BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on trains
and buses.

So much for the "land of the free".

http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html
679 answers Last reply
More about photography trains buses
  1. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    Anastasia Orfanos wrote:

    >The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on trains
    >and buses.
    >
    >So much for the "land of the free".
    >
    >http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html
    >

    Oh BFD. You're right to photograph me will be curtailed. What about
    my right not to be photographed unless I choose?

    There's always two sides to a story.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    In article <v2t3b0hpg81h8rab565jd5ip3cgus08h16@4ax.com>,
    BenDover@invalid.org wrote:

    > Oh BFD. You're right to photograph me will be curtailed. What about
    > my right not to be photographed unless I choose?

    Depends on what part of the world you live in, but IMHO as long as you are
    in a public place, you have no particular right not to be photographed.

    It's going to be harder and harder to avoid now that the digital camera is
    becoming ubiquitous.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    As of next Monday this area (Brunswick, GA) will be considered as under a
    State of Emergency because of the upcoming G-8 conference. Got ID'd taking
    pictures downtown a couple of weeks ago.
    Bob
    "Anastasia Orfanos" <anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk> wrote in message
    news:2he53lFbr3h4U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on trains
    > and buses.
    >
    > So much for the "land of the free".
    >
    > http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    Anastasia Orfanos wrote:

    > The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on trains
    > and buses.
    >
    > So much for the "land of the free".
    >
    > http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html

    It is now a "proposal", and I would be surprised to find it become a law.
    Even if it became a law, it would be very difficult to enforce. Anyone with a
    camera phone could easily bypass the law, with little fear of getting caught.
    It seems more to me that they want to use this to increase revenues through
    fines, rather than any increase in security. This reads too much like the
    stop light cameras issues that have cropped up in some cities.

    One part in the article about two guys videotaping an area brings up an
    interesting observation. Police saw them, suspected something suspicious, and
    investigated. That is the real security issue, having people there to
    investigate something they see as suspicious. The threat of a fine, or legal
    action will not deter criminals, will be difficult to enforce, and will only
    harm innocent people.

    Just to qualify this a bit, here is a surveillance lesson. Any area can be
    easily mapped out just by walking. Placement of objects, doors, ramps, steps,
    and structures can be determined through walking, and could be easily and
    discreetly sketched onto any paper or note pad. Some individuals with more
    practice can walk out an area, and sketch all details later at another
    location. Time schedules of activities in any public area can be readily
    obtained either by internet posting, gathering leaflets, or by observations.
    In fact, observing any area will usually gather more information than
    photographing an area. The surveillance benefit of photography is only in
    more detail. Setting explosives that cover a large area, and not a small
    tactical location, does not require detailed information. A few observation
    reconnaissance missions to any area, of at least 30 seconds duration, should
    suffice to map out any area. More private areas might require longer time
    periods of observation, but any area should reveal general layout based one
    only one observation period. All this is sounds very simple, because it is
    very simple.

    When the authorities are unable to control crime, how can they possibly
    expect to control terrorism? Fines and laws will not deter terrorism.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
  5. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    On Mon, 24 May 2004 07:36:08 -0400, "Anastasia Orfanos"
    <anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk> wrote:

    >The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on trains
    >and buses.
    >
    >So much for the "land of the free".
    >
    >http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html
    >
    You need to read the article you link to.
    This isn't "America", it's the New York City Transit authority.
    And it's a proposed rule; the public isn't much in favor of it.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
  6. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Anastasia Orfanos" <anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk> wrote in message news:2he53lFbr3h4U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on trains
    > and buses.
    >
    > So much for the "land of the free".
    >
    > http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html

    We're about 100 years overdue for another revolution over here.

    Please pardon the totalitarian mess in the meantime.

    Rick
  7. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    In article <2he53lFbr3h4U1@uni-berlin.de>,
    "Anastasia Orfanos" <anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk> wrote:

    > http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html

    So much for your BS post, If you actually read it, Its proposed that means people can
    protest the propsal. The proposal meerly states that you have to obtain permission
    or have valid press credentials before photographing. I am actually surprised this
    has taken so long to come about. And would have been surprised if I could photograph
    undisturbed to date.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    In article <Bullwinks-3A6A24.08225324052004@news.verizon.net>, Any
    Moose Poster <Bullwinks@bullwinkle&rockie.net> wrote:

    > So much for your BS post, If you actually read it, Its proposed that means
    > people can
    > protest the propsal. The proposal meerly states that you have to obtain
    > permission
    > or have valid press credentials before photographing. I am actually surprised
    > this
    > has taken so long to come about. And would have been surprised if I could
    > photograph
    > undisturbed to date.

