A guy I met who's an American-born Muslim (from Palo Alto) was returning to the US after a trip abroad (post 9/11) when he was pulled for a "random" extra discussion with some official.
They sent him into another area and when he got inside, he told me, he looked to the right and there was one of those huge pictures of the then-President George W. Bush flanked by flags and everything and he just started cracking up. He turned to the official behind the desk and said, still laughing, "Can I ask you a question? Did you guys put that up there or did they make you put it up?"
The official replied, "Go on through sir, I can tell you're really American."
Can someone clarify what the hell happened here? Why would anyone think that it is appropriate to object to a random person taking a photo of a random public building in one of the largest cities in the world, particularly given that there are tens of thousands of photos of this building already available freely online from virtually every angle?
after 9/11 basically every employee of a federal building/critical piece of infrastructure + the associated security/police were on the look out for people "casing" their facilities, i.e. planning an attack, taking pictures etc.
This eventually morphed into hassling, arresting anyone taking photos of these sites...link below has some good info
I love that in the era of the 15 megapixel smartphone camera, someone thinks a person with a 4x5 and a freaking tripod is taking a picture for nefarious purposes.
I can when I get home, but I use a flatbed scanner to digitize and it just doesn't get much more detail than that. You need a drum scanner, which are expensive ;)
Unfortunately, if you think about this too much, everything gets flipped upside down. The tripod is the _perfect_ cover for a would be terrorist. Hide in plain sight. Etc.
This is because it's security theater, not actual security. The entire security culture of the USA is focused on drama, not legitimate vulnerabilities.
In that vein, I was waiting outside a federal building for a friend (who worked inside) and was approached by a private security officer and asked to show ID, I was about to get indignant, but decided I really just wanted to go to lunch, so showed her, she barely glanced at it, gave it back to me and walked off - what earthly purpose that served, I have no idea...
The purpose it served was making you bow to her will. It was pure ego trip. Cops being able to demand ID arbitrarily is not supported by the constitution but some states allow it. Private individuals (even if they are a "security guard") certainly have no rights to make such demands.
This whole environment is just the Stanford Prison Experiment writ large.
To be fair, I've been approached and reprimanded in China, Ethiopia, Panama and Cairo for taking pictures of seemingly innocuous looking things that might be of interest to a traveler or tourist however someone watching felt otherwise. Its not just the US.
No idea. If I were being very cynical, I imagine that he had a "security training" and wanted to get an extra gold star. The Port Authority seems to think that photographers are Public Enemy Number One, even prohibiting selfies on their trains, technically.
He seemed like a nice guy who cared about his job, maybe a civil engineer or something. He wasn't dressed as though he were in a security position, or anything. (His badge didn't say.)
I don't think we're quite at dystopian levels yet.
Oh no, we are. If you would consider the plight of a peasant in Tsarist Russia dystopian, then we are in the 21st century industrialized 1st world version already. We're definitely not too close to THX-1138 or 1984. But we are in the same quadrant as Brave New World and The Machine Stops.
Guessing security guard was told to watch for the "terrorists". In his head he was the hero everyone would sing songs about how he saved the city from the next 9/11.
And of course, if someone takes a picture with a 4x5 camera it means they are serious.
> "Why would you photograph that? Photograph the WTC.
I like that part. He tells a photographer who cared enough to invest in a 4x5 camera what to photograph. "You don't know what is pretty. I'll tell you what's pretty, go shoot that instead".
Finally, a professional photographer is probably going to be carrying a camera that's 10x more expensive than mine. I bought my Toyo 45CF for $500 used.
I like that picture! Great work, thanks for sharing. Do you license or sell your work?
Played a bit with a 4x5 camera in the past. It was amazing and confusing how much stuff can be done (selective focus, perspective control) by adjusting the front and back independently.
You can control the image plane, the focal plane, and what part of the image circle you want to use. It's wonderful. I really like pictures of tall things with straight lines (not "tilted up" as what happens when the film plane is not parallel to the subject), so it's the right camera for me, because you can use the bottom portion of the image circle to get that field of view while still keeping the film parallel to the subject.
Nobody has ever asked to licence my photos. Please consider them CC-BY. Send me an email if you want something more concrete than a HN comment.
The Port Authority authority was set up under the instigation of Robert Moses by Al Smith to provide Moses with extra-legal authority to complete his works projects and otherwise execute his whims.
There was a point in time in this city when the head of the Port Authority had more power than the Mayor of New York.
The power exercised by the Authority and attitude of secrecy are institutional. It predated 9/11 and it will never go away.
Security guards are not hired or paid for their intelligence or ability to deescalate a situation or anything remotely related to security.
They are paid to be imposing and bully people and occupy a space. If one is ever bothering you for doing something you have every right to do simply call the police. Especially if a security guard obstructs your movement or touches you.
Police generally dislike bully security guards as much as you do and will tell them to knock it off immediately. A pattern of harassment will generally get the security guard fired.
