View Full Version : Are you in the Homeland Security database?
I am now! Was "caught" taking photos of a wall of a building which turns out belongs to the New Jersey Transit system. The NJ Path police weren;t rude but they said there was a law of some sort that prohibited photography on/of NJ property without prior permits. They asked if my camera was digital - I showed them the RB67 Pro SD - with the tele lens -- and they didn't quite know what to make of it so I reassured them that it wasn' digital. They seemed to imply that if it was digital, then they would have erased the photos. Anyway, they took down my ID info and said it would go into their Homeland Security database. I'll have to look into the legal implications and options. Good thing I already had all the photos I wanted already.
Funny thing is that the New York subway system and the NJ Transit system doesn't have such a policy but the PATH system does? Talk about self-glorification!
I remember as a kid that one of the signature outrages of the Soviet Union was that you could be detained just for taking pictures in the wrong place. Magazines routinely had to explain this when reporting on some incident or other because the very idea was so foreign.
Thank god we won.
I remember as a kid that one of the signature outrages of the Soviet Union was that you could be detained just for taking pictures in the wrong place. Magazines routinely had to explain this when reporting on some incident or other because the very idea was so foreign.
Thank god we won.
You don't have to tell me. I'm Iranian - and guess what? I was hassled just ONCE in Iran for taking photos - and even then it was minimal compared to this incident. Oh the irony.
Bruce Watson
1-Sep-2007, 14:58
Oh the irony.
When all the citizens are in the database, what have you got? And how does it make anyone safer? Except the bureaucrats of course, who are safer in their jobs (of overseeing the database). After all, that's what's really important, yes? And that, I think, is the real irony here.
And if it makes you feel any better, I'm sure I'm in dozens of government databases. You aren't alone.
John Voss
1-Sep-2007, 15:22
When all the citizens are in the database, what have you got? And how does it make anyone safer?.
Twice when going to exhibitions at the Armory in NYC, I and all attendees had to show a picture ID. Why? The people checking didn't check anyone against a database. They didn't have a list of people to exclude. There was no age requirement (for alcohol purchase which wasn't an option). Zippo....except to go through the exercise. Since a low yield suicide bomber wearing a sport coat or a suit could probably have gotten in, what was the point? Officious idiots abound it seems.
The problem is that the idiocy doesn't end there - god only knows what these databases are used for, and what sort of quality control is being exercised over them
Here, read the stories:
Innocent people put on terrorist list to meet quotas (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9559707/detail.html)
American citizen is denied a mortgage because his middle name matches an alias of one of Saddam's sons, even though he was born 40 year earlier. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032602088_pf.html)
Famous American senator singled out on secret government "no fly" list. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/20/MNGQ28BM1O1.DTL)
Thousands of people are wrongly on secret "terrorist" lists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601360.html)
Makes you feel real safe, don't it?
Dean Cookson
1-Sep-2007, 19:40
Twice when going to exhibitions at the Armory in NYC, I and all attendees had to show a picture ID. Why? The people checking didn't check anyone against a database. They didn't have a list of people to exclude. There was no age requirement (for alcohol purchase which wasn't an option). Zippo....except to go through the exercise. Since a low yield suicide bomber wearing a sport coat or a suit could probably have gotten in, what was the point? Officious idiots abound it seems.
Why not just say no? Seriously. If it really upsets you (and it would me, in this case) refuse to comply. The worst that can happen is that you're refused entrance. If enough people stop meekly complying with BS like this, it'll stop.
When people in stores ask me for phone numbers or addresses or zip codes, I refuse. When they ask me to look in my bag on the way out, I refuse. If you don't like it, don't do it.
Peter Lewin
1-Sep-2007, 19:49
Earlier thread, same subject: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26475
In my case, police also said they had to file a report, didn't specifically say it would go into the Homeland Security database, but that's my guess where it ended up.
Earlier thread, same subject: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26475
In my case, police also said they had to file a report, didn't specifically say it would go into the Homeland Security database, but that's my guess where it ended up.
Actually Peter, your experience is worse than mine. I was technically on the transit system's property - you seem to have been in a totally public place!