    Each one of these so-called security measures is a win for the
    terrorists.. We've done far more damage ourselves since 9/11 than the
    enemy did. The correct proceedure is not to make our country a police
    state; the enemy will get in a shot from time to time regardless of
    what we do. Rather, make a smoking hole of each terrorists
    home/city/country of origin. Eventually they'll get the idea and/or
    we'll run out of terrorists. (Or non-radioactive middle east real
    estate)
  9. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:23:50 GMT, Any Moose Poster
    <Bullwinks@bullwinkle&rockie.net> wrote:

    >In article <2he53lFbr3h4U1@uni-berlin.de>,
    > "Anastasia Orfanos" <anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk> wrote:
    >
    >> http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html
    >
    >So much for your BS post, If you actually read it, Its proposed that means people can
    >protest the propsal. The proposal meerly states that you have to obtain permission
    >or have valid press credentials before photographing. I am actually surprised this
    >has taken so long to come about. And would have been surprised if I could photograph
    >undisturbed to date.

    Hoiw would you stop pepole from taking pics on a subway or bus?
    You get on, take the pics you want, and get off. WHo's going to stop
    you?
    Oh, wait: "Officer! I have a photo of the guy!"

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
  10. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    In article <240520040915291686%scotts13@comcast.net>, Scott Schuckert
    <scotts13@comcast.net> wrote:

    > [...]
    > The correct proceedure is not to make our country a police
    > state; [....]
    > Rather, make a smoking hole of each terrorists
    > home/city/country of origin. [...]

    Okay, let's start with Pendleton, New York.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    Scott Schuckert wrote:


    >
    > Each one of these so-called security measures is a win for the
    > terrorists.. We've done far more damage ourselves since 9/11 than the
    > enemy did.

    Yep they won as soon as we started reacting to the disaster. Most of these
    "homeland security" measures just take away our freedom and seems to assume
    everyone is a terrorist. We leave the borders WIDE OPEN yet enact insame
    measures like this? It seems anything is OK, as far as taking away our
    personal freedom, as long as it doesn't cost the government any money.

    --

    Stacey
  12. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Anastasia Orfanos" <anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk> wrote in message news:<2he53lFbr3h4U1@uni-berlin.de>...
    > The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on trains
    > and buses.
    >
    > So much for the "land of the free".
    >
    > http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html

    That makes no sense when you think about it. It is easy enough to get
    a camera that can be hidden when taking pictures. I really don't think
    a terrorist is going to be snapping pictures all over the Times Square
    7 subway stop in today's environment with a normal everyday camera.

    I happen to like to take pictures in the various subway's around the
    world I've been in. I got shots of my gf in the Paris Metro under
    Champs Elyssee, my friends in the Munich Metro and myself in the
    London Metro. The pictures make the visit to the city much more real.

    This may be more to do about nothing but I'm keeping my eyes open for
    when W decides to change the history books and has Daddy Bush as the
    best president in the US of A.

    Andy
  13. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Anastasia Orfanos" <anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk> wrote in message
    news:2he53lFbr3h4U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on trains
    > and buses.
    >
    > So much for the "land of the free".
    >
    > http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html
    >

    Over here (UK) it is generally considered anti social to take photographs in
    public.
    Most privately owned public places (like shopping malls) do not permit
    photography.
    You are not permitted to take photographs, in or near school property.
    School children are not allowed cameras on the premises (inlcuding
    mobile phones containing cameras).

    Most of this is the paedophile backlash.
    man with camera = paedophile (apparently).

    A lot of this has come from local authorities (who manage schools) and then
    be carried forward by other bodies.
    You used to be able to video tape the school nativity play, but not any
    more.
    In fact you will be a lucky to get a photo of your kid in their costume.
    These have to be taken by the teacher with no other children present (lest
    they end up in the shot)
    using a disposable camera.

    Lets face it, the UK is gradually becoming the new stalinist state.

    Over the past few years I have been getting less and less bold with my
    photography.....

    Gordon


    --
    http://www.leica-gallery.net/gordon
  14. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Gordon Hudson" <gordon@usenet.hostroute.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:40b1e63f$0
    > Over here (UK) it is generally considered anti social to take photographs
    in
    > public.
    > Most privately owned public places (like shopping malls) do not permit
    > photography.
    > You are not permitted to take photographs, in or near school property.
    > School children are not allowed cameras on the premises (inlcuding
    > mobile phones containing cameras).
    >
    > Most of this is the paedophile backlash.
    > man with camera = paedophile (apparently).
    >
    > A lot of this has come from local authorities (who manage schools) and
    then
    > be carried forward by other bodies.
    > You used to be able to video tape the school nativity play, but not any
    > more.
    > In fact you will be a lucky to get a photo of your kid in their costume.
    > These have to be taken by the teacher with no other children present (lest
    > they end up in the shot)
    > using a disposable camera.
    >
    > Lets face it, the UK is gradually becoming the new stalinist state.
    >
    > Over the past few years I have been getting less and less bold with my
    > photography.....


    Antisocial? I have never heard of this before. I admit generally I do not
    take photographs of people without their permission, but I see no reason not
    to take pictures of public areas. What are you classing as public?
  15. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    BenDover@invalid.org wrote:


    > Oh BFD. You're right to photograph me will be curtailed. What about
    > my right not to be photographed unless I choose?

    There are other things besides people to be photographed in a subway or bus.

    >
    > There's always two sides to a story.

    In pubic you have no right to not be photographed, only not to be
    published if you figure prominently in the photo. Exceptions include if
    there is a newsworthy element of the photo. eg: your being arrested and
    brought to the cop shop.

    Some places may ban this in areas such as swimming pools.


    --
    --e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  16. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Gordon Hudson" <gordon@usenet.hostroute.co.uk> wrote:

    >Over here (UK) it is generally considered anti social to take photographs in
    >public.


    Complete and utter nonsense.

    There is probably a greater tolerance of photography
    in public in the UK than in most other countries.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "TP" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
    news:ggr3b01u8rfsvtr03ak22fpcvcn0sp66l2@4ax.com...
    > "Gordon Hudson" <gordon@usenet.hostroute.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    > >Over here (UK) it is generally considered anti social to take photographs
    in
    > >public.
    >
    >
    > Complete and utter nonsense.
    >
    > There is probably a greater tolerance of photography
    > in public in the UK than in most other countries.
    >
    Agree with you. I've never ever felt any negative vibes whatsoever, wherever
    I've been with my camera, and I am rarely without it. Indeed, photography
    seems to be getting more and more popular here, with more and more cameras
    in evidence. Though I DO wonder why people bother taking pictures of the
    lions at the zoo with their mobile phones!! When we visited Marwell Zoo
    quite recently I must have seen at least 6 examples of the practice.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    AMH wrote:

    > "Anastasia Orfanos" <anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk> wrote in message news:<2he53lFbr3h4U1@uni-berlin.de>...
    > > The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on trains
    > > and buses.
    > >
    > > So much for the "land of the free".
    > >
    > > http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html
    >
    > That makes no sense when you think about it. It is easy enough to get
    > a camera that can be hidden when taking pictures. I really don't think
    > a terrorist is going to be snapping pictures all over the Times Square
    > 7 subway stop in today's environment with a normal everyday camera.
    >
    > I happen to like to take pictures in the various subway's around the
    > world I've been in. I got shots of my gf in the Paris Metro under
    > Champs Elyssee, my friends in the Munich Metro and myself in the
    > London Metro. The pictures make the visit to the city much more real.
    >
    > This may be more to do about nothing but I'm keeping my eyes open for
    > when W decides to change the history books and has Daddy Bush as the
    > best president in the US of A.

    Congress and former Pres. Clinton already signed into law measures that minimize teaching about the Civil War,
    and the Vietnam War. There are similar measures that can be found throughout the last century of US
    legislature. This should not surprise anyone. When information, even history, is presented in a particular
    manner, it will hone the opinions and attitudes of those to whom it is presented.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
  19. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    Gordon Hudson wrote:
    > "Anastasia Orfanos" <anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk> wrote in message
    > news:2he53lFbr3h4U1@uni-berlin.de...
    >> The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on
    >> trains and buses.