Just to add to what you're saying... Even most security guards dislike bully security guards as much as you do. It's all about the power trip, and nobody likes a person abusing their authority, especially if that authority is simply perceived and not real.
Yes, the ACLU has some guidance for photographers[0] of how to do deal appropriately with law enforcement. That is how much of a problem it has become.
Generally you have a higher probability of a trained police officer knowing and understanding a photographers rights under the law than a security guard.
Also an important distinction remains between photographs and video which might contain audio. There can be different rules regarding recording audio.
I think it is less about pictures being taken but a guy given a badge and now he is high on [perceived] power. Most of the time one can deal with them by a friendly request for clarification on which grounds they want one to do something. For the remaining few, if one has the time: Just let them call the cops.
I myself have handed out badges and walkie talkies to untrained "security" folks at events and my estimate is that I had to pull about 10% out during their shift due to abuse of power and tell about 80% to not come back after their shift. From a security perspective, the 5% or so we had as regulars on staff were the only ones you'd rely on; that were also the folks who spend most of their shift just sitting around, but when there are real problems they deal with them level headed but efficiently.
If it helps the OP: The guy's superior is probably just as annoyed as you are by his guard's behavior but he does not have the luxury to simply replace him due to crappy pay and therefore a lack of applicants.
I was yelled at by security and threatened with arrest for taking photos of the Stamford Cone[1], which is on the property of UBS Bank[2].
I was on the sidewalk between the trees and the road that you can clearly see in the Street View link, with my little point & shoot Sony camera when the security guard came out of the building yelling. This must have been 2003-2004.
I'm surprised at the guard being involved, but it's possible this could be for copyright reasons rather than security. The Portlandia statue near Portland's city hall, for instance, is noted for its artist's heavyhanded protection of his rights (at least for a piece of public art).
The objection is preposterous but it is hardly a "random public building". It is in fact one of the prime targets of evil-doers who would be trying to effect mass casualties in Manhattan.
This is one of those situations where one's gut reaction to always respond to others is misplaced. This is NYC. I've only spent a few months there, but I saw my share of crazy people yelling at others. That is all this is. Someone who has no authority over you is yelling that some 3rd party wouldn't like what you are doing, even though what you are doing is legal, and you are not on their private property... so treat it like you would any other time you get yelled at by a stranger in NYC. Just ignore them and carry on.
A security guard with an pre-existing relationship with the cops who might pepper his statement with some drama that might or might not have happened to make sure you get either arrested or detained certainly has an authority over some random guy with a camera. Also, many police run on informal quotas and if there's a "letter of the law" arrest here then the cops will probably take it. The police not here to advocate for you and most are fairly ignorant of many important legal issues, especially in regards to civil rights.
Why does everyone think calling the cops will magically solve everything and every cop is a honest truth teller immune from politics, bullshit, and bias? As someone who is classified as 'white' but has much darker skin than your average white person (I pass as arab easily), I can tell you, shit gets real when the cops are bothered and the guy closer to the bottom of the potem pole usually gets fucked, regardless of merit. The cops will just let the courts figure it out, so now you're in a cell, spending money on lawyers, etc because some high school drop-out making minimum wage as a security guard thinks you're a terrorist.
Its just easier to just accept the bullying and go away. That's what the guy in the blog post pretty much did. He took a half-assed picture instead of the one he wanted and felt terrible after. How exactly did any of this make us safer? Who can he complain to? And if he did, who would even care?
Agreed, and I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted either. You speak the truth.
I was mugged about two months ago in a pretty busy intersection and raised the issue when the investigation was 'suspended'. Even though the city's low on budget and such, it sounds incredibly unreasonable for an investigation to simply.. stop. So, a FOIA request for the camera data that received a "We have no responsive records for your request" response. I complained to the investigator, who seemed to be legally obligated to work with me. He told me that the investigation was never suspended since they were waiting for a response from me (not true) and that when they called, I didn't pick up (which makes perfect sense, since my phone was stolen - which is mentioned in the police report).
When I started to ask the guy if he could help add an extra camera to that intersection, he absolutely refused to and basically called it a waste of time - even though it would help him and many others in the future.
To get me off the call, he asked me if I had anything to drink that night, which I (naively) said "One drink four hours before the mugging." He then told me that because of that one drink, it would be impossible for me to verify anybody in a line up, closed the investigation, and ended the call 30 seconds later.
I'm already in over my head with a bunch of other things towards Chicago, so I'm honestly going to pick my battle and let this one go. It goes against my usual policy, but the stress got out of hand there for a bit.
Not sure why you were downvoted. I suppose some people just can't handle the truth, because you're absolutely correct. The police have the power to make your life hell, especially if someone reports you for "suspicious activity" and there is an even remotely plausible reason (e.g. "he is taking photos because he's planning a terrorist attack!").
HN heavily leans white suburban kid culture. I think when you make claims like I do that goes against their experiences and they simply don't understand. They don't understand situations when the police aren't automatically on your side. That's how life has always been for them.