JW Dewdney
2-Sep-2007, 01:46
My money's on the possibility they were blowing smoke up your arse with the purpose of:
1. either trying to scare you and/or everybody in general (for whatever purposes)
and/or
2. feeling powerful.
I mean - think about it - WHY would any sane person go into law enforcement or security except for access to cheap and easy power...?
I'll happily go on record to say that I think the whole Homeland Security/Patriot Act thing is just a huge cash scam.
Think about this: if you were ACTUALLY trying to catch criminals/terrorists whatever - the very LAST thing you'd probably want to do is go announcing it all over that you're tapping the phones and monitoring everyone's e-mail. You'd say "no - we're NOT going to do that because we believe in liberty or freedom or whatever" and then you go and actually DO it. If they're actually OUT there... you'd be FAR more successful with a tactic like that - it seems to me. They just want to scare the public into submission IMO. That's the way I see it, anyway.
BrianShaw
2-Sep-2007, 08:37
In my case, police also said they had to file a report, didn't specifically say it would go into the Homeland Security database, but that's my guess where it ended up.
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?
They just want to scare the public into submission IMO. That's the way I see it, anyway.
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.
Brian Ellis
2-Sep-2007, 09:30
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.
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,
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.
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint) - which is presumtively unconstitutional (http://www.il-press.com/downloadable_ads/art/1stBook6.pdf) - 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.
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?
Yeah, good luck with that. Two years later, when they get around to responding, you'll quickly discover the "law enforcement" exemption (http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/exemption7.htm) to the FOIA, plus the hodge-podge of state FOIA exemption laws (http://www.rcfp.org/homefrontconfidential/rollback.html), 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...
Brian Ellis
2-Sep-2007, 11:15
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.
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.
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?
Doug Dolde
2-Sep-2007, 12:24
Two lawyers in a pissing contest. What a disgusting spectacle.
BrianShaw
2-Sep-2007, 12:25
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.
I don't think so. "Talk about self-glorification!" ;)
Brian Ellis
2-Sep-2007, 12:39
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.
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?
Oh fer chrissakes I was just making a point on a discussion forum as I sip a latte and work on other tihings. Get over yourself. I don't know why you feel so threatened by all this. Heres a suggestion: if you think this sutff isn't important DON"T READ IT. No on is forcing you!
You raise a point then decide its not relevant to LF photography. SHeesh brian, you woke up on the wrong side of hte bed again.
PS: Blackstone's COmmentaries has a particular relevance to prior restraint, and is particularly applicable to the US since it greatly influenced the US constitutional view of the issue.
Jason Greenberg Motamedi
2-Sep-2007, 12:46
Believe me, if you make a Homeland Security list you will know it the next time you fly. No reason to go piddling around with the FOIA.
BrianShaw
2-Sep-2007, 13:06
Hey... I have an idea... let's discuss the type of film used to take the picture... or how the pictures come out... or whether (or not) a 6x7 is large format. This is the "Large Format Forum" after all!
Hey... I have an idea... let's discuss the type of film used to take the picture... or how the pictures come out... or whether (or not) a 6x7 is large format. This is the "Large Format Forum" after all!
The issue of laws re: photo permits is relevant to location photography. So, hey, I have another idea. I don't tell you what to talk about, and you don't tell me what to talk about? Deal?
BrianShaw
2-Sep-2007, 19:27
I wasn't telling you what to talk about. You can talk about whatever you want. I enjoy most of your threads. I just thought the discussion had kinda played out. Really... what kind of film were you using, and how did those pics come out?
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint) - which is presumtively unconstitutional (http://www.il-press.com/downloadable_ads/art/1stBook6.pdf) - 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.
All good and true arguments except for one small detail - I believe you stated you were on private property - the owner of private property has every right forbid photography while you're on his property.
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.
Hmm - I don't remember anywhere in the constitution where it says I can't be put on a list or that I have a right to know what lists my name happens to be on. Putting you on a list doesn't violate your rights - it's what is done with that list that may or may not violate your rights.
All good and true arguments except for one small detail - I believe you stated you were on private property - the owner of private property has every right forbid photography while you're on his property. .
