Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-08-2007, 05:33 PM   #31
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
Supported By Many Citizens

QuoteOriginally posted by GWP Quote
(snip) The really unfortuneate thing in this is that if the guys at the railway station did NOT investigate and something did happen then their collective balls would be on the block, I wonder if those that bemoan the 'loss of freedom' would be as forgiving and understanding then? Of course we wouldn't, we would all scream that someone hasn't done their job. (snip)

Exactly. Many are ranting about the administration in Washington or some government agency, when they perhaps should be screaming at each other instead. These aggressive restraints on civil and personal liberties are supported by large numbers of average citizens and will not go away until those citizens stop supporting them. As it is now, those citizens expect the government to do something and are willing to scream their bloody heads off when government does not. That reality will not change with new government leadership, or with a misdirected rant in a public forum. Education is needed for a start. A little more courage (in the so-called "home of the brave") to keep freedoms in place even in the face of possible threats would go a long way towards that end as well.

stewart


-


Last edited by stewart_photo; 12-08-2007 at 09:09 PM. Reason: clarification and spelling mistake
12-08-2007, 05:47 PM   #32
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 89
Yep, It's GW's fault, nothing to do with Muslim fanatics that would like to kill all of us, including women and children.

I don't believe the present or any prior US Government started all this. Take out your frustrations and put the blame where it belongs. MUSLIM FANATICS.

Rg.
12-08-2007, 07:33 PM   #33
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,675
I think it's just plain fanatics - regardless of faith, creed, colour or political orientation - that are to blame for the mess we are in. But remember, when you are pointing your finger at someone else you've got 3 fingers pointing at you! (I heard that in a movie, just can't remember which one. Sounded clever at the time.)
12-08-2007, 11:22 PM   #34
Veteran Member
OniFactor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Binghamton, NY, USA
Posts: 646
QuoteOriginally posted by maxamillion Quote
Yep, It's GW's fault, nothing to do with Muslim fanatics that would like to kill all of us, including women and children.

I don't believe the present or any prior US Government started all this. Take out your frustrations and put the blame where it belongs. MUSLIM FANATICS.

Rg.
right, because, ya know, when liberties were oppressed pre-9/11, it was because of Al Qaeda. when i got stopped by a police officer, in high school on my lunch break, and questioned as to why i was 'loitering' near a bridge, it was because of something that people didn't even care about.

that makes total sense.

12-08-2007, 11:40 PM   #35
Veteran Member
ericc's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Western Oklahoma
Posts: 406
QuoteOriginally posted by Leaf Fan Quote
It's too bad it's come to that, but we live in a post 9/11 world, particularly in USA/Canada and it is what it is. It is incumbent upon ALL of us to take a proactive role in protecting our families, friends, and neighbours. If that means I can't take a picture of a bridge, it's a small price to pay (agreed it is a price that didn't exist pre 9/11, but a small price nonetheless).
Nope. It's a huge price to pay and I'm not willing to hand my freedoms over just yet, thank you. Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Refuse to be terrorized. Read, learn, and understand what the issues are and learn to mitigate the risks. Do not fall victim to the rhetoric of politicians and the blind stupidity of the protective state. Think for yourself.

QuoteQuote:
fighting/arguing with the officer on the street doesn't make anybody's life easier, safer, or more enjoyable
Who is that officer, but a human being? He is not my judge and he is not infallible. If he asks me who I am and what I'm doing, I will do the same. If he tells me to stop what I'm doing, I'm going to ask him what law I'm breaking. And I'm going to ask his name, his badge number and those of his superiors. Just to remind him that he is not the authority but merely an enforcer.

People should not be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.
12-09-2007, 06:58 AM   #36
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,599
Hear Hear Eric!

QuoteOriginally posted by ericc Quote
Nope. It's a huge price to pay and I'm not willing to hand my freedoms over just yet, thank you. Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Refuse to be terrorized. Read, learn, and understand what the issues are and learn to mitigate the risks. Do not fall victim to the rhetoric of politicians and the blind stupidity of the protective state. Think for yourself.



Who is that officer, but a human being? He is not my judge and he is not infallible. If he asks me who I am and what I'm doing, I will do the same. If he tells me to stop what I'm doing, I'm going to ask him what law I'm breaking. And I'm going to ask his name, his badge number and those of his superiors. Just to remind him that he is not the authority but merely an enforcer.

