Taking pictures on LA's Red Line violates the "9/11 Law"
Link (Thanks, Keith!)Him: Hey! It's against the 9-11 Law to take pictures down here man!
Me: You mean the Patriot Act?
Him: No pictures.
Me: Could you explain? What law do you mean?
Him: You are lawyer?
Me: No.
Him: No pictures. You could be a terrorist. Very strict!
Me: How about I take a picture of you?
Him: F**k you...(I couldn't believe it either)
He then proceeded to huddle in the corner and speak into his radio. Next thing I knew, a booming female voice very loudly announced over the loudspeaker "Attention to the gentleman in the plaid shirt: You are not allowed to take photographs in the Subway. You will be arrested if you continue to take photos and harrass the metro worker."
I was incensed/surprised/embarrassed/horrified/bewildered. People started staring.
Then the voice continued: "The gentleman in the plaid shirt: You must approach the callbox near the escalators and speak to the sheriff." I didn't budge. So she said it again, this time louder...
"Okay" I thought, I'll play along...I went up to the callbox and pushed the button. A new voice this time, this one male, boomed out and said, "Why are you taking photographs sir?"
Me: "What law am I breaking?"
Voice: "You can't take pictures sir, we don't know why you are taking pictures."
Corey, et al. You've got ACLU/EFF friends.
Can we get a be-all/end-all answer to how to deal with this?
It's obvious from event after event that if you don't comply with police orders then you'll get arrested FOR THAT, regardless of whether the officer is asking you to comply with a real law or not.
And in more than one instance we've seen that contesting the orders of the officer can get you trumped up on resisting arrest or assaulting an officer, regardless of the reality of the situation.
I know it is always best to listen to whatever an officer tells you to do, but what if you aren't breaking any laws? How are we supposed to deal with this? What's the best plan of attack?
This stuff is bullshit.
Just this morning, I had two FBI antiterrorism agents show up at my front door to question me because I was taking photos in the port of Los Angeles complex two weeks ago. (I'm a professional stock photographer)
I wrote about it here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=69800&page=1
I'm going to send that link to Cory now, I think.
This might be an LA thing. I wandered around Seattle last month and even went INTO skyscrapers and nobody said ANYTHING. In LA, I get hassled walking down the street just for having my camera OUT.
You people don't understand! If we take pictures, the terrorists win, and they'll take away our freedoms.
I'll file this under: Only in America
hrmmm... wait... the Big Brother parallels here are a bit too over the top. Is this satirical fiction?
Sounds like someone needs to organize a flash camera mob to exercise 1st-amendment freedoms.
Maybe get the NRA involved too, and exercise the 2nd-amendment freedoms at the same time, just for fun. :)
I've taken a few pictures of LAs metro stops. Cops hassled me a few times and it was always because of my tripod.
It seems 9/11 did indeed change everything.
Welcome to Amerika.
sad.
I'd wager the origin of this picture panic comes from these people having heard in the media that terrorists are "filming targets."
That is, of course, nonsense. Did the 9/11 hijackers need to film the WTC to know how to fly planes into it? Does a suicide bomber need to take pictures of a crowded market to know it's busiest at lunch-hour?
It's people with nebulous authority letting FEAR get the better of them. Staying calm, asking questions and letting them make fools of themselves as they do in this account seems to be a reasonable course of action.
Rajio #4 - May want to file that under 'Only in America (Or the UK)' instead.
well, it also happens quite a bit in England.
So maybe you should say Only in America (and those countries also deluded by terrorists)
I like how cops and security guards always ask if you're a lawyer if you ask them on what grounds they're harassing you. Would they treat you differently if you were? The law is the same no matter who you are.
I would expect the charges on an arrest for anything after this sort of situation would be dropped fairly quickly.
Sorry to hear about this incident. I was just in downtown in February to go to MOCA. I took tons of photos on the red line, while waiting and riding. No one really even took notice of my big 'ol DSLR. Although a sheriff did approach another gentleman that was filming with a 4K Red One Digital Camera. You know those crazy terrorist they go out and buy the most expensive video camera they can.
I was visiting Paris two summers ago, travelling with a backpack and a skateboard.
One night, I was late and caught the LAST commuter train back to the suburbs of Ponteau-Combault, where I was staying.
When I arrived at the station and saw the television schedule, it said ONE MINUTE left and the train was visible in the distance.
