Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Buzzfeed)   Thou shalt not take pictures of SpongeBob, according to top men   (buzzfeed.com ) divider line 224
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

4741 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jul 2014 at 8:54 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-07-20 01:11:48 AM  
Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....
 
2014-07-20 05:26:33 AM  
old news is old.....we live in a police state.

the reporter is lucky he didn't get Rodney King'ed
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-20 07:58:30 AM  
The photographer should wear an explosive vest. When confronted by an overzealous security guard, hit the trigger.

But then America would lose two minor annoyances.
 
2014-07-20 09:08:41 AM  

SauronWasFramed: old news is old.....we live in a police state.

the reporter is lucky he didn't get Rodney King'ed


You live in a police state only if you're paranoid and feel oppressed.  That says volumes about you.
 
2014-07-20 09:09:34 AM  
The post office is shaped like a dick and balls
 
2014-07-20 09:10:36 AM  

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


So arguing that you were told that you could take pictures to a guy that told you you couldn't is AW'ing now?

/At this rate, even keeping your head down and doing your business quietly will be AW'ing in 10 years...
 
2014-07-20 09:14:39 AM  

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


You know how I know you are one of the "sheeple"?

/Open-carry people are still douchebags.
//Just like those who Roll Coal
 
2014-07-20 09:16:38 AM  
This was a gay joke, right?

I ask because usually using the words "Spongebob" and "top" in the same sentence usually refers to something homosexual.
 
2014-07-20 09:18:54 AM  
Well, the comments were a BuzzFeed staple:  People who were probably on the side of the kid who was attacked for flying a picture drone over a beach are on the side of the cops against this picture taker.  Damn hypocrites.
 
2014-07-20 09:22:09 AM  
I'm a photographer and therefore a terrorist. And I have a security clearance. I used to be on the TSA watch for who knows why. Now I'm not and have a TSA pre check authorization.

Next they'll find out I have an interest in other languages and countries and have to lock me up.

/it's people like me that have ruined America, or so I've been told
 
2014-07-20 09:22:45 AM  
I remember when they passed the Anti-Nervousness laws and the Suspicious Persons act.

The way to avoid feeling nervous about suspicious people is always to give up freedoms and embrace a police state because that's not scary at all.
 
2014-07-20 09:24:10 AM  
Here is a picture from inside each of those buildings. It's uncanny. They're all the same. This is what the government doesn't want you to know. Robot Spongebobs talking to Robot People. Thanks Robama.

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-20 09:25:09 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: SauronWasFramed: old news is old.....we live in a police state.

the reporter is lucky he didn't get Rodney King'ed

You live in a police state only if you're paranoid and feel oppressed.  That says volumes about you.


Far be it from me to be caught in the SauronWasFramed Derp-A-Looza camp, but if this comment was accurate:

"You are suspicious, we live in a post 9/11 world,"

what kind of state do you think we live in?  No, the reporter was not arrested, not beaten, didn't have her camera taken away, but a single attack that occurred almost 13 years ago is now an excuse to prevent photographs taken from public sidewalks of public buildings, and there is no law to enforce that, just a "this is a post 9/11 world" that can apparently be used as an excuse for all eternity.  Because we don't immediately burst out laughing when that's the excuse, 13 years later.  So I have to assume it will be just as potent after 26 years, or 52.  Most of us still carry that little "Keep Murica Safe" hymn in our hearts, even if we have now changed out of our Dubya Stormtrooper uniforms and disavowed all past allegiance to The Saddam Is a Bad Man Party.

It may not actually be a police state (yet), but it's certainly a surveillance state, and in fact it's already moved beyond that.  They not only watch you, they come charging out the door the second they see a camera, even though they know the camera takes photos of nothing but blank, ugly building facades and doorways.

They think everyone, literally everyone, is a terrorist casing their building for the next big attack.  Because there was one attack, 13 years ago.

Fourteen years ago, if you had described a situation like this without naming the country, 99% of respondents would have said, "That's obviously Russa/Iran/North Korea."  If you had told them it would soon be the US, you would have gotten the "why do you hate America" refrain.  Now it's either Sauron's "so we live in a police state, who cares" or it's "you must be paranoid if you don't believe we live in Best America."

All of this is on top of the profound stupidity of the whole thing, because they only react when somebody openly walks up to the building, openly pulls out a camera, and openly takes a picture.  As if there are no zoom lenses in the world, as if there are no helicopters, as if there aren't countless ways of taking photos of those ugly, blank facades that nobody cares about.  They throw up barriers and checkpoints and security zones to keep the pony from getting out of the barn, the pony that disappeared over the horizon more than a decade ago.

Meanwhile those photos show only too plainly (as anyone who just walks by would know) that the buildings are entirely unsecured against a car bomb attack or even a guy wearing a suicide vest.  So the fat, bored cops waddling out of buildings to shout at people with cameras is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

And blind stupidity is another key factor in a police state.
 
2014-07-20 09:32:18 AM  
People who use the phrase "post-9/11 world" should have a plane fly into them.
 
2014-07-20 09:32:42 AM  
I'm sure countless numbers of tourists take photos in front of these buildings every day.  Yet, we never seem to read anyone else complain about being harassed for doing so.  I wonder what this particular photographer did differently to attract their attention.
 
2014-07-20 09:33:28 AM  

hardinparamedic: This was a gay joke, right?

I ask because usually using the words "Spongebob" and "top" in the same sentence usually refers to something homosexual.


You move in interesting circles.
 
2014-07-20 09:41:34 AM  
Seeing the quality of the DoE building and property (in terms of maintenance/repairs) compared to the others should qualify for [SAD].
 
2014-07-20 09:41:58 AM  
Not to sound racist, but notice how all of these security goons also happen to be of the blah persuasion? Seems that if you ever encounter a blah security guard, you're going to have a bad time.

static2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-07-20 09:42:31 AM  

edmo: I'm a photographer and therefore a terrorist. And I have a security clearance. I used to be on the TSA watch for who knows why. Now I'm not and have a TSA pre check authorization.

Next they'll find out I have an interest in other languages and countries and have to lock me up.

/it's people like me that have ruined America, or so I've been told


Meantime, of course, people who have guns or threaten to bring guns are just A-OK, the most 'Murcan thing we can have.

/Unless they're blah.
//Or brown.
///Or kinda swarthy-looking.
///Or loners.
///Or just look liberal.
 
2014-07-20 09:43:49 AM  
People going on about a "post 9/11 world" are overlooking things like the Navy Yard shooting that were much more recent.
It's not terrorists that we have to guard against as much as it is a crazy loner with a grudge.
 
2014-07-20 09:51:09 AM  
i183.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-20 09:51:59 AM  
We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos
 
2014-07-20 09:53:30 AM  

seenonradio: People going on about a "post 9/11 world" are overlooking things like the Navy Yard shooting that were much more recent.
It's not terrorists that we have to guard against as much as it is a crazy loner with a grudge.


And those guys aren't likely to be taking pictures of buildings they're intimately familiar with...
 
2014-07-20 09:53:48 AM  
Reporter seems like a total douchebag. "Im only taking a picture of a public sidewalk".. meanwhile public sidewalk is lined with massive security barriers.

"An ARMED Bike Cop approached me!"... really? An armed police officer?

And I know this guy makes it seem like he only took a single snapshot of these places, but something tells me he was being a total douche about it since his dumb article doesn't really focus on ugly architecture at all, and instead is just a series of entrances and barriers.

Im all for taking pics and video of cops when they're arresting somebody, but Im not too keen on trolling security around government buildings because Im not 14 years old with a skateboard.
 
2014-07-20 10:00:25 AM  

seenonradio: People going on about a "post 9/11 world" are overlooking things like the Navy Yard shooting that were much more recent.
It's not terrorists that we have to guard against as much as it is a crazy loner with a grudge.


Seriously! I mean what do Post Offices have to do with Islamic terror,...anthrax on the other hand. Totally home grown by a Government Employee..so the security guards are right to question anyone wondering around bureaucratic sites in DC taking photos. I commend to dudes who just look like shiftless Black rent-a-cops to the photo guy, but who are actually doing their job effectively.
 
2014-07-20 10:01:56 AM  
Seriously: Those really are ugly buildings. The police should ask, "Sir, why the hell are you wasting energy taking pictures of this ugly building?" Any answer, of course is acceptable. And then... If I were a cop, I'd do my best to photobomb every pic. For the LOLs.

But nooooo. We can't have LOLs because terrorists.
 
2014-07-20 10:03:01 AM  
for any if you who say stopping photographers is ok, "it's a post 9/11 world" or are apathetic about it

fark YOU.

in my life time we have gone from the anti war, kent state standing up for our rights to some pussy "mommy the bad guy is out there" attitude. shame on you.
 
2014-07-20 10:03:11 AM  

FnkyTwn: Reporter seems like a total douchebag. "Im only taking a picture of a public sidewalk".. meanwhile public sidewalk is lined with massive security barriers.

"An ARMED Bike Cop approached me!"... really? An armed police officer?


Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

Help! I'm being repressed!
 
2014-07-20 10:07:40 AM  

Cataholic: I'm sure countless numbers of tourists take photos in front of these buildings every day.  Yet, we never seem to read anyone else complain about being harassed for doing so.  I wonder what this particular photographer did differently to attract their attention.


It was probably something really flagrant, so provocative, so disgustingly disrespectful of the holy memories of the Victims of 9/11, that they couldn't just ignore it.

For example, being on a bicycle and alone, instead of on foot, fat, sunburned, with a spouse and two kids and a "What to See in D.C." brochure sticking out of your pocket.  She probably doubled down on this crazy provocative act by pulling out a camera with a detachable lens, the surest sign of the al Qaeda operative casing Building 7G in Annex 3 of the Institute of Really Boring Statistics for imminent car bomber attack.

Because it's that kind of shamelessly provocative, disprespectful act that brings the harsh response she received, i.e., fat security guards waddling out to tell her, "You can take pictures of the building, but you can't take pictures of this doorway."

Sounds legit.
 
hej
2014-07-20 10:07:53 AM  

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


When is the last time you heard of somebody dying from a photography wound?
 
2014-07-20 10:10:22 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos


And nothing bad can ever come out of an extended period of chaos.  You don't ever see bad things coalescing and gradually growing worse during a 13-year-period of chaos.  No, eventually, things right themselves and we're all happy again and the bad stuff goes away, and we think, well we certainly feel foolish for worrying, now that the trains run on time and our national pride has been restored.
 
2014-07-20 10:16:18 AM  
These brave police officers were merely trying to enforce security through obscurity. If terrorists are unable to take pictures with their own cameras immediately, they are permanently thwarted from their nefarious acts!

Also, in my world the sky is green.


/Watch out, Department of Education! He was able to take pictures without an eagle-eyed post office cop stopping him!
//Put the building  underground or in North Dakota if you want people to refrain from taking pictures of it.
 
2014-07-20 10:18:15 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos


But cops ask for driver's licenses which is exactly like a requirement to have internal travel permission documents!

And free speech is gone because you cannot roads and stuff.

Wake up sheeple.

/dnrtfa
 
2014-07-20 10:18:31 AM  

Kibbler: And nothing bad can ever come out of an extended period of chaos.  You don't ever see bad things coalescing and gradually growing worse during a 13-year-period of chaos.  No, eventually, things right themselves and we're all happy again and the bad stuff goes away, and we think, well we certainly feel foolish for worrying, now that the trains run on time and our national pride has been restored.


Ok when the Sicherheitsdienst starts coming to take people in the middle of the night we can start godwinning.  Until then please calm down.  The photographer was asked to leave not sentenced to hard labor.

BEING ASKED TO LEAVE IS NOT WHAT POLICE STATES DO.
 
2014-07-20 10:20:26 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Kibbler: And nothing bad can ever come out of an extended period of chaos.  You don't ever see bad things coalescing and gradually growing worse during a 13-year-period of chaos.  No, eventually, things right themselves and we're all happy again and the bad stuff goes away, and we think, well we certainly feel foolish for worrying, now that the trains run on time and our national pride has been restored.

Ok when the Sicherheitsdienst starts coming to take people in the middle of the night we can start godwinning.  Until then please calm down.  The photographer was asked to leave not sentenced to hard labor.

BEING ASKED TO LEAVE IS NOT WHAT POLICE STATES DO.



It is what crossing guard states do!
www.riversideca.gov
 
MFK
2014-07-20 10:21:31 AM  

Curious: for any if you who say stopping photographers is ok, "it's a post 9/11 world" or are apathetic about it

fark YOU.

in my life time we have gone from the anti war, kent state standing up for our rights to some pussy "mommy the bad guy is out there" attitude. shame on you.


This.

Seriously.
 
2014-07-20 10:22:06 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Not to sound racist, but notice how all of these security goons also happen to be of the blah persuasion? Seems that if you ever encounter a blah security guard, you're going to have a bad time.

[static2.wikia.nocookie.net image 670x695]



What about meh security guards in California and Texas?
 
2014-07-20 10:22:08 AM  

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


LOL WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CARRYING LETHAL WEAPONS AROUND LIKE A CRANKY TODDLER AND EXERCISING FREE SPEECH

ALSO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAKING THE PUBLIC UNCOMFORTABLE WITH MURDER TOYS AND IRRITATING A GOVERNMENT THAT SUPPOSEDLY ANSWERS TO US WITH A NONLETHAL CAMERA

You may have also missed the point where the person was there getting photos for a specific other article which is linked to at the bottom of the page.
 
2014-07-20 10:22:21 AM  
It should be legal to hunt photographers for sport.

Some of them have expensive gear; you could sell it on eBay.
 
2014-07-20 10:23:00 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: SauronWasFramed: old news is old.....we live in a police state.

the reporter is lucky he didn't get Rodney King'ed

You live in a police state only if you're paranoid and feel oppressed.  That says volumes about you.


Yeah! You shut up and go away, guy! It's only a police state once the upper middle class is uncomfortable!
 
2014-07-20 10:24:16 AM  
I'm calling bullshiat on his version of events. At all these places the cops are well used to people taking photographs and you have to be acting pretty out of the ordinary for the police to even ask you what you're doing let alone ask you to leave.
 
2014-07-20 10:25:09 AM  

FnkyTwn: Reporter seems like a total douchebag. "Im only taking a picture of a public sidewalk".. meanwhile public sidewalk is lined with massive security barriers.

"An ARMED Bike Cop approached me!"... really? An armed police officer?

And I know this guy makes it seem like he only took a single snapshot of these places, but something tells me he was being a total douche about it since his dumb article doesn't really focus on ugly architecture at all, and instead is just a series of entrances and barriers.

Im all for taking pics and video of cops when they're arresting somebody, but Im not too keen on trolling security around government buildings because Im not 14 years old with a skateboard.


This and for a supposed overbearing authoritarian state the reporter sure has his freedom and lots of photos.

Security shooed away a loitering troll. Good for them.
 
2014-07-20 10:25:50 AM  

Target Builder: I'm calling bullshiat on his version of events. At all these places the cops are well used to people taking photographs and you have to be acting pretty out of the ordinary for the police to even ask you what you're doing let alone ask you to leave.


I took pictures inside the Smithsonian and I didn't even get locked in a concentration camp.  Can you believe it?
 
2014-07-20 10:27:00 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos


"

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement."

or

"A country where the police watch what you do and try to control your life. Where there's cameras in town centres and on public transport. Where you can be arrested because of something you said to a friend about the leaders of your country. Where police stop and search people for no reason. Where you can be detained without charge or trial. Where the state plants bugs with impunity. Where protesters have to get police permits, and where police regularly attack protesters. "

Want to try that again?
 
2014-07-20 10:28:05 AM  
Note: If you are an average tourist taking one or two pictures of the building from the sidewalk, no one will stop you, they won't even notice you.

If you are someone carrying professional photography equipment taking dozens of pictures of the building from multiple angles, including points of entry and exit and defensive barriers, you will make security nervous, and they will ask you to leave.
 
2014-07-20 10:28:10 AM  
Seriously though, somebody needs to organized a mass-photographing of those buildings.
 
2014-07-20 10:28:25 AM  
Seems like the security guys are in a no win situation. Yeah it seems ridiculous to hassle someone for taking pictures, but these guys read the same articles about second amendment solutions that we do. They read the articles about terrorist plots and homemade bombs. They hear about the anger towards the government and remember 9/11 and Oklahoma City.

Also how often do you think people wander up on their own, not part of a tour, and take pictures of the entrances of government buildings? I'm 100% willing to bet it doesn't happen much. I'd be a little suspicious too.

At the same time the reporters camera is always given back, they are never  detained long and the worst they get is told less than politely to leave.

Can complain about living in a police state for sure, and there is a lot out there to use to make that argument. This article isn't amongst them though.
 
2014-07-20 10:29:52 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.


