Slashdot Mirror
Amtrak Photo Contestant Arrested By Amtrak Police
Photographer Duane Kerzic was standing on the public platform in New York's Penn Station, taking pictures of trains in hopes of winning the annual photo contest that Amtrak had been running since 2003. Amtrak police arrested him for refusing to delete the photos when asked, though they later charged him with trespassing. "Obviously, there is a lack of communication between Amtrak's marketing department, which promotes the annual contest, called Picture Our Trains, and its police department, which has a history of harassing photographers for photographing these same trains. Not much different than the JetBlue incident from earlier this year where JetBlue flight attendants had a woman arrested for refusing to delete a video she filmed in flight while the JetBlue marketing department hosted a contest encouraging passengers to take photos in flight." Kerzic's blog has an account of the arrest on Dec. 21 and the aftermath.
Those companies have no right to ask you to delete photos. They can ask you to leave their premises... once it's safe to do so, that's all.
the contest winner.
Arrest the non-winners!
Rick B.
And WTF is this about "Amtrak police"? They would be New York police or they would be "Amtrak security guards" but last I checked, Amtrak does not maintain an official government police force. Ah well, maybe this is another example of the euphamism trend. He's not a janitor, he's a sanitation engineer! He's not a security guard or a rent-a-cop, he's Amtrak Police!
Has "the land of the free" gotten to the point of creating privatly owned police forces now? Or, at least, fixing them as such in the public mind?
Are even Slashdot editors and readers at a point to see this, and not protest? Both at the privatization of goverment duties, and at Slashdot editors not thinking freely?
What's next? Jennifer Amtrack?
Here is a better link to what happened:
http://www.duanek.name/Amtrak/index.htm
Many transit agencies have their own POLICE force, Check out what a BART police officer did this week. Amtrak maintains an official police force
For partly historical reasons, railroad police of the larger railroads in the US and Canada are actual police officers rather than merely private security forces, with full law-enforcement jurisdiction. See also Wikipedia on the Amtrak Police.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It seems like we're always hearing about people repressing each other these days by demanding they delete videos from their camera. What's with this? It's unusually asinine even for the general public. I mean, not only are these folks imagining they have rights over another which they do not have, but certainly someone could trivially "fake delete" the photos in their camera? Are they technical enough to watch someone do this and know it's for real? They have familiarity with every camera interface (not known for their simplicity) known to man?
I mean, a proper repressor would confiscate the camera. They can't even repress properly, these days.
expandfairuse.org
he should be arrested for abusing the LensBaby
he's not a photographer, he's a motion sickness inducing quack
In her blog, there's more about NY City cops harassing anyone with a camera.
So much for living life normally. The terrorists have won.
Sounds like the police derailed his plans.
Maybe they need more training.
That's no way to conduct themselves.
The marketing department is on the right track here.
Someone should engineer a solution.
"Kittens give Morbo gas!"
The point of the contest is not to take really great pictures, it's to try to get away with it. It all makes sense now, it's just a ploy to test their private police.
everyone else here seems interested in talking about it. if you aren't why don't you go find some other thread to be an asshole in?
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/ContactUs
Nowhere in his original account (http://www.duanek.name/Amtrak/index.htm) does he state that he was taking the pictures for the contest. It seems to be that the journalist chose to heavily emphasize the contest angle, perhaps to go for a more compelling story. Unfortunately, the journalist's choice to spin it as a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, he missed the bigger picture. Photographers are increasingly faced with arbitrary restrictions and demands that are not based upon the law, but based on fear. Forums at places like dpreview.com and flickr are often abuzz with stories of cops making unreasonable demands.
The only way to counteract this is with knowledge. If you happen to like taking pictures of subjects in public spaces, http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm is an enlightening read. This link (http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf) says essentially the same thing, but lays it out with a real-world example.
Also, to the editors, perhaps having a link to the current version of the contest (http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Hot_Deals_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1093554057903&ssid=224) would be good. I was skeptical that they actually had continued running the contest until I found that.
You zap the moderators with a wand of humor! The moderators resist!
Um, any particular reason why this tag is here? I don't see any comments disputing major details.
Even if this didn't involve technology, who is to say that this isn't "news for nerds" or something "that matters"? Nerds are interested in more than just the latest tech. Here on Slashdot many of us also like to talk about copyright, privacy, civil liberties. I'd say that this site is as much about a culture as it is about tech. Hopefully I'm not alone here. I don't feel alone.
Sadly we can not hear the story from the Amtrak cop on the photographer's actions and statements.
I am no way condoning what happened because the way I see it Amtrak was in the wrong but that doesn't mean the photographer was being a kind citizen as well.
Just as a comparison with the London Underground, taking any photos on the Underground requires a permit which costs £300 for a two-hour permit (less for students), details are here. I wonder what the penalty for taking photographs with out a permit is...
A photo showing badly carried out maintenance could cause them a lot of money to first silence the bad PR, smear the whistle blower to discredit them, then to cut corners in "fixing" what had been exposed. Much cheaper to stop the photo before it can possibly get into the public domain. ...ahem....I mean "terrorists could use this info, are you a terrorist sonny? If not, you will do your patriotic duty and delete these images!!!! NOW!!!!"
How many NYC transit cops does it take to push a camera nerd down the stairs?
None, he tripped.
All the security bullshit is just that: bullshit. Security Theater. The talk is big (this includes recent cyber-security alarmist stories) but in no relation whatsoever to real threats. The arena of "security" is about protecting the feifdom now. Jobs and budgets to protect. Projects to hype. Dangers to overestimate. Get your consultant dollars - step right up.
Somebody has to call a spade a spade and do it soon or else Orwell will be here to stay in this guise. Bush opened the door. Americans invited him in. Failure to now see that the emperor has no clothes will be his invitation to stay on as a permanent houseguest.
IMO the hero of this story is that citizen who, when asked to delete their photo, told them to go fuck themselves.
I am a somewhat serious photographer myself, and so I feel empathy for Duane (I have been questioned before about taking photography in some places, but never arrested nor asked to delete photos).
