Slashdot Mirror
Police Stop Journalists From Photographing Metrorail System
schwit1 writes with this excerpt from Reason.com:
"Carlos Miller, who runs the Photography Is Not a Crime blog, and veteran photojournalist Stretch Leford decided to test the photography rules in Miami-Dade's metrorail system. Before embarking on their test, they obtained written assurance from Metro Safety and Security Chief Eric Muntan that there's no law against non-commercial photography on the system. The two didn't make it past the first station before they were stopped. Employees of 50 State Security, the private firm contracted to provide the metro's security, stopped the pair first. They then called in local police. The private firm and the police then threatened the two with arrest, demanded their identification (to check them against a terrorist watch list), demanded multiple times that they stop filming, and eventually 'banned' Miller and Ledford from the metro system 'for life' (though it's doubtful they had the authority to do so)."
So a private security firm AND the police have the right to try and sentence people without so much as a trial? NICE! I bet Miami-Dade PD is going to have to throw up some decent PR on this one... Oh wait, it's in the name of anti-terrorism and public safety...
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
It bakes law enforcement brains in Florida.
I'd like to see this same experiment done on Philadelphia's extensive transit system (SEPTA). Considering that it's pretty easy for the homeless to urinate just about everyone in the system and go unpunished for it... I bet photography is also on the list of least concerns.
Photography of sites is surprisingly unhelpful to terrorists. The reality is that there's usually a copy of plans for the building on the web somewhere, the photography being banned is more a matter of trying not to freak out the people that work in the building. Given the changes to technology over the years, it's pretty much inevitable that the people that are caught aren't doing anything. Since cameras are commonly small enough to not be spotted with any effort at all to conceal them.
I thought all journalist were on the terrorist watch list? After 9/11 it at least seemed they adopted the novel 1984 as their handbook. 1984 didn't specifically call journalist terrorist but they would have been viewed in that world very much as Tuttle in Brazil.
Exactly, a train can be far more massive than any airplane!
Imagine what would happen if terrorists took control of a train and flew it into a building!
It would be 911 times a hundred.
Afterall, if the pen is mightier than the sword and a picture is worth a thousand words, then a camera is a veritable weapon of mass destruction compared to a measly box cutter.
The free world isn't so free anymore... ... Because we've all been stupid enough to demand 100% safety and security from our nations (I'm European myself). Problem however is that terrorists are the perfect guerilla fighters. They are just a member of the general public, until they strike. So, the only way to work on this increased safety and security is to treat the entire population of the world as a suspect.
I'm not surprised that the world is turning out the way it is... And, there is no way that we can blame anyone but ourselves for it.
Hardly ever have I encountered anyone arguing that we could do with less security. Nobody says that it's not worth the money... But, actually, we can... Which is why I think we've all been stupid. On the other hand, demanding for less security practically brands you as a terrorist, so asking for it is not exactly smart either :-)
Stop! Lawsuit time!
(U Can Film This!)
Don't they understand that just because there's no law against it doesn't mean that you're allowed to do it? That's exactly the kind of mistake that The Terrorists might make if they came to the Land of the Free and thought that you were allowed to actually exercise said Freedoms. See? That's why their behavior was suspicious.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The train gestapo must prevent passengers from writing down the names of the stops as well. If the terrorists ever get hold of such a list, they've won.
Living in Miami, the Metro-Fail (er, Rail), is pretty much worthless anyway. It doesn't go to the airport, or, for the matter, anywhere else useful. It's long been said, the Metro-Rail was built so the people in the Kendall area (southern point) could go up to north Miami (northern point) to buy drugs - and for the most part, I still agree (though, personally, don't do drugs). Regardless, look up WHERE the Metro in Miami goes. It's one of the worst designed rail systems in the WORLD (well, ok, L.A.'s isn't much better - another failure that somehow doesn't go to the airport).
This is far from over.
I'm glad to see that part of the article. They even presented to the security guards the very letter that granted the photographers permission, and they were still stopped. The next step is to follow-up on that letter and ask why their guards aren't following their own policies. This was a great experiment: there was no fighting, no harassing the security guards, etc. I really look forward to seeing the result. There is a part of me that hopes hundreds of photographers start going there to try and take photographs.
Criticizing those witless morons isn't very nice.
They aren't even here to defend their enforcement of obnoxious and/or imaginary laws!
To be fair, look at Spain. A lot of people died on the trains. However it doesn't mean that I think law and security forces are not draconian and in short, fucking morons, for stopping these guys from photographing. They are helping the terrorists to win when they violate our freedoms.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
So far most democracies are somewhere between steps #1 and #2 most of the time. although they make more and more frequent excursions past step #2 and are always trying for their ultimate step #3 (it makes their lives so much easier).