I was so relieved I took out my Nikon coolpix and tried to document this close call. (To send back home as a blog post: "Hey, caught the last train almost got stranded in Paris overnight, etc.")
Before I boarded the train, a security guard with a DOG on a leash came to see me. "We'll have to confiscate your camera," he said in French. I objected to this, and explained why I was taking the photo.
Because the train doors were closing -- and probably because I was a white guy with a Quebec flag on my skateboard, let's be honest -- he let me go, saying photography was not allowed.
Creepy situation! Why is everyone who takes photos assumed to be a pervert or terrorist?
I think we need to brew up some fake "photography liscences" to fool security guards.
Kinda reminds me when I was in that other bastion of freedom, Libya. I happened to be snapping photos of a university in the evening. Some cops showed up and told me it wasn't allowed to take photos after sunset... they detained me in the back of the police car while progressively higher ranking officials showed up, clueless as to what to do with me. Finally someone high up enough in intelligence to be wearing plain clothes and just laughed at the whole thing. I even offered to delete the photo and he said that won't be necessary and then he proceeded to curse off the dozen or so uniformed cops that had congregated at the scene and then said I was free to leave... I indicated one of the cops still had my camera... so that cop got a good lecture on how a university is not a military installation and that he should just hand me back my camera, which he then did.
Looks like America is going down the road of dictatorial paranoia.
*also used to happen in the USSR quite a bit.
In our "post 9/11" world, the United States of America has increasingly begun exhibiting all the worst aspects we Americans used to give the Soviets shit for (virtually one party state, unchecked executive power, secret police, compliant and utterly uncritical media) and none of their good aspects (like universal health care,etc).
The paranoid "security" mindset has poisoned the collective consciousness like a mind virus.
Note, of course, that a Disorderly Conduct charge is pretty well a police catch-all that cops can bust you for if you make a scene, or at least Disturbing the Peace.
Best of luck to the ACLU/EFF. It's remembering incidents like this that make me vomit when obsequious "patriots" tell me that I should thank "the soldier, not the ACLU" for your freedoms (I'm sure you've seen THOSE kinds of email chain letters from dimwitted friends & family).
Fuck that--the ACLU has done WAY more to defend my freedoms than the monstrous Standing Army that would've also been an anathema to our Founding Fathers, who knew better.
There's no question that photographing a defended area where you plan to commit a crime is useful, whether it's a bank heist, a kidnapping, an assassination or a bombing. Being able to refer to the area for planning purposes is a huge advantage to showing up on the day of and winging it, especially if you're going up against trained defenders. So it seems reasonable that certain vulnerable areas should be defended from surveillance.
However, the larger question is whether every conceivable target needs such defense, especially when it infringes on personal freedoms to such an excessive degree. And along with this is whether the local defenders are being trained to assess "threats" and deal with them according to their severity, or whether they're being given carte blanche to intimidate, because it's easier than training.
I don't see how invoking Big Brother is any less of a knee-jerk reaction than the jackass security guard quoting a fictional "9/11 Law". Terror attacks are a real, albeit rare, occurance. It's worth considering what sort of personal compromises we as a society are willing to make to catch the thugs who carry them out.
IMO, preventing picture taking isn't close to the top of the list.
Voice: "You can't take pictures sir, we don't know why you are taking pictures."
Yeah, well, you don't know why I'm eating a banana either, I could be planning on dropping the peel near the stairs to cause grievous bodily harm and/or hilarious slapstick comedy. . . or I could just be eating a damn banana because I'm hungry and they taste good. Maybe you better be safe, and ban the consumption of bananas.
Has anyone been arrested on these various anti-photography laws yet, and had the money/fortitude to see it through?
Someone really should start a website for photographing no-photography areas. Getting hundreds of people together to all take pictures at once out of protest.
Seriously. Ignorance like this needs to be met with sarcastic, sarcastic non-force.
#15, funny how Libya treats photographers better (eventually) than this free country of ours
It's the movies. I grew up thinking that spies always took pictures of shipyards or stole formulas printed on microfilm. As with most things American, life imitates pop art.
#15
Actually, they were probably looking for a bribe/tip. Its like that in Egypt.
In post-9/11 America, the camera take picture of you!
Sneak and "n" into "uniformed", and you've got "uniformed".
