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
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

4760 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 224 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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