting these down? What's next artists, can't paint pictures? Banning camcorders and cameras can't be far away. I used to work in Philadelphia in City Hall. I would see people walking around with cameras and camcorders video taping everything. No one talked to them unless there was some profiling being done when I wasn't looking.
My solution is to just talk to the cop/authority figure and tell them what your doing. I'm half tempted to join and amature photographers group so I get a card or something to show them.
....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
"From what I have seen, generally the security guards who are hired to guard companies are peaceful, qualified individuals. However, the security guards hired to guard retail stores, concerts, and other places where they deal with the general public, are usually poorly trained and either a) looking for a job and don't care what it is, or b) applied because they want a reason to get physical with someone." This is what I have seen.
David Brin wrote more about that notion in "Earth", as well, which is a great fiction novel. The notion of wearing a camera around to record the cameras recording you is disturbing, but perhaps fitting. If nothing else, catching a cop beating or shooting a compliant suspect during an arrest points out that sometimes the guys wearing the badge exceed the law:
1 feb01,0,7570035.storyp /index.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/31/chase.beating.a
Pay attention to these sorts of things, everybody, people need to make sure that nobody is above the law, starting with the people who make and enforce them. One standard for all is better than an infinite number of double-standards driven from self-interest....
"The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
Great strip. Thanks for sharing.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The nefarious guy is actually working in the drug store, developing all the photos of the amateur photographers, and making copies of whichever will advance his sinister plans.
Well, if smokers had the decency not to blow smoke in your face, and poison the area surrounding them, then you wouldn't need a law.
Same thing with littering - plenty of fools drop garbage on the steet even though there is a garbage nearby; similarly some are simply unable to hold their junk while using the public transportation system, and simply discard it on the bus/subway/metro.
So you see, we do need laws, and some enforcement.
This sort of thing has been happening to people in Chicago that are attempting to photograph the Cloud Gate (aka bean, aka big blob of mercury) sculpture in Millenium Park. Apparently some overzealous security guards have been kicking photographers out of the (public) space because of copyright violations(?) and a lack of permit. This is despite city policy that only requires permits to be obtained by professional photographers. I'm not sure what the claim of copyright violation is all about; sure the plans for the sculpture are copyrighted, but I don't know how you can copyright a physical location that's accessible by the public. More information is available here.
I'm into B&W analog photography and on one of the message boards I frequent(apug.org) I've heard stories like this from serveral people. In the US it tends to be security guards, park officials, and small town police that are the most problimatic. Some will try to take your film or worse your equipment and don't understand the concept that they don't have the right to do it. In the U.S. you can photograph anything provided you are standing on public ground, with the possible exception of millitary installations and nucular facilities. Alot of photographers have taken to caring pamphlets with them that detail local and federal laws that pertain to photography.
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
Nothing else to say about that.
It's been over 4 years since the first time I was confronted by the police taking pictures in a public place. I was at a park with a rather large dam at sunset during the summer solstice. Cops drove up, strolled over, grilled me a little, looked through my pictures... finally some sense kicked in and they were like, uh, what the hell are we doing. That was that. The same thing has happened a few times since, at various locations. I don't see how this is news.
I was in vatican, and I took picture in front of one of the statues, with my hands outstreached in mockery and fun towards one of the popes statues. The guard quickly ran up to me, and told me if I dont delete picture, I will get arrested. Scared the shit out of me ;p, but does he have a right?
I'm just theorizing as to why the person might be unwilling to press charges, because he might get in trouble in return. As I said, similar case with a guy I knew back in highschool. He was talking about how the asshole mall secrutiy (and he's right, they were assholes, the owners needed to give them a lesson in customer service) had detained him, and roughed him up and so on. I was incensed that they'd just do this randomly and given the attitude I'd seen from them it didn't seem outside of the realm of possibility. So of course I was advocating fighting it, call the police, etc. Er, well, turns out the guy had actually been, umm, uhhh, shoplifting first. He'd ditched what he'd stole beofre they got him, hence they didn't bother calling the police, but there you go. He didn't want the police being called since then he might get in more trouble.
"Hate crime legislation doesn't hurt you in any way."
Yeah, this is a really dumb statement.
Hate crimes serve to reiforce the idea that an artificial concept such as race is a legitimate way to group people.
In other words, hate crimes PROMOTE racism by promoting "race" as a legitimate idea.
Race is a social construct, and the longer you and people like you allow it to have validity (BY USING THE FUCKING LAW!) the longer the artificial divisions will exist.
Race doesn't exist. Making laws that say otherwise does hurt society by preventing it from moving beyond race, and by hurting society hurts me as well.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Are you French by any chance?
You completely ignore the fact that you lied and were caught.
Another poster hit it on the head, morons like you who shoot their motuhs off about some percieved injustice they heard about sicken me. GET YOUR FUCKING FACTS STRAIGHT OR KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.
The world is a contentious enough place without people like you making up new things for imbeciles to rant about.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
I saw them tackle a couple TRYING TO LEAVE teh Maryland RennFest. I did not like this. I stuck around as a witness and gave advice to the victims. The police came. They asked them questions. I told them they didn't have to answer. The police told me to leave. I told them I had a first-amendment right to assemble in the public parking lot anywhere I want while waiting for my wife to pick me up. They forcefully pushed (assaulted) me away. But not before he had my number in his cell phone as a witness (they called me from the hospital later, but I never heard again -- charges dropped?)
I'm not going back to RennFest. This will cost them hundreds.