I said I was on NJ Path system property whch is not "private property" but is government property open to the public and in any case there's a public easement there. Its about as private as the New York subway system, and yes, your constitutional rights follow you there too.
Some restrictions are allowed on first amendment activity but subject to strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) and time-place-manner (http://www.ncac.org/art-law/top-time.cfm) limits.
A general arbitrary ban on un-permitted photography doesn't meet that standard, which is why photography is allowed on other transit system.
Hmm - I don't remember anywhere in the constitution where it says I can't be put on a list or that I have a right to know what lists my name happens to be on. Putting you on a list doesn't violate your rights - it's what is done with that list that may or may not violate your rights.
Well, you.ve reversed how the constitution is interpretted. You assume that unless it says you have a particular right, then you don't have it. The reverse is true. Constitutions are meant to be limits on governments (http://www.constitution.org/constitutionalism.htm), not people. So, unless the constitution says that the government is allowed to do something, IT isn't allowed to do it. The consitution is not an exclusive list of your rights - it is a list of what the gov't is or isn;t allowed to do. You won't read anything in the constitution that says you have a right to privacy either. Nor does it say anything about a right to marry or raise a child or choose a career.
I deleted the long legal talk I had typed because it is out of bounds of this forum and I dont want tlo be dispensing legal advice but basically when people's names are placed on lists due to exercising their right of free expression or association, that results in a "chilling effect" on free speech which in many ways is more insidious than outright gov't censorship since it results in self-censorship. There are? (were - things are changing) laws placing all sorts of limits on gov't power to surveil peaceful first amendment activity. You don't have to wait to be arrested or whatever = the chilling effect is enough of a "constitutioanl injury" (See Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. US, 870 F.2d 518, 522 (9th Cir. 1989); Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Walker, 450 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2006))
“The right to be left alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms.” -Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
FWIW i think the US govt is getting a bit carried away in their attempt to to violate the constitution and people's right and freedoms. it makes me sick that they are applying scare tactics on the american people, non stop all the time.
go to another country and see how the news differs. it is not all fear, war and terrorists. in the same breate i will tell you i have live extensively in thailand which is now under a military junta. my wife is from myanmar (burma) another military junta, and my brother lives in vietnam a communist country. i have spent many months in these countries. so i am very familiar with govt who provide their citizens with little or no freedoms. i think the US is heading toward being just like these places! the US population should be very careful how they let fear run their lives and their govt policies.......
Greg Lockrey
3-Sep-2007, 05:01
FWIW i think the US govt is getting a bit carried away in their attempt to to violate the constitution and people's right and freedoms. it makes me sick that they are applying scare tactics on the american people, non stop all the time.
go to another country and see how the news differs. it is not all fear, war and terrorists. in the same breate i will tell you i have live extensively in thailand which is now under a military junta. my wife is from myanmar (burma) another military junta, and my brother lives in vietnam a communist country. i have spent many months in these countries. so i am very familiar with govt who provide their citizens with little or no freedoms. i think the US is heading toward being just like these places! the US population should be very careful how they let fear run their lives and their govt policies.......
I too lived in many of the countries that you have described. Upon returning to thew US after being "away" for ten years I noticed the same thing back in 1978. Americans apparently want this thing called socialism. Now they are getting it. If your'e bitching already, you haven't seen nothing yet.
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.
We need not be reminded of the rights we have and the adjusments we all have to make in order to maintain those rights, good, bad, or indifferent.
We're all on lists, have been since birth, what's the big deal? Having a SS card put's you on a list, having a credit card puts you on a list, being a taxpayer puts you on a list, having a mailing address puts you on a list, having email puts you on a list, and on and on and on.
Until the list makers come knocking on my door with a search warrant for my arrest lets see how many more lists I can get on before I die.
tim atherton
3-Sep-2007, 09:21
Until the list makers come knocking on my door with a search warrant for my arrest lets see how many more lists I can get on before I die.
what makes you think they need any kind of warrant? (or that such a warrant is meaninglessly easy to obtain)?
We need not be reminded of the rights we have and the adjusments we all have to make in order to maintain those rights, good, bad, or indifferent.