People should not be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.
Couldn't have said it better myself. There are some venues where photography is prohibited in NYC (the subway system for example as it is private property) but most venues it is theoretically legal to take photographs. Unfortunately, police officers, being only human, either make mistakes, or need to try to throw their weight around for one reason or another. Like with any other bully you need to stand your ground.

NaCl( "if the people lead, the leaders will follow" )H2O
12-09-2007, 07:26 AM   #37
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zwickau, Sax, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23
I had a situation like that last year. But it was more serious.
Last year i was on vacation at the westbank. We went to a borderzone (between jordan and israel) to take some photos of that amazing sundown. There is a big canyon like the grand canyon (ok, a little bit smaller). Suddenly we had to stop due to a checkpoint. Unfortunally i took my camera to take some shots (we were not permited to go down into that valley). Suddenly a soldier ran towards me with his released M16 and shouted i should put my cam away. (note: it was a Fuji S6000). I'll never try to take photos at a checkpoint...i promise...
12-09-2007, 04:27 PM   #38
Site Supporter
LeoTaylor's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Connecticut
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 679
QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
Leo what that officer said is completely wrong. There is no such law. You can take a picture of any bridge as long as you are standing on public property...H2O
Hi,

Many bridges entering NYC are controlled by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (the Triborough Bridge was their first of many) which is a private company. They prohibit any photography on bridges or tunnels under their control. They have 900 officers who are not part of NYPD.

If you look up TBTA on the web site: Freedom To Photograph - The Definitive News Source for Photographers' Freedoms you will find lots of horror stories about TBTA officers stopping photographers. What irks me is the Marine Parkway Bridge (AKA Gill Hodges Bridge for you baseball fans) is far from anything of terrorist interest. After all, it starts at a park, ends at a park, and passes over Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge. It was the scenic area that attracted us to this location, and we did get some nice bird photos in the refuge. We've given up going to NYC to photograph bridges.

We still plan Photographing Trains in the Bronx, but they are very small ones.


12-09-2007, 08:27 PM   #39
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
It's utter BS that anyone should have to lose a little of their rights - "it's a small price to pay!" - for any of this "post 9/11" crap.

If AQ's smart enough to be able to hijack a bunch of airliners in the middle of the US, then I figure they're smart enough to be able to take surveillance photos, if they indeed DO bother taking them, with a little more subtlety than walking up to something and point a large DSLR at it.

How many times have you seen people getting harassed for using a cameraphone? Or a $200 point-and-shoot?

Unless I'm completely wrong and Osama's a big photography nut, holed up in a cave in Pakistan with a darkroom, a Flextight scanner and his dialysis machine. "How are we to use these photos of the Brooklyn Bridge to plan our attack? Look at that chromatic abberation! The pincushion distortion! By Mohammed, did you use a Holga? You can't even see the individual heads of the bolts on the bridge! What lens are you using? It was sunny - why does it look like the photo was taken at 6400 ISO?"

If you're willing to trade tangible freedoms for protection from intangible threats, then by all means you deserve whatever happens to you.

I'd bet most people are more afraid of SLR's because they either assume a) you'll be making money off them somehow, if they're in the frame, or something they own is in the frame, or b) you're a photojournalist and they're gonna end up in the next big exposť on how the trains in Chicago are not being properly maintained.

Of course, it's also no biggie for people to claim you're a pervert terrorist, who, as soon as he takes enough kiddie-porn shots, will then release anthrax all over the city.

The important thing is being able to sleep at night.
12-09-2007, 08:56 PM   #40
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
(snip) the subway system for example as it is private property (snip)

I've seen several mentions of the New York subway system being private property. On the face of it, this sounds like someone saying the air is private property because TWA pays to fly through it. The insides of the trains (or airplanes) I can understand, but restrictions on all photos (within the stations, along the tracks, etc) is another story. Therefore, and since I know little about it, I'm hoping someone (anybody, not necessarily Salty here) can enlighten me about the NY subway system (a website or something).

For example, exactly who does own the NY subway, did they purchase every inch of land that system operates on (tracks, stations, etc), who did they purchased that land from, what gave the seller authority to sell that land (much of which would seem to be public-owned land), was state or federal money used at any point, and so on. I could ask the same questions about the bridges in New York as well.