However although it is true in the list he makes of previous terrorist actions where no photos were used (as far as I know), something to consider is that the terrorists in the recent Mumbai attacks had extensive photo and video reconnaissance of places like the hotel they attacked, a restaurant they planned to attack and also the Jewish center they attacked. Honestly I have a hard time believing that no photography was used in any of the other actions, even as simple a thing as looking at photographs of the New York skyline on Flickr.
However, just because photography (like many other things) is a tool which can be used for ill as well as good, in no way does that make it right to arrest someone anywhere for taking photos. But you shouldn't put it forward as fact that real life terrorists never use photographs as reconnaissance material.
An interesting distinction is that he was not arrested for taking photos, but for refusing to delete them when asked. The practical reality of such a situation is that what I would do is delete the photos and simply un-delete them later (always carry more than one card)... but I do think it's wrong or at least silly to make deletion a condition of arrest as there's no way any officer is going to be technically proficient enough to ensure that the photos are actually deleted, and trying to ensure compliance through confiscation of equipment is frankly almost worse than arrest as it's way too easy to abuse as a form of theft of equipment whereas arrest has more real repercussions and officers are not as likely to go that far (not to mention I'll just palm my CF card while you are not looking and slip in a new one so I can keep my photos).
I'd be more comfortable with making it necessary on request to be photographed or videotaped (along with your ID) by the police officer if he suspects you of anything (not just photography, but taking odd notes or sketches of a floorplan). You don't get arrested, you get to leave with your photos - but the possibility of being "officially" recorded may be enough to deter some true reconnaissance work (just as much as the threat of being arrested for taking photographs today). Some people see that as police state kind of stuff but honestly the way things are we are recorded almost constantly in public anyway, so I do not see any issue with one more recording being made and I don't think of it as an invasion of privacy when I am out somewhere that is not private. It doesn't limit my freedom in any way and leaning on that more heavily than arrest gives me back freedom of photography that we are starting to lack.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
http://www.btp.police.uk/passengers/advice_and_information/rail_enthusiasts.aspx
Perhaps Amtrak should adopt something similar?
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
Amtrak security was even filmed saying filming isn't allowed, when a news crew was interviewing Amtrak's spokesperson, who very clearly was saying there's no policy forbidding filming or taking photographs:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=6664418
According to his blog, he was in a posted "no trespassing" area at the time. The only real defense he has is that the signs are not very conspicuous. I agree the amtrack cop's behavior sounds bad, but it's hard to say whether or not he was provoked by his "victim" -- not that that's any excuse, but it does suggest the incident may be overblown and the cop's actions somewhat understandable, if a bit over the top. Amtrack cops are human too.
Caveat Utilitor
After RTFA I can't find ANYWHERE that there is a photo contest currently running! The one that is references is from like 4 years ago! BS detector just went off loud and clear.
Or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. I think the definition of private needs some clarification, because Amtrak seems to run more on taxpayer money than diesel.
Just another GSE eating taxpayer cash and providing bad service.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
This week in photography has a fundraiser to fight issues like these.
Why didn't he just follow the orders, leave, then file a complaint? I'm not defending Amtrak here, since it sounds like they were in the wrong, but it's like getting pulled over by the police. The side of the road is not the place to argue your case. The officer is not a judge, and you aren't the jury. The bottom line is that arguing with the officer almost never results in you "winning", and can often hurt your chances of winning a lawsuit later on if the jury thinks you were provoking a response.
It's a shame how many of our rights are being curtailed in the name of "National Security".
As far as I've been able to ascertain from the article, Mr. Kerzic was standing in an area designated for use by the public. It does not appear to be a restricted area, and from what I can see from the photograph in the article, there are no signs warning against photography by the public.
However, as bad as we may think it is here in the United States (compared to the pre-9/11 world), things are much worse in the United Kingdom. The rights of the Individual in the UK are enshrined in Common Law (i.e., customary law passed down through the ages), and not explicitly delineated in any sort of constitutional document.
For example, in the US, we have a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right against self-incrimination. A recent court case implies that this right includes encryption keys: If a law enforcement agency impounds your laptop for analysis, but can't get anything out of it because the contents have been encrypted, too bad for them. Handing over the encryption key would be a form of self-incrimination, so you don't have to do it.
On the other hand, laws, ordinances, and Police reactions regarding individual freedoms can and often do change at a whim, depending on what is expedient at the time (8th paragraph, about half-way down). In addition, since the right against self-incrimination is based on Common Law, and not written as an explicit right, ordinances like the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act can easily curtail and eliminate such rights. As usual, some groups say that even these powers do not go far enough, invoking the familiar mantra of "National Security".
And these things are happening in two of the most "open and democratic" societies the world has ever seen...
And on a side-note, here's an interesting question: Who's standing in the "restricted" zone across the tracks taking the picture of the "public" train platform?
I've shot plenty of train pictures in various European countries and so far I've only experienced problems in Marseille this summer. I was asked to stop taking pictures by a gentleman with a somewhat official suit and a walkie-talkie. My lack of French at that point made it smarter to follow the instructions rather than ask him what the exact problems were. In both Germany and Switzerland no one even came to ask what I was doing while taking pictures. Especially Switzerland with all the different railroads and rolling stock is a country where you might end up with a small group of people all shooting the same trains.
Amtrak security was even filmed saying filming isn't allowed, when a news crew was interviewing Amtrak's spokesperson, who very clearly was saying there's no policy forbidding filming or taking photographs:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=6664418
A beautiful piece of footage dropped right in their laps there - you've got chief spokesman saying "no idea what the problem is" and security guard saying "stop filming" both in the frame simultaneously and NOBODY says either to chief spokesman "Well, we obviously have an issue here" or to security guard "Do you realise who this man who's just told us this is OK is?"
In the near future, with digital cameras getting smaller and better, it's only a matter of time before many people have a tiny video camera in the frame of their eye glasses, or on a necklace, or even perhaps, woven into their clothing, which is recording all the time, with occasional auto-saves to the internet.
