Police Restrict Public Photography 490
An anonymous reader writes "News.com is reporting that in Australia, recent attempts by a photo club to take pictures of industrial installations was met with police resistance. From the article: 'Club member Hans Kawitski was told not to photograph industrial installations and was ordered to inform members of the camera club to follow his lead. Liberty Victoria said its advice to photographers would be to ignore the directive. "The police have got no place making such warnings," president Brian Walters SC said.'"
No photographs ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to understand (Score:5, Insightful)
For other examples, look at rootkits, spying, lying... the list goes on.
That is... (Score:5, Insightful)
When an official lies to the public, it is patriotism. When the public lies to an official, it is perjury.
It all just depends on your point of view (Score:3, Insightful)
If you kill an innocent, it's murder.
If the gov't kills an innocent, it's collateral damage.
Re:That is... (Score:3, Insightful)
I know more than one person arrested lying to the police, so you'll excuse me if I believe you are wrong. Making a false statement, obstruction of justice, filing a false police report (they take verbal, unsigned reports - lying to a 911 dispatch officer, and they are officers here, is a crime the same as lying on a written statement to the police, and conveniently recorded) have all been used to describe the offence.
Re:No photographs ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Police need to use common sense- if people are wearing dark clothing, and hiding in the woods taking long range telephoto lens pics of stuff, then maybe they are suspicious. But my friends who are railfans are at least as non threatening and gee geeky as my tech friends, and when asked by police they always tell them that what they are doing.
What's next- banning tourists from taking pictures in Washington D.C.?
And by the way, what about maps.google.com????
Re:No photographs ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No photographs ... (Score:3, Funny)
By "terrorist", do you mean "paparazzi"?
Re:No photographs ... (Score:3, Insightful)
anyway, we had a joke (which probably was translated, so maybe it is available somewhere in original form) which i will try translating back
-------------
+ if a man is walking down a street and suspiciously looking around - terrorist;
+ if a man is walking down a street and looking straight ahead - cold blooded terrorist;
+ if a man is walking down a street and looking in clouds - fanatical terrorist;
+ if a man i
Re:No photographs ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Trouble is, last Saturday I was on the ass-end of this exact situation.
I was shooting photos of various houses, and long story short, police come out an do everything but arrest me, as I was doing nothing illegal.
I'm not going to say where, since I'm considering legal action against the other side, but people are f***ing stupid in this country when it comes to security.
"We must get National Security Money to protect our town's Giant Wax Donut from a terrorist atta
Re:No photographs ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No photographs ... (Score:5, Funny)
You think planespotters have problems? You should ask some militarybasefans some time!!!
Re:No photographs ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:True enough (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No photographs ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Common sense would be to realize that not everyone with ill intent is going to be sneaking around looking suspicious. What better cover story for a terrorist casing
Re:No photographs ... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, common sense would also be to realize that most people claiming to be amateur photographers really are amateur photographers, and not terrorists.
Re:No photographs ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And, if you wish to make it illegal, the terrorists have already won what they sought to do.
Re:No photographs ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but which is more likely: being an amateur photographer or being a terrorist?
Stopping everyone in the general public from taking pictures from public locations of things which are in plain view on the assumption there could be a terrorist sneaking around is just absurd. It's totally specious reasoning.
By that line of thought, the police should be free to grab and search anyone from the street under the assumption that it's thse sneaky, non-suspicious-looking people who cause you all of the trouble. Therefore anyone who isn't a conspicuously-obvious bad guy must be a bad guy, or will be assumed to be until such time as he can prove otherwise.
These things, do not a free society make.
Warsaw Pact beckons. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Warsaw Pact beckons. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Warsaw Pact beckons. (Score:3, Informative)
I have a BA in History; one of the particular areas I studied in the course of attaining this degree was communism in America. Although I ended up focusing on the 1920s and 1930s, I did briefly touch upon the 1940s and '50s.
Your statement that "McCarthy was actually 100% CORRECT in his inquiries" is, I'm afraid, false. Thousands were accused, but only hundreds were actually Communist Party members (of either the Soviet or the USA branch); fewer still were spies.
McCarthy's claim that the government
Re:Warsaw Pact beckons. (Score:2, Informative)
to take photographs in train stations, airports, from planes
and in a lot of other places.
