"Because of 9-11";cops think they can do anything they want to photographers in NY

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by qtraindash7, May 15, 2005.

  1. qtraindash7

    qtraindash7 Guest

    Recently, 2 rather disturbing incidents in New York City regarding
    photography have been reported on the web. The first was by an NYCT
    employee taking photos in Manhattan. He was taking a photo in the
    subway when a cop "sidled" up to him and the guy explained he was an
    NYCT employee. The cop said "I could have you locked up and take away
    your camera". The cop didn't, but that kind of abusive language should
    be grounds for a dismissal from the police force.
    Another incident just reported was someone taking photos of buses from
    a public street. A supervisor called the police on him and they said
    "photography of any NYC Transit vehicle is illegal and I could take
    your camera but I won't". First of all there is no ban on photography
    on NYC subways. The "proposed ban" was a $25 fine, the cops seem to be
    going well beyond even the proposed rule!
    In the 2nd incident which is similar to encounters with NJT Police, the
    person was on a public street beyond the authority of NYCT rules.
    New York and many places in America are becoming more like the USSR.
    Its too bad the media fails to realize this is going on. How can we
    stand for this? For myself, I avoid problems. I don't want to risk
    being arrested or having my camera seized. So I stick to shooting
    nature and isolated railroads where no one will bother me. I now live
    in fear of the government. Its out of control. Police used to follow
    the law, now it just seems like they can do anything they want "because
    of 9-11".
    qtraindash7, May 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. qtraindash7

    Stacey Guest

    I too have shied away from a few shots for this same reason.

    But I was harassed years before 9/11 at the Atlanta Olympic games in 1996. I
    was walking to the public rail station and saw 5 orange tanker trucks lined
    up in a row at a "tank farm" and took a shot of them sitting there as I
    walked by. A cop yelled at me, came over, took my camera and threatened to
    remove the film for "security" reasons....Needless to say I was LIVID but
    stayed calm, explained I lived nearby and wasn't a "terrorist" so he
    handed it back with a warning.

    Not only are the police doing anything they want, the whole government is to
    everyone in this country. All they have to say is "It's because of the
    terrorists" and they have free reign.
    Stacey, May 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. qtraindash7

    SteveB Guest

    How are they going to know if someone is taking a photo with a mobile phone?
    SteveB, May 15, 2005
  4. Traitor Stacey wrote in part:

    Hmmm. Anti-American speech. Emboldens the terrists. Sounds like
    something an "enemy combatant" might say. Off to GITMO with you!

    That's a cool 500 Patriot Points right there! HOO-AH!
    Unclaimed Mysteries, May 15, 2005
  5. Not too easily right now, unless there's a clever way to determine who's
    got what kind of phone on the cell network. Give 'em time.

    On a related subject, When I went to a Verizon store in Huntsville, AL
    recently, I saw droves of cubicle-dwellers desperate to exchange their
    camera phones for a non-camera type. Apparently a big fat juicy
    Department of Defense contract had been let out and one of the
    requirements for the companies was NO EMPLOYEE CAMERA PHONES AT WORK.
    The next day security was going to confiscate them as the badged and
    scanned employees went in the door. That went for /everybody/ in the
    sprawling office building, not just the people in the department doing
    that particular DoD work.

    I could see this become a trend, at more companies, for more and more
    reasons. Some plausible reasons maybe, but some just so the company can
    put your Dilbertian-a$$ in its place.

    It is truly the Golden Age of the Asshole.
    Unclaimed Mysteries, May 15, 2005
  6. qtraindash7

    Backbone Guest

    There are no words that can be heard unless someone listens....
    Remove *flaps* to reply

    LOL - most cities in the US of A (this is before 911 ) charge the media the big
    bucks to take photos of the public - you sure as hell can be put away for not
    complying with a well know fact!! You need a media release to take photos --
    however if your a consumer with a consumer type camera you shouldn't have to
    worry i.e. the photos are for your own personal use.
    sounds like a good rule to me - so follow it and stop bitching....
    Your going overboard - slow down a bit and take a breather
    Backbone, May 15, 2005
  7. qtraindash7

    Andy Turner Guest

    That's abusive language? Oh you poor lambs...

