If you are really curious, you can always file a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request and find out if there really is a file on you?Originally Posted by Peter Lewin
If you are really curious, you can always file a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request and find out if there really is a file on you?
It's all about Fear. It is tempting to use it as a power tool and it gives a good short-term return, so to speak. But the problem with Fear as a rulling method is that people get numb to it after a while, so it requires constant increases. The problem is that the byproducts of fear are resentment and apathy and people can only be scared so much. When the fear peak is reached, it starts loosing its effectivness, but the resentment and apathy remain and resentment keeps growing.
It was not us that brought the Communism down, it was apathy and resentment on the part of their own population. Nothing worked properly because of apathy, and when the fear wore out, resentment brought the whole thing crashing down as a house of cards.
So you were taking pictures of a wall. You were politely asked to stop. Your film wasn't taken, your camera wasn't confiscated, you weren't arrested, you weren't charged with anything, nobody has claimed you're a terrorist, etc. etc. All that has happened is that some functionary has told you that you're now in a data base (which may or may not be true and if true may or may not have any significance). And you consider yourself having been subjected to a major hassle, sufficiently bad that you post a message here to let us know of this horrible event and to tell us how much less hassled you were in Iran? Then you follow that up with links to stories that you apparently collect in order to convince yourself or others of just how misguided our national security efforts are.
The fact of the matter is that millions upon millions of photographs are made in the U.S. every day without a peep from anyone and without any news stories being written about it. I've yet to see a headline along the lines of "Photographer Makes Photograph of Building, Nobody Hassled Him." The vast majority of people in this country - probably 99.99% - go about their business every day without being hassled about anything and certainly without being put on any list. But let one nut security officer or bureaucrat overstep the bounds or let a name get put on a list that shouldn't be on it and immediately we get the kind of stuff you collect and post here.
Sorry but when I read of the things going on all over the world every day I'm not too excited about the fact that you couldn't make more pictures of a wall, that you may or may not be on some list, and that you may or may not suffer some unknown consequences of being on whatever list you may or may not be on.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Well Brian, for the sake of others who may be interested, the first issue is that requiring a permit of photographers is still the official policy of the Port Authority system - where as in the NY and NJ Transit system has had to bow to constitutional law. See, requiring permits for the exercise of First Amendment rights constitutes a little something we call Prior Restraint - which is presumtively unconstitutional - especially when, as it turns out, the NJPATH makes a habit of routinely denying permits based on the arbitatrary wishes of some faceless bureaucrat, which has no relationship to any legitimate security issue (note that the terrorist can take all the photos they want with camera phones)
Second, the police can be perfectly polite and friendly - and still violate your constitutional rights. Its not the police - its the policy that's at question. It doesn't have to amount to a "major hassle" - its still a violation YOUR rights too not just mine. Even if only 1 person's rights are violated by an unconstitutional law,it affects us ALL because we are ALL going to have to look over our shoulders for Big Brother and worry about what he may think of our photography.
Third, it may not seem like a big deal, but its these little invasions of rights that add up. First, they came for the photographers . . . If more people stood up and asserted their rights, we'd have fewer problems.
Fourth, the fact that I don't know what the list is that my name may or may not be on is IN ITESELF a violation of due process and federal/state privacy laws. I shouldn't have to guess, I should be able to challenge/expunge/correct the information as with say, my credit record - but guess what! Homeleand Security has exempted itself from most forms of FOIA by creative interpretation of the applicable exemptions, so I can't ever know for certain what list I am on, what use is made of this list now or tomorrow, and how to get off of it. Tens of thousands of Americans are on various lists that prevent them from getting credit or getting on airplanes - and they have no way of knowing what list they're on, why, and how to get off of the list. Yes, you read that right.
And finally, I know that your life is at oh such a higher level than mine, but please forgive me for starting this thread. My gosh, how dare I waste the electrons that bounced off your precious eyeballs! The shame! The shame!
And yes, apparently it does take someone from Iran to remind Americans of their own values and freedoms that they take for granted once in a while.
Yeah, good luck with that. Two years later, when they get around to responding, you'll quickly discover the "law enforcement" exemption to the FOIA, plus the hodge-podge of state FOIA exemption laws, as have all the other people who are trying to figure out why they're suddenly not allowed to board airplanes or can't finance a car purchase. Then, you'll have to wait another few years before you have "exhausted administrative remedies" so you can go to court . . . and wait some more...
I said nothing about the legality or merits of any governmental body's actions about anything. I also said nothing about the quality of my life vs your life or what lists anyone is on and how they can or cannot get off the lists. In fact I can't find anything in your "response" that's relevant to anything I said. I made two points and two points only - that I didn't think your "hassle" was much of a hassle at all and that when it comes to the types of things discussed in the links you provided it's a good idea to keep everything in perspective. That's all I said. However, as a retired lawyer with two law degrees and 31 years of experience in the practice of law, I will tell you that when it comes to the 1st and 14th amendments to our constitution things aren't quite as simple or clear cut as you seem to think they are and that Wikpedia is not an accepted source for accurate and complete information about legal principles.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
I'll let others decide what you said and didn't say, and I don't think this is the place to cite Corpus Juris Secondum or Blackstone's Commnetaries. Wikipedia does a fine enough job. Keeping things is perspective means exactly what? Photographers minding their own business aren't beaten like Rodney King? Is that the standard we're applying now? Personally I am not so concerned about being on a list since frankly I take it as a badge of honor as a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I'm probably on many lists. But that doesn't make it right, does it? We shouldn't live in a dossier society, where everyone has a file with the secret police. But that's what we've become.
And Oh, I too have two law degrees, so lets not pull out our academic/professional wee wees to compare whose is bigger, shall we?
Two lawyers in a pissing contest. What a disgusting spectacle.
I don't think so. "Talk about self-glorification!"
You have two law degrees and they didn't teach you how to spell Corpus Juris Secundum? Or that Blackstone's Commentaries, being commentaries on the laws of England in the 18th century, have minimal relevance to the matters about which you're expounding? But regardless of that, I'm happy to learn (and not surprised) that you're a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I served as a local counsel to the ACLU for some years, back in the days when it was concerned with protecting the rights of all as opposed to protecting only those who agreed with and could assist in advancing its political agenda.
I'll leave you with your pride at being a card-carrying member of the ACLU and on many government lists, both are certainly achievements of which to be proud. However, I think we've already gone well beyond anything relevant to a large format photography forum.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks