Amtrak Photo Contestant Arrested By Amtrak Police 675
Photographer Duane Kerzic was standing on the public platform in New York's Penn Station, taking pictures of trains in hopes of winning the annual photo contest that Amtrak had been running since 2003. Amtrak police arrested him for refusing to delete the photos when asked, though they later charged him with trespassing. "Obviously, there is a lack of communication between Amtrak's marketing department, which promotes the annual contest, called Picture Our Trains, and its police department, which has a history of harassing photographers for photographing these same trains. Not much different than the JetBlue incident from earlier this year where JetBlue flight attendants had a woman arrested for refusing to delete a video she filmed in flight while the JetBlue marketing department hosted a contest encouraging passengers to take photos in flight." Kerzic's blog has an account of the arrest on Dec. 21 and the aftermath.
Better link to what happened (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is a better link to what happened:
http://www.duanek.name/Amtrak/index.htm [duanek.name]
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:3, Interesting)
Better yet, just claim that you have things set up so your camera automatically uploads all photos to the Internet and so deleting them will do no good.
What's with this new delete your videos trend? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, a proper repressor would confiscate the camera. They can't even repress properly, these days.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Interesting)
*We* appreciate the tongue in cheek humor, but the simplest solution is the best -- take out the card after you take the pictures, or pretend to delete them and move on, or delete - then immediately remove the card for undeletion hopes.
Getting in a pissing match with a police is always a bad idea. They are not the judges, and they are usually, in their own minds, doing the right thing and unlikely to be convinced by you. Thus, do your best to get out of the situation and appeal to higher authority, somebody with actual decision or policy making capacity.
I hope this guy gets an apology and a small amount of money. I don't think he should get rich off this incident, but Amtrak police should definitely pay a price for their aggression and misinformation.
Re:OMG (Score:1, Interesting)
Missing the forest for the trees (Score:5, Interesting)
Nowhere in his original account (http://www.duanek.name/Amtrak/index.htm [duanek.name]) does he state that he was taking the pictures for the contest. It seems to be that the journalist chose to heavily emphasize the contest angle, perhaps to go for a more compelling story. Unfortunately, the journalist's choice to spin it as a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, he missed the bigger picture. Photographers are increasingly faced with arbitrary restrictions and demands that are not based upon the law, but based on fear. Forums at places like dpreview.com and flickr are often abuzz with stories of cops making unreasonable demands.
The only way to counteract this is with knowledge. If you happen to like taking pictures of subjects in public spaces, http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm [krages.com] is an enlightening read. This link (http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf [kantor.com]) says essentially the same thing, but lays it out with a real-world example.
Also, to the editors, perhaps having a link to the current version of the contest (http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Hot_Deals_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1093554057903&ssid=224 [amtrak.com]) would be good. I was skeptical that they actually had continued running the contest until I found that.
London Underground (Score:5, Interesting)
Just as a comparison with the London Underground, taking any photos on the Underground requires a permit which costs £300 for a two-hour permit (less for students), details are here [tfl.gov.uk]. I wonder what the penalty for taking photographs with out a permit is...
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Interesting)
First it isn't their premises.
Second he had a ticket, so they can't evict him from the platform before he decides at his own time to do so (not dragging feet naturally but not need to force him to sprint out either).
Third it's public space.
It is unconstitutional to forbid photography in public spaces as photography has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as included in the 1st Amendment protections.
But I'm only dabbling things read elsewhere... like ITFA...
Because all the security bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
All the security bullshit is just that: bullshit. Security Theater. The talk is big (this includes recent cyber-security alarmist stories) but in no relation whatsoever to real threats. The arena of "security" is about protecting the feifdom now. Jobs and budgets to protect. Projects to hype. Dangers to overestimate. Get your consultant dollars - step right up.
Somebody has to call a spade a spade and do it soon or else Orwell will be here to stay in this guise. Bush opened the door. Americans invited him in. Failure to now see that the emperor has no clothes will be his invitation to stay on as a permanent houseguest.
IMO the hero of this story is that citizen who, when asked to delete their photo, told them to go fuck themselves.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:3, Interesting)
He's partly wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a somewhat serious photographer myself, and so I feel empathy for Duane (I have been questioned before about taking photography in some places, but never arrested nor asked to delete photos).
However although it is true in the list he makes of previous terrorist actions where no photos were used (as far as I know), something to consider is that the terrorists in the recent Mumbai attacks had extensive photo and video reconnaissance of places like the hotel they attacked, a restaurant they planned to attack and also the Jewish center they attacked. Honestly I have a hard time believing that no photography was used in any of the other actions, even as simple a thing as looking at photographs of the New York skyline on Flickr.