There was a good reason for this paranoia... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There was a good reason for this paranoia... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There was a good reason for this paranoia... (Score:3, Insightful)
Lord knows they couldn't just write down this information.
(*sheesh*)Re:Warsaw Pact beckons. (Score:5, Informative)
The actual law was changed just a few years ago, too. And even though it no longer considers train stations "objects of vital military importance", shooting a photo of a lawn at a military training grounds [icm.edu.pl] can put you in trouble.
If this doesn't work.... (Score:5, Funny)
They should just stick to the upskirt pics. That's not illegal in most places.
Re:If this doesn't work.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If this doesn't work.... (Score:3, Funny)
Of course! There is one 'ell of a difference between public photos and pubic photos.
A little sensationalist (Score:2, Informative)
Some cops just warned them against it. They can photograph all they want and theres not a damn thing the police can do about it.
And now from someone who RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
You're okay with the police "just warning" people not do things they have every legal right to do, even though doing those things won't cause anyone any harm? What exactly are they warning them about then? A warning implies a threat, and in the lack of any other threat, whose left but the very police doing the warning? That's intimidation.
You seem to be arguing that just because the police can't legally stop people from taking the photographs that it isn't a "ban" or "restriction". It certainly sounds like they're trying to restrict people to me. They're just not doing so legally and their reasons are unclear.
And, by the way, there are plenty of "damn things" the police can do if you don't cooperate - especially if they're corrupt.
Are You Crazy Or Just Fucking Stupid???? (Score:3, Informative)
When a cop says 'Don't do that again', how do you interpret that? Do you say 'up yours and do it again'? What happens then? Does he smile and say 'I'm just warning you, have a nice day'? Or does he say 'I told you not to do that! You are under arrest for disobeying an officer! You are getting beaten with a night stick for resisting arrest! You are being shot because I fucking feel angry at your resistance to my orders!'
Here is a video of a police office in the United States s [msn.com]
Re:A little sensationalist (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A little sensationalist (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't a "Police ban" or "restriction".
Some cops just warned them against it. They can photograph all they want and theres not a damn thing the police can do about it.
It's called a chilling effect [wikipedia.org].
Re:A little sensationalist (Score:3, Informative)
A few years ago in the part of Australia I grew up in there were a huge number of arrests at one point on the two charges of obscene langauge and resisting arrest - the price of pissing off cops (along with a lot of injuries that were inflicted while subduing the suspect). Things are better now and the Police Commissioner back then had done jail time since, but people
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Happens in the US as well. (Score:5, Interesting)
I recall the case of the Arabic-looking students on a trip to Disneyland, whose home-video of their fun day out was later used against them as evidence of a terrorist plot. Apparently they spent an awful lot of time in places that would be good to bomb - like long queues. Obviously there's no other reason why a visitor to Disneyland would spend a lot of time in long queues...
Oh, and the outcome? (Score:5, Informative)
Prosecutors claimed that this was part of an ongoing economic jihad. I really wish I was joking.
30 seconds of google would do it (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently it looks exactly like an innocent tourist video, which proves that it's really a cunning tradecraft terrorist video. Yep.
In that case (Score:5, Informative)
The actions of a private security force are not the responsibility of the government, and they are restricted by the same laws as the rest of us. This isn't the government cracking down on terrorist bogeymen, this is a private security force that needs to be informed they aren't cops.
Learn your rights, and stand up for them.
Now this is, of course, assuming your friend wasn't doing something illegal while taking the pictures like tresspassing, which is illegal and would get him in trouble. This would actually be what I would suspect, given my past experiences with such things. I've had a number of "rent-a-cops breaking the law" stories related to me in my life, most in person. Initally, it always sounds like the security force was in the wrong and, of course, I advocate standing up for one's rights as always. However it then usually comes out that the person involved was doing something they shouldn't have: Tresspassing, shoplifting, whatever.
Either way, my advice for the future: If private security tells you to stop taking pictures while you are on public land, tell them to get lost (do make sure you are on public land, not their property). If they try to detain you, get your cell phone out and threaten to call the police, while backing away. If they push the issue, make the call. If they do detain you and take your property, file a police report, and contact a lawyer about a civil suti. It IS illegal.