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Obviously they were trying to provoke a response, which if someone is acting suspicious and literally trying to get negative response from security and police they will get one
Funny how, when we don't stop anyone, and someone flies in to the side of a building, we instantly ask "why didn't security notice and stop that dodgy looking guy?!
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
I used to ride the local train all the time to commute to work and I had the stops, the police beat and minor details of the route memorized. And I have a crappy memory. Someone with a great memory and a memory enhancing techniques could easily rival a photo - photos don't capture 3 dimensions very well.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Isn't that how it worked in this case? They revealed a camera, and all of the sudden they were terrorized by ignorant, arrogant, bullies pretending to "serve and protect" the public welfare of our citizens. I think its quite clear these cops are acting just like domestic terrorists - and paid for with our tax dollars! Who is in charge of our country anyway? Citizens or government bankrolled thugs without a clue?
Shouldn't cameras be confiscated right at the airports, for safe measure? All in the name of security?
Jesus !! .. 911 TIMES A HUNDRED !! .. thats like .. 91100 !!!
Which makes it even more odd that the people who are detained always seem to be using DSLR cameras. If you use a cheap point and shoot camera, you're likely to be left alone but break out the DSLR with a big lens and you'll get security guards demanding that you delete the photos or face Homeland Security. Meanwhile any terrorist who actually wanted to use photos to plan his attack would likely use a cell phone camera or easily-hidden point and shoot camera. Or maybe he'll just have a notebook and pencil and sketch the train station while appearing to be taking notes. Yikes! We'd better ban paper & writing implements in public areas! Quick, before the terrorists use them to destroy us all!!!!!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I had a similar problem at a European airport: it's not allowed to take pictures near the check-in counter of flights to the U.S.
What irritates me is, that I believe such a ban is useless and in no way improves public safety. Without massive security personnel (which they don't have) there is no way to stop someone with bad intentions to take all the pictures or even video that he wants. e.g. with a hidden camera. So why bother to forbid a harmless tourist to take a picture of his loved ones, only because he openly shows his camera?
Is this stupid or am I missing something? And if it is, I hope - in my own interest as a traveler - that other security measures were chosen more wisely.
Yeah, it's worse than the old days when they'd hijack a train and take it to Cuba.
Wake up lemmings.
It's normal that government has a public friendly official policy line, yet in reality has a completely different mentality.
I'm impressed with the response time. And I hope you Brits never have to go through the experience of terrorism again in your lifetime.
Here in the Netherlands, public transport isn't public at all. Trains, busses, subways etc. are run by private companies. Its up to them to decide what they allow on their terrain and I know for a fact that making photographes isn't something they allow. Not because of terrorist threats by the way, but to protect the privacy of travellers using their service.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
I am fairly convinced that a lot of it comes from two things:
1. Deciding that a place needs more security, and hiring human security guards to provide it.
2. Choosing strategically-shaven chimps as your security guards who feel the need to assert what little authority they're given. (This is more-or-less an inevitable consequence of the fact that most security work is badly paid and intensely boring - it's not the kind of thing that will attract the sharpest tools in the box).
Authority recognises authority, and seldom undermines it. So when the chim^H^H^H^H security guards call for police backup, it's fairly common for the police to back up what they say even if it's patent nonsense. In essence, the law is decided on the fly by the security guard and by the time someone in a higher office has seen sense, it's already been splashed all over the media.
Do you really think there's terrorists everywhere constantly planning attacks?
I'm pretty sure there aren't.
No sig today...
I wish I had half the balls those guys do!
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
This is just another example of how the western world has shown just how effective terrorism is. Especially if your goal is to make your enemy into a police state and loose every human right they once had.
Free travel, the right to privacy, free speech, innocent until proven guilty all of them are on the way out. It wont happen over night but we are going there much faster than i thought people would allow.
This was the very goal of the 9/11 attacks and we have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker.
Biggest winner are China and other suppressing states that nowadays seem pretty innocent. Its very hard for other countries to demonize them when they in many regards are just as bad, compared to China they are just a lighter shade of gray.
In essense its like a criminal complaining when someone steals something from them.
HTTP/1.1 400
Oh, sorry, it looked like an RPG to me...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Honestly... if I were staking out a metro station I would wear a decent suit with a high-res hidden camera in my tie clasp, and just wander around the metro system taking footage.
I think that, or the taking notes/sketching situation, is far more likely than some guys with giant DSLR's being terrorists.
....and again... the Metro in Miami doesn't GO anywhere even remotely interesting... IF someone were to blow it up (no, I'm not suggesting someone does, relax DHS), it wouldn't do much harm....