    As I understand it, it applies to stations not the actual trains or
    busses.

    I also understand that you may get permission easily by showing proper
    ID.


    >>
    >
    > Over here (UK) it is generally considered anti social to take
    > photographs in public.

    Not from my experience.

    > Most privately owned public places (like shopping malls) do not permit
    > photography.

    I believe you will find that is more a matter of protecting the stores
    from the competitors than anything else. Back 30 years ago when I worked in
    retail, I was on both sides of those rules.

    > You are not permitted to take photographs, in or near school property.
    > School children are not allowed cameras on the premises (including
    > mobile phones containing cameras).
    >

    Is that surprising? How much of an inconvenience is that? I'll bet
    parents could get permission in most cases.

    ....
    >
    > Lets face it, the UK is gradually becoming the new stalinist state.

    Again, not in my experience.

    >
    > Over the past few years I have been getting less and less bold with my
    > photography.....
    >
    > Gordon

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
  20. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
    news:e4g4b0156ttu3402sddd0cfii896fdkht6@4ax.com...

    > Hoiw would you stop pepole from taking pics on a subway or bus?
    > You get on, take the pics you want, and get off. WHo's going to stop
    > you?
    > Oh, wait: "Officer! I have a photo of the guy!"

    LOL! Most excellent.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    The USA is definitely going down the tube!!!

    Pathetic

    Paranoid

    Jackie


    Robert Polk wrote:
    > As of next Monday this area (Brunswick, GA) will be considered as under a
    > State of Emergency because of the upcoming G-8 conference. Got ID'd taking
    > pictures downtown a couple of weeks ago.
    > Bob
    > "Anastasia Orfanos" <anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk> wrote in message
    > news:2he53lFbr3h4U1@uni-berlin.de...
    >
    >>The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on trains
    >>and buses.
    >>
    >>So much for the "land of the free".
    >>
    >>http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
  22. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Mick Sterbs" <theboss@microfost.com> wrote:

    >Agree with you. I've never ever felt any negative vibes whatsoever, wherever
    >I've been with my camera, and I am rarely without it. Indeed, photography
    >seems to be getting more and more popular here, with more and more cameras
    >in evidence.

    Absolutely.

    Anyone who wants to see how anti-photography other countries are
    should travel to France and behave exactly as they would in the UK.
    The reactions of other people - and the authorities - towards street
    photographers are startlingly different to those in the UK.

    >Though I DO wonder why people bother taking pictures of the
    >lions at the zoo with their mobile phones!! When we visited Marwell Zoo
    >quite recently I must have seen at least 6 examples of the practice.

    Why? Because they can!

    ;-)
  23. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Jackie" <noreply@bigpond.com> wrote in message
    news:40B21257.20306@bigpond.com...
    > The USA is definitely going down the tube!!!
    >
    > Pathetic
    >
    > Paranoid
    >
    > Jackie
    >
    Unfortunately it's the RIGHT tube.

    David
  24. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    HeHeHeHeHe ...

    First:
    This "applies" only to "NYC Transit" ... the Political Bureaucracy that runs the public
    transportation in the City of New York. That's a LONG way from *all* "USA trains and
    busses"

    See the phrase
    "NYC Transit, the division of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that runs the
    subways, the buses and the Staten Island Railway, ..."
    in the referenced URL.

    Second:
    At the present, it is just a "proposed" rule/law.

    Third:
    Also note the passage "... NYC Transit also proposed banning passengers from using end
    doors to move from one subway car to another, putting feet up on seats and standing on
    skateboards on subways or buses, among other changes. ..."

    Yeah ... Sure ...
  25. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:2hetjvFbuek2U1@uni-berlin.de...

    > We're about 100 years overdue for another revolution over here.

    The next revolution will be the socialization of medicine. It's gonna be the
    bloodiest yet.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    <BenDover@invalid.org> wrote in message
    news:v2t3b0hpg81h8rab565jd5ip3cgus08h16@4ax.com...

    >
    > Oh BFD. You're right to photograph me will be curtailed. What about
    > my right not to be photographed unless I choose?
    >
    --------

    What right NOT to be photographed? If you are in a public place it don't
    exist!

