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.
sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
Those companies have no right to ask you to delete photos. They can ask you to leave their premises... once it's safe to do so, that's all.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Funny)
Or just comply and delete them. Then after the police release you and you're walking away, shout "But I have undeletion software on my computer at home that will recover them!"
Then run.
Re: (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.
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:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
Uneducated police officers do harm not just to those they arrest illegally but to the image of law enforcement in general.
Allowing the police to get away with these situations, no matter how small, just because you have the 'smarts' to get out of it is the wrong tack.
I would suggest confronting the situation legally but head-on as an intelligent person who should be able to defend themselves in these situations. The police forces of the world's democracies need to be kept in check, and we must keep our countries away from the slippery slope of random arrests, threats and other totalitarian scare tactics some police forces have a tendency toward.
Keep your country free -- fight improper police procedure openly and in public until it changes.
Re: (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
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't we just use "he" for gender neutral, these new pronouns give me a headache.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Funny)
Intersex and transgender?
Curiosity is piqued as to how someone who is, by very definition, "of both sexes" (excluding very specific chromosomalities), can be "transgender", the belief that one's gender is opposite to that of their physical characteristics at birth.
Failing that, the very desire to identify as transgender engenders (haha) a belief that you are of a specific gender, regardless of physical characteristics - then using the nominals "sie" and "hir" are counter to that, because they are the very elucidation of the perception that you/they are "different" altogether.
My personal belief is that a lot of times, such nominatives are rather used far more to draw attention to one's self as being different than for genuine identity, and despite the constant protestations that one does not want to be seen or treated as different in any way.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Funny)
Curiosity is piqued as to how someone who is, by very definition, "of both sexes", can be "transgender", the belief that one's gender is opposite to that of their physical characteristics at birth.
They were born a hermaphrodite, but inside they feel like a himaphrodite.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, going into the "wrong" bathroom is not a legal offense, or even against university policy. I have checked this out since.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 w
That'll work... (Score:5, Funny)
"Have you ever been arrested?"
"Sure...once."
"And what was that for?"
"Molesting an officer, why?"
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's your issue, sue them for the lost time and lawyer fees.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Insightful)
As he said, you still need a big pile of money for a lawyer.
People don't win every lawsuit filed, even when they are right.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Informative)
It takes a lot of looking on the photographer's self-serving web site, but the photographer was not "just taking pictures". He was walking across active tracks in Penn Station which IS trespass. No ticket allows passengers to leave the platform and walk on active tracks.
The Transit Police were NOT legally wrong to ask him to delete the pictures - he had the right to refuse to do so. That the pictures have been published n his web site indicate they were not confiscated or deleted by the police.
His summons was for Trespass, and that appears to be a legitimate charge, he WAS trespassing. He is acting like a 3-year old when he argues that since there were no "No Trepsasing" signs he was not trespassing when he walked across the tracks. That's absurd.
I'm a photographer, and I support the free taking of pictures in public spaces, but this was NOT an arrest for taking pictures in Penn Station. This was an arrest for irresponsible trespass and endangering his own and other's safety in Penn Station. As proof, he was in a picture-taking group, many people had been taking pictures at the same time he was, pictures were even taken during his arrest on the platform by members of the group, and NONE OF THEM were arrested.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Informative)
In order to be a policemen in New York City, you have to pass the exam at the end of a tour through the Police Academy with 60 college credits (a two-year AA degree) with a 2.0 GPA. These guys aren't lawyers.
But that's the NYPD. Kerzic was detained by Amtrak Rent-A-Cops. These guys are just a whiff of respectability up from Mall "cops."
What has happened here is that the Federal Government has now got these guys all jazzed up about the concept of a terrorist attack on trains or train stations and they have created "rules for behavior" that are based on rights deprivation.
The unfortunate fact is that the local police are called upon and "deputized" by the feds (either the Secret Service or some other federal agency) to enforce the unenforceable. So the Amtrak police arrested Kerzic when he refused to comply with an illegal order. So suing Amtrak actually hurts one of the victims.
In this case, it's pretty near impossible to follow the orders up the chain of command to the federal government. Just like it was in the case of the release of the Abu Graib torture photos, the feds who actually made the decisions to promote these actions will create an aura of "deniability" that will last until they are out of office.
