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)."

Comments

Hmmm...

[warGod3]

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...

Re:Hmmm...

[drinkypoo]

Unfortunately, the only way to really fix this is to go ahead and get arrested. That's what it's going to take to turn this crap around; a lot of journalists getting arrested and writing passionate articles about the experience while hopefully being exonerated.

Re:Hmmm...

[openfrog]

Spot on! This is exactly the way to deal with this. Test it, get arrested, document the whole process and manage to be professional enough about it so you arise the interest of main media journalists, PBS, BBC, etc. Expose, just like they do here, underlying causes, like top security acknowledging of the rights, and private security and local police involved in arbitrary and erratic behavior.

The result: big public embarrassment for those involved, instigating fear of the same for like-minded small-time tyrants doing this everywhere.

This is a job of public education and the two photographers involved here are doing the right, appropriate and efficient thing about it. My hat to them!

Re:Hmmm...

[drinkypoo]

Nothing will turn this around.

Two points. First, I do not recognize that you are correct. Second, by assuming that nothing can turn this around, you have guaranteed that you will not work to turn this around, consciously or subconsciously. You have fallen into a trap of your own devising. I, however, do not believe it to be inescapable.

All getting arrested will do is (a) cost you a shitload of money and time which you will not get back in full, and (b) eventually get you lynched by the surrounding crowd if you give the "authorities" trouble.

Lots of people have lots of time right now. It doesn't have to cost you any money. What we need is legions of out-of-work photographers (they have the time) getting arrested for photographing anything and everything. I'm sure more than a few professional photographers have recently gone all-but-homeless. It's not like they're going to go to PMITA prison for taking a photograph of a subway.

Can't be fixed. They've found a perfect combination of imaginary threats to keep the population in line. You stick your head up, they'll bring out the mallet and smash it right back down where they think it's supposed to be.

You're a negative nancy. More to the point, you're not helping. Well, you are helping, you are helping the powers that be keep the population down by contributing to feelings of powerlessness. Or in short, you are doing evil.

Why don't you find a way to make a positive contribution, or failing that, shut the fuck up? You're only doing harm by repeating their lines for them. Do you get paid for this work you do for the power elite who have the most to gain from the maintenance of the status quo, or is this just some sort of mental disorder that you have chosen to delight us with because you skipped your medication?

I want everyone in America to carry a camera, and to use it. Thankfully, camera phones have made the first part true enough for most purposes. The problem is the second. Don't discourage patriotism. The only way to create the world that you want to live in is to be willing to die for it. You might or might not actually arrive in the world you want to live in, but doing nothing is a sure way to keep you where you are.

Don't buy into your own oppression.

Re:Hmmm...

[fractoid]

This is starting to sound eerily reminiscent of Heinlein's assertion that "in the end, all forms of death can be attributed to heart failure." Well, that, and The Great Escape's "shot while escaping".

Re:Hmmm...

[drinkypoo]

You need to sue for ONE MILLION DOLLARS, if not more. Sue the city, the transit authority, and the individual thugs themselves.

On what grounds? That your right to take photographs has been denied? No, you need to get arrested, then you sue the city.

The transit authority is going to back up their security officers' right to tell you to leave for any reason until the bad PR becomes significant, and that will never happen unless you were arrested. See, the general public is afraid of jail and terrified of prison, and if they think THEY could get arrested for, say, taking a camera phone picture of their friend with a graffitoed train behind them, then they will think "I could go to jail for taking a picture of my friend!" And that will reach into their subconscious and twist, and that causes the asshole to pucker. And that, my friend, is the true cause of political action.

Or in other words, get arrested first, sue later. I don't promise it will be pleasant; they do what they can to make the opposite true. But I do suspect that it is a necessary step.

Re:Hmmm...

[causality]

They would try and get you with resisting arrest. So the entire pretense for arresting you is resisting arrest. Doesn't matter what the resistance is; vocal, thought, physical.

Worse: if a cop uses physical force against you, like mace, a taser, all the way up to a baton or a gun, and then does not charge you with resisting arrest, that cop is effectively admitting that he used force for no reason. That's aka excessive force or police brutality. There's not a cop on Earth who wants to admit he unnecessarily used force, as it would open up his department to liability and effectively end his career.