We're all on lists, have been since birth, what's the big deal? Having a SS card put's you on a list, having a credit card puts you on a list, being a taxpayer puts you on a list, having a mailing address puts you on a list, having email puts you on a list, and on and on and on.
Being on a list for social security cards isn't exactly the same thing, is it?
The "adjustments" are the taking away of rights and instilling of fear in people who are engaging in perfectly legal activities. Its funny how there's always some big "crisis" that supposedly requires the people to accept "adjustments" to their rights.
To quote Benjamin Franklin: Those who sacrifice liberty for security will have neither.
Or to quote Plato: Tyrants first appear as protectors.
Paul Fitzgerald
3-Sep-2007, 09:42
Hi all,
Please remember that the "Articles of Confederation" are still in full force and effect today also.
"The consitution is not an exclusive list of your rights - it is a list of what the gov't is or isn;t allowed to do. You won't read anything in the constitution that says you have a right to privacy either. Nor does it say anything about a right to marry or raise a child or choose a career. "
"Hmm - I don't remember anywhere in the constitution where it says I can't be put on a list or that I have a right to know what lists my name happens to be on. Putting you on a list doesn't violate your rights - it's what is done with that list that may or may not violate your rights."
That one is called the ninth ammendment.:eek:
I - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
IV - Right of search and seizure regulated
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
IX - Rule of construction of Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X - Rights of the States under Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Happy Labor Day.
what makes you think they need any kind of warrant? (or that such a warrant is meaninglessly easy to obtain)?
What country are you writing from? Here the authorities are busy keeping cities safe. I should knw I grew up with one, my dad. I've never had a problem with the authorities ever and I led a toxic childhood. If they want to come beat my door down for some form of infraction I will invite them in for tea and find out why they are here. I have nothing to hide and I don't know every rule and regulation like they do.
There is a purpose for everything. Nothing is perfect. What's the big deal?
tim atherton
3-Sep-2007, 10:35
What country are you writing from? Here the authorities are busy keeping cities safe. I should knw I grew up with one, my dad. I've never had a problem with the authorities ever and I led a toxic childhood. If they want to come beat my door down for some form of infraction I will invite them in for tea and find out why they are here. I have nothing to hide and I don't know every rule and regulation like they do.
There is a purpose for everything. Nothing is perfect. What's the big deal?
oh, I don't know. Things like hey, we have a Canadian Citizen transiting through the airport (traveling legitimately form a to b but having to stop over in the US. We think he might be a bad guy, so lets detain him illegally then send him against his will to a country where the security forces aren't encumbered by any kind of constitution so they can imprison and torture him for us for a couple of years and pass on any information they get.
Ignoring both US law and International Treaties to which the US is a signatory
Ooops - our bad, we got the wrong guy, he was entirely innocent - our information was bad. But hey - don't expect us to apologise.
Just one of many many examples
Being on a list for social security cards isn't exactly the same thing, is it?
The "adjustments" are the taking away of rights and instilling of fear in people who are engaging in perfectly legal activities. Its funny how there's always some big "crisis" that supposedly requires the people to accept "adjustments" to their rights.
To quote Benjamin Franklin: Those who sacrifice liberty for security will have neither.
Or to quote Plato: Tyrants first appear as protectors.
I grew up in the 60's/70's when things were really intense. nothing appears to be all that intense nor challenging my way of life in this moment. Yes, there are threats to my liberties but it has yet to affect my lifestyle in any manner that I can detect.
People get stopped for photographing oil refineries and I'm not surprised. Say you produced a product that a society relied on and there were people photographing (in whatever manner) the operation you are responsible for worth trillions. You have no way of knowing how that information will be used. It could be analyzed for political purposes like destruction, it could be a nice print of some pretty lights. The actual property belongs to the oil company. Go to a Ultrasound trade show and try getting into one of your competitors booths, yeah good luck. But why? we are in a public building in a public trade show forum, and we are all Americans with civil liberties.
The struggle to define liberty is as old as mankind and the living creatures who inhabit earth. When it all gets sorted out it will be a wonder if any civilization is left to experience it.
oh, I don't know. Things like hey, we have a Canadian Citizen transiting through the airport (traveling legitimately form a to b but having to stop over in the US. We think he might be a bad guy, so lets detain him illegally then send him against his will to a country where the security forces aren't encumbered by any kind of constitution so they can imprison and torture him for us for a couple of years and pass on any information they get.
