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 (14 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 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?
 
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