I remember one of the first times I was pulled over. I was driving my dad's car, which was a nicer but not terribly expensive, luxury model. The cop literally had his gun out in a battle pose as his partner approached my window. I thought that was normal until someone told me otherwise. Apparently, the cop thought the car was stolen and was expecting a gunfight due to how I looked (young dark guy in a bmw driving the way most teenagers drive).
I'm decently well off now and don't often deal with this stuff much or just don't notice it anymore, but growing up I was certainly treated a certain way my white friends were not. I don't blame them if they don't understand this automatically. They never had those experiences and its understandable. But it is annoying to be auto-downvoted like I'm making all of this up or have some big agenda. I rarely talk about this stuff to be honest, mostly because of reactions like this.
You're right, most people don't understand just how lucky they are to be born that way. But those are exactly the people who should be standing up to this sort of bullshit, because they can do so with less risk.
Throughout history, some risks when doing activism as a privileged member of society:
- Oppressing one group while championing another
- Oppressing the group you are championing
- Acting in anger and alienating potential allies
- Acting in anger and discrediting potential allies
> Its just easier to just accept the bullying and go away.
Someone has to stand up to the bullies, or they'll keep going forever.
Obviously I'm coming at this from a privileged position - I'm a white male with a relatively clean background. My job and family situation would permit me to be detained, even for 24 hours, without catastrophic results.
If I were black, or a Sikh, or here on a work visa, or working a job that I'm likely to lose if I don't show up with no notice, then I would skew more heavily towards the "ignore the bully". But I'm not, so I wouldn't.
I hope you're not implying that the logical conclusion of "standing up to the bullies" is police murder.
Ever heard of non-violent civil disobedience? It was popularized by a little known guy named Martin Luther King Jr. He got it from another guy who went by the name of Mahatma Gandhi.
I'll reply to you and pavel_lishin and nl in one place here, so we keep the subthread tidy.
To dispatch the examples of Gandhi and MLK--please ask yourselves how their civil disobedience would be handled in modern America. Ask yourselves how their messages would be mocked, subverted, and distorted with modern social media, even without state intervention. These are different times, my friends.
(Also, mentioning MLK while glossing over the credible threat of armed domestic terrorism posed by Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and many other factions at that time in American history is inaccurate--you miss a lot of the background political pressure brought to bear by people "standing up to bullies".)
The reason I asked the parent question was not to be ghoulish or edgy, and I mean that sincerely.
The fact of the matter is that the quaint notion of "standing up to the bullies" is completely out of date. You probably imagine telling some guard to fuck off, and when they return with a cop, what then?
You'd give the officer (who is probably of less-than-amazing intelligence, because of a court case years ago allowing PDs to discriminate on that) a lecture on the freedom of panorama, and they'd let you be? If not, then what?
If you don't resist, you hardly have "stood up to the bullies".
If you resist and lose--and remember, resisting can be anything as simple as bleeding on the officer's uniform when they decide to truncheon you--you will then be rewarded with the slow grinding gears of American "justice". At the very least, even if found innocent, you'll be out major court costs and time, while the bullies go about their business unimpeded.
If you resist and win--say, by beating the shit out of the bullies--then they'll summon additional forces until you are subdued. Subdued repeatedly. There may be an investigation later, but that'll be of academic interest to you while you're handcuffed to a hospital bed recuperating to be in good shape for your prison sentence.
So, again, bearing that escalation in mind, think about my earlier question--because that's the inevitable chain of actions that start with "standing up to the bullies".
And that's why when a poster points out that maybe standing up is just not a good idea, we shouldn't downvote them.
Yeah, its clear a few vocal HN'ers have a Hollywood idea of "sticking it to the man."
In reality all those court cases you hear about and investigations happen because a patron (opposing political party, deep pocketed advocacy group, millionaire/billionaire activist) has decided to help you for their own ends. There is no "police justice" hotline you call and if you think resisting arrest or arguing with the cops in public is going to make you some kind of HN/Reddit hero, then you'll be in a surprise when you end up on the local police blotter and later with an open/shut case conviction and unable to get anything but a mcJob.
Life isn't Judge Judy or Hollywood SJW movies. Unless you have significant backing from wealth and the media, you don't become successful against the justice system, regardless of how wronged you were.
> If you resist and lose--and remember, resisting can be anything as simple as bleeding on the officer's uniform when they decide to truncheon you--you will then be rewarded with the slow grinding gears of American "justice".
> you resist and win--say, by beating the shit out of the bullies
These are not the only two outcomes of resisting, and that is not the only way to win.
I reject your false binary of "submit to anyone who might summon authority | murder policemen" as the only possible choices when faced with this scenario.
You're just stammering "but but but that's not how it works" while still clinging to this "we can stand up to the bullies" narrative.
I've sketched out my logic and reasoning, please do the same.
