| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2009 08:08:22 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 08:17:10 PM · #2 |
| Service Temporarily Unavailable |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 08:19:34 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 08:21:15 PM · #4 |
| I think bringing in the bomb sniffing dog was a bit extreme! Stories like this make me wish for the "good ol days". |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 08:23:28 PM · #5 |
Might have something to do this story.
GoDaddy told him his site was hacked, but he believes it's because he wrote about the Amtrak case on his blog. Conspiracy!
This link to the OP's original story worked for me.
Message edited by author 2009-01-04 20:24:55. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 08:28:02 PM · #6 |
Good thing I've already taken my AMTRAK photos for now ... I must've taken 500 pictures on the train and in the stations this past November, and no one bothered me at all.
Besides, if I had that good a photo, I wouldn't sign over the copyright for only $1000 either ... |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 08:28:50 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Service Temporarily Unavailable |
The link seems to be hit or miss, but I got it up. And I think this is absolute madness. The fact that Amtrak was promoting the contest is ironic but irrelevant. He was shooting photos in a public place. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 08:29:57 PM · #8 |
| Reminds me of my own incident the other day, taking pics for the Transparency challenge. A rentacop told me I could not take pictures from where I was inside, looking outside, but he could not tell me why. The location was not unlike the public subway platform in that article. I thought briefly of giving him a hard time, and making him explain himself better, but I had already gotten the picture I wanted and I wasn't up for it. I do realize these guys are just doing as they are told whether or not it is really legal. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 08:49:43 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
Reminds me of my own incident the other day, taking pics for the Transparency challenge. A rentacop told me I could not take pictures from where I was inside, looking outside, but he could not tell me why. The location was not unlike the public subway platform in that article. I thought briefly of giving him a hard time, and making him explain himself better, but I had already gotten the picture I wanted and I wasn't up for it. I do realize these guys are just doing as they are told whether or not it is really legal. |
Think about it. Photographers are easy targets. Terrorism is a real threat, but the chances of your average "Rent-a-Cop" (I like that!) ever becoming a hero by actually thwarting an attack are extremely slim. Still, you have to earn your keep. What do you do? Why you go after guys with cameras, of course. In fact, I think they welcome your giving them a hard time. Then they can report the incident with lots of details, and the powers up high (the same ones that tell them to keep an eye out for photographers but don't quite tell them why) will think they're doing a really good job. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 09:04:06 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by L2:
Might have something to do this story.
|
I found the story originally on Fark.com. Many, many servers find they are not up to the task of serving the many people who use Fark as a news aggregator. It can really be funny some times, and pitiful others. I've seen very large newspaper servers bite the dust because of Fark. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 09:17:36 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
I do realize these guys are just doing as they are told whether or not it is really legal. |
I'd be willing to bet half aren't even told to. Most are just on authority trips.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2009 09:44:37 PM · #12 |
What a baby! Did you see the photos of his wrist? They don't look "injured" to me. Yeah, they are a little red, but my watch sometimes leaves a red mark when I take it off. Also, the cut on his arm looks like it has been there long before the handcuffs were applied.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that we should be able to take legal photos of train (airplanes, etc.), but the cops were being cautious. Their city, by the way, was terrorized before and almost 3000 people lost their lives.
Message edited by author 2009-01-04 21:45:07.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2009 09:49:34 PM · #13 |
| Being handcuffed in public and hauled off to jail for no discernably legitimate reason is terrorizing enough in itself, regardless of the degree of physical damage. Try it yourself sometime before declaring someone else a "baby" for defending the Constitution. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 09:59:02 PM · #14 |
In March of 2005 my wife and I took a trip to New Orleans. While we were there we went on a tour of one of the plantation houses (Oak Alley). The tour guide saw my Canon 300D, with the kit lens, and said that I couldn't take pictures inside the house (outside was fine, just not inside). Her reason: "You know how bad everything's become since 9/11."
I perfectly understand them not wanting photography on their premises (heck, their gift shop needs to sell something), but treating us like we're all idiots doesn't help anybody.
The weird thing about this is that we took the train to New Orleans and back and I took a number of shots, both on the train and in the stations in Chicago and St. Paul. They also had rudimentary, at best, security for people boarding the trains.
They need to get their priorities in line.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2009 10:05:13 PM · #15 |
The only semi-understandable reason I can possibly credit them with is if they want to be the only ones to control the public's impression of their organization. It still gets into legalities of what is a public location. When the rentacop chased me off, one of the people standing near me said he was a lawyer and he really didn't think It could legally hold up.