However, just because photography (like many other things) is a tool which can be used for ill as well as good, in no way does that make it right to arrest someone anywhere for taking photos. But you shouldn't put it forward as fact that real life terrorists never use photographs as reconnaissance material.
An interesting distinction is that he was not arrested for taking photos, but for refusing to delete them when asked. The practical reality of such a situation is that what I would do is delete the photos and simply un-delete them later (always carry more than one card)... but I do think it's wrong or at least silly to make deletion a condition of arrest as there's no way any officer is going to be technically proficient enough to ensure that the photos are actually deleted, and trying to ensure compliance through confiscation of equipment is frankly almost worse than arrest as it's way too easy to abuse as a form of theft of equipment whereas arrest has more real repercussions and officers are not as likely to go that far (not to mention I'll just palm my CF card while you are not looking and slip in a new one so I can keep my photos).
I'd be more comfortable with making it necessary on request to be photographed or videotaped (along with your ID) by the police officer if he suspects you of anything (not just photography, but taking odd notes or sketches of a floorplan). You don't get arrested, you get to leave with your photos - but the possibility of being "officially" recorded may be enough to deter some true reconnaissance work (just as much as the threat of being arrested for taking photographs today). Some people see that as police state kind of stuff but honestly the way things are we are recorded almost constantly in public anyway, so I do not see any issue with one more recording being made and I don't think of it as an invasion of privacy when I am out somewhere that is not private. It doesn't limit my freedom in any way and leaning on that more heavily than arrest gives me back freedom of photography that we are starting to lack.
BTP guidelnes for Photographers (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.btp.police.uk/passengers/advice_and_information/rail_enthusiasts.aspx [police.uk]
Perhaps Amtrak should adopt something similar?
Amtrak security even interrupts its official spoke (Score:5, Interesting)
Amtrak security was even filmed saying filming isn't allowed, when a news crew was interviewing Amtrak's spokesperson, who very clearly was saying there's no policy forbidding filming or taking photographs:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=6664418 [myfoxdc.com]
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of when I was in NYC. There was a big bronze/goldish building around 1 Wallstreet. There was this big bouncer guy standing there walking across the street asking people either to not take photos or to delete the ones they had.
If I had more time I would have pressed the issue. Every one was across the street on public property taking photos of a public building.
I can't seem to find the area on google earth now.
Dumb Policy ... And Soon Won't Matter Anyways (Score:3, Interesting)
In the near future, with digital cameras getting smaller and better, it's only a matter of time before many people have a tiny video camera in the frame of their eye glasses, or on a necklace, or even perhaps, woven into their clothing, which is recording all the time, with occasional auto-saves to the internet.
Ron
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:3, Interesting)
One of my friends, who is intersex and transgender, was followed and approached by campus police at my school 3 hours after going into the "wrong" bathroom (which one is right?). Sie was almost arrested, but sie and hir friend went to the person in charge. In return, they got a formal apology from the offending police. This shouldn't happen. However, it does, sadly. I was very glad at least someone knew the right thing to do.
I think a lot of cases boil down to this (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a pretty serious photographer, and have taken pictures in similar areas.
I've been asked by police what I was doing and my reasons for photographing something, but I've never been asked to delete photos or been detained. Basically I think it boils down to being friendly instead of automatically treating police as the "enemy". Police being the only authority present on the scene, (rightfully) have a lot of leeway in how they can respond to any given individual and you should respect that (and if you are smart take advantage of this).
I really get the impression from the blog this guy was pretty antagonistic over being stopped when he thought he was in bounds, so to speak. That doesn't make it right to detail him but it does make it understandable given the framework the police had to work in.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:3, Interesting)
marketing usually reports to upper management. in most corporations, if the marketing department doesn't just decide to run a major campaign without the company's approval. unless there's a law that forbids Amtrak from allowing people to take photos of their trains, then the police were out of line, not the marketing department.
that's like saying that a police officer who comes into my house and arrests one of my guests is just implementing applicable law. after all, who am i--the property owner-to decide who to allow onto my premises?
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Interesting)
The only thing cops hate more than you photographing some random building, is when you photograph them.
These photos were taken around 9 am on a Saturday morning in April. Bars open at 7 am so police are around to keep 'order'. I took a ton of photos to stitch together to make some good panoramas. [exstatic.org]
Since I was in drive mode I got off about 3 pictures before I even had my camera up to my eye, an which point they came over and asked me to move along. Next year I plan on not drinking *anything* (Anything over 0.00 can be arrested for Public Intox) and pushing the issue. They're standing on a public street in broad fucking daylight.
Picture 1 [exstatic.org]
Picture 2 [exstatic.org]
Picture 3 [exstatic.org]
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Interesting)
First it isn't their premises.
