Slashdot Mirror
Comment Deadline For NYC Photography Permits
DrNibbler writes "August 3, 2007 is the deadline for submitting comments on the proposed permit requirements for photographers in New York. Here is a sample submission."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Ms. Oliver:
I am writing in reference to the proposed changes to permit requirements for photography on public property. The proposed rules, as I understand them, would require a permit for "activity involving a tripod and a crew of 5 or more people at one site for 10 minutes or more" (the 10 minutes include the time to set up the tripod) or or the same activity among two people at a single site for more than 30 minutes. The permit process also requires the photographer to carry 1 million dollars in liability insurance.
I understand that it is important for the city to draw a line between amateur and professional photographers. I have often heard of cheap professionals calling themselves amateurs solely because they use a low-end SLR camera. However this rule does not do enough to make that separation and fails to protect a much-loved American city. Allow me to suggest some effective enhancements.
About once or twice a month, empower the police to conduct thorough searches of anyone who looks to be taking pictures, or preparing to do so. Necessary permits should be found on anyone who carries a camera beyond a drug store disposable. Justice should be carried out swiftly in situations where the necessary papers are not found. A modicum of brutality would suffice in reducing recidivism rates.
Only when New York is free of people carrying unlicensed cameras can its upstanding citizens be free from the threat of terrorist attacks.
Thank You for Your Time,
__________________
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
If this takes off in the States, how long before the nimrods in Australian government decide to follow suit?
It's amazing: first "free speech zones", then forbidding photographers from taking photos? Has the U.S. gone nuts?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
NYC was a liberal enclave?
Why don't they just make a law against breathing so that the growth of police power via selective enforcement is complete.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
We'll need a permit to take a screenshot of Google Street View?
http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/080107_pro
http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_
(a) Introduction. The Mayor's Office of Film Theatre and Broadcasting ("MOFTB")
shall issue permits in connection with filming, including but not limited to the taking of motion
pictures; the taking of photographs; the use and operation of television cameras, transmitting
television equipment, or radio remotes in or about city property; load-ins or load-outs supporting
1
indoor performances; or such activities in or about any street, park, marginal street, pier, wharf,
dock, bridge or tunnel within the jurisdiction of any City department or agency, or involving the
use of any City owned or maintained facilities or equipment. As defined herein, MOFTB will
issue permits for scouting, rigging and shooting activities. Obtaining such a permit does not
obviate the need to obtain approval for an activity that may also be subject to other laws, rules or
case law.
(b) Permits.
(1) The following activities require that a permit be obtained pursuant to this chapter:
(i) Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring
on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, that uses vehicles or
equipment, except as described in subparagraphs (2)(i) and (ii) of this subdivision;
(ii) Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring
on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, involving an interaction
among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes, including all set-up
and breakdown time in connection with such activities; or
(iii) Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring
on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, involving an interaction
among five or more people at a single site and the use of a single tripod for ten or more
minutes, including all set-up and breakdown time in connection with such activities.
(2) The following activities do not require that a permit be obtained pursuant to this
chapter:
(i) Filming or photography occurring on City property, as described in
subdivision (a) of this section, involving the use of a hand-held device as defined in
paragraph three of subdivision (a) of 9-02, provided that such activity does not involve
an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes,
including all set-up and breakdown time in connection with such activities.
(ii) Filming or photography occurring on City property, as described in
subdivision (a) of this section, involving the use of a single tripod, provided that such
activity does not involve an interaction among five or more people at a single site and the
use of a single tripod for ten or more minutes, including all set-up and breakdown time in
connection with such activities.
(iii) Filming or photography of a parade, rally, protest, or demonstration except
when using vehicles or equipment other than a handheld device or single tripod. I'm rather curious about how they're defining a "tripod." For example, what if somebody has a Gorillapod or a string tripod?
I know I won't be visiting New York anytime in the forseeable future; sightseeing there is getting too risky...
That's fine, what we'll do to help you is stop sending tourists over. No problem. Hope it works out for you.
Yours sincerely,
ABTA
As a former New Yorker (and hoping to be one again soon) who lived in an area that rapidly went from "ghetto" to "hip" I saw the disruption a photo or film shoot could cause. Blocking a sidewalk or part of a street, barring entry to buildings and businesses and holding up traffic both vehicle or pedestrian can cause a nightmare. This isn't an occasional thing, either; in some areas for whatever reasons (often the most trendy or fashionable) this is a daily occurance.
I am honestly not sure why a small crew with substantial equiptment who set up camp should not get permission to do so. These rules do not seem unreasonable by any means, and in fact a smart professional photographer could easily work within the limits without the permit if they travelled light and worked quickly. They aren't outlawing amateurs or even pros with handheld cameras from taking film or video (so, say, independant journalists would not be hampered as long as they were able to be mobile), this isn't based on the quality of the camera and all that as some suggest but rather whether they block off real estate with tripods, mics and lights... And and I fail to see a "terrorist" angle at all outside of knee-jerk Slashdot comments (unless I'm missing something?) To me it just seems to be about keeping fashion shoots, Indie films and whatever else from taking over public space in an extremely congested city.
No, I'm glad the ACLU is defending something worth defending instead of defending child molesters, NAMBLA, or Muslim terrorist organizations for once.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
does this affect anyone who wants to use a camara in public? or does it only affect professional photographers? ie, photographers for news papers and such
portfolio
These all seem like sensible criteria for requiring a permit. They also make the case that getting a permit for such activities should not just be a case of filling in some form, residents and business owners that will be affected should be informed as well and have a chance to object or suggest changes to timetables to fit better with their lives. But two people using a tripod do not cause such disruption, and should not have to seek permission to take photos.
While they claim it's not targeted at amateurs and tourists, it clearly applies directly to them. For example, a tour group of 5 or more people where at least one is holding a camera cannot stay in a single area for more than 10 minutes. The way it's written no one even has to be taking photographs for it to apply. One member of the group merely having a camera visible is enough to trigger these new rules.
How about if you're sitting on a bench reviewing the day's photos? If you're by yourself and have been there for 30 minutes, you better have a permit and $1 million insurance coverage. Add in the fact that they're saying the permits may take as many as 30 days to acquire plus proof of insurance and what you've done is effectively outlawed amateur and tourist photography.
Blocking sidewalks and streets is a serious issue, but commercial photography that impedes traffic already requires permits. No changes are required for that. Chances are good that the people you're complaining about have secured all the necessary permits. I rarely if ever see an amateur causing traffic problems. Tourists often do, but they can cause problems whether they're taking pictures or not.
Despite their stated intentions, this appears squarely aimed at either deterring amateur photography or providing a reason to question and detain anyone with a camera.
The way I see it - it's just another way to make money. Anyway, I don't know if this workaround will work - an organisation is formed (consisting of film makers, and even people who are not related to the film industry). The organisation pays the city and films it from various angles - the entire bloody city! - even if it takes months. Then, the organisation offers free or paid (little fee) for the entire footage! It may be useful to filmmakers to have footage available (of course, the scenes can be edited (beauty of CGI)). As far as the av. person goes, upon registration, he's part of the organisation and can take snaps and film anywhere he wants to.
Do I require the c-sig package to have a signature?
For those of you who do not remember the Tompkins Square Park Police Riot, here's the Wikipedia link. Police clubbed people on the head, regardless of who they were (even the press were beaten, there only to report on the incident).
Were it not for amateur videographers, it would have been the victims word alone versus the cops, and everyone knows the judge will side with the cops.
They will twist this law to confiscate any cell-phone, video camera, ipod, or other device that might bear witness to the over-reaching authority of the police-state of NY. Cops will have the ability to harass, beat, or otherwise abuse anyone they please, and no one will be able to bring in their evidence, because the shooting of such incident did not have a "permit".
I'm moving to Canada.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I messed that up a bit. Sitting alone for 30 minutes is fine, you just can't have anyone with you. Add another person and you need a permit.
"Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, involving an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes"
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
It's not directing at "photographers", we're talking about anything that's gonna require multiple people and a friggin tripod. That is a minor fucking subset of photographers. A non-FUD title AND SUMMARY would mention film-makers. You know, people blocking the damn sidewalk for 20 minutes. Why the fuck is this on slashdot? And who the hell tagged it "privacy"
And it is perfectly reasonable for a big city to require insurance, though the number shouldn't be specified...the city should really just make sure the workers and their own ass is covered. You do realize that people video tape sidewalks, send a copy to the city, and then the second someone trips sue the city for negligence? Or do you really have no fucking clue how cities work?
goddamn geeks posting shit from idaho.