Jesus !! .. 911 TIMES A HUNDRED !! .. thats like .. 91100 !!!
And that's somewhere near Beverly Hills, which means we'd lose a lot of REALLY IMPORTANT people!!!
Well, Mr Clever Man, DSLRs can have big lenses on them. How can you tell whether or not its got an RPG hidden inside it without stopping them and searching their cavities? ANSWER ME THAT!
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
First of all, there was never an arrest by law enforcement. Second where the two photographers screwed up is they never had written permission to photograph/videotape the facility. They had a hard copy of a email which is worthless. Had they had a real letter which was signed by the security chief, they could have presented it to the security captain and said if he had questions, refer him to the chief.
Let's be clear about security, they are a joke. Security management is even a bigger joke, which is what a security Capt is, a joke and a half with no real knowledge of anything beyond whatever is written in their policy manual. They are not law enforcement, they do not have the extensive training nor selection process to weed out the not too swift. Metro-Dade, IIRC, is an accredited agency which means 90%+ have to have at least a two year degree besides passing the law enforcement academy(1,600+ hours) and FDLE standards.
The two should have pulled away from the situation and attempted it on another day when the Chief of Security (which I bet is a government employee and not some security hack) was available to confirm everything. But that wouldn't make any headlines like on /., now would it?
If they play it right a bunch of out-of-control rent-a-cops will soon have a new career, flipping burgers.
do you mean Cuba, MO?
it could have been funny like this show in Australia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McB9tsabPn0
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Few questions and observations:
Can government owned property be classed as private property (and the implications that go with that)?
Did the security guy just say there was no law against photography on the metro or did he specifically say it was fine to take pictures on the metro?
If it's private property and there is no specific rule saying photography is fine then the security guards were probably within their rights to eject them from the metro (provided they followed company guidelines).
If I invite you over to my house for dinner, there's no law that says you can't say my cooking sucks but that doesn't mean I can't tell you to get out of my house if you do and call the police if you refuse to budge.
... and the police attracts the sort of people who need to validate themselves by intimidating other people. Private security and bouncers are the same kind of people, apart from the fact that they're too shit to qualify to join the police. These people are just the same kind of pissants who would steal lunch money and give wedgies in the locker room at school. Losers who are only winners in their own minds.
You should be feeling sorry for these kinds of people. Cop/mallcop big-man-small-dick syndrome should be classified as a disease, and its sufferers should be pitied rather than be despised.
That said, as an avid photographer myself, I'd like to see a bit of clarity on what my rights and obligation are when I'm out taking pictures; lest I run into an officious pindick looking to ruin my day.
It's best to just call in the Apaches and let them clear up the RPG/camera confusion from above. It works in Iraq!
That is what's known in the vernacular as TNB.
And yet, somehow, nothing of importance would be lost...
In Japan, I have traveled to every station on the Nagoya Subway, taking pictures. (3rd or 4th largest city in Japan, about 80 stations.)
I stood out, being a giant white guy, carrying what is to American police an "Evil, Terrorist-style" DSLR, with a 10-20mm lens on it.
Not a single security guard or police officer even tried to talk to me. (Actually, the only time in Japan security guards have talked to me is when I was taking pictures in a mall that had "No Photography" signs posted at all entrances)
Why are DSLRs so "Evil", when small point and shoots are just fine? Sure the picture quality might be better, but you don't need Ansel Adams quality to plan something.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
These security firms don't have contact with the officials for what they're guarding. They have an old rough set of guidlines.
They aren't updated on what is allow and isn't. They just do their job based on their assumptions provided by their own supervisors, who again, have no contact with county officials.
They're using their grammar skills there.
In essence, the law is decided on the fly by the security guard and by the time someone in a higher office has seen sense, it's already been splashed all over the media.
You know how the suits can keep this from happening?
By properly training their "strategically-shaven chimps" to understand where/what the limits of their authority are.
If the security guard had been recorded calling someone a nigger/kike/wetback/other,
we would have instantly heard that the guard was suspended or being sent to sensitivity training.
Why doesn't pissing all over the law receive the same kind of immediate PR response?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I think to be sure we should take off and do it from orbit...
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
What I got from his mention "of color" was the skin color of the guy who shoved him aside was different from his, and was the same as the guard's. Its possible that race was a factor in the conduct of those two (e.g. the "high five" he mentioned). Whether or not it contributes to his own bias in reporting the incident, it was still worth mentioning because it was a small but potentially contributing factor in the original situation.