Funny how this metro worker is at home as we speak telling his family how he saved the Metro from terrrrst today.
Um... that would be "uniNformed".
Damn, I blew that one pretty spectacularly!
@PEACEFLAG2007
It is forbidden to take pictures or use a video camera in train/metro stations as well as in trains themselves without proper authorization (quite difficult to get). It was already the case back 15 years ago when I was a film student in Paris. Furthermore, you need an authorization to use a tripod in the street (you must ask for clearance with the local police station and are only allowed to do so in the locations you've included in your application). Also, when shooting a movie (even a student's short) you're not allowed to film any official building (ministries, senate, congress, etc.). Don't even try to pop a pocket camera anywhere near the Elysée presidential palace unless you enjoy fighting off an army of armed cops.
Now, don't ask me why or if it makes any sense, that's the way it's been there for at least 40 years.
I was asked by a security guard to not take photos in the Pacific Center mall in Vancouver less than 2 weeks ago.
The disembodied voice on the PA had no authority over you to order to do anything unless you were acting in a manner that threatened the safety of the members of the public on the platform or the public property.
When confronted by the voice on the 'box' you should have asked for a badge number and the name of the 'sheriff's' sergeant.
Then you should have asked for the name of the shift supervisor for the transit worker that cursed at you.
More than likely, all of these people were exceeding their 'authority' to prevent you from photographing anything.
I don't get the widely different reactions to private photographers and surveillance CCTV. Why is one ok, while the other is not? Which one you object to isn't crucial in my opinion, what I'm interested is the apparent contradiction in approving of, even defending, one form of photography while attacking and reviling another?
Either everybody is allowed to take photographs, or nobody is.
Or am I missing a crucial difference between handheld cameras and wall-mounted cameras?
I live in Berkeley, and have seen many people stopped for attempting to take photographs in the BART train system. The security guards always say it is just BART's policy.
I have tons of photos taken in red line stations, and on the trains as well. I never even knew there were authority-type people there at all, let alone a threatening-loudspeaker-voice individual.
If they asked me if I were a lawyer, I think I'd say yes, and that I would sue their ass if they kept harassing me. Your average Metro employee hasn't any business telling you what to do. It's not like they're law enforcement, or even 'official security', usually.
If anyone decides to throw together a flash photo mob at Metro stations, I'm in. '9/11 Law' - that's rich.
#22
I doubt it... In Egypt I would full well expect it to be about a bribe, but Libya is a totally different world... never once did I hear the word baksheesh (i.e. tip or bribe). They probably did think I was a spy... even the normal people there had a bit of dictatorially instilled paranoia. It's funny how the paranoia in the American public is the same one can see in the Libyan or Syrian public. And funnily, I would say that even in Iran they are much less likely to be paranoid than in the US, and they have reason to be paranoid. Welcome to the land of the free and the brave.
Numlok - EPIC FAIL
"What law am I breaking?"
Hulk scared.
"Could you explain? What law do you mean?"
Hulk brain hurt.
"How about I take a picture of you?"
Hulk smash camera! Hulk quiet now.
ZOMG He's using a camera! He's a terrorist! I need FUD right away. Well, if you're not a terrorist planning to blow up a subway stop, why aren't you submitting quietly.
Seriously, why isn't everyone realizing that unless you ARE a terrorist, you shouldn't complain. These rules save more people than they disappoint. Just accept this and if they want to do a search without a warrant, you have nothing to hide so let them. Why did Cory complain about Disney World fingerprinting people? He wasn't going to blow it up so what does he care?
#19
Every time a story like this comes up, several people say that those involved should organize a flash mob and photograph the inexplicably "forbidden" areas. And it's a good idea. But as far as I can tell, it just gets said over and over and never actually happens. Do the people who send in these stories just have zero interest in any form of organized protest, or is there some reason people are reluctant to do it?
I'd do it myself, but as far as I know, the city where I live doesn't suffer from this kind of nonsense yet.
Can we sketch the subway line?
#30, just to clarify, are you saying you don't see a difference between government actions and the actions of private individuals?
@Spazzm, #30: The difference is that CCTV is designed and intended to monitor the populace for any wrongdoing, not only infringing on the little bit of privacy we all deserve even in public, as well as implying that we're all out to do something that HAS to be monitored and recorded, that we're just criminals waiting to strike.
