Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 11:36:08 AM

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_141...
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 1:12:25 PM

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_141...
>

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.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 1:12:26 PM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 3:00:04 PM

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_141...
>
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 3:30:23 PM

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_141...

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&gt;
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 3:35:08 PM

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_141...
>
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"
May 24, 2004 3:35:42 PM

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_141...

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

Please pardon the totalitarian mess in the meantime.

Rick
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 4:23:50 PM

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_141...

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.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 4:23:51 PM

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)
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 4:23:51 PM

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_141...
>
>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"
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 4:23:52 PM

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.
May 24, 2004 4:23:52 PM

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
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 4:54:55 PM

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_141...

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
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 5:10:39 PM

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_141...
>

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
May 24, 2004 5:23:53 PM

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?
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 5:28:22 PM

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.--
May 24, 2004 5:45:44 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 5:58:42 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 6:16:52 PM

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_141...
>
> 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&gt;
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 6:21:08 PM

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
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 7:15:12 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 7:16:25 PM

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_141...
>>
>>
>
>
>
May 24, 2004 7:17:45 PM

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!

;-)
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 7:21:41 PM

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
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 7:26:38 PM

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 ...
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 7:27:28 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 7:40:59 PM

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
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 8:00:17 PM

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
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 8:00:18 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 8:25:07 PM

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
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 8:28:23 PM

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 :-)
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 8:31:32 PM

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?
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 8:37:11 PM

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. :-)
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 8:37:12 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 8:42:06 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 9:05:39 PM

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:p r04b0537tsn6c2q56aohotgr25bddsp78@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
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 9:17:33 PM

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
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 9:34:40 PM

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/medi...
May 24, 2004 10:03:13 PM

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
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 10:06:19 PM

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_141...
>
>
Celf-centered though New Yorkers are, I doubt if even they would call their
subway rules, "American"......
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 10:18:01 PM

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.......
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 10:18:02 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 10:29:40 PM

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.......
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 10:33:07 PM

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........
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 10:35:13 PM

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...."
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 10:35:14 PM

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.
May 24, 2004 11:19:38 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 11:38:47 PM

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_141...
>
> 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.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 11:40:12 PM

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_141...
>
> 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.
Anonymous
May 25, 2004 12:40:04 AM

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.
    • 1 / 14
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!