Photographer
Bob Helm Photography
Posts: 18907
Cherry Hill, New Jersey, US
Sleepy Weasel wrote:
First, the disclaimer: I haven't directly verified all facts with the people involved, but this is the story as I received it.
A friend (who happens to be a nurse) my mother-in-law met online, and has become good friends with, Is this not the way every Urban Legend starts out?
All this BS about loseing freedoms etc started by a unconfirmed rumor! Let go out and do something productive like take some photos or discuss the latest Karl Rove conspiracy. I heard that he really hates bridge pictures and models on railroad tracks
Photographer
Sleepy Weasel
Posts: 4839
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
I'm not surprised at the direction this thread went it, and it's funny how some have related similar stories to the one I posted, and some call bullshit.....but do any laws we have on the books make it OK to detain 3 nurses and 3 handicapped women AND delete their photos.
Photographer
Sleepy Weasel
Posts: 4839
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Robert Helm wrote:
Is this not the way every Urban Legend starts out?
All this BS about loseing freedoms etc started by a unconfirmed rumor! Let go out and do something productive like take some photos or discuss the latest Karl Rove conspiracy. I heard that he really hates bridge pictures and models on railroad tracks Unless the source (i.,e., the person this happened to) blatantly lied to my mother-in-law, I'd hardly call it a rumor.
But I like how you completely dismiss it and move on with your life because it doesn't affect YOU (for the time being).
Photographer
Jonny Carroll
Posts: 157
Lewisville, Texas, US
Nov. 2005, I was in queens photographing bridges and the skyline and two cops came and stopped me. They made me show them the photos and they were like "alright, but we gotta kick you off, it's the rules" or something like that. They were pretty cool about it, and honestly I was just happy to see police officers in that area at night. My friend I was staying with who goes to NYU was pretty shocked.
Photographer
Jonny Carroll
Posts: 157
Lewisville, Texas, US
Sleepy Weasel wrote:
I'm not surprised at the direction this thread went it, and it's funny how some have related similar stories to the one I posted, and some call bullshit.....but do any laws we have on the books make it OK to detain 3 nurses and 3 handicapped women AND delete their photos. unfortionatly probably so. I personally think their rights were violated, but maybe not "legally" violated. I don't know the law well enough though. I mean, if they were snooping around the FBI building, some nuclear powerplant or area 51, it might make more sense, but come on.. this was a tourist area.
Photographer
giovanni gruttola
Posts: 1279
Middle Island, New York, US
I'm not allowed to photograph bridges anymore ![https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr16narrowsbridge/photolibrary/1940/enlarged/1940_2.jpg]() Oh... and BTW... if you THINK something can't be... or hasn't been photographed for a possible terrorist target... think again.
Photographer
Three Spot Images
Posts: 13
Anchorage, Kentucky, US
I'm guessing it is an urban legend. These kind of things get blown out of context all the time so people can use the "examples" to further their agendas. Until it happens to someone I "know" it seems like hearsay.
Photographer
Bob Helm Photography
Posts: 18907
Cherry Hill, New Jersey, US
Sleepy Weasel wrote:
Unless the source (i.,e., the person this happened to) blatantly lied to my mother-in-law, I'd hardly call it a rumor.
But I like how you completely dismiss it and move on with your life because it doesn't affect YOU (for the time being). If they thought they were mistreated there are ways of filing complaints especially in NYC where they have a Civilian review Board for the police. There are always Civil Rights cases that can be filed. Any other action is more effective than rumor spreading on the internet, shich is surely the most accurate place to get your information.
It is not a matter of lying but a matter of perception, just look at the story of the Flying Imans, their story vs that of the flight crew and passenger are dramatically different.
If you know your rights it is your obligation to stand up for them, ask for a supervisor, ask if you are under arrest, ask for the cite of the law or reg you are accused of violating etc.
Photographer
Jonny Carroll
Posts: 157
Lewisville, Texas, US
Alpha Design wrote:
You can still get pics of the bridges but not while on the bridge. I was just walking down the shoreline, in no restricted area.