You need to watch The Lives of Others.  America has become East Germany, but thanks for playing.
 
2014-07-20 10:29:58 AM  
Obviously the woman is an inter-agency spy, sent to count the number of cameras on the building taking pictures of photographers.

The FBI doesn't want to be embarrassed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development having newer, cooler cameras on the outside of the building that don't require a dial up modem to send the data. Guards should have asked two questions: A. Are you a disgrunted former employee B. Are you a spy from another federal agency C. Am I on Fark?
Why the girl didn't offer to do a selfie with him is obvious. He knew he was on camera and would be teased the rest of the day.
 
2014-07-20 10:31:11 AM  
A SpongeBob mailbox?  Super spiffy.

Though it's kinda odd to see SpongeBob's happy face located in the designated smoking area.
 
2014-07-20 10:32:34 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Ok when the Sicherheitsdienst starts coming to take people in the middle of the night we can start godwinning.


The CIA have been abducting people from their homes in the night for nearly 15 years, but they're brown and not Americans so they don't count to you huh?
 
2014-07-20 10:35:17 AM  

Hiro-ACiD: You need to watch The Lives of Others. America has become East Germany, but thanks for playing.


I love that movie, and we're nowhere near that.

Remember, in that film the police planted a listening device in his home without any need for a warrant in order to listen to every word he said, and were going to arrest him for writing a play that had anti-government sentiments.

Security guards around government buildings telling you to please leave isn't exactly the same thing.
 
2014-07-20 10:35:58 AM  

Hiro-ACiD: Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

You need to watch The Lives of Others.  America has become East Germany, but thanks for playing.


Obama is not in your attic watching you masturbate and reading your Berthold Brecht poetry

John the Magnificent: A country where the police watch what you do and try to control your life. Where there's cameras in town centres and on public transport. Where you can be arrested because of something you said to a friend about the leaders of your country. Where police stop and search people for no reason. Where you can be detained without charge or trial. Where the state plants bugs with impunity. Where protesters have to get police permits, and where police regularly attack protesters. "


 To say that police powers in this country have not edged towards abusive in the past decade or so would not be incorrect however the idea that the USA is even close to the repression shown in Warsaw Pact countries during the Cold War or even China today is f*cking laughable.
 
2014-07-20 10:38:00 AM  

John the Magnificent: The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement."


So every place since the dawn of time was a police state.

Nice definition there.

Thrag get kicked out of chief's hut after screaming at him during his dinner. Thrag no like police state limitations on his mobility and freedom of speech!

The second one is even better: any state in which government buildings have any security cameras is a police state.
 
2014-07-20 10:38:14 AM  

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


Basically this.

Sure, in theory you're allowed to take photos there. That doesn't mean security appreciates it.

And you're probably protected under the first amendment to give cops the finger all day long, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Anonymous Bosch: You may have also missed the point where the person was there getting photos for a specific other article which is linked to at the bottom of the page.


A lot of the photos he was taking, for example of building entrances, had nothing to do with architecture.

If he had merely photographed relevant architectural features, and if questioned had explained why he was there, I doubt the police and security people would have cared much. But he was intentionally acting like a douchebag.

So imagine this: douchebag shows up and takes photos of a building. Security decides "just some douchebag" and ignores them. And then the DB uses their apathy to compromise security. They don't screw around.

Also, the resulting article is a POS written by a hack who likely knows f*ck-all about architecture, especially the specific movements and styles that resulted in those buildings.

Imagine if someone wrote an extensive article about "OMG, look at the dumb sh*t people were wearing in the 60's and 70's!!!1", everyone would say, "Duh, who f*cking cares? Styles change." Guess what, same thing happens in architecture.

If you want a proper take on the forces that have shaped what DC's architecture is today, read this guy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI20 05 032400526.html

Or search for him on this site, and listen to past shows featuring him:

http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2014-07-17/shaping-city-gsa

But please, don't feed the hack/troll writers at BuzzFeed.
 
2014-07-20 10:41:06 AM  
Everyone who argued with me in this thread is being reported at my local ministry of information office.
 
2014-07-20 10:42:21 AM  

Hiro-ACiD: Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

You need to watch The Lives of Others.  America has become East Germany, but thanks for playing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others

Explain.

In 1984  , officer Gerd Wiesler is assigned to spy on playwright Georg Dreyman. Wiesler and his team bug the apartment, set up surveillance equipment in an attic and begin reporting Dreyman's activities. Dreyman had escaped state scrutiny due to his pro-Communist views and international recognition. Wiesler soon learns the real reason behind the surveillance: Minister of Culture Bruno Hempf covets Dreyman's girlfriend, actress Christa-Maria Sieland, and is trying to eliminate his rival. While Wiesler's boss, Grubitz, sees an opportunity for advancement, Wiesler, an idealist, is horrified. Through his surveillance, Wiesler knows Dreyman and Sieland are in love. Minister Hempf uses Sieland's vulnerability as an insecure actress whose livelihood is dependent on state approval of stagecraft to coerce her into having sex with him. After discovering Sieland's relationship with Hempf, Dreyman implores her not to meet him again. Sieland flees to a nearby bar where Wiesler, posing as a fan, urges her to be true to herself. She returns home and reconciles with Dreyman, rejecting Hempf. etc etc.

Where is such a thing happening, and is it legal?

It isn't and it isn't?  In fact is it not true that our motion picture industry freely makes any kind of movies they want and aren't in any way harassed or censured by the overarching socialist state?

I haven't watched the movie, but from the plot description I don't see wtf you are talking about.
 
2014-07-20 10:44:56 AM  

nmrsnr: Note: If you are an average tourist taking one or two pictures of the building from the sidewalk, no one will stop you, they won't even notice you.

If you are someone carrying professional photography equipment taking dozens of pictures of the building from multiple angles, including points of entry and exit and defensive barriers, you will make security nervous, and they will ask you to leave.


Even then they not going to bother you unless you're taking photos of people who work at the building or are acting suspiciously in some other way.

The only thing that'll really get their attention is if you're clearly trying to photograph security equipment
 
2014-07-20 10:49:48 AM  
"Well it may be an oppressive state we live in but it's not a super-tee-duper-fascist police state yet."

"Oh. Okay, good. I guess we should just all go home and wait for that. Should I get my cancer treated now, you think?"

"Nah, it's not even metastasizing yet. Give it a year, dude."

"Cool."
 
2014-07-20 10:49:57 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Kibbler: And nothing bad can ever come out of an extended period of chaos.  You don't ever see bad things coalescing and gradually growing worse during a 13-year-period of chaos.  No, eventually, things right themselves and we're all happy again and the bad stuff goes away, and we think, well we certainly feel foolish for worrying, now that the trains run on time and our national pride has been restored.

Ok when the Sicherheitsdienst starts coming to take people in the middle of the night we can start godwinning.  Until then please calm down.  The photographer was asked to leave not sentenced to hard labor.

BEING ASKED TO LEAVE IS NOT WHAT POLICE STATES DO.


You're the one who's shouting.  And statements like, "You can't take pictures of this door" are not requests.

calmer-n-you-are.jpg
 
2014-07-20 10:50:40 AM  

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


Done in one.

Basically the equivalent of the kid being told that they cannot touch their sibling so they hold their finger an inch away saying "I am not touching you", then act oblivious when they get chastised for it.  When you think about all the extremist idiots out there foreign and domestic out there who want to do harm to the symbols of the U.S. Government, this is unexpected if you do such things.  Post 9-11 guards are trained to be on the lookout for such activities.  I have a feeling that if no guards confronted the photographer, the article would be about how crappy the security at these buildings are and how easy it is for terrorists to get intelligence on these buildings.
 
2014-07-20 10:50:47 AM  
The photog was trying to get approached, and he succeeded.  I'll bet if I set out to do it, I could end up running down the street with police running behind me.  When they catch me I will have nothing illegal in my possession and won't have done anything except run from police who had no basis to arrest me.  Then I could publish my account on the internet.  All it would really show is that I have the intellectual power to manipulate police into being suspicious of me. That isn't really a great accomplishment.
 
2014-07-20 10:52:46 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Anonymous Bosch: "Well it may be an oppressive state we live in but it's not a super-tee-duper-fascist police state yet."

"Oh. Okay, good. I guess we should just all go home and wait for that. Should I get my cancer treated now, you think?"

"Nah, it's not even metastasizing yet. Give it a year, dude."

"Cool."


Reported
 
2014-07-20 10:52:51 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Not to sound racist, but notice how all of these security goons also happen to be of the blah persuasion? Seems that if you ever encounter a blah security guard, you're going to have a bad time.

[static2.wikia.nocookie.net image 670x695]


...since it doesn't really matter what comes after that first phrase, ever, because you've already stepped in it. How can anyone not know that?

Kibbler: Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos

And nothing bad can ever come out of an extended period of chaos.  You don't ever see bad things coalescing and gradually growing worse during a 13-year-period of chaos.  No, eventually, things right themselves and we're all happy again and the bad stuff goes away, and we think, well we certainly feel foolish for worrying, now that the trains run on time and our national pride has been restored.


For all that, you're not making much of an argument that we live in a police state. Just, by way of sarcasm, that extended periods of chaos are bad. And no-one was suggesting that it was good.
 
2014-07-20 10:54:24 AM  
Love the apologists in this thread, why the fark have rights if you can't exercize them?


And it's nothing like 2nd amendment, open carry loons- it's about freedom of speech and a free press.



Personally I never leave home without at least two Nikon SLRs sometimes I throw a Canon and Olympus in there too and I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want.
 
2014-07-20 10:54:35 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Everyone who argued with me in this thread is being reported at my local ministry of information office.


If I understand you correctly in this thread, there is a threshold that equates "East Germany" and until we reach that precise threshold, everyone is a paranoid idiot who should just calm the f*ck down.  Never mind whether things that happen today would not have been tolerated in 2000--paranoid idiots who should just calm the f*ck down.  When they start shooting us for trying to cross the border into Mexico, then we can complain.

(Except that, at that point, we can't.)
 
2014-07-20 10:59:11 AM  

Kibbler: Doktor_Zhivago: Everyone who argued with me in this thread is being reported at my local ministry of information office.

If I understand you correctly in this thread, there is a threshold that equates "East Germany" and until we reach that precise threshold, everyone is a paranoid idiot who should just calm the f*ck down.  Never mind whether things that happen today would not have been tolerated in 2000--paranoid idiots who should just calm the f*ck down.  When they start shooting us for trying to cross the border into Mexico, then we can complain.

(Except that, at that point, we can't.)


No one is coming to get you. That's the point
 
2014-07-20 10:59:12 AM  

DrBenway: TV's Vinnie: Not to sound racist, but notice how all of these security goons also happen to be of the blah persuasion? Seems that if you ever encounter a blah security guard, you're going to have a bad time.

[static2.wikia.nocookie.net image 670x695]

...since it doesn't really matter what comes after that first phrase, ever, because you've already stepped in it. How can anyone not know that?

Kibbler: Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos

And nothing bad can ever come out of an extended period of chaos.  You don't ever see bad things coalescing and gradually growing worse during a 13-year-period of chaos.  No, eventually, things right themselves and we're all happy again and the bad stuff goes away, and we think, well we certainly feel foolish for worrying, now that the trains run on time and our national pride has been restored.

For all that, you're not making much of an argument that we live in a police state. Just, by way of sarcasm, that extended periods of chaos are bad. And no-one was suggesting that it was good.


I didn't say we lived in a police state.  I said we live in a surveillance state, but it has actually gone beyond surveillance, it is now a knee-jerk reflex that anyone taking pictures of a building is "suspicious" because we live in a "post 9/11 world."

The phrase "police state" is loaded, as Zhivago makes clear, because it's too easy to say "totally non-American repressive Stalinist regime, i.e., East Germany."

There's a broad continuum between a society that is generally considered to be open and free, and one that is a Stalinist slave state.  Not actually reaching the "Stalinist slave state" point does not mean that everything is hunky dory (at least, as far as I'm concerned).  You say "And no-one was suggesting that it was good," but to my interpretation, there were comments in this thread along the lines of "paranoid pants-pissers should stop pissing their pants, nothing to worry about."  Maybe I misinterpreted those remarks; maybe others misinterpreted my remarks; maybe some of both; maybe neither.

There are (to my mind) things going on that are far worse than dim-witted security guards shooing away people with cameras from buildings that matter to absolutely nobody; but it is a symptom, and a bad one, again, in my opinion.
 
2014-07-20 10:59:56 AM  

TEA-PARTY-PATRIOT: Love the apologists in this thread, why the fark have rights if you can't exercize them?


And it's nothing like 2nd amendment, open carry loons- it's about freedom of speech and a free press.


Personally I never leave home without at least two Nikon SLRs sometimes I throw a Canon and Olympus in there too and I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want.


Unless you're one of those people who think cameras steal your soul a camera isn't going to kill you. However if you make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious it's gonna draw security attention. Likewise if you want to openly display a rifle.
 
2014-07-20 11:01:46 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Kibbler: Doktor_Zhivago: Everyone who argued with me in this thread is being reported at my local ministry of information office.

If I understand you correctly in this thread, there is a threshold that equates "East Germany" and until we reach that precise threshold, everyone is a paranoid idiot who should just calm the f*ck down.  Never mind whether things that happen today would not have been tolerated in 2000--paranoid idiots who should just calm the f*ck down.  When they start shooting us for trying to cross the border into Mexico, then we can complain.

(Except that, at that point, we can't.)

No one is coming to get you. That's the point


Can you point out specifically where I said someone is coming to get me?
 
2014-07-20 11:03:42 AM  
Washington, D.C. was built on a stagnant swamp some 200 years ago. It stank then, and it stinks now.

/Still wonder what Mr. Johnson isn't telling us though
 
2014-07-20 11:04:19 AM  

TEA-PARTY-PATRIOT: Love the apologists in this thread, why the fark have rights if you can't exercize them?


And it's nothing like 2nd amendment, open carry loons- it's about freedom of speech and a free press.


Personally I never leave home without at least two Nikon SLRs sometimes I throw a Canon and Olympus in there too and I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want.



There is no sporting purpose for multi-shot cameras. Carry one of these around next time.
media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com
 
2014-07-20 11:04:41 AM  

Fart_Machine: TEA-PARTY-PATRIOT: Love the apologists in this thread, why the fark have rights if you can't exercize them?


And it's nothing like 2nd amendment, open carry loons- it's about freedom of speech and a free press.


Personally I never leave home without at least two Nikon SLRs sometimes I throw a Canon and Olympus in there too and I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want.

Unless you're one of those people who think cameras steal your soul a camera isn't going to kill you. However if you make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious it's gonna draw security attention. Likewise if you want to openly display a rifle.


How do you use a camera to make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious while taking photographs of a public building from a public sidewalk, a building that is part of an agency that has posted that there is no problem with taking photos?  Any examples?
 
2014-07-20 11:11:06 AM  

Kibbler: How do you use a camera to make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious while taking photographs of a public building from a public sidewalk, a building that is part of an agency that has posted that there is no problem with taking photos? Any examples?


If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave.  Come by and snap a photo on your phone?  Nobody is going to notice but the author of this piece had a story to pitch so that wasn't going to do.
 
2014-07-20 11:15:41 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos


Let's compare, shall we:

What agency listens to your phone calls?

What happens if you drive while black in a white neighborhood?

What happens to the girl that doesn't obey the police for breaking a curfew?

Who is exempt from disrobing at the airport?

No, the government monitors your calls, monitors your emails, can track your every movement and knows where you are because you have a smart phone, can send you a ticket for making a right turn on red after stop, etc...

And if you are the unfortunate sap to be on the wrong end of a typo on a search warrant, you can end up D-E-A-D

/things I have learned on FARK by reading greenlights
 
2014-07-20 11:29:00 AM  
What got me was the disconnect between the PR people saying "No problem taking pictures. Totes legal" and the reality when the photog/reporter tested that claim.

People calling the photog a Dbag who deserved this treatment are flat out not getting it.
 
2014-07-20 11:31:51 AM  
Huh, I was in DC taking shiatloads of pictures about three weeks ago.  No one tried to stop me.
 
2014-07-20 11:33:25 AM  

Fart_Machine: Kibbler: How do you use a camera to make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious while taking photographs of a public building from a public sidewalk, a building that is part of an agency that has posted that there is no problem with taking photos? Any examples?

If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave.  Come by and snap a photo on your phone?  Nobody is going to notice but the author of this piece had a story to pitch so that wasn't going to do.


Well I'm done with this thread after this.  We have two statements.

"If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave."

And

"Personally I never leave home without at least two Nikon SLRs sometimes I throw a Canon and Olympus in there too and I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want. "

"I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want. "

"I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want. "
 
2014-07-20 11:35:33 AM  

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


Wrong.

A camera is not the same thing as a gun. Go be scared somewhere else.
 