    Are you are absolutely and totally ignorant of the fact that you are
    probably photographed by security cameras throughout your day - hundreds of
    times a day - and you just don't know it.

    So, it's OK to photograph you as long as you don't actually see the camera?
    Or as long as it's only within the control of faceless and nameless
    government and commercial hands? BFD eh?

    IDIOT!!!

    Journalist
  27. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk (Anastasia Orfanos) wrote in
    news:2he53lFbr3h4U1@uni-berlin.de:

    > The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on
    > trains and buses.

    You confuse New York and New Yorkers with all of America and all
    Americans.

    Besides, when did it become legal to take photographs in the NY
    subway in the first place?

    When I lived in that part of the world back in the 1970s, it was
    illegal already.

    --
    Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com
  28. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    With the tiny, tiny CCDs now available, ONLY the intrepid will be taking
    pictures. Silly law, but I guess it nabs the pure dimwits - and any number
    of innocents.
  29. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    In article <40B21257.20306@bigpond.com>, Jackie <noreply@bigpond.com>
    wrote:

    > The USA is definitely going down the tube!!!
    >
    > Pathetic
    >
    > Paranoid
    >
    > Jackie

    More because of a selfish, greed stricken
    population that seems to need to be hit over
    the fricking head with these laws to give them an
    ounce of common sense. When did it happen,
    when did all these aholes decide to move into my
    country ;-)
    --
    http://www.doodie.com/index.php?date=04112004&dir=b
  30. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    In article <2hefd9Fc24hqU1@uni-berlin.de>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    > Yep they won as soon as we started reacting to the disaster. Most of these
    > "homeland security" measures just take away our freedom and seems to assume
    > everyone is a terrorist. We leave the borders WIDE OPEN yet enact insame
    > measures like this? It seems anything is OK, as far as taking away our
    > personal freedom, as long as it doesn't cost the government any money.

    Stacy your a terrorist :-) The government doesn't give a hoot about money
    they print it or take it out our pockets :-)
  31. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    In article <fIosc.1306$PC5.11524267@news-text.cableinet.net>,
    "Journalist-North" <journalist-north@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    > So, it's OK to photograph you as long as you don't actually see the camera?
    > Or as long as it's only within the control of faceless and nameless
    > government and commercial hands? BFD eh?
    > IDIOT!!!
    > Journalist

    Unless your some kind of criminal I wouldn't be concerned.
    --
    Would you like to know the precise date of your own death?
    What if anything is too serious to be joked about?
    Do you ever spit or pick your nose in public?
  32. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    In article <john-2405040854080001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com>,
    john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote:

    > It's going to be harder and harder to avoid now that the digital camera is
    > becoming ubiquitous.

    Hey you can always wear a disguise. In your case a rational person might be a
    turn for the better. :-)
  33. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Any Moose Poster" <Bullwinks@bullwinkle&rockie.net> wrote in message
    news:Bullwinks-2C3968.12361324052004@news.verizon.net...
    > In article <john-2405040854080001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com>,
    > john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote:
    >
    > > It's going to be harder and harder to avoid now that the digital camera
    is
    > > becoming ubiquitous.
    >
    > Hey you can always wear a disguise. In your case a rational person might
    be a
    > turn for the better. :-)

    I'm left wondering why you even typed that idiotic statement. You can
    exercise your fingers with the computer off, you know.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    In article <240520040915291686%scotts13@comcast.net>,
    Scott Schuckert <scotts13@comcast.net> wrote:

    > Each one of these so-called security measures is a win for the
    > terrorists.. We've done far more damage ourselves since 9/11 than the
    > enemy did. The correct proceedure is not to make our country a police
    > state; the enemy will get in a shot from time to time regardless of
    > what we do. Rather, make a smoking hole of each terrorists
    > home/city/country of origin. Eventually they'll get the idea and/or
    > we'll run out of terrorists. (Or non-radioactive middle east real
    > estate)

    So your personal level of comfort is more important than whether
    a lot of innocent people die. Why does your line of reasoning sound so
    familar.

    The 911 terrorists; I am sure they had something of the same
    ideas and values.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "TP" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
    news:pr04b0537tsn6c2q56aohotgr25bddsp78@4ax.com...
    > "Mick Sterbs" <theboss@microfost.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Agree with you. I've never ever felt any negative vibes whatsoever,
    wherever
    > >I've been with my camera, and I am rarely without it. Indeed,
    photography
    > >seems to be getting more and more popular here, with more and more
    cameras
    > >in evidence.
    >
    > Absolutely.

    Ok remove UK put Scotland

    Scotland is at the forefront of child protection legislation.
    England will presumably follow suit.
    It eventually leaks out into all areas of life.

    Gordon
  36. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    Scott Schuckert wrote:

    > In article <Bullwinks-3A6A24.08225324052004@news.verizon.net>, Any
    > Moose Poster <Bullwinks@bullwinkle&rockie.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>So much for your BS post, If you actually read it, Its proposed that means
    >>people can
    >>protest the propsal. The proposal meerly states that you have to obtain
    >>permission
    >>or have valid press credentials before photographing. I am actually surprised
    >>this
    >>has taken so long to come about. And would have been surprised if I could
    >>photograph
    >>undisturbed to date.
    >
    >
    > Each one of these so-called security measures is a win for the
    > terrorists..

    Agreed. While the story is a bit ambiguous, the following passage from
    the story illustrates a very unpleasant and ultimately unconstitutional
    trend; that is, the trend toward increased /licensing/ of journalism by
    the state.

    "NYC Transit, the division of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
    that runs the subways, the buses and the Staten Island Railway, said the
    ban on photography and videotaping would not apply to journalists with
    valid ID cards or to people with written permission."

    Free speech in the form of journalistic activity is not limited to
    professional journalists. The state would love to completely co-opt and
    regulate the media and thereby have total control over information.

    So far the most smashing "success" has been the /embedding/ of
    journalists by the military in Iraq. I think it fits the the strategy of
    "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer" perfectly. The
    result is a grossly misinformed US citizenry.

    No US regime is immune from this desire to co-opt the media, but the
    current Freakshow Junta makes slipperly slope arguments obsolete before
    you can even finish the first damb sentence.

    The words "homeland security" should not make you fall into a DEEP SLEEP
    and become absurdly suggestible.

    Corry

    --
    It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
  37. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    Gordon Hudson wrote:

    > Over here (UK) it is generally considered anti social to take photographs in
    > public.

    ???

    > You used to be able to video tape the school nativity play, but not any
    > more.

    Nonsense. If that is your experience then the school was overreacting
    in the extreme. What they are required to do is seek permission from
    the parents of all the children in the play. If one parent objects then
    no group photos can be taken or the child whose parents objected can't
    be in them.

    > In fact you will be a lucky to get a photo of your kid in their costume.
    > These have to be taken by the teacher with no other children present (lest
    > they end up in the shot)
    > using a disposable camera.

    Really?

    > Lets face it, the UK is gradually becoming the new stalinist state.

    Mmm, I have noticed the bread queues getting longer recently :-)

    --
    Darcy O'Bree
    Media Facilities Manager
    Faculty of Arts, Media and Design
    Staffordshire University

    http://www.staffs.ac.uk/academic/arts_media_design/mediacentre/
  38. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Darcy O'Bree" <junk@staffs.ac.uk> wrote in message
    news:2hemebFbsf0vU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Gordon Hudson wrote:
    >
    > > Over here (UK) it is generally considered anti social to take
    photographs in
    > > public.
    >
    > ???
    >
    > > You used to be able to video tape the school nativity play, but not any
    > > more.
    >
    > Nonsense. If that is your experience then the school was overreacting
    > in the extreme. What they are required to do is seek permission from
    > the parents of all the children in the play. If one parent objects then
    > no group photos can be taken or the child whose parents objected can't
    > be in them.