It's unfortunate that you generally cannot sue the officer personally. They have some sort of sovereign immunity as they are noncivilian government agents conducting government business. You can sue the department or the city/locality/state that runs the department but not the officer himself. Most of the time the very worst thing that can happen to the cop himself is that he loses his job, though it's more typical for him to receive a free paid vacation for misconduct (paid suspension).

The irony is that cops seem honestly puzzled about why so many people don't like them.

Re:Hmmm...

[causality]

Just ask politely if you're under arrest. If not, carry right on doing whatever it is you were doing. .

IANAL. Having said that ... Be careful about that. You can be detained without actually being under arrest. An example is when you are pulled over for a traffic ticket. You are not free to leave until the officer is done with you, yet you are usually not actually arrested. Yet if you tried to leave while still being detained, you're guaranteed to get arrested.

Re:Hmmm...

[causality]

Spot on! This is exactly the way to deal with this. Test it, get arrested, document the whole process and manage to be professional enough about it so you arise the interest of main media journalists, PBS, BBC, etc. Expose, just like they do here, underlying causes, like top security acknowledging of the rights, and private security and local police involved in arbitrary and erratic behavior.

The result: big public embarrassment for those involved, instigating fear of the same for like-minded small-time tyrants doing this everywhere.

This is a job of public education and the two photographers involved here are doing the right, appropriate and efficient thing about it. My hat to them!

The only bullshit part of it is that the fact you were arrested shows up on any criminal background check. It's the kind of thing that could deny you employment in the future. Sure, you can explain why the arrest happened, and most management types will listen to your explanation and decide "he's an activist troublemaker who might rock the boat, a loose cannon" and throw your application in the trash. Of course it's unjust.

It's bullshit because a criminal background check should never show arrests. It should show convictions only. To do otherwise is a rejection of "innocent until proven guilty", as anyone can make an accusation. It doesn't mean you actually did anything. Why then should you bear a stigma that has to be explained to all future employers merely because a false accusation was made?

We like to say we believe in things like justice but we, collectively, don't act like it.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ask politely if you're under arrest. If not, carry right on doing whatever it is you were doing.

You don't have any actual experience with cops, do you?

Re:Hmmm...

[commodore64_love]

>>>They would try and get you with resisting arrest

Then don't resist. If you voluntarily hold out your arms and say, "Here you may cuff me," the police can't claim you resisted can they? You cooperated fully. As for the actual crime of photography, if police said I'm not allowed to take photos my immediate reply would be: "Oh I'm sorry - I didn't know," and whip out a sketchpad instead. That's how reporters produced newspaper pictures in the past.

If the police then claim "It's illegal to draw the metrotrain," you know they are full of shit. And you would later win the court case (if it went that far). The police would end-up looking like fools and that would please me to no end. It would be like Christmas.

Re:Hmmm...

[commodore64_love]

Yeah but driving is a different set of rules.

Driving is a privilege and therefore can be revoked at any time & any reason, even if no crime was committed. But walking is an innate natural Right and police may not detain you from moving about, unless they charge you or obtain a warrant.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so phrase the question "am I free to leave?"

Re:Hmmm...

[fyngyrz]

Two points. First, I do not recognize that you are correct.

That's evidence that you're not paying attention, not that I am incorrect. Nor do you present any reasoning that would show that I am incorrect.

Second, by assuming that nothing can turn this around, you have guaranteed that you will not work to turn this around

I also assume that I will not be able to fly by flapping my arms; that I will not be able to read your mind no matter how hard I squint; and that sticking my head under a multi-ton press will not stop the press face from reaching the base plate. And I am absolutely right to make such assumptions.

The primary fault with your reasoning is that you think that you can reverse something that has enormous force behind it, by exerting a tiny little bit of pressure. You don't recognize the forces involved in the issue at hand here, literally have failed to identify them, nor have you accurately evaluated the amount and kind of pressure they exert, and so you think that some squabbling in a courtroom will get you somewhere.