Once you place limits on freedom, then it's no longer truly freedom. Even when those limits protect people you disagree with.
I see your point but I still think this is in reaction to what is a very real problem in New York, photo shoots disrupting traffic. As far as I can tell this does not apply to handheld cameras in any way, so tourist activity should be unaffected. I think the wording does seem to make a point of targetting commercial productions as well.
As for the other point if you're sitting alone reviewing the photos, would you have your equpitment set up, tripod out and all that? Possession of photographic equiptment is not criminalized here, but a time limit is being set on having it out and presumably blocking others from passing in front of it.
I do think harassment of photographers by the police is a serious problem, however that was already going on. I don't think this law has anything to do with that; this to me seems like it is a reaction to what many New York residents consider a nuisance, which is production crews taking over public space without permission.
No, I don't remember that. NYC has been the home of the wealthy and powerful for a long time. NYC may have been more libertine, but politically, conservative forces have been quite strong in NYC as well.
It's not the increase, it's the rate of increase. Also, wrong thread.
If it can be abused by the police, it will be abused by the police.
Now, how many tourists travel alone? Do you? I don't.
Most people travel at least in pairs. A couple, a family, whatever. Are you gonna sit down alone and review your photos while your SO is going to stand 10 feet from you, watching you and waiting for you?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As a constant visitor to New York City, I can agree with the other posters in this thread that it's to burden indie film makers who make it difficult to get around. A major thing you will note is that this REQUIRES THE USE OF A TRIPOD. Everyone, let me make this clear: VIEWING YOUR PHOTOS ON A BENCH OR WALKING AROUND WITH A CAMERA IS NOT GOING TO BE OUTLAWED. SETTING UP EQUIPMENT AND CAUSING A RUCKUS WILL BE. Damn, you'd think that the government wanted your first born.
I agree with your indignation however, if you read the legislation correctly then it does include me when
1) I as a tourist visit New York
2) Bring with me my Plate Camera and Tripod. Glass Plate Negative size 6x8 inches. The camera is beautifully made from Mahogany and is over 100 years old.
3) Set it up on a sidewalk and use the build in perspective control facility to correct the verticals of the Empire State Brilding
4) Wait a few minutes for the lighting to be perfect or the clouse to frame the building correctly
Please note, I am an amateur phorotgrapher. I write Software for a living.
And Wham Bang thank you sir
New Yorks finest swoop, guns at the ready and throw me in Jail for not having the requisite permit. Oh, and because I'm not a US resident, they kindly add Terrorist charges to the list and I disappear off to god knows where for years.
Guess which place I won't be visiting anytime soon. My tourist Dollar/Euro/Pound/Yen will go elsewhere.
About 18 months ago I was able to photograph many of the public buildings in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) without hassle with the same camera. The Police stopped by and were totally intrigued with the camera. It was obvious that I was doing architectural photography. One Policeman even kept the road clear for one shot!
Then make a law that bans those things! What does this have to do with photography, other than some photographers do these things?
This seems to have hit the USA a lot later than the UK. I live in Birmingham, Great Britons second city, and there is quite literally a zero tolerance to photos. I myself have been stopped by the police and had my film taken away and asked for images to be removed from my digital camera. You have to apply for a permit from both the police and the council. I have applied for a permit in the past for video i had to do for university, it took three weeks to process. I have also seen a tourist get arrested for taking images of the city council house. I was told it comes under anti terror, human rights and data protection acts. They wanted to give me a formal caution, but I refused. A caution in the UK can be given out and it would be on your criminal record. Normally if you refuse a caution such as being drunk, the police let you go as its too much of bureaucratic hassle.
Depends how you look at it. The way I see things, Americans as a people have never been particularly liberal. There have been many outstanding liberal Americans, but mostly they were swimming against the tide.
240 years ago a bunch of (mostly) propertied, upper-class, far-liberal Americans got together and wrote the Constitution of the United States of America. Ever since, the majority of Americans have been simultaneously proud of this document (which allows them to feel better than everyone else), and dismissive of its actual ideas. Now, at last, a majority of them has elected a President who is prepared to put an end to quarter of a millennium of pretence. At last, Americans can relax and enjoy the authoritarian government that so many of them clearly prefer.
That's great news for Americans (except for the minority of troublemaking liberals), but rather queasy for the rest of the world.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
This seems like bad government. It's frustrating when Mama's Delicatessen calls the police when their customers can't get to the restaurant, and the police can't do anything because the film crew who's encamped there aren't breaking any law. Every couple of years a movie crew decides to film in my city (Portland, Maine), and it's horribly disruptive. In Maine, though, everyone is so flattered they're shooting a movie here, they just overlook the inconvenience. In Manhattan, it happens every day, all over the city, and is likely a PITA for many. To set up a new licensing authority to try and regulate it is just a "big government" solution. It seems like they could just enforce the existing parking and public nuisance laws-- perhaps amending some interference-with-commerce laws so they better address the particular problem-- rather than setting up another department in an already bloated and corrupt City Government. The problem isn't photographers and film crews, the problem is the disruption they cause. So go after that.
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
The fact that this hadn't been thrown out immediately bewilders me. Personally, I'd like to see this pass, and abused to the fullest extent. It's becoming increasingly apparent that the government is capable of doing whatever it pleases, while the people simply sit back. I mean, first off, the only permissible protest from the people is through a written letter with a deadline. This is something that will directly affect the public, not law officials. And by the way, this is a city that has over 2400 video surveillance cameras, all accessible under "certain" circumstances by those law officials. Seriously, why has it become okay for the government to record/access any type of information, but it's becoming absurd to believe the people have even a fraction of that right without their approval?
I'm sorry, but I'm really getting fed up with the amount of people that almost act as though our rights are not really rights, but instead wonderful (but not necessary) gifts from those in power. I would much rather see the government continue to recklessly widen the gap between themselves and the public until the inevitable day that they've gone too far, and people are willing to give up their comfortable lifestyles to fight for the ideas that founded this country.
To those that believe this is a good thing/okay thing/you don't really care, please, get your head out of the sand. There is entirely too much room for abuse. There is a similar law regarding camera usage in the NY/NJ PATH train stations. I can tell you firsthand that I've been harrassed more than once for simply having a camera in my possession, when the rules pertain only to the act of taking pictures.
No, the Founders were not particularly far-liberal, they were mostly decent men who were pushed to extremity.
I disagree that Americans are mostly dismissive of the ideas of the Founders. We are a pragmatic people who just have come to forget that our freedoms our not guaranteed by history. When we are pushed to extremity, we have risen to the occasion. Perhaps you don't realize the extent of liberalism in the way the American people embraced rushing to save the rest of the world in the 1940's. I'm not talking about the decisions made by our government or corporations, I'm talking about the way regular Americans rose to the challenge. That was a completely liberal act.
Don't mistake my disgust with the Bush administration for criticism of the American people. Most of us are pressed to make a living just like anyone else and we sometimes make the mistake of trusting our leaders. But when pushed, even those of us that are fat and comfortable will fight to stay free. It just takes a while to wake us up.
And believe me, when it comes to certain things, all Americans who are worth less than $1mil are "troublemaking liberals" when you scratch the surface.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Great Britons second city, and there is quite literally a zero tolerance to photos"
This can't be true because a quick look on the internet shows lots of photos of Birmingham.
http://flickr.com/search/?q=birmingham&w=all
Including a photo of the Council House from 2007.
I don't believe all these people got police clearance to take these photos. I'd suggest you're making a bigger issue out of the whole situation than really exists. Though I sympathise with your concern about creeping legislative powers.
Incidently, the name of the country is "Great Britain" not "Great Briton".
Not saying it's good/bad but why the permit? What's wrong with "public nuicance" laws that target the problem (blocked access) rather than the technicalities of tripods? Perhaps it's the risk that such "nuicance" laws might backfire and the (political/commercial) event attracting tripods could be seen by the courts to be the "nuicance".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Well actually following the ridiculous law is hardly the right way to protest it. Just make sure your less-than-$1M insurance covers theft via police harassment should your argument go badly, and take out the storage medium first.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Look, I don't like Rush Limbaugh any more than you do, but he deserves his rights just as much as anyone else.
