Homeland Security Act prohibits photography... of trains?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn
My appologies Gunslinger, I deleted the post you are replying to because I thought I was being a big dick.  Thank you for your response though.



That said, can anyone please show me where it says that is now illegal to photograph planes or trains, or that you need anyones permission to do so, thank you.


http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

NP Thrawn, I get that way myself sometimes.
If you want to get technical they could charge you under planning acts of terrorism.

You would more than likely be found innocent of course but why go through the hassle.

Also It might not be under the new federal guidlines.  It could be other transportation laws as well.

[J_A_B]

"What is relevent is the ACT of the photography....while in upon itself is not a crime can be used to commit criminal acts. "

So the entire hobby of photography is suspect because someone, somewhere, might somehow use it for nefarious ends?

Riiiigggghhhtttt............




Like I said, paranoia has the potential to damage this country far more than any terrorists ever will.  In this case, the company in question is capitalizing on the public's uneasiness through its extremely stringent safety program.


Restrictions on, say, ammonium nitrate-based materials make sense.   Restrictions on photography of objects in plain sight...now that is just silly.



J_A_B

[hawker238]

What if Mark was doing a nice watercolor painting?  Could they bust him then?

[Lizking]

The issue, ladies, is do you want people filming things like switchyards, airports and schools to be checked.  It is not illegal; but it is also something that deserves notice.

[J_A_B]

"The issue, ladies, is do you want people filming things like switchyards, airports and schools to be checked."

Considering that since in the case of railroad yards their layout and traffic patterns are pretty much public knowledge, I don't see any point.

In the case of schools, school floorplans aren't typically so easy to come by--and also aren't the subject of a nationwide hobby.  School shootings are also a much more likely terrorist activity than blowing up a few Dash-8's at your local CSX yard.


Regardless of how silly it is, MarkVZ made the right choice.  If a cranky little company doesn't want its aging unspectacular equipment photographed, it probably isn't worth the fuss to bother.


J_A_B

[mjolnir]

Just to throw a different light on it....

I was stationed over at RAF Lakenheath in the 02-03 timeframe.  There were people who sat almost religiously off the ends of the runway, on the side of the road, and took pictures, wrote down tail numbers, takeoff times, loadouts, etc of all the aircraft that we flew, every day.  I don't recall the base cops ever trying to stop them.  If it's acceptable to us to allow photography of our forward based assets, I don't see why we should be paranoid about a trainyard in Mississippi.

When it comes right down to it, you can't stop people from looking at stuff that is in plain sight.  If you don't want something photographed, don't put it out where anyone can see it.

[Gunslinger]

Yup and you same people are going to be screaming and crying probably blaming Bush when an attack does happen and there was a report that suspected terrorists were filming a site to plan the attack and no one did anything about it then.

[mjolnir]

Don't get me wrong gunslinger, I have no problem with the railroad cop checking that he was on the level with his photography.  I applaud the guy for doing his job.  But there was no need to send him packing, especially if the cop didn't bother confiscating the film or anything.  Nothing got accomplished by that.  If the trainyard is so paranoid about people taking pictures from a public road, they should move the perimeter of their yard further out to a point where the yard cannot be viewed.

It sounds to me like the railroad cop just got a little carried away.  They can and should check on people around their facility.  Stopping a photographer and sending him away without taking down his name or getting his film serves no purpose but to make the cop feel important.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by mjolnir
Don't get me wrong gunslinger, I have no problem with the railroad cop checking that he was on the level with his photography.  I applaud the guy for doing his job.  But there was no need to send him packing, especially if the cop didn't bother confiscating the film or anything.  Nothing got accomplished by that.  If the trainyard is so paranoid about people taking pictures from a public road, they should move the perimeter of their yard further out to a point where the yard cannot be viewed.

It sounds to me like the railroad cop just got a little carried away.  They can and should check on people around their facility.  Stopping a photographer and sending him away without taking down his name or getting his film serves no purpose but to make the cop feel important.

and in the same aspect its not off the wall to gain permission to film first.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by mjolnir
Don't get me wrong gunslinger, I have no problem with the railroad cop checking that he was on the level with his photography.  I applaud the guy for doing his job.  But there was no need to send him packing, especially if the cop didn't bother confiscating the film or anything.  Nothing got accomplished by that.  If the trainyard is so paranoid about people taking pictures from a public road, they should move the perimeter of their yard further out to a point where the yard cannot be viewed.

It sounds to me like the railroad cop just got a little carried away.  They can and should check on people around their facility.  Stopping a photographer and sending him away without taking down his name or getting his film serves no purpose but to make the cop feel important.

What you are failing to understand is, the cop obviously didnt think this guy taking pictures was a threat and asked him to leave WITHOUT being a jerk about it.  He HAS to ask him to leave.  I'd have done the same thing, because its standing orders.  The ones we think are suspicious we are supposed to get info from and turn over to the cops and the FBI.  Simple liability forces him to ask the guy to cease and desist and move along.  Period.  And just so you know most RR cops have a degree in criminal justice and alot of them have police experience.  They arent just security guards.  If you think any RR wants a public relations nightmare like RR policemen who order people around or confiscate personal property just to make them "feel important", you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.  One guy operates out of an office, maybe two.  And has to cover hundreds of miles of track.  Everything from derailments to kids throwing rocks (if he sees it and has the time) are his job to investigate.  If it's an important site, they might have contract security guards at the gate.  Most switching yards dont though.