It will be interesting to follow this Amtrak fiasco, especially if it gets to a court. Might set a well needed precedent. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 10:16:16 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by yospiff:
Reminds me of my own incident the other day, taking pics for the Transparency challenge. A rentacop told me I could not take pictures from where I was inside, looking outside, but he could not tell me why. The location was not unlike the public subway platform in that article. I thought briefly of giving him a hard time, and making him explain himself better, but I had already gotten the picture I wanted and I wasn't up for it. I do realize these guys are just doing as they are told whether or not it is really legal. |
Think about it. Photographers are easy targets. Terrorism is a real threat, but the chances of your average "Rent-a-Cop" (I like that!) ever becoming a hero by actually thwarting an attack are extremely slim. Still, you have to earn your keep. What do you do? Why you go after guys with cameras, of course. In fact, I think they welcome your giving them a hard time. Then they can report the incident with lots of details, and the powers up high (the same ones that tell them to keep an eye out for photographers but don't quite tell them why) will think they're doing a really good job. |
I think many times they use the word terrorism as a more powerful way of clearing the area because of liability issues. What if someone was using a tripod on the platform or just in the way and someone trips over the photographer or tripod? Who are they going to sue? |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 10:33:46 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
What if someone was using a tripod on the platform or just in the way and someone trips over the photographer or tripod? Who are they going to sue? |
Manfrotto would be a good choice. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 10:44:32 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Their city, by the way, was terrorized before and almost 3000 people lost their lives. |
So what... That somehow allows illegal acts by some rentacop overriding someones rights on bogus "trespassing" crap?
There are more people killed in road deaths in just Florida each year..... How about the innocents in Nagasaki.... There are what 70,000 or so killed excluding the long term affects... Do the rentacops there now get the right to shot americans on sight? Yeah - I know that's different...... it was longer ago :shrug: |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 10:53:52 PM · #19 |
Telling the security guys that your taking photographs in December 2008 for a competion that closed on 11th July 2008 probably looked a little suspicious.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2009 11:31:50 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by 3DsArcher:
Telling the security guys that your taking photographs in December 2008 for a competion that closed on 11th July 2008 probably looked a little suspicious. |
Not that they were smart enough to know this.
However this competition proceeds every year.
So yes, the 2008 competition for the 2009 calender is closed. I suspect the 2009 competition for the 2010 calender will begin soon. Not that any of this bears on the subject matter at hand.
As far as NYC being terrorized, the weak link of the cockpit doors on airliners was identified a number of times in the past thirty years. At any one of these occasions the successful conclusion of the 2001 terror operation could have been thwarted. Every other security measure instituted since 2001 has absolutely no affect on the ability of terrorists to utilize jetliners as guided bombs. The simple fact that nothing was done about this major security threat after the 1993 tower bombings indicates one of two things to me regarding the people who ultimately attempt to secure the United States of America: Stupidity.... or collusion.
All the rest of the crap we put up with today is what law enforcement personell generally know as "showing the flag". I personally knew my country was in trouble when I saw a new department created that subverted all other intelligence and law enforcement agencies. When it was named "Homeland" I just shook my head with disbelief. You simply can't make shit like this up.
Message edited by author 2009-01-04 23:32:43. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 11:50:10 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Try it yourself sometime before declaring someone else a "baby" for defending the Constitution. |
How do you know I haven't been?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Being handcuffed in public and hauled off to jail for no discernably legitimate reason is terrorizing enough in itself, regardless of the degree of physical damage. |
Besides, I wasn't saying he was a baby for being falsely accused. I think he's a baby because he has little red marks on his poor little wrists. Waistbands on underwear leave worse marks sometimes. LOL!
|
|
|
|
01/04/2009 11:52:34 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by robs:
How about the innocents in Nagasaki.... There are what 70,000 or so killed excluding the long term affects... Do the rentacops there now get the right to shot americans on sight? Yeah - I know that's different...... it was longer ago :shrug: |
Who shot someone at the Amtrak station?
|
|
|
|
01/05/2009 07:46:35 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by yospiff:
I do realize these guys are just doing as they are told whether or not it is really legal. |
I'd be willing to bet half aren't even told to. Most are just on authority trips. |
... and this statement can be supported by empirical evidence, or is this mere supposition on your part.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/05/2009 07:48:12 AM · #24 |
The stupid thing is that any self-respecting terrorist wouldn't be caught dead using pro gear in public.
It would be like as unlikely as an undercover Russian spy parading around the Pentagon with a platinum wig and clear heels. |
|
|
|
01/05/2009 08:20:50 AM · #25 |
First thanks to  bvy for pointing me to this thread, I didn't think to look in general discussion for it, dunce...
Here is a link to the photographers website //www.duanek.name/Amtrak/index.htm
Also Prison Planet appears to have some details //forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?action=printpage;topic=77084.0
Some more details I've rounded up...
As I understand these were actual Police Officers employed by Amtrak for station and track security, not security guards nor rent-a-cops.
There were no signs forbidding photography, nor no-trespassing signs on/at the station.
He had a valid ticket to be in the station and use their service.
He had contacted NY transit prior to photographing and was told that photography was legal there.
AperturePriority:
Baby or not there should have been NO marks on his wrists as he should never have been handcuffed in the first place. The police, and even security guards are required to follow the law. And there is such a thing as an Unlawful Arrest. In fact, no US citizen is required to follow an Unlawful order. This is to protect the public from the police.
This stands regardless if the legal system has been turned upside down. And also stands regardless of the fear of terrorism.
As for terrorism in New York, violent acts happen in every city and not one has ever been accounted to photography to my knowledge. Knifes have, shovels, baseball bats, cars, over the counter medications, household pesticides, rope, even pillows, bed sheets, and water have all been used countless times to commit countless murders over the years and I never hear any of any harassment over these things.
Photography IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE A CRIME.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2024 08:14:29 PM EDT.