This space available.
That's right. Only nice people have civil rights. We all know that. And what's with these lawyers defending people in court who are clearly guilty. Eh?
WTF?
You need a crew of five people and a tripod to sit on a bench and review the day's photos? I thought I had really bad eyesight, but that's one hell of a pair of glasses you've got there!
which is what actually happened to the tompkins square crowd
so how exactly do you deal with violent squatters in a public park? they own the park? they have a right to live there? really?
as a resident of times square, about which some village voice commentators lamented the loss of needle park and peep shows, i say to hell with the old lower east side and to hell with the old time square. mickey mouse moved in and rich japanese with their stupid boutiques took over st. marks. to all of which i say: good. it's superior to the past
and you talk like the police were the only one resorting to violence. pfffft. the tompkins square park crowd just ate each other. funny, you don't seem to be so upset about that
iggy pop seems to be doing ok with the new tompkins square park, so you should stop revisiting the past. if you actually have nostalgia for the type of losers the cops cracked a few skulls of, then you're probably one of those fruit loops yourself. in which case: sorry. the gentrified lower east side: not yours
you're fighting a decades old battle lost a long time ago
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
>>Perhaps you don't realize the extent of liberalism in the way the American people embraced rushing to save the rest of the world in the 1940's.
The US would probably never have joined WWII had it not been for the Pearl Harbor attack. The US populace were on the whole quite indifferent to the war in Europe and would have been quite happy for Hitler to have taken over.
As for "rushing to save the rest of the world", the Russians did far more to defeat Hitler, at huge cost to themselves.
"Perhaps you don't realize the extent of liberalism in the way the American people embraced rushing to save the rest of the world in the 1940's. I'm not talking about the decisions made by our government or corporations, I'm talking about the way regular Americans rose to the challenge. That was a completely liberal act".
I never indulge in vulgar personal abuse, but those remarks strongly tempt me. Perhaps *you* don't realize that:
1. The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) when they were attacked by Nazi Germany. The USA assiduously sat on its hands while France was conquered and Britain went through the near-death experiences of the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. It did nothing to stop Hitler conquering all of Europe, and it was only by chance that it finally entered the war shortly after the Soviets decisively turned back the Wehrmacht at the very gates of Moscow. During all of this - the first 2 years, 3 months, and 10 days of the war (very nearly the first half) - the USA remained neutral.
2. While neutral, the USA supplied food, weapons, and other goods to Britain. But every single item was paid for in full, then or later. (As a British taxpayer I know this only too well - we made the last repayment a year or two back). Many of the USA's far-flung military bases around the world were handed over by Britain in part payment for the supplies we needed to continue fighting.
3. The USA entered the war only when Japan and, a week later, Germany, declared war on it. At that point, it became impossible to stay neutral. Congress even declared war on Germany, a redundant act since a state of war already existed after the German declaration. No doubt the Congresscritters already saw the value in future of being able to talk about "the day the USA declared war on Germany". All that "regular Americans" rose to was the challenge of defending their country against two Fascist dictatorships that had declared war on it - the very least they could do, if they didn't want to end up speaking German and being ruled from Berlin. They took the war to Europe because they had to - the Nazis already had detailed plans for nuclear weapons, and intercontinental delivery systems to hit American cities.
My father fought in WW2 (all of it) and my mother was ready to do her bit with a rifle in case of invasion, so I have a very personal interest in the facts. It is ironic that, the one time the USA had the chance to take down a really vicious, murderous dictator, it chose to remain neutral until he declared war on it. Moreover, directly contrary to what you say about "the people", historians agree that FDR would have liked to join the war against Hitler earlier - but he found it politically impossible, because the people were dead set against it.
So please, let's not have any more garbage about how America rushed to save the rest of the world in the 1940s, or any other time.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Listen, there may be some valid criticisms of that proposal, but most of the posts so far are the kind of knee-jerk, ignore-the-facts attitude that doesn't get anywhere.
I've been a fairly regular visitor to New York, and travel extensively, and I can't think of any occasions where a tourist or professional photographer goes around with a crew of 5 and a tripod. That's more than your regular TV news crew shows up with.
You know the classic style of footage where you see a cop or security guard put their hand over the camera, with the old "you can't take photos here"? How many times was the camera stationary i.e. on a tripod? Did you ever really get the impression that guy was trying to intimidate a group of five or more people who spent time setting up their gear? Would any kind of investigative journalist both have the budget to waste and the complete lack common sense to drag around that kind of expensive, highly visible support? And if your answer is "oh yes, frequently" - you're bullshitting.
New York's Office of Film and Broadcasting also deserves a bit of credit here. NYC is well known in the movie business to being friendly to filming. The biggest challenge is deciding whether to film in Toronto for the cost savings. That's the context this should be viewed in, not the attitude of the NYPD.
Everytime I see a set of reactions like this, it makes me think that Slashdot actually wants to be the Fox news of online communities.
And I have some experience with this. I'm done filming (just editting), but I had a run in with the cops in the Fall of '06.
;-)
So it was a nice October night and I had a few scenes I wanted to knock out, I was almost completely done with principle photography. I had made the fake newspaper headlines in Word and Photoshop, blew them up on the copier, then transferred them at Kinkos to the newsprint I bought at the specialty art supplier. Lot of bullshit just to make a fake newspaper. Anyways, I had arranged with the Bangladeshi dude at the deli around the way to use their newsstand for 15 minutes.
I showed up with my actors at the deli, dropped a $20 for the dude, and placed out fake newspapers over the real ones. Then I had my lead and his dead girlfriend walk by the deli, the lead glanced over at the newsstand, saw the headlines about various gruesome attacks in Manhattan, pause, stop, pick one up, look over at his dead girlfriend, and change his mood, she showing no affect whatsoever the whole time.
It went fine. I thanked the Bangladeshi deli dude, and went around the corner to shoot the scene that would preview that: the lead and his dead girlfriend walking down the street, him happy, her... well, what she is supposed to show the whole time: no affect.
That was easy, wham bam, thank you ma'am I was whipping through these scenes just fine.
Now I wanted to film a scene of him walking with his dead girlfriend after reading the headlines, to show the change in his level of concern about his place in everything at that moment. To show his happiness being replaced with worry. To establish the conflict in the next scene, which I shot weeks before.
Anyways, so I went around the corner again, completely oblivious about where I was, just looking for something with enough lighting and no obvious commercial street signs. I found a secluded spot and had my actors wait around the corner.
I steadied the camera, yelled action and gee, look at that in the viewfinder... flashing lights. That will ruin a shot.
I was on the midtown tunnel access road. Oops.
Yes officer, sorry officer.
No officer, I didn't know it was a misdemeanor. I'm deeply sorry officer. I had no intention officer.
Sure, here's my license... No, that's not my address, in fact I live right over there now.
No officer, sorry officer, I didn't know I had 10 days to report to DMV my new address when I moved or I was breaking the law, again.
My footage? Sure (bzzz... rewind...)
Here is a scene I just shot...
Yes, that's over on 3rd Avenue. And...
What? Fast forward through this?
WHAT? YOU DON'T LIKE MY F**ING MOVIE YOU F**ING...
I mean, yes officer, right here, this is the final shot of your cop car pulling up. Last shot.
Yes, that's all I had shot, nothing more.
Yes officer, I'll go away I won't come back here, sorry officer for the misunderstanding...
(PHEW)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
look at the woridng of the actual legal document. it's quoted in another comment here below the parent story
it only applies to film crews, not random tourists with a camera
so no, the poster you are responding to didn't miss the point, he's just on a tangential subject. you however, did miss the whole point. but if it's any solace, so does the mass of slashdotters commenting here who didn't RTFA
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
good. stop coming. there's too many of you here already.
#2. if you RTFA, your sentitment should only apply to tourists that are also small film crews. gee, that's what, 0.0001% of tourists?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The name of the country is not Great Britain. Great Britain is the name of the island.
Birmingham is in the country of England, part of the country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom
Likely because we did no such thing. The vast majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with the war. We were, we thought, safely cocooned in our isolationism, and after the hundreds of thousands of sons we lost too few years ago to a European war we were largely content to let the rest of the world handle its own affairs. That is why we permitted the war to rage on for several years before we had anything to do with it. It's true that our president realized we had to get involved, and was steering public opinion in that way, but he was having a tough time of it. He had to invent programs such as the Lend-Lease act just so he could offer what aid he could.