Then, at 9:30 Club in D.C., I saw the security there forcefully detain a couple BECAUSE THE GIRL WENT UP ON THE EMPTY STAGE AND TOOK THE PIECE OF PAPER WITH THE SONGS ("SET LIST") ON IT.
I mean... What... The... Fuck. So now any thug paid by anybody to protect anything can just trample all over anyone they want, call the police, and the police will come in and assault anyone who disagrees?
Fuck that, and, I'm sorry to you personally, but fuck you and your thug buddies.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I was watching a local weekly concert from the roof of a hotel a friend of mine maintains and I was taking pictures like I do every so often on the roof. Apparently, I was creating concern among some of the attendees and federal investigators visited the front desk. They spoke with my friend and asked him to request that I stop taking "crowd shots". It's amazing to me. I was in a bright red shirt and making no attempts to be discreet. So much for freedom of expression.
Yep, like I said, it's sort of nice to know they're awake.
Unfortunately the tone of these "conversations" eventually comes down to intimidation. They could just as easily determine how likely I am to be a terrorist by asking a few curious questions about what I'm doing. They don't do that -- the tone is very much "We're here to brush people off; now what the hell are you doing interrupting our day?"
And I'm not taking pictures of the stacks for my research on particulate emissions, or anything like that. I'm aimed in the other direction, at a cold-looking kingfisher huddled against the cold. The tiniest bit of initiative and they can see I'm no threat.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I was taking digital photos of various walls in the warehouse district of a California city a few days ago for use as textures in a game. A couple was sitting in their car across the public street from the sidewalk I was standing on. I heard the woman ask her boyfriend "What is he doing? Is that legal?". The guy gets out of the car and jogs to the front of the place I was photographing and I hear him telling the owner what I was doing. I didn't wait around to see what would happen (bad neighborhood), but the mere fact that these people would get into a huff about such a thing kind of scares me. Does anyone in the general population respect the freedoms of others?
I was living in Paris in 1990 and decided to take a look at the U.S. Embassy. I thought the heavy security around the building (including the driveway barrier that retracted below the pavement) was interesting, so I decided to take some pictures. Fortunately, I asked one of the many (very serious looking) French police officers who were guarding the building for permission. He politely but firmly said "No".
The post is loud, rude, and makes accusations about not getting the facts straight without providing any itself.
I stand by my words, until someone can make a persuasive reasoned argument against them.
There was a related discussion on this subject on Flickr a few weeks ago...
The link I posted is specific to US law, though at the bottom of the page there is a link to Photographer's Rights in the UK...
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Congress declared war? On who?
I am an expert witness and unfortunately it could be a hung jury...Or better yet it might be a split jury in which I would like to cross-examine. But I have to be careful because there could be a discharge. A search warrant should be issued.
Libertas in infinitum
From my understanding of US copyright law, ther is an exemption in rights of architectural structures from photographers and painters. IOW it is legal to reproduce the view of a building.
Libertas in infinitum
The Boston South Station bus terminal has a recorded announcement on loop which says still and video photography is prohibited. Legal?
Stop using obscene language in your posts.
It just make you look like an asshole.
Yeah, here in Dallas Texas too! Got run off from a mall
for taking pix of a building. There was a security guard riding on a Sedgeway that looked cool so I pointed my camera at him and he came unglued. Said that wasn't allowed!
there are also plenty of "damn things" you can do, espeicially if you are also corrupt. not that many corrupt cops out there, but the ones that are learn pretty fast that bad thigs will happen back if they cross someone who is not defenseless.
You lied about this
" You can't photograph the Eiffel Tower [fastcompany.com] either. At least not at night."
Many others have posted refutations of your lie, and a simple web search reveals your lie as well.
Yet instead of backing away from your lie, you decided to respond with
"The post is loud, rude, and makes accusations about not getting the facts straight without providing any itself."
Guess what cunt? YOU posted the lie, and YOU refused to back off of it. It's not MY responsibility to refute your lie AGAIN when three other people already did it.
And now, instead of accepting that you got it wrong, you're insisting on MORE refutations.
Fine you piece of lying garbage, here you go
"The Eiffel Tower's likeness had long since been part of the public domain, when in 2003, it was abruptly repossessed by the city of Paris. That's the year that the SNTE, the company charged with maintaining the tower, adorned it with a distinctive lighting display, copyrighted the design, and in one feel swoop, reclaimed the nighttime image and likeness of the most popular monument on earth. In short: they changed the actual likeness of the tower, and then copyrighted that.
As a result, it's no longer legal to publish current photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night without permission"
So, when you lied and claimed, "You can't photograph the Eiffel Tower [fastcompany.com] either. At least not at night." you were completely wrong. It's perfectly acceptable to PHOTOGRAPH the eiffel tower, just not PUBLISH those photographs.
Would you like MORE refutations of your lie, or are you going to continue to stand by the lie you tried to pass off?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
This is the last post I'll make on this matter. Not because there is no more to debate. In fact there is. Everything from the legal definition of "copyright" to "publishing", to utility of being able to photograph something but not share/publish it. Any argument will depend a lot on these definitions which (at least in Canadian law) can be fairly ambiguous.
No this is my last past because, as I said, mr flyinwhitey is loud, rude, and prefers to attack the person rather than the message.
Sir, I would never follow you from post to post modding you down. You're not worth it and I suspect, judging from these posts, that you need no extra help in this regard.
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
In the United States, smoking also tends to be regulated by law. But that wasn't my point.
While I agree that a mall is a public space and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, it is still private property. The owner of the property makes the rules, and if they say no photography, you can't take pictures unless you get their permission first.
My Sysadmin Blog