Also, the false binary you presented is indeed false--because that's not what I wrote. My thesis is exactly that "standing up to the bullies" will lead to escalation of force in the short term which leads to violence and loss, and that failure to "stand up to the bullies" is achieved by doing anything other than continuing what you were doing when they told you to stop.
Please stop the bluster and explain this magical thinking that somehow lets us both "stand up to the bullies" without consequences of escalation.
In my other comments, I've acknowledged that standing up to bullies isn't free, and that some people may suffer more than others as a result due to how our society works.
Killing police officers is still murder, and it not being state-sponsored violence doesn't make it any less of a bullying tactic - if bullying is the right word to use for a horrific crime.
I don't think I can really make my case any clearer.
I sense shades of implication that the effectiveness of MLK's non-violent resistance movement is a convenient docile mythology for the ruling class that ignores the other simultaneous aggressive challenges to the power structure, e.g. BPP, Malcolm X.
That may be so... history is written by the victors.
I do know this: the path to success for any minority movement is the path to becoming accepted by the majority.
A growing violent movement gives a virtually infinitely powerful state legal and moral justification for wiping you out.
A peaceful movement gives the state no justification for stamping it out with force. It must be challenged at an intellectual level.
Sure the current media environment is manipulative... but it's nowhere near as bad as it was in the past. Watch national news from the 60s, you'll see what I'm talking about. Also we have the internet now, every falsehood the media spreads is immediate debunked and it seems they know that.
The truth can't be suppressed forever. As MLK said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
This is why I think non-violent resistance as a tactic is the best chance any movement has for success when normal legislative channels have failed.
I will politely disagree with your conclusion about modern versus historical media, because I think we could reasonably make an argument that the mechanisms are merely different in their manipulation and not in their scope.
Otherwise, though, I agree that for progress to be made a non-violent movement must be present. Being a violent movement doesn't really work unless you've got outside support against your state.
That said, and to speak to the implications you mention, it is my firm belief that while a violent movement is doomed to fail it still must exist for the non-violent movement to make progress.
If the choice is between listening to the vocal but peaceful minorities and ignoring them, the choice historically is to ignore them. Once the minority's voice is seen as a less-costly alternative to dealing with violence, the state tends to listen.
MLK had Malcolm X. The LGBTQ folks had the Stonewall Riots.
It's a bloody and inefficient way of making policy, but it seems to be the course of things.
I think there is an assumption underlying your belief that non-violent movements need complementary violent ones for state recognition: that non-violent movements can't gain majority acceptance by the population (without needing a complement).
I believe they can, furthermore I believe that the state is unable to ignore a majority non-violent movement. One example is the gay rights movement. Once critical mass is reached and culture is changed, politicians change their tune, and laws practically unwrite themselves.
In the case where a minority non-violent movement necessarily stays just that, then yes I think there is a valid tactical argument to be made in having a complementary movement.
However tasteless and ineffectual in the long run, I think it is a logical response to the existing problem. Frankly I'm surprised it took this long, given that there is more than 20 years of documented case history of government officials being unaccountable for homicide.
No it's not. People shooting random police are bullies as much as police shooting random people. Stand up to both. Police aren't the only people who get away with murder.
"First take the log out of your own eye..." - Jesus
If police violence is the problem (and it is), then my violence isn't the solution. Worse, it removes me from any kind of moral high ground where I can try to help end police violence by trying to change police policy, training, or character. Instead, it leads me in the direction of civil war.
Is starting a civil war really your best answer to police violence? Or do you think "just kill a few and things will straighten out"?
> Is starting a civil war really your best answer to police violence?
I have not advocated for that position here, because like you I think that there are better ways of fixing the problem--policy, training, and recruitment.
That all said, I think we have to acknowledge that we can't use the same moral calculus for officers (read: agents of state violence) that we do for common citizens.
You even mention as much when you invoke "the moral high ground", because there is a qualitative difference between an act of violence committed by a citizen on their own (presumably limited to their own resources and defensible only by circumstance) and a one committed by an agent of the state (limited only by the resources allocated by the state and defensible by the blank check of "I'm a police officer").
For what it's worth, I don't have a strong alternative code to present at this time--I merely think that one is necessary.
One could make the argument that, for example, officers forfeit the right to appeal in the event of a complaint against them, that they should be imprisoned immediately if found doing wrong and executed publicly if found falsifying evidence. This heavy burden--especially if eagerly applied--would serve to help limit the number of people who merely want to be a thug with a badge.
And that's not a great plan for a number of reasons--consider the case where criminals just cry foul to remove officers from circulation. But we have to start thinking beyond the simple idea that an officer is in the same moral calculus as a citizen.
It's precisely to avoid civil war that change has to happen: when a private citizen commits murder, it is an isolated tragedy. When an agent of the state that does the same, it is cause to question the validity of that state. A lying citizen is not a sign of societal decay, but a lying officer or agent of the state is.
How is it logical? It is 100% an emotional response, an angry response born of frustration. What is logically gained from dead policemen? You will suffer, since you'll be in prison, or possibly dead. Your community will suffer, since if the police were brutal before, they're certainly not going to hold back now.