Ron
Here in good, ol' Europe no cop will ever ask you to stop shooting photos - if he/she's on duty of course. Best they can do is to turn around. You have the right to video them, photo them when they're doing the job you are paying for.
Plain old sigh.
Yes, but there is still Canada. :-)
you had me at #!
Is that how you want things to be? With public authorities abusing that authority without legal basis?
Dissent *is* still an option, this side of another Revolution.
you had me at #!
I would have to agree that citing reasons of "national security" or "potential terrorist threat" as rationale for stopping photography of public places is about as lame as it gets. Once the photos are taken, the photographer should simply move on and be done.
This said, I have seen photographers abuse their "1st amendment rights" by setting up what is arguably a campsite with tripods, light meters, lighting, and other equipment that takes up space and can interfere with other patrons or members of the public that need to use those public spaces. Clearly even this photographer was doing more than simply taking a quick snapshot of a friend and moving on, even if he didn't pull out all of the toys of a genuine professional.
In a situation like this, obtaining a "permit" in terms of organizing a more protracted shooting session and letting the station manager know what you are going to be doing there would certainly have at least some value, and they might be able to suggest some more optimal times to take the photographs or locations that would reduce or eliminate interference. You might even be able to get access to areas not normally deemed "public access" as well. Rather than being something of a problem, you might have an escort that would even be helping you out with the shoot.
What really should have happened here was the officer politely but firmly saying: "Excuse me, sir, but you are standing in the way and could you move along and do that somewhere else?" or even "I would rather you be standing over here" (pointing to a logical location that is out of the way). A photographer that insists at that point in being an ass can have multiple charges thrown at him, including failure to obey a lawful order, disturbing the peace, and more. The lawful order here would be to move along and stay out of pedestrian traffic lanes.
Other than having the photographer getting in everybody's way, I don't see any other rationale for prohibiting this sort of photography. Even a rough "move it, buddy" would have at least given a proper message. Clearly this officer needs to have a good indoctrination of what the law actually is in this situation.
So science journals should start putting Martha Stewart recipes in them; I mean I'm sure the people that read Science enjoy food too.
I started coming to this site because it was full of nerdy goodness. It's turned into, at best, a mediocre tech site and a poor excuse for a socially conscious sound board. I mean really this is the best they could post? This guy needs to get a lawyer. Nuff said; I don't see any TRUE significance to this story. In fact, this is probably the LEAST socially significant story I've read all week.
It's not wonder the comments following posts are becoming less and less over the years. News for Nerds use to actually mean NEWS FOR NERDS. Things you'd be laughed at for reading in high school...
Or am I just getting old? GET OFF MY LAWN!
No sig for you!!
This story is about technology and its social implications today after 9/11. That is enough for it to be here. As a photography nerd this story is relevant to me, maybe some lawyer nerds might be interested as well.
Jonathanjk.com
if taking photographs is illegal, isn't asking you to delete them conspiracy to destroy evidence?
But as I noted, taking photographs in this case was not what led to arrest - it was refusing to delete them on request! Possibly that odd distinction came about for the very point you try to raise in humor, it could have been a concern of the legal department that the actual taking of pictures was not the point of contention but instead obeying the request of officers on the ground even if the reasons for those requests were originally you taking photographs.
Again it's basically a silly idea all the way around, which is why arbitrary arrests of photographers (even rude ones) needs to be eliminated and replaced with something more reasonable.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Private universities mostly have campus security, but a lot of public universities' security forces are actual police departments with official jurisdiction for the portion of the city that makes up the campus. That's the case at least for the University of California campuses, Georgia Tech, University of Texas campuses, etc.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
US is a police state, and its people are powerless.
>"I would suggest confronting the situation legally but head-on as an intelligent person who should be able to defend themselves in these situations...."
"Have you ever been arrested?"
"Sure...once."
"And what was that for?"
"Molesting an officer, why?"
{sarcasm}It's nice to see that the Slashdot editors are on their A game with this one.{/sarcasm}
First, when visiting the Amtrak contest site http://www.amtrak.com/photocontest one will notice that the contest ended in July of 2008. Maybe they do run it every year. However, the contest has a definite cut off date. They do not say they are currently accepting submissions for the next years contest. SO this Photographer's claim that he was taking pictures for the contest was false. 5-months-after-closing-time false.
Second, the contest requirements call for pictures of Amtrak trains, that clearly show the Amtrak logo. The rules and the contest description are very specific on this. Amtrak even shows you what the logo you are taking pictures of should look like. I looked through this guys photos. I did not see one clean Amtrak logo in any of them. His use of that crazy lens just makes it worse, for that lens would surely destroy any potential clear capture of the logo he was supposed to have on film. So this photographer fails in what he was taking pictures of, since he was obviously not taking pictures of the TRAINS with the AMTRAK LOGO. He was taking pictures of people, and the station and of blurry trains that could have been New York Transit or whatnot.
You can't break the rules, then turn around and use those rules as a shield from prosecution. You can't ignore the rules, then throw a tantrum when you can't use those rules for protection.
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
A constitution (or, at least, the US Constitution) will remain relevant for as long as people fight for its relevancy.
Any worthy constitution is more than just a bunch of laws: It is a collection of fundamental ideals, an encyclopedia of what it means to be a human being and a civilized nation, distilled to the core and set down for Posterity.
And while its laws may become outdated, the ideals represented by it and in it do not.
You should also consider that the terrorist ate. And probably talked. And used cell phones. And slept.
On reflection, I now see the reason for your confusion. To an external observer, all of those actions can be totally natural and you can never really have an indication of intent deriving from them - the same as photography.
Where you make your mistake is that none of those things are as much a precondition of successful terrorist action like photography in the Mumbai attacks. There's no doubt that the extensive knowledge of the hotel they were in allowed them to better defend against and elude police. That is, after all, the whole point of taking such photos. Any intelligent person planning an attack as a thought exercise would plan to take photos. There's a reason why FPS games generally allow you a few seconds before a match starts to explore a level.