Security forces can temporarily detain a person only under very limited circumstances, such as if they are on the private property they are hired to protect, and they have witnessed the person comitting an illegal act (like shoplifting). Otherwise, they are just civilians in a silly uniform. If they try to grab you for something like taking photos on a public street, they'll lose their jobs at the very least.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In that case (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell for that matter if the state allows it get a CCW permit and carry a gun and a can of pepper spray. If someone tries to take you by force, that's at the very elast grounds to use non-leathal force, and may be grounds for the threat or use of lethal force (please note, this is not legal advice, check your local laws regarding the carry and use of weapons before doing so and always obey all weapons laws).
The point is, if you take stuff like this sitting down, then you are part of the problem. Injustice has to be challenged, espically in a case like this where it's two private entities involved.
Re:In that case (Score:5, Informative)
PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS!!!!! PLEASE DO NOT ENTERTAIN THOUGHTS ABOUT SPRAYING US WITH MACE OR INTIMIDATING US WITH WEAPONS!!
Ok, my background. I'm licensed as an armed guard in the state of Oregon; I've gone through a lot of training with various levels of law enforcement to understand the charge and the responsibility of the sort of work I do.
First, it's not always the most interesting work, to be a security guard (unarmed.) Mostly I walk around a factory interior and tour the grounds a couple times an hour in the evening and at night. But as a guard, I may be assigned to do a lot of different things - sometimes instead I'll do entry security at an event, and YES, we're allowed to search bags, but only because you paid to get in. And of course there's some level of profiling involved: the clean-cut, courteous individuals don't make trouble 999 out of 1000 times, even if they sneak in a flask. And it's absolutely not a matter of race, mind you, or ethnic wear, not among anyone in this company that I've worked alongside with, but manner of dress, habit, and personal effects. (So if you want to smuggle a flask into a concert, dress like a business professional who's going to an event after work; you won't be searched. If you make trouble anyway, yeah, you'll still get thrown out.) But this is all a digression...
The purpose of employing security guards, nine times out of ten, is not to hold off a major break-in attempt: it's to scare off vandals and call the fire department if something catches on fire. At the factory where I work, there's no point in trying to steal anything, anyway - they turn giant rolls of steel wire into much smaller segments of differently-shaped wire. You'd need a tractor trailer and a forklift to try to make off with anything, and then what - are you going to sell a hot 5 ton spool of steel wire? To whom? So it's not about theft prevention. But to prevent some kids from hopping the chain link fence and throwing rocks at the windows, that's worth it to the business.
So, if I saw someone wandering on the property taking pictures, I'd probably ascertain: are they on the property? If so, then I will inform them that they can't be here (note: you don't say "You're trespassing! Cease your ingress!" - you use words that any native speaker and many nonnative speakers understand); I won't ask what they're doing, I won't engage in a conversation about why they should be allowed to remain. They can't be here. (Showing a company badge means I let them alone for now and then call my supervisor to let him know that a suspicious character has a badge, and he calls the plant manager to find out if they're legit.) If they're not on the property, let em go.
I don't know of a single guard who would try to take down someone without really good cause. I sort of don't believe that these people actually exist - I think they're the fictional nemeses who lend bravado and excitement to our friends' exploits, a contemporary ghost or gang of bandits. Why? Because it's dangerous and stupid to confront anyone. They could have a knife, a gun, and then your life is over, and for what? the glory of tackling some punk with a camera (hint: there is none) to save a few windows? to protect a five ton spool of steel wire?
(The "reall good cause" could be - some thug is having a party in your department store, knocking over displays, menacing customers, threatening people. I haven't, but I've worked alongside with some guards who have tackled and bodily restrained these people until the police arrive and detain them. And when I've worked armed, the rule is - property can be replaced, while your life can't. Only if someone threatens violence or death do you draw your weapon, and first as a deterrant, last as a protective.)
One last thing: yes, anyone can place anyone else under citizen's arrest, and anyone can bodily detain anyone else. The
Re:In that case (Score:3, Informative)
I guess that explains all the whitewash you're throwing around. Specifically:
Re:In that case (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In that case (Score:4, Informative)
But the thing is -- even if you *did* break some law, this does not give the rent-a-cops carte-blanche. They *are* under such circumstances allowed to, under certain limitations, make a citizens arrest and detain you (by use of force if nessecary) until the police arrives.