It's logical to expect emotional responses, but it's not logical to get carried away by your emotions to the point of murder, and pretend like you're doing something great.
Just to be clear, I am not defending the use of excessive force in any circumstance. But when we ignore the reasons behind the violent reactions, we perpetuate the problem.
The first step towards change is acknowledging you have a problem.
I pretty much disagree, and I think you would if you spent more time in NYC - there are definitely some crazy things that happen in NYC (having lived there for a while), but i think its too general and somewhat unhelpful to simply chalk this up as just an incident of 'crazy people yelling at others. that is all this is.' based on only having 'spent a few months there'.
Let me clarify - I fully recognize the issue at hand at not just a crazy person. But this guy is letting the security guard control the dynamic, when he doesn't have to. I'm not suggesting this is the same as the random homeless dude yelling at me that he wanted to poison all the hot dogs in the city. But I am suggesting that your reaction doesn't really need to differ.
I've lived in NYC all my life. I've never been yelled at by a homeless person. It could happen to me today, who knows, but I'm not sure I would let that define my understanding of NYC. New York is not what is shown in the movies or TV shows. It's not a sequence of crazy experiences waiting to happen. It's a city where people live and work. The guy was simply doing what he perceived was his responsibility. Whether he was right or wrong is open to discussion, but he was not a homeless guy yelling about hot dogs.
No, quite the opposite. I grew up in the Bronx in the 80's and 90's and went to school and worked in Manhattan and Brooklyn. I've seen some stuff, but never been personally yelled at by a homeless person. It probably will happen to me at some point, but I won't use it to frame future interactions other New Yorkers.
I'm not saying that it would be better to submit to the security guard but a random crazy person has less potential impact on my life than a random power tripping security guard. Security guard could arguably call the cops on me and make something up.
That's how creeping lack of privacy, lack of speech, lack of personal security works. It's hard to put a finger on exactly how it's impacting you, but it is. The photographer was afraid of the ramifications of his actions. It's unclear what the ramifications are but the fear is not unreasonable.
This is similar to how journalists feel in light of the NSA scandals. It's not wrong to write about government overreach but if you cross a line they might come after you so it's best not to approach the line, even if that is a private conversation on a phone or via email.
Protestors, photographers, journalists, and people with encrypted data are getting arrested. The first, forth, and fifth amendments are under attack. Cops are progressively getting more violent against nonviolent bystanders. The fear is real.
I don't think it's a well-known thing, but their other properties, like the George Washington Bridge show "no photographs" signs. I make sure to take a cell-phone photo every time I ride my bike up there.
The consensus I get from doing some research is that they are overreaching. Anyone can make any policy they want. Anyone can approach anyone else in public and ask them to do whatever they want. Whether or not there is any force of law behind those policies or questions is up to the courts to decide.
A few years ago, someone was going to sue the MTA for their photography policy. Apparently there is a law on the books regarding suing public-benefit corporations (of which the MTA and Port Authority are); if they agree to settle with you, and you choose not to accept the settlement, you are personally liable for their legal fees if the court awards you a settlement that's less than their legal fees. So of course, these policies can't be changed, as an individual can't out-resource the government.
I don't know if it's true or not. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a professional photographer. I'm just a guy who tries to visit the park with a few pieces of film every now and again.
> I don't think it's a well-known thing, but their other properties, like the George Washington Bridge show "no photographs" signs. I make sure to take a cell-phone photo every time I ride my bike up there.
Nice!
Whenever I've seen one of those signs I feel like there should a sibling sign next to that reads, "No reading this sign!".
>Apparently there is a law on the books regarding suing public-benefit corporations...
Am pretty sure there is no rule precisely like that. There might be such a rule, but it applies generally, not just when suing PBCs.
Port Authority photography rules only apply when you are on Port Authority property. That's why they can have those stupid "no photographs" signs in the tunnels and on the bridges.
The PATH employees / police did yell at tourists taking pictures of the PATH trains or tunnels a while back ago (esp right around 2002) and treated them like some public threats or so. But right now they seem care less about those growing numbers of tourists.
I think some people don't understand that these corporations and the government have strong legal teams, that can do serious damage to an unsuspecting individual. jobs can be lost, public reputations can be ruined, not to mention financial damage and fines, or worse prison time for innocuous offenses, or physical harm and property damage from reckless violent police.
"The prevailing theory was that the lane closures were retribution against Fort Lee's Mayor Mark Sokolich (D) for failing to endorse Christie in the 2013 gubernatorial election. That motive was alleged by federal prosecutors in May 2015, in charges against Bridget Anne Kelly, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Christie, and Bill Baroni and David Wildstein, both of whom had been Christie-appointed officials at the Port Authority. Wildstein pleaded guilty. The indictment charged that the three conspired to commit fraud by illegally exploiting Port Authority resources for political ends."
I don't have the resources to contend with the Port Authority.