We got involved when we were attacked. What you really saw was a groundswell of indignation and patriotism, rather than a concern for others. We got involved, we did a good job and turned the tide of the war. As we found out more and more about what was going on we were probably very happy that we did, but to imply Americans were just rising up to save the world is demonstrably false.
I disagree, or else we are very slow to wake up. We can hardly be bothered--to the tune of some 62% turnout--to vote when the elections have important implications on our freedom. Even last election, after the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo Bay, and domestic spying, and Valerie Plame, and even the Iraq War itself, retention for our Congressmen was nearly 90%. At least in my estimation we are already given up too much freedom with too little fight.
As far as the Founders go, I think they tended on the liberal side of things for their time. Many of their ideas were certainly revolutionary. It was, for example, the first time in history that, enshrined in a document (constitution), was the idea that a government's power came from the people it governs. Today that gets a resounding "duh," but it was liberal back then.
The problem is really our complacency. We are so very proud of our Constitution and our Founders and the ideas we introduced to the world--and rightly so, I think--that we focus on it and lose sight of the fact that other countries have made progress and we really haven't. It reminds me of the quote, "it only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."
America has become a conservative nation, and I think that is a travesty.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, wrote Thomas Jefferson. We've done it a great disservice by providing only complacency and living in our past successes.
only work on moronic mass who can't think and swallaw everything the media tell them
Since I'm intelligent, I can see through all the lies and know global warming is a bullshit pseudoscience proposed by some crackpot scientists.
If I have free time, I am going to expose all your lies about global warming and humiliate dirty liar like you in public for cheating everyone. Currently I'm busy making money and enjoying life, have no time for waste like you.
I'm a USian, but have lived abroad for a time in my life (gives one a much broader perspective), and I say: "Amen, brother!"
'It reminds me of the quote, "it only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."'
Utterly brilliant! Thanks for sharing that thought, which encapsulates a lot of this (local) discussion within a single sentence. Please mod parent UP!
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
"Public nuisance" is such a vague concept that there is potential for abuse. The proposed permit system at least defines what the limits are, even if the limits reach too far into legitimate amateur activity. As for why the permit - the permit is for those who want to exceed the limits, that's fair enough as they don't want to prevent all such photography/filming in New York, just regulate it. Personally I think a better balance would be permits that are harder to obtain, but required in fewer circumstances. By harder to obtain, I mean that if you are going to cause disruption to traffic, pedestrians, residents, business or whatever, you should have to justify the scope and timing of the disruption and demonstrate that you've taken steps to inform those disrupted and accommodate them as much as possible.
The proposed system seems to place too much burden on the small guys, while its really only a rubber stamping exercise to the big film companies etc, who are causing the real disruption.
it's film crews everywhere, all the time
it's not a fearful fascist government response, it's more like a quality of life campaign
hell, i'm a low budget movie maker, AND i've been a target of police for filming near the midtown tunnel, and i don't have a problem with the law
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you can recharacterize a contribution, and thereby dismiss it
look, the guy you are responding to is an asshole: the dimwitted conservatard, and deserves a verbal smackdown. however, you're not the one to do that smackdown, because you are merely another flavor of asshole: the dimwitted usa hater, who deserves a smackdown yourself
the truth is, anyone who starts with "i love america" or anyone who starts with "i hate america" as their hypothesis in what they write is a loser. the only morally and intellectually defensible position on the usa is neutral: not caring for it, not caring against it. only with that as your starting thought can you make a reasonable and intelligent comment
the usa made a large contribution in world war ii. beginnig of fact. end of fact. all else is partisan propaganda and spin. go ahead and recharacterize and marginalize the usa's contribution if it makes you feel better about your own partisan prejudices, but all you do is contribute to a a line of argument that is tired and boring:
the "i hate america" partisan retard versus the "i love america" partisan retard
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think you have never ventured beyond the point-n-shoot photography. There are amateurs who take time and even use tripod for their amateur grade SLRs to take very good shots of your hip city. And they may not be alone while doing so.
Dear Authorities, re. "photo pass" in NYC,
I was planning to travel to NYC, since it used to represent me the American Dream, the freedom of the New World.
The Statue of Liberty became bigger than life - it represented freedom, probably more than it could have anywhere in the whole world.
With your photo pass requirement you are turning "Miss Liberty" to this ugly woman, standing lonely in the sea.
You are also turning NYC into something else than it used to be... a nothing special, big, dirty, noisy city... just like the other similar ones around the world.
Dear Authorities, if that's your new dream about America, that's fine. You can have it - but I am not interested in it.
I will visit other parts of the world, in which authorities can fight whatever enemies they need to fight without photo pass.
Best wishes, but you will have to fight your deamons all by yourself - without the rest of the world.
While you do that, we will travel around trying to explore where in the world emerges the New New York City - where the Statue of Liberty is bigger than life, not just a sad lonely woman.
Months after registering on slashdot, I'm compelled to break my silence to thank Archtech and Dhalka226 for their comments. Well said. +10
"it only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."
I don't think you understand that quote, or you wouldn't be using it. Unless you're using it to ridicule it, but I didn't get that from your post.
The quote claims the country is becoming more liberal as time goes on, such that what was "liberal" in 1950 is considered "conservative" in 1970. You seem to be ignoring the "without changing a single idea" portion of the sentence.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
a good propagandizer never lies. he just presents facts out of context, outside of the larger whole
fact:
"john punched sally who then punched john back"
bad propaganda from a friend of john:
"sally is evil"
good propaganda from a friend of john:
"sally punched john"
good propaganda tells the truth 100%, but it doesn't actually represent what happened, because it omits the facts of the whole story, and only presents those facts which, when considered in a vacuum, leads one to an invalid opinion
same with the facts the guy i responded to writes about the usa's contribution to world war ii. i do not dispute their factuality in any way. what i do dispute is that those facts alone represent the truth of history
another word for propaganda is half-truths. that's eactly what facts without context are: half of the truth. the stuff of pointless partisan bickering
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The whole world is tending towards conservatism, thank you 'terrorists'...or rather thank you lying politicians and gullible/complacent populations.
Benjamin Franklin: "They who would give up an essential liberty for a temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."
As an example, see every hippie "I'm going to change the world" college student, then fast forward 20 years when he/she has a house, family, and kids to take care of...where's the graph of political leanings vs age?
Ms. Oliver:
We the undersigned believe altering the permit regulations from:
"...photographer to carry 1 million dollars in liability insurance."
to
"photographer to carry 1 million dollars in small unmarked bills."
will further reduce instances of these manners of infraction, and our membership will gladly "spot-check" anyone seen carrying a camera to verify their compliance.
Thank Yous for Your Time,
M.O.N.Y.
"I seem to remember that when the brits first had the opportunity to fight the really vicious murderous dictator that was hitler, Chamberlain chose to just appease the sonofabitch".
That criticism is ironic, coming from a citizen of the USA - a nation that, at the the time, had turned its back on Europe through its policy of isolationism. If Nevile Chamberlain appeased Hitler, he was at least trying to do something about the problem. He could be compared to a neighbour who, seeing a house on fire, tries to cope with the problem by putting on a fire blanket, whereas in retrospect it would have been better to call the fire service. But the USA, in this analogy, was like a neighbour who closes the shutters, turns up the TV, and resolutely ignores the fire.
Chamberlain had lived through WW1, and like many of his generation found the idea of a repetition unspeakably ghastly. So he was inclined to go to great lengths to avoid war. As he said in 1938, "How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul".
A glance at the totals of killed and wounded sustained by the combatants in WW1, as a percentage of their total mobilised strengths, may help us to understand. Great Britain and the Empire, together, had 2.9 million casualties (so defined) out of 8.9 million (33%). The much-maligned French, nowadays despised by many Americans for their lack of fighting spirit, took 5.5 million casualties out of 8.4 million (65%). That's two thirds, and it's not a mistake. The Germans and Austrians, together, sustained 10.7 million casualties out of 18.8 million (57%). And the USA? The Americans took a grand total of 360,000 casualties out of 4.3 million (8%).
