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 225
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

4716 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jul 2014 at 8:54 AM (13 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 225 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report