    Nonsense, yes. But sadly very true :-(
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2522561.stm
  39. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Anastasia Orfanos" <anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk> wrote in message
    news:2he53lFbr3h4U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on trains
    > and buses.
    >
    > So much for the "land of the free".
    >
    > http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html
    >
    >
    Celf-centered though New Yorkers are, I doubt if even they would call their
    subway rules, "American"......
  40. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Scott Schuckert" <scotts13@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:240520040915291686%scotts13@comcast.net...
    > In article <Bullwinks-3A6A24.08225324052004@news.verizon.net>, Any
    > Moose Poster <Bullwinks@bullwinkle&rockie.net> wrote:
    >
    > > So much for your BS post, If you actually read it, Its proposed that
    means
    > > people can
    > > protest the propsal. The proposal meerly states that you have to obtain
    > > permission
    > > or have valid press credentials before photographing. I am actually
    surprised
    > > this
    > > has taken so long to come about. And would have been surprised if I
    could
    > > photograph
    > > undisturbed to date.
    >
    > Each one of these so-called security measures is a win for the
    > terrorists.. We've done far more damage ourselves since 9/11 than the
    > enemy did. The correct proceedure is not to make our country a police
    > state; the enemy will get in a shot from time to time regardless of
    > what we do. Rather, make a smoking hole of each terrorists
    > home/city/country of origin. Eventually they'll get the idea and/or
    > we'll run out of terrorists. (Or non-radioactive middle east real
    > estate)

    This may be overkill....It's true.....But it's also true that there have
    been no other major terrorist attacks here since 9/11.......So, you can't
    knock results.......
  41. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:t%qsc.481$eT4.392@attbi_s54...

    > This may be overkill....It's true.....But it's also true that there have
    > been no other major terrorist attacks here since 9/11.......So, you can't
    > knock results.......

    Yup, and have you noticed that we've simultaneously abated the lemming and
    alien invasions? Come to think of it, my lawn looks better, too. You bet -
    it's all because of the curtailment of personal liberties.
  42. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "david.mccall" <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:9qosc.109069$iF6.9833329@attbi_s02...
    >
    > "Jackie" <noreply@bigpond.com> wrote in message
    > news:40B21257.20306@bigpond.com...
    > > The USA is definitely going down the tube!!!
    > >
    > > Pathetic
    > >
    > > Paranoid
    > >
    > > Jackie
    > >
    > Unfortunately it's the RIGHT tube.
    >
    > David
    >
    >
    The newspaper article was about the New York City transit system.....This is
    probably the most liberal part of the United States ......I would say it's
    the LEFT tube.......
  43. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "david.mccall" <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:ndqsc.108032$536.19033388@attbi_s03...
    >
    > "King Sardon" <Sardon@Domain.com> wrote in message
    > news:uq74b0h09avgtk7jsa91mn9s6osjlkor4t@4ax.com...
    > >
    > > The trigger-happy Americans have bombed an Iraqi wedding, and the
    > > stone-faced military brass maintain that it was a safehouse, in the
    > > face of photographic evidence to the contrary.
    > >
    > Huh? You'd think they would lear to not bring RPGs and explosives to a
    > wedding by now.

    Yes.....When the skies are full of US military helicopters, shooting guns in
    the air isn't exactly using a lot of common sense........
  44. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Gordon Hudson" <gordon@usenet.hostroute.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:40b1e63f$0$58815$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
    > Over here (UK) it is generally considered anti social to take photographs
    in
    > public.

    Sure. That's why so many damn camera phones get sold.

    > A lot of this has come from local authorities (who manage schools) and
    then
    > be carried forward by other bodies.
    > You used to be able to video tape the school nativity play, but not any
    > more.
    > In fact you will be a lucky to get a photo of your kid in their costume.
    > These have to be taken by the teacher with no other children present (lest
    > they end up in the shot)
    > using a disposable camera.

    True; a Primary School near me made the national news when parents dragged
    their children out of school over a camera/camcorder ban at a Christmas
    play.

    FWIW, while I might not agree with it, I understand the policy. And after my
    starring role in Oliver! as Fagin in Christmas 1993, I damn well wish there
    had been a camcorder ban back then!

    --
    Martin Francis
    "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
    no, and yes...."
  45. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Gordon Hudson" <gordon@usenet.hostroute.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:40b1e63f$0$58815$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...

    > Over here (UK) it is generally considered anti social to take photographs
    > in public.

    So it's no wonder the British became masters of darkness - taking pictures
    in closets.
  46. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >Yep they won as soon as we started reacting to the disaster. Most of these
    >"homeland security" measures just take away our freedom and seems to assume
    >everyone is a terrorist. We leave the borders WIDE OPEN yet enact insame
    >measures like this? It seems anything is OK, as far as taking away our
    >personal freedom, as long as it doesn't cost the government any money.


    It's all PR.

    Governments and local authorities have a need to demonstrate that they
    are "doing something about the threat of terrorism". In truth, they
    can do almost nothing to prevent a terror attack, but it makes them
    look good if they can convince people they're *doing something*.