[rpm]

If you had looked there were probably signs posted on the railyard perimeter saying photography was prohibited. Granted, you may not have physically been on their property, but you were photographing their property. Try the same thing at DFW, LaGuardia or Dulles and you'll likely get a more elevated response sans debate.

[Mickey1992]

They are called FRNs, F***ing Rail Nuts.

My sister just started as a Police Officer for Norfolk Southern last week.  I will ask if she can shed any light on the subject.

From their web site:
"It is permissible to photograph Norfolk Southern trains and operations from vantage points that are well away from railroad property. Trespassing on railroad property is a serious offense — one that could expose the trespasser to potential danger. "

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by MarkVZ
What makes you think that they would have given me permission to take pictures of their equipment, when they went out of their way to tell me to leave public land to stop me from taking pictures?  From what I read of the people who talked to me, they wouldn't have allowed me to even with permission.  But I suppose that's just my opinion.

I never said they they were out of line by asking what I was doing there.  That's fine by me.  We were polite with eachother, and I didn't allow things to escalate.  What does bother me, is that I was not allowed to take pictures from a public road.  

Should we need permission to take pictures of trains, airplanes, bridges, airports and the like?  These things are very commonly photographed items.  

Why should I be treated like a terrorist when I'm just a hobbyist out to take a few pictures?  The majority of railfan pictures are taken off of railroad property, and no permission is required, as it shouldn't have been in my case.   I purposelly shot out in the open to dispel any worries that I might be doing something shady.  I wanted to be seen.  I wasn't hiding in a ditch on the side of the tracks, half obscured by leaves.  I was standing next to my white car in the wide open.    

No, I do not wish harm upon anybody, and I would not like to see a terrorist staking out a target on the rails.  However, where do you draw the line on what one can photograph from public property?  There were several houses facing this rail installation, and anyone living there could sit on their porches all day and watch the trains.  However, I got told to leave the side of a public road because I happened to be holding a camera.  

I guess this sort of thing just won't strike home until you are personally harassed for something like this.  I know I didn't think much of the cases I'd heard of until it happened to me.

Welcome to the New America, where personal freedom is just an illusion.


ack-ack

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by MarkVZ

I never said they they were out of line by asking what I was doing there.  That's fine by me.  We were polite with eachother, and I didn't allow things to escalate.  What does bother me, is that I was not allowed to take pictures from a public road.  

Should we need permission to take pictures of trains, airplanes, bridges, airports and the like?  These things are very commonly photographed items.  

Why should I be treated like a terrorist when I'm just a hobbyist out to take a few pictures?  The majority of railfan pictures are taken off of railroad property, and no permission is required, as it shouldn't have been in my case.   I purposelly shot out in the open to dispel any worries that I might be doing something shady.  I wanted to be seen.  I wasn't hiding in a ditch on the side of the tracks, half obscured by leaves.  I was standing next to my white car in the wide open.    

Just to make the point..........and then I'll shut up (I'm sure that will make yall happy lol)

Times have changed.  Railfans, as well as hobbyists and fans of several other modes of transportation, are going to have to learn new rules.  Just because you always did it before doesnt mean squat anymore.  Sad, but true.  I dont always agree with the things I have to do in my job.  I know darn well that 99.999999% of the people I run off are harmless.  But I have a responsibility to the people who work in the area my guards and I protect.  And over the top as it may sound to the outside world, I have to take Homeland Security directives seriously.  The one time I relent and allow some cute couple to take pictures in an area they arent supposed to be, or let someone park their car "just for a minute" in a supposedly secured area, or whatever exception it is...........that could be the one time its for real and its all my fault it succeeded.  My building is within a block's distance of a public utility, a courthouse, a school..............one time and I might not just let down the people inside, but the people in any of those buildings as well.  Or just people on the streets.  Most of the time I just try not to think about it.  Give it time.  We are still learning how to be more secure and still have some freedom.  There's gonna be some toes stepped on for awhile.  

Mickey, if your sister ever gets to the St Louis area, tell her to say hi to Fred for me.  He's in charge of the NS police there.  Nice guy.

[mora]

Even small things like photographing transportation vehicles is important to me. There are masses of people in this hobby. What would you think if you were told you can't do your favorite hobby no more? Also in this case the reasoning is very dubious.(If we look at planespotters for example, their presence infact creates more safety.)

Let's say you get a hypothetical choice:

A: You live the way you used to, and there's a 5% chance that you or someone close to you will be killed in a terrorist attack.

B: You give up most of your civil liberties,  after this the chance is reduced to 1%.(This is what you have to do to get any real improvement in safety)

What would you choose?