2014-07-20 11:39:56 AM  

Kibbler: Fart_Machine: Kibbler: How do you use a camera to make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious while taking photographs of a public building from a public sidewalk, a building that is part of an agency that has posted that there is no problem with taking photos? Any examples?

If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave.  Come by and snap a photo on your phone?  Nobody is going to notice but the author of this piece had a story to pitch so that wasn't going to do.

Well I'm done with this thread after this.  We have two statements.

"If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave."

And

"Personally I never leave home without at least two Nikon SLRs sometimes I throw a Canon and Olympus in there too and I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want. "

"I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want. "

"I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want. "


i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-07-20 11:40:24 AM  

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....


Yeah, the nerve that asshole. Doing something legal on purpose like that.
 
2014-07-20 11:45:17 AM  

TEA-PARTY-PATRIOT: Love the apologists in this thread, why the fark have rights if you can't exercize them?


And it's nothing like 2nd amendment, open carry loons- it's about freedom of speech and a free press.


Personally I never leave home without at least two Nikon SLRs sometimes I throw a Canon and Olympus in there too and I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want.


* Opens bag of Purina Troll Chow *

In many cases, security will come out and talk to people photographing entrances that are usually designated "employee only" because they cannot tell if the subject is:

A) A completely befuddled tourist
B) A stalker capturing the day to day movements of the object of obsession
C) An ex spouse/lover looking for the easiest way to gain access to the building
D) A reporter for some internet based "publication" that the guard may not have ever heard of

Considering how easy it is to use a color printer and Photoshop to make a press card and list the name of some website as your employer, D) can look suspicious.  Any responsible security guard will come out, ask what you're up to and if they don't like the answer, will request the assistance of the guys that are allowed guns and possess badges with the authority to detain you.

Why?  Let's look at the statistics from 2002 to 2011, as provided by the Bureau of Justice:

In 2011, about 1 in 5 victims of workplace homicide was a government employee.
From 2002 to 2011, the annual average rate of simple assault in the workplace against government employees (18.9 per 1,000) was more than three times that of private-sector employees (4.6 per 1,000).
Serious violent crime accounted for a larger percentage of workplace violence against private-sector employees (25%) than government employees (15%).
From 2002 to 2011, about 96% of workplace violence against government employees was against state, county, and local employees, who made up 81% of the total government workforce.
Male government employees were more likely than female government employees to face a stranger in an incident of workplace violence from 2002 to 2011.
From 2002 to 2011, female government employees were more likely than male government employees to be attacked in the workplace by someone with whom they had a work relationship.

So, perhaps now it's understandable why security has issues with someone that claims to be studying the architecture of government buildings but chooses to focus on things like entrances and barricades?
 
2014-07-20 11:45:50 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Hiro-ACiD: Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

You need to watch The Lives of Others.  America has become East Germany, but thanks for playing.

Obama is not in your attic watching you masturbate and reading your Berthold Brecht poetry

John the Magnificent: A country where the police watch what you do and try to control your life. Where there's cameras in town centres and on public transport. Where you can be arrested because of something you said to a friend about the leaders of your country. Where police stop and search people for no reason. Where you can be detained without charge or trial. Where the state plants bugs with impunity. Where protesters have to get police permits, and where police regularly attack protesters. "

 To say that police powers in this country have not edged towards abusive in the past decade or so would not be incorrect however the idea that the USA is even close to the repression shown in Warsaw Pact countries during the Cold War or even China today is f*cking laughable.


Who the FARK said that it had to approach those standards to be a Police State?  You are under constant surveillance by the NSA and now citizens of your country can no longer even take pictures of public buildings without being rousted by police.

Where do you think the Warsaw Pact countries and China started?
 
2014-07-20 11:48:47 AM  

Kibbler: Doktor_Zhivago: Everyone who argued with me in this thread is being reported at my local ministry of information office.

If I understand you correctly in this thread, there is a threshold that equates "East Germany" and until we reach that precise threshold, everyone is a paranoid idiot who should just calm the f*ck down.  Never mind whether things that happen today would not have been tolerated in 2000--paranoid idiots who should just calm the f*ck down.  When they start shooting us for trying to cross the border into Mexico, then we can complain.

(Except that, at that point, we can't.)


Why bother going all the way to Mexico?

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-20 11:53:04 AM  

Praise Cheesus: TEA-PARTY-PATRIOT: Love the apologists in this thread, why the fark have rights if you can't exercize them?


And it's nothing like 2nd amendment, open carry loons- it's about freedom of speech and a free press.


Personally I never leave home without at least two Nikon SLRs sometimes I throw a Canon and Olympus in there too and I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want.

* Opens bag of Purina Troll Chow *

In many cases, security will come out and talk to people photographing entrances that are usually designated "employee only" because they cannot tell if the subject is:

A) A completely befuddled tourist
B) A stalker capturing the day to day movements of the object of obsession
C) An ex spouse/lover looking for the easiest way to gain access to the building
D) A reporter for some internet based "publication" that the guard may not have ever heard of

Considering how easy it is to use a color printer and Photoshop to make a press card and list the name of some website as your employer, D) can look suspicious.  Any responsible security guard will come out, ask what you're up to and if they don't like the answer, will request the assistance of the guys that are allowed guns and possess badges with the authority to detain you.

Why?  Let's look at the statistics from 2002 to 2011, as provided by the Bureau of Justice:

In 2011, about 1 in 5 victims of workplace homicide was a government employee.
From 2002 to 2011, the annual average rate of simple assault in the workplace against government employees (18.9 per 1,000) was more than three times that of private-sector employees (4.6 per 1,000).
Serious violent crime accounted for a larger percentage of workplace violence against private-sector employees (25%) than government employees (15%).
From 2002 to 2011, about 96% of workplace violence against government employees was against state, county, and local employees, who made up 81% of the total government workforce.
Male government employees we ...


Congratulations.

Your "Good Citizen" badge is waiting at reception.  Just turn in your copy of the Constitution and it will be yours to wear with pride.


Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
 
2014-07-20 11:58:38 AM  
"You are suspicious, and we are in a post-9/11 world," he said.

So when do we go back to being a free country?
 
2014-07-20 12:04:43 PM  

quatchi: What got me was the disconnect between the PR people saying "No problem taking pictures. Totes legal" and the reality when the photog/reporter tested that claim.

People calling the photog a Dbag who deserved this treatment are flat out not getting it.


Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people take photos of these buildings every year without incident - but then most of them don't make a point of photographing the people who work there or of all the visible security features on the building.
 
2014-07-20 12:10:07 PM  

John the Magnificent: Congratulations.
Your "Good Citizen" badge is waiting at reception. Just turn in your copy of the Constitution and it will be yours to wear with pride.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.


Yes, because being a "good citizen" is something to be frowned upon, and Jefferson was totes the only founder of the nation we should listen to.

Why don't all you retards go move to some middle eastern country for a few years, then come back home to the USA when you've learned to appreciate what freedom really is. Hell, Canada doesn't even have freedom of the press.

Morons in this thread with their First World Oppressive Regime Problems.
 
2014-07-20 12:13:40 PM  

Kibbler: Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos

And nothing bad can ever come out of an extended period of chaos.  You don't ever see bad things coalescing and gradually growing worse during a 13-year-period of chaos.  No, eventually, things right themselves and we're all happy again and the bad stuff goes away, and we think, well we certainly feel foolish for worrying, now that the trains run on time and our national pride has been restored.


Playing Civilization are we?
 
2014-07-20 12:14:18 PM  

Fart_Machine: Kibbler: How do you use a camera to make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious while taking photographs of a public building from a public sidewalk, a building that is part of an agency that has posted that there is no problem with taking photos? Any examples?

If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave.  Come by and snap a photo on your phone?  Nobody is going to notice but the author of this piece had a story to pitch so that wasn't going to do.


What happened to asking permission? When I was really into photography if I was going to be shooting in front if a building or part of a building, it took like 30 seconds to go up to the security guard, tell them what's up, and ask if it's cool to take pictures. Never once got turned down or harassed, and a couple of times the security guards helped out keeping pedestrians out of the shot.

/Or is asking permission another hallmark of the police state?
//And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch about the guards stopping people on the sidewalk, all they did was point out a photo shoot was going on and ask the pedestrians to go around or wait a few seconds till I got the shot
 
2014-07-20 12:15:00 PM  
Good job, schmucks. You got complacent with it. Let it not bother you. Of course they harassed a person doing a thing that is not just legal but constitutionally protected. Why would they not? It's the way things are and you have to deal with it. Speaking to what Curious said upthread: now you're the people who said the kids at Kent State "should've known better." You're my old Republcan aunt who said the Tiananmen Square protesters "shouldn't have been there." You're every bitter, stupid old fool who let it all slip away from you because you're comfortable now, and making things right means you might have to be uncomfortable at some point. This. Writer. Did not. Do. Anything. Wrong. And you assholes are sitting here blaming the victim because they should've known better than to try and do something they were permitted to do. Good job!

All of this is on you. All this stupidity and lazy defense of stupidity. You're defending the state for surrounding, threatening, and temporarily seizing the camera of a person taking photos of public property in a public space because hey! They might've been using their rights in a way that you and the state don't approve of. And if that's the threshold, guess what? You don't have any rights. You just think you're free because you're a particularly uncreative slave.
 
2014-07-20 12:15:29 PM  

Cataholic: I'm sure countless numbers of tourists take photos in front of these buildings every day.  Yet, we never seem to read anyone else complain about being harassed for doing so.  I wonder what this particular photographer did differently to attract their attention.


How many are alone, or have decent equipment? Bet you could get the guards to take your picture if you were an attractive or an elderly couple!
 
2014-07-20 12:21:29 PM  
These security guards have to justify the existence of their jobs somehow. My neighbor's dog barks at every single passerby, vehicle and bird that flies into its yard, and even when there's no threat, it just sits and barks like a pop-off valve. Same principle. But one day, I'm gonna get fed up and turn that dog off.
 
2014-07-20 12:32:12 PM  

FnkyTwn: John the Magnificent: Congratulations.
Your "Good Citizen" badge is waiting at reception. Just turn in your copy of the Constitution and it will be yours to wear with pride.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Yes, because being a "good citizen" is something to be frowned upon, and Jefferson was totes the only founder of the nation we should listen to.

Why don't all you retards go move to some middle eastern country for a few years, then come back home to the USA when you've learned to appreciate what freedom really is. Hell, Canada doesn't even have freedom of the press.

Morons in this thread with their First World Oppressive Regime Problems.


When being a Good Citizen means blindly submitting to authority, regardless of what the laws and even the constitution of your country says, then yes... it is something to be frowned on.  And pointed at.  And laughed at.

Seeing that I am a Canadian and I work in the "press", I am getting a kick out of your comment.  Unlike your country, the media is not allowed to lie about something to promote a political or personal agenda (ie Corporate Profits) but all in all we are pretty free up here.  At least I can take pictures of buildings without being rousted by the police, so there is that.

Please do not confuse what you hear on Fox News with facts.  They are not.

Plus name calling simply highlights your lack of the ability to make a cogent argument.

img.fark.net

This man is not meant to be a role model.
 
2014-07-20 12:34:00 PM  

quatchi: What got me was the disconnect between the PR people saying "No problem taking pictures. Totes legal" and the reality when the photog/reporter tested that claim.

People calling the photog a Dbag who deserved this treatment are flat out not getting it.


The only angle from which I can see anything to suspect the photographer's motives here is this:

FnkyTwn: Reporter seems like a total douchebag. "Im only taking a picture of a public sidewalk".. meanwhile public sidewalk is lined with massive security barriers.

"An ARMED Bike Cop approached me!"... really? An armed police officer?

And I know this guy makes it seem like he only took a single snapshot of these places, but something tells me he was being a total douche about it since his dumb article doesn't really focus on ugly architecture at all, and instead is just a series of entrances and barriers.


However, he really was taking photos for an "Ugly Buildings" feature, which can be seen here (it's actually linked from the page under discussion in this thread, though it doesn't appear as though very many people went there), and if photographing is not prohibited, then there's really no reason why his credentials should not have been adequate to clear up any suspicions.
 
2014-07-20 12:36:47 PM  
It was a ruse. The quest was to take pictures of ugly security guards. The ugly buildings thing was a scam.
 
2014-07-20 12:46:04 PM  
FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR


ARE YOU SCARED YET!??!? WHY ARE YOU NOT YOU SCARED?!?!?

Reporter butts heads with several extremely bored and paranoid minimum wage high school dropouts who are working one of the crappiest and least interesting jobs in existence.

News at 11.

The "we are in a post 9/11 world" line should have been the headline. Grow the fark up America.
 
2014-07-20 12:46:18 PM  

Cataholic: I'm sure countless numbers of tourists take photos in front of these buildings every day.  Yet, we never seem to read anyone else complain about being harassed for doing so.  I wonder what this particular photographer did differently to attract their attention.


He wasn't taking pictures of the fronts.
And he wasn't dressed or acting like a tourist.

He was taking pictures of the backs and sides of buildings that had no aesthetic appeal.
 
2014-07-20 12:47:05 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos

Yeah, it's chaos, but it's beyond that. It's paranoia mixed with strutting bravado mixed with a total breakdown in communication.

My favorite bit about this whole circus was a few years ago when a news crew was filming at DC's Union Station. They were interviewing Amtrak's head of security, and just as he was saying that people are free to use cameras in train stations, a security guard walks up and tells the crew they can't film there. Even when confronted with who was standing in front of him (his boss's boss to the  nth power) he still wouldn't back down.
 
2014-07-20 12:52:08 PM  

T-Boy: The photog was trying to get approached, and he succeeded.  I'll bet if I set out to do it, I could end up running down the street with police running behind me.  When they catch me I will have nothing illegal in my possession and won't have done anything except run from police who had no basis to arrest me.  Then I could publish my account on the internet.  All it would really show is that I have the intellectual power to manipulate police into being suspicious of me. That isn't really a great accomplishment.


You have to understand. A lot of Americans are under the firm belief that the level of suspicion that should be required for police to interact with the public is roughly at the same level as that required for criminal conviction, and that any use of force by police with less is hitler reincarnated.
 
2014-07-20 12:57:55 PM  

quatchi: People calling the photog a Dbag who deserved this treatment are flat out not getting it.


Can we not both think he is a dbag and think that the concern over pictures being taken is a little over the top?  This guy wasn't arrested, his photos weren't seized, nobody used any force on him besides "ok sir, time to keep moving" on him.

/meh.
 
2014-07-20 12:58:14 PM  

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


In other words, don't even think about exercising your rights "just because".  Just like if you dress provocatively (we'll decide post facto what that is), you're asking for it.

It never ceases to amaze me the degree to which some are willing to bend the knee to authoritarian dickwads.
 
2014-07-20 12:59:32 PM  

Smackledorfer: T-Boy: The photog was trying to get approached, and he succeeded.  I'll bet if I set out to do it, I could end up running down the street with police running behind me.  When they catch me I will have nothing illegal in my possession and won't have done anything except run from police who had no basis to arrest me.  Then I could publish my account on the internet.  All it would really show is that I have the intellectual power to manipulate police into being suspicious of me. That isn't really a great accomplishment.

You have to understand. A lot of Americans are under the firm belief that the level of suspicion that should be required for police to interact with the public is roughly at the same level as that required for criminal conviction, and that any use of force by police with less is hitler reincarnated.



And you have to understand that the police had every right to inquire about what this person was doing.  They had NO RIGHT to run the person off or threaten him.  They were free to ask, and then to monitor the situation, but they had absolutely no right to enforce something that existed only in their minds.

When the police start making up the rules, as every single one of these ones did, that is the beginning of a Police State,.  When the Police decide what is allowable and what is not, regardless of the Law or even what their bosses are saying, that  is the beginning of a Police State.

And that is exactly what happened here.  Several times.
 
2014-07-20 01:01:15 PM  

Cataholic: I'm sure countless numbers of tourists take photos in front of these buildings every day.  Yet, we never seem to read anyone else complain about being harassed for doing so.  I wonder what this particular photographer did differently to attract their attention.


How would we even be made aware it was happening to tourists? For all we know, pointing a camera at a federal building is enough to get anyone at all run off by hired goons. The only reason we know here is that this guy has a publication and a readership.
 
2014-07-20 01:01:26 PM  

John the Magnificent: and now citizens of your country can no longer even take pictures of public buildings without being rousted by police.


Yes you can.  I do the tourist thing from time to time and never have a problem. I also don't deliberately make myself suspicious so I can get lots of attention and write an article about it.

Not that anything you said can be taken seriously after your defining of police state on the first page. Nothing short of somalia would satisfy your anti-police needs.
 
2014-07-20 01:02:20 PM  

jjorsett: Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....