![https://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v38/65/84/194602817/n194602817_30138880_2984.jpg]()
![https://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v38/65/84/194602817/n194602817_30138877_2849.jpg]()
this was the last picture I got
Photographer
Brian Sanchez
Posts: 40
Albuquerque, New Mexico, US
My story is a little different. I was in Washington DC for work. I used to test cellular networks, âCan you hear me now â. I drove a van with a lot of test equipment, wires hanging out from every where and I also had a couple of car batteries when I had to test buildings.
This was my first time to DC so I found a place to park on a closed street near the National Memorials and walked over to take some photos. When I got back to my van I started to back out when a cop car rushed up to me with the lights on. Well I was thinking itâs not for me because Iâm just backing out, so I made a right turn on the next street to get out of his way. He followed me and I stopped. At that time another cop came up on a bicycle. As it ends up these guys were Secret Service not just your city cop. Two minutes later I had a van with five guys from DOE drive up. They are going through my camera and I had five laptops with me. They have me on the side of the road for four hours asking every imaginable question you could think of. Then I get a Ford Crown Vic pull up with two guys. They looked like the Men in Black. I got a little nervous when these guys pulled up. These guys were also Secret Service and were over six foot six and looked like they meant business. These two guys question me for another two hours while all the other guys are still going through all the stuff in the van.
The funniest part of the whole thing was that all of them asked if I had taken any pictures of the White House and I told all of them no, but it was clear as day that I indeed had one photo of it. Every single one of those guys liked the photos but never said, âHold on you do have one picture in question hereâ.
Needless to say I donât care for DC now.
Model
Carrie_K
Posts: 10053
Orlando, Florida, US
Let me just first off say that my father was a project manager for a company that designs bridges, so I got a little inside information. After Sept. 11, it became illegal for people to photograph bridges and certain high profile buildings. Also subways and other such things. The logic being that terrorist use these images to study the structures and plan the most effective attack. The highjackers on Sept. 11 were trained to hit the towers at a certain angle and height to cause maximum impact. Also, the laws changed to limit availability of blueprints to the general public.
Not to say that you can't still snap a shot of some bridges here and there, but be prepared to turn over the images if you get caught.
Photographer
Brian Mullins Photo
Posts: 533
Holly Springs, North Carolina, US
How is that we have so many people on here just handing up your freedoms? Yes, 9/11 was a tragedy, yes, the US does need to tighten up security, but that does not mean we should willingly hand over our freedoms in the name of national security. Sorry, but I have to disagree with the above statement about the 9/11 pilots being "trained" to hit the buildings at an exact angle. The flight school reports on ALL the pilots showed sub-standard skills. Link for confirmation: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/ … 8656.shtml Military installations, nuclear plants, refineries are all off-limits to photography. I can understand this as they are on private property as it is, and there is a REAL threat for this. But a bridge? A building? What's next, your car? How about your shoe (you could put a bomb in there). I'm an editorial photographer and very, very protective about my rights. What would of happened with Rodney King or the trucker who got badly beaten during the following riots had cameras been deemed "illegal" in those areas because of "security"? The government is more the welcome to surveil me, but I have just as much to surveil them at the same time. Lets not forget, the government is here for our protection but, as history has shown, governments can be power-hungry, sometimes corrupt entities where the top individuals want nothing more then more power and money. You may be willing to give up freedoms, one at a time, cause hey, it's only one, right? Not me, no thanks.
Model
Carrie_K
Posts: 10053
Orlando, Florida, US
Brian Mullins Photo wrote:
Sorry, but I have to disagree with the above statement about the 9/11 pilots being "trained" to hit the buildings at an exact angle. The flight school reports on ALL the pilots showed sub-standard skills. Link for confirmation: I didn't say they were well trained on how to fly. They were trained to hit at a certain story or below on the buildings though. Too high and the buildings never would have collapsed.
But I agree with your statements regarding our freedoms. That's the Patriot act for you that took most our freedoms away. They can jsutify anything just by claiming it's in the interest of national security. I'm tired of this whole administration personally.
Model
Mimi Chula
Posts: 27
New York, New York, US
If you don't give off the "reasonable suspicion" aura, they won't hassle you. However, if you hang out in one area a wee bit too long (5 minutes), or have a tripod, or even just a bunch of people with you, NYPD, guards, etc can and will delete your pics. SUCH BS, but true.
HERE IS AN ARTICLE From the NY TIMES.
June 29, 2007
City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography
By RAY RIVERA
Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or filming on city property, including sidewalks.