They are *not* allowed to, for example search your backpack, destroy film from your camera, or indeed prevent you from taking pictures. (they can however indirectly prevent the latter by asking you to leave the premises)
That is (or at least was) illegal... (Score:5, Informative)
Because if it was private security, the first thing your friend should have done was call the police and have the security guards arrested for theft and/or destruction of personal property. It is not legal for them to do that. They can ask you to stop taking pictures and if you actually are on their property then you must comply, but they cannot take your film. Well, at least not without a court order.
Check out the Photographer's Right. [krages.com]
Re:Happens in the US as well. (Score:3, Interesting)
Photos inside buildings. (Score:5, Informative)
That the article fails to mention the difference between photots inside someone's property, and from outside the property, is poor journalism.
Re:Photos inside buildings. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they value their privacy so much, they shouldn't invite the general public to come inside.
Re:Photos inside buildings. (Score:2, Insightful)
The same principle applies to smoking.
Re:Photos inside buildings. (Score:5, Informative)
You are correct that the shopping centre is private property, but incorrect that this means you cannot take photos there without the property owner's permission (I am going to make a huge punt and guess you are not an expert in Australian law)
This wiki [overclockers.com.au] has a reasonablly good explanation:As much as the shopping center operaters would love to control everything, they opeate a public space.
That the article fails to mention the difference between photots inside someone's property, and from outside the property, is poor journalism.
What you fail to mention is that US!=The rest of the world. Things work differently in Australia.
Re:Photos inside buildings. (Score:4, Informative)
Things aren't that different. [photosecrets.com].
Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building. You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building (although you may need permission to photograph separately-owned decorative objects in the building, such as a statue). You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house.
Re:Photos inside buildings. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, you quote:
and we were talking about private buildings (shopping centres).
Another quote from the link you provided:
So I'm afraid in that respect
Re:Photos inside buildings. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Photos inside buildings. (Score:5, Informative)
To explain, after some guy took a picture of a topless woman using his mobile phone (on a public beach) a while ago, there was an outbreak of hysteria, leading to several councils banning cameras in swimming pools (and the some beaches) to save the children from perverts. Essentially the line is there to remind you that a pool and the beach are also public spaces (it's also important to note how important swimming spaces are to Australian life & culture)
Online opinion [onlineopinion.com.au] has a reasonable overview of this.
Re:Photos inside buildings. (Score:2)
Really? What law says that? And what law allows them to demand and destroy the film? Just because some asshole in a uniform demands you do something doesn't mean he has the legal right.
Re:Photos inside buildings. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course you do have rights if I photographed your copyrighted material. I should still be able to photograph it if I'm allowed to see it but I cannot sell/distribute said photos because the work belongs to you.
Please don't quote law. This is my opinion and how I feel about it. I know the law disagrees.
Re:Photos inside buildings. (Score:3, Informative)
Rubbish. Here's a page on Australian street photography legal issues [4020.net] by a lawyer:
I need more (Score:5, Funny)
Not sure which makes more sense though.
It seems worse in America... (Score:5, Interesting)
Old News (Score:5, Informative)
It was simply one police office making a comment.
It must be a slow news week.
a truism, but still a tad concerning, no? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they really don't like you, they can say you threatened them and arrest you for that. If they push you and you reflexively grab their wrists, you might get shot, and at the very least you've now assaulted an officer of the law. They can provoke you with impunity, because no one will believe you. Everyone will take their word for it, because you're just a schmuck with a camera, while they were putting their life on the line to protect and serve. Cops are heroes, and you're just a suspect who stopped them from keeping us safe. Who told you you have these "rights" to take pictures? Wow, another bleeding heart liberal. Haven't you done enough damage to our country without berating the poor police officers?
The ideal situation for cops is where there just about everything is illegal if they want it to be, so they can tell you "move along" and you have no choice. Cops are people, people like power, and people also generally have trouble dealing well with power. It tends to go to their heads. But as long as we always give the cops the benefit of the doubt, we will be falling headlong into a police state. Of course that won't matter until you're the one who gets the stern "move along," and by then it's too late. The only way to protect freedom is to be skeptical of, even slightly hostile to, government power. If abuse of power is considered innocuous, then we're pretty much done with the whole freedom thing.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
At that point I think he realize that he was being a complete fucking idiot, as I wasn't breaking any law and he sure as hell couldn't arrest me for anything. He muttered some vague threat about "keeping an eye on me" and then waddled off to eat donuts, go bust an underage drinking party, or confiscate marijuana from college students and cancer patients.