    Andy Turner, May 15, 2005
  8. qtraindash7

    mcl Guest

    DOD rules require that if you work in a "SECRET" area you can bring in a
    cell phone but it must be off. No camera phones at all off or not. In fact,
    if a camera phone is brought into a secret work area it's to be confiscated
    and destroyed. In a Top Secret area you can't bring in any cell phone off or
    mcl, May 15, 2005
  9. qtraindash7

    Toomas Guest

    I hope that they do something against spam what appears
    to come from DoD computers. I really hope that they don't
    come from there.

    Toomas, May 15, 2005
  10. I taught an on-site course recently for employees of a company that does
    defense work. At the entrance was a large sign saying "COMPANY POLICY IS
    Andrew Koenig, May 15, 2005
  11. qtraindash7

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Oh? And what have they done TO YOU? I keep hearing this silliness, but
    it is meaningless unless you have a specific incident to report.
    Ron Hunter, May 15, 2005
  12. qtraindash7

    Ron Hunter Guest

    And there is cause for someone to take a camera phone in to work, rather
    than leaving it in the car, or at home? I know that cell phones have
    taken on a life of their own, but believe it or not, life happened
    before cell phones, people went to work, drove home, and even visited
    restaurants, theaters, and churches without them! Amazing, I know, but
    Ron Hunter, May 15, 2005
  13. qtraindash7

    Musty Guest

    They used 9-11 as a way to invade an innocent country killing 10's of
    thousands of innocent people (including women and children), what makes you
    think they cant use 9-11 to take your camera away.

    Musty, May 15, 2005
  14. qtraindash7

    Ivor Floppy Guest

    That's abusive language? If that counts as abusive language and is grounds
    for a dismissal, then it's no wonder your country is in such a mess.
    Ivor Floppy, May 15, 2005
  15. qtraindash7

    Charlie Self Guest

    Hush, man. Gotta be in touch every single second of the day--and night.
    Or if not in touch, listening, listening, listening.
    are talking about all the damned time. Can't be that everyone in the
    world is getting the message to pick up a quarter of milk or a head of
    lettuce at the same time.
    Charlie Self, May 15, 2005
  16. qtraindash7

    james Guest

    Ok, people can't manage to leave their phones somewhere in a
    life-and-death situation. How can I ever expect them to stay out
    of orchestra concerts and films?
    james, May 15, 2005
  17. qtraindash7

    james Guest

    I'm trying to understand how this resolves with the Constitutional
    interpretation that, you may take photographs of a public place, as long
    as you have a right to be there.
    james, May 15, 2005
  18. qtraindash7

    james Guest

    Well, a threat of arrest is the same as arrest, so it is already at that
    point across the line of a rights violation. It's pretty obvious that
    the officer did NOT have the authority to "have him locked up", and
    taking away property would necessarily involve some procedure for
    forfeiture of assets. Doing any of this without due process, can and
    should end the career of the police officer responsible. If the officer
    does not take his job seriously enough to follow the rules laid down for
    law enforcement, he needs to be in a different profession.
    james, May 15, 2005
  19. qtraindash7

    james Guest

    What is abusive here is the direct threat of arrest without any apparent
    process. Police in the US cannot simply make arrests and confiscate
    property at their own discretion. This is in fact part of the most
    fundamental basis of the US government.

    I'm not actually convinced that the US "is a mess", by the way. It
    appears to be functioning pretty well.

    It will be a mess when we start to jeopardize the ideas that made the
    country livable in the first place; things like freedom of assembly in
    public places, due process of law, and the right to not have your
    property seized at the whim of every person with any authority. All of
    these are quite fundamental to the system, and they are not being
    observed by the police officer in the story.
    james, May 15, 2005
  20. qtraindash7

    Terl Guest

    From Holocaust by Robert L. Weston:
    I was dumb when they took my neighbor
    (I hear those footsteps getting closer),
    Held my tongue when they took my friend
    (Oh, my heart! No need to be afraid!).
    I was still when they took my brother
    (They'll never take me).
    Who will speak up for me?
    Terl, May 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.