Your rights are being hacked away

I was photographing at the PATCO train station this early morning.

Then, they stopped the train so a cop could seize the roll of film. He

told me

"it's a security risk." They were monitoring me through the security

cameras.

 

The pigs are using every opportunity to limit our freedoms, and we are

doing nothing.

Wait Wait Wait, did you get his badge number? Did you do anything at all to defend yourself against this? I don't know what PATCO is, but unless it is a pre determined "secure area" than I don't believe they're allowed to take your stuff. I have a legal guide that my photo teacher gave me, and it says, that anyone taking your film is theft. You should have taken down this TERRORISTS badge number and dealt appropriatly. I say call the ACLU, bring a representative down with you and deal with this matter as seriously as it should be. Don't let them tarnish our rights in the name of making a democratic world.

I guess it comes down to which you would prefer - lose a roll of film or lose your life in a terrorist explosion. I think your anger should be directed at terrorists, not at the people who are doing their best to protect you.

I share Bernard's view. I know how you feel because you did nothing wrong. But this is for your safety, my safety and safety for the rest of us. The world isn't the same anymore.

If you would have read <a href="http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm ">this</a>, then you would have known that you should never hand over your film without a court order no matter how much they threaten and coerce you.<p>

 

The more people that gladly hand over their film, the more the cops think that can do it.

snore...

So if I were a "terrorist" why wouldn't I just back up a block or so and use a telephoto?<BR><BR>

Or pretend to take pictures of my girlfriend in front of the train while I'm actually shooting over her shoulder?<BR><BR>What really frightens me is how stupid the security guards actually are.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that after the London tube bombings the police appealed for photographs that might help with their enquiries to supplement their extensive CCTV coverage. Photography (whether by the authorities or by private individuals) is actually potentially a deterrent to bombers or more minor street criminals such as muggers since it can help identify suspicious persons and provide evidence of their suspicious activities. Photography has also been responsible for proving that the police overstep the mark using unnecessary violence in at least a couple of high profile cases in the US that come to mind. You can be sure that laws banning overt photography do nothing to suppress clandestine photography for nefarious purposes such as planning terrorist attacks. Try asking the CIA or any other intelligence agency whether complete photography bans have prevented their field agents getting photos necessary to support their operations.

 

It seems to me that if safety was really the concern that it would be far more effective to substantially tighten gun laws and enforcement of them, rather than harrassing photographers.

I believe Arnab and Bernard have a great point. In fact we should be pretty much not be allowed to do anything just in case it might help terrorists. You never really know.

<i>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben Franklin

</i><p>

Cowards and other sheep, of course, will see things differently. 3000 deaths was tragic, but statistically insignificant -- it's about 3 weeks worth of traffic fatalities or 18 hours worth of heart disease deaths. Yet these people are willing to change the way they live because their the government tells them to be scared.

<p>

<i>

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Hermann Goering, Hitler's second-in-command.

<p>

"The people want wholesome dread. They want to fear something. They want someone to frighten them and make them shudderingly submissive." -- Ernst Rohm, Nazi SA Chief

Homeland Security. From the people who brought you The Response to Katrina.

I gotta agree with Mike. I don't know where this took place but I'll assume USA.I also don't know if you look Middle Eastern. Nervertheless, you should have demanded a search warrant of some kind. If they threaten to arrest you so what? It'll be more money for you when you sue and these dolts will be out of a job hopefully although I blame their supervisors more then them. While those who say it's better for the safety of everyone they have a point but it's hollow. We all know how airports refuse to pull aside anyone that might look like a young Middle Eastern male for fear of racial profiling despite the fact that this description fits the terrorists of 9-11. No, they'll pull aside little old white ladies and take their knitting needles instead. I certainly feel safe now don't you? If we allow rampant paranoia to continue then the terrorists will have already won a major battle.

Duh

<i>the two NAZI quotes were worth the stuck italics </i> out <i> out </i> damn spot

What seems to have switch is the burden of the proof. It is like we are consider guilty unless we prove our inocence.

 

Another is the hunt for the obvious. If i was a terrorist (wich i am not but i would have to prove it), i would use a cell phone to take pictures, not a film camera.

 

Sure, higher security means less liberty but when it becomes abusive, we should protest to keep some rights.

 

About the impact of terrorists : stories like that just show they already won. They damaged our way of life.

The fact that you used the word "pigs" to describe police officers proves to me your immaturity. I could just imagine how you delt with the situation. How could anyone who call police officers "pigs" help with the situation? It was probably best that you didn't do anything anyways or in the future. With your negative attitude towards them, you'll probably make things worst and ruin it for all the rest of us photographers that like cops who could have easily talk our way out of having our film taken away.

Italics <b>off!</b></i>

<p>

Clearly, photographing things leads to terrorism. Anything any authority figure does "for your safety" must be okay...

</i>I have to agree with "Ocean Physics" as far as numbers are concerned - unfortunately the truth is a bit harsh.<br>

<br>

Next thing we'll know, we'll discover that terrorists have used telephones, cars, credit cards, and that anyone using them is a suspected terrorist and should be shot on sight.<br>

<br>

But Francois nailed the problem: terrorists win by causing their ennemies to change their way of life. And right now against the US they are winning.

Whatever looniness and incompetence is occurring at the top-and it is, it probably represents someone at PATCO appointing himself as a Hero, and starring in his own little Tom Cruise movie. This really ought to be challenged in the courts and slapped down.

 

I can't believe anyone over 12 can believe that accepting this nonsense somehow will help prevent terrorist attacks.

 

What is Patco? And what's with the "pig" designation? When I wake up tomorrow will it be 1968 again?