My point? Australia might be different, but at least in the US, they can't drag you off without a charge. Hell, a street officer can't even search you without some justifiable suspicion that a law has been broken. If there is no law in the books against taking pictures of whatever, you can take pictures of whatever. If the police are really giving you a problem, go grab your Australian ACLU equivalent and bring a member with you. Let the police do something stupid, then tack their balls to the wall and make an example out of them.
People don't realize how eager the ACLU is to throw in a helping hand. When I was young, we had a local guy get the beat up by the town sheriff for insulting him. The ACLU was down before weeks end. They had a trial that ended with the Sheriff losing his badge and paying restitution. I would be amazed to learn that there exist first world democracies without an ACLU equivalent. Honestly, if you are really having problems, just give them a friendly call. If nothing else they will give you some good advice and inform you on the legal limits of your position.
Re:So? (Score:2)
* Right-wing Slashdot groupthink ON *
Rubbish. The ACLU don't do anything to protect my gun rights, therefore they're completely useless at protecting anyone elses rights about anything else ever. NRA4EVER!
* Right-wing Slashdot groupthink OFF *
Eww, I feel all dirty...
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, I don't like some things the ACLU does. For instance, I am pretty adamantly against letting publicly funded intuitions discriminating applicants for jobs and colleges based upon race.
That said, if you dislike the ACLU across the board you get a big fat Stalinist authoritarian stamp across your forehead in my book. The ACLU's fanatical devotion to the first amendment more then makes up for whatever other policies they advocate that I disagree with. The ACLU is an absolutely indispensable American institution. Organizations like the ACLU form the fourth leg of checks and balances in American government.
People don't recognize how important civil institutions are. A great deal of the health of the American and European democracies can be attributed to these organizations. One of the hardest things to set up in an emerging democracy are local groups like this. Hell, I bet you could pretty effectiveness rate the health of a democracy based purely on how many private civil institutions it has per capita.
Re:So? (Score:3, Informative)
Correction. They can drag you off on a whim. They can hold you for a short period of time, and have to release you if they cannot press charges.
In Canada, that means a 24h period. Probably something similar in the US.
Re:So? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:ACLU (Score:4, Insightful)
Err, your point?
The NRA lends a helping hand when they are interested too. If I have a problem with my gun rights, I'll call the NRA. If I have a problem with my freedom of speech or illegal search and seizure, I'll call the ACLU. If I want a pizza, I will call Dominoes (actually, I just walk over to the pizza shop next door, they are much better).
What exactly is your point? That the ACLU isn't all things to everyone? Oh, okay. One point for you. Is the ACLU the go to place for freedom of speech and illegal search and seizure issues? Absolutely. One point for me.
Oh look, we would have tied if we were playing the same game.
a good thing (Score:5, Funny)
The increasing futility of resisting sousveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
I've recently started reading David Brin's The Transparent Society [wikipedia.org], which proposes the somewhat counterintuitive notion that instead of resisting government invasions of privacy, we instead ensure that everybody is able to watch everybody. In effect, the answer to the question "Who watches the watchers?" becomes "Make everybody a watcher." This of course has its problems and I'm still not sure what I quite think of it, but it's certainly an interesting idea. The first chapter of his book is available online [davidbrin.com]. I highly recommend skimming through it.
Public Domain and ease of information (Score:2, Informative)
I'm pretty sure that if they gave this order under the guise of deterring "terrorism" it's pretty much in vain, in that more valuable intel is already available in the public domain, weaknesses in any event should be known, just as code audits are released in the public domain. I can think of 1 site off the top of my head that is pretty big on releasing "Eye-Ball-Series" on industrial, government, and public facilities [cryptome.org]
Liberty Victoria [libertyvictoria.org.au] is the aussie's version of Amerika's ACLU, I've always envisioned AU
Probably a matter of concern (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Probably a matter of concern (Score:3, Insightful)
My co-lo is in the basement of a building in the Melbourne CBD. About a year ago a local bunch of Islamic extremists were caught taking photographs of it. Perhaps they were just fans of architecture. This building also houses the stock exchange, though I was most concerned about my two BSD boxes.