Now 8% is bad enough, although it's nowhere near the corresponding figure for American occupying army in Iraq, for instance. But Chamberlain had seen 2 million British and Empire servicemen, 4.2 million Frenchmen, and 7.8 million Germans and Austrians, killed in a war that achieved very little. Can you see that he might cling to peace more desperately than Americans who had seen 126,000 of their brave boys killed 20 years before?
Besides, at the time when Chamberlain appeased Hitler, it was not yet entirely obvious that Hitler was a "really vicious murderous dictator". That, at any rate, was not the view of IBM and many other US corporations, which enjoyed a brisk trade with Nazi Germany. Nor was it the view of Joseph Kennedy (father of Jack and Bobby), who was US ambassador to Great Britain in 1938-40. According to Wikipedia,
'Kennedy rejected the warnings of Winston Churchill that compromise with Nazi Germany was impossible; instead he supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement in order to stave off a second world war that would be a more horrible "armageddon" than the first. Throughout 1938, as the Nazi persecution of Jews intensified, Kennedy attempted to obtain an audience with Adolf Hitler. Shortly before the Nazi aerial bombing of British cities began in September 1940, Kennedy sought a personal meeting with Hitler, again without State Department approval, "to bring about a better understanding between the United States and Germany."'
In 1938, Hitler had reoccupied the Rhineland (which many people thought was only fair, as it was traditionally part of Germany); united Germany with Austria, without a shot being fired (in public, at least); and seized the border area of Czechoslovakia. True, the Nazi party and its thugs had started murdering Jews and others wholesale, but there were influential elements in the USA (as well as many other countries) who had no objection to this. The fact is that, when Chamberlain met Hitler and brought home his infamous "piece of paper", Hitler had not conquered any other country - nor was it at all obvious that he intended to. As soon as Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Chamberlain's attitude hardened as it became obvious that Hitler had cynically tricked him. And when Germany invaded Poland in September, Chamberlain unhesitatingly joined France in declaring war on Germany.
What did the USA do at that time?
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
"Looks like anti-Americanism is still in fashion at slashdot".
And yet I'm not anti-American. On the contrary, I'm very much pro-American - you have no idea how much. I just won't let you get away with saying things that are downright untrue about the historical record. And the fact that A criticizes B does not mean that A hates B, or even dislikes them. One of the toughest tests of friendship is willingness to offer honest criticism, even if it is resented.
"Apparently US history classes AREN'T the worst in the world after all".
I have no opinion on that, although I do recall Ambrose Bierce's comment that, "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography". I have a degree in history from Cambridge University, and I have read a lot about this subject. Fear of Nazi nukes was of course not the only reason for US involvement in Africa and Europe: if you don't win a war, you will eventually lose it, so it was essential to attack Germany. By the time the US forces arrived, though, the Soviets had already strategically won the European war.
As another poster pointed out, you will not find any of my facts to be wrong. Ask any competent historian, or (if you prefer) consult a reliable history book.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
This pretty much sums up what will happen if the permit is passed.
First of all, the last time I checked... a couple photographers strolling down the street and ocasionally taking photos of the city is not particularly disruptive to... well... anyone. The proposed laws would prohibit or severely limit the ability to do that. I think you might be referring to the film crews which use New York City Streets who will NOT be affected by this since they have more than enough money to deal with the restrictions proposed. In fact, this morning as I walked down Park Ave. I noticed a filming crew with full traffic control support from the NYPD. Considering how much money the city makes to let commercial filming crews cause a bit of a hassle for cummuters, I hardly think it's the city's intention to shut them down.
"240 years ago a bunch of (mostly) propertied, upper-class, far-liberal Americans got together and wrote the Constitution of the United States of America."
As a Bicentennial Baby, you scared me for a minute there. It's been 231 years since the USA declared their independence from Britain, 230 years since the Articles of Confederation were written, and a mere 220 years since the current Constitution was written. What's with 240 years? Don't go scaring me like that.
- A Bicentennial Baby
Like "The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) when they were attacked by Nazi Germany. "?
That's downright untrue.
The first part is also untrue -- war can end in a stalemate, with no clear winners or losers. The second is speculation; IMO, without the western front, the Nazis could have held against the Soviets and partitioned Europe between them.It's a fair cop, guv! Elsewhere I said that no one could challenge any of my facts. Well, I was never any good at dates... (or arithmetic)!
8-)
Fwiw, I think I must have rounded up (to 240) instead of down (to 230).
Apologies to all.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
No, the ACLU defends anyone whose civil rights are being violated, "scumbag" or not. The fact that they've very firmly stuck to their guns for decades should be commended, not sneered at.
'Like "The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) when they were attacked by Nazi Germany. "?
That's downright untrue'.
Now please say what is untrue about it. Facts, please.
'The first part is also untrue -- war can end in a stalemate, with no clear winners or losers. The second is speculation; IMO, without the western front, the Nazis could have held against the Soviets and partitioned Europe between them'.
A very few wars may have petered out through mutual exhaustion or lack of will - like the Korean War, for instance. No war involving Nazis was ever likely to peter out, any more than a fight against a shark in an enclosed space.
Your opinion may be that the Nazis could have held out against the Soviets if no second front had been established. It's part of the charm of history that we can't do repeatable experiments. But I don't think anyone who knows the facts would agree with you. Immediately after D-Day, the Soviets launched Operation Bagration which, although unknown to most Westerners, was bigger and more successful in every way. Even if every single German soldier, tank, and aircraft deployed in the West had been on the Eastern front instead, nothing could have stopped immense attacks like Bagration and those that followed.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
mainly because there are a lot of problems in this world. some of which the usa helps with, some of which the usa hinders progress on. but rather than try to solve problems, a certain segment of the world (you) is more obsessed with blaming the usa for the problems than with actually fixing the problems
le'ts put it another way: pick a problem in the world. any problem at all. now, go ahead and do what you obviously do, and blame the usa for it. fact: when you do that, when you hold the usa as accountable and responsible for something, you implicitly expect them to clean it up (whether or not they are actually acountable for them in reality, as opposed to braindead propaganda)
in other words, in the blame game, be careful what you ask for. by blaming the usa for world problems, you forever more bind them to the solution to the world's problems as well. can you indemnify an entity for a crime, and then expect them to not pay penance for that crime, to fix their mess? do you see why your "blame the usa" mentality works against your goal: the marginalization of the usa?
by centering the usa in the creation of world problems, you also center the usa in the solution to world problems as well. you, your mentality, and all the people in the world who think like you: you are an engine which deeper and deeper embeds the usa in the fabric of how the world works. by hating the usa, you involve it more. because YOU keep bringing the usa up in the topic of the discussion, even when a candid understanding of a problem and it's solution doesn't necessarily suggest the usa's involvement. but your goal isn't solving world problems, is it? it's indemnification. the fruit of your hate is the greater involvement of what you hate
i think some people say "look at how the usa screwed this up!" and then expect the usa to go away in shame for getting involved. except that's not how reality works. when you find someone guilty of a crime, you involve them further in that crime, because now they owe a debt they need to fix. no one breaks something, and then their punishment is to walk away and not fix their mess. that's not how reality works (except in some warped minds, like yours)
the world is a big wide place. there are actually places and peoples in this world who do not care about the usa, and do not have anything to do with the usa. my suggestion to you is to go there, and talk to those people
because your obsession is destroying your human conscience, and replacing it with an american conscience: pro-usa, or anti-usa, it's all the same: it's centered on the usa. and that doesn't actually solve problems in the world. it's all about blame, and no solutions. your "solution" is to blame the usa. it's mental laziness, really. a lack of understanding of the dynamics behind the real problems in the world
but you go on with your bad self. completely oblivious to the effects of anti-usa attitudes on further involving the usa in places where, truthfully, it has no right being. but it is people like YOU who continue to put them there, because the usa is ALWAYS there, in your mind, the universal bogeyman of blame for all the problems in the world you don't really understand
stupid, pathetic, typical, lowest common denominator, low iq. a replacement for critical thought. you don't have to think about a problem: something bad happened somewhere in the world? "usa's fault"
there, problem solved
pfffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The language of the rule (posted above in this thread) does not specify a "crew" of 5. It simply specifies any "interaction among five or more people" that involves a tripod and takes longer than 10 minutes total. I have four siblings and two parents, so according to the language I can't take longer than 10 minutes to take a family portrait in Central Park. According to the language I couldn't even bring my tripod to a family picnic.