As someone who has seen his share of courtrooms and then some, I have learned that fighting the system -- literally trying to say that the law, either in statute or in the person of an officer, is wrong -- is the one sure way to get the system to turn around and demonstrate that it has one hell of a lot more power than the defendant does, regardless of if you are actually correct, or not. I have seen everything from alternate charges (resisting arrest, public nuisance, creating a disturbance, failure to comply with, etc.) pressed to the limit, to outright ridiculous "interpretation" of the letter of the law. Review the reasoning behind the current understanding of the commerce clause to see this writ large; or just read up on police officers enticing people outside their homes so that the yelling they're doing changes from ok, because it's in their home, to a public disturbance because it's one inch outside the door, though still on the porch. Which will, in each and every case, be supported by the court.

A secondary fault is that you think (and truly, I don't know why) that the populace and their elected and appointed servants are rational and will support sensible procedure, rational evaluation, and so forth. I have observed that the population is largely superstitious, bases their ideas upon what they think imaginary entities have told them to do in some book, or an astrological forecast, or in the words of some nitwit in a pulpit; and that this leads them to do the wrong thing both as individuals and en masse. Subsequent to this realization, I have also learned that you cannot change the mindset of these people by providing rational input, because they're not rational in the first place. And the very stronghold of those people? The courts and the legislature. Swear by the bible, sonny; pray before we make law; may "god" bless the American people... ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

The tertiary error you're making is the assumption that the political and justice systems are amenable to you mucking about with the power structure they've created, and that they'll simply let it happen. They won't. Those structures have been very carefully tweaked over the years to benefit a particular class (which you and I are not in, nor will we ever be), and trying to screw with them will get you burned.

Lastly, you should keep in mind that they've created a special place just for you. It's the new(ish) permanent low-class citizen; the one with a criminal record. You won't be able to get a decent job; every word you say in public honestly attached to your name and person will be credited to "convicted felon so-and-so" (which will not, sadly, come with any caveats); you won't be able to establish credit; get insurance; go to school; the list goes on. In addition, you'll be listed on the "offender" list that provides special designation for your particul

Re:Hmmm...

[radtea]

If you voluntarily hold out your arms and say, "Here you may cuff me," the police can't claim you resisted can they?

Sure they can. It's called "lying". All humans have the capacity, and the last time I looked cops were still human.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the shitty auto-centric planning of virtually every American city and town, driving should very well be considered a right in the USA.

Re:Hmmm...

[radtea]

The only way to permanently end oppression is through violence or the implied or explicit threat of violence.

Sure, because that worked so well for the Irish, and the Palestinians, and the Basque and the Tamil and the Chechyns...

Violence is the best solution for bringing about social change, except compared to all the others.

Creative non-violence works pretty well comparitively. You'll notice a distinct lack of Russians running Poland, and I don't recall any cannon-fire bringing down the Berlin Wall, and then there's that whole liberation of India thing, which was as badly managed as could be imagined, yet still came off not too badly comparatively because the principles on the side of liberation deliberately chose creative non-violence as their primary means of effecting change.

What you mean when you say "nonviolent change is impossible" is "I'm too stupid and/or cowardly to see how to use creative non-violence to change things."

The rest of us, who know a little history, know that violence is the stupidest, least effective, choice for change, and the empricial evidence of the last 100 years makes this so obvious that anyone who choses violence today is obviously either brain-damaged, a coward, or evil. Sometimes all three.

Re:Hmmm...

[bsane]

It's unfair to those police to tar them with the brush of those who are jerks or who are confused

Then maybe they should manage their own- since they make damn sure nobody else can.

Re:Hmmm...

[tburkhol]

Why don't you find a way to make a positive contribution, or failing that, shut the fuck up?

I make lots of positive contributions, just one of which is good advice that can keep people out of the meat grinder. The fact that you don't perceive it as positive is only evidence that your perceptions are dysfunctional. As for the "shut the fuck up" remark, my answer is no. How's that work for ya, Sparky? :)

All the unfixable conditions you have described are social conventions. People create social conventions, and people can change them through individual contributions of small pressures. Every time drinkypoo says "we can take back our country," we get a little piece of it back. Every time fyngyrz say "we are all fucked" we give a little more up. This is exactly the "structures [that] have been very carefully tweaked over the years to benefit a particular class" - the class that understands people will go where you tell them, if you just tell them it's too hard to go anywhere else.

In the end, we get the country we deserve, and I'm going to say that we can take our country back.

Re:Hmmm...

[ScentCone]

With your phrasing, the decision is being passed to the pig

Gee, I wonder why you find yourself in confrontations like this. Maybe it's a result of, like, your time travel from 1968, man? Whoa, that's heavy.

