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, recently came back from a trip to New York City with 2 other nurses and 3 mentally and physically handicapped women (in wheelchairs). They drove there in a wheelchair accessible van. Just to show no discrimination here, all of the women are white Americans.

As I heard the story, they visited Grand Central Station and one of the bridges out there (not sure which one yet), taking pictures.

When they got to the end of the bridge, law enforcement (not sure which branch) supposedly detained the women for 2 hours, deleted every picture they took, and put them all on a 'terrorist list'.

My mother-in-law's friend has a trip to the Caribbean planned next week, and I would assume if she is truly on a terrorist list, she won't be able to fly there now.

Could this possibly be a real story? Is it illegal (and a terrorist activity) to take photos of bridges now? Any bridge? Just certain bridges? I have recent photos I've taken of bridges - am I now a suspected terrorist?

Someone truthfully tell me this story can't possibly be true. I am outraged at the thought of taking pictures can make someone a terrorist in the eyes of the U.S.A. now.  I hope to have more details in the next few days. Perhaps the women involved will go to the local news for some publicity, if this is true.

Oh boy...   I was in NYC back in May and took dozens of pics of the Brooklyn  Bridge, United Nations, Statue Of Liberty, Empire State Building, etc...  It's called being a tourist!  I guess if your hearing is bad you could mistake tourist for the other word.  I was never hassled and even took pictures of NYPD vehicles, and officers.  I would be inclined to believe the story is hog-wash, but then again who knows.  Police follow the definition of the law (for the most part) and if myself and the dozens of others that day got away with photographing tourist spots then I am uncertain why the person above in question failed...

Miami Glamour wrote:
Not surprised to hear it!

happens all the time...just do a Google search

http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives. … &year=2004

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3802.htm

Welcome to Goerge Bush's AmeriKa

Pat Thielen wrote:
This is what happens when our society becomes one based on fear rather than empowerment. This is not what America is about and its very sad we're rapidly becoming this fearful.

And it's not like the "terrorists" can't get a photo of the bridge in the public domain or take picture covertly.

Couldn't have said it better...we are becoming a nation of people who are scared shitless.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security -Benjamin Franklin

Alpha Design wrote:
Dude this is one of my biggest complaints now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I live right outside the Bronx and we got some great bridges i.e. Brooklyn, Manhattan Bridge, George Washington, Spyte and whatever Bridge, etc.

I can not say if the story happened but I can certainly say that there are signs posted that say you can not take photos on the bridges all through NYC.  yes it is a punishable offense but I dont know what the punishment is.

Could this possibly be a real story?  Yes

Is it illegal (and a terrorist activity) to take photos of bridges now?
I think its illegal to take photos FROM the bridge but terrorist sense would say photos of the bridge are helpful for an attack too.  Is it illegal ? well its forbidden

Any bridge? yeah all the ones Ive seen in Manhattan and the boroughs have those signs somewhere but i havent seen every bridge yet :-)


Just certain bridges? nope seems to be all of them


I have recent photos I've taken of bridges - am I now a suspected terrorist?
probably not if you not in NYC :-)

yeah this is fucken ridiculous (is cursing not allowed here ? if not sorry); i could get some sick shots especially the bridges that are where the Hudson and the East River connect at the northern tip od Manhattan

You can still get pics of the bridges but not while on the bridge...maybe its forbidden but whatever

If I have the time I should do a lil photojournalism of the bridges in NYC with a friend of mine - just go take pics at each one :-)

I can tell you that since 9/11 I have taken pics of Verrazano Bridge and GWB but not while on the bridge

Ill tell you who must really be pissed off : the troll who lives under the bridge !!!  he probably got evicted and since he doesnt look American they probably messed up his passport too (I think he was from an Eastern European country originally - or maybe England - the teeth ya know:-)

That is total crap!  By doing stuff like that the terrorists are winning.  They are responsible for your own government taking away your freedoms and liberties.  That is a damn shame that NYC's own citizens or tourists can't photograph such wonders.  I do however note that 100's of photos are taken daily of such bridges so clearly it is a low-priority policing matter.

Miami Glamour wrote:
Couldn't have said it better...we are becoming a nation of people who are scared shitless.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security -Benjamin Franklin

Taking a picture of a bridge is an "essential liberty"?  Interesting.  Perhaps you should take a look at the context that spawned that quote, which is being used inappropriately with increasing frequency.

Let's also hope that the same people who criticized the government (both the Bush AND Clinton administrations) for not doing more to prevent 9/11 are still spouting the same quote after the next one.

There are plenty of bridges you can still take pictures of.

If you want me to actually see the criticism you think I'm due for saying that, feel free to send a PM.  I'm not gonna check this thread, so you can flame with impugnity.

Cheers,

Phil


"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved.
  -- Confucius

"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."
  -- John F. Kennedy

"The ultimate security is your understanding of reality."
  -- H. Stanley Judd

"As if there were safety in stupidity alone."
  -- Henry David Thoreau

Digital Soup wrote:
New World ORDER. We brought it on ourselves, actually its the dumbasses that can't follow simple rules or control themselves , that are fukking it up for the rest of us. If everyone would show class and restraint then non of this could be legal. ME ME ME I,I,I, BUH BYE!