In other words, don't even think about exercising your rights "just because".  Just like if you dress provocatively (we'll decide post facto what that is), you're asking for it.

It never ceases to amaze me the degree to which some are willing to bend the knee to authoritarian dickwads.


No one is disputing that the guy was allowed to take photos.

But your argument appears to be that furthermore, guards and police and never allowed to ask someone questions or ask them to move along, and doing so makes American some sort of fascist dictatorship. But guess what, they are allowed to ask people to do those things. If the one being asked waives their rights, that's their business.
 
2014-07-20 01:02:22 PM  
My dad's a professional photographer, and he's pretty much incapable of driving by an interesting structure or natural formation without stopping to take pictures of it.  I was with him once in the early '90s when he decided to take pics of the outside of a local office building (from its landscaped patio area). Shortly after he started clicking away, a security guard showed up to shoo us off the property.  He hadn't asked permission beforehand as far as I know, and I agree with glmorrs1 that asking permission is good form. The point is that this is what security guards do, pre- or post-9/11 - it's kind of the essence of the job to be at least a little self-important and power-trippy. If they don't have a gun, then they have to use bluster.

/On the other hand, the two security guards I interacted with last night while staying late at work were perfectly nice.
 
2014-07-20 01:02:50 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Not to sound racist, but notice how all of these security goons also happen to be of the blah persuasion? Seems that if you ever encounter a blah security guard, you're going to have a bad time.

[static2.wikia.nocookie.net image 670x695]


Too late.
 
2014-07-20 01:02:56 PM  

Smackledorfer: quatchi: People calling the photog a Dbag who deserved this treatment are flat out not getting it.

Can we not both think he is a dbag and think that the concern over pictures being taken is a little over the top?  This guy wasn't arrested, his photos weren't seized, nobody used any force on him besides "ok sir, time to keep moving" on him.

/meh.


"I could not take their photos since they had my camera. The four armed guards prevented me from moving or getting on my bike. After calling my boss, and discussing with the guards, I was given my camera back. "Be smarter next time," he said, "and don't take any more photos here."

Enjoy your daily dose of the Kardashians while you can.  It's later than you think.
 
2014-07-20 01:07:52 PM  

John the Magnificent: Smackledorfer: quatchi: People calling the photog a Dbag who deserved this treatment are flat out not getting it.

Can we not both think he is a dbag and think that the concern over pictures being taken is a little over the top?  This guy wasn't arrested, his photos weren't seized, nobody used any force on him besides "ok sir, time to keep moving" on him.

/meh.

"I could not take their photos since they had my camera. The four armed guards prevented me from moving or getting on my bike. After calling my boss, and discussing with the guards, I was given my camera back. "Be smarter next time," he said, "and don't take any more photos here."

Enjoy your daily dose of the Kardashians while you can.  It's later than you think.


You missed a bit yourself there buddy.
 
2014-07-20 01:09:02 PM  

John the Magnificent: And you have to understand that the police had every right to inquire about what this person was doing.


Yes, I said that.

John the Magnificent: They had NO RIGHT to run the person off or threaten him.


Actually, government owned buildings are considered private property, and you can be run off.  I may have to reread the article, but what was anyone threatened with here? If it was the legal consequences of continued trespass subsequent to being asked to leave, then that is, indeed, a legal threat.

You will note at one point he was told he had to go to the other side of the street and that he could take all the pictures he wanted to from there.


John the Magnificent: When the police start making up the rules, as every single one of these ones did, that is the beginning of a Police State,


They didn't make up any rules.

John the Magnificent: When the Police decide what is allowable and what is not, regardless of the Law or even what their bosses are saying, that  is the beginning of a Police State.


They didn't do that either.  Fwiw I would argue police do that sort of thing less now than the good ol' boy police of our grandfathers' days.

 

John the Magnificent: And that is exactly what happened here.  Several times.


Citation please.

I haven't reread the article since this morning, so if I am mis-remembering it, enlighten me.
 
2014-07-20 01:10:54 PM  

John the Magnificent: "I could not take their photos since they had my camera. The four armed guards prevented me from moving or getting on my bike. After calling my boss, and discussing with the guards, I was given my camera back. "Be smarter next time," he said, "and don't take any more photos here."

Enjoy your daily dose of the Kardashians while you can.  It's later than you think.


"After calling my boss, and discussing with the guards, I was given my camera back."


OoooOoo scary, an investigative detention.

It says nothing about seized photos, so I'm going to assume you have a reading disability at this point.
 
2014-07-20 01:14:24 PM  

jjorsett: Cataholic: I'm sure countless numbers of tourists take photos in front of these buildings every day.  Yet, we never seem to read anyone else complain about being harassed for doing so.  I wonder what this particular photographer did differently to attract their attention.

How would we even be made aware it was happening to tourists? For all we know, pointing a camera at a federal building is enough to get anyone at all run off by hired goons. The only reason we know here is that this guy has a publication and a readership.


We would know the same way we knew tourists got hassled shortly after 9/11. They report about it on Facebook, blogs, YouTube, and to their own local media.

Even before that if you hung out in front of an entrance or exit taking pictures of people security would have a few words to say to you. Sort of a big No Duh to anyone who does professional work.
 
2014-07-20 01:16:07 PM  

John the Magnificent: Seeing that I am a Canadian and I work in the "press", I am getting a kick out of your comment. Unlike your country, the media is not allowed to lie about something to promote a political or personal agenda (ie Corporate Profits) but all in all we are pretty free up here. At least I can take pictures of buildings without being rousted by the police, so there is that.


#1 I didn't read your profile and didn't know you were Canadian or with the "press".

#2 Alex Consiglio, a Toronto Star photographer, was arrested at Toronto's Union Station, put into a headlock by a police officer, and ticketed for trespassing. This came after Consiglio had been asked at least twice to stop taking pictures, including pictures of police officers, and to leave the premises.

#3 Jennifer Pawluck arrested for taking photo of graffiti.

#4 Jakub Markiewicz was detained by security guards and arrested by police after filming the violent takedown of a man by security guards at Metrotown shopping mall in Burnaby, B.C.

#5 Then there's this documentary on Canadian press issues.

But I guess overall I was referring to court imposed media blackouts, like when that rapist couple was on trial and there was no news on Canadian TV about it, and US television channels were blacked out when they covered news of the crime or trial. Maybe you guys have made some changes since then.. if so congrats.
 
2014-07-20 01:33:48 PM  

Kibbler: LeoffDaGrate: SauronWasFramed: old news is old.....we live in a police state.

the reporter is lucky he didn't get Rodney King'ed

You live in a police state only if you're paranoid and feel oppressed.  That says volumes about you.

Far be it from me to be caught in the SauronWasFramed Derp-A-Looza camp, but if this comment was accurate:

"You are suspicious, we live in a post 9/11 world,"

what kind of state do you think we live in?  No, the reporter was not arrested, not beaten, didn't have her camera taken away, but a single attack that occurred almost 13 years ago is now an excuse to prevent photographs taken from public sidewalks of public buildings, and there is no law to enforce that, just a "this is a post 9/11 world" that can apparently be used as an excuse for all eternity.


That is pre-WWIII thinking there.
 
2014-07-20 01:43:05 PM  
Headline:I visited seven different government bureaucracies throughout Washington, D.C., so I could photograph how ugly their architecture was

Article: Photographs of building employees and security features.

Introduction: I stood on the public sidewalks in front of the buildings, along with all the other tourists and pedestrians, took pictures, and then hopped on my bike and went to the next building.

Article: Photos taken from off pubic sidewalks and ""I can't have you near the building taking photos. Stay on the sidewalk."

s3-ec.buzzfed.com
 
2014-07-20 01:45:22 PM  

A. Snatchfold: TV's Vinnie: Not to sound racist, but notice how all of these security goons also happen to be of the blah persuasion? Seems that if you ever encounter a blah security guard, you're going to have a bad time.

[static2.wikia.nocookie.net image 670x695]

Too late.


You'll see the truth eventually.
 
2014-07-20 01:57:08 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Not to sound racist, but notice how all of these security goons also happen to be of the blah persuasion? Seems that if you ever encounter a blah security guard, you're going to have a bad time.


What I noticed in at least 2/3 of the cases is that those were not police or Federal officers, they were private security guards. Yep, rentacops. (And just because they had guns doesn't mean they weren't more of the same)

Private security 90% of the time means all of the asshole and none of the accountability of regular police, because they don't answer to anyone except their own company.

So when they get told "watch for suspicious photographers", well, this is what you get: douchebags because reasons.
 
2014-07-20 02:19:53 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos


It's chaos caused by very stupid administrators and fear-mongers.

I walk nearly every day, and always take my cameras with me -- two DSLRs -- just in case I see a neat bird or bug or something. I'm harassed by someone at least once a week, not for photographing them or their property directly, but just for being seen with a SCAAAAARY camera. People who don't directly approach me gossip about me, as I'm seen so often.

The Farktography theme a couple of weeks ago was government buildings. I took some shots of our shiny new local PD, and was stopped and questioned by a cop for it after a woman inside was convinced I was a terrorist and needed some arrestin'. I explained to the cop that, if I wanted pictures, I could go to Google street view, or just walk by with my cell phone and he'd never even notice I was taking them. Fortunately, the cop had more sense than the people who called him.

Not one instance of terrorism in the US has been linked to cameras, yet Homeland Security told everyone to be deathly afraid of photographers. That's not chaos, it's stupidity. It's someone saying, "Look how safe I'm making you while doing absolutely nothing about any problems."
 
2014-07-20 02:24:45 PM  

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


Doesn't matter.  As soon as one of those guards spouted the "it's a post 9/11 world" bullshiat, they deserved to be beaten into a coma.
 
2014-07-20 02:36:28 PM  

Smackledorfer: quatchi: People calling the photog a Dbag who deserved this treatment are flat out not getting it.

Can we not both think he is a dbag and think that the concern over pictures being taken is a little over the top?  This guy wasn't arrested, his photos weren't seized, nobody used any force on him besides "ok sir, time to keep moving" on him.

/meh.


He's just showing people that this sort of idiocy is happening in the US, even to non-douchebags.

This week, the ACLU filed suit against the US "Suspicious Activity Reporting Program" on behalf of five people, two of whom were photographers.

The first is a renowned art photographer who has had showings at the Smithsonian. He ended up on  the Federal watchlist for taking photos of public art from a public sidewalk.

The second is a photographer and design student who was photographing an industrial site from a public area.

It's time to become douchebags, to get this into the court system, and stop cops and Feds from harassing people for legal activities that pose no threat to anyone.
 
2014-07-20 02:43:33 PM  

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


This is literally what rights are for, and you sir, do not understand rights. Thou shalt be allowed to poke the bear, and the bear is obligated to allow it, and even to forgive some transgressors who break the rules and go "too far." That is what rights are.
 
2014-07-20 03:02:33 PM  
I farking hate that "because 9/1" bullshiat. Hell I got into an argument with my new mail man the other day because he got pissed that I leave my rent check in the mail box on my porch (Been doing that for about 7 years now). He threatened to have someone arrest me if I did it again and then said " After 9/11 the world changed and we have to follow the rules now". That's when I learned that the Postal Service has designed itself in a way where you can't call them and if you go there in person you can't actually complain about one of their workers because nobody that will speak with you has any power.
 
2014-07-20 03:09:08 PM  

Target Builder: Headline:I visited seven different government bureaucracies throughout Washington, D.C., so I could photograph how ugly their architecture was

Article: Photographs of building employees and security features.

Introduction: I stood on the public sidewalks in front of the buildings, along with all the other tourists and pedestrians, took pictures, and then hopped on my bike and went to the next building.

Article: Photos taken from off pubic sidewalks and ""I can't have you near the building taking photos. Stay on the sidewalk."

[s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 309x463]


And again, the feature on ugly buildings is another article from the day before, and is linked at the very top of this one in the first subheading above the first image. This is a follow-up on that regarding what happened while he was shooting for that first feature. Now if you want to argue that these other photos were superfluous to the ugly building deal, knock yourself out. But don't say that that is all he shot, because it isn't the case.
 
2014-07-20 03:22:18 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Thou shalt be allowed to poke the bear, and the bear is obligated to allow it, and even to forgive some transgressors who break the rules and go "too far."


And when the bear eats your ass, don't expect us to cry foul either.
 
2014-07-20 03:36:53 PM  
This is why we need to ban high-capacity memory cards.
 
2014-07-20 03:44:38 PM  

John the Magnificent: Congratulations.

Your "Good Citizen" badge is waiting at reception.  Just turn in your copy of the Constitution and it will be yours to wear with pride.


Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.


It has nothing to do with being a "good citizen".  It has EVERYTHING to do with almost being one of the statistics I pointed out.  One evening at the office, security came up and asked me for my car keys.

The guard explained that a man had been noted about 20 minutes before, hovering around my car.  He matched the description of a former co-worker, so he'd called in the local police for assistance.  Because of the tint on my windows and the dark parking area, the interior of my car was not visible and the police wanted my keys so they would not have to break the window.

I had neglected to lock the door of my car when I had come back from lunch.  When the cops opened my car, they found a guy that had been fired the week before for slapping me.  He was armed with a semi automatic pistol and crouched in the back seat area.

Another woman that worked in the building, one of her sons had been killed by gunfire.  The parking lot was swarming with local press, even a couple of satellite trucks set up at the top of the hill.  Security closed the private road the building was located on and directed the press back up to the public road.  She'd come to the office because she was sick with grief and even more sickened by the press outside her home.  The head of the building's security detail arranged for her to take his car to his house so she could have some peace to make the arrangements to bury her child and showed her the back way off the property, far from the press.  He personally drove her car up to the press checkpoint and advised them she would not be making any sort of press statement.  Security's entire job description is to protect the building, occupants and contents.  Strangers are a threat until proven otherwise.
 
2014-07-20 03:54:44 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Smackledorfer: quatchi: People calling the photog a Dbag who deserved this treatment are flat out not getting it.

Can we not both think he is a dbag and think that the concern over pictures being taken is a little over the top?  This guy wasn't arrested, his photos weren't seized, nobody used any force on him besides "ok sir, time to keep moving" on him.

/meh.

He's just showing people that this sort of idiocy is happening in the US, even to non-douchebags.

This week, the ACLU filed suit against the US "Suspicious Activity Reporting Program" on behalf of five people, two of whom were photographers.

The first is a renowned art photographer who has had showings at the Smithsonian. He ended up on  the Federal watchlist for taking photos of public art from a public sidewalk.

The second is a photographer and design student who was photographing an industrial site from a public area.

It's time to become douchebags, to get this into the court system, and stop cops and Feds from harassing people for legal activities that pose no threat to anyone.


Again: Most of those harassers in this case were not cops or Feds: They were private security guards, hired by the building management, most likely, and unlike Spider-Man, given great power without great responsibility. In your examples, court action is being taken.

The problem with telling security guards "Look out for suspicious activity" is that most of these guys are cop wannabes and they'll push it to the limit. There IS a way to politely ask someone "Excuse me, why are you taking pictures of our building?", obtain an answer, and say "Thank you, enjoy your day" without being a complete dick; even if the photog is a douchebag and says "Hey I have a right to take pictures of a public building, asshole!" it is possible to say "I understand, sir or madam, but because of heightened security, I have to ask these questions of all individuals I see taking pictures in this area. Have a nice day."

The problem is, most private security guards are idiots, and they have to be specifically told what to say and do in these situations, or else they'll react like the idiots in this instance. As to things like Federal watch lists, that's another issue entirely, and both needs to be and is being addressed through the courts; but it likely ALSO began with idiots who couldn't just say "Thank you and have a nice day."
 
2014-07-20 03:55:10 PM  
Actually, it sounds as if top men said he could take pictures. Twitchy guards who would be in the immediate line of fire, not so much.
 
2014-07-20 04:22:17 PM  

Mugato: People who use the phrase "post-9/11 world" should have a plane fly into them.


This.  The world is pretty much objectively safer than it has ever been at any point in our history.

 

DeaH: Actually, it sounds as if top men said he could take pictures. Twitchy guards who would be in the immediate line of fire, not so much.


They should go find jobs that are more suited to bedwetting pussies.
 
2014-07-20 04:40:28 PM  

Smackledorfer: Hiro-ACiD: Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

You need to watch The Lives of Others.  America has become East Germany, but thanks for playing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others

Explain.