New rules being considered by the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance.
The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.
Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers.
Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps discriminatory enforcement by police.
''These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short videos for YouTube,'' said Christopher Dunn, the group's associate legal director.
Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague, and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, ''where people routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or film.''
The rule could also apply to people waiting in line to enter the Empire State Building or other tourist attractions.
The rules define a ''single site'' as any area within 100 feet of where filming begins. Under the rules, the two or more people would not actually have to be filming, but could simply be holding an ordinary camera and talking to each other.
The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers and photographers, said Ms. Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, but the language of the draft makes no such distinction.
''While the permitting scheme does not distinguish between commercial and other types of filming, we anticipate that these rules will have minimal, if any, impact on tourists and recreational photographers, including those that use tripods,'' Ms. Cho said in an e-mail response to questions.
Mr. Dunn said that the civil liberties union asked repeatedly for such a distinction in negotiations on the rules but that city officials refused, ostensibly to avoid creating loopholes that could be exploited by professional filmmakers and photographers.
City officials would not confirm that yesterday. But Mark W. Muschenheim, a lawyer with the city's law department, which helped draft the rules, said, ''There are few instances, if any, where the casual tourist would be affected.''
The film office held a public hearing on the proposed rules yesterday, but no one attended. The only written comments the department received were from the civil liberties group, Ms. Cho said.
Ms. Cho said the office expected to publish a final version of the rules at the end of July. They would go into effect a month later.
The permits would be free and applications could be obtained online, Ms. Cho said. The draft rules say the office could take up to 30 days to issue a permit, but Ms. Cho said she expected that most would be issued within 24 hours.
Mr. Dunn says that in addition to the rules being overreaching, they would also create enforcement problems.
''Your everyday person out there with a camcorder is never going to know about the rules,'' Mr. Dunn said. ''It completely opens the door to discriminatory enforcement of the permit requirements, and that is of enormous concern to us because the people who are going to get pointed out are the people who have dark skin or who are shooting in certain locations.''
The rules were promulgated as a result of just such a case, Mr. Dunn said.
In May 2005, Rakesh Sharma, an Indian documentary filmmaker, was using a hand-held video camera in Midtown Manhattan when he was detained for several hours and questioned by police.
During his detention, Mr. Sharma was told he was required to have a permit to film on city property. According to a lawsuit, Mr. Sharma sought information about how permits were granted and who was required to have one but found there were no written guidelines. Nonetheless, the film office told him he was required to have a permit, but when he applied, the office refused to grant him one and would not give him a written explanation of its refusal.
As part of a settlement reached in April, the film office agreed to establish written rules for issuing permits. Mr. Sharma could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Mr. Dunn said most of the new rules were reasonable. Notably, someone using a hand-held video camera, as Mr. Sharma was doing, would no longer have to get a permit.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
lela hazary wrote:
studio36uk wrote:
That is not only accurate but it is the way it should, indeed must, be.
Studio36 fantastic. so why does your government go even further than ours and film every street corner??? and HOW MANY crimes (and terrorist plots) has that privacy infringement prevented and/or solved? Because we actually let them; and they use the video works LIVE to solve and intervene in a lot of criminal disorder as well as after the fact crime... witness the rapid work on the two recent bombings in London.
At the same time, while the government is doing that, I can still go ANYWHERE IN A PUBLIC PLACE and take pictures of ANYTHING I WANT!!!
Unlike YOUR government's apparent position.
Studio36
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Carrie_K wrote:
Let me just first off say that my father was a project manager for a company that designs bridges, so I got a little inside information. After Sept. 11, it became illegal for people to photograph bridges and certain high profile buildings. Also subways and other such things. The logic being that terrorist use these images to study the structures and plan the most effective attack. The highjackers on Sept. 11 were trained to hit the towers at a certain angle and height to cause maximum impact. Also, the laws changed to limit availability of blueprints to the general public.
Not to say that you can't still snap a shot of some bridges here and there, but be prepared to turn over the images if you get caught. Before you go even one word further CITE THE LAW YOU CLAIM EXISTS!!!
Show us where it says what you say it does.
Patriot Act? Nope!!!The only thing that says about photogrpahy is that the government itself is going to get more money for their own cameras. What is doesn't say is anything about anyone elses camera(s). Not a word. No restrictions on photographing anything at all.
