Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CSM: Watch where you point that camera

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:31:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique,rec.photo.technique.people (More info?)

WATCH WHERE YOU POINT THAT CAMERA

"If you pull out a camera on a New Jersey train, you will have company -
law enforcement company. If you size up a shot on the New York subway,
you'll probably be questioned by security and told to keep the lens cap
tightly on. Even if you plan to snap some innocuous bank building from a
public sidewalk, you might find guards telling you it's not allowed.

"'Is photography becoming illegal in the United States?' asks Jim McGee,
in a column for the online photo magazine Vivid Light Photography."

For the complete article, see:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0523/p11s01-ussc.html

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

More about : csm watch point camera

Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:31:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique,rec.photo.technique.people (More info?)

Simply enough--shoot what you want to, ignore the overzealous zealots. Don't
"snoop," but if you're in public--shoot what you want, because backing down
will only make the overzealous think they can stop all photography. They
can't, we won't let them.

LRH
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:31:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I never have had any problems photoing anything - even in Washington,
four days after 9/11.
You may be asked for ID - as in driver's license - but that's about it.

See the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Related resources
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:31:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique,rec.photo.technique.people (More info?)

Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> Simply enough--shoot what you want to, ignore the overzealous zealots. Don't
> "snoop," but if you're in public--shoot what you want, because backing down
> will only make the overzealous think they can stop all photography. They
> can't, we won't let them.
>
> LRH
>
>
Be sure to tell the agents that as you photograph the Nuclear Power
Plant from the road. Also, set your tripod up outside an aircraft
plant, or a defense installation, and see if you like visiting an FBI
office for a few hours. Sure, you MAY get away with it, or you may not.
I don't think you want to be informed of the various conditions of the
Patriot Act while someone examines all your photographs.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 23, 2005 10:31:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique,rec.photo.technique.people (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>> Simply enough--shoot what you want to, ignore the overzealous zealots.
>> Don't "snoop," but if you're in public--shoot what you want, because
>> backing down will only make the overzealous think they can stop all
>> photography. They can't, we won't let them.
>>
>> LRH
>>
>>
> Be sure to tell the agents that as you photograph the Nuclear Power
> Plant from the road. Also, set your tripod up outside an aircraft
> plant, or a defense installation, and see if you like visiting an FBI
> office for a few hours. Sure, you MAY get away with it, or you may not.
> I don't think you want to be informed of the various conditions of the
> Patriot Act while someone examines all your photographs.
>
>

Didn't you just post the other day you've never heard of anyone being
bothered because of this Patriot act?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:35:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

B. Peg wrote:
>Local TV news went to the public indoor shopping mall to cover a news
story
>(shoplifting I think). The mall security got into it with them and
told
>them they must leave and a scuffle ensued where they roughed the
>cameraman up. Then the city police showed up and arrested the news
>cameraman.

A shopping center is PRIVATE property! You have no legal right to
be there - and can be expelled at the owner's will. It doesn't matter
WHY he doesn't want you there.
I've never had problems photoing stuff at malls here in North
Carolina. BUT a mall in nearby Greensboro is cracking down - on
teenagers! It hands out to all of them a "rules card" about the mall's
rules for kids.

See the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 11:36:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Owamanga quoted me:
>>I never have had any problems photoing anything - even in Washington,
>>four days after 9/11.
>>You may be asked for ID - as in driver's license - but that's about
it.

and replied:
>4 days wasn't enough time for the hysteria to attack the
>constitutional rights of the individual, 4 years is. I was working in
>the London at the time of 9/11, flew back to Florida about a week
>after and didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to check in 3
>hours before the flight, didn't have to have provided my passport
>number first, didn't have to leave my luggage unlocked and I could
>carry nail clippers and a lighter. 4 Years later and it's a completely
>different game.

I'm talking about AMERICA - while you're talking about BRITAIN. The
reality is that a Brit-style police state never did evolve in America -
while Britain had one even BEFORE 9/11, with one police spy camera on
its streets per 25 Brits (and much higher in urban areas).
Flying domestic in America ALWAYS was a headache. Yes, it - always
- involved get-there-early delays, etc. I don't remember anything
good about it since deregulation.

See the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 12:23:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique,rec.photo.technique.people (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote in part:


> I don't think you want to be informed of the various conditions of the
> Patriot Act while someone examines all your photographs.
>

Hell, Ron, it might be worth the trouble if he actually *does* get
informed of all the various conditions of the Patriot Act. He'd be a lot
better informed than the Congresscritters who voted for the blasted thing.

Corry

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become
the instruments of tyranny at home" - James Madison
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 1:15:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

B. Peg wrote:
>>"Mxsmanic"wrote:
>>WATCH WHERE YOU POINT THAT CAMERA
>
>
> Local TV news went to the public indoor shopping mall to cover a news story
> (shoplifting I think). The mall security got into it with them and told
> them they must leave and a scuffle ensued where they roughed the cameraman
> up. Then the city police showed up and arrested the news cameraman. There
> was a lot of news coverage (paper and TV) with threats of lawsuits etc.
>
> Don't know whatever became of the outcome though.

I took a cell phone pic of a puppy at a mall pet store last weekend, and
the clerk there yelled "NO PICTURES!" at me. I can't understand why
not in that situation. Were they afraid that I was an investigator doing
a story on the floor grates that allow puppy pee to cascade onto the dog
below or something?

They had cute beagle puppies though.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:01:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Owamanga quoted some article:
>"There are 25 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 2.5
>million in the UK."

And - with 1 in 10 spy cameras worldwide in just one geographically
small island nation that has the population of New York State plus
Kalifornia - you STILL don't see something unusual about that nation?

Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:20:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Cynicor quoted Owamanga:
>>>"There are 25 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 2.5
>>>million in the UK."

and replied:
> And - with 1 in 10 spy cameras worldwide in just one
geographically
> small island nation that has the population of New York State plus
> Kalifornia - you STILL don't see something unusual about that nation?

and replied:
>>Well, how does it affect people's freedoms on a real basis?