@Homestarrunrun, #36: I think my sarcasm detector is broken, because I can't tell if you're serious or not.
@30,
I don't think the outrage you see directed here at CCTV cameras boils down to "they shouldn't have the right to do that!" as much as "they shouldn't do that." CCTV isn't evil or anathema, but it has serious shortcomings, not least of which is that it tends to lull people into a false sense of security.
Obviously when a government (or a private entity, for that matter) is surveilling people for no good reason and/or with malicious intent, it's a problem, but not because photographs are being taken per se. As a law-abiding middle-class white man with nothing that I know of to hide from the government, it's not that I'd be directly harmed if the feds decided to set up cameras at face level on every corner and hook them up to a billion-dollar biometric matching database etc. etc. But obviously it'd be bad policy, and I'd sure as hell want those cameras taken down.
#39, not inherently, no, as long as the government is elected by and from private individuals. Under a non-democratic system, that would be different of course. But that aside, not all CCTV cameras belong to the government.
#40, couldn't the same thing be said about some guy with a camera? "He's just out to monitor the populace for any wrongdoing and infringing on the little bit of privacy we all deserve even in public - I don't want to end up on some nerd's flickr page."
Why do you say that CCTV cameras, and not handheld cameras, are implying that everyone is a criminal waiting to strike? I'd agree that CCTV cameras imply that some of us are criminals, but that's not the same thing.
It would seem to me that any law that guarantees anyone to photograph public areas would inherently allow surveillance, and any law that seeks to prohibit surveillance would hinder private photography. For exmaple, if wall-mounted CCTV cameras were outlawed we would just see mall security guards with networked camcorders everywhere.
See, the thing about CCTV is that it is, at most, being watched in a round-robin sort of way. A couple seconds on camera X then a couple on camera Y and so on. I suspect that the primary value of CCTV footage with regard to terrorist attack is post-event... you get a shot of the terrorist and his backpack going from the parking garage into the train station and then one as he/she steps onto the train, etc.
CCTV isn't going to save anyone from a bomb going off in front of a given camera (barring massively good luck or completely stupid terrorists), but it might help identify the bomber after the fact. Also, it will certainly give them something to spin endlessly on the news while they work to amp up the public's fear level along with their ratings.
#1, check this out (it was linked from #2's blog post):
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
"The Photographer’s Right is a downloadable guide that is loosely based on the Bust Card and the Know Your Rights pamphlet that used to be available on the ACLU website..."
I mean really.. if you WERE planning to do some terrorism, wouldn't you be using STEALTH camera's and no some big honk'n SLR?
Like something from here http://www.spyville.com/minicameras.html or The mp3/sunglasses/camera combo from ThinkGeek http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/a0f3/ ?
I doubt that I would ever get stopped from taking pictures when the camera is well hidden and with a remote capture button... lol.
#41 posted by semiotix:
"I don't think the outrage you see directed here at CCTV cameras boils down to "they shouldn't have the right to do that!" as much as "they shouldn't do that."
While I agree that there are moral (rather than judicial) objections that can be raised against CCTV, my point is that the same objections can, with little or no modification, be raised against private, hand-held cameras used in public.
Either the public should be able to expect to not be photographed, or anyone should feel free to take photos. I can't see any realistic way of having it both ways.
As for the billion-dollar biometric matching database - what's the difference between that and some geek using flickr/facebook to train his robot's face recognition algorithm?
Is it intent? How can we objectively judge actions based on intent if we do not know the intent behind the actions? The government database might be intended to be used to catch rapists and robbers, while the nerd might intend to build a killer robot to smite his childhood bullies.
Intent has to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and can not be used in generalised cases.
Spazzm, that's a much more nuanced position than I originally gave you credit for, sorry.
I agree that the distinction can't be fixed videocam versus mobile camera (I like your security guard example). There are uses of fixed cam that most people would agree are good - surveillance art projects, webcams that let you watch the traffic, etc. And on the other side, it may be that there are privacy-violating, insidious uses of still/mobile photography by individuals. The relative prevalence of these in reality might figure into the creepiness differential, though.
Interesting!
When you take a picture of the subway, you are stealing its soul inside your sorcery box. Theft of souls is in violation of the California state penal code and is classified as grand larceny, of the spiritual kind punishable under the full extent of the law.
i am discarted and i was recently harassed by Andrews International security for photographing them in public. street photography is completely legal and anybody including minors and police can be photographed in public at any time. here is the letter that i sent to roger andrews, executive vice president of Andrews International.