So if there's a law, as you claim, point it out.
Studio36
Photographer
Brian Mullins Photo
Posts: 533
Holly Springs, North Carolina, US
Carrie_K wrote:
I didn't say they were well trained on how to fly. They were trained to hit at a certain story or below on the buildings though. Too high and the buildings never would have collapsed.
But I agree with your statements regarding our freedoms. That's the Patriot act for you that took most our freedoms away. They can jsutify anything just by claiming it's in the interest of national security. I'm tired of this whole administration personally. I should of been a little more detailed in my explanation. Sorry about that. Their training, from the reports I've seen, concluded they had no idea the buildings would collapse. The engineering reports on the building had only gone thru a small plane hitting the building, so there was no engineering data to support/discount the affects a larger commercial plane would have if they hit the building. Additionally, even commercial pilots said trying to hit a building in a plane with any level of precision is a very difficult task, even for an experienced pilot.
So basically, no one knew what would happen to the buildings, you had pilots that had sub-standard skills at piloting even small/lightweight aircraft and you had the government, that had been given multiple opportunities to catch the people before the act had taken place (reports of many arab people in flight schools, faa reports of students failing flight courses but given a commercial certificate). It definitely smells the government is trying to deflect their failures.
Can you tell I think our current government is antiquated, bloated, ineffecient and ineffectual?
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
MonicaH wrote:
If you don't give off the "reasonable suspicion" aura, they won't hassle you. However, if you hang out in one area a wee bit too long (5 minutes), or have a tripod, or even just a bunch of people with you, NYPD, guards, etc can and will delete your pics. SUCH BS, but true. They can't [legally] without a court order. They may ask you to do it, but even that is a questionable practice. They can ask and all you have to do is refuse.
You don't even have to show them what you have... or can they look on their own... unless they want to get a warrant signed by a real judge.
Just say no!!!
What the f**k do you think they would, or could, do if you were shooting film?
Studio36
Photographer
Miami Glamour
Posts: 1378
Miami Beach, Florida, US
Lazyi Photography wrote:
I want to specifically address this drivel, without caring about the rest, because after you wrote this crap anything else you have to say is just that, crap.
Let me clue you in to this woman's "nightmare out of some Kafka novel".
First off, there are large signs posted around the security checkpoint, stating no water. Guess we need to dumb down the signs to say something like "this means you". Would that help? So firsto ff the lady, willingly chose to ignore the signs, oh wait, what about the fact it had been on the news, internet, radio and newspaper for 6 1/2 months before she went through the security checkpoint. Guess her dumbass lived in a cave huh?
Now as for her being "detained", harassed" and "threatened". She was being politely escorted to where she could dump the water, when she chose to pour it out on the floor. Gee, it is her fault for ANYTHING after that. She is so ignorant she deserves anything that comes after that. But all that was done was she was handed paper towels to clean up her mess and she was asked for identification so a report could be written about her ignorance. Also part of that "45m minute detainment" was more then liely from her arguing about why she shouldn't have to follow clearly posted rules. She is the one that caused her own inconvience.
Good thing TSA immediatly came out with the video to disprove her ignorant statements, now if only people would read and actually learn such things.
Please quit spreading your lies.
Here is the videos the TSa released of the incident. Nothing like what our friend above will have you believe.
http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/approach/mythbus … ident.shtm The government is evil!!
I did watch the video. and except for the one TSA officer who followed her the rest of the TSA people were either dozing off or playing grab ass!
The point is...which you miss completely ... this was all over 3 ounces of water which she offered to empty...she just wanted the fucking cup back! And the point of my original post was that we are playing these silly fucking games with babies and old people instead of going after the real terrorists!
Model
Carrie_K
Posts: 10053
Orlando, Florida, US
studio36uk wrote:
Before you go even one word further CITE THE LAW YOU CLAIM EXISTS!!!
Show us where it says what you say it does.
Patriot Act? Nope!!!The only thing that says about photogrpahy is that the government itself is going to get more money for their own cameras. What is doesn't say is anything about anyone elses camera(s). Not a word. No restrictions on photographing anything at all.
So if there's a law, as you claim, point it out.
