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.
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?
Actually, this is exactly in line with what many of the libertarian-minded slashdotters would like to see (whether they're aware of it or not). This is what happens when you have privately-owned and operated "police" forces that offer their services to the higher bidder. There are some things that government should do, and that is why we have governments in the first place. Police services are one of them. Another is reliable oversight and a means to petition abuses of those services.
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.
Monospace fonts are just fine -- it's the one-pixel width of the characters that make it a bitch to read.
Um Amtrak is part of the federal government.
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
For all it's worth, Amtrak is owned by your federal government. Amtrak having a police force is is really just the federal government operating another specialized police force. Nearly all major transit systems employ some form of transit police. To not do so is simply irresponsible (there are real safety concerns on a transit system, just like how there are real safety concerns out on a street). Sometimes, if the system is local, its just a specialized unit of the local police force, other times the system has its own force composed of officers who are sworn in with local police forces (so really just a difference in bureaucracy and funding). In nearly all cases, its kind of moot cause many transit systems are government own, or heavily funded by the government.
In Amtrak's case of being a nation-wide system, you really can't expect anything other than Amtrak employ its own police forces. The FBI won't just create a Amtrak unit, and dealing with multiple police forces (crime occurs on a train moving between jurisdictions?) is just silly.
You're over reacting.
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.
"... something to consider is that the terrorists in the recent Mumbai attacks had extensive photo and video reconnaissance of places..."
You should also consider that the terrorist ate. And probably talked. And used cell phones. And slept.
Better yet, consider that a really stupid line of argument.
"Actually, this is exactly in line with what many of the libertarian-minded slashdotters would like to see (whether they're aware of it or not)."
Bull. Libertarians have always recognized defense (including from criminals) as a legitimate purpose of government.
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.
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
Photographers have it really bad in this country... more than ever.
It is very important to have something like this with you, or to at least read it and have a copy. There are other resources online about Photographer rights and how they pertain.
Cops dont like to be challenged. They especially do not like to be outsmarted. So before you spring one of these papers on a cop and say "gotcha!", you should be polite and as nonthreatening as you can possibly be.
Make the officer feel comfortable with you, even if the officer is being a complete dick. You can often diffuse their attitude with politeness because people respond to respect and politeness.
I've taking pictures on public places, doing outdoor photo shoots etc and I've had cops check us out to see what is going on. They usually just observe to make sure you're not causing trouble or destroying property. All they really want to know is if you're trouble or not.
If they ask you what you're doing, say its for school, and you're learning photography. If you have GEAR... real gear, they're probably going to figure out you're telling the truth. Who the hell is lugging around soft boxes and strobes to public places, intending to anything illegal or harmful? Permits are smart if you can get them. But lets be real... sometimes we dont shoot with permits in "low risk of being arrested" situations :)
I can understand how police may not want you taking pictures of trains or the station but there really isnt anything wrong with it. Especially since AMTRAK was holding a contest. People have historically taking photos of trains and family members boarding or arriving at stations. Its so common that I cant imagine not being able to shoot a photo in front of a train or of a train.
I would never delete a picture a cop told me to. Thats ridiculous. I grew up skateboarding, and we would record ourselves street skating all over and I had to deal with many cops, and in general they've been nice. Most just want you to leave, and then there are some who are just assholes. In general, most of the cops were good natured folks... stern and authoritative but... good folks.
Its the dumb assholes that ruin it. Unfortunately most people dont really care about their personal freedoms anymore, and police sometimes dont act with "civil rights" in mind. Theres a video somewhere online where a cop slams a female photographer on the street, she hits her face and is seriously hurt. She wasnt even doing anything wrong other than being witness to a civil protest. Things like that make me sad and make me wonder just what America is anymore.
Anyways... be nice, know your rights and CONVERSE with the officer if possible. Make them feel comfortable with you. Ultimately if they want you to leave... its best to leave because it will just cost you a lot of money to fight it in court... even if you're right. The time wasted, the headaches, the nonsense... its not worth it sometimes.
I've been saying America is dead for a long time. It just goes to show you that your rights dont mean shit and everyday you need to make sure you stand up for them.
George Carlin said it best... just google Carlin "You have no rights" on youtube.
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.
So if you get pulled over for no legitimate reason you are going to accept getting arrested (if that is the punishment for the fake reason you were pulled over) and complain later? The officer is not *the* judge but he is a judge and sometimes they make poor decisions. Stop the stupid decisions from even being made. Explain your rights up front. There is such a thing as false arrest. I'd prefer to tell the cop myself instead of letting him find out by the case winding its way through the court system.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
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.
And if they run it every year... that means come July 2009 there will be another cut-off. Just because they're not accepting new photos doesn't mean that you can't get your good shots now. Especially if you want someone in snow, winter coats, etc.
You mean the same Canada that taxes anything even vaguely related to music or movies -- including blank media and concert halls -- and sends that tax money straight to the RIAA/MPAA?
I think he meant the Canada that doesn't have complete freedom of the Press. Or perhaps the Canada that treats its natives even worse than America does. Maybe the Canada that's deliberately destroying its environment in northern Alberta to extract oil from the oil sands to prop up their economy (the ONLY reason their economyh isn't tanking). Probably one of those. Canada's a pretty cool country, but it's not perfect, as much as some would like to think. Now watch this get modded down as troll. :)
I've developed the habit of whenever I am doing anything I know someone will object to strenuously but is fully within my legal rights of printing out the relevant statutes and carrying them with me. Hasn't failed me yet.
I realize that data is not the plural of anecdote, but when there appear to be thousands of anecdotes about rent-a=cops harassing citizen photographers and zero anecdotes about rent-a-cops successfully foiling terrorist reconnaissance operations then perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong about how the rent-a-cops are performing their duties.
That's sort of funny, it's actually illegal to take pictures of illegal activities happening whilst in transit in the London Underground if you don't have a permit?
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.
Dealing with the cops will limit your freedom. They'll ask for your ID, ask you a bunch of questions while they check for warrants and parking tickets, bring you to a room to photograph and fingerprint you until it becomes such a hassle that you stop. You won't get back a freedom by giving it up.
The fact that the contest exists goes to prove that Amtrak has a policy of permitting photography of its trains. This is what the photographer wants to convey. If you call Amtrak customer relations you will be told that photography is permitted from all publicly accessible areas, which includes Penn Station.
Amtrak police are both violating the law and their company policy by interfering with photographers. I have heard of several photographers who have won cash settlements from Amtrak because they were detained for questioning, causing them to miss their train. You would think they would learn their lesson and rein in their police force but I guess it doesn't matter since its our tax dollars they are spending...
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