We need to prosecute Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and so on for their crimes -- after they leave office. We need to do this for the same reason why we need to prosecute Agusto Pinochet for his crimes against humanity: Pinochet thought and this administration thinks that once one has retired from office, they are free to pursue their lives without fear of any adverse consequences -- save perhaps vilification.
Nixon believed he was above the law. The US Supreme Court disagreed. Now, we have another opportunity to test the maxim that no man is above the law in the United States. We should prosecute so that never again is our Constitution threatened by someone who believes, as Nixon did, that "when the President does something, it's not illegal."
I suppose he should sue. But he should sue for the purpose of exposing the chain of command that set these dogs loose, and not to dismember Amtrak.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
*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.
I'm a former police office and I disagree with you on getting into a pissing match with the police. If you know that you're doing nothing wrong you should most definitely stand up for your right to do it. Those who would lay down their rights, simply to avoid confrontation, don't deserve to have those rights!
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
In principle that's a grand thing, but when the reality is that you will have to pay a price, even if you win, and the officer in question will likely suffer nothing, even if he loses, then it becomes a distinction without a difference. Either way, the civilian loses.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
In principle that's a grand thing, but when the reality is that you will have to pay a price, even if you win, and the officer in question will likely suffer nothing, even if he loses, then it becomes a distinction without a difference. Either way, the civilian loses.
Freedom isn't free. Your forefathers put in a great deal more effort to attain their freedom. It's not too much to ask that you do something from time to time to retain your freedom.
Like all governments in the past this one will also fail and need to be refreshed. What will you be doing when that time comes?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Funny)
And we're not even asking you to bleed. Just get tazed a little bit, bro.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Insightful)
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. There is no way I can physically stand up to guys with guns, batons, and tazers but most third graders can easily outsmart most cops. I'd rather take them on in a way where I can get what I want and then sue the crap out of them later. Better to let them think they have won and temporarily satisfy their macho self image only to prove to them how stupid they are later.
Now if we start hiring intelligent, trained police officers I might change my tune. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Insightful)
You're likely to have a lot more problems if you pocket your storage device and lie that you deleted the photos. Police deal with people trying that kind of crap all the time, you want to act like a criminal?
If you're doing nothing wrong, then act like you're doing nothing wrong. Don't piss all over my rights, you're a citizen with a responsibility to stand for our rights, no matter how inconvenient to you, you selfish prick.
There's a time to stand up and a time to sit down. (Score:5, Informative)
The best thing to do is say "yes, officer" "sorry officer" and "it won't happen again". Take you ticket and go. No matter how wrong you think they are, they have the guns and the authority and you have nothing.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Informative)
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Informative)
Years ago, I was walking around campus late at night. I hadn't been drinking, hadn't done anything wrong. I was just pulling an all nighter and looking for some coffee or something. So I went walking around looking for something, ANYTHING that would be open -- gas station or whatever.
A cop saw me and just decided to be a dick, or maybe he was bored. He came up to me and started asking me questions. I tried to be polite but when he asked to see my id, I said no, and he insisted. So I told him this wasn't communist russia and I could very well walk around without an id if I liked.
I ended up taking a ride in the police car that night and spending a night in jail until the judge saw me the next morning. The judge immediately let me go and I have no idea what exactly I was arrested for.
But what should I have done in that situation? When he started handcuffing me I could have refused and punched him in the face, right? But then instead of just having handcuffs on that were too tight I would probably gotten bruised and skinned my face when he pushed me to the ground.
And did the cop suffer? A lawyer told me there wasn't enough to go after the guy (I complied when arrested so wasn't exactly bruised up).
I think the whole point of my rambling is that there needs to be a way for the plebs to fight back against police who overstep their bounds, and I don't think that exists...
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Funny)
"Is it illegal to take photos?" If they claim it is, then ask why they want you to delete evidence. If not ask them why they want you to delete lawfully taken photos.
And poof the police vanished in a puff of logic!
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Informative)
They can ask you to leave their premises
Even that is questionable. This is a publicly-funded organization (they provide mass transit, after all) and the photographer had a legally purchased ticket. They do NOT have the right to selectively ask people to leave without a just reason for same (eg. threatening others, intoxication, etc.) Civil rights laws passed in the 1960's protect everyone, not just the african americans who fought for them--if others have the right to stay on the train platform, so does he.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Civil America extinct (Score:4, Informative)
You mean the same Canada that taxes anything even vaguely related to music or movies -- including blank media and concert halls -- and sends that tax money straight to the RIAA/MPAA?
We're kind of running out of "enlightened" countries to run to. We need to make a stand and fix things, here and now.
Re:Civil America extinct (Score:5, Informative)
You mean the same Canada that taxes anything even vaguely related to music or movies -- including blank media and concert halls -- and sends that tax money straight to the RIAA/MPAA?
You know, I live in a Canada, but it's really nothing like that at all. I've never heard of the Canada you're talking about (I even searched Google for it.) Frankly I'm a little surprised that there is another country called Canada.
The Canada I live in has a levy on blank CDs, just like the USA. [neil.eton.ca] However none of the money goes to the RIAA or MPAA - it goes to the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) who distributes it to music artists and labels (not all of which are CRIA members.)
(Seriously, if you're going to criticize something, get your facts straight first.)
Re:Civil America extinct (Score:5, Informative)
Nunavut is a territory set up specifically to address issues of self government for the Innu. Its probably a territory larger than any US state (maybe Texas is bigger).
I'd be willing to compare and contrast Canadian vs American native policies any day of the week.
As for complete freedom of the press...care to enlighten us as to what's lacking?
The fact that your comment is modded as insightful is a sad statement on the effectiveness of moderation points IMHO.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I hate to use it as a excuse for them,
Then don't.
However, it isn't the law enforcements responsibility to call every other department after an arrest to find out if something legitimate was being done. They were merely doing their jobs based on what they knew of current affairs.
It's law enforcement's responsibility not to enforce laws that don't exist.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
All right I'll bite.
"Your civil liberties don't always trump the good intentions of the well meaning"
As one of the well meaning with good intentions, yes they do. I want your civil liberties to trump my good intentions. My good intentions are based on my moral/ethical code, not yours. Just the same as I don't want other's moral/ethical good intentions infringing on my civil liberties.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
if a law enforcement official asked someone to stop taking pictures, detained the person or asked them to delete the photos of public transportation I'd be happier than if they just sat idly by out of fear of stepping all over their precious dignity
We can't have people running around with liberty and dignity—that's just too dangerous to "the safety of the masses." I hope not, but am afraid that too many people are starting to think like you. You posture yourselves in fear and hope the government will protect you, rather than resolutely supporting the Rule of Law even when bad things happen.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
There are times when people with the authority make the decision that civil liberties are less important than the safety of the masses and rightly so.
.... if a law enforcement official asked someone to ....
Law enforcement is NOT the "people with the authority" to make this decision. We have a group of people who make laws. Lay enforcement's job is to enforce existing laws, not to make up new ones.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Insightful)
Police do not have the authority to make this decision, thought. And even if they did, how does taking pictures of trains endanger anyone's safety ? Do you perhaps think that the photographer is going to use voodoo magic on the picture to make the train crash ?
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Informative)
I'll use it because it is a legitimate concern jackass.
The law might not exist but one of the tenets of law enforcement agencies is "to protect and serve". If they did nothing while someone was taking pictures and that person ended up being part of some kind of terrorist scheme people would be up in arms that nothing was done.
I always find it interesting when people have this Utopian view of things when in reality risks have to be taken to ensure the world runs smoothly. Get your head out of your ass. Your civil liberties don't always trump the good intentions of the well meaning.
What use is your argument, when Amtrak literally invites people to take pictures:
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/News_Release_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1081794202583
You did not even bother to read the summary, did you?
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
Your civil liberties don't always trump the good intentions of the well meaning.
If the "good intentions" of those that are supposedly "well meaning" include my arrest for something that isn't illegal, why then yes, yes they do. Every time. EVERY time. Just because that makes you nervous, doesn't make it not so. Sorry (not really).
I always find it interesting when people have this Utopian view of things when in reality risks have to be taken to ensure the world runs smoothly.
Personally I find it interesting (disheartening actually) when something as innocuous as taking a picture of a train can seem so frightening to some people as to be enough reason to curtail civil liberties in order to prevent it from happening.
Personally, I think some people don't have what it takes to live in a free society, as that means someone will be able to kill you if they try hard enough. It's just a natural consequence of people being in charge of themselves. I'm sorry if that scares you (for real this time, I have empathy for that condition), but I promise that the alternatives are far worse and, unintuitively, more dangerous in the long run.
Twentieth century history is full of examples showing how well trading liberty for security works out. Please do not set the bar of expectation as low as taking pictures of trains or buildings, that is entirely too far gone down the proverbial slippery slope.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I find it interesting (disheartening actually) when something as innocuous as taking a picture of a train can seem so frightening to some people as to be enough reason to curtail civil liberties in order to prevent it from happening.
The irony is that if I was a terrorist, neither Amtrak regulations nor their police stopping tourists from taking pictures would stop me from taking evilpictures of their trains.
(I would use small cameraphone held discreetly in the hand, or apparently used as a phone and just turned in the right direction when the train comes in. Or a camera disguised as a ring or a medallion. Or a camera hidden in a bag, or my headgear. Or something else, but the point is that the Amtrak police would never see me with a camera or taking pictures.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please don't limit it to just arrest - good intentions of well meaning people never trump civil liberties. At least when it concerns constitutionally protected liberties then no matter how they are infringing your civil liberties if it is not done in a completely legal manner then your civil liberties do trump their well meaning intentions and they need to be brought up sharply and made to understand that being well meaning is not a get out of jail free card.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
Publicly-funded how? They've gotten government subsidies, but then again most things have. But doing business with the public isn't being publicly-funded.
Couldn't be bothered to type "Amtrak" into Wikipedia? From the entry:
...
All of Amtrak's preferred stock is owned by the U.S. federal government. The members of its board of directors are appointed by the President of the United States and are subject to confirmation by the United States Senate.
... ..in 1997 Congress authorized $5.2 billion for Amtrak over the next five years ...In fiscal 2004 and 2005, Congress appropriated about $1.2 billion for Amtrak..."
"The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak... is a government-owned corporation that was organized on May 1, 1971 to provide intercity passenger train service in the United States.
Amtrak commenced operations in 1971 with $40 million in direct Federal aid, $100 million in Federally insured loans, and a somewhat larger private contribution.[49] Officials expected that Amtrak would break even by 1974, but those expectations proved unrealistic and annual direct Federal aid reached a 17-year high in 1981 of $1.25 billion.
Amtrak hasn't turned a profit in any of its 37 years. It's not even self-funding, like the USPS. They made a show of it being a "corporation" when it was formed, but it might as well be named the Federal Bureau of Passenger Rail Service.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Informative)
You don't even have to show them the pictures you took, since photography when you aren't trespassing isn't a crime. (Secure areas of military installations and nuclear facilities aside.)
If you are allowed to be there, you aren't committing a crime until they ask you to leave and you don't. They can say "Stop taking pictures or leave" if you are on private property and that is said by a representative of the property you are on. In public, you can photograph pretty much anything, especially police and other security personnel.
IANAL, and laws might be different in your state, but here [krages.com] is a lawyer talking about this, and a nice little pamphlet [krages.com] he made about this.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Insightful)
Try taking pictures of cops and see how long you go without your camera being smashed or getting arrested on a trivial or obscure charge.
Well do that in EU (Score:3, Informative)
Here in good, ol' Europe no cop will ever ask you to stop shooting photos - if he/she's on duty of course. Best they can do is to turn around. You have the right to video them, photo them when they're doing the job you are paying for.
The point is (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that how you want things to be? With public authorities abusing that authority without legal basis?
Dissent *is* still an option, this side of another Revolution.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Funny)
I can't seem to find the area on google earth now.
Obviously it had been deleted...
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]
Send Amtrak a comment... link on contest page (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/ContactUs [amtrak.com]
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...
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:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Informative)
remember, always: laws, in democracies, are made by those with legislative authority, not policing authority or private individuals or organizations. neither airlines, nor amtrak, nor the police, may make or redefine laws.