    Here in the UK there has been a significant terror threat since the
    1970s. Its effectiveness was much reduced, not by Government action,
    but by the vigilance of millions of individual British people who
    became aware of things like bags left on trains.

    That's what the US has yet to learn; that its tens of millions of
    people are the best possible defence against terrorist attack.
    Meanwhile, Government and local authorities have no option other than
    to make reassuring but meaningless gestures, one of which is a silly
    ban on photography.
  47. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Gordon Moat" <moat@attglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:40B23F2F.78D27746@attglobal.net...
    > Anastasia Orfanos wrote:
    >
    > > The Americans are going to ban the use of cameras and camcorders on
    trains
    > > and buses.
    > >
    > > So much for the "land of the free".
    > >
    > > http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html
    >
    > It is now a "proposal", and I would be surprised to find it become a law.
    > Even if it became a law, it would be very difficult to enforce. Anyone
    with a
    > camera phone could easily bypass the law, with little fear of getting
    caught.
    > It seems more to me that they want to use this to increase revenues
    through
    > fines, rather than any increase in security. This reads too much like the
    > stop light cameras issues that have cropped up in some cities.
    >
    > One part in the article about two guys videotaping an area brings up an
    > interesting observation. Police saw them, suspected something suspicious,
    and
    > investigated. That is the real security issue, having people there to
    > investigate something they see as suspicious. The threat of a fine, or
    legal
    > action will not deter criminals, will be difficult to enforce, and will
    only
    > harm innocent people.
    >
    > Just to qualify this a bit, here is a surveillance lesson. Any area can be
    > easily mapped out just by walking. Placement of objects, doors, ramps,
    steps,
    > and structures can be determined through walking, and could be easily and
    > discreetly sketched onto any paper or note pad. Some individuals with more
    > practice can walk out an area, and sketch all details later at another
    > location. Time schedules of activities in any public area can be readily
    > obtained either by internet posting, gathering leaflets, or by
    observations.
    > In fact, observing any area will usually gather more information than
    > photographing an area. The surveillance benefit of photography is only in
    > more detail. Setting explosives that cover a large area, and not a small
    > tactical location, does not require detailed information. A few
    observation
    > reconnaissance missions to any area, of at least 30 seconds duration,
    should
    > suffice to map out any area. More private areas might require longer time
    > periods of observation, but any area should reveal general layout based
    one
    > only one observation period. All this is sounds very simple, because it is
    > very simple.
    >
    > When the authorities are unable to control crime, how can they possibly
    > expect to control terrorism? Fines and laws will not deter terrorism.
    >
    As I said once before, if you hired a pretty model, and took photos of her
    in the subway, (or wherever) no one would be the wiser, and you could get
    all the photos you wanted of the stuff you really wanted to take in the
    background.
  48. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    "Any Moose Poster" <Bullwinks@bullwinkle&rockie.net> wrote in message
    news:Bullwinks-3A6A24.08225324052004@news.verizon.net...
    > In article <2he53lFbr3h4U1@uni-berlin.de>,
    > "Anastasia Orfanos" <anastasia@UNLISTED-ADDY.me.uk> wrote:
    >
    > > http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html
    >
    > So much for your BS post, If you actually read it, Its proposed that means
    people can
    > protest the propsal. The proposal meerly states that you have to obtain
    permission
    > or have valid press credentials before photographing.

    I doubt very much that the proposed policy would stand up to court scrutiny.
    The proposal would violate the First Amendment.
  49. Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

    Darcy O'Bree wrote:

    > Gordon Hudson wrote:
    >
    >> Over here (UK) it is generally considered anti social to take
    >> photographs in
    >> public.
    >
    >
    > ???
    >
    >> You used to be able to video tape the school nativity play, but not any
    >> more.
    >
    >
    > Nonsense. If that is your experience then the school was overreacting
    > in the extreme. What they are required to do is seek permission from
    > the parents of all the children in the play. If one parent objects then
    > no group photos can be taken or the child whose parents objected can't
    > be in them.

    So have they stopped taking class photos and sending a copy to every parent?


    --
    Ben Thomas

    Apparently less than 10% of accidents are caused by drivers exceeding the speed
    limit.
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards Photo Video Graphics Product