Studio36 You sound like a very angry man. I don't know what your beef is with me. I'm stating something I know from my father's work in bridge and transportation design. Do I know the specific law in all it number/ dot/ slash/ mumbo jumbo. No. Nor do I can to spend the time looking ti up for someone who just seems to want to start an argument.
And as for the patriot act, no where did I say that it had anything to do with photography. If you're going to jump down my throat and attack me, at least read before doing so. I mearly stated that the patriot act has been the basis behind a lot of laws that take away our rights.
Model
Carrie_K
Posts: 10053
Orlando, Florida, US
Brian Mullins Photo wrote:
I should of been a little more detailed in my explanation. Sorry about that. Their training, from the reports I've seen, concluded they had no idea the buildings would collapse. The engineering reports on the building had only gone thru a small plane hitting the building, so there was no engineering data to support/discount the affects a larger commercial plane would have if they hit the building. Additionally, even commercial pilots said trying to hit a building in a plane with any level of precision is a very difficult task, even for an experienced pilot. When the buildings were designed, they were made to withstand the largerst plane at the time. Of course, with time, we made bigger planes and thus we did not know if they could withstand the increased size. The real problem with the building collapsing was that the steel used at the time of their construction ws not as pure as the steel now. When exposed to extreme stress (such as what occured with the recent bridge collapse) the steel fails at the inperfections. Heat in the case of the towers, weight in the case of the bridge.
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
QuaeVide wrote:
Any act might be part of a terrorist plot. Filling a car with gas, for example, might be part of a plot if the trunk of the car is filled with explosives and the driver is on his way to the nearest federal building. Buying coffee might be part of a plot if the purchaser is planning to stay awake all night working on a cunning plan.
Is photographing a bridge any more likely to be part of a plot than, say, buying coffee? There is no quantitative basis for meaningful comparison. I believe that people have seen movies featuring covert operations in which photographs were used, and thus believe that photography is one of the key components of such operations.
Does prohibiting photography make it harder to blow up a bridge? Again, no quantitative basis for deciding. Urban bridges are readily viewable. Aside from the obvious ways to photograph a bridge without being noticed (hidden camera, telephoto lens from 5 blocks distance), can't the terrorists just rent an office with a view of the bridge for their scheming? Walk across it and memorize its structure? (How much detail do they actually need?) Should the authorities ban looking at bridges for more than 30 seconds? Very well said, word, right-on, bravo, etc.
There are many more good examples:
A baby carriage might hide a bomb or poison, even if a baby is inside.
A walked dog could wired with some type of device.
A person's heavy coat could be hiding something (In refinery safety training videos, we are warned about this).
Photographer
Conceptually Black
Posts: 8320
Columbus, Ohio, US
Miami Glamour wrote:
The government is evil!!
I did watch the video. and except for the one TSA officer who followed her the rest of the TSA people were either dozing off or playing grab ass!
The point is...which you miss completely ... this was all over 3 ounces of water which she offered to empty...she just wanted the fucking cup back! And the point of my original post was that we are playing these silly fucking games with babies and old people instead of going after the real terrorists! So you are saying we need to profile? What does a terrorist look like? Tell me once what a terrorist looks like? Tell me what a person who doesn't blow up a building(in general terms). In the middle East and Africa they train children to kill, why couldn't they here?
And one of the points you miss is, she was offered the chance to dump her water, where everyone else is told to dump her water, in a bathroom or plnt OUTSIDE of security. Same rules acrossed the board.
So you watched the video, yet still say the TSA was threatening. Now it is they were dozing/playing grab ass(where, I saw no one grab an ass). I'm starting to think you are basically ignorant of basic, simple facts. What do you need? Maybe a notebook would help you keep up with the thought processes involved here.
Photographer
Conceptually Black
Posts: 8320
Columbus, Ohio, US
Carrie_K wrote:
When the buildings were designed, they were made to withstand the largerst plane at the time. Of course, with time, we made bigger planes and thus we did not know if they could withstand the increased size. The real problem with the building collapsing was that the steel used at the time of their construction ws not as pure as the steel now. When exposed to extreme stress (such as what occured with the recent bridge collapse) the steel fails at the inperfections. Heat in the case of the towers, weight in the case of the bridge. ssssshhhhh... quit talking about the buildings falling. You're far off on your reasoning. You're not doing yourself any justice here.
