[mithrandir]

From Photo District News:

Arrested for Photographing a Train: "It's Almost Embarrassing"

[roentarre]

This is another sad news.

I am not sure how many times I had been instructed to stay away photographing in public places. In fact, I had been attempted arrest by some idiot security guards that I made sure they get my litigations for assault and psychological damage.

The fact that a lot of security guards received limited education and experiencing many problems in their lives. Their own ways of relieving personal stress is to counter-transfer the anger onto the innocent looking pedestrians enjoying their photographs appearing on the LCDs of the pentax cameras...

After all, there are not many pentax cameras around...

[MRRiley]

Can anyone read the story? All of the "news" articles on PDN seem to be blank (0 bit files).

Here is a NY Times link... No Photo Ban in Subways, Yet an Arrest

And on The Gothamist... MTA Employee Charged with "Unlawful Photography"

Also on Carlos Millers site... MTA worker arrested by NYPD for photographing subway trains

You'd think an MTA worker would know that photography of trains is verbotten.... NOT!

Of course, the NYC Transit Authority IS trying to make photography on transit property illegal, but I do not believe this has become a reality... See Threat of Subway Photo Ban Riseth Again

Moved to General Talk.
When are they going to learn? Unfortunately situations like this put photographers in a no win situation. If they get busted, they lose, if they sue, they get a payout but at the same time we could all lose because we will be blamed for taking all that taxpayers money.

---

Last edited by Damn Brit; 02-18-2009 at 08:27 PM.

[stgmgr]

Not too long ago there was a thread involving pictures at AIRPORTS, which of course I can't find now.
Anyway, after reading it, I sent an e-mail to the Toronto (Pearson) I'ntl Airport Authority asking what the rules/regs are regarding me wandering around the terminal taking pictures.
They basically said "go for it" with some guidelines.
(see below)
I was very surprised!

Thank you for your inquiry regarding personal photography at Toronto Pearson International Airport. Your inquiry was sent to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) Manager, Media and Communications for review.



You are able to take personal photos as long as it is not for the purpose of media or commercial use. In addition, any photography of security points is prohibited and you must have permission from the individuals you wish to take photos of.



We hope you find this information helpful.

[JavaJoe]

[QUOTE=Damn Brit;494430]Moved to General Talk.
When are they going to learn? Unfortunately situations like this put photographers in a no win situation. If they get busted, they lose, if they sue, they get a payout but at the same time we could all lose because we will be blamed for taking all that taxpayers money.[/QUOTE]

Wait a sec. Since we are taxpayers (well most of us not on welfare anyway) we would be taking back our own money.

[stewart_photo]

Has anyone else noticed how these "stories" about police or security guards harassing photographers nearly always seem one-sided, lack full details, and rarely follow though with anything about the ultimate outcome?

In the last incident (reported here by MRRiley in his "Another innocent photographer arrested in NYC" thread), it took roughly 25 pages of messages in this forum for nearly all of the details to finally come out (none about the actual court trial) and I'm still waiting for MRRiley, once in personal contact with the supposed victim, to reveal the final outcome of that incident. Like many similar stories, the so-called "news" websites writing about that incident also reported only one side of the story, avoided many of the details, and neglected to follow through with a report about what ultimately happened - the trial, testimony, court ruling, and closing opinions by all involved.

Since I don't want to be manipulated into a conclusion desired by someone reporting only what he/she wants me to hear, I want to know all the details so I can fairly judge the incident myself. Only then will I truly know whether that incident honestly warrants a rant about photographers as poor victims or my scorn as yet another malicious attempt to influence my personal thoughts and opinions - certainly plenty of the latter going around today, especially on the internet.

stewart

[MRRiley]

Stewart... We have beat the "one point of view" angle senseless but I knew you'd bring it up here again. We NEVER get the police department's side so the only thing we have to go on is the reports of the "perps." That is not OUR fault. It is the fault of the police. If they would publish "their side of the story" then we'd have something else to go on. At that point we'd have to decide who we find more credible, the victim or the police. Both are suspect as both have vested interests in being perceived to be "right".

Of course, this will never happen. We will never have the police side of the story before a court ruling has been made because of multiple legal factors. Even after a ruling, the police are not going to run around the internet posting their side of the story. The only way to get this is to request a copy of the court transcript.