As for his choice of an "outdated, offensive term", what the fuck is he supposed to say then? If he can't say "black" and he can't say "of color", he would have to say "Negro", and then everyone one jump on him for singling out the perp's race. Actually, I think "of color" was one of the least offensive phrases he could have chosen to convey that there was a racial difference without getting all politically correct about it. He wasn't trying to be offensive -- now if he had said "nigger", THAT would have been offensive. But I guess some people are just determined to be offended, no matter what is actually said.
Pretending that there are no differences in culture, behaviour, etc. among people from different ethnic groups is to stick your head in the sand. Skin color does affect how people judge each other and treat each other, even subconsciously. The challenge before all of us is to recognize that all people, of all ethnic backgrounds, should be treated with the same dignity and respect, at least until they have individually demonstrated in some way that they don't deserve it.
The cops (and rent-a-cops) are being told to look for "suspicious activity" by their bosses (without being told what "suspicious activity" actually is). Ultimately, the harassment of photographers is a "cover your ass" move by the cops and security.
No-one wants to be the one who was on duty when the bad guys cased the station before carrying out the next terror attack on a major transit network (remember the Sarin Gas attack on the Tokyo subway, the Madrid bombs and the London Underground bombs, all 3 were terror attacks on transit systems)
DSLRs can have big lenses on them. How can you tell whether or not its got an RPG hidden inside it
A DSi also has a camera, but people routinely hide RPGs inside them.
You can't deny that most of the thugs in the trains are 'of color'. You might not like it, I might not like it, but no amount of wishful thinking makes the facts go away.
Get robbed? Ten-to-one odds it's by someone 'of color'.
I'm not saying every colored person is a robber. I'm not saying whiteys can't be scum. I'm just pointing out that most of the (petty) crime is performed by melatonin enhanced people.
Let's start using those little bitty spy cams. Wireless, so they can't steal and destroy the evidence.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155111&cid=13002073
On the "personal photography" (okay) vs. "commercial or terrorist photography" (not okay) question -- A couple years back I was taking pictures of an interesting fountain in the corridors linking a Chicago convention center with a Metra station when a cop came up and told me I couldn't take photographs of the interior of the building because "since 9/11" etc etc. I never did check to see if the city was trying to enforce such a rule, but I doubted it was her bright idea -- she was fairly apologetic about it, said she could see that I was just taking photos of the fountain, but had to ask me to stop anyway.
While we were talking, she mentioned that it would have been okay if I had been taking pictures with my girlfriend (who was standing next to me while this was going on) in them, instead of specifically photographing the architecture. I suppose that could have been this particular officer's personal guiding philosophy, but it sounded like an institutionalized rule. Apparently if you're taking posed, touristy "look at us in [place]" pictures you're not doing it for terrorist plotting purposes, and it seems fairly obvious that you're not planning to sell the photos.
tl;dr: To placate security, professional photographers should always drag along an assistant whose job is to stand around close to the shot and grin inanely at the camera.
Possibly because he feels that noting (politely) the race of the person is, in fact relevant? Perhaps, in that station or in that neighborhood, there is a crime problem largely associated with a particular race?
This would not be surprising. Looking at the national crime statistics, blacks commit robbery at a per-capita rate far higher than any other ethnic group. Not mentioning this information because it is politically incorrect only makes the underlying problems harder to address.
The fact that his remark may be politically incorrect does not necessarily make it wrong or irrelevant.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Ya, and if I walk around parties with a DSLR, people think I'm a creeper or pervert. But when I bring out the camera or point and shoot, everything is just fine. What gives?
Yes you can sue a law enforcement officer in FL as well as their agency. There are no laws shielding the individual cop from anything other then Good Samaritan Act. This is the reason why PBA/FoP/IUPA collect so much money, legal bills of officers, pay their legal bills.
If I recall correctly, /. had a similar thread some time back and someone posted to something official that was recommended to carry with you in your camera back about having the right to photograph public places.
I've googled and can't seem to find it. Anyone?
You stereotypers are all the same...
The desire to keep one's job is likely at the heart of this. If they see someone taking lots of pictures, they could be an amateur photographer, a tourist, an internal security force auditor, a journalist, or a terrorist - in that order of probability I'd guess. Now, if anything bad happens on their watch, they're going to be flipping burgers next week. They've been taught (in the regular "classes") the signs of potential trouble, and someone taking lots of photos is one of those signs. Since journalists, photogs, and tourists aren't covered in those classes - except possibly in passing. That means the guy taking pictures is mostly likely a terrorist, or possibly someone from your security company checking up on how well you applied your recent training.
The possible results are that the photog and the tourist will very quickly comply since they're not really interested in getting into trouble - they just wanted a neat picture. The auditor or terrorist will flash false journalist or other credentials (i.e. a fake letter). The real journalist would have registered and your superior would have notified you if there were some event happening.