Re:Hmmm...

[MaskedSlacker]

It's about priorities. Now we know where yours are.

Re:Hmmm...

[oldspewey]

So tell me, do you have mouths to feed? Mortgage or rent payments to make? It's real easy to be idealistic when you don't have responsibilities.

Re:Hmmm...

[fyngyrz]

Every time drinkypoo says "we can take back our country," we get a little piece of it back. Every time fyngyrz say "we are all fucked" we give a little more up.

Utter nonsense, without reason or objective fact to back it up. We get *nothing* back when he says anything; we lose *nothing* when I say anything. Losses and gains are made at levels we cannot affect: In the legislature and the high courts.

Look, if you don't believe me, one option is data gathering. Just go start an argument with a cop over one of the (many, many) injustices the "justice" system perpetrates through them and with their collusion. For instance, light up a pipe full of hash while you explain to them that it's a personal choice, it's victimless, and neither the state or the fed have the right to tell you not to do it in or on your own property. Or buy some chemical glassware without getting the right permits first, explaining that you just want to teach your kid basic chemistry. Or try to sell your body, explaining to the nice officer that it's yours, not his or anyone else's, and you will decide what you will and will not do for remuneration, whether it be digging ditches, rowing boats, or pumping his granny full of warm spooge if she's got $20 and wants said service, rather than a boat rowed. Or give 'em a good argument about privacy while sending emails back and forth that contain instructions on how to build a nuclear weapon.

See how that works out for you. And I feel bad for even suggesting that, because I know you're going to come out of such a confrontation with your butt in a sling, a far worse outcome than you really deserve for simply being naive. But unfortunately, that really is how the system works. You can save yourself some pain here, because I'm going to tell you the results beforehand: They'll crush you like a bug.

I'm going to say that we can take our country back.

And I'll listen to you say it, and agree that you have every bit of my support in that you should be able to say so. But I know that you are facing powers far greater than anything you can bring to bear, and I won't participate in any lost causes. You're a flaming optimist in my estimation; I see absolutely no way you, or we, can "take the country back." We do not have the numbers; we do not have the weapons; we do not have a place to stand a defend (and make no mistake, you will need such a concrete thing);

I should also mention that I'm a martial artist of many decades, and a weapons (small arms, edged weapons, and striking weapons) expert. When I tell you it isn't going to work, I'm talking the whole gamut: Strategy, tactics, practical issues of supply, manpower, and community support. Not. Going. To. Happen. This is not the 1700s. If you try to face down the government, they will take you and beat you like a red-headed stepchild. And then they'll hang you up as a demonstration to anyone else with revolutionary ideas. You have no conception of the power they can, and will, wield at the wave of a hand; more than you could arrange for with years of unbroken work, billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of fanatical followers. None of which you have anyway.

Re:Hmmm...

[Achromatic1978]

That guy is an assclown. I am no fan of police brutality, or stomping on rights, but that guy was outright trying to provoke an encounter.

So the video starts with a traffic stop that he is videoing. As as emergency responder (EMT) and a driver, I have little sympathy for those using their cellphone while driving. So he pissed me off with his "Santa Fe 'bureaucrats' have deemed cellphone use while driving 'illegal'." (air quotes his).

So what does he do? With a video camera and an openly displayed handgun, he walks right up to the car beside the cop, and loudly proclaims that he is going to "videotape this to keep you accountable". Note that there's no perceived problem on camera, officer is just writing a ticket.

Officer asks him to step back out of the scene, "I'm keeping you accountable!", but he steps back, officer writes ticket, and without even a glance, gets in his car and finishes his paperwork. Evil mean nasty policeman.

A few minutes later, guy is still recording, police officer pulls up, "What was that back there?" "I'm keeping you accountable!" "I told you to step back because you had a handgun at my traffic stop", "It's not illegal to open carry in New Mexico!" "No, it's not. What's your name?" "I don't have to tell you my name! I'm not under arrest! I'm not being detained!" (note at this point that the officer was still in his car, arm dangling out the window, while he was on the sidewalk. "No, you're not." Cop drives off.

Fascist pigs! Kill cops!