I agree with you that the intended effect of this rule is entirely reasonable. The crucial point you are missing is that the actual language of the rule is so poorly worded that it would also allow all sorts of terrible, unintended side effects. The protest is simply that the law is terribly written--dangerously so. Think of it as a request for a technical correction if that helps.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Is it?
Norway was conquered in a little over 2 weeks, mostly due to the actions of our incompetent politicians who saw fit to store military weapons without all the necessary bits in one place. When the germans came, people were running all over the place trying to find working weapons - the people with the keys that got hold of the firing pins would not be able to get hold of people with the keys to the rest of the weapon, and never mind ammunition. Our only call to fame during the invasion was sinking Blücher outside of Oslo (caused by the actions of a single commander who didn't wait until someone declared war formally) and at Narvik, where the germans were held back by norwegians using private hunting rifles until german planes obliterated the city. My granddads brother was picking bits of his friends up in a bucket after that bomb raid.
Two weeks later, the germans had installed a german-friendly government which lasted until the end of the war. The elected norwegian government and the norwegian king were living in England until the end of the war, helping with the war where they could. The norwegian merchant fleet at least made a contribution to the war, and there was a sizeable resistance trying to counteract the germans within Norway.
Absolutely nobody - not even the british - came to the aid of Norway (then a neutral state, just as Sweden) or Denmark. There just wasn't time, especially if you were living on the other side of the globe. The same goes for most of the other european countries - when they were attacked, the US was nowhere to be seen until it was all over and the countries had to be taken back from the germans. That is what the landing in Normandie was all about - taking France back from the germans, then going on to the rest of Europe. Another beachhead was established in Italy around the same time.
_This_ is true. The germans actually did win the fights they picked in most of mainland Europe within weeks. The US came onto the battlefield years later.
Lets not forget we were all to happy to sell the to Nazis as well. It was only when GB said it would sink our ships if we didn't stop did we stop..
People get born, think their ideas are, or should be, King of the World, can't you all see?
But on the other hand, if people lived forever, we'd probably all be under a brutal dictatorship of Alexander the Great, or someone from 30,000 years before him.
So either people die off, but make the same mistakes, or the most charismatic and brilliant military leaders who ever existed rule you with an iron fist. Your choice.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
In this instance New York is only doing something that's been common in Europe for some time: Anyone using a tripod is automatically a professional photographer, and can't take photos of anything like significant architectural monuments/buildings/churches without a permit, which always takes 6-8 weeks and writing in advance to obtain. The UK seems particularly bad in this regard, it's a rare exception to find a building that you can get interior photographs of with a tripod.
(As a decidedly non-professional photographer, I found this totally unfuriating when travelling in the UK. It makes it more or less impossible to get good shots of building interiors).
I'm reminded of another that goes something like this:
"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
As one who has been there, that curve is a steep one and the knee is at the moment of birth of the first child. The curve then bends a bit as the second child is born and the eduction system is engaged.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
"Our only call to fame during the invasion was sinking Blücher outside of Oslo".
And a damn good show that was too! No one else had much luck sinking Hipper-class cruisers. Bravo Norway!
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
he is exactly that kind of irrational usa hater/ irrational usa lover (because love or hate, the effect is the same in not being able to understand the world as it really works)
otherwise, your words are sound
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You are welcome on my lawn.
What, you can't stand perfectly still for a minute or two?
Clearly, then, you must be a hyped-up drug terrorist.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
"We" did not sell arms to the Nazis. The arms merchants (the same ones that are selling to the world today) were doing it.
I'm not willing to allow the corporate interests that work out of the USA and the people of the USA to be equated.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And don't forget that W's granpa was one of many making money selling oil to Hitler's war machine and dropping bucks on eugenics.
Too bad all that research on breeding better white folks didn't help his own family.
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
If the tour group is composed of a lot of people, each with cameras, then technically they are not "with" each other, photographically speaking.
But really you are just stating a hypothetical case that would never occur, because the law is targeted at commercial photography which a tour group obviously is not!
Furthermore, what tour group ever stays even ten minutes at a location? They are usually moving rather rapidly, whcih is why I never use tour groups when traveling.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are still missing my point. I was never referring to the decisions made by the people in power to go (or not to go) to war.
I'm talking about the way the American people willingly sacrificed for a war effort that was being fought for the primary benefit of other countries. That's the way it was seen in the early 40's by average Americans, and they still stood up.
I agree that Russia also made enormous sacrifices, but Hitler was literally knocking on their door. I don't think most Americans were afraid that Hitler represented an immediate threat to the US, yet they still were willing to give life and treasure.
I can understand there being a hatred for the American political leadership, but my experience has taught me that the American people are generous, honest and still believe in the ideals upon which their Nation was founded, whether or not they could express them in the same terms. Despite the best efforts of the corporate run media and politicians, today we are seeing a general waking-up among citizens here. It will reach fruition in Nov. 2008.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The liberalism the Founding Fathers embraced resembled nothing of the Marxism that characterizes the left today. I find it hard to believe that the people who so strictly limited the boundaries of government power in the Constitution would endorse today's leftist ideals of a powerful federal government and high taxes.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Now really. You need a permit for a gun and does THAT effectively stop criminals?
Do you really think that requiring a permit is going to stop terrorists? I mean, my cell phone, blackberry, palm pilot, treo all have cameras. I can buy a 5-10MP digital camera that's half the size of a pack of cigarettes. So small you can palm it and no one would know you're carrying it.
Seriously, what is with the paranoia about people taking pictures of buildings, bridges or tunnels? It's utterly INSANE. Does anyone think Al'Queda needed diagrams of the WTC site to say 'hmm, let's fly a plane into each of those big square things that people work in'????
I'm astounded, disappointed, and scared about where our society is going. Does anyone realize we've killed more people shooting guns around iraq (mind you, the terrorists were from afghanistan!) than died in every terrorist attack in the US and EU in the past 20 years? How is this effective? They've killed more solders post-9/11 than they people ON 9/11. How, preciscely are we "WINNING" anything? You have to figure, a trained soldier is a more 'valuable' target for a terrorist than an ordinary citizen (training, costs, ability to retailiate) so if we kill them 10:1 - THEY'RE STILL WINNING IN THEIR MINDS. And bush wonders why we haven't killed them all yet.
Back to the point: The government has no realistic reason to create a law such as this. Make permits available for large gatherings - movies, demonstrations, etc. - that way an Citizen has the ability to inform the Government if something he's doing might require extra care or precautions. It's practical to want police available if you're gathering 10,000 people for a county fair. It's sensible to want the local government to know if you're going to stage a brutal shooting for a movie so someone doesn't shoot you by accident (for real) not knowing it was all fake. It's a courtesy...well it should be considered one.
For no reason what-so-ever should a law enforcement official have the duty, right, ability, or power to prevent you from doing anything peacable in a public space. Run around shooting people, yes - they should probably get involved. Take pictures of every crack in the sidewalk on Broadway from 110th to 1st street in NYC? Well, you're an idiot but you should be left alone. You pay taxes, taxes fund such areas, therefore you're paying for them and should have access to anywhere designated PUBLIC. Even tourists pay taxes - hotel tax, sales tax, airline extortion (erm, i mean tax).
Meh. I'd pack up and leave but there's no where substantially better to go. Yet. Things are getting worse.
I've read the proposed policy over and over and I can not for the life of me see where you are getting this idea.
So -- here's the requirements:
1) First, you have to be on city property for this to apply. That is, on the streets, sidewalks, parks, etc where filming for long periods of time impedes other people's use of the same public property.
2) One person - no permit needed
3) 2, 3, or 4 people - no permit needed unless longer than 30 minutes in one place
4) 5 or more people with no tripod - no permit needed unless longer than 30 minutes in one place
5) 5 or more people with one tripod - no permit needed unless longer than 10 minutes in one place
6) Two or more tripods - permit needed.
It's really that simple. Amateur photographers and sightseers do not need to film in one place longer than a half hour. A "let me take a picture of you in front of the Jumbotron" does not take a half hour. If it takes you or anyone else longer than 10 minutes to get your shot or are clogging the streets with multiple tripods and a gaggle of people, then you have almost certainly gone past "amateur" status.
Your "detain and question anyone with a camera" remark was plain and simple fear mongering.
The
As someone who almost always travels with a large tripod, a DSLR, and a number of lenses - this would not effect me.
