BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
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>
 
G

Guest

Guest
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"
 

Rick

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2003
1,084
0
19,280
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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"
 
G

Guest

Guest
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)
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 

Stacey

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,760
0
19,780
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 

beck

Distinguished
May 24, 2004
651
0
18,980
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?
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.--
 

tp

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
39
0
18,530
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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>
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
>>
>>
>
>
>
 

tp

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
39
0
18,530
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!

;-)
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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 ...