Mr. Andrews
I am writing you in regard to an incident that occurred on May 3, 2008 between myself and some of your officers. I am a documentary as well as a street photographer, and yesterday I was berated, touched(technically assault), threatened with arrest and detainment by some your officers, particularly Officer *******, after legally photographing them in public. Obviously, your officers have not been educated about the law in regards to street photography and the rights of photographers; this is the second occurrence like this that has happened between your officers and myself.
After photographing your officers, they were completely belligerent, stating that they were private security officers and I was required to answer their questions, which is not true. Officer ******** also tried to take my photograph which I agreed to, but he couldn't find a camera so he followed me around and eventually stopped me, forcing me to look up at one of the security cameras. This entire series of events is laughable because it appeared in his mind that the laws that allow the city to photograph me at any time in public do not apply to Officer ****** and the rest of your officers. On top of that, after having my photo taken, Officer ******* then ask me if I was in the military and I said, "no, I don't believe in the military." He then exploded and said, "I fucking built this land you're standing on, get outta here!"
After that I walked around for a few minutes thinking about what happened and decided to go back to get officers' badge numbers.
Once Officer ******* realized what I was doing he immediately covered up his badge with his hand and started yelling, "Oh no you ain't getting that!." I stated, "You are legally required by law to give me your badge number!" That is when ******** as well as the other officers threatened me with arrest and tried to detain me. However, I am quite aware of the law, because I am on the street practically everyday taking photographs, and began stating that you can not detain me. Get out of my way. Officer ****** would not relent and used his entire body to block me from leaving and that is when he touched me, which is assault. One of the other officers stepped in and told him to stop and took him aside to speak with him. I did not leave, told them to call the police, and waited for BID patrol to arrive. I was questioned but not arrested because I did not do anything illegal. However, the BID patrol officers gave me a very nice lecture on humanity but didn't seem to care about the way Officer ******* and the other officers reacted in an unlawful, belligerent, and inhumane manner towards me.
I am requesting that all video footage of the area in front of the Highland Metro stop in Los Angeles, Ca, between 6PM and 7:30PM on May 3, 2008 be retained for viewing, as well as kept for evidence. I will be speaking to a lawyer this week as well exploring my other options via the city and Los Angeles Metro.
Officer ********'s unlawful behavior along with the other officers, and more importantly, their lack of knowledge for the law is unacceptable.
discarted.com
BID patrol also asked me if I was an attorney, which I said "no, but I don't have to be an attorney to know the law. since you're not an attorney either that must mean you don't know the law as well...which is the reason why this all happened in the first." place."
Wow, so I'm an outlaw for taking photos in the LA subway? It looks so nice though...it's a shame that you can't legally take pictures of all the nice artwork. I like this outlaw business though, I'll have to do it more often. Watch this tag for more:
http://flickr.com/photos/mullingitover/tags/subway
Heh.
Intent has to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and can not be used in generalised cases.
That's the core of the objection, I think. In many cases, what we really care about is intent, but we make laws that are hashes based on what's likely to be used the wrong way. Some inherently innocent things are prohibited or restricted because they are frequently misused. So you may have to show ID to buy spray paint or airplane glue, or you may just not be able to buy, say, pure grain alcohol at all (as in California), even if you have a legitimate use for it, because some people misuse it, and it's seen as unreasonably dangerous. Other things that are rarely misused, but could be (like staplers), are freely available.
Currently, individual photographers are getting hassled and kicked out of places they have a right to be; clearly there is a sort of presumption that a photographer is up to something wrong. Government and property owners almost never run into legal or practical problems with fixed cameras (at least, not that I know of); so there must be some sort of presumption that they're just fine, unless proven otherwise.
The reality of the situation seems to be that, while it's hard to figure out intent in any particular case, most photographers are innocent, and most surveillance is creepy. The presumption should operate in the opposite way that it currently does. The situation now is perverse.
My blood boiled 3 times today already.
How about jamming the system?...
Perhaps flashmobs of photographers are in order. Dozens or hundreds of people show up at a pre-arranged site, such as a subway station, or photographic city block and all begin taking photos. Could turn it into a walking tour with cameras in hand (asian tourist style).
phlashmob? picmob? photomob?