So, to keep you job, you hassle everyone. If they're persistant, you call the police and let them sort it out.
Is this a good practice? Hell no. It sucks.
IMO, the proper response for a moderate-risk target would be to ask for and verify the ID, verify the purpose and authorization. Take a copy of the authorization (like the letter) and report to the next level up. If there is none, note the place and time of the incident and, ideally, get a photo of the people involved - report it up the chain.
The gueard was clearly in the wrong, but to be fair - he may have just been looking to save his own ass.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
And when the photographers tried to explain and show proof that they were right, she just walked away.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Then why did they take the hard copy of the email with them in the first place?
This seems like a perfect venue for a flash crowd. Imagine hundreds of people showing up at once, snapping pictures of everything in sight. Just to liven things up, some percentage of them could just use their cell phones to text, which if held in the right position would look like they're taking pictures.
Hey, that's offensive to chimps!
Now, if you wanted to hire a cymbal clapping monkey toy as your security guard they're remarkably effective!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Some fucking NIGGER who thinks he can be a fucking criminal because of people like you making excuses for him was a fucking criminal. Now, this has nothing to do with your average, law-abiding "person of color". This is has to do with NIGGERS! There is time and time again where wantonly criminal niggers think they can push around law-abiding white people and noone will do anything about it. If you try to stand up for yourself you're accused of racism. FUCK YOU! LET'S SHOOT IT OUT YOU FUCKING BITCH! FUCK NIGGERS!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
A frightening thought indeed!
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
If I recall correctly, /. had a similar thread some time back and someone posted to something official that was recommended to carry with you in your camera back about having the right to photograph public places.
I've googled and can't seem to find it. Anyone?
Try googling "photographer's rights card":
http://www.billadler.net/Photographer's_Legal_Rights_Card.pdf
or
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
To really put to the test you need a really good sketch artist and a photographer. Send out the artist and when he is just about done sketching the area call over the photography to photograph the same scene. It he is arrested for any reason you put it to the court test with the artist.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
If you don't live in the area, the city, county, and state have no reason to listen to you.
However, the folks at the various chambers of commerce do tend to listen to those who will not be spending money there, especially if you can tell them exactly why, and point them to specific events.
For instance: The Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce
http://miamichamber.com/toplinks/Contact_Us.aspx
You may not convince the legislatures to listen to you, but sometimes it can be enough to convince someone with a bigger voice to speak on your behalf.
See this video clip from Stargate "heroes" episode about the importance of freedom of the press: The guy BLASTS the camera crew for turning off camera... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVV-Pi9gviE
Your comment reminds me of something I read, where an internet-ranter referred to "urban camouflage".
I should think that if these guys had done almost exactly the same thing, but also had clipboards, hard hats, and hi-vis jackets, nothing would have happened. Well, maybe they would have been asked what was going on, but the guards probably would have taken anything said as the truth, because of the magical powers of hi-vis clothing.
Car analogies break down.
So a couple of photographers wanted to push the boundaries of the law and got caught...who cares! Clearly they were acting in a commercial capacity and had no intent on actually using the footage for educational purposes, except to waste tax-payer's money in pointless litigation and police resources. If these "journalists" had actually wanted to educate people about the MDT then they could have put together something that details how much time it saves people to ride the MDT, or how energy-efficient it is, or how you meet the nicest people riding on the MDT... However, this was not the case and all they wanted to do was see how far they could push the law. They were not some unknowing tourists, they weren't some kids out for a field-trip, they weren't even interested in real journalism...they just wanted to create some controversy, launch some litigation and get themselves a little press. Congrats on letting people know that they can count on you to keep expensive lawyers employed and raise the taxes of Miami-Dade citizens just a little bit more.
Why can't we have a "Photograph the MD Metro" page? That will stop 'em!
You pretentious fascist asshat. I routinely DO NOT CARRY ID. There is NO REASON, in a country based on liberty and freedom, to have ANY ID at all, let alone so a pig can ask you for "Your Papers please".
I'm also a photographer and the absurdity of the "don't photograph" crowd, in violation of First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments is unfathomable to me.
These people had a RIGHT to do what they did. It wasn't a privilege. The gov is clearly in the wrong here.
And that's Over Nine Thousand, and that's a lot!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
A couple of guys down in Texas one-time, grabbed another guy and chained him to the back of a vehicle and dragged him for miles until his head fell off. Nice and politically correct. Noones race is identified. It isn't relevant and adds nothing to the discussion. Proving: YOU'RE A DIPSHIT!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Maybe your state has really stupid background check laws, in which case you need to bring that up with your state legislature. In my state (Arizona) the question is "Have you been convicted of a felony in the past 7 years?" That is what they can do a check on. Not arrests, not stuff going way back, felonies in the last 7 years.
