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.
I've not done the research, but here in the UK we have the British Transport Police, who police the railways and so forth, and are real cops. Can any Americans shed some light?
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
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
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?
Railroads have had their own police forces for as long as I can remember - and I'm 48. This isn't anything new or insidious.
I am bothered by the fact that photographers get hassled - quite often - by overzealous officials who don't seem to know what's legal and what's not. This happened up here in Seattle a bit after 9/11 when a photographer was photographing a railroad trestle. But if you're in a public space, you are allowed to photograph pretty much anything you can see (even people) without permission.
#DeleteChrome
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.
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.
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!
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.
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...
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 #!
They are, to all intents and purposes, failed cops.
Its unfair to say they are failed cops.
Just because your a nurse that doesn't mean your a failed doctor it means you want to be a nurse, same applies with transport police.
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.
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?
We're kind of running out of "enlightened" countries to run to. We need to make a stand and fix things, here and now.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Amtrak is a for-profit corporation created by Congress in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1971, assuming the common carrier obligations of the private railroads (which found passenger service to be generally unprofitable) in exchange for the right to priority access of their tracks for incremental cost. Its preferred stock is owned by the U.S. federal government, but its common stock is owned by railroads that contributed capital and equipment to its formation.
(Of course, Amtrak has never actually turned a profit...)
"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.
>"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?"
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
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
...none of those things are as much a precondition of successful terrorist action like photography in the Mumbai attacks.
I can guarantee you that if we ban (and are successful in enforcing the ban) eating and sleeping, we will prevent future terrorist attacks. I'd say those things are very much a precondition of a successful terrorist action - much more so than photographs.
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
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.
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.
Amtrack Guest Rewards?
This signature intentionally left unblank.
That's only half the problem - the other half is why people (not only the police!) are so paranoid about photography, as if everyone taking pictures is suddenly scoping the place out for a terrorist attack.
It seems like we (of the Slashdot groupthink) are the minority. When I was in the US I met many people who couldn't understand why I despised the TSA/CATSA (Canadian equivalent), and are still incredibly paranoid about hijackings on flights. Many even vehemently argued that curtailing civil liberties is absolutely essential, or the entire country will go to hell in a hand basket.
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?
You know, I live in a Canada, but it's really nothing like that at all. I've never heard of the Canada you're talking about (I even searched Google for it.) Frankly I'm a little surprised that there is another country called Canada.
The Canada I live in has a levy on blank CDs, just like the USA. However none of the money goes to the RIAA or MPAA - it goes to the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) who distributes it to music artists and labels (not all of which are CRIA members.)
(Seriously, if you're going to criticize something, get your facts straight first.)
This is not a new problem for RR photographers, which are legion. http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=3941
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.
Natives in Canada are treated by far better over the course of our nation's history than they have ever been treated in the US. And for the oversights and bad judgement shown in the past, our parliament has been addressing these issues over the past several years -- most recently providing significant settlements for those affected by aboriginal schooling.
Nunavut is a territory set up specifically to address issues of self government for the Innu. Its probably a territory larger than any US state (maybe Texas is bigger).
I'd be willing to compare and contrast Canadian vs American native policies any day of the week.
As for complete freedom of the press...care to enlighten us as to what's lacking?
The fact that your comment is modded as insightful is a sad statement on the effectiveness of moderation points IMHO.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Bullshit. I work at a large federal facility and they have explicitly said in a policy memo that photography is permitted on and around the facility. The only exception is for secure areas where classified information is stored or handled. In those cases, the secure area is posted with big signs that cite the relevant federal law and the prohibited activities.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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
Nunavut is almost exactly three times as big as Texas. Nunavut is 808,190 square miles according to wikipedia, and Texas is 268,820 square miles.
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]
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!
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