In 1984  , officer Gerd Wiesler is assigned to spy on playwright Georg Dreyman. Wiesler and his team bug the apartment, set up surveillance equipment in an attic and begin reporting Dreyman's activities. Dreyman had escaped state scrutiny due to his pro-Communist views and international recognition. Wiesler soon learns the real reason behind the surveillance: Minister of Culture Bruno Hempf covets Dreyman's girlfriend, actress Christa-Maria Sieland, and is trying to eliminate his rival. While Wiesler's boss, Grubitz, sees an opportunity for advancement, Wiesler, an idealist, is horrified. Through his surveillance, Wiesler knows Dreyman and Sieland are in love. Minister Hempf uses Sieland's vulnerability as an insecure actress whose livelihood is dependent on state approval of stagecraft to coerce her into having sex with him. After discovering Sieland's relationship with Hempf, Dreyman implores her not to meet him again. Sieland flees to a nearby bar where Wiesler, posing as a fan, urges her to be true to herself. She returns home and reconciles with Dreyman, rejecting Hempf. etc etc.

Where is such a thing happening, and is it legal?

It isn't and it isn't?  In fact is it not true that our motion picture industry freely makes any kind of movies they want and aren't in any way harassed or censured by the overarching socialist state?

I haven't watched the movie, but from the plot description I don't see wtf you are talking about.


Says someone with no knowledge of McArthy, Hollywood blacklists (how long did it take Johnny Got His Gun to be made?), the rise of Reagan in SAG as the guy who would enforce blacklists and his political rewards for his early work, the establishment of the Comic Code and the FCC's mission to censure television for content. Although one could argue that keeping things "family friendly" is not tantamount to political censureship after the examples made in Hollywood it took a major social shift to enable people to bring to market movies, television shows and comic books that did not play to the McCarthy beat. His ousting did not end the censorship and at some level continue today.

In fact I sat in a classroom full of parents who were enthusiastic about the idea of content censureship so kids are not exposed to any "negative" information about our history or country. And these were college students.

We have in the past had censorship and it would be so easy to go past what we have done in the past.

Censorship isn't a "socialist" thing unless one believes that all the Cold War governments were socialist including our own. Censorship is an authoritarian characteristic and is economy agnostic.
 
2014-07-20 05:00:38 PM  
Has anyone pointed out yet that the photographer called each of the agencies in question beforehand, specifically to make sure it was okay to take pictures?

And has it been brought up already that, contrary to the douchebag-reporter-just- being-a-douche theory, these pictures were actually for a separate article on architecture?

Because if those points haven't ben mentioned yet, they should be.

And there is a big difference between an open-carry activist, and a reporter with proper and legal credentials and prior permission to take photographs. I'm honestly flabbergasted that a lot of people seem not to grasp that
 
2014-07-20 05:02:15 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Again: Most of those harassers in this case were not cops or Feds: They were private security guards, hired by the building management, most likely, and unlike Spider-Man, given great power without great responsibility. In your examples, court action is being taken.


It doesn't matter that they're contracted police, they're still serving in a police capacity under the direction of government administrators.

They need to be retrained to understand that, while they're welcome to ask questions, they are not empowered to make demands, seize equipment, or delete files.
 
2014-07-20 05:10:18 PM  

DrBenway: Target Builder: Headline:I visited seven different government bureaucracies throughout Washington, D.C., so I could photograph how ugly their architecture was

Article: Photographs of building employees and security features.

Introduction: I stood on the public sidewalks in front of the buildings, along with all the other tourists and pedestrians, took pictures, and then hopped on my bike and went to the next building.

Article: Photos taken from off pubic sidewalks and ""I can't have you near the building taking photos. Stay on the sidewalk."

[s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 309x463]

And again, the feature on ugly buildings is another article from the day before, and is linked at the very top of this one in the first subheading above the first image. This is a follow-up on that regarding what happened while he was shooting for that first feature. Now if you want to argue that these other photos were superfluous to the ugly building deal, knock yourself out. But don't say that that is all he shot, because it isn't the case.


I stand corrected - I'm between photographing secure entrances, building employees, vehicle barrier attachments and following building security around he also took some photos of the overall building architecture . I also note that contrary to his claims about staying on the sidewalk a lot of those photos are also not taken from well within the properties.
 
2014-07-20 05:11:46 PM  

Target Builder: DrBenway: Target Builder: Headline:I visited seven different government bureaucracies throughout Washington, D.C., so I could photograph how ugly their architecture was

Article: Photographs of building employees and security features.

Introduction: I stood on the public sidewalks in front of the buildings, along with all the other tourists and pedestrians, took pictures, and then hopped on my bike and went to the next building.

Article: Photos taken from off pubic sidewalks and ""I can't have you near the building taking photos. Stay on the sidewalk."

[s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 309x463]

And again, the feature on ugly buildings is another article from the day before, and is linked at the very top of this one in the first subheading above the first image. This is a follow-up on that regarding what happened while he was shooting for that first feature. Now if you want to argue that these other photos were superfluous to the ugly building deal, knock yourself out. But don't say that that is all he shot, because it isn't the case.

I stand corrected - I'm between photographing secure entrances, building employees, vehicle barrier attachments and following building security around he also took some photos of the overall building architecture . I also note that contrary to his claims about staying on the sidewalk a lot of those photos are also not taken from well within the properties.


Hmm... not sure how the last "not" got in there. Please pretend it's not there.
 
2014-07-20 05:13:28 PM  
TL,DR: I think these buildings are ugly, so I want to waste a day taking pictures of them so that you can waste part of YOUR day reading about it.
 
2014-07-20 05:15:06 PM  

jjorsett: Cataholic: I'm sure countless numbers of tourists take photos in front of these buildings every day.  Yet, we never seem to read anyone else complain about being harassed for doing so.  I wonder what this particular photographer did differently to attract their attention.

How would we even be made aware it was happening to tourists? For all we know, pointing a camera at a federal building is enough to get anyone at all run off by hired goons. The only reason we know here is that this guy has a publication and a readership.


Yes, in a country where mildly offensive statements written on restaurant checks get media coverage for days, we would never know.
 
2014-07-20 05:18:50 PM  

Lanadapter: The post office is shaped like a dick and balls


So, a skateboard then?

38.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-07-20 05:22:54 PM  
Well did they pick up that can? If not then it's their fault they got beaten with a stun baton.
 
2014-07-20 05:22:57 PM  

jjorsett: Cataholic: I'm sure countless numbers of tourists take photos in front of these buildings every day.  Yet, we never seem to read anyone else complain about being harassed for doing so.  I wonder what this particular photographer did differently to attract their attention.

How would we even be made aware it was happening to tourists? For all we know, pointing a camera at a federal building is enough to get anyone at all run off by hired goons. The only reason we know here is that this guy has a publication and a readership.


You're right, the real news here is that tourists have no way to get a story out. I await the day when news organizations cover incidents other than those that involve their reporters and bloggers directly. It might be a little weird at first, but I'm sure we'll all get used to it, eventually.
 
m00
2014-07-20 05:23:37 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: This week, the ACLU filed suit against the US "Suspicious Activity Reporting Program" on behalf of five people, two of whom were photographers.


That's a great link. Bookmarked.

My only question is: can I blame the executive branch of this administration, the executive branch of the previous administration, or actions taken by either political party in Congress? Because I don't particularly care we have lost a substantial deal of our civil liberties, other than as something I can use to irrationally defend "my side" in meaningless internet debates.
 
2014-07-20 05:38:32 PM  

glmorrs1: Fart_Machine: Kibbler: How do you use a camera to make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious while taking photographs of a public building from a public sidewalk, a building that is part of an agency that has posted that there is no problem with taking photos? Any examples?

If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave.  Come by and snap a photo on your phone?  Nobody is going to notice but the author of this piece had a story to pitch so that wasn't going to do.

What happened to asking permission? When I was really into photography if I was going to be shooting in front if a building or part of a building, it took like 30 seconds to go up to the security guard, tell them what's up, and ask if it's cool to take pictures. Never once got turned down or harassed, and a couple of times the security guards helped out keeping pedestrians out of the shot.

/Or is asking permission another hallmark of the police state?
//And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch about the guards stopping people on the sidewalk, all they did was point out a photo shoot was going on and ask the pedestrians to go around or wait a few seconds till I got the shot


Needing police permission to do something that isn't illegal?

Um, yeah. That's more than a hallmark. That's sort of the essence of the thing.
 
2014-07-20 05:39:33 PM  

m00: Lenny_da_Hog: This week, the ACLU filed suit against the US "Suspicious Activity Reporting Program" on behalf of five people, two of whom were photographers.

That's a great link. Bookmarked.

My only question is: can I blame the executive branch of this administration, the executive branch of the previous administration, or actions taken by either political party in Congress? Because I don't particularly care we have lost a substantial deal of our civil liberties, other than as something I can use to irrationally defend "my side" in meaningless internet debates.


That's some true Teabagger/Libtard (pick one) bullshiat, right there.
 
2014-07-20 05:40:09 PM  

China White Tea: Mugato: People who use the phrase "post-9/11 world" should have a plane fly into them.


This.  The world is pretty much objectively safer than it has ever been at any point in our history.


Right. a 9/11 isn't going to happen again because they already farking did it and accomplished everything they wanted. I'm not saying shut down every security measure but we need to stop shiatting ourselves in fear, that was one of their goals. But more importantly, stop using 9/11 as an excuse for shiat.
 
2014-07-20 06:07:21 PM  

China White Tea: This. The world is pretty much objectively safer than it has ever been at any point in our history.


Thanks to petty, low level assholes with power!
 
2014-07-20 06:13:50 PM  

img.fark.net



I'm really disgusted with all the posters in this thread defending the security guards illegal harassment and dismissing the photographer's exercising her rights as being a "d-bag."

The well established case law is that if you're in a publicly accessible area like standing on a public sidewalk you are free to take as many pictures as you like so long as you are not doing something asinine like blocking foot traffic. Anybody carrying a badge and a gun who tries to deny somebody this very basic right for the public to see pictures of what our taxes are paying for should face stiff fines, jail time and unemployment.

Don't like the photographer taking pictures of your shiatty building? then put a privacy fence around it.  Or better yet, just put on your big boy pants and get the fark over it.

I'm deeply saddened by what has become of this country.  We had a goddamn coward in the White House on 9/11, and his cowardice has infected the entire nation.

We desperately need more high quality still and videocameras that can instantly upload pictures and recordings to a secure server for those all-too-likely situations when a camera is illegally taken from a person under threat of government violence.
 
2014-07-20 06:27:18 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-07-20 06:31:56 PM  
I don't really care about the 'I have a Constitutional Right to spy on people'  gang.  You actually don't.

I also have no problem with cops stopping me and asking questions if I'm doing something suspicious, like photographing government entrances and security procedures.  I don't think cops asking questions makes us a police state.  Where I would draw the line would be seizure, arrest, or a ticket.
 
2014-07-20 06:45:18 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: I don't really care about the 'I have a Constitutional Right to spy on people'  gang.  You actually don't.

I also have no problem with cops stopping me and asking questions if I'm doing something suspicious, like photographing government entrances and security procedures.  I don't think cops asking questions makes us a police state.  Where I would draw the line would be seizure, arrest, or a ticket.


You see, though, photography in public spaces ISN'T SUSPICIOUS. It's contrived bullshiat. It's superstitious witch-hunting.

Photographers photograph all kinds of things, and always have -- you have no idea how they plan to edit it, what sort of collection it might be for, or anything else. Case law in all fifty states protects the right to take photographs of public assets from public spaces.

But suddenly, after Homeland Insecurity decided to make everyone piss their pants, photography is suspicious behavior when it never was before, and there's no reason behind it. Not a single instance of a "terrorist casing the joint" with a camera has ever been documented.
 
2014-07-20 07:03:14 PM  

Bumblefark: glmorrs1: Fart_Machine: Kibbler: How do you use a camera to make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious while taking photographs of a public building from a public sidewalk, a building that is part of an agency that has posted that there is no problem with taking photos? Any examples?

If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave.  Come by and snap a photo on your phone?  Nobody is going to notice but the author of this piece had a story to pitch so that wasn't going to do.

What happened to asking permission? When I was really into photography if I was going to be shooting in front if a building or part of a building, it took like 30 seconds to go up to the security guard, tell them what's up, and ask if it's cool to take pictures. Never once got turned down or harassed, and a couple of times the security guards helped out keeping pedestrians out of the shot.

/Or is asking permission another hallmark of the police state?
//And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch about the guards stopping people on the sidewalk, all they did was point out a photo shoot was going on and ask the pedestrians to go around or wait a few seconds till I got the shot

Needing police permission to do something that isn't illegal?

Um, yeah. That's more than a hallmark. That's sort of the essence of the thing.


Who said anything about asking the police?
 
2014-07-20 07:08:49 PM  
He was confronted when he 'tried' to take the photos that he posted in TFA? He wasn't detained or arrested or anything? What am I supposed to be outraged about?
 
2014-07-20 07:12:07 PM  

SauronWasFramed: old news is old.....we live in a police state.

the reporter is lucky he didn't get Rodney King'ed


What bad thing happened to him? Someone told him to stop?  I don't disagree with the police state thing, but this guy's experience is meh, at best.
 
2014-07-20 07:12:14 PM  
For someone who was supposedly taking photos of building architecture, the guy sure was taking a lot of picture of things like entrances, a mailbox (regardless of it looks like SpongeBob), and security guards.

To people trained to look for suspicious activity, someone taking photos of them and their placement/movements around the building, as well as ways into the building and places that are potential hiding places would seem highly suspicious.

In short, the photog's a douche, pulled the "BUT MA RITES!" defense when confronted with this douche behavior, and then proceeded to post his douchery on the internet as bait for the "we live in a police state" crowd.

Also, if we truly lived in a police state, the camera would have been confiscated, and the photog taken in for questioning. Please turn your outrage/hyperbole meters down from 11.
 
2014-07-20 07:20:51 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: You see, though, photography in public spaces ISN'T SUSPICIOUS. It's contrived bullshiat. It's superstitious witch-hunting.


It's always been the claim of local officers here in Philadelphia that "you can't photograph the police" no matter how many times the police commissioner announces that it's simply not true.

In this case, I can see some suspicion on the part of the various Federal police officers involved, because honestly, who the hell goes to DC to photography the Dept of Energy?
 
2014-07-20 07:25:22 PM  

OrangeFree: To people trained to look for suspicious activity, someone taking photos of them and their placement/movements around the building, as well as ways into the building and places that are potential hiding places would seem highly suspicious.


You have no idea what they're taking pictures of or for. You're assuming you have climbed inside the mind of a law-abiding citizen and can somehow tell that his motives are for intel and surveillance, instead of just taking pictures like people have done as long as they've owned cameras.

Paranoia is not the same as reasonable suspicion.

If you stop to watch a butterfly on a flower, can I reasonable suspect that you're actually a spy trying to plant a surveillance device in the planter? It might be the case, by god, even though it's never been known to happen before, but once someone has stuck that paranoid outlandish idea in your head, how can you *not* stop someone for smelling the roses along the way?
 
2014-07-20 07:27:21 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Lenny_da_Hog: You see, though, photography in public spaces ISN'T SUSPICIOUS. It's contrived bullshiat. It's superstitious witch-hunting.

It's always been the claim of local officers here in Philadelphia that "you can't photograph the police" no matter how many times the police commissioner announces that it's simply not true.

In this case, I can see some suspicion on the part of the various Federal police officers involved, because honestly, who the hell goes to DC to photography the Dept of Energy?


Goddammit, who paints a picture of a can of tomato soup? Who on *earth* would do such a thing?

That doesn't make Warhol suspicious, and it doesn't make him a target for harassment. You not understanding why I want to take a picture of something doesn't make it suspicious, it just means you're not me.
 
2014-07-20 07:31:36 PM  

Praise Cheesus: John the Magnificent: Congratulations.

Your "Good Citizen" badge is waiting at reception.  Just turn in your copy of the Constitution and it will be yours to wear with pride.


Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

It has nothing to do with being a "good citizen".  It has EVERYTHING to do with almost being one of the statistics I pointed out.  One evening at the office, security came up and asked me for my car keys.

The guard explained that a man had been noted about 20 minutes before, hovering around my car.  He matched the description of a former co-worker, so he'd called in the local police for assistance.  Because of the tint on my windows and the dark parking area, the interior of my car was not visible and the police wanted my keys so they would not have to break the window.

I had neglected to lock the door of my car when I had come back from lunch.  When the cops opened my car, they found a guy that had been fired the week before for slapping me.  He was armed with a semi automatic pistol and crouched in the back seat area.

Another woman that worked in the building, one of her sons had been killed by gunfire.  The parking lot was swarming with local press, even a couple of satellite trucks set up at the top of the hill.  Security closed the private road the building was located on and directed the press back up to the public road.  She'd come to the office because she was sick with grief and even more sickened by the press outside her home.  The head of the building's security detail arranged for her to take his car to his house so she could have some peace to make the arrangements to bury her child and showed her the back way off the property, far from the press.  He personally drove her car up to the press checkpoint and advised them she would not be making any sort of press statement.  Security's entire job description is to protect the building, occupants and contents.  Strangers are a threat until proven otherwise.