Building management tightened security as a result and I had to go along for a security induction. The s
Similar experience... (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was photographing the beautiful old federal buildings in downtown Denver (probably about 3 years ago), a federal officer pulled up and told me to stop taking pictures. When I asked him what law I was breaking, he refused to answer, but demanded my ID and told me I was now going to have a "record with the FBI." When I then asked him for his name and/or badge number, he got back in his car and drove away.
Luckily, mine had a happier ending then this guy [2600.com].
Re:Similar experience... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mistake one: giving him your personal information. First, you're under no obligation to identify yourself. Second, how do you know he was a federal agent? That seems like a good way for a ID thief to get detailed information from a tourist they'll never see again.
Re:Similar experience... (Score:3, Informative)
I think it's a good idea for anybody to inquire about what law they are breaking to any snot-nosed cop as it is a legit question and forces them in a tight spot if they are doing something wrong.
Useless photos anyway. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, however, the list of things that nobody will buy and nobody will publish (printers even refuse to handle these if you try to self-publish books or similar works) includes:
- Any person (unless model contract is present, even if it's YOU!)
- Any item (unless property contract is present, even if it's YOURS!)
- Any building, patch of land, or piece of water (see previous item.)
- Any manufactured item (because industrial design = intellectual property.)
So, a partial list of things that can't be photographed without a contract on file includes: all people, all property (if it's not owned by the government, it's private and needs a signed release; if it's owned by the government, it's too dangerous to shoot or use anyway), all places (nearly all land and half the water in the world is owned by individuals or nations), all manufactured items (because all of them had to be designed by someone, and such design is intellectual property -- even things like soap bars with logos washed off them or empty containers without labels), all logos, text, phrases on signs, etc. (because thanks to copyright law, any piece of writing created by anyone is copyright by them, even if only three or four words long and done in graffiti in a public place).
I think stock and editorial photographers are probably more aware than most of just how much intellectual property now affects our culture/society. Take a picture of a graffiti-covered shed in the middle of nowhere? You need a signed release from the shed manufacturer (for the industrial design), the owner of the land (for property release), and the graffiti "artist" (for text release). You basically need 2-3 signed contracts for EVERY PICTURE YOU TAKE, even of a ping-pong ball from the back floating in your own bathtub in the dark, because of all the intellectual and real property (and thus potential liability) involved in every photograph of everything.
Basically:
- Take a world in which ALL things are owned by SOMEBODY
- and add intellectual property on top of physical property
- and add a culture of litigation
Re:Useless photos anyway. (Score:4, Interesting)
The calculation is "how much does this earn us" and "how big is this story" vs. "what is the potential liability?"
We avoided any number of stories because we didn't think it was worth the liability. The ratio was probably 5:1 against, if not worse. We would do the mad fax thing to get permission for the representations in some photos if we needed to do so.
Years ago, there were two concepts, one being "public space" and the other being "fair use" that allowed the use of such photographs when newsworthy. But this is now a very, very problem issue and photo desk editors basically consider it from a risk-assessment perspective: "Are any of these people likely to sue us, or is the government likely to come and bother us about this photo? Because either one is certainly possible..."
If the story isn't BIG and there's recognizable property/design (government or otherwise) in it, and nobody will sign off on it, then forget it, it's not worth the trouble unless you're CBS and/or a superlarge market and have the equivalent of a major multinational's finances behind you.
Re:Useless photos anyway. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've als
All too common (Score:5, Interesting)
However they still ask the public for photographs when it suits them [amateurpho...pher.co.uk].
this is all the rage in britain at the moment (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is exacerbated in Britain because of (in my view) the scare-mongering tabloid press and their one-upmanship over fantastic headlines; there have been so many over-the-top stories and rumours about paedophiles over the last few years, for instance, that much of the public is now paranoid about the issue, even though such crimes have pretty much stayed at the same level they were at decades ago. Famously, after one paper named and printed photos of known sex-offenders, gangs of vigilantes went round beating up people who looked like the people in the pictures, or had similar names; and in one case, a paediatrician was forced to flee her home because people thought she was a danger to children and daubed threatening graffiti over her house. This eventually led last year to the major of London announcing a plan to erect signs in public spaces such as parks to warn people to be suspicious of anyone with a camera; thankfully he has since backed down.