So in my state at least, getting arrested won't be a problem with regards to an employment background check. As I said, if yours is different take it up with your state government.
Not to mention that lots of private security workers and bar bouncers are criminals or drug-users and wouldn't be caught dead in a police cruiser, ESPECIALLY in the front seat.
... and you're welcome to it.
A lot of the problems are due to the ambiguity in the way the various laws apply, and a lack of clarity in the way these are explained to the public, the security guards and police officers. This is not the security guards fault; they were probably instructed to 'watch out for suspicious activity', without a clear definition of what constitutes 'suspicious activity'.
One way to solve this might be for the local authorities to make a public statement to the effect that "Photography is legal and accepted behavior in public places; unless there are clearly displayed signs that prohibit it".
The important part of that is "the clearly displayed signs" bit. If the owners of a building or transport system don't want people to take photographs, then they must display signs that indicate that photography is prohibited. Without clearly displayed signs stating that photography is prohibited, then threatening arrest for taking photographs would automatically be considered as harassment and unlawful arrest.
We might see an outbreak of 'photography prohibited' signs almost everywhere, but at least it makes it clear where we stand. However, I suspect that there are many places where the owners or authorities are happy for their security personnel to discourage photography on an individual basis, but would balk at the idea of stating their policy in public. Requiring them to state the ban publicly, with permanent signs, may make them re-asses their policy.
"Is the potential threat really worth the cost of putting up all the signs, damaging our public relations and intimidating our passengers / visitors ?"
Once it is clear what places do prohibit photography, then if we (the public) are unhappy with the prohibition or feel that it is unnecessary at that location, we can petition the owners or responsible authorities to remove the ban (small print in the law could require that the sign clearly state who is responsible for the ban).
We do the same for parking in big cities. The penalty in London for parking your car where you are not allowed to is being wheel clamped or towed away. But, in order for this to be legal, there must be clearly displayed signs that state that parking is prohibited at that location and what the penalty is.
At least this might help to clear up the current confusion.
Second, the police were AMAZINGLY patient with them. At 2:55 One officer asked a dozen times for their ID and he refuses. That's just wrong, any officer has the right to ask for an ID if they have any reason to do so. If you're just standing there looking "suspicious", a cop can ask for ID. Why? So they can know who the hell you are. If you're innocent and don't have warrants out you have no reason not to say "sure here's my ID".
No. Officers can demand you verbally identify yourself - "I'm Joe Smith" - but cannot demand you show some kind of ID card. Not everyone carries ID around with them everywhere they go, and some people may not even own an ID card (particularly minors or younger people who haven't bothered to get a driver's license). Driving is an exception, of course, because your driver's license is your proof that you are legally licensed to drive. Oh, and Arizona of course. You'd damn well better have some kind of papers on you proving you're a citizen, at least until a legal challenge makes its way to the Supreme Court and that dumbass law gets struck down.
So you say you're Joe Smith, criminals don't lie?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Wow! Really? Insightful? "pretentious fascist asshat" is Insightful? And I'm a troll?! I've never been marked as a troll in 12 years on here.
/. ...
"There is NO REASON, in a country based on liberty and freedom, to have ANY ID at all, let alone so a pig can ask you for "Your Papers please"."
Of course there is, to make sure you're not a criminal. How else will they know? If everyone could simply say "No you can not see my ID" then how are police suppose to catch criminals? Think criminals are going to give police their real name and social security number? These guys went there looking for a fight, if I was the cop I'd ask for ID too.
"These people had a RIGHT to do what they did."
And what did they do besides go there looking for a fight? We don't know what they were doing, all we know is what they tell us and a video conveniently started after security arrives. What were they doing before security arrived? OH I see:
1. park car
2. take photo
3. POLICE RUSH IN AND ATTACK!
4. submit to
5.
6. PROFIT!
See? There's something missing, police don't come rushing in every time someone takes a photo, or do I need to throw in a car analogy to make this clearer?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
.. but that has been done already. There are several movies where a runaway train crashes into the station and destroys at least part of the building.
But if -as I am strongly convinced- terrorists take their cues from bad movies, trying to ram a cruise ship into a city is much more likely.
I am Joe Smith, you insensitive clod!
If you're just standing there looking "suspicious", a cop can ask for ID. Why? So they can know who the hell you are. If you're innocent and don't have warrants out you have no reason not to say "sure here's my ID".
No, they can ask you to identify yourself. You only have to tell them your name and place of residence, if that (it varies by state, if memory serves). You are not required to carry government-issued ID with you unless you're driving. You cannot be (lawfully) arrested for simply refusing to present ID.