Ignoring both US law and International Treaties to which the US is a signatory
Ooops - our bad, we got the wrong guy, he was entirely innocent - our information was bad. But hey - don't expect us to apologise.
Just one of many many examples
no one said living in this world was perfect - you could be wondering if you will be eating a nail infested suicide bomb for lunch with your falafal - I haven't traveled since 2004 or so. The only problem I had was in Nashville. At the airport I was given the third degree because I had a guitar and no short hair. What do you expect from the south? 40 years ago they were lynching black people for being alive.
If you feel betrayed spend some time talking to someone who has experienced Baghdad, Vietnam, or Cambodia, or any of the great wars, famines, massacres, typhoons, earthquakes, etc, etc, etc. Talk to the Katrina survivors.
no one said living in this world was perfect
tim atherton
3-Sep-2007, 11:12
no one said living in this world was perfect - you could be wondering if you will be eating a nail infested suicide bomb for lunch with your falafal - I haven't traveled since 2004 or so.
no one said living in this world was perfect
nice response: isolationism + "I'm not worried about any kind of unwarranted erosion of rights and freedoms, illegal and questionable actions by agents of the state or such - as long as it doesn't happen to me or my friends it's just fine."
good strategy
nice response: isolationism + "I'm not worried about any kind of unwarranted erosion of rights and freedoms, illegal and questionable actions by agents of the state or such - as long as it doesn't happen to me or my friends it's just fine."
good strategy
ok - straight up - what are you going to do about it?
ok - straight up - what are you going to do about it?
Start by complainiing about it on this board. Perfectly good reaction. Talking about things helps more than remaining silent.
no one said living in this world was perfect
And no one said you had to just sit there and take it either.
Do we really have to wait until blackshirts are goose-stepping down main street?
tim atherton
3-Sep-2007, 11:31
ok - straight up - what are you going to do about it?
well - a good step would be to get rid of the wankers currently in control and then (hopefully...?) get people running things who actually know what they are doing.
I have a very good friend who regularly lectures and runs seminars at Quantico for senior FBI officials on counter-terrorism.
He has been actively involved in the field for 30 years (as was I at that time, when we first met - well, 28 years ago for me)
We spoke a couple of weeks ago and his experience is still that in most cases they basically haven't got a clue what they are doing - especially the higher up the ladder you go. Tried and tested policies and strategies, backed up by quantifiable results, get ignored while ideology takes the lead.
He related how the best of these people know that and yet their hands are tied.
So much of what is being done is actually demonstrably counter effective in making N.America safe - yet that is simply ignored
(as an aside, one senior agent came up to him at coffee at his last seminar and asked him "have you ever met a terrorist face to face and talked to them?" (which if he had actually read his CV would have been obvious) response - "Jesus man, I went to school with terrorists - what do you think!")
tim atherton
3-Sep-2007, 11:56
People get stopped for photographing oil refineries and I'm not surprised. Say you produced a product that a society relied on and there were people photographing (in whatever manner) the operation you are responsible for worth trillions. You have no way of knowing how that information will be used. It could be analyzed for political purposes like destruction, it could be a nice print of some pretty lights. The actual property belongs to the oil company.
Lets look at your rather misleading example of the oil refinery because it's specifically about photography.
There is no law on the books which prevents you from taking pictures of most oil refineries from a public place. In fact your right to take such photography is probably actually protected.
And yet people are not only questioned for doing so, they are actually prevented from doing so, have been told to move on, have had their equipment confiscated, even taken into "custody" and so on.
Now, in times of true national emergency the Government has actually suspended those rights and made it illegal to take such photographs.
So why - in the current state of affairs when some quite draconian laws were being introduced as a result o 9/11 and almost anything could have been passed wasn't that done. In fact NO laws restricting photography were introduced at all?
Taking such photographs remains entirely legal and permissible. And yet people are regularly (and illegally) prohibited from doing so on the basis of some imaginary and illogical beliefs and reasoning.