Now, I'm not even going to respond to your claims that it took 25 pages for all of the facts to come out in my earlier thread. People need to go read it themselves and decide at what point the "details" came out.

Now, the reason I have not updated my earlier thread is that there is no information available. Since his trial date, Mr. Kerzic has steadfastly responded "No Comment" to all inquiries. There are many possibilities as to why he would say this but any conclusions based on this silence are pure conjecture. Here are SOME possibilities...

1. He lost and is embarrassed to admit it.
2. He lost and is appealing and his lawyer has told him to keep his mouth shut.
3. He got a continuance and again his lawyer told him to clam up.
4. He reached an out-of-court settlement with AMTRAK that included a confidentiality agreement at which point the case was dropped and/or dismissed.
5. He won in court and decided he didn't want to talk about the incident any more.

YOU will likely assume that #1 is the case while I will admit it is possible, though I consider #2, #3 or #4 more likely. I think we can both agree that #5 is highly unlikely. Numbers 1-3 and 5 have the advantage that court records should be available to verify them. Number 4 is a black hole and if that was the final result we will never have any details.

Mike

[Wheatfield]

Since I don't want to be manipulated into a conclusion desired by someone reporting only what he/she wants me to hear, I want to know all the details so I can fairly judge the incident myself. Only then will I truly know whether that incident honestly warrants a rant about photographers as poor victims or my scorn as yet another malicious attempt to influence my personal thoughts and opinions - certainly plenty of the latter going around today, especially on the internet.

stewart

At the same time, many of your posts are very manipulative in favour of the police and "authorities" who you seem to side with at every opportunity.
If you really wanted to be seen as anything other than a hypocrite you wouldn't be commenting at all.

[mithrandir]

I think the lesson to be learned in all these incidents is to close up shop as soon as the police officer(s) tell you to and then to pursue getting it rectified when you are off site. They (police and courts) seem to get you on not following the order of a police officer and not on taking the pictures. When I ran into problems taking pictures of a federal government building (for use on a federal related website) I was able to go to the agency security office, get permission, and the police officers were instructed to allow me to proceed. No arrest and the police were quite cooperative (and nice) once they were given clear instructions by the security office. I think often the police feel they are between a rock and a hard place and err on the side of caution.

[Wheatfield]

I think the lesson to be learned in all these incidents is to close up shop as soon as the police officer(s) tell you to and then to pursue getting it rectified when you are off site. They (police and courts) seem to get you on not following the order of a police officer and not on taking the pictures. When I ran into problems taking pictures of a federal government building (for use on a federal related website) I was able to go to the agency security office, get permission, and the police officers were instructed to allow me to proceed. No arrest and the police were quite cooperative (and nice) once they were given clear instructions by the security office. I think often the police feel they are between a rock and a hard place and err on the side of caution.

Unfortunately, all this does is enable the police to continue harassing people. You are correct though that police powers to go fishing and charge you with anything other than what they are accosting you for is very heavy handed.
What I have to wonder is when did failing to obey an illegal order from a police officer morph from resisting harassment to obstruction of justice?

[mithrandir]

When some misguided fanatics decided to drive 4 aircraft full of innocent people into 3 buildings and the ground. In a way, they gained ground by making all photographers suspect. Our civilization needs to grow beyond the fear. Often trauma last for years after the injury. Hopefully we will never forget, but we will somehow learn to act without kneejerk consequences.

[slomojoe]

Is there actually any case in which it has been shown terrorists had taken pictures of their targets before an attack? I can't think of any, really. At least not any in which the pictures figured prominently in the planning/execution of the attack.

Be that as it may, the real question is whether stopping a would-be terrorist from taking pictures would prevent them from carrying out the attack. I can understand the police questioning a photographer to see if he/she acts suspicious, but demanding that they stop taking pictures seems entirely pointless.

[mithrandir]

Here is a security training newsletter from 2006 which carries information about terrorist surveillance. (Go to the second article).
http://www.iissm.com/downloads/ncr_newsletter_aug_06.pdf

[mithrandir]

Also of interest is the MBTA guidance for Transit Police (2007)

http://transitpolice.us/Photo%20Policy/Photo%20Policy%201.pdf