But again, to an external observer there's no difference between the 99.9% of times someone is photographing all of the exits in a hotel lobby or train station because he's obsessed with doors, and someone with more sinister intent. So you should not do anything to really detain people taking pictures, you should instead simply gather data as efficiently as possible and with the highest degree of accuracy reasonable.
That's why a reasonable compromise is to ask someone to have a photo taken by an officer. This offers many benefits:
1) If someone is casually thinking about doing something (like getting back at an employer) it makes them think twice.
2) If someone is up to something that nothing will dissuade them from because they plan to die in the attack anyway, at least law enforcement has a little more data about a potential threat they can tie in with other things.
3) If someone actually carries out an attack, it makes it much easier to identify them later to possibly tie them in to accomplices.
You might say, there are already security cameras, why not just use those? But unless you've been watching too much CSI and think you can tell what kind of conditioner someone used through studious image enhancement of a jerky occluded 640x480 image of a person you can't really think of that as a reliable source of data. And frankly I'd far rather be told up-front my image was going to be run up the flagpole of analysts than randomly be photographed "on the sly" by some inept security personnel without my knowledge.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This would be a great way for celebrities to deal with paparazzi taking photos of them in public places. The Paris Hilton Police could simply arrest photographers and confiscate their material.
Have gnu, will travel.
That was certainly one crappy piece of investigative journalism. What did the spokesman have to say about the security guard?
It seems that the "professional" security people, mostly in the US, have gotten a bit carried away with themselves. From police and security guards unilaterally deciding that photography is dangerous and not allowed, to the US border guard who took it upon himself to bark at me last week that Canada has 175 known active terrorist organizations, many of these people seem to have lost any professionalism they might once have had.
I am a pretty serious photographer, and have taken pictures in similar areas.
I've been asked by police what I was doing and my reasons for photographing something, but I've never been asked to delete photos or been detained. Basically I think it boils down to being friendly instead of automatically treating police as the "enemy". Police being the only authority present on the scene, (rightfully) have a lot of leeway in how they can respond to any given individual and you should respect that (and if you are smart take advantage of this).
I really get the impression from the blog this guy was pretty antagonistic over being stopped when he thought he was in bounds, so to speak. That doesn't make it right to detail him but it does make it understandable given the framework the police had to work in.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
of a million dollars against the company or government agency for every picture that any security guard or police officer asks anyone to delete when the person is standing on property that is paid for with our tax dollars.
This includes stadiums, train stations, and airport terminals.
I think that would settle the matter pretty well, compensating the photographer fairly for pictures they have taken.
An interesting distinction is that he was not arrested for taking photos, but for refusing to delete them when asked. The practical reality of such a situation is that what I would do is delete the photos and simply un-delete them later
I think this is the wrong line of thought , this reinforce the police/security agent/supermarket agent/whatever to really think they can ask you to delete photo/submit you to a search (for anybody but police) when they are not allowed by law.In other word you erode the freedom and tranquility of everybody by allowing them to use power they do not have. MANY time somebody tryed this (a supermarket bag search), each time I simply calmly told them i would not submit, because what they asked was illegal, but if they want they can call the police and the police is fully allowed to search. Even if they had called the police, the police would not have been able to charge me, (even if they had arrested me) because law was(is) on my side. If nobody stand for our right, then they will get trampled, often out of ignorance. Sure you risk inconvenience, but freedom can often be inconvenient to maintain.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Listen again. The reporter asked JUST that question and the overly nervous security guard didn't even look like her heard the question. The guard just spouted some rhetoric and looked like he wanted to get away from the camera.
mebbe he's just here taking pictures for some contest.
rewriting history since 2109
It seems that the "professional" security people, mostly in the US, have gotten a bit carried away with themselves. From police and security guards unilaterally deciding that photography is dangerous and not allowed, to the US border guard who took it upon himself to bark at me last week that Canada has 175 known active terrorist organizations, many of these people seem to have lost any professionalism they might once have had.
Remember there's no such thing as a professional security guard. It's not really a job which attracts people looking to carve themselves out a high-powered intellectual career.
Part of me wonders how much of this kind of thing comes from overzealous security guards and their line managers deciding to invent rules and how much genuinely comes from head office.
In America you can shoot photos of people on public property and publish them for whatever purpose you want even if the subject objects. If this is different in the EU, please provide a reference.
This Amtrak situation is another example in the continuing trend of hysteria-fueled security theater. If someone is taking a photo overtly of something that could be used for nefarious purposes, do people really think that photographer couldn't perform the same task covertly? I once was shooting a photo of the exterior of a prison for a newspaper article. A security officer promptly told me to stop. Not wanting to get into a huge situation with phone calls, lawyers, etc. I just got in my car, drove by slowly, and shot my photos out the window of the car. I didn't get the quality I wanted, but I certainly got the same photo that could have supposedly been used for a prison break.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Have person A take photos of cops, person B take photos of person A, and just in case a person C as well.
Now combine this with iphone and instant post to blog, the cops careers are toast if they smash cameras and the depts name is mud.
And your instantly on cnn.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Try "thoughtless", "arrogant" or "willfully ignorant." How dumb and lazy do you need to be to qualify to be an Amtrak cop?
I am a fan of passenger rail which is grossly underutilized in the US. Amtrak is a national disgrace. It needs more capital. Yes, it needs more of our tax dollars! Maybe we can spend more on our rail system and less on rebuilding Iraq in 2009.
Hopefully Obama will revive Amtrak at least on the East Coast where it makes the most sense. Hopefully gasoline prices will stay high or we will forget about the alternatives to cars and planes again.
Humans have killed more than 200million others in the last 100 years or so.
Hardly a good track record.
No other animal has killed its own in such high numbers.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
So science journals should start putting Martha Stewart recipes in them; I mean I'm sure the people that read Science enjoy food too.