Holy cow, Governor Christie's staff masterminded an actual terrorist attack on the NY/NJ, and it was an inside job, and 1 person may have died as a reult.
You didn't get your photo. You got a worse rushed photo that's only sort of like the one you wanted. That's not the same thing. The Port Authority's intimidation worked.
We need a name for this fallacy:
"We are empowered to stop terrorism."
"X can be used for terrorism."
"Therefore we are empowered to stop X."
Some relevant possible values for X: photography, money, cryptography, travel, social media...
It's easy for us to sit here and type how he was bullied and he should have stood up more for himself...when we weren't the ones in the situation. He calmed down and made clear-headed decisions about his next move(s). It was the right move.
If you were posting this on Petapixel with a little blurb about being harassed then I'd agree with you. But you wrote this article with a civil liberties bent (that I wholly agree with), so while I'm happy you weren't arrested I'm not sure the 'core' of the story is you took a picture and didn't get thrown in jail for it. It's more like you took a picture and had to fear you were going to go to jail for it.
This is an issue of freedom of panorama [1], there's the following citation for the US:
The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
— 17 U.S. Code § 120(a)
I wish every time someone tries to assert too much authority on me (or any ordinary citizen) there is a way for me to quickly find these citations to my legal rights that I can point to them and tell them to F off......
Reading between the lines a bit I suspect this passerby was relaying instructions he got in some kind of "security" training ostensibly about terrorism. If he discourages you from taking the photo, and a real security incident can be avoided, so much the better. If he overplays his hand and, for example, tries to restrain you at the scene, this causes a bigger story and a blemish to his employer at the very least.
I think you handled it correctly. Bend, but don't break. Know your rights. Understand what is at stake and then decide if you want to risk standing your ground.
In the US virtually all public places and people are fair game for photographs. One has no legal expectation of privacy in public place in the US.
That said, I am more qualified to be on commenting on petapixel than Hacker News. On photo web sites there are endless stories of overreach by individuals and institutions that attempt to limit a photographers right to take photographs in public. The situation in the USA is different than many other countries where photographing anyone associated with the military, any military installation and a great amount of "infrastructure" sites are off limits to photographers.
So while the Port Authority probably has no legal standing to limit photography it is interesting to ask if they have any logical standing for doing so. In numerous texts on the topic of physical security this issue is addressed. Security experts typically say that persons taking video or photos of secured locations with particular regard to photos of perimeter security, lighting security and cameras might be viewed as suspicious actors.
That common sense advice is taken to an absurd extreme here as it is highly unlikely that a threat actor would utilize a 4x5 camera, which is cumbersome, obvious and reliant on labor intensive film processing, on a tripod to take surveillance photos.
I experienced a similarly absurd episode when taking a photo of the weathered hopper control levers of a NYC garbage truck. A sanitation worker informed me that it was not allowed to take photographs of NYC vehicles. While I was tempted to inquire what the strategic import of the garbage control levers was, I held my tongue, finished my pictures and left.
For a truly ridiculous example of this, see this "Chaser's War On Everything" clip is which the same guy films a few different sites dressed as an American tourist, and later as a Saudi (in a thobe and gutra - had to look up the terms).
The security response is hilarious in how differently they react when the clothing changes.
(Bonus, watch the same clowns hire a limo + guys in suits jogging alongside and use that to get into a 'secure' conference site in the related video in the sidebar. Comedy gold.)
Good on you. I wouldn't have taken the tripod down at all; if he thinks you're doing something illegal, he can call the police, and they can sort it out if and when they arrive. You're not obligated to hang around after taking a legal photo and wait for them.
Except that if the police decide to take you down to the station, inspect your memory card, and shake you down a bit.. then even if they let you go.. you lost an entire day for what gain? Do you think protesting against the security guard and him seeing you dragged off by cops is going to change the policy or his attitude in the future?
The only way to "change" anything would be to follow up with a lawsuit if they harass you and get the port authority docked some money. Anything short of that and "you lose". Not sure it is worth everyone's time to follow through with a lawsuit.
For two, this is America, and you'll gain the satisfaction of standing up for your rights. That particular employee's mentality is one of the worst outcomes of the disaster that was and continues to be the 9/11 attack - the constant paranoia that's more suited to East Germany or the former Soviet Union.
For three, if enough people object and stand up for their rights, these pointless, bullshit harassment tactics might actually stop.
I can't spend a full day in jail each time I want to protest against a right abuse. I have to pick and choose my battles.
Tragedy of the commons says that even if you are right - if we ALL stood up against this it would stop.. for me specifically, it is more convenient to not. So most other people will not. And in fact I am not a photographer, so standing up for photography rights is pretty far down on my priority list.
In all likelihood, if the cops even bothered to show up after someone called this in, they'd probably laugh it off. I get that people have skepticism about police, but after living in NYC over a decade I've come to notice that NYC police usually don't care one bit about stupid stuff. Even in the "see something, say something" age, they usually have plenty of common sense.