You really don't see it? Some friend or relative of a teenage Brit
is a policeman monitoring street spy cams - and sees the kid was
walking down the street with his arm around his girlfriend and not at
the library he told his father he was going to study at. Some Brit
policeman monitoring spy cameras sees his girlfriend or wife - walking
down the street hand-in-hand with another man.

Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:30:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Lisa wrote:
>The use of these police camera networks will only grow, and the
>citizenry will continue to welcome them because they do reduce crime
and
>increase public safety.

Don't bet that police spy-camera networks will grow much beyond
where they now are in the U.S.; after all, it's over three years after
9/11 - and they are still very largely limited to New York City,
(somewhat) Washington, Chicago.
Police enthusiasm is doomed to crash - as they, inevitably, will
capture officers doing illegal or inappropriate things. Imagine the
first Rodney King case - caught by the department's own spy cameras!
Or the occasional officer caught selling dope and then federally tried
- with his own department's spy-camera video as evidence!

Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:30:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique,rec.photo.technique.people (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:10:29 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> in <Glfke.2813$NL1.1931@fe02.lga> wrote:

>Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>> Simply enough--shoot what you want to, ignore the overzealous zealots. Don't
>> "snoop," but if you're in public--shoot what you want, because backing down
>> will only make the overzealous think they can stop all photography. They
>> can't, we won't let them.
>>
>> LRH
>>
>>
>Be sure to tell the agents that as you photograph the Nuclear Power
>Plant from the road. Also, set your tripod up outside an aircraft
>plant, or a defense installation, and see if you like visiting an FBI
>office for a few hours. Sure, you MAY get away with it, or you may not.
>I don't think you want to be informed of the various conditions of the
>Patriot Act while someone examines all your photographs.

Or the Holland Tunnel or Brooklyn Bridge (I think the prohibition is
for shooting from those, not at).


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:30:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:30:39 GMT, Matt Silberstein wrote:

> Or the Holland Tunnel or Brooklyn Bridge (I think the prohibition
> is for shooting from those, not at).

Heard on the radio yesterday that the ban on taking photos on the
subway is no more. Henceforth the police will take no action
against photographers unless they are doing something obviously
suspicious. I wonder if some politician's long dormant neurons
suddenly started working, or something else brought about the
change. Such as bad tourism PR, or harrassing the wrong VIP?
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:33:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique,rec.photo.technique.people (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 06:31:47 +0200, in rec.photo.digital , Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> in <j0n291l4ule8av4fh1gh4o5e00c9ufnq3b@4ax.com>
wrote:

>WATCH WHERE YOU POINT THAT CAMERA
>
>"If you pull out a camera on a New Jersey train, you will have company -
>law enforcement company. If you size up a shot on the New York subway,
>you'll probably be questioned by security and told to keep the lens cap
>tightly on. Even if you plan to snap some innocuous bank building from a
>public sidewalk, you might find guards telling you it's not allowed.
>
>"'Is photography becoming illegal in the United States?' asks Jim McGee,
>in a column for the online photo magazine Vivid Light Photography."
>
>For the complete article, see:
>
>http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0523/p11s01-ussc.html

Timing is everything:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/311945p-266702c....

Click away without fear, shutterbugs - a controversial proposal to ban
photography in the subways is dead.

The Police Department recently told transit officials the photo ban is
unnecessary, the Daily News has learned.

"We are not pressing for a ban," NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne
told The News.

Not having a ban will not hinder the NYPD's efforts to safeguard the
city's vast transit system, Browne said.

"Our officers will continue to investigate, and intercede if
necessary, if the activity - photo-related or not - is suspicious," he
said.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:36:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique (More info?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> Click away without fear, shutterbugs - a controversial proposal to ban
> photography in the subways is dead.

The problem with these things is, as always, that Depooty-Doofus isn't
always up to date with policy, and esp. not with policy reversals.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 4:11:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mxxsmanic quoted me:
> I've never had problems photoing stuff at malls here in North
> Carolina. BUT a mall in nearby Greensboro is cracking down - on
> teenagers! It hands out to all of them a "rules card" about the
mall's
> rules for kids.

and replied:
>>Time for them to change malls. The one in Greensboro obviously
doesn't
>>need their money or business.

You miss it. The mall owners love the kids' money - just not the
kids! Typically, the kids hang around a video arcade or some other
smaller store that brings in LOTS of the dollars mall owners get a
share of as rent - but don't shop the other stores much, whose managers
see the kids only as a nuisance.

Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
May 23, 2005 4:28:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Cynicor" <j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:xo-dnVmTPdPtSgzfRVn-jA@speakeasy.net...
>
> I took a cell phone pic of a puppy at a mall pet store last weekend, and
> the clerk there yelled "NO PICTURES!" at me. I can't understand why not in
> that situation. Were they afraid that I was an investigator doing a story
> on the floor grates that allow puppy pee to cascade onto the dog below or
> something?
>
> They had cute beagle puppies though.

Probably thought you were with PETA or about to do a news story on
puppymills.

--
Tara
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 5:07:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

editor@netpath.net wrote:
> Owamanga quoted some article:
>
>>"There are 25 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 2.5
>>million in the UK."
>
>
> And - with 1 in 10 spy cameras worldwide in just one geographically
> small island nation that has the population of New York State plus
> Kalifornia - you STILL don't see something unusual about that nation?