Slashdot isn't a science journal, it's a blog. In addition, "nerds" have quite a lot of tastes
I started coming to this site because it was full of nerdy goodness. It's turned into, at best, a mediocre tech site...
Nobody has the right to force you to keep reading the site. You don't have the right to tell them not to post stories that others enjoy just because you feel slashdot is not an appropriate venue. Filter the front page via your preferences, or quit slashdot, but don't waste your time going to an article you supposedly don't care about and posting about how much it sucks. That's just pathetic.
Or am I just getting old? GET OFF MY LAWN!
Slashdot isn't your lawn.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Amtrack Guest Rewards?
This signature intentionally left unblank.
"Nerd is a term often bearing a derogatory connotation or stereotype, that refers to a person who passionately pursues intellectual activities, esoteric knowledge, or other obscure interests that are age inappropriate rather than engaging in more social or popular activities. Therefore, a nerd is often excluded from physical activity and considered a loner by peers, or will tend to associate with like-minded people." ( wikipedia )
no mention of technology there.
( Beside, seeing how law(s) evolve with technology is interesting )
Police officers and government security agents are supposed to be more or less professionals. They are certainly supposed to act in a professional manner, and keep themselves up to date with the requirements of their jobs. One of the prime requirements is to know the law they are enforcing.
What I sent them:
Hello,
I am reading http://photos.duanek.name/Amtrak%20Problems and as a taxpayer, occasional Amtrak patron, and above all, an _American_Citizen_, aka part-owner of Amtrak (thanks to my tax dollars going to fund the organization) I am insulted that you are harassing American citizens who are taking photographs in public spaces - a completely legal activity. On top of that, on the Amtrak web site you INVITE people to take photographs. What the hell are your rent-a-cops thinking when they start harassing, insulting, and illegally detaining citizens who take photographs of public property?
Is this a good way to portray Amtrak as a friendly and efficient service? Is this really the best way to encourage people to use mass transportation? I personally refuse to use mass transit because of "security theater" - even though Americans, 100% legal citizens - are harrassed on a daily basis without probable cause in mass transit/airport/port facilities, we are no safer than we were before. Why the hell are you harassing legal americans when instead criminal science methods such as _profiling_ ought to be used instead, and focus on deporting illegal aliens should be in place?
Thank you for giving me one more reason to ride Amtrak only when absolutely necessary.
Their marketing and Police departments are working in complete agreement and communication with each other.
The purpose of the marketing campaigns is to entrap passangers into arrest, detention and removal.
Money obtained from removed passangers goes to the CEOs of Amtrack and JetBlue.
Amtrack and JetBlue officials are disperate to appease officials at FBI, DHS and the Executive Office by offering 30% cash of the re-appropriated money from removed passangers to Federial Officials involved.
PS We are getting close to the 20th when the Whopper Pardons from the Executive will be issued (the pardons will include, Pre-pardons, for Senior Executives, not currently charged with offinces of National and International laws).
to delete.
Then send in an image bearing the words [deleted by order] and put that as the first words of the caption. Then describe what you were taking a picture of. (Take an audio recorder or have you cell phone on while you do your shoot. Its not as if you were going to spook anything by describing the scene in a running commentary.)
Make sure that it sounds really interesting and tells everybody who's running the contest that their own security is RUINING THEIR CONTEST and that you will post a single UGLY PICTURE of a stockyard instead for every interesting picture they should/should/would have run.
Tell them that all the terrorists are all using cell phones with cameras nowadays to work around their paranioa so they've got nothing to worry about from still cameras.
If they can grab the media, they shouldn't bother.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I don't want a large, I want a liter of cola.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
This is not a new problem for RR photographers, which are legion. http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=3941
It's an Amtrak train from Chicago to Seattle. It passes south of Glacier Bay National park, and the ride is timed to pass the park during daylight (according to the History channel). After seeing the Extreme Trains (History Channel) episode about the Empire Builder, my wife and I were thinking about taking a vacation to the Pacific Northwest via train. The fare wasn't too bad, and we looked forward to not having to drive.
We'll drive now, thank you.
My wife takes pictures everywhere. At any time. Between her and I, we'll shoot anything. And I don't feel like getting my vacation ruined by Amtrak.
This is (at least) the second time Amtrak has done this. I'm not going to reward unconstitutional behavior with my business, and neither should you.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Just because you had the right to take such a photograph doesn't mean you should have done it, or should have ignored the guy who asked you to delete it. It'd have been the respectful and courteous thing to do, you stupid brute.
Since 9/11 you take photos of any Federal building, or transportation center, in NYC, Washington, or any other major City in the USA and you WILL be approached by Police and questioned and likely TOLD to delete the material and you WILL be arrested if you fail to comply. It's SOP for the Police/Homeland Security. Now Amtrak full well knows this so the wording of their photo competition should specifiacally have asked photographers NOT to use major stations without first requesting approval (which one is unlikely to get). This photographer clearly did not requst prior approval and did not cmply with the police request. An arrest was therefore the logical conclusion. I do not think the individual afficer(s) acted unreasonably as he/she is merely carrying out their orders in a logical manner. Whether one likes the restriction, or not, refusal to comply with a police officer was a bad idea.
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/12/27/amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest/
(... cue the hate mail...)
decrepit station. Raggedy-ass infrastructure, in the presence of billions of dollars, is just one of the reasons i could not bear to live on the east coast. As far back as 70's movies i've seen, they don't seem to care about improving much. Maybe i'm wrong, and maybe i OUGHT to have had familiarization/opinion-muting visits, but while there are some new and improved trains and stations on the east coast, i seriously doubt that they look 50% as "ok" as BART. I'm not including LA's latest system because it is fairly new, relatively speaking. But i just get NAUSEATED looking at those rat-trap-looking mazes of exits, worn or bunched-up rail ties, and raggedy tiled and drab-painted walls. It makes me think of pea-green/Exorcist-vomit feelings and cheap-sitcom set apartments depicting NYC.