While I am not exactly calling Bullshiat on your story (but I would love a link to the article... this did make the media right, being there was an arrest and all with the guy hiding in your car) I can only assume that you Depends budget must rival the GDP of a lot of 3rd World Countries.
 
2014-07-20 07:46:00 PM  

Fart_Machine: Bumblefark: glmorrs1: Fart_Machine: Kibbler: How do you use a camera to make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious while taking photographs of a public building from a public sidewalk, a building that is part of an agency that has posted that there is no problem with taking photos? Any examples?

If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave.  Come by and snap a photo on your phone?  Nobody is going to notice but the author of this piece had a story to pitch so that wasn't going to do.

What happened to asking permission? When I was really into photography if I was going to be shooting in front if a building or part of a building, it took like 30 seconds to go up to the security guard, tell them what's up, and ask if it's cool to take pictures. Never once got turned down or harassed, and a couple of times the security guards helped out keeping pedestrians out of the shot.

/Or is asking permission another hallmark of the police state?
//And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch about the guards stopping people on the sidewalk, all they did was point out a photo shoot was going on and ask the pedestrians to go around or wait a few seconds till I got the shot

Needing police permission to do something that isn't illegal?

Um, yeah. That's more than a hallmark. That's sort of the essence of the thing.

Who said anything about asking the police?


Substitute the term, "parapolice." Doesn't change the answer.
 
2014-07-20 07:47:48 PM  
Non-story.  Six distinct overzealous security staffers.
 
2014-07-20 07:58:36 PM  

Empty H: Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....

Wrong.

A camera is not the same thing as a gun. Go be scared somewhere else.


Please, go back to 4th grade and learn how to read. At that point you will be welcomed back to the conversation... (or you can attempt to explain the mental gymnastics you went through to arrive at the decision that I was somehow scared of something?)
 
2014-07-20 08:22:31 PM  

Bumblefark: Substitute the term, "parapolice." Doesn't change the answer.


Nobody said anything about needing permission either but if you don't want to get hassled by private security then it might be a good idea to let them know what you're doing beforehand.   That's still not a police state.
 
2014-07-20 08:34:04 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Goddammit, who paints a picture of a can of tomato soup? Who on *earth* would do such a thing?

That doesn't make Warhol suspicious, and it doesn't make him a target for harassment. You not understanding why I want to take a picture of something doesn't make it suspicious, it just means you're not me.


Warhol had a different problem: copyright infringement, which he worked out with Campbell's.

But you missed my point: if you train not very bright people to look out for "suspicious" activity and you put "photography" on that list, they're going to jump on it like a dog on a bone. Now the Park Guards are the Washington Monument, the SS at the White House and the Capitol Police aren't going to think too hard about it, as they've got people taking pics of the buildings they guard all the time. But the bozo in the booth at the IRS? It's the highlight of his week.
 
2014-07-20 08:34:07 PM  
This douche bag "journalist" went out with the intention of trolling security under the guise of "ugly architecture". He was taking close-up pictures of entries/exits and security measures/personnel.. Then people who are only looking out for their job security see something that makes them uncomfortable and asks him to leave.. NAZIS!!

The security guard is not the PR person that said it is OK to take pictures, the PR person is not the security guard who will be hung on the cross should those photographs be used for nefarious reasons, and I doubt the two of them have much/any regular contact to discuss the terms of particular photography sessions...

Are you gonna get your panties all in a wad when you are asked not to take pictures of the vault at the bank? Are you being oppressed when you are told not to take pictures of security measures at the airport?

Of all the things to be bothered by in this country, you choose to defend some douchey troll that doesn't even have the balls to admit that he was largely motivated by the opportunity to be a douchey troll? Priorities...
 
2014-07-20 08:37:49 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Lenny_da_Hog: Goddammit, who paints a picture of a can of tomato soup? Who on *earth* would do such a thing?

That doesn't make Warhol suspicious, and it doesn't make him a target for harassment. You not understanding why I want to take a picture of something doesn't make it suspicious, it just means you're not me.

Warhol had a different problem: copyright infringement, which he worked out with Campbell's.

But you missed my point: if you train not very bright people to look out for "suspicious" activity and you put "photography" on that list, they're going to jump on it like a dog on a bone. Now the Park Guards are the Washington Monument, the SS at the White House and the Capitol Police aren't going to think too hard about it, as they've got people taking pics of the buildings they guard all the time. But the bozo in the booth at the IRS? It's the highlight of his week.


This is why they need to be retrained. This is why the police need to be retrained as well. Some dolt planted the idea in their heads and essentially trained them wrong, and now they feel empowered to confront people over non-threatening and unsuspicious activities.
 
2014-07-20 08:40:14 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: This is why they need to be retrained. This is why the police need to be retrained as well. Some dolt planted the idea in their heads and essentially trained them wrong, and now they feel empowered to confront people over non-threatening and unsuspicious activities.


I'd suggest they may be as well-trained as the job they hold deserves.  Spending money to train them correctly would mean hiring a smarter class of people, which would also mean paying them more.
 
2014-07-20 08:48:48 PM  

Olo Manolo: This douche bag "journalist" went out with the intention of trolling security under the guise of "ugly architecture". He was taking close-up pictures of entries/exits and security measures/personnel.. Then people who are only looking out for their job security see something that makes them uncomfortable and asks him to leave.. NAZIS!!

The security guard is not the PR person that said it is OK to take pictures, the PR person is not the security guard who will be hung on the cross should those photographs be used for nefarious reasons, and I doubt the two of them have much/any regular contact to discuss the terms of particular photography sessions...

Are you gonna get your panties all in a wad when you are asked not to take pictures of the vault at the bank? Are you being oppressed when you are told not to take pictures of security measures at the airport?

Of all the things to be bothered by in this country, you choose to defend some douchey troll that doesn't even have the balls to admit that he was largely motivated by the opportunity to be a douchey troll? Priorities...


I'll bet you'd get your panties in a wad if the Starbucks barista left the cinnamon shake off of your latte.

It doesn't matter if you're being a douchey troll. Rosa Parks was just being a douchey troll when she could have saved everybody a lot of time buy just walking fifteen lousy feet and sitting at the back of the bus.

Here's a perfect example of douchiness for douchiness' sake, but it still makes a point about rights in the US being eroded.

Here, photographers went to photograph the DEA building in Jacksonville, Florida, just to see if they would comply with the law that says photographers can take photos of public buildings in public spaces.

The were confronted by three DEA agents who refused to identify themselves, and they told the agents they weren't going to speak to them unless they identified themselves. Later, a fourth agent came out and attempted to seize equipment from a geriatric war veteran.

When the police arrive, *they* know that photography is permitted, after having been through the entire "douchey" guy's education -- The Jacksonville police have had such encounters with the photographers before, and instead of fighting back, trained their officers using information provided by the "douchey" photographer/activist.

The old man has now filed suit for battery.
 
2014-07-20 08:52:36 PM  

Olo Manolo: Are you being oppressed when you are told not to take pictures of security measures at the airport?



You're entirely allowed to film and photograph TSA checkpoints.  Be less of a bedwetter.
 
2014-07-20 08:52:53 PM  

Fart_Machine: Bumblefark: Substitute the term, "parapolice." Doesn't change the answer.

Nobody said anything about needing permission either but if you don't want to get hassled by private security then it might be a good idea to let them know what you're doing beforehand.   That's still not a police state.


Eh. Ok, one more time, from the top:

You're the one that suggested the solution is for people to ask permission. I suggested that people shouldn't need permission to do something they're legally allowed to do. The distinction between traditionally-defined police and parapolice is mox-nix. What you're describing is a condition where citizens' rights are effectively left to the discretion of the people policing the public order. That is, oddly enough, the essence of the term, "police state." So, when you ask, is expecting people to get permission too much like a police state? The answer is, yup.

Yup, it really is.
 
2014-07-20 09:02:19 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Lenny_da_Hog: This is why they need to be retrained. This is why the police need to be retrained as well. Some dolt planted the idea in their heads and essentially trained them wrong, and now they feel empowered to confront people over non-threatening and unsuspicious activities.

I'd suggest they may be as well-trained as the job they hold deserves.  Spending money to train them correctly would mean hiring a smarter class of people, which would also mean paying them more.


If they're doing it wrong, they're not as well-trained as they need to be.

They're doing it wrong.

If you're contracted to do a job at a government agency, you can't be let off the hook for impeding constitutionally protected activities there and around.
 
2014-07-20 09:02:41 PM  

Bumblefark: You're the one that suggested the solution is for people to ask permission.


You might want to check that again.

Bumblefark: What you're describing is a condition where citizens' rights are effectively left to the discretion of the people policing the public order.


No, I'm discussing the reality of what will happen if you start taking pictures that will attract the attention of security on the premises.  The other guy who responded to me stated that it would be reasonable to ask permission first so you wouldn't be hassled.  Nobody in this article was detained or arrested by law enforcement.  Instead you had some private building rent-a-cops asking the reporter what they were doing and people are going ZOMG it's EAST GERMANY!!!111
 
m00
2014-07-20 09:07:07 PM  

Fart_Machine: Nobody in this article was detained or arrested by law enforcement. Instead you had some private building rent-a-cops asking the reporter what they were doing and people are going ZOMG it's EAST GERMANY!!!111



You know what a "chilling effect" is right?
 
2014-07-20 09:11:19 PM  

Fart_Machine: No, I'm discussing the reality of what will happen if you start taking pictures that will attract the attention of security on the premises.  The other guy who responded to me stated that it would be reasonable to ask permission first so you wouldn't be hassled.  Nobody in this article was detained or arrested by law enforcement.  Instead you had some private building rent-a-cops asking the reporter what they were doing and people are going ZOMG it's EAST GERMANY!!!111


He was also compliant and did what they told him to do, when in fact he was perfectly within his rights to continue photographing. As PINAC members have shown, when you assert your rights, it does often end in arrest. The Buzzfeed guy simply made note of being thrown out and did what he was told.

And he was detained and had his equipment seized while they called for *credentials* to his boss. I have a right to take pictures whether I'm a paid journalist or not. I do not have to provide any professional credentials.
 
2014-07-20 09:13:15 PM  

m00: Fart_Machine: Nobody in this article was detained or arrested by law enforcement. Instead you had some private building rent-a-cops asking the reporter what they were doing and people are going ZOMG it's EAST GERMANY!!!111


You know what a "chilling effect" is right?


If that's the case then it has been a "chilling effect" for at least thirty years.  While one doofus may have the invoked "post 9/11 world" you'd still get hassled for taking photos of entry, exit, and security points well before the WTC.  Precious snowflake reporter obviously hasn't been on the job that long.
 
2014-07-20 09:21:28 PM  

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


In other words, "don't do something perfectly legal because, uhhh,  reasons."

You are the reason we have idiots in power.
 
2014-07-20 09:33:06 PM  
You are the reason we have idiots in power.

I know for a fact that Olo is personally responsible for Bush_W. getting reelected. If thats not at least a war crime then I dont know what is.


Look This is a very very stupid country. And it has a very very stupid vibe and reactionary feel to it right now. And it will be getting a lot worse before it shows any sign of getting better. Maybe, just maybe in a few generations this country might snap out of it.


Until then my best advice is to hide in a hole, and dont come out.
 
2014-07-20 09:34:16 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog:
I'll bet you'd get your panties in a wad if the Starbucks barista left the cinnamon shake off of your latte.

I've never been to a starbucks, I've never spoken to a barista, I don't drink coffee, and I don't care for cinammon... So I'm not sure what failed point you are trying to make, but you couldn't be more wrong...


It doesn't matter if you're being a douchey troll. Rosa Parks was just being a douchey troll when she could have saved everybody a lot of time buy just walking fifteen lousy feet and sitting at the back of the bus.

Here's a perfect example of douchiness for douchiness' sake, but it still makes a point about rights in the US being eroded.

Here, photographers went to photograph the DEA building in Jacksonville, Florida, just to see if they would comply with the law that says photographers can take photos of public buildings in public spaces.

The were confronted by three DEA agents who refused to identify themselves, and they told the agents they weren't going to speak to them unless they identified themselves. Later, a fourth agent came out and attempted to seize equipment f ...


OK, so Rosa Parks not complying is similar to some guy wanting to take stupid pictures of doors and barricades?  You got me there... The two examples you gave are people that went out for a stated purpose, and were admittedly doing just that.. The whiney

China White Tea: Olo Manolo: Are you being oppressed when you are told not to take pictures of security measures at the airport?


You're entirely allowed to film and photograph TSA checkpoints.  Be less of a bedwetter.


Please explain how me telling people they should reconsider whining about inane bullshiat makes me more likely to be bothered by inane bullshiat...
 
2014-07-20 09:37:05 PM  

Fart_Machine: m00: Fart_Machine: Nobody in this article was detained or arrested by law enforcement. Instead you had some private building rent-a-cops asking the reporter what they were doing and people are going ZOMG it's EAST GERMANY!!!111


You know what a "chilling effect" is right?

If that's the case then it has been a "chilling effect" for at least thirty years.  While one doofus may have the invoked "post 9/11 world" you'd still get hassled for taking photos of entry, exit, and security points well before the WTC.  Precious snowflake reporter obviously hasn't been on the job that long.


It's gotten a lot worse over the years.

After Oklahoma City, an acquaintance of mine was harassed by the FBI in Anchorage for painting a still-life of their new building. He had painted pictures of all of Anchorage's landmarks, and was known for it, but after OK City, we were living in a post-OK-City world and had to surrender our rights.

That shocked people in Anchorage in the 90s. It was unheard of.

Now, after Homlandt! Security! has primed the wick against photography, everyone's willing to believe it's always been that way. It hasn't.
 
2014-07-20 09:42:12 PM  

Fart_Machine: Bumblefark: You're the one that suggested the solution is for people to ask permission.

You might want to check that again.

Bumblefark: What you're describing is a condition where citizens' rights are effectively left to the discretion of the people policing the public order.

No, I'm discussing the reality of what will happen if you start taking pictures that will attract the attention of security on the premises.  The other guy who responded to me stated that it would be reasonable to ask permission first so you wouldn't be hassled.  Nobody in this article was detained or arrested by law enforcement.  Instead you had some private building rent-a-cops asking the reporter what they were doing and people are going ZOMG it's EAST GERMANY!!!111


Yeah, lost track of who I was responding to. My bad. But, I confess I would have assumed you were throwing in with that argument. If you're not, eh...I'm not seeing what point you were trying to make with your responses to what I originally wrote. As for what you've added here, there's not much more I can say. I don't find the police/parapolice distinction useful or important in this context, nor do I think somebody actually has to be detained or arrested for a reasonable person to conclude that not following the officers' instructions would have likely resulted in just that. And, I'm pretty sure I didn't imply we're living in East Germany. So...

*shrugs*
 
2014-07-20 09:42:42 PM  

Olo Manolo: OK, so Rosa Parks not complying is similar to some guy wanting to take stupid pictures of doors and barricades?  You got me there... The two examples you gave are people that went out for a stated purpose, and were admittedly doing just that.. The whiney


It's precisely the same. It's called civil disobedience. That happens when people are doing something they're allowed to do, then tell the cops "no" when the cops wrongly tell them to stop doing it.

Rosa Parks sat on that bus seat deliberately to cause a stir -- a righteous stir. She would be, by your definition, a whiny douche.

It's none of your business why Rosa Parks wanted to sit near the front of the bus. It didn't hurt her a bit to continue sitting at the back, after all -- she still ended up where she was going, right?

And it's none of your business why I want to take pictures of public landmarks. I don't have to justify that to you, nobody does. They're public landmarks, and the police, security, or nobody else deserves an explanation of why I'm taking photographs of anything I'm allowed to photograph.
 
2014-07-20 09:55:36 PM  
1) large, obvious, professional camera

2) camera on smartphone

3) small hidden camera

Which one is the least likely used by a spy or terrorist?

So, why is he suspicious again?
 
2014-07-20 09:59:01 PM  

OgreMagi: Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....

In other words, "don't do something perfectly legal because, uhhh,  reasons."

You are the reason we have idiots in power.


I'm sorry, yes, you are correct and I am willing to change my stance. Everybody! Go forth and photograph doors and barricades and give shiat to the undertrained, underpayed, over-compensating security guards! We are changing the world here!!

Since I'm the problem for thinking one should pick their battles, and save the outrage for where it really matters... Please, tell me how you have got out of your computer chair and actually helped anything... And no, posting #kony2012 #savethetatas and being a buzzfeed "journalist's" cheerleader doesn't count....
 
2014-07-20 10:12:25 PM  

Olo Manolo: OgreMagi: Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....

In other words, "don't do something perfectly legal because, uhhh,  reasons."

You are the reason we have idiots in power.

I'm sorry, yes, you are correct and I am willing to change my stance. Everybody! Go forth and photograph doors and barricades and give shiat to the undertrained, underpayed, over-compensating security guards! We are changing the world here!!