And if you're not driving, but you have your driver's license with you, you are not required to give it to the police officer even if asked.
"No, they can ask you to identify yourself. You only have to tell them your name and place of residence..."
Wrong. 24 states have "stop and identify" statutes, which have been upheld by the US Supreme Court thanks to Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Cops received reports of a man assaulting a women. When they arrived they saw a man standing next to a vehicle with a young woman inside. Cops asked for ID, and when the man protested and refused to provide identification he was arrested. US Supreme court upheld the arrest.
Thanks to this ruling a police officer may detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime” and request that person stop and identify themselves.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
"I routinely DO NOT CARRY ID. There is NO REASON, in a country based on liberty and freedom, to have ANY ID at all, let alone so a pig can ask you for "Your Papers please"."
If a cop asks for your ID and you refuse you can be arrested according to the US Supreme Court.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Whether or not criminals lie is irrelevant. There is NO REQUIREMENT TO CARRY ID in the US. It would be nonsensical therefore to require anyone detained by police to show an ID card on demand. As it happens, there is no such requirement. You must identify yourself (and giving an officer false information is illegal) but you have absolutely no requirement to show an ID card of any kind.
Your arguments in this thread boil down to "but it's harder for police to do their jobs if they can't ask for ID, so of course they can ask for ID!" No. It's harder for cops to do their jobs if they can't randomly search you or your home/vehicle arbitrarily whenever they want, but the Constitution doesn't exist to make the job of a police officer easier. If you have some evidence that showing an ID card is legally required, please point to it (note you're the one making the positive claim).
"I routinely DO NOT CARRY ID. There is NO REASON"
You might want to start carrying an ID after watching this video.
Notice he is not driving a vehicle, he's simply standing next to a truck when the police arrive, and they're not asking for name and address. The police arrest him after he does not show an ID.
This case went to the US Supreme Court and the arrest was upheld.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
From the cops themselves:
Two Nevada statutes were involved in this case. The first, the stop-and-identify statute, Nevada Revised Statutes 171.123, authorizes a police officer to detain any person the officer has reasonable suspicion has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The statute provides that a person who is detained must identify himself but is not required to answer any other questions asked by the officer. The statute has been interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court as requiring only that the person state his or her name to the officer, either verbally or by some other means; there is no requirement that the person provide any document to the officer.
From your second wikipedia link (emphasis mine):
The Nevada Supreme Court had held that the Nevada statute required only that the suspect divulge his name; presumably, he could do so without handing over any documents whatsoever. As long as the suspect tells the officer his name, he has satisfied the dictates of the Nevada stop-and-identify law.
That's pretty much what I said in the first place (emphasis added):
No, they can ask you to identify yourself. You only have to tell them your name and place of residence, if that (it varies by state, if memory serves)
So how, exactly, was I wrong? Your own source corroborates my statement.
Thanks to this ruling a police officer may detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime” and request that person stop and identify themselves.
Yes, but I was not claiming otherwise. You seem to be under the impression that "identify" implies a requirement of providing valid government-issued ID (e.g. a driver's license). That is not the case.
My point was that you are not required to present government-issued identification - you are simply required to give your name (and possibly place of residence, depending on your state), as corroborated by Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada and other cases.
This is true and has happened to me. I was in court and a judge with a temper ordered me arrested for no reason that he revealed (the purpose was mostly likely intimidation), police used excessive force and then charged me with resisting arrest (even though I left the room bleeding and they were of course unharmed). Every lawyer I talked to said it was hopeless to try to sue and the arresting officer made up all kinds of false stuff try to make me look bad (she said I touched some male's private parts during the scuffle and I'm pretty sure I didn't since the scuffle was basically me getting beat up by 5 police officers).
I remember in the videoconferenced hearing afterward me asking "don't you have that on tape?" since it would have been clear I didn't do anything wrong. They didn't have it on tape. They don't want it on tape. They want to do whatever the hell they want with no oversight -- and they do.
PD didn't threaten them with arrest, just the security guards. Based on how many resources the security guards threw at the incident, I wonder if they get bonuses for incidents reported.
Anyways, the licensing board should review their training practices, and 50 State security's hiring and continuous training practices should be audited. I wonder if we'll see these guys doing Michigan border patrol in a few months.
lol.. home of the free .... lol! ROFL! ROFL ROFL!
"You seem to be under the impression that "identify" implies a requirement of providing valid government-issued ID (e.g. a driver's license). That is not the case."
Stop and identify statutes:
"Some “stop and identify” laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest.... As of January 2010, the validity of a law requiring that a person detained do anything more than state his name has not come before the U.S. Supreme Court."