If the person doesn't get charged in the end, eventually the police will stop showing up when the Port Authority calls because someone takes a picture.
Ok well how about you go out there and pick a fight with that security guard instead of typing about it on the Internet. It's real easy to say stuff like this when you weren't the one in the situation and it's not your life that's on the line.
Perhaps then you haven't been paying attention to the news. I'm not some alarmist that thinks every cop is looking to kill people but given the number of high profile fatal interactions lately I think everyone is more on edge and I wouldn't blame anyone for attempting to de-escalate a situation instead of taking some militaristic "high road" to prove a point.
To be sure, I realize the initial interaction was with what presumably is a security guard and not an actual LEO. However if the OP had taken a belligerent attitude it's not unreasonable to assume that law enforcement would have become involved quickly.
The only rational behavior when dealing with law enforcement of any sort is the same way you'd treat any other dangerous, and possibly violent wild animal - move slowly, don't be the least bit threatening.
Any random cop does have the ability to ruin your day, or worse, and there's jack and squat you can do about it until after the fact, if then. That's not even hyperbole - it's rational, objective fact.
I can't spend a full day in jail each time I want to protest against a right abuse. I have to pick and choose my battles.
In fact I am not a photographer, so standing up for photography rights is pretty far down on my priority list.
If this is an important cause to you, I suggest you go near a nuclear plant or military base and start taking pictures. When the police come, argue loudly.
When I lived in NYC, this sort of thing would happen every now and then. And never a real cop--always some pseudo-authority figure who thinks he's a cop and knows the law better than you. Got into quite an argument with a ConEd guy once. _Usually_ the easiest way to deal with it is the way this guy did--wait for the a-hole to go away, then come back for your photo. It happens less now that I don't live in New York any more, even when I am out with a big, conspicuous camera like an RB67 or one of my 4x5's. (Actually, then people are more curious than aggressive!)
Every time I go out with my 4x5, I meet people that are interested in it. I took 6 photos yesterday and met three other photographers who were interested and were of course very pleasant and enjoyable to chat with.
I also have a GW690ii that people ask me about all the time. I was even "stopped" by the police once (while in a somewhat precarious position to get the angle I wanted)... to tell me how cool the camera was.
Film photography is really great for meeting people in public. The world is not all bad; it's 99.9% good. But the negatives tend to have a larger effect on your world view than the positives, so you should be careful to not bias yourself away from being different.
I have one of those Fujis too--they're great. One time I was walking through downtown Boston with it, passed a family of tourists, and I hear the kid say "Dad! Did you see that guy's camera!" Yeah, most of the time, people are cool with it. Just, you know, people are people and some have to be difficult. And it's a common problem for photographers--some really have had dangerous run-ins with cops, physical threats, and so on.
My thing is watching trains. (Hey, everybody needs a hobby.)
So I was in Salt Lake, at a place where I can watch both the UTA Frontrunner (commuter rail, but heavy rail, not transit) and the freight tracks, because they're side-by-side. There are some signals on the freight tracks that tell me when something's coming, and there's a station there on the passenger rail. I park on the opposite side from the passenger platforms, in the parking area for an abandoned business.
One day these two UTA security guys came over to talk to me. They see me just sitting there watching their platform, and they're responsible for its security, so that's fine.
But when I explained that I was just there watching trains, they tried to pressure me into leaving. I told them that I was on private property, and it wasn't their private property, so I didn't care what they preferred that I do. They backed off.
I've been approached by police several times, asking what I was doing. Once I said that I was just watching trains, I was sometimes cautioned to be careful because I was in a drug trafficking area.
Once I was hassled by railroad security, but in that instance I had parked on their property, so they were not out of line. They just asked me to move my car.
Disclaimer: I am middle aged, white, and fairly conservative in appearance. I'm going to get the benefit of the doubt as much as anyone ever does.
FWIW, the ACLU has some information about the legality of taking photographs in public spaces of objects that are in plain view [1]. See also, this guidance [2] issued by a law firm about taking photographs. Note that I am not a lawyer, or even a photographer, so I submit these as available information to consider, but I cannot offer any experience or guidance in using the information.
As long as you're on public property you can take almost any photo --some exceptions exist for military installations, research facilities, etc. Private property owners can and do have the right to deny you the ability to take pictures from their land --so, as long as you are on public land (i.e. no restrictions to the public) you should be ok, in the US. Other countries can have different laws.
Well, there are some provisions in California and other states meant to prevent photos only possible telephoto lens being taken of private property, because of photos of celebrities. Not sure what the legal consensus is on these, but I suspect there will be more consideration of such laws as drones become more normal and provide viewing angles that let you see over privacy fences.
But a building without a private residence is fair game.
The tldr on most laws about telephoto/private property/etc is "reasonable expectation of privacy".
For example: If you stand on the sidewalk and take a picture of someone sunbathing nude on their front lawn, 10 feet away. Assuming there is no fence, you're perfectly in the right.