Well, how does it affect people's freedoms on a real basis?
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 5:07:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique,rec.photo.technique.people (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>>
>>>Simply enough--shoot what you want to, ignore the overzealous zealots.
>>>Don't "snoop," but if you're in public--shoot what you want, because
>>>backing down will only make the overzealous think they can stop all
>>>photography. They can't, we won't let them.
>>>
>>>LRH
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Be sure to tell the agents that as you photograph the Nuclear Power
>>Plant from the road. Also, set your tripod up outside an aircraft
>>plant, or a defense installation, and see if you like visiting an FBI
>>office for a few hours. Sure, you MAY get away with it, or you may not.
>>I don't think you want to be informed of the various conditions of the
>>Patriot Act while someone examines all your photographs.
>>
>>
>
>
> Didn't you just post the other day you've never heard of anyone being
> bothered because of this Patriot act?
No. I said *I* hadn't been bothered, nor do I know of anyone who HAS,
but then I have enough sense NOT to photograph some things. On the
other hand, I have a really nice panorama of a local dam and power
station.... But then no one saw me taking the pictures, either.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 5:08:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique,rec.photo.technique.people (More info?)

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote in part:
>
>
>> I don't think you want to be informed of the various conditions of the
>> Patriot Act while someone examines all your photographs.
>>
>
> Hell, Ron, it might be worth the trouble if he actually *does* get
> informed of all the various conditions of the Patriot Act. He'd be a lot
> better informed than the Congresscritters who voted for the blasted thing.
>
> Corry
>
What? You mean they didn't READ all of it? I'm shocked. Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 5:46:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 23 May 2005 06:11:50 -0700, "editor@netpath.net"
<editor@netpath.net> wrote:

>I never have had any problems photoing anything - even in Washington,
>four days after 9/11.
>You may be asked for ID - as in driver's license - but that's about it.

4 days wasn't enough time for the hysteria to attack the
constitutional rights of the individual, 4 years is. I was working in
the London at the time of 9/11, flew back to Florida about a week
after and didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to check in 3
hours before the flight, didn't have to have provided my passport
number first, didn't have to leave my luggage unlocked and I could
carry nail clippers and a lighter. 4 Years later and it's a completely
different game.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 5:46:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On 23 May 2005 06:11:50 -0700, "editor@netpath.net"
> <editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I never have had any problems photoing anything - even in Washington,
>>four days after 9/11.
>>You may be asked for ID - as in driver's license - but that's about it.
>
>
> 4 days wasn't enough time for the hysteria to attack the
> constitutional rights of the individual, 4 years is. I was working in
> the London at the time of 9/11, flew back to Florida about a week
> after and didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to check in 3
> hours before the flight, didn't have to have provided my passport
> number first, didn't have to leave my luggage unlocked and I could
> carry nail clippers and a lighter. 4 Years later and it's a completely
> different game.

But they still don't do all that stuff at Heathrow. No shoe carnival, no
"laptops out." Technically, the shoe carnival is not a requirement in
the USA either, but it's willfully misinterpreted by gate staff who want
to give people a hard time.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 7:10:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

editor@netpath.net wrote:
> Cynicor quoted Owamanga:
>
>>>>"There are 25 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 2.5
>>>>million in the UK."
>
>
> and replied:
>
>> And - with 1 in 10 spy cameras worldwide in just one
>
> geographically
>
>>small island nation that has the population of New York State plus
>>Kalifornia - you STILL don't see something unusual about that nation?
>
>
> and replied:
>
>>>Well, how does it affect people's freedoms on a real basis?
>
>
> You really don't see it? Some friend or relative of a teenage Brit
> is a policeman monitoring street spy cams - and sees the kid was
> walking down the street with his arm around his girlfriend and not at
> the library he told his father he was going to study at. Some Brit
> policeman monitoring spy cameras sees his girlfriend or wife - walking
> down the street hand-in-hand with another man.

All in a public place though, right? Where it's legal to take photos anyway?
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 7:10:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Cynicor <j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net> writes:
> All in a public place though, right? Where it's legal to take photos anyway?

You know, I used to live in an architecturally interesting-looking
house. People walking past would often stop and gaze at it for a few
moments. Occasionally someone would take a picture. That wasn't a
problem, even if I happened to be entering or leaving at the moment
they took the picture.

If someone were to set up an automated camera across the street to
film the house 24 hours a day, recording all the entries and exits,
well, that speaks to a different interest, and it WOULD be a problem.
It's no longer what we could reasonably call recreational photography,
the topic of this ng. It's more along the lines of stalking.

Do you get the difference?
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 7:19:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 23 May 2005 07:36:49 -0700, "editor@netpath.net"
<editor@netpath.net> wrote:

>Owamanga quoted me:
>>>I never have had any problems photoing anything - even in Washington,
>>>four days after 9/11.
>>>You may be asked for ID - as in driver's license - but that's about
>it.
>
>and replied:
>>4 days wasn't enough time for the hysteria to attack the
>>constitutional rights of the individual, 4 years is. I was working in
>>the London at the time of 9/11, flew back to Florida about a week
>>after and didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to check in 3
>>hours before the flight, didn't have to have provided my passport
>>number first, didn't have to leave my luggage unlocked and I could
>>carry nail clippers and a lighter. 4 Years later and it's a completely
>>different game.
>
> I'm talking about AMERICA - while you're talking about BRITAIN. The
>reality is that a Brit-style police state never did evolve in America -
>while Britain had one even BEFORE 9/11, with one police spy camera on
>its streets per 25 Brits (and much higher in urban areas).

WTF did you get that number? You seriously expect people to believe
that the UK has 2.4 million police cameras?

....right...

> Flying domestic in America ALWAYS was a headache. Yes, it - always
>- involved get-there-early delays, etc. I don't remember anything
>good about it since deregulation.

Last time I checked, Florida was still part of the US. I was referring
to a US bound flight from the UK about 6 days after 9/11 - no
problems.

Repeat this trans-atlantic flight 4 years later. BOTH directions,
shoes off, 3 hr checkin, car searched into airport, luggage locks
disallowed, no nail clippers, passport numbers have to be supplied
prior to checkin, no lighters in either checked bags, cabin bags or on
your person.

LOTS has changed, and it was BY THE US.