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:Better link to what happened (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm [krages.com]
Re:Better link to what happened (Score:5, Insightful)
Photographers have it really bad in this country... more than ever.
It is very important to have something like this with you, or to at least read it and have a copy. There are other resources online about Photographer rights and how they pertain.
Cops dont like to be challenged. They especially do not like to be outsmarted. So before you spring one of these papers on a cop and say "gotcha!", you should be polite and as nonthreatening as you can possibly be.
Make the officer feel comfortable with you, even if the officer is being a complete dick. You can often diffuse their attitude with politeness because people respond to respect and politeness.
I've taking pictures on public places, doing outdoor photo shoots etc and I've had cops check us out to see what is going on. They usually just observe to make sure you're not causing trouble or destroying property. All they really want to know is if you're trouble or not.
If they ask you what you're doing, say its for school, and you're learning photography. If you have GEAR... real gear, they're probably going to figure out you're telling the truth. Who the hell is lugging around soft boxes and strobes to public places, intending to anything illegal or harmful? Permits are smart if you can get them. But lets be real... sometimes we dont shoot with permits in "low risk of being arrested" situations :)
I can understand how police may not want you taking pictures of trains or the station but there really isnt anything wrong with it. Especially since AMTRAK was holding a contest. People have historically taking photos of trains and family members boarding or arriving at stations. Its so common that I cant imagine not being able to shoot a photo in front of a train or of a train.
I would never delete a picture a cop told me to. Thats ridiculous. I grew up skateboarding, and we would record ourselves street skating all over and I had to deal with many cops, and in general they've been nice. Most just want you to leave, and then there are some who are just assholes. In general, most of the cops were good natured folks... stern and authoritative but... good folks.
Its the dumb assholes that ruin it. Unfortunately most people dont really care about their personal freedoms anymore, and police sometimes dont act with "civil rights" in mind. Theres a video somewhere online where a cop slams a female photographer on the street, she hits her face and is seriously hurt. She wasnt even doing anything wrong other than being witness to a civil protest. Things like that make me sad and make me wonder just what America is anymore.
Anyways... be nice, know your rights and CONVERSE with the officer if possible. Make them feel comfortable with you. Ultimately if they want you to leave... its best to leave because it will just cost you a lot of money to fight it in court... even if you're right. The time wasted, the headaches, the nonsense... its not worth it sometimes.
I've been saying America is dead for a long time. It just goes to show you that your rights dont mean shit and everyday you need to make sure you stand up for them.
George Carlin said it best... just google Carlin "You have no rights" on youtube.
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.
yeah but with that line of thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this is the wrong line of thought , this reinforce the police/security agent/supermarket agent/whatever to really think they can ask you to delete photo/submit you to a search (for anybody but police) when they are not allowed by law.In other word you erode the fre
Re:yeah but with that line of thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I believe that your perspective is well-thought-out and backed with experience, I have to chime in with support for aepervius. Yeah, for people with families and 'things-to-do,' confronting police or security and making an issue out of them trampling our rights is a real pain in the ass. I'm one of those people who doesn't have the time to get arrested, go downtown, get bailed out, then follow up with a court visit, etc.
But I also think if you yield to the excessive demands of a security agent, making phone calls the next day to complain isn't likely going to get a policy changed or justice served. Cases like this Amtrak situation help draw public attention to the overall problem of hysteria-fueled security-theater that's propagated post-9/11. Now that this photographer has shouldered the burden of resisting these unreasonable police requests, it will make it easier for others to resist similar incursions on our freedom.
The thing contemporary America doesn't understand is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not something that is suspended due to the climate of today. They are the guideposts for getting through difficult times. People who think it's acceptable to surrender their rights for the time being don't appreciate those rights for what they are.