This guy needs a slap. It's one thing to hold officers of the law to account when they're abusing their authority. It's another to pretend you're doing everyone a public service by running around, actively seeking out situations in which you can interfere with lawful activities, and antagonize and provoke police into responding to you just so you can say "HA! I TOLD YOU SO!".

Color me unimpressed.

Re:Hmmm...

[oldspewey]

So I assume that's a "no" then?

Re:Hmmm...

[jc42]

... if you're in a field that requires a professional license, that board can and will ask for arrests. Failure to disclose can be grounds for denial. The same is true of security clearances - an arrest in which charges are dropped probably won't be an issue, but failing to tell them about it would be.

It should also be noted that failure to disclose an arrest of someone with a name similar to yours can also be grounds for denial. And, contrary to many PR claims, they generally don't tell you why you were denied. If you insist on knowing, that's a sign of being a troublemaker and anti-authority type, which is also (informal) grounds for denial. If you can't get along with the interviewers, you don't get hired.

For that matter, look at all the reports recently of people stopped by Homeland Security because their name is similar to a name on a list. This isn't exactly a new story, either; it's an old failing of every security setup that uses "name files".

There are many reasons why, even if you're honest and innocent and all that, you still have many reasons to worry.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most cops, in my experience, work their tails off at often boring, often confusing, and sometimes very dangerous work. It's unfair to those police to tar them with the brush of those who are jerks or who are confused by the mixed messages from different layers of management (such as this event seems to show).

Funny, in my experience I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of cops I know who are that way. The vast majority I've met (and not in the line of duty either, where you can expect them to be less polite if they think you're guilty of something) have been power hungry assholes that took the job so they could be bullies and thugs with government approval. Hearing them talk about people they've encountered just makes you sick, they think everyone is beneath them, even the people they KNOW aren't guilty (in other words, the ones they're supposed to be protecting). And you know what? All their "friends" are the same way, and generally all their friends are also in law enforcement. It's one large echo chamber, all of them think the same and reinforce each other so they think there's nothing wrong about how they think about and treat people.

Maybe it's different where you're from, but around here most of the police are basically government issued thugs. Quite frankly I'm far more scared of the police than the criminals around here.

But to make it clear, there have been some good cops I've encountered over the years. Most of them don't last long here, they get disgusted with what's going on and quit. Or they try to change things and end up getting fired on trumped up charges.

Posted AC because, yeah, I'm that scared of the cops around here. They've gone on vendettas for less.

Re:Hmmm...

[causality]

I believe that where we screwed up big-time was when we ever allowed the government to have any input whatsoever into how we educate our children.

Actually, I have to disagree on that part. Probably because my girlfriend is a teacher, just starting, and I've seen the incredible amount of effort that goes into showing teachers how to teach right. There's a whole science behind that, and not with the best instincts can you be as good as a good teacher.

That said, public schools in the US are probably the mess I keep hearing about. That does not mean the entire concept of a public school is bullshit, just because one specific implementation of it is. Have you ever seen public schools outside the US? Say, in countries that are famous for good schools, such as the scandinavian countries?

The funny thing about girlfriends is that unless you are very careful and unusually aware, then as you are "getting into them" so to speak, they are also getting into you. I am forced to consider you a biased source for that reason. Besides, this is a US story and I am speaking about US schools. Therefore it is I who must ask you if you are familiar with US public schools, and it would seem the answer is "no".

Psychological abuse and humiliation is a staple of US schools, both institutionalized and from other students. It's an integral part of the design. You need a population whose spirits have been broken at an impressionable age before you can embrace authoritarianism.

The main purpose of public schooling in the USA is to create a large underclass of people who are just smart enough to perform useful productive work, and just dumb enough not to think critically or question anything or become very curious. The Carnegies and Morgans and others who backed its founders in the 1800s were amazingly honest about this.

Under this system, the fact that most Americans are short-sighted, egotistical, hedonistic, and emotionally childish is considered a bonus feature. It makes them docile and easy to rule. It makes them feel overwhelmed just living their own lives. It prevents them from being sophisticated enough to understand the Hegelian Dialectic ("Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" aka "Problem, Reaction, Solution"), bread-and-circus, propaganda techniques, and other tools used to expand and maintain state power.