US hijackings for the 5 years prior to 9/11 = 0.000%
US hijackings for the 5 years after 9/11 = 0.000%

So WHY are we doing this exactly?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 7:19:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 15:19:06 GMT, Owamanga
<owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 23 May 2005 07:36:49 -0700, "editor@netpath.net"
><editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>>Owamanga quoted me:
>>>>I never have had any problems photoing anything - even in Washington,
>>>>four days after 9/11.
>>>>You may be asked for ID - as in driver's license - but that's about
>>it.
>>
>>and replied:
>>>4 days wasn't enough time for the hysteria to attack the
>>>constitutional rights of the individual, 4 years is. I was working in
>>>the London at the time of 9/11, flew back to Florida about a week
>>>after and didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to check in 3
>>>hours before the flight, didn't have to have provided my passport
>>>number first, didn't have to leave my luggage unlocked and I could
>>>carry nail clippers and a lighter. 4 Years later and it's a completely
>>>different game.
>>
>> I'm talking about AMERICA - while you're talking about BRITAIN. The
>>reality is that a Brit-style police state never did evolve in America -
>>while Britain had one even BEFORE 9/11, with one police spy camera on
>>its streets per 25 Brits (and much higher in urban areas).
>
>WTF did you get that number? You seriously expect people to believe
>that the UK has 2.4 million police cameras?
>
>...right...

Canadian Government Report sets the number at 2.5 million

http://www.cai.gouv.qc.ca/06_documentation/01_pdf/summa...

Go read it.

BBC article on "2.5 million".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1789157.stm

And ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.c...


********************************************************

"The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
singular, and unsatisfactory."

Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
to
Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
November 14, 1866
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 7:27:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:11:25 -0400, Cynicor
<j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>> On 23 May 2005 06:11:50 -0700, "editor@netpath.net"
>> <editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I never have had any problems photoing anything - even in Washington,
>>>four days after 9/11.
>>>You may be asked for ID - as in driver's license - but that's about it.
>>
>>
>> 4 days wasn't enough time for the hysteria to attack the
>> constitutional rights of the individual, 4 years is. I was working in
>> the London at the time of 9/11, flew back to Florida about a week
>> after and didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to check in 3
>> hours before the flight, didn't have to have provided my passport
>> number first, didn't have to leave my luggage unlocked and I could
>> carry nail clippers and a lighter. 4 Years later and it's a completely
>> different game.
>
>But they still don't do all that stuff at Heathrow. No shoe carnival, no
> "laptops out." Technically, the shoe carnival is not a requirement in
>the USA either, but it's willfully misinterpreted by gate staff who want
>to give people a hard time.

I've seen it done 4 times since at at either Gatwick or Heathrow.
Granted, flying from Gatwick to Alicante, Spain post 9/11 is a
completely different experience than Lauderdale to Atlanta (wearing a
suit, so shoes off again - last year). Now I travel international
wearing sneakers so it doesn't affect me, other than to delay the
lines even more.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 7:30:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Cynicor <j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net> writes:
>
>>All in a public place though, right? Where it's legal to take photos anyway?
>
>
> You know, I used to live in an architecturally interesting-looking
> house. People walking past would often stop and gaze at it for a few
> moments. Occasionally someone would take a picture. That wasn't a
> problem, even if I happened to be entering or leaving at the moment
> they took the picture.
>
> If someone were to set up an automated camera across the street to
> film the house 24 hours a day, recording all the entries and exits,
> well, that speaks to a different interest, and it WOULD be a problem.
> It's no longer what we could reasonably call recreational photography,
> the topic of this ng. It's more along the lines of stalking.
>
> Do you get the difference?

I never didn't get the difference (although a camera on a public street
is different from one trained on your house). What I'm pointing out
(poorly) is that the expectations may be different in the UK vs. the US,
and also that filming a public place is not the same as performing
tracking surveillance on individuals.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 8:33:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 15:19:06 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Owamanga
<owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> in
<ais3915rnorbrv2m52eijl49msf4v2d67e@4ax.com> wrote:

>On 23 May 2005 07:36:49 -0700, "editor@netpath.net"
><editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>>Owamanga quoted me:
>>>>I never have had any problems photoing anything - even in Washington,
>>>>four days after 9/11.
>>>>You may be asked for ID - as in driver's license - but that's about
>>it.
>>
>>and replied:
>>>4 days wasn't enough time for the hysteria to attack the
>>>constitutional rights of the individual, 4 years is. I was working in
>>>the London at the time of 9/11, flew back to Florida about a week
>>>after and didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to check in 3
>>>hours before the flight, didn't have to have provided my passport
>>>number first, didn't have to leave my luggage unlocked and I could
>>>carry nail clippers and a lighter. 4 Years later and it's a completely
>>>different game.
>>
>> I'm talking about AMERICA - while you're talking about BRITAIN. The
>>reality is that a Brit-style police state never did evolve in America -
>>while Britain had one even BEFORE 9/11, with one police spy camera on
>>its streets per 25 Brits (and much higher in urban areas).
>
>WTF did you get that number? You seriously expect people to believe
>that the UK has 2.4 million police cameras?

1.5 million according to UPI. Wow, I bet you breath easier.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=08032002-020813-444...

[snip]



--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 8:33:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:33:28 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 May 2005 15:19:06 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Owamanga
><owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> in
><ais3915rnorbrv2m52eijl49msf4v2d67e@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On 23 May 2005 07:36:49 -0700, "editor@netpath.net"
>><editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Owamanga quoted me:
>>>>>I never have had any problems photoing anything - even in Washington,
>>>>>four days after 9/11.
>>>>>You may be asked for ID - as in driver's license - but that's about
>>>it.
>>>
>>>and replied:
>>>>4 days wasn't enough time for the hysteria to attack the
>>>>constitutional rights of the individual, 4 years is. I was working in
>>>>the London at the time of 9/11, flew back to Florida about a week
>>>>after and didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to check in 3
>>>>hours before the flight, didn't have to have provided my passport
>>>>number first, didn't have to leave my luggage unlocked and I could
>>>>carry nail clippers and a lighter. 4 Years later and it's a completely
>>>>different game.
>>>
>>> I'm talking about AMERICA - while you're talking about BRITAIN. The
>>>reality is that a Brit-style police state never did evolve in America -
>>>while Britain had one even BEFORE 9/11, with one police spy camera on
>>>its streets per 25 Brits (and much higher in urban areas).
>>
>>WTF did you get that number? You seriously expect people to believe
>>that the UK has 2.4 million police cameras?
>
>1.5 million according to UPI. Wow, I bet you breath easier.
>
>http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=08032002-020813-444...