Since I'm the problem for thinking one should pick their battles, and save the outrage for where it really matters... Please, tell me how you have got out of your computer chair and actually helped anything... And no, posting #kony2012 #savethetatas and being a buzzfeed "journalist's" cheerleader doesn't count....


Go to Photography is not a Crime blog.

You will find nearly 500 pages of blog entries (several per page) since 2007, documenting photographers being harassed, beaten, their equipment confiscated, evidence deleted, and photographers arrested for legal public photography and video surveillance.

The resulting publicity (and sometimes lawsuits) from the events documented there are being used to train police that they aren't allowed to do these things. It actually works.

It definitely works better than saying, "Okay, officer, just beat me and seize my equipment because you don't think I've justified my legal activities to your satisfaction."

The Buzzfeed guy surrendered to every demand before it became confrontational, but he's still getting the word out that yes, you are allowed to do these things, and yes, people with power are still trying to stop you from doing these things.

It doesn't matter if you think it's important or not. You don't have to use every right you have. It *is* important to photographers.
 
2014-07-20 10:20:55 PM  
 told her I was a reporter and showed her my credentials.

You work for BuzzFeed.  You're not a reporter.  Go comb the internet for some more animated GIFs of the ten worst projectile vomits or whatever it is you do.
 
2014-07-20 10:22:57 PM  

Olo Manolo: OgreMagi: Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....

In other words, "don't do something perfectly legal because, uhhh,  reasons."

You are the reason we have idiots in power.

I'm sorry, yes, you are correct and I am willing to change my stance. Everybody! Go forth and photograph doors and barricades and give shiat to the undertrained, underpayed, over-compensating security guards! We are changing the world here!!

Since I'm the problem for thinking one should pick their battles, and save the outrage for where it really matters... Please, tell me how you have got out of your computer chair and actually helped anything... And no, posting #kony2012 #savethetatas and being a buzzfeed "journalist's" cheerleader doesn't count....


Our Rights are the battle I pick.  Public photography falls under our Rights which must be defended each and every time the people in power attempt to erode them.  If we stop defending our Rights, we will lose them little by little.
 
2014-07-20 10:25:34 PM  

Olo Manolo: Go forth and photograph doors and barricades and give shiat to the undertrained, underpayed, over-compensating security guards!


How the fark can someone be both underpaid  and undertrained?  They're not competent enough to do the job appropriately, but they're still not being given enough money?

Furthermore, if the job is so unimportant that we don't need to adequately train anyone to do it, nor pay them enough to really care about it, why should we allow these uneducated meat-heads to exceed their authority and impinge upon any constitutionally guaranteed freedom, regardless of how insignificant some basement-dwelling bedwetter feels they may be, without question?
 
2014-07-20 10:26:28 PM  

Holfax: 1) large, obvious, professional camera

2) camera on smartphone

3) small hidden camera

Which one is the least likely used by a spy or terrorist?


4) Google street-view
 
2014-07-20 10:42:02 PM  

John the Magnificent: While I am not exactly calling Bullshiat on your story (but I would love a link to the article... this did make the media right, being there was an arrest and all with the guy hiding in your car) I can only assume that you Depends budget must rival the GDP of a lot of 3rd World Countries.


I live in an area with a population of 6.7 million, including suburbs.  The only way that arrest would have been more than a blip on the police blotter would have been if the doofus has decapitated me with a chainsaw and left the chainsaw in the parking lot.  Breaking into a car and possession of a firearm without a CHL is pretty small potatoes.

Since this reporter was not detained, arrested or had his camera/memory card confiscated, you seem to be getting your Fruit of the Looms in a knot over nothing.  At least I can understand both sides of this story.
 
2014-07-20 11:26:43 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: You work for BuzzFeed.  You're not a reporter.


Actually, for some reason BuzzFeed has been building a legitimate-ish news reporting organization alongside its main business of memetastic internet time-wasting.

I mean, they're still no Vice or Daily Beast, but they're at least as legit as HuffPo or Business Insider.
 
2014-07-20 11:52:15 PM  
This is such a tempest in a toilet, it's hard to know which side to pick to not be on.

On the one hand, things HAVE changed since 9/11, and it's foolish to pretend they have not. It would be nice if they hadn't, but things are a little different now, and that's just the way it is. Cops are more nervous, average citizens are more paranoid, and things that used to be reasonably normal now no longer are. We can't just go back to Sept 10, 2001 because some people think we ought to.

On the other hand, it has ALWAYS been a smart idea, even back in the remote mists of, say, even 1950, to let building security know what you were up to if you had a job that meant going around to less-traveled parts of buildings to take pictures, make measurements, draw sketches, etc. Any decent security officer like yours truly would ALWAYS ask someone in an area where people usually weren't "Excuse me, what are you doing here?"--the only thing about that that's changed "since 9/11" is that rentacops feel less constrained to be polite when they ask. I mean, had BuzzFeed Photog gone to security before she started shooting and just said "Hey, I'm from BuzzFeed and I'm here to take pictures," then nobody would have said a word (but then she wouldn't have had a story about how outrageously people treated her, I guess).

On a third hand, nobody should have to ask permission to take pictures of the outside of a public building from across the street; and if they are on the building's curtilage, they certainly have reasonable expectation of being approached politely by building security and courteously informed of building policy, if any, and the reasons for it. I can well imagine, for instance, that the FBI might prefer not to have closeups taken of their doors, and that any reasonable person would understand a polite explanation of why that might be necessary in certain geopolitical crises.

On a fourth hand, half the people screeching about "civil rights!" and "freedom of speech!" seem unable to comprehend that in a good 2/3ds of these cases, it was NOT the city police or federal authorities who were being douchebags, it was the private security of the building. Merely because the government works in the building doesn't mean they manage it. (Except probably at the FBI office)(But not necessarily) Usually office buildings are handed over to management companies who handle the security, janitorial, maintenance etc., chores, especially when the government won't give the departments enough even to fix up the exteriors of the buildings. So if CBRE hires a 3d party security company who is told "Keep idiots away from the back entrance, don't let them take pictures," that's not a violation of your rights, that's not a censorship or free speech--that's you being somewhere you're not really supposed to be, running up against a $9/hr security guard who doesn't want to get fired because some tourist got caught on the fifteenth floor.

Can people TRY to direct their ire in the right direction for once: Get the security guards trained, get a proper mission statement from the building management, and put a leash on the 1/3 of Federal buildings where their own people are running amok. And if you have to take a picture of the employee entrance of the FBI building, BuzzFeed, maybe--just maybe--you should let the agents know BEFORE you do it, instead of afterward.
 
2014-07-21 12:16:07 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Can people TRY to direct their ire in the right direction for once: Get the security guards trained, get a proper mission statement from the building management, and put a leash on the 1/3 of Federal buildings where their own people are running amok. And if you have to take a picture of the employee entrance of the FBI building, BuzzFeed, maybe--just maybe--you should let the agents know BEFORE you do it, instead of afterward.


What's the difference?

If they can't say "no," what does informing them gain you? A record, so they can put you on the surveillance list and send Homeland Security or FBI officers to your door?

Pandering to paranoia only justifies it. The fact is that not one single incident has been traced back to photographers. There was never anything that showed any terrorist or other malcontent needed a photograph in order to carry out whatever wrongdoing they had planned.

And what's the difference if I take a picture of the entrance vs. the rest of the building? Nobody has any expectation of privacy there. They're recording everything happening all around the building already, they're recording you on the sidewalk, what's the big difference in getting shots of the doorway?
 
2014-07-21 12:25:45 AM  

Gyrfalcon: On a fourth hand, half the people screeching about "civil rights!" and "freedom of speech!" seem unable to comprehend that in a good 2/3ds of these cases, it was NOT the city police or federal authorities who were being douchebags, it was the private security of the building. Merely because the government works in the building doesn't mean they manage it. (Except probably at the FBI office)(But not necessarily) Usually office buildings are handed over to management companies who handle the security, janitorial, maintenance etc., chores, especially when the government won't give the departments enough even to fix up the exteriors of the buildings. So if CBRE hires a 3d party security company who is told "Keep idiots away from the back entrance, don't let them take pictures," that's not a violation of your rights, that's not a censorship or free speech--that's you being somewhere you're not really supposed to be, running up against a $9/hr security guard who doesn't want to get fired because some tourist got caught on the fifteenth floor.


I'll just address your fourth hand (you freak).  The proper response to a private security guard who is being rude is "go away".  If you are on the sidewalk, you have every right to be there and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.  If it's government property, which means public property, things can get a little fuzzy, and while you still have the right to be there and take pictures, telling Barney to bugger off is probably not a good idea.  Just step onto the sidewalk, continue to take pictures, and ignore the moron.
 
2014-07-21 01:01:22 AM  

Gary-L: Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....

You know how I know you are one of the "sheeple"?

/Open-carry people are still douchebags.
//Just like those who Roll Coal


And people who seriously use the word "sheeple."

Seriously, there are better ways to condescend.
 
2014-07-21 02:43:23 AM  
I'm kinda sad that there is even a debate here. As Lenny_da_Hog, Dwight_Yeast, OgreMagi and others have pointed out, we are steadily having our God given rights diminished. If your rights can be attenuated, then they're just privileges with a highfalutin misnomer. Privileges can be taken away at a whim.

Be warned, the rest of you frogs in a pot who don't seem to care about the rising temperature are going to end up just as cooked as the ones you ridicule. But you'll terminate knowing the undying enmity of those who were forced to stand in your stead, while you were busy licking the boot on your necks, you slimy sycophants.
 
2014-07-21 03:26:35 AM  

FnkyTwn: John the Magnificent: Congratulations.
Your "Good Citizen" badge is waiting at reception. Just turn in your copy of the Constitution and it will be yours to wear with pride.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Yes, because being a "good citizen" is something to be frowned upon, and Jefferson was totes the only founder of the nation we should listen to.

Why don't all you retards go move to some middle eastern country for a few years, then come back home to the USA when you've learned to appreciate what freedom really is. Hell, Canada doesn't even have freedom of the press.

Morons in this thread with their First World Oppressive Regime Problems.


Actually we do, however freedom of speech and freedom of the press are collective public rights in Canada.
 
2014-07-21 04:12:28 AM  
Is it wrong that I first read SpongeBob as SpongeBoob??
/Yes, I has teh drunk..:D
//Yes, I went home...:)
///Three slashies!!!
 
2014-07-21 04:49:45 AM  

Target Builder: I'm calling bullshiat on his version of events. At all these places the cops are well used to people taking photographs and you have to be acting pretty out of the ordinary for the police to even ask you what you're doing let alone ask you to leave.


Set up a commercial video camera on a tripod outside a government building in the midwest some time and get back to me on that.  I did that for a video class I took at the local community college and had not only security guards but local police squad cars called for back up confront me and try to roust me.  They backed off when I handed them my bar card for ID.
 
2014-07-21 04:59:02 AM  

Smackledorfer: John the Magnificent: And you have to understand that the police had every right to inquire about what this person was doing.

Yes, I said that.

John the Magnificent: They had NO RIGHT to run the person off or threaten him.

Actually, government owned buildings are considered private property, and you can be run off.  I may have to reread the article, but what was anyone threatened with here? If it was the legal consequences of continued trespass subsequent to being asked to leave, then that is, indeed, a legal threat.

You will note at one point he was told he had to go to the other side of the street and that he could take all the pictures he wanted to from there.


John the Magnificent: When the police start making up the rules, as every single one of these ones did, that is the beginning of a Police State,

They didn't make up any rules.

John the Magnificent: When the Police decide what is allowable and what is not, regardless of the Law or even what their bosses are saying, that  is the beginning of a Police State.

They didn't do that either.  Fwiw I would argue police do that sort of thing less now than the good ol' boy police of our grandfathers' days.

 John the Magnificent: And that is exactly what happened here.  Several times.

Citation please.

I haven't reread the article since this morning, so if I am mis-remembering it, enlighten me.


Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.
 
2014-07-21 08:43:00 AM  

Empty Matchbook: Gary-L: Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....

You know how I know you are one of the "sheeple"?

/Open-carry people are still douchebags.
//Just like those who Roll Coal

And people who seriously use the word "sheeple."

Seriously, there are better ways to condescend.


True.  I should have pointed out the error.  This article explains it quite well
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/07/20/buzzfeed-brutalism- dc -architecture-photographs-police-column/12911523/

Photography of public buildings, unless as noted by the article, is not against the law.  The police in the video are abusing their poweres.
 
2014-07-21 11:06:47 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Gyrfalcon: Can people TRY to direct their ire in the right direction for once: Get the security guards trained, get a proper mission statement from the building management, and put a leash on the 1/3 of Federal buildings where their own people are running amok. And if you have to take a picture of the employee entrance of the FBI building, BuzzFeed, maybe--just maybe--you should let the agents know BEFORE you do it, instead of afterward.

What's the difference?

If they can't say "no," what does informing them gain you? A record, so they can put you on the surveillance list and send Homeland Security or FBI officers to your door?

Pandering to paranoia only justifies it. The fact is that not one single incident has been traced back to photographers. There was never anything that showed any terrorist or other malcontent needed a photograph in order to carry out whatever wrongdoing they had planned.

And what's the difference if I take a picture of the entrance vs. the rest of the building? Nobody has any expectation of privacy there. They're recording everything happening all around the building already, they're recording you on the sidewalk, what's the big difference in getting shots of the doorway?


They can say no.

The buildings and property are treated as private. You can asked to leave all manner of government property for all kinds of reasons.

Do you scream about your rights when parks close from 11p to 4a?
 
2014-07-21 11:18:02 AM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: we are steadily having our God given rights diminished.


There is no such thing.
 
2014-07-21 11:18:11 AM  

Smackledorfer: Lenny_da_Hog: Gyrfalcon: Can people TRY to direct their ire in the right direction for once: Get the security guards trained, get a proper mission statement from the building management, and put a leash on the 1/3 of Federal buildings where their own people are running amok. And if you have to take a picture of the employee entrance of the FBI building, BuzzFeed, maybe--just maybe--you should let the agents know BEFORE you do it, instead of afterward.

What's the difference?

If they can't say "no," what does informing them gain you? A record, so they can put you on the surveillance list and send Homeland Security or FBI officers to your door?

Pandering to paranoia only justifies it. The fact is that not one single incident has been traced back to photographers. There was never anything that showed any terrorist or other malcontent needed a photograph in order to carry out whatever wrongdoing they had planned.

And what's the difference if I take a picture of the entrance vs. the rest of the building? Nobody has any expectation of privacy there. They're recording everything happening all around the building already, they're recording you on the sidewalk, what's the big difference in getting shots of the doorway?

They can say no.

The buildings and property are treated as private. You can asked to leave all manner of government property for all kinds of reasons.

Do you scream about your rights when parks close from 11p to 4a?


I'm sorry, what time do public sidewalks close?

Do you think that when a park closes, I can't take a picture of it from a public sidewalk? Do you think landowners own the light that bounces off of their property and into your eyes or camera?

Trespassing is trespassing. It has nothing to do with cameras. This writer was stopped not for trespassing, but for taking pictures from public sidewalks.
 
2014-07-21 11:23:21 AM  

stan unusual: Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.


Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.


It has always been the case that the times decide who gets to hang around where and do what without being given the boot. Post-911 people who look shady and take pictures of security locations now get the same treatment skateboarding teenagers have always received. Is it right? Nah, probably not.  Is it legal? Probably, depending on how they go about it. Is it stupid? Yes. So is figuratively building yourself a cross to climb up on when you don't have a better idea for a story.
 
2014-07-21 11:27:15 AM  

Smackledorfer: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: we are steadily having our God given rights diminished.

There is no such thing.


By definition, you are correct. Because they're not rights if they are abrogatable.

However, if you're arguing about my use of "God given", don't be picayune. You know that I mean, not granted by man, nor government. Our rights are not given by anyone. They are simply acknowledged by our government as unbroachable, sacrosanct and inalienable.

If that was not your argument, then I apologize. I have you favorited as "Good Reasoner", so I sincerely hope that I owe you an apology.
 
2014-07-21 11:29:37 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: SauronWasFramed: old news is old.....we live in a police state.

the reporter is lucky he didn't get Rodney King'ed

You live in a police state only if you're paranoid and feel oppressed.  That says volumes about you.


During the RNC, I was going to work (Chelsea Piers, NYC) during the RNC when it was in town... I had a button on my backpack that had a slash through a W... Steve Forbes was having a party on his yacht at the piers, unbeknownst to me... two NYPD atlas cops (the ones who wear more gear than many military troops outside the wire) threw me up against a truck, ripped the button off of my backpack, inquired as to where I was going, then released me by telling me that "the free speech zone is up above 42nd, not here." If you think the problem with that story is that I'm paranoid, that says volumes about you.
 