Amtrak owns New York Penn station.
The "No Photos" rule, I believe, is a NY/NJ Port Authority policy. I'm not quite sure what their Jurisdiction is over there, although there are definitely rules against taking photos on the PATH (which the Port Authority directly operates)
Whether or not these rules are constitutional or not is up to debate (they're almost certainly not). However, you can't fault the officers at the station for obeying their (fairly innocuous) orders. This sounds like something that the ACLU (or similar organization) should take up in court to have the official policy changed.
Re:Amtrak Police!?! (Score:3, Interesting)
That's only half the problem - the other half is why people (not only the police!) are so paranoid about photography, as if everyone taking pictures is suddenly scoping the place out for a terrorist attack.
It seems like we (of the Slashdot groupthink) are the minority. When I was in the US I met many people who couldn't understand why I despised the TSA/CATSA (Canadian equivalent), and are still incredibly paranoid about hijackings on flights. Many even vehemently argued that curtailing civil liberties is absolutely essential, or the entire country will go to hell in a hand basket.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Interesting)
Ever Since 9/11... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:1, Interesting)
No; they put in effort to attain independence from another government. That's a very different thing from freedom.
If "freedom" had been the Founding Fathers' goal, they might possibly have done something about, you know, slavery and all that, instead of leaving African Americans to another 90 years of oppression?
Whereas what they were really interested in was getting the British government off their backs so they could concentrate on making themselves prosperous by exploiting slave labor, stealing land from the Native Americans, and of course imposing their own new taxes on the "free" citizens of the newly independent states. Fair enough; I'm sure we'd all do the same. It's a dog-eat-dog world and all that. But not much to do with "freedom".
Voting. That's how we do it these days. Bloody revolutions are appealing to the immature mind, but they don't have a great track record... look at France, Russia, China, and so on.
Well done! You have learned a whole line of rhetoric. You do realise, I hope, that just because Jefferson said something with the aim of arousing patriotic fervor, doesn't necessarily mean it is 100% literally true in every circumstance?
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:3, Interesting)
I shouldn't have to get tased to stand up for my rights. Since cops are so taser happy these days I'd rather take the sneaky approach.
Well, try some Thor Shield [thorshield.com] then.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:1, Interesting)
I know this is off-topic, but I would presume that the right lavatory is picked based on your sex (that is, whether you have a penis or a vagina, in the unlikely case you have both, just flip a coin), not gender. This is actually quite simple.
You presume incorrectly. There is no "right" bathroom.
Why should sex be the determining factor on which bathroom you use? (Other than practical considerations, such as preferring a urinal). Bathroom segregation is a social construct, and most of the semi-public toilets I see around here are co-ed.
This gives me an idea... (Score:2, Interesting)
This would make for an awesome flashmob.
Get a group of 101 people. Fill them all in on the plan.
1 person will go to a public place and just start taking pictures. LOTS of pictures. They don't need to act strange, just take pictures. Have the other 100 just hanging out, doing various things to look normal.
Wait for a cop-rental or otherwise-to come up and confront the person taking pictures. If it's just a simple, "Hi, how's it going" kind of encounter, then the photographer puts on a silly hat. Then the other 100 people all give a cheer and disperse.
But if the cops start to violate the law, the photographer holds up their hands in surrender.
All 100 people dash over and surround the cop and photographer, about 10 feet away, and start to chant "First Amendment!", really loud.
The cops will be so distracted that the photographer will be able to merge with the crowd. Once they're in the crowd, everyone simply breaks up and moves on.
Art, political statement, social statement and entertainment, all in one.
At least the PATH police is nicer (Score:3, Interesting)
Last month my wife and I were taking some pictures at the Pavonia/Newport PATH station (between NJ and NY).
This station still holds the old-fashioned tiles and brick ceilings, so I took my camera out and started shooting (pictures, that is :-))
This woman dressed in PATH police uniform came to me and kindly asked me to stop taking pictures. When I asked why, she said that the flash could disturb the train conductors (as if they could lose a tunnel or something, right?)
Anyway, she didn't ask me to delete the pictures or anything, and since I had already taken more than enough, I let it pass without further ado (that and the fact that my wife wasn't too fond of being arrested.)
Not a new thing (Score:3, Interesting)
This has happened before. [stupidsecurity.com]
Then there was a truly surreal follow up instance. [stupidsecurity.com] Here's the summary: A professional TV news crew were in the middle of interviewing an Amtrak spokesperson about the photography policy, in which the spokesperson was saying that photography is absolutely okay but the interview was interrupted by a security guard coming to tell them to stop filming immediately as it is prohibited.