I am sure there is way too much money around NYC has been spent on other things. Maybe the AMTRAK police LOVE their stations but feel too sensitive over that raggedy condition of their work environment. Are there any traveling slashdotters from Europe who can weigh in on this?
Now, i've seen some of the older lines in Tokyo, and some of they surprised me that they were old, like maybe pre-1960 construction, but most of the other lines i rode seemed to be far more modern, relatively speaking.
What kind of natural disaster (hopefully after hours so the least number would be actually drowned or buried...) would it take to flush out some of those old NYC stations so they can get rebuilt? Yeh, i realize that there would be hundreds of thousands of commuters inconvenienced, but the US is way too wealthy for this kind of ragged, nauseating, eyesore infrastructure to exist. Hell, renovating that crap could actually be a jobs-creation program to help pump up the US economy, or at least on the east coast. Well, assuming there is not Amtrak habitrail competing with the rats underground....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
You're out of touch, pal. This is exactly the kind of thing I am interested in, and more importantly, want to discuss with my slashdot fellows.
As a general rule cops aren't the most intelligent people. If they were how many would actually stay on the force?
Sure, they're a little bit smarter than most criminals and forensic technology has helped them out a lot. But the common street cop, he might know the people in his neighborhood or beat, but he doesn't have the cognitive abilities to understand that some things aren't criminal activities.
You are definitely wrong. All the lawyers I've talked to say that the less you say the police the better. Basically, they've already decided you are doing something wrong, and talking to them about it rarely changes that . On the other hand, if you try to talk them out of it, since so many things are illegal, you may unknowingly incriminate yourself.
The best thing to do is say "yes, officer" "sorry officer" and "it won't happen again". Take you ticket and go. No matter how wrong you think they are, they have the guns and the authority and you have nothing.
How sad and pathetic your miserable life must be that you have to gain satisfaction by being a "tough guy" on an internet forum. Do you beat your girlfriends to make yourself feel better too?
Whining on Slashdot fixes nothing, but a wrongful arrest lawsuit will make some folks sit up and take notice.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Pity. After all, you are occupied with such noble pursuits as mocking poor drunken women in compromising positions, and mentally consoling yourself with the knowledge that you can pummel anyone who might think there's something wrong with that.
You, sir, are a great American, and someone whom we should all aspire to imitate.
...and start ranting about the Stalinist-police-state that America has become because we have "Amtrak Police", comparing them to Blackwater and saying that they have no rights, they're just rent-a-cops, etc. you may want to look at what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:
All of Amtrak's preferred stock is owned by the U.S. federal government. The members of its board of directors are appointed by the President of the United States and are subject to confirmation by the United States Senate.
They're government. Just think of Amtrak Police as "Federal transit cops". The fact that for the whole nation, there are only 342 of them is kind of scary.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
1: Most cops are sadists.
2: I have a friend whose entire family are cops. His father, his brothers, his uncle and all his cousins are all cops. He became a fireman because he wanted to be "a good guy". Got it?
99% of the cops out there today are not out there to help you. They are out there to BUST you! They should be treated with a healthy dose of distrust. The picture of the friendly cop on the beat is about 25 years out of date!
Sad...but true!
I know artists (Ken Avidor, etc) who get arrested for drawing fast food franchises or mall parking lots. No one can believe they are working.
Actually, that "security guard" was an employee of Jones LaSalle, the management company which runs the "mall" portion of Union Station. They have since been told, in no uncertain terms, that they cannot interfere with photography anywhere withing the public spaces of Union Station. They only operate the "mall" and they do not "own" it. The US Government, and thus all of us, own it.
Maybe Marketing should look to see if their promotions fall within the security guidelines of their own company. Did anyone ask the question, 'should we do this', and if so they should have taken the steps to let security know. The job of the police, ok "police" in this instance, is to enforce the laws/regulations. Not to go out looking for exceptions. This is a bit like the people at a block party bitching because they thought the police were bringing them a permit, not shutting them down for not having one.
Of course the guy in question is just an innocent here. But we really shouldn't be blaming the cops, unless they were notified and ignored it
You are correct that he had a legal license to be there, and you are correct that he was not guilty of trespass until asked to leave, but there are two problems with your post.
First, your link is bad (and NY fails at creating a website that makes linking to their laws easy). I recommend people try this one instead.
Second, you actually need to look up a couple of lines to 140.00(5) understand what this supposedly super-simple statute means.
Could you explain to all the lay people here what it means to be "licensed to privileged" to be on the premises? (Do you know the differences between an invitee, a licensee and a trespasser?) Who is an "authorized person" to tell you to leave? (Does that include the transit cops?) What constitutes "open to the public?" (Is an area you need a ticket to be in such a space?)
This isn't as simple as it seems.
Are you asking me to delete my Copyrighted works? Sir, I will hand you my camera and *you* can commit the felony. A *copy* of them is over $100k per the DMCA, imagine what the original is worth....
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
That's most security people in any country, not just the US. Think about every asshole cop you've ever dealt with. Now think of the people who couldn't make the cut doing that. That's basically 90% of all security guards or transit cops in a nutshell, save for the students who do it at night because it doesn't interfere with school hours. To make matters worse, these guys know nobody takes them seriously, and it pisses them off that much more, making them even act like even bigger dicks.
This poo is cold.
As Abbey Hoffman said in Steal This Book
Your Local Police Force is Armed and Dangerous
Funny how little things change in 40 years.
Laaaand of the freeeeeeee; hoooooome of the braaaaaaave.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
This would make for an awesome flashmob.
Get a group of 101 people. Fill them all in on the plan.
1 person will go to a public place and just start taking pictures. LOTS of pictures. They don't need to act strange, just take pictures. Have the other 100 just hanging out, doing various things to look normal.
Wait for a cop-rental or otherwise-to come up and confront the person taking pictures. If it's just a simple, "Hi, how's it going" kind of encounter, then the photographer puts on a silly hat. Then the other 100 people all give a cheer and disperse.
But if the cops start to violate the law, the photographer holds up their hands in surrender.