Are you sure that isn't just "liberal biased scaremongering"?


********************************************************

"The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
singular, and unsatisfactory."

Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
to
Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
November 14, 1866
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 8:37:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Cynicor" <j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:xo-dnVmTPdPtSgzfRVn-jA@speakeasy.net...
> B. Peg wrote:
> >>"Mxsmanic"wrote:
> >>WATCH WHERE YOU POINT THAT CAMERA
> >
> >
> > Local TV news went to the public indoor shopping mall to cover a news
story
> > (shoplifting I think). The mall security got into it with them and told
> > them they must leave and a scuffle ensued where they roughed the
cameraman
> > up. Then the city police showed up and arrested the news cameraman.
There
> > was a lot of news coverage (paper and TV) with threats of lawsuits etc.
> >
> > Don't know whatever became of the outcome though.
>
> I took a cell phone pic of a puppy at a mall pet store last weekend, and
> the clerk there yelled "NO PICTURES!" at me. I can't understand why
> not in that situation. Were they afraid that I was an investigator doing
> a story on the floor grates that allow puppy pee to cascade onto the dog
> below or something?

In the early days of Fry's Electronics, there used to be tour buses that
would go there, often with Japanese tourists. They piled off the bus, into
the store, with camcorders and cameras. The greeter would frantically yell
"no photos" but they did not understand what she was talking about. Back in
the days of film photography, if they caught you taking pictures they would
demand your film, and they would develop and print it, and remove any photos
of the store. Some people would go in there with fully exposed film and
pretend to take pictures, to get their film developed and printed for free.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 8:37:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> In the early days of Fry's Electronics, there used to be tour buses that
> would go there, often with Japanese tourists. They piled off the bus, into
> the store, with camcorders and cameras. The greeter would frantically yell
> "no photos" but they did not understand what she was talking about. Back in
> the days of film photography, if they caught you taking pictures they would
> demand your film, and they would develop and print it, and remove any photos
> of the store. Some people would go in there with fully exposed film and
> pretend to take pictures, to get their film developed and printed for free.

Substitute pants for film, and Goodwill for Fry's, and you've just
figured out my dry cleaning secret!

Seriously, I don't understand what the big deal is. I heard that some
store (The Wiz? Best Buy?) was trying to prohibit shoppers from writing
down their in-store prices because then they'd comparison shop. I
imagine that only providing the best merchandise at good prices would
work better in driving up sales!
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 8:39:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 10:45:35 -0500, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>> I'm talking about AMERICA - while you're talking about BRITAIN. The
>>>reality is that a Brit-style police state never did evolve in America -
>>>while Britain had one even BEFORE 9/11, with one police spy camera on
>>>its streets per 25 Brits (and much higher in urban areas).
>>
>>WTF did you get that number? You seriously expect people to believe
>>that the UK has 2.4 million police cameras?
>>
>>...right...
>
>Canadian Government Report sets the number at 2.5 million
>
>http://www.cai.gouv.qc.ca/06_documentation/01_pdf/summa...
>
>Go read it.

I did, and the others. I suggest you re-read them, this time
attempting to see past the liberal biased scaremongering that all
three articles appear to share.

"There are 25 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 2.5
million in the UK."

That statement, and others, fails to qualify them as 25million POLICE
CONTROLLED CCTV cameras doesn't it ? Although the rest of the article
is written in a way that you are supposed to conclude that.

Shops, banks, businesses, work places can all operate CCTV without
being 'police spy' cameras. These (according to the loose use of the
term) are all public places. Tens of thousands of cameras on London
transport buses, taxis and trains for example have closed circuit TV
is limited to the driver and a video tape, it isn't controlled by the
police.

The BBC report even mentions that the majority are not digital,
meaning they remain truly *closed circuit*, so their distribution is
highly limited.

What about the 6,000 fully automated digital speed cameras that *are*
operated by the police, are these considered 'spy' CCTV cameras too -
even though they can only 'spy' on you when you break the law?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 8:39:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:39:49 GMT, Owamanga
<owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 May 2005 10:45:35 -0500, John A. Stovall
><johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I'm talking about AMERICA - while you're talking about BRITAIN. The
>>>>reality is that a Brit-style police state never did evolve in America -
>>>>while Britain had one even BEFORE 9/11, with one police spy camera on
>>>>its streets per 25 Brits (and much higher in urban areas).
>>>
>>>WTF did you get that number? You seriously expect people to believe
>>>that the UK has 2.4 million police cameras?
>>>
>>>...right...
>>
>>Canadian Government Report sets the number at 2.5 million
>>
>>http://www.cai.gouv.qc.ca/06_documentation/01_pdf/summa...
>>
>>Go read it.
>
>I did, and the others. I suggest you re-read them, this time
>attempting to see past the liberal biased scaremongering that all
>three articles appear to share.

So now it's "liberal biased scaremongering".

Right....


********************************************************

"The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
singular, and unsatisfactory."

Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
to
Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
November 14, 1866
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 8:39:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 10:45:35 -0500, John A. Stovall
> <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>> I'm talking about AMERICA - while you're talking about BRITAIN. The
> >>>reality is that a Brit-style police state never did evolve in America -
> >>>while Britain had one even BEFORE 9/11, with one police spy camera on
> >>>its streets per 25 Brits (and much higher in urban areas).
> >>
> >>WTF did you get that number? You seriously expect people to believe
> >>that the UK has 2.4 million police cameras?
> >>
> >>...right...
> >
> >Canadian Government Report sets the number at 2.5 million
> >
> >http://www.cai.gouv.qc.ca/06_documentation/01_pdf/summa...
> >
> >Go read it.
>
> I did, and the others. I suggest you re-read them, this time
> attempting to see past the liberal biased scaremongering that all
> three articles appear to share.
>
> "There are 25 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 2.5
> million in the UK."
>
> That statement, and others, fails to qualify them as 25million POLICE
> CONTROLLED CCTV cameras doesn't it ? Although the rest of the article
> is written in a way that you are supposed to conclude that.
>
> Shops, banks, businesses, work places can all operate CCTV without
> being 'police spy' cameras. These (according to the loose use of the
> term) are all public places. Tens of thousands of cameras on London
> transport buses, taxis and trains for example have closed circuit TV
> is limited to the driver and a video tape, it isn't controlled by the
> police.
>
> The BBC report even mentions that the majority are not digital,
> meaning they remain truly *closed circuit*, so their distribution is
> highly limited.
>
> What about the 6,000 fully automated digital speed cameras that *are*
> operated by the police, are these considered 'spy' CCTV cameras too -
> even though they can only 'spy' on you when you break the law?

I wouldn't say that they CAN'T spy on people not (or not yet) breaking
the law. One of the potential benefits of this sort of camera network
is being able to detect potential crimes about to happen, and perhaps
prevent them.

In the USA, Chicago has a pilot program with a camera network in their
troubled West Side. The police are very happy with it and seek to
expand it a lot.

There are some questions, like about statistics that appear to show
young minority men surveiled at a higher frequency, but given the likely
correlation to the statistical makeup of convicted criminals, questions
of unfairness remain just that, questions.

But these discussions are focussed on the tip of the iceberg. The truth
is that we are in the nascent stages in a revolution in how we view the
concept of privacy. The cameras have gotten very cheap, the costs of
the associated equipment have dropped, and there is a glut of fiber
capacity nationwide.

The use of these police camera networks will only grow, and the
citizenry will continue to welcome them because they do reduce crime and
increase public safety. Given the current political climate, the
implications are potentially frightening.

Lisa
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:26:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:46:15 -0500, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:39:49 GMT, Owamanga
><owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I did, [read it] and the others. I suggest you re-read them, this time
>>attempting to see past the liberal biased scaremongering that all
>>three articles appear to share.
>
>So now it's "liberal biased scaremongering".
>
>Right....

Any semblance of the BBC remaining impartial disappeared years ago.
The Canadian Government is hardly right wing (*), and neither is the
ACLU.

(*) Of course, that could change any day now...

If you think such miss-presentation of facts is honest, go ahead - eat
it all up. It's your neck getting worn out constantly looking over
your shoulder, not mine.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:26:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Cynicor wrote:

> editor@netpath.net wrote:
>
>> Owamanga quoted some article:
>>
>>> "There are 25 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 2.5
>>> million in the UK."
>>
>>
>>
>> And - with 1 in 10 spy cameras worldwide in just one geographically
>> small island nation that has the population of New York State plus
>> Kalifornia - you STILL don't see something unusual about that nation?
>
>
> Well, how does it affect people's freedoms on a real basis?

New laws and new crimes are being defined almost continuously by
governments these days. Just because you're innocent *now* doesn't mean
they won't find *something* for you to be guilty of in the near future.

That combover, for instance.

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:44:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:47:30 -0500, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:33:28 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>1.5 million according to UPI. Wow, I bet you breath easier.
>>
>>http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=08032002-020813-444...
>
>Are you sure that isn't just "liberal biased scaremongering"?

Well spotted. The article is 3 years old, but again, it too fails to
clarify who controls the cameras.

UK Law Enforcement: 2.0 full-time officers per 1,000 population
US Law Enforcement: 3.5 full-time officers per 1,000 population

...but the UK is the police state?

Ha!

The incarceration figures in the US are *far* more scary.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:44:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:44:27 GMT, Owamanga
<owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:

> UK Law Enforcement: 2.0 full-time officers per 1,000 population
> US Law Enforcement: 3.5 full-time officers per 1,000 population
>
> ..but the UK is the police state?

Maybe both. What are the corresponding numbers for Canada,
Mexico, Sweden, France, Japan, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Iceland, New
Zealand and Iraq?

No reason for selecting any of these, with the exception of
Singapore.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:49:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<editor@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:1116867703.009870.29180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Owamanga quoted some article:
>>"There are 25 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 2.5
>>million in the UK."
>
> And - with 1 in 10 spy cameras worldwide in just one geographically
> small island nation that has the population of New York State plus
> Kalifornia - you STILL don't see something unusual about that nation?
>
> Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW

The crime raite is lower here. The police don't casually wear firearms.
The citizens aren't allowed to carry firearms. - no owning a gun and having
a licence does not allow one to freely wear it in a public place.
May 23, 2005 10:04:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ikt391thg50p5msilesesh0j1l6qivvgn5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:11:25 -0400, Cynicor
> <j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>Owamanga wrote:
>>> On 23 May 2005 06:11:50 -0700, "editor@netpath.net"
>>> <editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I never have had any problems photoing anything - even in Washington,
>>>>four days after 9/11.
>>>>You may be asked for ID - as in driver's license - but that's about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> 4 days wasn't enough time for the hysteria to attack the
>>> constitutional rights of the individual, 4 years is. I was working in
>>> the London at the time of 9/11, flew back to Florida about a week
>>> after and didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to check in 3
>>> hours before the flight, didn't have to have provided my passport
>>> number first, didn't have to leave my luggage unlocked and I could
>>> carry nail clippers and a lighter. 4 Years later and it's a completely
>>> different game.
>>
>>But they still don't do all that stuff at Heathrow. No shoe carnival, no
>> "laptops out." Technically, the shoe carnival is not a requirement in
>>the USA either, but it's willfully misinterpreted by gate staff who want
>>to give people a hard time.
>
> I've seen it done 4 times since at at either Gatwick or Heathrow.
> Granted, flying from Gatwick to Alicante, Spain post 9/11 is a
> completely different experience than Lauderdale to Atlanta (wearing a
> suit, so shoes off again - last year). Now I travel international
> wearing sneakers so it doesn't affect me, other than to delay the
> lines even more.
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Well.