I'm off to work, when I get back tonight, I'll tell you what was wrong with your line of thought on the towers falling and a brisge collapsing.
Photographer
Al Perry
Posts: 475
Roy, Utah, US
jasontheartist wrote:
What if a terrorist really did take pictures of a bridge to record its structure for later use in terrorism and they caught him before he killed countless people? Everyone would be happy he was caught and congratulate the good work of the law enforcement involved. Bieng flagged a terrorist I find really hard to believe for taking pictures. Sometimes one person has to have a bad experience to protect the more important majority. In regards to the "fearful country" weve become, yes we as humans have fear as part of a survival instinct to deny it makes you vulnerable. Wah Wah Wah
Photographer
Al Perry
Posts: 475
Roy, Utah, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Have you ever lived under a police state? Do you even understand what it means to be suspect for photographing, writing and documenting what are potential abuses of power?
It's alright for police to shoot video footage of us, yet if I were to turn my video camera on the police, I risk getting my ass kicked! There would not have been knowledge of the abuse of power, and the prejudice that happened to Rodney King if it were not for the bravery of someone with a video camera in LA. Did you know that persons life was threatened?
I am a liberal if that means I am for Civil and Constitutional rights. Well said
Model
Carrie_K
Posts: 10053
Orlando, Florida, US
Lazyi Photography wrote:
ssssshhhhh... quit talking about the buildings falling. You're far off on your reasoning. You're not doing yourself any justice here.
I'm off to work, when I get back tonight, I'll tell you what was wrong with your line of thought on the towers falling and a brisge collapsing. I'd love to hear your version. I guess the structural engineering explainations I've been getting are flawed. While I'd look forward to sit and debate with you when you have the time, I will not shush. I have as much right to speak as the inconsiderate, yelling people who just like to attack those with an opinion. Feel free to drop me a line any time. Maybe it's you who have flawed information. Maybe it's me. But one can only realize when the mind is opened to all possibilities.
Photographer
Al Perry
Posts: 475
Roy, Utah, US
giovanni gruttola wrote:
I'm not allowed to photograph bridges anymore
![https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr16narrowsbridge/photolibrary/1940/enlarged/1940_2.jpg]()
Oh... and BTW... if you THINK something can't be... or hasn't been photographed for a possible terrorist target... think again. Of course it has but I rather doubt a terrorist would be open about it so he will still get his picture but we can't.
Photographer
Imajin Studios
Posts: 2163
i was stopped by a police officer in Indianapolis once because some lady called the police department saying there is someone walking around the city with a large zoom lens on his camera taking photo's, the police officer asked to see what pictures i had taken and there was a shot of a window washer up on a building i'd say about 45th floor, he asked me for an ID and i asked him since when did it become illegal to walk around with a camera, behind us there was a group of tourists taking pictures and i asked him are you gonna go harrass those tourists too, because i see they have camera's, and now the crowd at the restaurant patio became interested and the police officer went ahead and called it in saying oh he's only taken a picture of a window washer and he left
Photographer
GEHCreative
Posts: 508
Hillsboro, Oregon, US
studio36uk wrote:
http://photo.net/photo/pcd0094/santa-cr … s-12.4.jpg
[Warning sign on a California beach:]
"Swimming in ocean or surf can be hazadous"
"Waves are powerful. They can badly injure you."
D'oh... are people THAT STUPID? That they need to be reminded that the ocean is dangerous?
------
Better yet, can anyone explain what THIS actually means? Does it mean that this is the only place where free speech can be practiced? Something else? Some particular kind of free speech? Is there more than one kind?
http://photo.net/photo/pcd1359/free-speech-area-27
Studio36 You obviously are not a South Park fan? 1/4 of the population you know. . .
Photographer
no longer here
Posts: 1
Well, first in order to get photographs of bridges, you don't have to take any, there are thousands on sites like flickr.com etc. So, guess what, if I am a terrorist, no need to go through the hassle of going to take the photo myself ...
I left the U.S. in 2002 and now live in one of the best cities, HONG KONG!
Stories like this should be old ones from Nazi Germany, but obviously the U.S. is not far from it (actually the law that gave Hitler the unlimited power he abused is - translated into English - called "Patriot Act")
Mick
Photographer
GEHCreative
Posts: 508
Hillsboro, Oregon, US
Robert Helm wrote:
Is this not the way every Urban Legend starts out?