All 100 people dash over and surround the cop and photographer, about 10 feet away, and start to chant "First Amendment!", really loud.
The cops will be so distracted that the photographer will be able to merge with the crowd. Once they're in the crowd, everyone simply breaks up and moves on.
Art, political statement, social statement and entertainment, all in one.
[End Of Line]
I don't know. I've met border guards in quite a few places, some of them packing automatic weapons. The experiences I've had with US border officials have been worse than anywhere else, and consistently bad.
The rent-a-cop security guards may be more or less professional. Lots of them are friendly. Some of them are idiots. That's not who I'm talking about anyway. This story is about real cops, with powers of arrest, making up "laws" as they see fit.
... because this dude truly sucks as a photographer. If I were an Amtrack executive, I would personally ask security to remove this guy from the station. His imagery actually damages the brand.
Lets be honest dude. Taking pics of some wife's dude taking a squat outside a pizza place? You are pretty pathetic. Note to self: Stay away from tall douchebags in the Great Valley area of California.
But you are alone.
Posting to slashdot.
Also remember not to carry a backpack that contains electronic parts or wires.
No one was ever harmed by the action of taking a photo, no buildings were ever destroyed by taking photos.
Actually, its a pretty common occurence to be travelling down a road in Iraq or Afghanistan and be photographed or videod. And then be greeted by an IED or ambush on that same stretch of road later.
HOWEVER: under normal circumstances, you won't come under small arms fire at a train station in New York.
I happened to take a train from Penn Station the very day this guy was arrested, and remember thinking that there was zero security. Nobody was checking tickets or bags or and the lady at the entrance to the tunnels was engrossed in her hot dog. Anyone could have brought anything onto trains, and the train cops are worried about some middle aged white dude taking really crappy pictures. So incredibly dumb.
I am a closet photographer. I have lots of cameras, 35mm and the like, but I only take a very small digital camera in public. I have taken over 4000 pictures with it, including several in Union Station in DC.
Even though I enjoy photography, I see and feel annoyance towards photographers, especially those who hang around nightclubs and other social places. What is it that is inherently annoying to people about photographers? Sometimes they feel like parasites. I try to be discrete about my camera. I don't lug a big D3 around to the pub. I really feel for this guy, but I think it is a western issue. Can you imagine this happening in Japan? Exactly.
Don't worry about lying to cops. You're not under oath and they're not investigating some kind of a crime that you're misleading them about. During interrogations, cops lie all the time to civilians. They'll say, "We've got video tape of you committing the crime. CONFESS!" or they'll say your buddy is already implicating you, so you might as well implicate him.
All the place which ask to search me for example. Even stadion/disco. Once you point to the guy that by law they are not allowed (only agent of public force) neither are they allowed to refuse me entrance / exit due to this, they usually shrug me through. But this also mean I need to know my right, else I would screw up badly.
I read the article differently. As in the arrest came after refusing to do something for which they had no legal right to ask for, and thus beyond the rule permitting them to make an arrest. Also not being an american I have no idea that this was considered a REAL police. Ours (train police) has of police only the name. They have for example no real authorithy to make an arrest, they are indeed only security agent.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
But they were demanding that he DELETE THE FUCKING PHOTOS! How do you avoid confronting the officer while simultaneously not suffering the permanent, irrecoverable loss of your property?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's important to note that the big push that sent Rome toppling came in the form of climate change.
Guess what? The weather's changing...
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Hopefully Obama WON'T waste more of our tax dollars beefing up Amtrak -- on any coast -- as it has proven for decades it's useless. I don't care which armpit of America you live on (East Coast, tri-state area, etc.) FEDERAL DOLLARS shouldn't be used to shore up a failing business model. So yeah, it's great he's going to be inaugurated in two weeks. I hope he doesn't pay off the car-cartels, the airline-cartels, the steel-cartels, the retail-cartels, and the rail-cartels. If only instead of giving money to their wall street friends our so-called "representatives" would have handed each US taxpayer a debit card good for $130K for "US made goods and services." Now that would have been an economic stimulus. Do I wish for change. Yes. Did I vote for change. Yes. Do I think that change means "giving my FEDERAL TAX FUNDS to yet another worthless unviable business" -- no. I hope I didn't offend any of you on the rude coast who think the rest of us need to subsidize your unprofitable train travel while you trample wallmart employees. E Desert Southwest, Where we don't have Amtrak or East Coast Trash
A simple fact is that the photographer's argument that properly secured cuffs will not cause injury to the arrestee is bull. First and foremost, in most law enforcement circles, "properly secured" is defined as the one that is in place the quickest, causing less injury to the officer, and thus less injury to the suspect. Also, say the arrestee is a feeble old lady, and she kindly puts her hands behind her to be cuffed, and the officer takes all the time in the world securing the cuffs "properly" [the photographer says the proper way is to have the chain facing "out"- which doesn't make sense, cause either way the chain is both facing in and out], and makes them all pretty and perfectly comfortable. Well, this kindly old lady forgot to tell the officer she smoked some rocks just prior to arrest and now the cocaine is kicking in, and she's wigging out and fighting. Those "properly secured" cuffs are gonna cause injury, and it's all dependent on how much that arrestee chooses to struggle.
If asked by someone to delete photo's then happily do so, spend time to show them and be utterly convincing that you are complying with them.
Now if you want to continue taking photo's be sure to switch the memory card for a new one first. Its important not to take any more photo's with the orignal memory card.
When you get home, use a card reader and some undelete software to get your images. Everybody (Relatively) happy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But they were demanding that he DELETE THE FUCKING PHOTOS! How do you avoid confronting the officer while simultaneously not suffering the permanent, irrecoverable loss of your property?
You don't. You shut up, delete the photos, and move on with your life, unless you want to ruin it instead.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Last month my wife and I were taking some pictures at the Pavonia/Newport PATH station (between NJ and NY).