But to the literal situation of refusing the 'delete your photos' request. Cops and seasoned security guards have developed an eye through experience how their authority will be accepted or rejected. They can tell who can be pushed around and who will call bullshit on them. Many stores will hire off-duty cops because it extends the authority of their security force to actually arrest people and issue unreasonable commands (at the behest of the store) that must be followed lest a visitor be accused of 'refusing to follow the orders of a police officer.' These officers have all kinds of verbal techniques they'll use to imply force such as, "Are you going to make a problem here?" to coerce you to do things they have no legal backing for. When you are told to delete the photos, you say sternly, "No. This memory card contains photos of my daughter who was killed by a drunk driver three days ago. These are the last photos I have of her. If we must go to the police station to discuss this matter, by all means, let's go." When cops or security guards realize you are dead serious about making this a situation and understand the limits of their authority, they back the fuck down. The funny thing is, when you take that attitude from the get-go, you never have to press an issue like this with a security guard or cop because they can sense that they can't push you around.
Seth
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...none of those things are as much a precondition of successful terrorist action like photography in the Mumbai attacks.
I can guarantee you that if we ban (and are successful in enforcing the ban) eating and sleeping, we will prevent future terrorist attacks. I'd say those things are very much a precondition of a successful terrorist action - much more so than photographs.
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: (Score:3)
What's with the "CODE" tag? We're using computers, not typewriters. Monospace fonts for regular text is just painful.
good! (Score:5, Funny)
he should be arrested for abusing the LensBaby
he's not a photographer, he's a motion sickness inducing quack
Attorney who track this stuff (Score:5, Informative)
In her blog, there's more about NY City cops harassing anyone with a camera.
So much for living life normally. The terrorists have won.
PUNishment (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like the police derailed his plans.
Maybe they need more training.
That's no way to conduct themselves.
The marketing department is on the right track here.
Someone should engineer a solution.
Re:PUNishment (Score:4, Funny)
It's part of the contest! (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
How many Camera Nerds (Score:5, Funny)
How many NYC transit cops does it take to push a camera nerd down the stairs?
None, he tripped.
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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was certainly one crappy piece of investigative journalism. What did the spokesman have to say about the security guard?
It seems that the "professional" security people, mostly in the US, have gotten a bit carried away with themselves. From police and security guards unilaterally deciding that photography is dangerous and not allowed, to the US border guard who took it upon himself to bark at me last week that Canada has 175 known active terrorist organizations, many of these people seem to have lost
Unwarranted hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
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 a
In the name of "National Security"... (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I've been able to ascertain from the article, Mr. Kerzic was standing in an area designated for use by the public. It does not appear to be a restricted area, and from what I can see from the photograph in the article, there are no signs warning against photography by the public.
However, as bad as we may think it is here in the United States (compared to the pre-9/11 world), things are much worse in the United Kingdom. The rights of the Individual in the UK are enshrined in Common Law (i.e., customary law passed down through the ages), and not explicitly delineated in any sort of constitutional document.
For example, in the US, we have a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right against self-incrimination [wikipedia.org]. A recent court case [wikipedia.org] implies that this right includes encryption keys: If a law enforcement agency impounds your laptop for analysis, but can't get anything out of it because the contents have been encrypted, too bad for them. Handing over the encryption key would be a form of self-incrimination [cnet.com], so you don't have to do it.
On the other hand, laws, ordinances, and Police reactions regarding individual freedoms can and often do change at a whim, depending on what is expedient at the time (8th paragraph, about half-way down) [theregister.co.uk]. In addition, since the right against self-incrimination is based on Common Law, and not written as an explicit right, ordinances like the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act [wikipedia.org] can easily curtail and eliminate such rights [theregister.co.uk]. As usual, some groups say that even these powers do not go far enough [guardian.co.uk], invoking the familiar mantra of "National Security".
And these things are happening in two of the most "open and democratic" societies the world has ever seen...
And on a side-note, here's an interesting question: Who's standing in the "restricted" zone across the tracks taking the picture of the "public" train platform?
Shooting trains in Europe (Score:4, Informative)
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
What should have happened (Score:4, Insightful)
I would have to agree that citing reasons of "national security" or "potential terrorist threat" as rationale for stopping photography of public places is about as lame as it gets. Once the photos are taken, the photographer should simply move on and be done.
This said, I have seen photographers abuse their "1st amendment rights" by setting up what is arguably a campsite with tripods, light meters, lighting, and other equipment that takes up space and can interfere with other patrons or members of the public that need to use those public spaces. Clearly even this photographer was doing more than simply taking a quick snapshot of a friend and moving on, even if he didn't pull out all of the toys of a genuine professional.