Without answers to these questions, I would not be so quick to accept claims that anything is private property with a right to restrict my actions. Perhaps photographers should ask for some reasonable proof that property is indeed private before complying with restrictions.

stewart
12-09-2007, 11:36 PM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Buffalo/Rochester, NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,133
It's amazing that we're harassed about taking a photo of a bridge, yet anyone can get Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual Earth 3D and get bird's-eye views and virtual tours of most of this world. Pay some money for a pro subscription and you get even more detail.

And who's going to stop someone who lives in one of many apartment complexes (with views of the river, bridges, train yards, etc) from taking a million photos with super-long zooms to the point where they can count the rivets on a girder?

Pretty soon we'll be covering our cities with steel domes to prevent aliens from checking up on us...
12-10-2007, 04:16 AM   #42
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
QuoteOriginally posted by -spam- Quote
Exactly. If i didnt want to make myself noticed, then i sure wouldnt be using a great big SLR and lens set up when a p&s would be all i needed and a lot sneakier.

And its like with "perverts" on the beach with their big cameras. Please, if someone didnt want attention drawn to what they were doing, they wouldnt be using a big camera set up. If anything, using something like a DSLR is an attempt to make it mighty obvious what you are doing and because of that, you wont be up to no good.

I feel sorry for this guy.

Diane Arbus would probably be in prison if she started photography now.

It's funny - you never see anyone with a P&S get hassled. Ok, hypothetical situation: you're terrorist who's gonna die in three weeks when you detonate yourself somewhere publicly. Do you spend $3000 on DSLR gear for photos, if you actually need any, or do you spend $200 on a P&S? That leaves you $2800 more to spend on fertiliser and diesel!

-spam-, have you heard of the Met nightclub in the Valley here? I was there a coupla weeks ago for a mate's party, and I had my ME around my neck. Bouncer says, "You can't take your camera in."

"Ok, why not?"

"There's no photos inside the club."

"Fine. Do you want my money or not?"

"You can leave it in the cloak room."

"Ok."

I never bothered with the cloakroom, as cloakroom = free stuff for the staff, and my point was proven when I entered the club anyway...I counted at least twenty P&S's and camphones. None of the wandering staff inside the club were informing people of the ban on photography. Nope, they're afraid of the guy with the film camera, which you have to wind with your thumb, and, like, turn the lens to focus.

Now, I know it was on private property, and they were well within their rights to tell me not to shoot. But it's the hypocrisy towards photography that gets me. Because, of course, the ME has the ability to capture JPEGs, then email them off to DrunkenSlutUpskirts.com immediately and delete any incriminating evidence .

I'd say your average cop's not worried about Joe Pentaxian taking photos of trains for fear of terrorism (unless the US's gone completely guano loco), but are more worried about having to field complaints from parents who're worried about "that man with the camera" or having "The State of Our Public Transport" on the front of tomorrow's newspaper.
12-10-2007, 04:46 AM   #43
Veteran Member
-spam-'s Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 357
QuoteOriginally posted by lithos Quote
It's funny - you never see anyone with a P&S get hassled. Ok, hypothetical situation: you're terrorist who's gonna die in three weeks when you detonate yourself somewhere publicly. Do you spend $3000 on DSLR gear for photos, if you actually need any, or do you spend $200 on a P&S? That leaves you $2800 more to spend on fertiliser and diesel!
Thats exactly my point. And why would they use the big expensive gear that sticks out? What i keep telling people, is that if i was up to no good, id want to be as discreet as possible.

QuoteOriginally posted by lithos Quote
-spam-, have you heard of the Met nightclub in the Valley here? I was there a coupla weeks ago for a mate's party, and I had my ME around my neck. Bouncer says, "You can't take your camera in."

<snip>

Now, I know it was on private property, and they were well within their rights to tell me not to shoot. But it's the hypocrisy towards photography that gets me. Because, of course, the ME has the ability to capture JPEGs, then email them off to DrunkenSlutUpskirts.com immediately and delete any incriminating evidence .
Ive heard of that place but havnt been in there. Unfortunately, im not surprised at the way the bouncer treated you and you alone. I guess im just too used to it these days.