Okay, you need to go right back there. Pick up a bunch of expired film for cheap, or buy some of the dollar stuff at Wallyworld.

 

Now, go there, and make a point of photographing EVERY Arab person you see. If you don't see any, photograph anyone who you think looks sort of like they could be middle-eastern. Or maybe everyone with a backpack, it won't matter. Then when you see the security guard, tell them what you are doing and INSIST that they take your film and investigate every last one of these "suspicious people". Get the security guard's name and call him and his supervisor every day to see if they developed the film yet. And keep going back and photographing more and more people. If they won't let you photograph IN the place, stand around outside, and catch people coming and going. And insist that the security people investigate all of those people for National Security. Hopefully, after a couple of weeks, the security people will be afraid to get near you, and you can photograph where you like.

The so-called problem of "terrorism" is greatly exaggerated by those who want to herd us and make us into docile sheep. That's the bottom line. Giving up our rights, freedoms and liberties (which many before us died for) is not the answer. There is indeed an abuse of power by uniformed personnel who are not themselves aware of the laws they pretend to uphold.

 

You seem to forget that when the explosions were set off in England's subway system, the events were recorded not by government uniformed personnel but by common, everyday people. Also, think about the crimes that have been solved by average, everyday photography/video enthusiasts... and some of the civil rights abuses committed by the uniformed personnel is included here! THAT is one reason why uniformed personnel don't want us to have photographic equipment... we might catch them doing something wrong!

 

Really, how ridiculous. If a terrorist wanted to get "vital information" of historical sites or monuments, etc., don't you think they can do this in a more inconspicuous manner... like the public libraries, the Internet? Duhhhhh....

 

Whenever government officials talk about limiting our rights, freedoms and liberites, I quickly think, "There's someone with dictatorship in mind." Think about it... oppressive governments do that; they do away with rights, freedoms and liberties under the guise of "protecting the public welfare." Do you really believe the nonsense?

 

Have you ever seen "Fahrenheit 9/11"? I suggest you do so and then think a little about the REAL reasons behind elected officials' proposals of limiting our rights, freedoms and liberties. There are too many things that the public is kept ignorant about... or the public is too lazy to "put together."

 

I refuse to give up my rights, freedoms and liberties under the much exaggerated, fictitious "terrorist threat" and imagined/invented by those who would limit or take away what this country stands for. Remember the McCarthy era? Hey, this is the Bush era.

 

I refer you to the IV Amendment of the Constitution of the USA and I also refer you to TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, Sec. 242. (Civil Rights) which refers to the Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law You might be surprised or you might be enlightened. Democracy does not mean taking away rights, freedoms and liberties... it means HAVING them, and not allowing this country to continue down the road to a plutocracy (sometimes I think it's already a plutocracy...)

 

And, yes, relax, the sky ain't falling!

.

 

Since the US Supreme Court in copyright cases dating 100 years and more back to the beginning of modern photography considers photography to be the ownership of the photographer, and as such has immediate copyright creative property value, jsut ad any other free speech expression, they stole your free speech property and owe you BIG.

 

Call the ACLU and let's finally kill the thought police who think a picture belongs to anyone but the photographer.

 

Also, everyone, start carrying an unconcealed camera and start taking pictures, especially of any thought police trying to prevent someone from taking pictures from any publicly accessible space, especially of any thought police trying to confiscate your free speech property!

 

I'm sorry, "security risk" -- is this China or Saudi Arabia or North Korea or what?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - Also, "restraint of trade" since other photographers may be making money while you are being hassled.

 

And what about the images on the security cameras everywhere -- there's NO control over who sees them and distributes them. I'll bet the incident was on camera, and may be "borrowed" by some train-line rent-a-guard for personal distribution. How absurd. "You can't photograph here, but we can!"

 

C'mon, everyone, let's whip out our cameras and CLICK through this -- remember Rodney King? I'm sure photographing THAT was a sequrity risk, revealing LA police interrogation "techniques" -- "give me that camera and film!" Where do these so-called "protect and serve" people think they are?

 

Has NO ONE read the Magna Carter, US Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, US Bill of Rights, Lincoln's Gettysburgh Address, and so on, recently? Do we need to carry copies to start reading to people and handing out to people to remind them of where they live?

.

 

Oh, a quick Google search for [PATCO train station]

http://www.google.com/search?q=PATCO+train+station

lead me to

 

Atlantic City Line

Trains continue parallel to PATCO on to Lindenwold, varying from the cut in ...

The former PRSL platform, built as part of the PATCO station, can be seen. ...

http://www.hobokenterminal.com/grandcentral/njt/ac/ac.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

 

So I knew we were dealing with the same cheap, lowest bid police services as who let the 9-11 hijackers onto the Boston plane with box cutters.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - Seriously, though, everyone thinks they OWN a picture if they are the subject of the picture, and no one understands that TAKING a picture is as much free speech expression as thinking, writing, or any other creative act of self expression and discovery.

 

They think TAKING a picture is as actionable as PUBLISHING a picture.

 

They forget the CENSORSHIP is NOT the same as suing after publication.

 

"Prior restraint" doesn't cut it either.

 

We CAN publish anything we want -- it may just be actionable and we may loose in court, but they cannot PREVENT us from publishing.

 

This is complex, and few people want to understand it, certainly not in a day of making live and death decisions for entire nations based on political sound bites.

 

ARGH

Bernard, I just luv the logic..film=terriost bomb exploder, film=bomber; confiscating film =

safe.....Its about the most idiotic remark I've seen here in a long time.

"cut slack after london.etc." did the bombers set off camera's ? explain the connection

between film and bombs..