Greg Lockrey
3-Sep-2007, 12:04
well - a good step would be to get rid of the wankers currently in control and then (hopefully...?) get people running things who actually know what they are doing.
:D :D :D Just where are you going to find these?
This might be worth printing and carrying around with you:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
tim atherton
3-Sep-2007, 12:46
:D :D :D Just where are you going to find these?
there is that :eek:
my vote goes to Obama Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU
BrianShaw
3-Sep-2007, 13:36
Start by complainiing about it on this board. Perfectly good reaction. Talking about things helps more than remaining silent.
I'm not too convinced that this approach will lead to a solution that any of us will see in our lifetimes, but I do feel better educated on the breadth of opinion on this topic.
BrianShaw
3-Sep-2007, 13:39
We spoke a couple of weeks ago and his experience is still that in most cases they basically haven't got a clue what they are doing - especially the higher up the ladder you go. Tried and tested policies and strategies, backed up by quantifiable results, get ignored while ideology takes the lead.
I once heard that you "can't take the politics out of politics". This problem is true in law enforcement as well as in many other parts of the military-industrial complex. If it's not ideology that alters logic, it is greed... and sometimes plain old stupidity.
Greg Lockrey
3-Sep-2007, 14:07
there is that :eek:
my vote goes to Obama Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU
I read somewhere that's she's not for Obama after all. :p
C. D. Keth
5-Sep-2007, 17:31
I did something similar. I was in Hershey, PA at my Mom's last year. I made the mistake of thinking the public works buildings were fair game for viewing by the public. They actually thought that a 20 year old kid with a hundred year old 5x7 and ugly brass lens was doing devious, homeland-endangering work.
Greg Lockrey
6-Sep-2007, 05:59
Just got a lawyer . . .
Why waste your money on a bottom feeder?:confused:
BrianShaw
6-Sep-2007, 07:03
Just got a lawyer . . .
Since there was no arrest, confiscation of equipment, etc... what legal action is there to take? I'm curious, not challenging your decision.
See Bruce Scheier's writings (http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0702.html) on security matters.
He's the one who coined the term "security theater" to describe most of the tactics that pass for 'security' in this post-911 era.
Since there was no arrest, confiscation of equipment, etc... what legal action is there to take? I'm curious, not challenging your decision.
A classic case of prior restraint, with totally discretionary permit rules. That's the easy part. Most of the heavylifting was done by previous cases re: leaflet distribution in the stations
The hard part is getting the name off the database. Laird v Tatum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laird_v._Tatum) haunts us still, but I think there are enough factors to distinguish it. Thats going to be the fun part. (yes I know the Wikipedia entry on Laird is erroneous - this was a standing issue not a ripeness issue - but its a good enough description of the case for this thread)
I'm working on a due process claim too. Then have to check into NJ constitutional law next.
Why waste your money on a bottom feeder?:confused:
Professional courtesy! (Joke!)
No, its for free.
Greg Lockrey
7-Sep-2007, 23:26
Professional courtesy! (Joke!)
No, its for free.
:D :D :D You know what they say? You get what you pay for.
As a side note...I had an attorney that was approached by my advisary's attorney to handle a car transfer matter for him in another state since he couldn't do it for himself. This all occured during disposition for a civil case I had against his client. I won BTW. You bottom feeder's...:D
Professional courtesy? Wasn't that the reason why snakes don't bite lawyers? :D
I did something similar. I was in Hershey, PA at my Mom's last year. I made the mistake of thinking the public works buildings were fair game for viewing by the public. They actually thought that a 20 year old kid with a hundred year old 5x7 and ugly brass lens was doing devious, homeland-endangering work.
I had a related - though more benign experience - photographing a waterworks. The fellow who came out to see what I was doing was intelligent and courteous, and quickly understood I was no threat to anyone. So, at that moment, my experience was almost pleasant, though in the back of my mind lurked the thought that any lingering suspicion would possibly get my film taken, or the cameras or ... etc....
We have become a considerably more suspicious society, and that, coupled with the fact that most people haven't the slightest idea why someone might want to make art from some industrial building or facility, makes me far slower to photograph where I want.