2014-07-21 11:31:55 AM  
The last time I went to DC, I distinctly remember walking by the FBI Building, and seeing on its perimeter, on the curb, was a car that looked like a police car, but its markings distinctly said "FBI  Police".  And I remember thinking to myself "I thought the FBI was the police??"  The Police have to have their own police??
 
2014-07-21 11:33:47 AM  

Smackledorfer: stan unusual: Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.


It has always been the case that the times decide who gets to hang around where and do what without being given the boot. Post-911 people who look shady and take pictures of security locations now get the same treatment skateboarding teenagers have always received. Is it right? Nah, probably not.  Is it legal? Probably, depending on how they go about it. Is it stupid? Yes. So is figuratively building yourself a cross to climb up on when you don't have a better idea for a story.


Drink!

Nobody is camping out on sidewalks. You're making shiat up. That would be blocking a public asset. As long as you're not impeding traffic (which you can do with or without a camera), taking photographs is *not* suspicious in anyway. There is no basis on which to make that claim other than "some other guy told me it was suspicious."

That's like saying wearing a red tie or a blue dress is suspicious. I find unshaven faces suspicious. People with tattoos are suspicious. There's no basis for any of those statements, but you're willing to stand up for them.
 
2014-07-21 11:45:19 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: I'm sorry, what time do public sidewalks close?


Looking at the pictures one has to have very vague ideas of what a public sidewalk is vs. a walkway built on the building property itself.  

And again, surely you aren't saying you cannot be legally removed from sidewalks for a variety of behavioral offenses, are you?

Lenny_da_Hog: Do you think that when a park closes


I think when a park closes you cannot legally enter the park, and loitering around outside of a closed park would probably result being visited by the security of said park asking you what you were doing and telling you to stop loitering.

Lenny_da_Hog: Trespassing is trespassing. It has nothing to do with cameras.


Sure it does.  You legally enter the lobby of a government building. You start taking pictures and get asked to leave. When you don't leave, you are trespassing.  You weren't trespassing when you first entered, but you are trespassing as of being told by the people in charge of the building that you aren't wanted there any more.


As for sidewalk vs. private area, depending on the city and the way the sidewalk is set up, you can indeed ask people to leave your sidewalk. Many sidewalks are only considered such for public easement, and while you cannot keep people from egress or ingress, you can prevent them from staying there.  How they are set up around the government buildings in question I have no idea.  But you might be surprised to find out that the "public" sidewalks in your area really aren't. Iirc it can come down to how the land is taxed.

Even then, there is nothing that stops a state or a city from controlling its own property in a similar fashion. Highways are public property and closed to pedestrian traffic, for example. Parks are closed at various times. Roads and various sections of sidewalk can be shut down for parades.

Now, fwiw, I could give a flying fark about people, even those looking straight up like Al Queda, taking pictures of public buildings, and I think it is silly of those guarding the public buildings to do much more than a quick field interview and a have a nice day.  But I also think it is stupid to create a problem that never existed (including lying to the security guards about what you are taking photos of just to raise their level of suspicion) just to create a story when a reporter has nothing better to write about.  But it is illegal for them to shoo you away? I do not believe so.

Between loitering, the various types of 'public' sidewalk right of way laws, which parts of large federal complexes even count as those sidewalks to begin with, etc I suspect the cops and guards in the story had the legal right to order the photographer away from the building.


Lenny_da_Hog: This writer was stopped not for trespassing, but for taking pictures from public sidewalks.


http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

Even the ACLU says
When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs. If you disobey the property owner's rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply).

 He wasn't trespassing until they told him to stop taking pictures and leave, at which point his continued disobeying of those in charge of the property made it trespassing. But yes, he was initially stopped for not following the rules, however arbitrary and even inconsistent (we can change the rules of what we want in our house for any reason we feel like) those rules may be.
I for one don't want the rules of private property to be further eroded in order to protect a buzzfeed photographer from himself. I've never gotten it in my head that government owned buildings have to submit to my own personal rules either. I assume we are in agreement here, which leaves one thing for us to agree to disagree on: what the rules of sidewalks are./shrug
 
2014-07-21 11:51:46 AM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Smackledorfer: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: we are steadily having our God given rights diminished.

There is no such thing.

By definition, you are correct. Because they're not rights if they are abrogatable.

However, if you're arguing about my use of "God given", don't be picayune. You know that I mean, not granted by man, nor government. Our rights are not given by anyone. They are simply acknowledged by our government as unbroachable, sacrosanct and inalienable.

If that was not your argument, then I apologize. I have you favorited as "Good Reasoner", so I sincerely hope that I owe you an apology.


Well, I do find the god-given bit silly, but I should have been clear about my overall point.

Rights only exist by the way of man making them up, and are maintained only so long as a society agrees to keep them. They are society-created and society-granted. The rest is just words.  To me it is useless to have a series of poorly defined "rights" and say they are sacrosanct yadda yadda and then we change exactly what they are from generation anyways.  I mean, it is nice to have them in the law and to have decades of rules clarifying, but in terms of actually arguing "I have the right to do X because the first amendment says Y" doesn't leave us with much.  It instead leaves us with an awful lot of confused and angry people who thought they had unstoppable rights to free speech and then get really mad when they find out about time, manner, and place restrictions.

It leaves us with people on both sides of the political spectrum who are area men passionate about what they believe the constitution to say. Then, because we called them god-give natural rights or what-have-you, they have abandoned any attempt to even discuss what those rights reasonably mean to a society and tend to go straight godwin when discussing them.  Which gets rather tedious.
 
2014-07-21 11:55:20 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Nobody is camping out on sidewalks.


Ok, if you are going to be this obtuse I don't know what to say.  Stan Unusual claimed "Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis", and I gave an example of when they absolutely do.

I don't know whether I have no approached the level of a biatch eating crackers in your mind and thus everything I say must be twisted into me being a horrible person or lying about who is camping on a sidewalk, or whether you are truly this fundamentally ill-informed about what public sidewalks are.

jbrad47128: The Police have to have their own police??


This is what happens after decades of people asking who will police the police :)
 
2014-07-21 11:57:19 AM  

Smackledorfer: I think when a park closes you cannot legally enter the park, and loitering around outside of a closed park would probably result being visited by the security of said park asking you what you were doing and telling you to stop loitering.


You keep changing rules and making up scenarios that didn't happen. Nobody is loitering. Snapshots take just a second. Nobody complained about loitering -- they complained about possession and use of a camera. The ACLU link is talking about being on private property, not public sidewalks. If the sidewalk isn't public, it's not a public sidewalk. This writer (and hundreds and hundreds of others) states he was on a public sidewalk, took pictures, hopped on his bike, and went to the next location.

There's nothing in the story that says this photographer asserted his rights and continued to take pictures after being told to stop. He complied. There was nothing about trespassing.
 
2014-07-21 12:34:10 PM  

Smackledorfer: I don't know whether I have no approached the level of a biatch eating crackers in your mind and thus everything I say must be twisted into me being a horrible person or lying about who is camping on a sidewalk, or whether you are truly this fundamentally ill-informed about what public sidewalks are.


Poor victim. You are obfuscating.

You keep pointing to times when public assets are closed, when sidewalks aren't public although they appear to be, saying highways are closed to foot-traffic... These are all things that don't apply here.

These are situations in which the public *was* allowed to travel on the public sidewalks, and the only thing this one member of the public did was legally take photographs from that sidewalk.

There is no trespassing, no loitering, no encroachment upon areas that are open only to employees, no classified areas, no after-hours entry to closed properties, no entry into automobile traffic area. It's a guy with a camera taking pictures from a sidewalk that's open to everyone, and the only thing that makes him different is possession and use of a camera -- which is, by coincidence, also the only thing these armed guards, police, and administrators harassed him about.

You have enough red herrings to open a fish shop. None of those situations happened here, and if they did, the possession of a camera wouldn't make a lick of difference.
 
2014-07-21 01:59:24 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: You keep changing rules and making up scenarios that didn't happen


Lenny_da_Hog: Poor victim. You are obfuscating.



I brought up the scenario as an example of a time in which sidewalks do allow for the removal of people on them, despite them being public - a term you seem to have some very strange misconceptions about. Let me copy and paste it again in case you missed it.

Smackledorfer: As for sidewalk vs. private area, depending on the city and the way the sidewalk is set up, you can indeed ask people to leave your sidewalk. Many sidewalks are only considered such for public easement, and while you cannot keep people from egress or ingress, you can prevent them from staying there.  How they are set up around the government buildings in question I have no idea.  But you might be surprised to find out that the "public" sidewalks in your area really aren't. Iirc it can come down to how the land is taxed.

Even then, there is nothing that stops a state or a city from controlling its own property in a similar fashion. Highways are public property and closed to pedestrian traffic, for example. Parks are closed at various times. Roads and various sections of sidewalk can be shut down for parades.



Lenny_da_Hog: and if they did, the possession of a camera wouldn't make a lick of difference.

See my direct quote from the ACLU website. People can order you off their private property for no reason at all. Sometimes this private property INCLUDES the sidewalks around that property for various purposes. If the place sets its own personal rule about taking pictures, you can be ordered off the property and off the sidewalk as a result (again depending on how a given city rules a given stretch of sidewalk is to be treated).

When you can grow up and have a real conversation without playing games, feel free to let me know. It seems you have decided that since we don't agree on something that I'm a biatch eating crackers thus nothing I can possibly type in could be read without you applying your bias to it.  There is no point in further conversing with you until you pull your head out of your ass.
 
2014-07-21 02:07:19 PM  

Smackledorfer: stan unusual: Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.



Wanna bet?

img.fark.netimg.fark.netimg.fark.net
img.fark.netimg.fark.netimg.fark.net

You wouldn't be talkin' outta your butt, now would you?
 
2014-07-21 02:23:29 PM  

John the Magnificent: Smackledorfer: stan unusual: Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.


Wanna bet?

You wouldn't be talkin' outta your butt, now would you?


And if those stores didnt want you there?

Oh hey look its almost there are in fact rules about public sidewalks. How about that.
 
2014-07-21 02:38:36 PM  

Smackledorfer: John the Magnificent: Smackledorfer: stan unusual: Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.


Wanna bet?

You wouldn't be talkin' outta your butt, now would you?

And if those stores didnt want you there?

Oh hey look its almost there are in fact rules about public sidewalks. How about that.


You should pick up a set of these.  Very useful for someone with your debating "style".

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-21 02:40:26 PM  

Smackledorfer: John the Magnificent: Smackledorfer: stan unusual: Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.


Wanna bet?


You wouldn't be talkin' outta your butt, now would you?

And if those stores didnt want you there?

Oh hey look its almost there are in fact rules about public sidewalks. How about that.


Yes... just like there are in fact rules against taking photos of public buildings.

Oh.. wait, no there aren't.  How about that!
 
2014-07-21 03:05:59 PM  

John the Magnificent: Smackledorfer: John the Magnificent: Smackledorfer: stan unusual: Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.


Wanna bet?

You wouldn't be talkin' outta your butt, now would you?

And if those stores didnt want you there?

Oh hey look its almost there are in fact rules about public sidewalks. How about that.

You should pick up a set of these.  Very useful for someone with your debating "style".


Try rereading there. In what world would anyone refer to trespassing under the assumption the owners of property wanted them there and had granted permission?

You aren't very smart.
 
2014-07-21 03:24:43 PM  

Smackledorfer: John the Magnificent: Smackledorfer: John the Magnificent: Smackledorfer: stan unusual: Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.


Wanna bet?

You wouldn't be talkin' outta your butt, now would you?

And if those stores didnt want you there?

Oh hey look its almost there are in fact rules about public sidewalks. How about that.

You should pick up a set of these.  Very useful for someone with your debating "style".

Try rereading there. In what world would anyone refer to trespassing under the assumption the owners of property wanted them there and had granted permission?

You aren't very smart.


You are right... I am not very smart.  I thought that when you typed

"Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be."

you meant

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be."

when clearly you didn't mean that at all.  You were clearly referring to people who trespass on private property, and stupid me was confused by the fact that nowhere in your statement...

"Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be."

is there any mention of private property or trespassing.  Yes... I am most certainly dumb.  Wait... let me check your statement again, just to be sure.

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.

Nope... I'm too dumb to see the words private property or trespassing.

You, on the other hand are very smart indeed, what with avoiding the observation about there being laws against trespassing, but none against taking pictures of public buildings.  A true scholar you are.  One in a million.  A generational intellect.  No doubt about it.
 
2014-07-21 04:17:14 PM  

Smackledorfer: Lenny_da_Hog: and if they did, the possession of a camera wouldn't make a lick of difference.

See my direct quote from the ACLU website. People can order you off their private property for no reason at all. Sometimes this private property INCLUDES the sidewalks around that property for various purposes. If the place sets its own personal rule about taking pictures, you can be ordered off the property and off the sidewalk as a result (again depending on how a given city rules a given stretch of sidewalk is to be treated).


And this has nothing to do with what's happening. AGAIN, you're bringing up something that doesn't apply. Certainly private landowners can order you from their property. If the sidewalks are PRIVATE, they aren't PUBLIC.

We are talking about public sidewalks, where the public is allowed to walk. We are not talking about sidewalks that appear to be public but might not be. You might think a large yard is a public park, but if it is instead a large private lawn, it isn't public. Duh.

Public sidewalks are public. That's what this and hundreds and hundreds of other photographers have attested to -- being on absolutely, positively public sidewalks that the public owns and being harassed for taking photos. As I mentioned, I was on an absolutely public sidewalk on the side of a state highway when I was stopped and questioned by police for taking photos.

There are thousands of stories, photos, and videos on the web documenting this exact phenomenon -- where the public is allowed to traverse, and a photographer is harassed on a thoroughfare that he or she is allowed to traverse solely for possession and use of photographic equipment. These are not areas that have usage restrictions at the time the photographer was harassed, beaten, arrested. They are not cases of people thinking they were on unrestricted areas or abusing public areas by impeding traffic.

If it's private, it's not public. Someone making an error over whether it's public or private is a red herring, and you seem bent on keeping that dying fish alive.
 
2014-07-21 05:28:57 PM  

John the Magnificent: Smackledorfer: stan unusual: Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.


Wanna bet?

[img.fark.net image 275x183][img.fark.net image 266x190][img.fark.net image 282x179]
[img.fark.net image 259x194][img.fark.net image 276x183][img.fark.net image 300x168]

You wouldn't be talkin' outta your butt, now would you?


They kinda make an exception for Black Friday otherwise you'd be charged with loitering.
 
2014-07-21 05:55:24 PM  

Fart_Machine: John the Magnificent: Smackledorfer: stan unusual: Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.


Wanna bet?

[img.fark.net image 275x183][img.fark.net image 266x190][img.fark.net image 282x179]
[img.fark.net image 259x194][img.fark.net image 276x183][img.fark.net image 300x168]

You wouldn't be talkin' outta your butt, now would you?

They kinda make an exception for Black Friday otherwise you'd be charged with loitering.


Some of the might be buying cameras.

SOME OF THEM MIGHT EVEN HAVE CAMERAS ON THEM!

WHERE ARE THE POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
 
2014-07-21 06:03:29 PM  

Smackledorfer: And again, surely you aren't saying you cannot be legally removed from sidewalks for a variety of behavioral offenses, are you?


Except, photography isn't one of those behavioral offenses.  So you're effectively taking two facts that exist, functionally, in a vacuum, and are combining them into the most idiotic non-point anyone has ever made.
 
2014-07-21 08:13:23 PM  

Fart_Machine: John the Magnificent: Smackledorfer: stan unusual: Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.


Wanna bet?

[img.fark.net image 275x183][img.fark.net image 266x190][img.fark.net image 282x179]
[img.fark.net image 259x194][img.fark.net image 276x183][img.fark.net image 300x168]

You wouldn't be talkin' outta your butt, now would you?

They kinda make an exception for Black Friday otherwise you'd be charged with loitering.


20 years ago, maybe. Since then, the courts have pretty much systematically trashed anti-loitering laws as unconstitutional. Turns out, innocently hanging out on a public sidewalk is actually sort of a right that people have. To the extent they've survived, "loitering" statutes today have largely been re-written so as to prohibit loitering only to the extent that it is done for some other criminal purpose (like prostituting), or as running afoul of some other public health/safety code, or as keeping people away from particular public places like schools and transportation hubs.

If you were literally camping on the sidewalk, you'd probably be charged with camping in public or some other ordinance that's been narrowly tailored to that particular problem (assuming the jurisdiction has one). But, if you're just hanging out in front of a business all day, then nope -- pretty sure that's legal.
 
2014-07-21 09:26:37 PM  
Isn't there some sort of one or two page document that you could pack with your camera that you could show the security officers?  One that talks about the supreme court and public places?
 
Displayed 224 of 224 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report