If you really, truly want to understand public schooling in the USA, there is absolutely no better reference than John Taylor Gatto. He has an essay available here and a complete book, available for free online in its entirety, available here. I think you will find these to be quite an eye-opener.

Re:Look at it like an airport...

[hedwards]

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.

Re:It's the sun

[Nuskrad]

I think The Sun is definitely part of the problem in England.

The free world isn't so free anymore...

[captainpanic]

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 :-)

Re:The free world isn't so free anymore...

[trout007]

I've been arguing for years that we can do with less security. Go back to 9/11 and what was the real cause that they were able to pull off the attack? It was the FAA position that we should cooperate with hijackers. Once the people on the 4th plane learned what was going to happen they tried to take the plane back. I'm sure the whole time on those planes the fight attendants were telling everyone to stay seated and be calm and it would be over soon like they were trained to do. So to prevent this in the future you don't need the TSA and flight marshal's and no fly lists. All you needed was a change in attitude that passengers no longer will comply with hijackers. Done. Just let the regular airport security do their job of keeping guns off the plane.Reinforcing the cockpit door wasn't a bad move either. But besides that nothing more needed to be done. Notice all of the near misses prevented by passengers since then. What is great too is that passengers are allowed to profile. While the TSA is frisking Mexican Abuelas every passenger is keeping their eye on Ahkmed. Now Ahkmed may be a fine upstanding man but passengers will watch him the whole flight and if he does something out of the ordinary will do something about it for self preservation.

Re:The free world isn't so free anymore...

[OzPeter]

The free world isn't so free anymore... ...

The irony of this is that this occurs in a country that professes itself to be the "land of the free and the home of the brave", and its citizens seems to get a little angry when people suggest that it isn't in either case

Re:The free world isn't so free anymore...

[silentcoder]

It's funny how we keep ignoring the people who actually KNOW about this stuff.
Bruce Schneier would call your entire post factually incorrect, this is roughly a summary of his blogposts over the past few years:

The risk of dying in a terrorist attack is far, far lower than the risk of dying from one too many cheeseburgers. Heck you have a much higher risk of breaking your neck from slipping in the shower !
But we don't DEMAND slip-free mats in every shower by law do we ?

The reality is that terrorism is in fact an incredibly rare and unlikely event even at the worst of times an ANY money spent on preventative measures is a guaranteed waste anyway. Terrorists don't do movie plot threats. Secure against the obvious and crucial things - but don't do anything beyond that because your predictions are guaranteed to be wrong and all those excessive measures actually make you LESS safe as they encourage people not to care and to skip steps.

What CAN we do to reduce the risk ? Only this: effective after-the-fact law enforcement with open trials and proper punishment... same thing as for any other crime. Effectively catching the perpetrators, bringing them to justice (with fair trials) and then punishing them is a very good deterrent - just as much so for terrorism, and the only one that has any chance of working.

Banning me from taking a bottled water on an airplane does not make anybody any safer at all.

We got the fear, we got the control - and the sad thing is, we didn't even GET the security for it, we got a farce.

Benjamin Franklin had this right: a nation that would exchange essential liberty for a little temporary safety will lose both, and deserve neither.

Well - now we have neither.

Re:The free world isn't so free anymore...

[Jason Levine]

While I agree, a real economic analysis won't be done. If any serious politician proposes this, his opponents will allege that he is:

1) Soft on terrorism. After all, he wants to "weaken" our security. Why does he love the terrorists and hate America?

2) Trying to place a dollar amount on human life. After all, the security saves lives so how can he say that X lives are only worth Y dollars? Is he an inhuman monster?

Yes, both arguments are completely baseless. Someone can love America, think human life can't have a dollar value affixed to it and still want to cut security measures that he sees as ineffective. However, those two above arguments will make for better political sound bites and any politician finding himself in this situation will have to fight for his political life. Therefore, politicians will just go with the flow and, at most, just tweak things as little as possible.

Re:The free world isn't so free anymore...

[shutdown -p now]

So to prevent this in the future you don't need the TSA and flight marshal's and no fly lists.

I understand the rest of it, but what's wrong with air marshals? They seem to be an extremely cost-effective way of dealing with any real threats on board.

Re:The free world isn't so free anymore...

[shutdown -p now]

Number of arrests is a very misleading metric for efficiency of any kind of law enforcement. The ideal state is when the officers serve as a deterrent to crimes being committed. You know, same as the best admin is the one who never shows up on the job because the servers he configured never go down.