What a load of tripe.

You quote the Canadian Government about British Statistics, as if that
information was on a tablet of stone. Did the British Government
subcontract statistical gathering to Canada?

What is the relevance between the number of CCTVs and personal freedom? Or
is personal freedom only related to the number of unlicensed fireams held by
private individuals? Or perhaps to the annual number of accidental or
deliberate deaths by gunshot.

As a photographer in Britain, if I am not on private property, I can
photograph anything I like. Bridges, Airports, Government Offices and
Military Installations.

There are only a few places where it is prohibited, and these Display
Official Notices to that effect on their Boundary Fences.

If the latest Super Secret Aircraft should happen to fly over, I am
perfectly entitled to take a Photo of it, provided it is flying. It only
becomes illegal when it is on the ground in a "Proscribed Place" in terms of
the Official Secrets Act.

So who really lives in the "Land of the Free"?

Roy G
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:57:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:49:04 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "ian lincoln"
<jessops@sux.com> in
<kIoke.115022$Cq2.88218@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
><editor@netpath.net> wrote in message
>news:1116867703.009870.29180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Owamanga quoted some article:
>>>"There are 25 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 2.5
>>>million in the UK."
>>
>> And - with 1 in 10 spy cameras worldwide in just one geographically
>> small island nation that has the population of New York State plus
>> Kalifornia - you STILL don't see something unusual about that nation?
>>
>> Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
>
>The crime raite is lower here. The police don't casually wear firearms.
>The citizens aren't allowed to carry firearms. - no owning a gun and having
>a licence does not allow one to freely wear it in a public place.
>
Which of these things changed when you got all those cameras?


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:58:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:47:30 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , John A.
Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> in
<t72491t08gofsavmr95bpbvj27hmvoc0mu@4ax.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:33:28 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 May 2005 15:19:06 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Owamanga
>><owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> in
>><ais3915rnorbrv2m52eijl49msf4v2d67e@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 23 May 2005 07:36:49 -0700, "editor@netpath.net"
>>><editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Owamanga quoted me:
>>>>>>I never have had any problems photoing anything - even in Washington,
>>>>>>four days after 9/11.
>>>>>>You may be asked for ID - as in driver's license - but that's about
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>>and replied:
>>>>>4 days wasn't enough time for the hysteria to attack the
>>>>>constitutional rights of the individual, 4 years is. I was working in
>>>>>the London at the time of 9/11, flew back to Florida about a week
>>>>>after and didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to check in 3
>>>>>hours before the flight, didn't have to have provided my passport
>>>>>number first, didn't have to leave my luggage unlocked and I could
>>>>>carry nail clippers and a lighter. 4 Years later and it's a completely
>>>>>different game.
>>>>
>>>> I'm talking about AMERICA - while you're talking about BRITAIN. The
>>>>reality is that a Brit-style police state never did evolve in America -
>>>>while Britain had one even BEFORE 9/11, with one police spy camera on
>>>>its streets per 25 Brits (and much higher in urban areas).
>>>
>>>WTF did you get that number? You seriously expect people to believe
>>>that the UK has 2.4 million police cameras?
>>
>>1.5 million according to UPI. Wow, I bet you breath easier.
>>
>>http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=08032002-020813-444...
>
>Are you sure that isn't just "liberal biased scaremongering"?

Those damn liberals, all worked up individual freedom.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 11:01:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"ian lincoln" <jessops@svx.com> wrote:

>
><editor@netpath.net> wrote in message
>news:1116867703.009870.29180@g44g2000cwa.googlegrovps.com...
>> Owamanga qvoted some article:
>>>"There are 25 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 2.5
>>>million in the UK."
>>
>> And - with 1 in 10 spy cameras worldwide in jvst one geographically
>> small island nation that has the popvlation of New York State plvs
>> Kalifornia - yov STILL don't see something vnvsval abovt that nation?
>>
>> Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
>
>The crime raite is lower here.


The crime rate in the UK is mvch higher than in the USA, with one
exception. That is gvn crime.

Other than gvn crime, the UK has one of the highest crime rates in the
Western World, far higher than in any other member covntry of the
Evropean Union, for example.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 11:28:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:04:01 GMT, "Roy"
<royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:

>Well.
>
>What a load of tripe.
>
>You quote the Canadian Government about British Statistics, as if that
>information was on a tablet of stone. Did the British Government
>subcontract statistical gathering to Canada?

Not me: John A. Stovall quoted them, the BBC and the ACLU.

I simply pointed out that their statements are misleading because they
haven't qualified the statistic of 2.5 million cameras as all being
Police cameras - which indeed, they are not.

>What is the relevance between the number of CCTVs and personal freedom?

None in my opinion. I'd much prefer everybody be able to film
everybody in public, rather than the current (possible) trend in the
US and UK which is to consider a photographer suspicious until proven
innocent. Someone watching me in public is fine, hell I'll even wear
an RFID tag if they pay me to carry it. Someone who routinely delays
me for stupid shoe scans at airports for no good reason ISN'T fine, in
fact, it's very damn annoying.

> Or
>is personal freedom only related to the number of unlicensed fireams held by
>private individuals? Or perhaps to the annual number of accidental or
>deliberate deaths by gunshot.

Who cares about accidental death by gunshot? We are talking about
fathers that shoot their own kids right at night, or middle-aged guys
who shoot their own nads off when cleaning the gun? - So what? Ever
heard of Darwin? well, he moves in mysterious ways...