If you're by yourself with a tripod, you could take any amount of time wherever you like because the law only starts applying when you have someone else with you - but the way that is written, is more as if they were crew than companion. So if your traveling companion went to look at something else you would never fall under this law, even with professional equipment.
I'll bet if you started setting up lights though, you'd still have a word or two with the police even though technically you would not need a permit being alone... but you have to admit that setting up a a few floods is something that is disruptive and should fall under this law.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I have been all over London with a tripod and DSLR and never had a policeman approach me, much less arrest me or ask for my "film"!
Nice try troll.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are right, it doesn't say they have to be taking photographs, except for every single paragraph. It plainly states, over and over, "the taking of photographs" (subdivision (a)), "Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring on City property" (subparagraphs (1)(i), (ii), and (iii)) and "Filming or photography occurring on City property" (subparagraphs (2)(i), (ii), and (iii)).
Having a camera visible is not "photography occurring" nor "the taking of photographs".
The
... enjoy the authoritarian government that so many of them clearly prefer are you attempting to start a flame war there?This is kind of ironic coming from someone who is dimissive of the US involvement on the basis that only Pearl Harbor got the US to joing at all, considering the position of Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR prior to the point at which their totalitarian imperialistic ambitions could no longer coexist.
>>You could not be more wrong. Perhaps you're not aware of the sacrifices Americans made to defeat Hitler and the popularity of both the war president (Roosevelt) and the war itself.
I don't know what kind of revisionist history books you're gnawing on there Ratzo but they sure ain't the truth.
I love it when people toss around the word 'ironic' without understanding its meaning - especially when the precede it with "kind of".
I'm not saying that Stalin was a nice guy. He was at least as much of a tyrannical despot as Hitler, but, in the final analysis, it was the Red Army and the Russian peoples (and others in the Soviet states) that truly destroyed the Reich's war machine.
Americans see 'Saving Private Ryan' and they think they charged over to save the world from tyranny - sheesh!
Hey Dumbass,
Don't forget all the pilot's the U.S. Army allowed to go over to fight in the Battle of Britian and the "Fighting Tiger's" in China. Also, we kept a steady supply of just about everything to England during this time which resulted in a lot of ships being sunk and Americans getting killed. We fought in North Afica, Italy, France Germany, Romania, etc. We lost a lot of good men in the war.
Remember, the USSR actually signed a peace treaty with the Nazi's. They only got into the war because Hitler gave them the same respect he gave everyone else (including the USA) and attacked them. The only difference with the USA is that he could not reach us to attack us. We stopped him before he could.
I saw this in the previous article on the subject. "So basically, they grabbed this poor guy for b.s. reasons (brown-skinned plus camera = terrorist), and now they've got to come up with a whole mechanism to justify doing it again in the future." And it dawned on me! The government did the typical assignment operator instead of equality operator bug! That explains it all. from hence forth "brown-skinned plus camera" WILL BE EQUAL TO terrorist!
"YOUR papers, PLEEAS!"
It should be delivered with a 1960's Soviet English accent, as that's where (thanks to inane regulations such as yours) the USA is going....How long before we officially relinquish self-declared title of most free country in the world?
Except that you can clearly take a single photograph and remain in the same 100ft area without doing anything for a further 10, 30, or however many minutes depending on group size and trigger these regulations. You can make guesses at what they were trying to accomplish, but the wording is very poor. One picture is certainly "photography occurring on City property," wouldn't you agree? You don't have to actively be taking pictures.
Let's say you're there with your wife or girlfriend. That's two people. If you're there longer than 30 minutes and can be said to be participating in photography, you need a permit. A crew of 5 is not necessary. Read the regulations.
The only positive thing they did is completely exempted photographers working alone.
I'm not willing to allow the corporate interests that work out of the USA and the people of the USA to be equated.
I'd been right with you the whole way until this statement. I feel the people of our country are entirely responsible for the behavior of our citizens. Sadly, we seem to have adopted some a form of amoral capitalism as our ideology.
Yeah, they were really out of line here:
4 5prs20040511.html
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/128
Sorry, basing a bad joke on the wrong part of the regs.
OK, going by the regs, the act of filming includes "taking still photographs", which is quite different to looking at them.
Still, it's a fair point. Having gone through the document it is strange that they can't find a way to exempt recreational photographers. It's pretty clear that it's written to cover professionals (or students on their way to becoming so). Would have thought that's easier to do than coming up with a definition that covers e.g. low budget indie productions, but avoids having an impact on the average passer-through.
Well, I dislike USA's current foreign policy as much as anybody, but that doesn't change the fact that back in the WW2 they were (to some extent) the good guys. Also - I prefer rock'n'roll anyday compared to balalaika music. Living next door to Russia in a small country is a kind of drag. One can't really trust Russians - never could, never will.
Today's USA is a sick society that will most likely crumble internally in some 30 years or so. But most of my current lifestyle is based on the culture created by african-americans and hillbillies, so it kind of makes me sad.
Um -- I'm sorry but you are really stretching the imagination here.
It would take some serious leaps of logic to say that snapping a picture (5 seconds) and doing something else for 9 minutes and 55 seconds equals 10 minutes of "photography occurring" or "taking photographs". And where did you get 100ft area? That wasn't in the text at all. You seem to be sewing your case out of whole cloth here.
Let's come back to reality now. NYC lives and breathes on tourism. They bend over backwards and sideways to keep tourists coming to the city. They even make cab drivers go through training to be nicer to tourists. NYC will do absolutely nothing at all to jeopardize tourism in any way because they'd be cutting their own throats -- and they know it.
The
You claim this
"1. The USA did not lift a finger to help..."
Then you say this
"2. While neutral, the USA supplied food, weapons, and other goods to Britain..." and China, and France, and the Soviet Union.
I don't believe that any definition of "help" would exclude the lend-lease program, so you have contradicted yourself completely here.
With this in mind, I'm going to dismiss your opinion on the war and its aftermath.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
"The GP never once denied that the US made a large contribution to WWII."
I saw this, how did you miss it?
"The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) when they were attacked by Nazi Germany."
There's your denial.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Is it your contention that Roosevelt was an unpopular president, or is it your contention that America made no sacrifices in the European theatre? Please clarify, as neither of the contentions makes sense and I'd just like to know which way your stupidity leans.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Russia signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler and then acted defensively after being invaded by Hitler. The "huge cost to themselves" was not of their own choosing, so they get no altruism points for that; Hitler came within miles of Moscow.
You seem to forget that the USA and Britain were fighting a two front war. If the war had been confined to Europe, the combined power of the USA and Britain would have blasted the Germans to hell in no time at all. Even Stalin admitted that he could not have achieved that victories that Patton did at the same speed.
The USA had huge armed forced in the Pacific. Had they been able to bring them to bear in Europe, it would have shortened the war considerably.
"Instead, you cut off my words immediately before the part that refutes your opinion. "
I cut off the part that was irrelevant, and apart from stating that they paid for the help they got, and agreed to host bases for the help they got, what part of your "refutation" addresses the very real fact that you claim no help was given then in YOUR VERY NEXT POINT admit help was given but try to downplay and dismiss it.
Funny how your focus is on the part that got excised while you're avoiding admitting your contradiction.
You failed, you contradicted yourself, and your response did nothing to refute anything.
By the way, where's the part that "refutes my opinion"? You genuinely believe people paying for goods they use refutes the fact that it was "help"? Sorry, that's ridiculous. Ask the people who were starving if it was help. Ask them if paying for it afterward made it less helpful. Be prepared to get laughed out of the room.
You points were contradictory, no amount of deflection changes that, so save that 3rd grade nonsense.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Don't be absurd. Selling goods to someone is trade, not help. By your reasoning, your neighbourhood grocery store "helps" you whenever you go there to buy food. The store's motivation is not to help you, but to make a profit. Likewise, the USA's motivation in providing Lend-Lease was to look after its own interests.
First, the USA sold war supplies to Britain - until Britain ran clean out of cash to pay for them. Then it accepted payment in property, and most of Britain's property holdings in the USA were liquidated. Then came the Destroyer deal, in which the USA lent Britain the use of 50 mothballed WW1 destroyers that it wouldn't let its own sailors go to sea in, and got 99-year leases on some valuable West Indian bases in return. Lend-Lease proper was passed by Congress in March 1941, and still required payment - if not then, later. If not in cash, something else - land, military secrets, technology, anything.