Inspirational thanks to Little Brother
How is blocking photo-taking of public places effective as a means to thwart terrorism??? I mean come the hell on - if some crazies want to blow up a target and manage to smuggle all manner of contraband explosives or choreograph some nefarious plan to hurt people, don't you think they'd be able to obtain anything and everything they need without any problem whatsoever? Nowadays you can disguise a camera into any hidden spot and you can snap away incognito with no problem.
"I'll file this under: Only in America."
...Actually, wasn't there a couple of cases in Englandland where shit like this happened? IIRC, there were even a couple of BB entries about them.
I wonder if photos taken "illegally" will start getting you into trouble?
"In the news today, millions of amateur photographers are to be raided after illegal photos of New York landmarks were found on their online photo albums. More arrests to follow as tagged accomplices are identified."
It took a LOT effort by a LOT of people, but, finally, the MBTA (Boston area mass transit) has a written policy concerning photography on MBTA property.
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 100 YEARS!
From the first day that the MBTA moved one passenger from one station to another, until July of 2007, there was NO official written policy. It was all left up to individual employees to decide what the policy was at that time and that place.
I have a printout of the PDF with me at all times.
I have yet to be hassled since the policy went into effect.
I REALLY want some inspector or cop to hassle me and tell me, "It's not allowed, it's against MBTA policy.", so I can ask them what the policy is, and them SHOW them the official policy.
Anyone living in Chicago and interested in a photo flash mob, email me at idontexist258 @ yahoo.com.
I have no idea what are good sensitive targets, but I'm sure we can find some.
Legitimacy springs from organization,
I hereby create and organize the BB Anti-Terror Photography Agency. The BBATPA (Bee-Bat-Pa) exists to stop terror. All persons who own cameras, or can borrow them, are hereby deputized by virtue of reading Boing Boing as official BBATPA members, operatives and credentialed photographers.
It is the mandate of BBATPA to fight terror by photographing potential terrorists and terror sites and adding them to the official BBATPA Database. This database is maintained in common by all BBATPA members.
The BBATPA also today formally authorizes all members to produce their own credential cards in whatever format they see fit.
The BBATPA requests that all members who are obstructed in their anti-terror work to obtain the names and affiliations of all persons causing that obstruction and report to the relevant anti-terror government bodies.
Remember! Fighting terror is everyone's sacred duty! The public photographs you take today could be instrumental in preventing and recording terrorist acts! Write your elected representative today and demand that the BBATPA receive all support to carry out this patriotic duty!
You know, I find this all a bit annoying... Maybe if the photographer tried being polite, giving the badged fellow the benefit of the doubt, and vice versa, then this sort of blown-out-of-proportion shite would never get a post.
I mean, seriously, if you think that this constitutes of a violation of civil liberties, do you have any idea what really could go down? We generally live in a free society - look at all the posts here with images of the L.A. subway (the real issue is where it doesn't go, not what it bloody looks like)... So some ignorant security guard is taking his/her job a bit too seriously - does that really amount to some egregious affront to your rights as a photographer?
It will take a bit more to convince me we live in the benighted states of america, at least when it comes to this front. Some seem awfully giddy for any excuse to confront an "authority" figure; honestly it all seems a bit juvenile to me.
This instance isn't even worthy of a battle; wait for the war.
Signed:
Chicken Little
(now eviscerate away)
This instance isn't even worthy of a battle; wait for the war.
It's hard to wage the war from inside the concentration camp that you were placed in while you were really busy not protesting the erosion of civil rights. History is full of examples of civilizations that allowed themselves to be enslaved because they were to 'dignified' to fight it.
Metro has an extensive filming policy for big productions here:
Metro Filming and Photography Guidelines
But it's all about about big movies and advertising photography, nothing about a random Joe with a camera. There's also a contact page you can nav to, maybe someone there has some answers.
war is NOW
Agree, but I argue this particular example doesn't even constitute an erosion. There may very well be a modern-day equivalent to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", but I hardly think you'll find it concealed in the reactions of an underpaid L.A. metro worker.
And I will lose no sleep worrying about whether Americans consider dignity before a good fight.
Signed:
Déclaration des droits de Petit Poulet
Official Communique of the BBATPA:
We of the BBATPA recognized Executive and all Members who read these words hereby reject the counter-counter terror actions of the clique of the so-called "Declaration by Chicken Little of Rights".