Unfortunately this does seem to be rubbing off on people: much of the public would now rather not ask questions but just act on their paranoia. In the recent case of an innocent man being shot by police because he happened to live in a block of flats where a terrorist suspect lived, it quickly became apparent that it was all a terrible case of mistaken identity and incompetence by the police; but most of the people I heard talking about it in the following days thought the victim deserved it, either because he was an illegal immigrant (he had overstayed his visa), or because he vaulted the ticket barrier (he did not), or because he had on a bulky jacket (he did not), or just because it's better to be safe than sorry, and a few unnecessary deaths is a price worth paying (!). I had to stop myself from having a big argument with a taxi driver a week after the incident, as he was adamant that even if the man was innocent, was acting innocently and did nothing wrong whatsoever, his death was still OK because we live in dangerous times and if the police think, for whatever reason, that someone *might* be slightly suspicious, shooting him 8 times at point blank range is the best thing to do. Needless to say I didn't tip him.
Unfortunately people are becoming accustomed to paranoia - it seems our governments are in some cases willingly fostering a feeling of unease about anything and anyone, and people are responding.
Re:this is all the rage in britain at the moment (Score:5, Informative)
And having gotten you to the station, they can take a DNA sample, which they keep even if they subsequently release you without charge.
I gave up photography for this same reason (Score:3, Interesting)
Shopping centres (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Shopping centres (Score:3, Insightful)
Some places also do it for the comfort of their customers. For example, when I
police don't always know best (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a college student here at Ohio University, and as part of the required freshman introduction-to-college course, we had to learn and understand what, under the rules of the college and laws of the land, the police and campus security were allowed and not allowed to do.
Example: Say the president of the college (unlikely) knocked on my door while I had friends over to partake of substances of debatable legality with, I have the right to refuse his request to come in and look around for said substances. He could get all the campus cops and resident assistants he wanted to, but as long as the substances are not immediately visible from OUTSIDE the room, there is no trouble.
Take home: campus police can't bust in, even if they'd like to. if they in any way break with the stated policy, any charges they might want to file are thrown out.
Second example: Any member of campus security is not allowed to request identification that contains your age on it. So if I was at a party (which happens often, even though I take time for classes and the occasional
Take home: There's a set minimum level of compliance that students have to give to campus security, mandated by both on-campus civil liberties and those granted under the Constitution and assorted Amendments.
TFA is an extreme case, I believe. Sometimes police get a bit overzealous, which is why it's up to the townfolkery to know where their rights/liberties begin, and where the police's legal and civil abilities end.
UK Plane Spotters in Greece (Score:5, Informative)
Whilst I don't condone the boring nature of what they were doing, I thought this might interest people outside the UK or with medium term memory loss.
Plane-spotters 'ignored warnings' [bbc.co.uk]
"They were held in prison for almost six weeks, before being released on bail and allowed to return to Britain."
In Soviet US... (Score:5, Interesting)
The bridge had a new lighting system specifically made for aesthetic purposes, funded by donations from the public over the last couple decades, and this is the fruit of those efforts.
I'm too young to feel this damn old. I remember when this kind of bullshit was for those countries that didn't have freedom like the US. When I was in elementary school (in the 1980s), this would have been a scary story about the USSR or Nazi-era Germany, but unthinkable for the "land of the free." I hope to hell that the warning klaxons were louder than this for the Germans 70 or so years back. I'd rather be overly paranoid and bent about the issue than just plain correctly worried. Planet-wide and synchronized, this shit is making me ill.
Bridges (Score:4, Interesting)
2600 (Score:3, Informative)
Winter 2003-4 [2600.com]
Not just the police restricting photos (Score:3, Informative)
This is just yet another nail in the coffin of freedom, in another (once democratic) country.
Re:Not just the police restricting photos (Score:5, Informative)
You're not allowed to PUBLISH photos of the tower at night - but even then, the policy is that amateur publication, such as displaying the image on your homepage on the internet, will be overlooked.
publication is NOT the same as photography!
Re:Not just the police restricting photos (Score:3, Funny)
That's not new... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was being hassled by OC transpo security types for taking pictures of buses in the street.