Re:The free world isn't so free anymore...

[YXdr]

El Al has air marshals on every flight. That's a real deterrent, against what (as you note) is a much more significant risk.

But, like many Israeli security measures, there is no way to scale it to the U.S. without completely destroying air travel as we know it.

Re:It's the sun

[Jason Levine]

But public urination is merely a nuisance. A photographer could be taking photos which might fall into the hands of terrorists. TEEEERRRRROOOORRRRRIIIISSSSSTTTTTSSSSSS!

As sad as it may be, the above is how some people really think. Anyone taking photos is potentially gathering information for bad guys. And since they might possibly be gathering information for bad guys, they need to be stopped. Information isn't free, it's dangerous and anyone collecting it (even if otherwise publicly available) is a threat to be locked up.

Also, don't pay attention to the fact that these people were likely using big DSLRs when any terrorist would likely use easier to hide point and shoots or even a camera phone. Bigger camera = more information = bigger threat, apparently.

Re:Look at it like an airport...

[theshowmecanuck]

Imagine what would happen if terrorists took control of a train and flew it into a building!

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.

Working definition of a police state

[petes_PoV]

When officers can enforce their will, irrespective of it's legality. Extra points are given for not punishing said officers after the fact and even more for banning or "disappearing" any reporting of the offence either outright or under the veil of "security interests"..

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).

Re:Working definition of a police state

[SharpFang]

Oh, not quite! This is perfectly legal!

You must follow orders of the officer if special circumstances occur.
Refusing to follow orders of the officer (in -any- circumstances) creates said special circumstances.

Catch 22 we can make up laws on the spot.

Note there is no restriction on requirement of the orders being physically possible, and the police is entitled to use force upon failure to perform to orders.

Catch 22 we can beat you if we like.

You are free to refuse identification unless you create reasonable suspicion. By the act of refusing identification you create reasonable suspicion. You lose most of your rights the moment you try to assert them in similar way.

Catch 22 we have a way around those pesky citizens rights.

The definition of police state is not when the police can do illegal things and get away with them. That is just plain anarchy, a broken system out of control.

The police state is when whatever the police does is legal, no matter what they do, and any action (or inaction) you take can be declared illegal (and punished accordingly), at will.

Seems to me photographers expose terrorists....

[Bob_Who]

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?

Re:Look at it like an airport...

[Jason Levine]

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!!!!!

Re:And if we stop no one.... we blame them....

[AnonymousClown]

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?!

All he had was a camera. WTF can someone do with a camera?

What is so strange about this?

[((hristopher _-*-_-*]

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.

Re:What is so strange about this?

[Becausegodhasmademe]

Sorry, but if you Merikans want to go ahead and play Terrorist Top Trumps, we've got about 150 years of history with the Provisional IRA to play with.

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/List_of_terrorist_attacks/

Re:Unfair

[deniable]

Ah, complex laws. They have real and imaginary parts.

Re:Look at it like an airport...

[jimicus]

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.

The terrorists won.

[miffo.swe]

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.

Re:It's the sun

[Dr_Barnowl]

Oh sure, trying to pay for your train journeys in a law-abiding manner is awfully bigoted.

His choice of adjectives (and quite frankly, what adjective isn't open to deliberate misinterpretation here?) had nothing to do with the causation of the incident, which was that someone wanted a free ride, and apparently did so with the tacit approval of the guard.

The fact that you are assigning bigotry to this poster despite the fact that his choice of adjective could be construed to be in order to cause the least offence reveals far more reflexive prejudice on your part than on his.

Re:It's the sun

[iamhigh]

His choice of adjectives (and quite frankly, what adjective isn't open to deliberate misinterpretation here?) had nothing to do with the causation of the incident,

That's the whole point. The addition of "of color" added absolutely nothing to the discussion. To an American it immediately invokes "colored", and it would be fair to assume he meant the guy was black. But the real catch is why did he choose that adjective? Why not "of height" or "of great mass"? What exactly did his ambigous adjective add?

It added a tone of racism, as if the color of his skin had to do with act of the person. Let's not try to support a racist comment.

Power corrupts

[benjfowler]

... 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.