All this BS about loseing freedoms etc started by a unconfirmed rumor! Let go out and do something productive like take some photos or discuss the latest Karl Rove conspiracy. I heard that he really hates bridge pictures and models on railroad tracks Yes it is exactly how it begins.
Photographer
Jerry Rybansky
Posts: 981
Bayonne, New Jersey, US
Paul Brecht wrote:
Lol...
I ran across this article the other day on Photo.net:
http://photo.net/ca/moving-to-california
It somewhat explains WTF is going on, using CA as an example...
welkome in new "komunist country USA" start to by realy fucking live her next band seling camera ?????
Paul
Photographer
GEHCreative
Posts: 508
Hillsboro, Oregon, US
MonicaH wrote:
If you don't give off the "reasonable suspicion" aura, they won't hassle you. However, if you hang out in one area a wee bit too long (5 minutes), or have a tripod, or even just a bunch of people with you, NYPD, guards, etc can and will delete your pics. SUCH BS, but true.
HERE IS AN ARTICLE From the NY TIMES.
June 29, 2007
City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography
By RAY RIVERA
Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or filming on city property, including sidewalks.
New rules being considered by the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance.
The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.
Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers.
Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps discriminatory enforcement by police.
''These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short videos for YouTube,'' said Christopher Dunn, the group's associate legal director.
Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague, and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, ''where people routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or film.''
The rule could also apply to people waiting in line to enter the Empire State Building or other tourist attractions.
The rules define a ''single site'' as any area within 100 feet of where filming begins. Under the rules, the two or more people would not actually have to be filming, but could simply be holding an ordinary camera and talking to each other.
The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers and photographers, said Ms. Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, but the language of the draft makes no such distinction.
''While the permitting scheme does not distinguish between commercial and other types of filming, we anticipate that these rules will have minimal, if any, impact on tourists and recreational photographers, including those that use tripods,'' Ms. Cho said in an e-mail response to questions.
Mr. Dunn said that the civil liberties union asked repeatedly for such a distinction in negotiations on the rules but that city officials refused, ostensibly to avoid creating loopholes that could be exploited by professional filmmakers and photographers.
City officials would not confirm that yesterday. But Mark W. Muschenheim, a lawyer with the city's law department, which helped draft the rules, said, ''There are few instances, if any, where the casual tourist would be affected.''
The film office held a public hearing on the proposed rules yesterday, but no one attended. The only written comments the department received were from the civil liberties group, Ms. Cho said.
Ms. Cho said the office expected to publish a final version of the rules at the end of July. They would go into effect a month later.
The permits would be free and applications could be obtained online, Ms. Cho said. The draft rules say the office could take up to 30 days to issue a permit, but Ms. Cho said she expected that most would be issued within 24 hours.
Mr. Dunn says that in addition to the rules being overreaching, they would also create enforcement problems.
''Your everyday person out there with a camcorder is never going to know about the rules,'' Mr. Dunn said. ''It completely opens the door to discriminatory enforcement of the permit requirements, and that is of enormous concern to us because the people who are going to get pointed out are the people who have dark skin or who are shooting in certain locations.''
The rules were promulgated as a result of just such a case, Mr. Dunn said.
In May 2005, Rakesh Sharma, an Indian documentary filmmaker, was using a hand-held video camera in Midtown Manhattan when he was detained for several hours and questioned by police.
During his detention, Mr. Sharma was told he was required to have a permit to film on city property. According to a lawsuit, Mr. Sharma sought information about how permits were granted and who was required to have one but found there were no written guidelines. Nonetheless, the film office told him he was required to have a permit, but when he applied, the office refused to grant him one and would not give him a written explanation of its refusal.
As part of a settlement reached in April, the film office agreed to establish written rules for issuing permits. Mr. Sharma could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Mr. Dunn said most of the new rules were reasonable. Notably, someone using a hand-held video camera, as Mr. Sharma was doing, would no longer have to get a permit. Right. Contrary to popular, 1/4 of the population, who believe that government is out to get them. Government is only interested in retaining it's own station in life. Municipal government is especially concerned with revenue collection, hence the insane fees for photography permits which have been required in most of these United States for decades.