One of them, a woman, was practically in tears about "don't you know what happenned in London", just as if photographing buses would make them blow-up. Poor little creature. I almost wanted to hug her to calm her fears (but she looked too much like whe queen of England and I didn't want to smear myself)...
The whole thing got ugly when they demanded to see some identification; I refused flatly, on matters of principle. Nothing illegal was done; then we went through the usual "if you don't have nothing to hide, why don't you give us some ID" bullshit arguments we always hear.
They then said that they would have to call the police on me.
-- Are you arresting me? I asked.
-- No, you're free to leave.
**BINGO!**
This was a dead giveaway that they are security types, not constables. They cannot arrest and detain somebody for nothing...
So I left at once; but less than a block away, I was intercepted by a fuming policewoman whose demeanor was quite arrogant and disgusting. She neatly parked her car blocking the reserved bus lane on Albert, between Bronson and Commissionners street, a most inconvenient place for buses, right as rush-hour was beginning.
As I was walking calmly, she started to yell at me:
-- "Hey, buddy"!!!
Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a very polite way to introduce yourself. So I ignore her and keep walking slowly up the hill. That girl has to be taught a lesson in respect.
She caught up on me right when I was about to arrive to where I was staying. Never before I have seen such a tremenduous display of fury and nastyness. 120 pounds and 120 decibels of pure, hot and tanned unadulterated flaming bitch. She would be perfect on ALT.FLAME.
She was yelling at me, demanding to see identification.
-- Are you arresting me? I asked again.
-- No, I am detaining you.
Not to take chances (what the fuck "detaining" legally means???), I started to dole out information on a piecemeal basis; like a Québec birth certificate, a perfectly legal, yet totally unknown document.
-- You don't have anything with your address? she hysterically blurted, expecting the standard, run-of-the-mill sacrosanct driver's license, which I don't have...
-- This is all I have (heavily implying "this is all you'll get").
As we argued, three transit security types came about (including the slimy one who said that "I can leave", but the sad girl was gone, though), as well as two city cops came to watch the fun go by.
The two cops (guys) were much nicer (which is easy to do, given the terminal nastyness of the first - I guess even Genghis Khan would seem nice compared to her).
She then asks me for my address. Just as I finish saying the number and the street, before I say "Montréal", she disgustingly blurts out "is this in Gatineau???", like if I was living in a toilet bowl.
As I said "No, Montréal", she demanded my address in Ottawa. So I gave her my friend's address, not wanting to be arrested on charges of homelessness (you never know what slimy dirty trick the pigs will pull on you - during all that time, I carefully stayed on the sidewalk alignment so I would not be charged for trespassing), some 20 feet away - because of this, my friend got in trouble; he was told by his condo administrators that he was "put on probation for bringing-in people who cause trouble", as the whole scene was witnessed by about 30 construction workers working on the condo... But this is a matter for his lawyer, though, and not on topic here.
-- "It's right there, pointing at the condo main door"
-- "I don't believe you, you just made that up!!!!" then blared out of the high-pitched decibel emitter. I suppose I could have borrowed some earplugs from nearb
Photos of public sites are banned in the U.S. too! (Score:4, Informative)
This madness has occurred in the U.S. too, in the fall of 2003 to cartoonist Wes Oleszewski, who does an aviation comic strip called Klyde Morris [klydemorris.com]. Klyde is the first ant who becomes a commercial pilot. Just as with Doonesbury, the strip often shows well-known buildings with balloons of the conversations inside.
Oleszewski wanted to be able to draw a better representation of the FAA's building.
Oleszewski tried to take pictures of the FAA headquarters building in Washington, D.C. but was told photographs were forbidden for security reasons.
The inital series of three cartoon strips on what happended start here [klydemorris.com]. There's a follow up on the story here [av8r.net].
About 6 weeks ago in Darmstadt, Germany (Score:3, Interesting)
No, post under slow new day down under. (Score:3, Insightful)
club member snaps oil tanks.
Police notice him and decide to investigate.
To save his face after finding out it was nothing to worry about, officer makes a stern warning not to do that again. Clubmembers dislike officer and make some waves about it.
Papers need some new and like a row, pick up story.
Except that there was no real news story. Yeah police down under are a bit thick, but that is no news.
fact-void.
Re:Government is evil (Score:3, Insightful)
holly shit (Score:3, Insightful)