Refusing to identify yourself can be a reason for arrest, and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled if you have to offer anymore than your name, although from the video it seems pretty clear he was arrested for not giving his ID.
Think the National Lawyers Guild and ACLU said it best:
"And in any state, police do not always follow the law, and refusing to give your name may make them suspicious and lead to your arrest, so use your judgment."
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
"I'd like to speak to your supervisor."
That's the first thing they should have said upon being stopped by the private security.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
Why?
Any maximum ranking is artificial. If the maximum was +6, you'd be calling for that to be raised in this one "exception". If the maximum was +7 you'd want that raised...
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Pretty brutal. I searched to see if there was follow-up to the police beating. The person who was beaten, Duanna Johnson, was shot to death later the same year in Memphis. I wonder where the two cops in the beating video were on the night Johnson was shot? Here is a link to a follow-up story on the homicide.
In Stereo Where Available
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
If this is an example of so-called American "freedom", please do the rest of us a favour and stop trying to export it to us. We don't want it.
I am tired of my American friends bleating, almost always erroneously, that the USA is the "freest" place on earth. It is a myth and one they need to stop believing.
A dream is good. A plan is better.
My point was that you are not required to present government-issued identification - you are simply required to give your name (and possibly place of residence, depending on your state), as corroborated by Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada and other cases.
From the Wikipedia article.
Some “stop and identify” laws, such as Colorado’s,[29] require a person detained to provide additional information, including an address and written identification if it is available.
That seems to imply you must show a government ID if there is one. Of course, it all varies by state.
The moral seems to be, if you don't want to have to show your ID in those states, don't carry it with you... Of course, that precludes driving...
There is also the much publicized Arizona law which would require showing proof of legal residency if otherwise stopped by a police officer. I'm not sure if that would change anything though.
Helpful tip in these types of situation. Even if you haven't been formally arrested or mirandized yet, the trick is to spread your legs and put your hands on your head and then ask "is this the correct submission position, officer?" It messes them up something fierce. Because at that point there really isn't anything they can do to get a reaction from you and accuse you of resisting arrest. If you have witnesses, even better. The only thing an arresting officer can do is come down on your instep to try to get a reaction and or plant something on you, which is hard in that position because they are supposed to be frisking you. Its super easy to cuff you from there too and again their options get very limited.They hate that. Here you were messing with their system and they can't even rough you up. Just be polite from there on in and you are golden. Poor guys.
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
This has happen many times in the last few years, according to Trains Magazine, a railroad & railfan industry publication. Amtrak actually prohibited non-ticket holding railfans from photographing on the station platform. It took many months of professional photogs & railroad journalists persistence for a public meeting to clarify the matter. As long as you are on public property, you can photograph anything you want, anytime. That includes public rights of ways, station platforms, etc. You must have a document only if the location is a private property. You are encouraged to comply politely with any security/law enforcement agency. Follow-up by contacting the management or public officials, to rectify the authority & clarify the public rights. I applaud the participants of the "test," they have saved citizens a lot of hurt feelings by "testing" our rights against the possibility of ignorance of authority.
It strikes me as odd that 'resisting arrest' can be the charge to arrest a person. How can one be 'resisting arrest' unless one is already under arrest or in the exact process of being arrested on a different (and more valid) charge?
Reply to That ||
Have you heard the story of the Amtrak photographer ?
Colbert Report nailed it right:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/217341/february-02-2009/nailed--em---amtrak-photographer
They are helping the terrorists to win when they violate our freedoms.
What makes you think that 9/11 has to do with our freedoms and not our government's policies in the Middle East?
Wait, that was the official statement of our government at the time, wasn't it? The very statement that resulted in a bait and switch war and countless laws taking away individual freedoms of U.S. citizens and giving more power to the same government, instituting a de facto police state?
I guess, if they said it on TV, It must be true...
Perhaps you missed it. The 'they' I was talking about are the police and security guards. And in case you missed it, I also stated that I don't believe that the behaviour of the the U.S. government after 9/11 was/is appropriate or in keeping with what the founding fathers had in mind (as much as the Republicans harp on what the founding fathers wanted). What I did refute is the assumption by the parent that 'there is no need to worry about trains since they can't be flown into buildings'. No, but they can be serious targets based on what we saw happen in Spain and should be protected as such. But as I stated, this still doesn't excuse over zealousness on the police's part. Are you so enthusiastic about dissing the government that you want to argue with someone who generally is agreeing with you (that the police were in the wrong when stopping photography)?
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
So far there's no law against photography and a cop really ought to know that.
In three states it's illegal to photograph police. In many other states wiretapping laws are being used to prevent video and audio recordings.