Re:Look at it like an airport...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, somehow, nothing of importance would be lost...

Re:No

[joebagodonuts]

Wrong - since there is nothing prohibiting their photography they should've been left alone. There is quite a bit of US law that allows public photography. There is no need for "Written permission". We already have it.

But, because of stupid fears we have more bureaucracy, and an increase of the idea of "Any behavior that isn't specifically allowed is prohibited!". The problem here is that isn't how our law actually reads. Not in America. Not yet.

Which was the point of the exercise - to highlight the fact that in actual practice we have a situation where citizens engaged in legal behavior in a public place are having that legal behavior stopped by the threat of force. Employees of this private security firm are not legally empowered to take away the rights of citizens in a public place.

After reading the article, the utter stupidity of this situation is heartbreaking. The motive here isn't to protect the train station. Nor is it to protect the citizens. Every employee of this private security firm just wants to cover their ass - to not lose a paycheck. A classic example of bureaucracy in action.

Re:No

[0100010001010011]

Second where the two photographers screwed up is they never had written permission to photograph/videotape the facility.

That's the point. They DON'T NEED PERMISSION. By default they have permission to film anything they want in public. Police, Rail stations, Nuclear power plants, etc. They just shot an e-mail off making sure that the security chief knew the law.

Re:No

[ceoyoyo]

Did you read the article? Did you read the post I replied to? It doesn't sound like it.

The GP said "the only way to really fix this is to go ahead and get arrested." We both realize they didn't get arrested, because we both read the article. Your "first of all" is meaningless.

"Second," the photographers did NOT screw up by not getting written permission. They asked whether photography was allowed, and were told that yes, it is. That is, they were told they didn't NEED written permission (or any other kind). The point they were making is that security and the police are being overzealous, enforcing laws and policies that don't exist. It was not to acquire pictures of the Miami metro system.

Re:No

[commodore64_love]

The metrorail belongs to the government.
The government belongs to the People.
QED the metrorail belongs to the people.

In my opinion if you can see it with your eyes, then you can record it, whether it's with a camera, a sketchpad, or the neural net called the brain.

Well, here's a guess

[bradley13]

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.

Re:It's the sun

[DavidTC]

Well, honestly, for easy of discussion, indicating the person was male would allow the use of male pronoun, and keep the poster from having to say 'that person' all the time. Anyone who takes issue with that would be silly.

But, yes, there was no logical reason to include the race of the person. And, FYI, say 'person of color' has become oddly acceptably recently, although I don't actually understand it, and it's somewhat weird to put "of color" in quotes like that, especially as it adds nothing to the story.

A few people have assumed the guard was the same race, and this was a story about racism, at which point it would be reasonable to mention the race...but, sadly, the poster didn't mention the race of the guard.

In fact, there's not a lot of evidence that the guard even understood what happened. If I was a guard and had a friend who was leaping turnstiles, I sure as hell wouldn't be harassing other people for it...what would be the point? 'Hello, my friend committed a crime, and I'd like to open an official investigation by accusing you, an innocent person, instead of letting him get away with it.'

It's much more likely that was happened was the guard had some sort of monitor or counter, saw that some person went through without paying, and incorrectly figured out that it was the poster. Possibly even because they knew the other person. Or, hell, they didn't, and the jumper randomly walked up and said hi to them in a bit of social engineering, so they assumed the other person was the criminal.

Re:No

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Your getting all bothered by some rent-a-idiots didn't understand a finer point of the law that isn't covered in their Policy Manual? Get real.

I have a job, in my job I have to make decisions based upon individual situations with respect to policy. If I don't know for damn sure how the policy interracts with the situation, I ask up the chain until I find someone who does. I DO NOT just take a stab at it.
Similarly if I take the decision and I get it wrong I get an earfull about it, and if I kept making wrong decisions I would no-doubt lose my position which allows me to make decisions.

My point being that if they didn't understand the finer points of the law, they should have stepped back until they DID know. Instead, they went charging in, made the wrong decision and harmed someone as a result. That's worth being annoyed about.

Re:No

[whoever57]

But, because of stupid fears we have more bureaucracy,

No, the police fear being the next Johannes Mehserle. IMHO, there would not have been a trial if Mehserle had not had several cameras pointed at him when he shot Oscar Grant in the back.