>As a photographer in Britain, if I am not on private property, I can
>photograph anything I like. Bridges, Airports, Government Offices and
>Military Installations.

And that's the way it should be. But it's not really... look around
you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4503711.stm

http://www.redeye.org.uk/redeye/newsdetail.asp?uvarNews...

And Brits in Europe:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1686303.stm

>There are only a few places where it is prohibited, and these Display
>Official Notices to that effect on their Boundary Fences.

Under the terrorism act, it's really anywhere the Police decide it's
illegal. Understand this: you don't need to be prosecuted for rights
to be infringed - merely being arrested, detained, searched or
eventually charged & having to defend yourself in a court of law for
something that is just simple photography *does* affect your rights.

And it's going on around you right now.

>If the latest Super Secret Aircraft should happen to fly over, I am
>perfectly entitled to take a Photo of it, provided it is flying. It only
>becomes illegal when it is on the ground in a "Proscribed Place" in terms of
>the Official Secrets Act.

The official secrets act doesn't apply to the general public. Unless
(as I have) you have worked for any secret or military branch of the
UK government at any time, and were asked to sign it and agree to it's
terms, the act has no bind over you.(*) A police officer in the field
wouldn't know to arrest me under that act, he'd simply use the
terrorism one, it's far easier.

>So who really lives in the "Land of the Free"?

Nobody, it doesn't exist.

(*) Although I'm not sure I signed in agreement as such, I merely
signed a piece of paper stating that I'd been explained the act, I
understood it applied to me, and I'm signing to say that I'd been told
about it.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 11:32:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Lisa Horton" <Lisa0205@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:42921A08.9BD2662A@lisahorton.net...
>
>
> Owamanga wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 23 May 2005 10:45:35 -0500, John A. Stovall
>> <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I'm talking about AMERICA - while you're talking about BRITAIN.
>> >>> The
>> >>>reality is that a Brit-style police state never did evolve in
>> >>>America -
>> >>>while Britain had one even BEFORE 9/11, with one police spy camera on
>> >>>its streets per 25 Brits (and much higher in urban areas).
>> >>
>> >>WTF did you get that number? You seriously expect people to believe
>> >>that the UK has 2.4 million police cameras?
>> >>
>> >>...right...
>> >
>> >Canadian Government Report sets the number at 2.5 million
>> >
>> >http://www.cai.gouv.qc.ca/06_documentation/01_pdf/summa...
>> >
>> >Go read it.
>>
>> I did, and the others. I suggest you re-read them, this time
>> attempting to see past the liberal biased scaremongering that all
>> three articles appear to share.
>>
>> "There are 25 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 2.5
>> million in the UK."
>>
>> That statement, and others, fails to qualify them as 25million POLICE
>> CONTROLLED CCTV cameras doesn't it ? Although the rest of the article
>> is written in a way that you are supposed to conclude that.
>>
>> Shops, banks, businesses, work places can all operate CCTV without
>> being 'police spy' cameras. These (according to the loose use of the
>> term) are all public places. Tens of thousands of cameras on London
>> transport buses, taxis and trains for example have closed circuit TV
>> is limited to the driver and a video tape, it isn't controlled by the
>> police.
>>
>> The BBC report even mentions that the majority are not digital,
>> meaning they remain truly *closed circuit*, so their distribution is
>> highly limited.
>>
>> What about the 6,000 fully automated digital speed cameras that *are*
>> operated by the police, are these considered 'spy' CCTV cameras too -
>> even though they can only 'spy' on you when you break the law?
>
> I wouldn't say that they CAN'T spy on people not (or not yet) breaking
> the law. One of the potential benefits of this sort of camera network
> is being able to detect potential crimes about to happen, and perhaps
> prevent them.
>
> In the USA, Chicago has a pilot program with a camera network in their
> troubled West Side. The police are very happy with it and seek to
> expand it a lot.
>
> There are some questions, like about statistics that appear to show
> young minority men surveiled at a higher frequency, but given the likely
> correlation to the statistical makeup of convicted criminals, questions
> of unfairness remain just that, questions.
>
> But these discussions are focussed on the tip of the iceberg. The truth
> is that we are in the nascent stages in a revolution in how we view the
> concept of privacy. The cameras have gotten very cheap, the costs of
> the associated equipment have dropped, and there is a glut of fiber
> capacity nationwide.
>
> The use of these police camera networks will only grow, and the
> citizenry will continue to welcome them because they do reduce crime and
> increase public safety. Given the current political climate, the
> implications are potentially frightening.
>
> Lisa

While my natural libertarian attitude is to view such things with distaste,
it is a fact that there aren't near enough policemen to be able to monitor
millions of cameras 24/7. Which means that they can only be reviewed after
the fact....IOW, after a crime has been committed, perusal of the tapes
might identify the perpetrator(s), and the average meanderings of innocent
people won't ever be observed....
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 11:59:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:

>
> The incarceration figures in the US are *far* more scary.
>

Who cares? wave a few flags, sing some patriotic songs, study
"intelligent creation" at school and everything will be o.k.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 12:04:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique,rec.photo.technique.people (More info?)

Ron Hunter writes:

> Be sure to tell the agents that as you photograph the Nuclear Power
> Plant from the road. Also, set your tripod up outside an aircraft
> plant, or a defense installation, and see if you like visiting an FBI
> office for a few hours.

There are a few brave souls left who will fight for their rights,
although it may not be enough to compensate for the cowards who will
fold under the slightest intimidation.

> Sure, you MAY get away with it, or you may not.

You will. And if enough people do it the over-zealous authorities
eventually get the idea and stop wasting their time and the time of
others. If they get into legal trouble, they'll stop even faster.

> I don't think you want to be informed of the various conditions of the
> Patriot Act while someone examines all your photographs.

How many times has this happened to you?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 12:06:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf writes:

> Back in
> the days of film photography, if they caught you taking pictures they would
> demand your film, and they would develop and print it, and remove any photos
> of the store.

They can't legally do that.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
!