Further, the BBATPA further authorizes all members to egg the house of the petit bourgeois chicken people.
Laugh while you can, poultry, the rest of us are angry and in motion.
I am incensed by this. I am an LA resident, and an artist. If anyone wants to participate in an organized demonstration - as many of us as we can gather will all go on the Red Line, and as a group, take as many pictures as possible - I would not only be happy to participate, but to help coordinate a photo-in demo on the red line. If you're interested, send me an e-mail at kentvictor@hotmail.com, and title the subject line as "redline". If a few are willing to join me, we could embarrass the city in the press for its ridiculous policy.
just be sure to prominently display your BBATPA permits. I suggest dense legalese in crayon on construction paper.
If a thousand declare the BBATPA exists, it most certainly does. With ALL legal rights.
Does the BBATPA have a Flickr account? They should.
I'm currently collating information on photo law in order to do a talk at my local Uni in the UK so I can relay how events like this are supposed to be handled in the UK
1. Train stations, telecoms systems etc can be classed as at risk in terms of national security but have to be specifically named as such by the home secretary i.e. there is a known bomb threat at that station on that day.
2. If this isnt the case you are within your rights to take photos of the station from public property i.e. a road or public footpath
3. If your on the staion the station owner is within there rights to ask you to leave, if you refuse then you are trespassing and so are committing a civil offence, not a criminal offence.
Despite all of the above the worker was out of line treating you like that and not giving a specific reason for asking to you leave. Again a "sheriff" should not have been involved as it was not a police matter.
The best way to deal with this is to be calm and polite. If you feel you need to, get permission to take photos prior to going out.
Gee, why did you make so much trouble by being impolite and disrespectful to the nice officer!?!
He was just making up arbitrary rules for your own safety, you should really be more thankful.
Stop asking so many annoying questions about what "law" you're breaking, you're not even a lawyer so shut up!
And stop bitching about how your "rights" were violated.
It's always agitators like you who are causing scenes and holding up the lines at checkpoints.
So what if an armed government employee decides to abuse his authority, big whoop!
He would have just left you alone if you deleted your pictures and apologized for violating the 9/11 law!
So this is really your fault, I hope they lock you away for a long time!
/Sarcasm off
I figured I would just get the standard "apologize for corruption" post out of the way now, since no one else seems to have.
At least I am being sarcastic, I am sure there will be plenty of people who post comments that mirror mine, but are completely sincere.
Antinous said, "It's hard to wage the war from inside the concentration camp..."
You obviously haven't seen Hogan's Heros!
I think Orwell picked the wrong year with the title "1984".
Everytime these stories of CCTV cameras come up I only have one question: Have any of you, ANYONE seen one single frame from the dozens and dozens of cameras around the Pentagon on 9/11, apart from those few blurry frames released a few years ago. None of us have.
Amazingly, even in London, they're fine with you taking photos in their underground train network, as long as you don't use a flash (and I can dig that, third rails etc).
"Keep calm and carry on" only works when you have an education system worth talking about.
I went to St. Petersburg Russia last year, and took many subway rides. All subway stations were posted with "no pictures" type signs, which I ignored and took several pictures, all without incident.
Compare that with recent experiences posted here on bb and tell me which is the free(er) society.
@TheDucks
... they're fine with you taking photos in their underground train network, as long as you don't use a flash (and I can dig that, third rails etc).
I may be ignorant, but what do camera flashes have to do with the third rail?
My guess is they don't want other passengers being annoyed with the flash.
Hmm, I may have emerged from this discussion with a bit of egg on my face. I am now interested in joining the BBATPA, providing of course that on any clandestine mission protecting inalienable civil liberties, my disguise be a chicken costume.
Signed:
Petit Poulet
I have a question:
Does a subway platform count as "private" property or "public" property?
If it isn't public property then the security has every right to ask you to stop taking photographs. I've had it happen to me before and I always stop because I'm not sure if the subway counts as public or private space.
Anybody got a concrete answer to this?
If it isn't public property then the security has every right to ask you to stop taking photographs.
This is actually not true, though many people on both sides of the law seem to think it is.
If you're on private property that's open to the public, and the owner doesn't want you taking pictures, all the owner can do is ask you to get off their property. You do have to leave if asked, otherwise you're trespassing. But they can't prevent you from taking pictures.