I don't know what happened?

OH YES YOU DO.

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...

Paul

Digital Soup wrote:
New World ORDER. We brought it on ourselves, actually its the dumbasses that can't follow simple rules or control themselves , that are fukking it up for the rest of us. If everyone would show class and restraint then non of this could be legal. ME ME ME I,I,I, BUH BYE!


I don't know what happened?


OH YES YOU DO.

QFT!

Miami Glamour wrote:
Couldn't have said it better...we are becoming a nation of people who are scared shitless.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security -Benjamin Franklin

BSCS Photography wrote:
Taking a picture of a bridge is an "essential liberty"?  Interesting.  Perhaps you should take a look at the context that spawned that quote, which is being used inappropriately with increasing frequency.

Let's also hope that the same people who criticized the government (both the Bush AND Clinton administrations) for not doing more to prevent 9/11 are still spouting the same quote after the next one.

There are plenty of bridges you can still take pictures of.

If you want me to actually see the criticism you think I'm due for saying that, feel free to send a PM.  I'm not gonna check this thread, so you can flame with impugnity.

Cheers,

Phil


"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved.
  -- Confucius

"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."
  -- John F. Kennedy

"The ultimate security is your understanding of reality."
  -- H. Stanley Judd

"As if there were safety in stupidity alone."
  -- Henry David Thoreau

Damn 2 amazing posts in a thread like this hard to believe!

Greg Cobb wrote:
I was in Peabody Place in Memphis last year.  They told me I couldn't take pictures inside there either.  I didn't argue because I can see their point.  I think they can be a little harsh in some cases though.  I was in there shooting a band.

Their point was simple - Peabody Place is PRIVATE PROPERTY and privately owned. Not at all the same thing.

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...

Paul

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

Pat Thielen wrote:
This is what happens when our society becomes one based on fear rather than empowerment. This is not what America is about and its very sad we're rapidly becoming this fearful.

And it's not like the "terrorists" can't get a photo of the bridge in the public domain or take picture covertly.

It is sad!  I used to shoot around freeways, parks, hotel lobbies, as well as bridges without being questioned.  After 9/11, it seems like everyone is looked upon with suspicion.  The current administration has changed our country for the worst!   Laws have been passed that treat us like children who don't know any better, rather than empower us with the truth of what we can do to prevent any future attacks.  The United States will be a much safer place to live once George W goes back to the village he came from.  They need their idiot back! 

"The truth shall set you free!"

lela hazary wrote:
wah wah wah...

if the liberals stopped crying long enough to actually try to come up with a SOLUTION to a problem, rather than just crying about the problem itself or bitching about other people's methods of resolve - i would be more than happy to listen... 

the wah wah wah though, is getting pretty annoying

Truth is that George W Bush is one of the most liberal Presidents we have ever had!  Conservatives are for less government, not more.  Republican from the Rockefeller-era were for conservative fiscal policy that meant less taxation and less spending too.  Bill and Hilary Clinton studied the economic teachings of Nelson Rockefeller and that is why we had a budget surplus NOT the largest deficit ever as we do now. 

Republicans from that era also did not believe in the mixture of religious theology with government policy. That happened with the "Moral Majority" who helped get Ronald Reagan elected. They have disbanded because they have done their damage ... em, (I mean "job", right?) so well!  They have the seats on the Supreme Court to throw our society back into the dark ages .. actually it was the Supreme Court that awarded the Presidency to George W Bush in the first place. 

As a former Republican, I voted against George W Bush because my own financial well being was at it's best while Clinton was President.  I'm struggling now, but optimistic.  Thank God for term limits ... I'm sure the Republicans were saying the same thing while Clinton was in office.

lela hazary wrote:
so, im confused...

you want your privacy and dont want the goverment to take pictures

but you want people to have the freedom to take pictures of whatever they want???

so basically you want to give control to the masses and tie the hands of the government?  is that accurate?

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.

BSCS Photography wrote:
Taking a picture of a bridge is an "essential liberty"?

In this case it's just a bridge.

But it could be a police station or a train station or the airport.

As Americans we should be free to go about our daily lives and do as we please so long as we're not breaking the law.

And if someone wants to photograph a landmark...whether it's a bridge or an old building or the federal courthouse they should be able to do so without big brother telling them to stop and taking them downtown for questioning.

In the name of security the authorities are throwing common sense out the window.

There are stories every day if you care to read them.

85 yr old grandmothers being hassled at security checkpoints at the airport.

And I found this in about 3 seconds on Google
http://www.nowpublic.com/nightmare_at_r … ty_stories

A former Secret Service agent and her baby went through a nightmare out of some Kafka novel at the hands of the Neanderthals at the TSA. All in the name of stopping terrorism.

Monica Emmerson was detained for 45 minutes. She wasn't questioned about possible ties to terrorists. Her carry-on items weren't rigorously searched -- or even searched again. Neither the police nor TSA took any action that indicated that they throught she might be a security risk. She was just detained, harassed and threatened with arrest. All because of her baby's  sippy cup with water in it.