If one was to go through (gawd - I just counted the decades) four decades of my slides, there's a long thread of interest in signs and towers and tanks and smokestacks and billboards and factories.... Many of those things have long interested me as a kind of monumental sculpture to be used as a topic for photography and for painting. I've been interested in all this for decades before terrorism became a fact of life worldwide.
Anyone want to guess how much the last few years have slowed that shooting? I don't want to end up on some list somewhere and find travel becomes a nightmare. I wish I shared some folks optemism that all these processes are benign and well administered. Given that the way people end up on a list is a secret, and that the lists are secret, and that there's generally no way off the lists if you're not a senator, it make one darn careful.
I guess that if there's a facility that I really, really, want to photograph from a public road, I'll take the time consuming process of notifying state and local authorities etc and making sure I have the names I talked to so that whan a police car pulls up and starts saying no I can't do this or that, I have his boss's name and number and his boss's boss's name and number too, and a go ahead. But, by that time the light will have changed and...
It makes me feel creepy - knowing that now, nothing is functionally "legal" if someone in authority deems it "suspicious". Can anyone here explain why a young person with a wood 5x7 should merit the slightest attention?
It's pathetic.
C
It makes me feel creepy - knowing that now, nothing is functionally "legal" if someone in authority deems it "suspicious".
This statement pretty much sums it all up, nice and neat. The natural tendency of those in power is to seek more power. The only thing that keeps them in check is educated and upright public.
On the other hand, someone once said that the purpose of terrorism is simply to terrorize. Whether it succeeds or not depends less on the terrorists then on their target audience, so to speak.
There is a certain confluence of circumstances in these two facts, which appears to be very fortunate for the current administration and very unfortunate for the rest of us.
I guess that if there's a facility that I really, really, want to photograph from a public road, I'll take the time consuming process of notifying state and local authorities etc and making sure I have the names I talked to so that whan a police car pulls up and starts saying no I can't do this or that, I have his boss's name and number and his boss's boss's name and number too, and a go ahead. But, by that time the light will have changed and...
It makes me feel creepy - knowing that now, nothing is functionally "legal" if someone in authority deems it "suspicious".
C
Yes, and that's called a Chilling Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect) of your Freedom of Expression. The fact that you have to look over your shoulder or get gov't permission to exercise a right...
"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs: when he first appears he is a protector" - Plato
Greg Lockrey
9-Sep-2007, 19:01
Professional courtesy? Wasn't that the reason why snakes don't bite lawyers? :D
:D :D :D Good one, never heard that before.
Dean Cookson
9-Sep-2007, 21:29
Yes, and that's called a Chilling Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect) of your Freedom of Expression. The fact that you have to look over your shoulder or get gov't permission to exercise a right...
Yup, and the *only* way to make it go away is to not stand for it. When someone tries to violate your rights by asking for ID, or your film, or for you to leave public property politely (but firmly) decline to comply. When election time rolls around call the campaign offices for the candidates in your area, ask them their position on protection of civil rights and vote for the one that gives you the right answer. Then, check up on how they do in office. If they do something to further erode your rights, call and write and give them an earful. If they do something to protect or restore your rights, call and write and let them know that you're paying attention and you appreciate their efforts. By being active, involved citizens you can restore what's rightfully yours...
Ted Chambers
10-Sep-2007, 10:28
The Port Authority has always operated under the Robert Mugabe manual of civil liberties. They were hassling people (read, yours truly) for taking pictures thirty-five years ago. Also you can't eat, drink, sneeze, spit, etc. etc. in the PATH. Check the signs. It would be nice if they applied the same diligence in improving their abominable service, but that will never happen.
NJ Transit has (and AFAIK has always had) a policy against photography on their properties without a permit. I've taken pictures in Hoboken (including with a tripod) and never been questioned, and of course on most of their properties no employees are present to monitor what you're photographing. I suspect the reason for the policy has less to do with homeland security than with the danger posed to a photographer (and perhaps to waiting passengers or passing trains) when shooting near an active railroad.
The MTA proposed banning photography in the subway, but if you recall backed down in the face of overwhelming ridicule.
NJ Transit and the MTA in NY do allow photography now. The Port Authority is the lone holdout.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.