Much of the time authorities don't know this, so they'll try to boss you into stopping your camera without telling you to leave. As long as they haven't told you to leave you're legally in the clear.
JUNE 1ST PHOTOGRAPHERS' PROTEST AT HOLLYWOOD AND HIGHLAND AND UNION STATIONS IN LOS ANGELES:
http://discarted.wordpress.com/
You obviously haven't seen Hogan's Heroes!
It might start out with wacky Nazi hijinx, but it ends up with homemade porn and blunt instruments.
Jeff-san;
"concentration camp" was a British invention to break South African (white) rebellion. Women and children were victims. Later, the Nazi's mass- murdered in "concentration camps".
The military prison camps for POWs of Hogan's Heroes was comparatively a vacation camp.
I mention this since "concentration camp" deserves to keep its "status".
Sorry if I repeat info that has been said here before, but the comments are overwhelming to dig through. Anyway ...
Bert P. Krages, a real, actual attorney, put together a guide called The Photographer’s Right. It’s a single-page PDF file available for free download from his website that, as he describes it, explains “your rights when stopped or confronted for photography.”
Among other things, he points out that the restrictions on public photography in the US are essentially nonexistent (and nothing about 9/11 changed that, not even the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act).
As a photographer myself, I always carry several copies of Mr. Krages’ flyers in my camera bag just in case I find myself needing to explain in a hurry why the person I’m talking to is an idiot. I haven’t seen a better reference, personally.
As for the red line incident, having one of these flyers on hand (or even having read it and being familiar with the contents) might have been very helpful for Keith. Or, who knows; as others have said, if any actual law enforcement officers were involved then it could also turn into a resisting charge before you know it. Rent-A-Cops (corporate security guards, etc.) of course do not have arrest authority.
I think ScottFree @12 has an interesting point:
He's right. The question of whether you're a lawyer should be completely irrelevant, since lawyers have the same rights as anyone else.It seems to me that what they're actually saying is:
1. "Are you going to be able to tell whether I'm lying, b*llsh*tt*ng, or telling the truth about the relevant law in this situation?"
and/or:
2. "Are you in a position to legally pursue this matter without having to pay a lawyer to represent you?"
Both of those are improper questions for security personnel or police officers to be considering when they're dealing with the public. I think they should be prohibited from asking whether someone is a lawyer, unless there's some specific, demonstrable, and legitimate reason to be doing so at that moment.
Spazzm @30: That's a good question.
Here's one to go with it: how secure is CCTV footage? Does anyone know? I've seen a lot of it turn up on television programs about bad drivers, stupid criminals, obstreperous citizens, disasters caught on camera, et cetera. Unless the data stream from the camera is secured against interception, and the data is routinely destroyed or kept in secure storage, surveillance footage is a bigger hazard than individual photographers.
CCTV footage is usually shot from a higher angle than any pedestrian photographer could manage, so it gives a broader and more comprehensive view of the area. Since it continuously records what's going on there, it can show when security personnel go on and off shift, when they take their breaks, what are their other routine departures from standard procedures, how they're trained to react to specific events, what distracts them, and which individual security guards are more or less dependable, observant, or punctual. In cases where CCTV cameras are being used in place of human guards, a person who's tapped into their data stream could even stage suspicious-looking but ultimately innocuous incidents in a camera's line of sight, and time how long it takes for someone to show up.
I think the public deserves to know how this material is being handled.
Doctor Pickles @78:
I guess today is my day to answer questions with questions: How many times now have you been in comment threads where someone's asserted that the owner or the owner's employees can forbid you to take photographs on private property, and someone else has explained (as Zikzak @79 explained to you here) that that's not true?If private property isn't open to the public but is within line of sight of public areas, you can take photographs of it from the public areas. And as Zikzak so lucidly explained, if you're on private property that's open to the public, the owner can ask you to leave, but not to refrain from taking photographs.
It's surprising how often this issue comes up. The owner's right to enforce preferred rules of behavior on private property is far more limited than many people imagine.
@Teresa:
I'm confused. As Bert Krages's "The Photographer's Right" states:
So do they have a right to ask you not to photograph or do they only have a right to ask you to vacate the premises? I would wager the latter, but I have it from the horse's mouth (so to speak) that states the former.