Flip side someone sunbathing nude in their backyard with 10 foot fences, if you took a picture of them say using a drone... then they can go after you because they had a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
Same thing with famous people in their backyard and the paparazzi who get out the 800mm lenses and take pictures from the next mountain over. The famous person could reasonably expect some privacy in their backyard.
"reasonable expectation" constantly changes in response to technology. The police and courts are fond of reminding citizens that they have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they store documents in cloud storage, for example.
Generally, in the US, whatever is "normally in public view", such as a facade visible from the street, is fair game. Poking into someone's window is not. Some countries, Germany for instance, have more restrictive laws about photographing private property.
This happened to me a few years ago. I was minding my own business taking
pictures, when a police car stopped over and an officer asked me what I was
doing.
Apparently, I was near an official building, and they told me not to photograph
in that street. I was told to "visit the website" if I wanted to look at
pictures of that building. They then asked me to show them the pictures in
order to check that I hadn't taken any photographs of that building, to
which I replied that they were welcome to try, as I was using a film camera.
They replied "okay, we believe you", and went away. Truly bizarre.
At one point in time I was taking pictures of random things around BART (SF Bay Area's medium rail system) stations... because... bored photographer. I had a employee first attempt to confiscate my camera and later threaten to call the BART cops (who are notorious for shooting first... and covering ass later).
Ironically they do have a photo policy http://www.bart.gov/about/business/permits/photopermits which isn't that different than it used to be. Basically as long as its non-commercial and you aren't sneaking in somewhere, it's fine. However that gate employee insisted what I was doing was illegal, private property (ha! PUBLIC transit), yada yada yada.
Of course, this was only because I had a DSLR. I've taken way more informational photos with my phone and no one ever noticed.
Isn't that building where the Holland Tunnel's ventilation system is? I don't think they've adequately guarded this vulnerability too well if photographers are a concern.
It is the ventilation building for the Holland Tunnel on the New York side; it's located directly above the tunnel, near the Manhattan portal.
It's not accessible directly via the street. It sits out on a long pier in the river, with a gate at the pier head. The public isn't allowed on the pier, but the gate sits along the Hudson River Greenway, a very big and very-highly-trafficked park. (With plenty of tourists)
It is common for both misinformed law-enforcement types and infrastructure agency employees (outside of the legal system) to hassle people for taking photos of infrastructure - construction sites, ventilation towers, power substations, sensitive landmarks, subway areas, aqueduct facilities, etc. As a matter of fact, since the WTC is itself treated as a VERY sensitive and vulnerable site, it seems weird for a PA employee to tell you to take pictures of it instead. The site is a fortress!
And yes, these people issuing warnings and making threats are all wrong. You can stand in a public place and take a photograph anytime, there are very few restrictions on this. It's also fairly safe; there aren't any reasonable vulnerabilities to public infrastructure that a single photograph from a public park can uncover. (If there is such a vulnerability, it's not a reasonable one; it should be mitigated through security hardening, not by hassling park-goers)
The pier on the left-hand side of my picture is actually a jogging path now; you can walk almost all the way down to the building. (The careful observer will also note that the public side of the path has nicer light fixtures than the private side.)
The Holland Tunnel is a civil engineering marvel, the first tunnel of its size to be built successfully. The ventilation towers are what allow cars to drive through such a long tunnel without asphyxiating the drivers. We should celebrate what we've achieved as a society, not try to hide them for vague security reasons.
Thanks! Tmax 100 is a difficult film. I tried overexposing it like crazy at first (which usually works well for B&W film if you're in doubt), but it doesn't respond well to that. You end up with no tonality; everything is black or white, and very contrasty. Now I meter the shadows, underexpose those by two stops, and check that the highlights are not too contrasty. This yields very good results. (My previous algorithm would be to take an incident light reading in the shadows, or expose the shadows as middle grey. It ends up being too much light for the film, you do have to take advantage of its "underexposure" range to get full tonality.)
Acros seems to respond well to whatever exposure you throw at it, but it's significantly more expensive and yields identical results to Tmax when exposed carefully. (I save Acros for my pinhole pictures, where its amazing reciprocity characteristics are much appreciated.)
Tmax 400 is a little different. Basically... if you expose it to light you'll get a great picture. It's my favorite film, but if I have a tripod, I might as well aim for a little bit more resolution. In some tests I did last weekend, the MTF-limiting function of my setup is actually the film, which is a nice place to be. These used large format lenses I've randomly acquired are some fine equipment.
---
A guy I met who's an American-born Muslim (from Palo Alto) was returning to the US after a trip abroad (post 9/11) when he was pulled for a "random" extra discussion with some official.
They sent him into another area and when he got inside, he told me, he looked to the right and there was one of those huge pictures of the then-President George W. Bush flanked by flags and everything and he just started cracking up. He turned to the official behind the desk and said, still laughing, "Can I ask you a question? Did you guys put that up there or did they make you put it up?"
The official replied, "Go on through sir, I can tell you're really American."