Most of us were not aware of that were we? Taking photographs of model in varying levels of attire in National Forests, BLM Lands, etc.. All blissfully ignorant of the fact that a permit is required for commercial photography?
Photographer
SeriouslyFunny
Posts: 10641
Atlanta, Georgia, US
FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
It's not just bridges either.....try taking photos around airports, railway classification yards, oil refineries, nuke plants and anything considered "infrastructure".....
I was even stopped one night for taking time exposure shots of toll booths on the Garden State Parkway in Jersey.
So next time someone says "what freedoms have you lost?".....quite a few it seems and getting worse by the day. Are you feeling safer yet? Tell me about it...
![https://www.rgaddis.acceleron.net/thingspix/swisslax.jpg]()
![https://www.rgaddis.acceleron.net/thingspix/omnidc.jpg]()
![https://www.rgaddis.acceleron.net/thingspix/delta764.jpg]()
This type of thing happens all the time in the aviation photography community. I just laugh at those of you who just say it's an urban legend.
Even with my airline ID I get hassled and told to leave. Let me get this straight...I went thru a 10 year FBI background check so I can walk around INSIDE an airport, but I can't walk around OUTSIDE?
This is what happens when our "leaders" pander to the stupid and fearful.
Robert Helm wrote:
Is this not the way every Urban Legend starts out?
All this BS about loseing freedoms etc started by a unconfirmed rumor! Let go out and do something productive like take some photos or discuss the latest Karl Rove conspiracy. I heard that he really hates bridge pictures and models on railroad tracks Listen, the next time you have a thought...Let it go.
Model
LelaHazary
Posts: 9371
Los Angeles, California, US
studio36uk wrote:
lela hazary wrote:
studio36uk wrote:
That is not only accurate but it is the way it should, indeed must, be.
Studio36 fantastic. so why does your government go even further than ours and film every street corner??? and HOW MANY crimes (and terrorist plots) has that privacy infringement prevented and/or solved? Because we actually let them; and they use the video works LIVE to solve and intervene in a lot of criminal disorder as well as after the fact crime... witness the rapid work on the two recent bombings in London.
At the same time, while the government is doing that, I can still go ANYWHERE IN A PUBLIC PLACE and take pictures of ANYTHING I WANT!!!
Unlike YOUR government's apparent position.
Studio36 wow. london films the streets because you let them? you are seriously confused.
and yes, it did prevent damage in those two recent bombing attempts. thank you for proving my point.
as for your "my dad can beat up your dad comment", i can go to my presidents house and take pictures. can you go to the queens and do the same???
Model
LelaHazary
Posts: 9371
Los Angeles, California, US
studio36uk wrote:
They can't [legally] without a court order. They may ask you to do it, but even that is a questionable practice. They can ask and all you have to do is refuse.
You don't even have to show them what you have... or can they look on their own... unless they want to get a warrant signed by a real judge.
Just say no!!!
What the f**k do you think they would, or could, do if you were shooting film?
Studio36 i dont know.... maybe REMOVE the film?!?
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Carrie_K wrote:
I don't know what your beef is with me. Here's the beef. You said: "After Sept. 11, it became illegal for people to photograph bridges and certain high profile buildings. Also subways and other such things."
Those are declarative statements. They have to be based on something other than your statement alone. I am trying to get at what you believe they are based on. You could also have said "I think that..." or "I believe that..." or "Isn't it true that..." but you didn't offer it that way. You said in effect that "it is". You declared it as fact and can't support it as fact.
In every respect it most certainly isn't!
Studio36
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
lela hazary wrote:
i dont know.... maybe REMOVE the film?!? Not without a warrant or court order they can't. Quite simple really.
Studio36
Model
LelaHazary
Posts: 9371
Los Angeles, California, US
rp_photo wrote:
Very well said, word, right-on, bravo, etc.
There are many more good examples:
A baby carriage might hide a bomb or poison, even if a baby is inside.
A walked dog could wired with some type of device.
A person's heavy coat could be hiding something (In refinery safety training videos, we are warned about this). its ironic... you are making a sarcastic joke but these are things that security in israel must look at as possible threats.
perhaps after a few buses and cafes are hit you wont think its so funny anymore...
|