This station still holds the old-fashioned tiles and brick ceilings, so I took my camera out and started shooting (pictures, that is :-))
This woman dressed in PATH police uniform came to me and kindly asked me to stop taking pictures. When I asked why, she said that the flash could disturb the train conductors (as if they could lose a tunnel or something, right?)
Anyway, she didn't ask me to delete the pictures or anything, and since I had already taken more than enough, I let it pass without further ado (that and the fact that my wife wasn't too fond of being arrested.)
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Oh hell no! Can you imagine the uniform of the Paris Hilton Police...
AAAARGH! I need to wash out my brain now. Thanks for that.... Bastard...
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
The current score: terrorists 2, bureaucrats and fascists 1, sheeple 0
This has happened before.
Then there was a truly surreal follow up instance. Here's the summary: A professional TV news crew were in the middle of interviewing an Amtrak spokesperson about the photography policy, in which the spokesperson was saying that photography is absolutely okay but the interview was interrupted by a security guard coming to tell them to stop filming immediately as it is prohibited.
www.wavefront-av.com
I knew there had to be a logical basis behind the guard's actions.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
In Texas, Municipal Utility Districts provide utilities to places that municipalities have yet to reach. If you want to build subdivision out in the middle of nowhere, you can set up a MUD to provide (typically) water service. MUDs have (sort of) public infrastructure (storage tanks, pumping stations, etc.) that needs to be protected, so they have been granted the authority to set up police forces.
Now, here's the deal. There have been a few situation where a subdivision development failed and the MUD ceased operating. It still existed as a legal entity, though. Some creative types then bought the defunct entity for peanuts, went "active", and proceeded to equip their police force with automatic weapons. Really, these were guys who just wanted to own and shoot machine guns but couldn't get through the approval process, something that's impossible if you have a local top cop who, for political reasons, refuses to sign off on your paperwork. (Nothing in federal law compels them; local sherrifs/chiefs of police have, essentially, veto power over whether private citizens within their jurisdiction can own automatic weapons.) Police forces, however, do not have to get any approval from anyone outside their ranks to own such firearms.
It was a neat trick. I remember when it hit the papers some years ago. I don't recall if anyone ever got around to closing that loophole, though.
Erm, that press release for the photo contest is from 2003, and there's no indication that they've carried it forward to 2008/2009. If there's no active photo contest, that destroys the irony (the main point) of the story.
You call this a sig?
Hopefully I'm not alone here. I don't feel alone.
*crickets chirp* ...
*tumbleweed*
What, you mean climate change can occur without modern society causing it?
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -- Kosh
I have encountered this with train security guys. (yard bulls)
I take photos of graffiti and have on numerous occasions argued with a Burlington northern and pacific railway rep over if its legal to take pictures of their trains or not.
They try to cite national security. I merely show them my photos and tell them it's for pictures of the artwork, not the structure for a terrorist attack. They get nervous when you are blunt, but they have NO legal right to deny you taking pictures if you are on public land, or on private property where "no photography" is not on any sinage.
I don't think he said he took pics of a dude. He said he took pics of a girl. No wonder you're being such a douche - you don't even understand what he said.
It was all those flatulent horses pulling their chariots!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The contest rules on the front page say:
It also specifically reminds participants not to trespass:
Try this one out Guard stops the interview of the Amtrak spokesman who says that photography at the station is okay: http://boingboing.net/2008/06/02/security-interrupts.html Until they fire and prosecute the security morons for these events they will continue with egg on their faces.
Their constant support of assaults on the Constitution and their support of extra- and outright illegal acts all in the name of a Global "War on Terror" are directly responsible for the atmosphere that allows these sorts of violations to occur.
Let's hope the new administration realizes what it means to be American.
You can have Freedom or Security, but not both.
The America I thought I grew up in wants Freedom more than Security.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
Last time I was in vacation and wanted to take pics of trains, I searched for the train station's police officer and when I found him I asked him whether it is okay to photograph passing trains. I know photography is not prohibited, but I also know how paranoid our world has become, so I think it's better to ask first before taking any photo in public if you want to be safe. The downside of this, of course, is that you effectivelly surrender the right to take photos without approval, but in effect this right has already been eroded as a result of the paranoia so it really makes little sense.
He rode the train. He wasn't loitering. He wasn't trespassing. Especially when passengers were invited by Amtrak to take photos for a contest.
Rutgers-New Brunswick too, if I'm not mistaken.
You can't. Just give them whatever it is and move on with your life. If you feel comfortable doing so, file a complaint with the proper authorities. Unless whatever they are asking for is REALLY important (such as your first born child or something like that), you aren't going to do anybody any good.
Property is an abstract concept, guns are real. If you are going to imperil your life, you should have a good reason to do so.
Its just that Paris Hilton was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw a story about trains.
Have gnu, will travel.
From the oppressive Bose-Einstein statistics!
Despite what a lot of posters believe, I have found most cops to be reasonable people. Imagine yourself in their shoes. They have to deal with all sorts of people, ranging from ordinary folks to violent criminals to self-righteous politicians. So one of the things they have to do is quickly size up who they are dealing with as a matter of survival. It is important to recognize this and act in a way that shows them that you are a reasonable person and not a threat or self-important jerk.
They are not experts in the law, but are charged with enforcing it. When in doubt, they may feel the need to take you to the station and let their bosses sort out the problem. How you act has a great deal of influence on this decision.
Just like most of us, they are working stiffs and have bosses. They are expected to do what the bosses tell (or don't tell) them to do. Arresting you is a lot of work and they would rather just resolve the issue and move on.
They are tasked with protection and when they see things that may be threatening, they attempt to address it. Usually it is a boss or Homeland Security training that says "watch out for photographers". So the guy is just doing what he was told.
When I have been approached, I act respectful, ask what his concern is, then ask if I may open my camera bag and show him the document that indicates to me that I may photograph. They appreciate my understanding and upon reviewing the docs, we always come to agreement.
This is not some stupid them-vs-us argment. If you handle this right, you educate them (a good thing) and/or yourself. If we all did this, life would be easier for all of us.
Place nail here >+