Check this out for *American* opinion on Lend-Lease:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/81508.htm
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
"Selling goods to someone is trade, not help. "
And when you risk the wrath of Nazi Germany, and war, as a result of your trade? When the people "trading" with you are doing so at risk to their lives?
Yes of course I'm the one being absurd, claiming that delivering supplies during war is not "help".
You were wrong. Stop thrashing about and making ti worse with your ridiculous proclamations of absurdity.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
No, I believe it's his contention that before the attack on Pearl Harbor (and allow me to clarify, the loss of life that entailed, not the strip of land it encompassed), Americans were quite content to let the Fuhrer enjoy his reign of slaughter across Europe uninterrupted. He was Time's Man of the Year, after all!
Americans committed and committed hard after that, and sure, not everyone was asleep at the wheel before that time. But, in an age that lacked mass media and instant information, not to mention the literacy level of the time, it was easy to ignore what went on thousands of miles away until it affected Americans. In the end, it was double-plus good for us, because no matter how crappy we Americans are in Europe, the fleeting shadow of WWII still provides us with a final layer of protection. And it stimulated our economy in multiple ways, as well as paved the way for women in the workplace. Huzzah.
--- I'm going sane in a crazy world.
Like you said, I don't think further regulations are necessarily a bad thing, just that these particular proposed regulations should be rejected. There should be no reason they can't come up with definitions that don't impact casual photographers/filmmakers/whatever that are having no impact on those around them. You can definitely tell they aimed at professionals, but the wording is so vague that it could be applied to anyone.
Hopefully the comments they receive will convince them to change some of the wording.
I don't know what kind of revisionist history books you're gnawing on there Ratzo but they sure ain't the truth. unless perhaps you're replying from an alter account to make this look like a conversation?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Um -- I'm sorry but you are really stretching the imagination here.
It would take some serious leaps of logic to say that snapping a picture (5 seconds) and doing something else for 9 minutes and 55 seconds equals 10 minutes of "photography occurring" or "taking photographs". And where did you get 100ft area? That wasn't in the text at all. You seem to be sewing your case out of whole cloth here.
I think you need to read the proposed regulations a bit more closely:
From the regulations, a permit is required for "Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring on City property" when they meet the group size/time criteria.
Take a single 10 minute period where you stayed within 100ft of where you started. If you took a photograph, photography occurred on City property during that period. No stipulation is made for the length of filming or photography, only that it occurred at a "single site".
Which brings up the next point. The regulations specifically define the 100ft work area, and it's certainly in the text.
Direct from the regulations: A "single site" shall be any area within 100 feet of where an activity commences
Let's come back to reality now. NYC lives and breathes on tourism. They bend over backwards and sideways to keep tourists coming to the city. They even make cab drivers go through training to be nicer to tourists. NYC will do absolutely nothing at all to jeopardize tourism in any way because they'd be cutting their own throats -- and they know it.
Then we can assume that they'll modify the regulations based on the comments they receive during this period.
Why no explanation of why it's "trade" even in war time when you're pissing off Germany by doing so and risking lives of both your people and the people of the countries you're "trading" with? Why no insistent post telling me that I'm being absurd and it's "trade" not "help"?
Could it be because you see I'm right and have no refutation?
Of course it is.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Alternatively, the very meaning of conservative is that you want to slow change - if you have the same ideas for 20 years, likely a good portion will be implemented and then supplanted. This leaves you with a position that, while unchanged, has fallen behind the bulk of social change. This isn't specific to any time period, although the 50s were somewhat staid in their attitudes.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Let's not forget that if Chamberlain had declared war on Germany in 1938 - after a solid decade of disarmament, Britain would have lost.
Britain stepped up its own military spending at that time. It began to strengthen the RAF, in particular, to the point where it was capable - barely - of holding back the massive war machine that was Nazi Germany. Without that extra year of preparation, we'd have been finished before the USA began to take an interest.
The Russians made the deals they had to, with whomever was the practical 'partner' at the time. Initially they thought it was just a deal to divide Poland equally with Germany. When Germany reneged, they flipped sides. Ultimately they got ALL of Poland out of the deal. There is nothing not ugly about Russia's conduct in that era.
COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC. Started a flame war. Useless really.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
Not to mention, if Hitler had focused his efforts on the western front instead of invading Russia, Russia would have done nothing, and Germany probably would have successfully repelled the Allied forces. They may have also developed the atomic bomb before the US, established more squadrons of jet fighters, etc. In effect, the single biggest reason Hitler lost the war was because of Hitler. Of course, nothing is forever, and pissing off millions of people is a good way to ensure that the inevitable happens sooner rather than later. I doubt the Nazi regime would have lasted much longer than the cold war did, if that long, even if they had "won" the war.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
It's all about copwatch.
Logic, macros, and more
I would tend to agree with "But when pushed, even those of us that are fat and comfortable will fight to stay free."
I see a lot more political action in the U.S. than I do in Australia!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The US would probably never have joined WWII had it not been for the Pearl Harbor attack. The US populace were on the whole quite indifferent to the war in Europe and would have been quite happy for Hitler to have taken over.
As for "rushing to save the rest of the world", the Russians did far more to defeat Hitler, at huge cost to themselves.
Wow, a perfect example of how to cherry pick facts to support your positiion. Neither would the Russians have entered the war if Germany had not attacked them. Yes, many Americans were pro-German and even anti-Nazi before the war, but that was a result of the propaganda spouted by powerful right-wing figures like Henry Ford, and organizations such as the Carlisle Group, who supported National Socialism and railed against Jews, Jewish Bankers, Labor Unions (Hitler had abolished labor unions in Germany) and the Zionist Conspiracy. Prior to 1941 the Nazi Party was hiding its activities behind "Work will make you free" slogans, "relocation" camps, and other propaganda niceties that put a pretty face on their mass extermination programs and pure racism.
Prior to 1941 the American people were lied to to by right-wing forces for pure politcal advantage (this tactic may sound familiar to you). The right-wing pro-German factions were powerful and wealthy in America and it was not possible for the left, even though they held the Presidency, to simply do what they knew had to be done. I do not believe for a second that if Americans of the time knew what the Nazis were all about and had not been hoodwinked by right-wing propaganda they would have stood for it for a second. So it could be said that since the right supported the Nazis and the left opposed them, that on December 7 - the day that reality trumped propaganda - the entire country became liberal.
OOPS, I meant "even pro-Nazi".
"No. It's because I can see that arguing with you is pointless."
All you have to do is explain why heling a country at risk to yourself during wartime isn't help but is in fact just trade, even though it can be both.
Of course it's much easier to pretend it's my fault your argument got shredded to pieces and you have no rebuttal.
You got hammered. I did it. Your claims are easily belied by thie posts in this thread, which show how stupid your point was and how easily I crushed you.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Many of the biggest problems in the US started when we began to treat corporations as being moral actors, when in fact they are incapable of behaving in a moral way. They can only be forced not be too immoral.
And I still say the American people are as decent, generous and loyal a population as you will find anywhere.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The best way to prove that this is an unworkable and stupid concept is to let NYC fall flat on its face trying to implement it, which should stop any place else in the US from trying it.
Their options are essentially to enforce it fully and fairly against everybody and experience a sudden collapse in their tourist trade and a whole lot of angry local taxpayers with camphones as well or to lose in (ultimately) Federal court against an anti-discrimination selective law-enforcement based lawsuit where the plaintiffs are funded by every major camera vendor in or out of the USA.
The NYC city government looks like a bunch of retards (more so than usual, I mean) and anybody from DHS who publically supports it looks like a jackass, and yet another chunk of "feelgood" horseshit security theater gets exposed as a bad, stupid idea that even the average American citizen is going to spot as such.
What's the downside?
Tech Public Policy stuff
I should check on these more often, but I'll reply anyway.
I think that yes, it is a lot to read out of the statement unless you have a fairly solid grasp of the history already. It is unfortunate that not everyone does, but it's still the truth.
My assumption about the original poster is that he either a) had a solid grasp and wasn't properly explaining his position, or b) was just parroting a correct assertion while, while less impressive, doesn't make the assertion any less correct.
So, I kind of filled in the blanks. Sorry if it came off antagonistic at all.
--- I'm going sane in a crazy world.