It's not about there being plenty of other bridges to photograph.

It's about our basic freedoms being chipped away a little at a time.

Saying someone can't photograph a fucking bridge because we have to stop terrorism would be like saying everyone has to be off the streets by 8pm so we can cut down on the murder rate.

If a terrorist wants to blow up a bridge they are going to figure out a way and stopping tourists from taking pictures of bridges isn't going to stop terrorism!

Alpha Design wrote:
Dude this is one of my biggest complaints now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I live right outside the Bronx and we got some great bridges i.e. Brooklyn, Manhattan Bridge, George Washington, Spyte and whatever Bridge, etc.

I can not say if the story happened but I can certainly say that there are signs posted that say you can not take photos on the bridges all through NYC.  yes it is a punishable offense but I dont know what the punishment is.

Could this possibly be a real story?  Yes

Is it illegal (and a terrorist activity) to take photos of bridges now?
I think its illegal to take photos FROM the bridge but terrorist sense would say photos of the bridge are helpful for an attack too.  Is it illegal ? well its forbidden

Any bridge? yeah all the ones Ive seen in Manhattan and the boroughs have those signs somewhere but i havent seen every bridge yet :-)


Just certain bridges? nope seems to be all of them


I have recent photos I've taken of bridges - am I now a suspected terrorist?
probably not if you not in NYC :-)

yeah this is fucken ridiculous (is cursing not allowed here ? if not sorry); i could get some sick shots especially the bridges that are where the Hudson and the East River connect at the northern tip od Manhattan

You can still get pics of the bridges but not while on the bridge...maybe its forbidden but whatever

If I have the time I should do a lil photojournalism of the bridges in NYC with a friend of mine - just go take pics at each one :-)

I can tell you that since 9/11 I have taken pics of Verrazano Bridge and GWB but not while on the bridge

Ill tell you who must really be pissed off : the troll who lives under the bridge !!!  he probably got evicted and since he doesnt look American they probably messed up his passport too (I think he was from an Eastern European country originally - or maybe England - the teeth ya know:-)

Can you take a picture of these signs? I didn't see anything like that on my visit.

lela hazary wrote:
wah wah wah...

if the liberals stopped crying long enough to actually try to come up with a SOLUTION to a problem, rather than just crying about the problem itself or bitching about other people's methods of resolve - i would be more than happy to listen... 

the wah wah wah though, is getting pretty annoying

One of the dumbest ignorant statements I've read in a long time...

So, anyone complaining about the liberties lost are a crying liberal? Everyone who has made a post on this thread is a crying bitching liberal?

Jeez....

lela hazary wrote:
so, im confused...

you want your privacy and dont want the goverment to take pictures

but you want people to have the freedom to take pictures of whatever they want???

so basically you want to give control to the masses and tie the hands of the government?  is that accurate?

That is not only accurate but it is the way it should, indeed must, be.

Studio36

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?

DITTO!!!

Miami Glamour wrote:
*snip*

And I found this in about 3 seconds on Google
http://www.nowpublic.com/nightmare_at_r … ty_stories

A former Secret Service agent and her baby went through a nightmare out of some Kafka novel at the hands of the Neanderthals at the TSA. All in the name of stopping terrorism.

Monica Emmerson was detained for 45 minutes. She wasn't questioned about possible ties to terrorists. Her carry-on items weren't rigorously searched -- or even searched again. Neither the police nor TSA took any action that indicated that they throught she might be a security risk. She was just detained, harassed and threatened with arrest. All because of her baby's  sippy cup with water in it.


*snip*

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

Pat Thielen wrote:
This is what happens when our society becomes one based on fear rather than empowerment. This is not what America is about and its very sad we're rapidly becoming this fearful.

And it's not like the "terrorists" can't get a photo of the bridge in the public domain or take picture covertly.

I would contend we've always been a society governed, driven, and controlled by fear. The only thing that changes is the "face of the enemy." Remember the "Redskins", the "Huns," the "Commies," the "Japs," the "Facists," the Islamic Fundamentalists," the "Terrorists," the "Insurgents," etc...

ChristerArt wrote:

One of the dumbest ignorant statements I've read in a long time...

So, anyone complaining about the liberties lost are a crying liberal? Everyone who has made a post on this thread is a crying bitching liberal?

Jeez....

instead of complaining about liberties lost, why dont you come up with a more appropriate solution?  thats all.  complaining certainly doesnt help anything...

Skydancer wrote:
I would contend we've always been a society governed, driven, and controlled by fear. The only thing that changes is the "face of the enemy." Remember the "Redskins", the "Huns," the "Commies," the "Japs," the "Facists," the Islamic Fundamentalists," the "Terrorists," the "Insurgents," etc...

Don't forget the hippies; anti-war activists; Blacks / Afro-Americans; Japanese-Americans; ... or the gays either.

First rule of government is: "There must ALWAYS be a bogeyman"

Studio36

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?