QuoteOriginally posted by lithos Quote
or having "The State of Our Public Transport" on the front of tomorrow's newspaper.
hah! well you have to feel for them there. It has been all over the papers lately
12-10-2007, 05:01 AM   #44
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,599
The NYC subway system and the MTA

QuoteOriginally posted by stewart_photo Quote
I've seen several mentions of the New York subway system being private property. On the face of it, this sounds like someone saying the air is private property because TWA pays to fly through it. The insides of the trains (or airplanes) I can understand, but restrictions on all photos (within the stations, along the tracks, etc) is another story. Therefore, and since I know little about it, I'm hoping someone (anybody, not necessarily Salty here) can enlighten me about the NY subway system (a website or something).

For example, exactly who does own the NY subway, did they purchase every inch of land that system operates on (tracks, stations, etc), who did they purchased that land from, what gave the seller authority to sell that land (much of which would seem to be public-owned land), was state or federal money used at any point, and so on. I could ask the same questions about the bridges in New York as well.

Without answers to these questions, I would not be so quick to accept claims that anything is private property with a right to restrict my actions. Perhaps photographers should ask for some reasonable proof that property is indeed private before complying with restrictions.

stewart
Stewart:
I work for a company that makes subway cars. I am part of the warranty system of that company so I work on NYCT (New York City Transit) property. I've got a fairly good idea of what is allowed and what isn't. My knowledge is NOT hearsay.
The MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority---the governing body of the NYCT) is a privately owned company. It is NOT part of NYC government. The MTA owns the tracks, tunnels, yards, and stations the trains run thru. They also obviously own the trains themselves. It is legal to take a photo of any part of the system as long as you are on public property, for instance a street if the the train are running above ground as they are in parts of Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens. It is NOT legal to take a picture from within a station, yard or tunnel as they are owned by the MTA and the MTA has said they don't want pictures taken. If you personally know a yard master or barn chief you may be able to get permission to photograph on that particular bit of property, but usually those individuals will tell you that you can't publically post said phots. (That is from personal experience)
As far as the land the train run on is concerned, the MTA has gotten easements for all public land, the same as the railroads do everywhere.

NaCl(you can take my word for it or not, your peril)H2O
12-10-2007, 05:13 AM   #45
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,599
QuoteOriginally posted by LeoTaylor Quote
Hi,

Many bridges entering NYC are controlled by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (the Triborough Bridge was their first of many) which is a private company. They prohibit any photography on bridges or tunnels under their control. They have 900 officers who are not part of NYPD.

If you look up TBTA on the web site: Freedom To Photograph - The Definitive News Source for Photographers' Freedoms you will find lots of horror stories about TBTA officers stopping photographers. What irks me is the Marine Parkway Bridge (AKA Gill Hodges Bridge for you baseball fans) is far from anything of terrorist interest. After all, it starts at a park, ends at a park, and passes over Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge. It was the scenic area that attracted us to this location, and we did get some nice bird photos in the refuge. We've given up going to NYC to photograph bridges.

We still plan Photographing Trains in the Bronx, but they are very small ones.
OK, I understand now. However you can STILL take photos of the Gill Hogdes bridge if you are standing on public property...ie not the bridge itself. I'm pretty sure the East River bridges (Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, 59th St etc) are not part of the TBTA. I imagine the Triboro bridge is, so if I photograph from there I'll have to be---discrete. As a side note I was stuck on the George Washington Bridge the other day and noticed several people walking on the pedestrian walkway there, all of them were taking photos of the city reflecting the late afternoon golden light from the lowering sun. I'm fairly certain that is a TBTA bridge, and I'd be surprised if that walkway was not under surveillance (suicides and the like). But I did not see any type of "official personnel".
BTW, the Train Show at the Gardens is pretty good this year, hope to be able to post some shots tonight or tomorrow.

NaCl(tho of course they might be asked later on when the got to the end of the bridge)H2O
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, couple, dslr, images, law, master, photography, pictures, snow, train
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Blizzard of 2010: Snow B&W Eruditass Post Your Photos! 4 03-28-2010 08:23 PM
Nature Needles & Snow scott-devon Post Your Photos! 4 12-20-2009 01:24 PM
Landscapes & critters and snow (7 imgs) Andrew Faires Post Your Photos! 18 11-29-2007 10:27 PM
Snow and ice means B&W to me (mostly anyway) NaClH2O Post Your Photos! 11 01-31-2007 07:06 PM
Close Encounter TrailSeeker Post Your Photos! 1 12-10-2006 07:31 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:16 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top