BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

In article , Jackie
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

In article , Stacey
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 :-)

In article ,
"Journalist-North" 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?

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/art...n/mediacentre/

In article ,
(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. :-)

In article ,
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. 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.

Scott Schuckert wrote:

In article , Any

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)


(OT - Yea, that approach sure works well for Israel...)

As for the camera issue, how are they going to enforce it? What exactly
are they trying to prevent? It's not like Osama is going to drag an
8x10 onboard and ask people to smile. If a bad guy want to take pics,
he'll palm something like an Olympus Stylus, or any one of a zillion
tiny digicams. Will people allow the police to pat them down and
confiscate any cameras found? I'd like to think not, but fear otherwise.

-Greg

Scott Schuckert wrote:

In article , Any
Moose Poster 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

"King Sardon" wrote in message
...

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.

This with the tacit support of many in the media. CNN puts articles
like this in the back pages.

Some-how I heard about it, but I didn't believe it.

There is so much anger in the U.S. towards anything moslem that people
feel good about killing "suspected terrorists" in Iraq, even if they
are 3-yr old girls.

Perhaps they should stop wrapping their weapons with
women and children and in holy shrines.

But Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. Iraq is an innocent country,
and virtually defenseless, invaded by a bully power blindly bent on
revenge.

This deserves a place on the wall of disbelief
Iraq is an innocent country, and virtually defenseless?

I don't have anything against Americans, just their government.

I don't have anything against you except your attitude toward us.
Why don't you strap on a bomb and go blow up some Iraqi citizens
like your hero's do, and get it over with.

I hope the world realizes that their bad attitude toward us is the
reason any of this is happening.

David

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.--