In a situation like this, obtaining a "permit" in terms of organizing a more protracted shooting session and letting the station manager know what you are going to be doing there would certainly have at least some value, and they might be able to suggest some more optimal times to take the photographs or locations that would reduce or eliminate interference. You might even be able to get access to areas not normally deemed "public access" as well. Rather than being something of a problem, you might have an escort that would even be helping you out with the shoot.
What really should have happened here was the officer politely but firmly saying: "Excuse me, sir, but you are standing in the way and could you move along and do that somewhere else?" or even "I would rather you be standing over here" (pointing to a logical location that is out of the way). A photographer that insists at that point in being an ass can have multiple charges thrown at him, including failure to obey a lawful order, disturbing the peace, and more. The lawful order here would be to move along and stay out of pedestrian traffic lanes.
Other than having the photographer getting in everybody's way, I don't see any other rationale for prohibiting this sort of photography. Even a rough "move it, buddy" would have at least given a proper message. Clearly this officer needs to have a good indoctrination of what the law actually is in this situation.
Amtrak Police? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've not done the research, but here in the UK we have the British Transport Police, who police the railways and so forth, and are real cops. Can any Americans shed some light?
Hay amtrak policia (Score:5, Informative)
Many transit agencies have their own POLICE force, Check out what a BART police officer did this week [sfgate.com]. Amtrak maintains an official police force [wikipedia.org]
Re:Hay amtrak policia (Score:4, Informative)
they appear to actually be police (Score:5, Informative)
For partly historical reasons, railroad police of the larger railroads in the US and Canada are actual police officers rather than merely private security forces, with full law-enforcement jurisdiction. See also Wikipedia on the Amtrak Police [wikipedia.org].
Yeah, and Amtrak is about as "private" as USPS (Score:3, Informative)
Just another GSE eating taxpayer cash and providing bad service.
Re:Amtrak Police!?! (Score:5, Informative)
Has "the land of the free" gotten to the point of creating privatly owned police forces now? Or, at least, fixing them as such in the public mind?
Railroads have had their own police forces for as long as I can remember - and I'm 48. This isn't anything new or insidious.
I am bothered by the fact that photographers get hassled - quite often - by overzealous officials who don't seem to know what's legal and what's not. This happened up here in Seattle a bit after 9/11 when a photographer was photographing a railroad trestle. But if you're in a public space, you are allowed to photograph pretty much anything you can see (even people) without permission.
Re:Amtrak Police!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've developed the habit of whenever I am doing anything I know someone will object to strenuously but is fully within my legal rights of printing out the relevant statutes and carrying them with me. Hasn't failed me yet.
Re:Amtrak Police!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
In Amtrak's case of being a nation-wide system, you really can't expect anything other than Amtrak employ its own police forces. The FBI won't just create a Amtrak unit, and dealing with multiple police forces (crime occurs on a train moving between jurisdictions?) is just silly.
You're over reacting.
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Amtrak is a for-profit corporation created by Congress in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1971, assuming the common carrier obligations of the private railroads (which found passenger service to be generally unprofitable) in exchange for the right to priority access of their tracks for incremental cost. Its preferred stock is owned by the U.S. federal government, but its common stock is owned by railroads that contributed capital and equipment to its
Re:Amtrak Police!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Bull. Libertarians have always recognized defense (including from criminals) as a legitimate purpose of government.
Re:OMG (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More to the story? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why didn't he just follow the orders, leave, then file a complaint? I'm not defending Amtrak here, since it sounds like they were in the wrong, but it's like getting pulled over by the police. The side of the road is not the place to argue your case. The officer is not a judge, and you aren't the jury.
So if you get pulled over for no legitimate reason you are going to accept getting arrested (if that is the punishment for the fake reason you were pulled over) and complain later? The officer is not *the* judge but he is a judge and sometimes they make poor decisions. Stop the stupid decisions from even being made. Explain your rights up front. There is such a thing as false arrest. I'd prefer to tell the cop myself instead of letting him find out by the case winding its way through the court system.