Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MarkVZ on October 23, 2004, 07:46:05 AM
-
I just got a new digital camera (Panasonic FZ-20) and have been trying to learn how to use all of the features.
Anyways, I headed down to a local railroad yard, hoping to get some decent train pics. I stopped my car on the side of a public road on the edge of the railroad's property, and used the roof of my car as a tripod to stablize the camera, since it was getting dark and I needed longer shutter times. Anyways, I shot pictures for a few minutes, and a truck from the railroad facility pulls up and notifies me that the facility was covered by the Homeland Security Act, and that I was not allowed to take pictures of their equipment, which consisted of regular old diesel-electric locomotives. I told the man that I never entered the railroad's property, and explained that I was simply taking photographs. I was told that photography of the site was not allowed, because "I could be a terrorist." He told me that he would be calling the police if I didn't leave. I was angry but kept my cool. I thanked him for the warning, and I left.
How can they prohibit photography from a public road? I never set foot on their property, and I wasn't at all shady about what I was doing. I was out in the open. That just doesn't seem right.
Just for the record, I condier myself to lean conservative, and I'm not trying to start a political flamefest. I would just appreciate clarification from someone who is more savvy on the HSA than I am.
-
Take yourself back in time about sixty or so years. Think maybe someone would have said something about you taking pictures like you did?
Fast forward to Madrid, then fast forward to some nervous middle eastern men taking pictures of the Washington state ferries.
I think the guy should be patted on the back for what he did, even though your intentions were completly innocent. We are after all, at war.
-
The guy was just being cautious and did the right thing I believe. If you had insisted he may have called the police but I think they would have allowed you to proceed after getting your ID and checking you out. You can bet though that if there were ever any trouble at that yard you would be the first person they'd come looking for.
-
You should have let him call the police. :)
I've been searching through this ridiculous law... it's difficult to find how this applies to what you were doing.
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/hr_5005_enr.pdf
-
I would be willing to bet that if you contact the railroad offices prior to going out and requesting their permission to take your photos, they would probably be glad to ablige you and would welcome the positive consumer interaction.
The way things are today, you just can't afford to not be vigilant. It would take a few extra minutes to ask, but you would reap the dividens in the long run. You'd have the best pics available:D
-
I understand their concern and their wanting to know what I was doing on the edge of their property, but to tell me that I am not allowed to take pictures at all? That seems like a violation of my rights.
This information, from an attorney, explains that they can not tell me not to take pictures from a public road. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Can anyone comment on the legality of this?
What many of you may not understand, is that railfanning is a big hobby. There are many Americans who enjoy tracking and photographing trains. Often, railfans serve to protect the railroads by reporting shifted loads, hot axles, and track problems.
Also, one has to wonder how far this will be taken. How would you feel if you started taking pictures of warbirds at an airport, and you got harassed for it, and someone insisted that you were a risk to national security? Or fishing on a reservoir and you happen to take a few pics of a dam, and someone demands your film? In my limited research I've seen many cases of people being harassed and even detained for taking pictures of federal buildings, which are plainly visible to the public. New York City has banned photography in the subway system. A student working on a photography project near Seattle got harassed for taking pictures of a lock and dam. Where does it end, and at what point will the war on terrorism be "won" to a point that we regain our rights to take pictures of everyday things?
-
Cant you just go to an airshow and take aircraft pictures like eveyone else.
:D
-
now how would you feel about an arab muslim hell bent on blowing up a passenger train or some hazardous cargo in order to kill as many people as possible. Do want this guy taking pictures and staking out his target?
seriously why can't you just ask for permission?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by senna
Cant you just go to an airshow and take aircraft pictures like eveyone else.
:D
Trains are much easier to come by in northeast Mississippi ;)
-
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.
And what will you be saying after a terrorist casing something blows it up and kills a bunch of people and witnesses saw him taking pictures but could do nothing about it because he was on a "public road"?
Sounds to me like these guys did right. They were professional in what they did.
You are right though there is a line that will be crossed one day when it comes to sacrificying certain freedoms for security.
-
I fear that line has already been crossed.
When will the war on terror be won to an acceptable level that I can once again photograph freight trains in sleepy Artesia, MS?
Should the photographers who post the pictures on airliners.net be considered terrorists as well?
Also, can anybody tell me specifically what part of the HSA prohibits photography of such places?
-
Let them call the Cops, take your pics.
-
You cant blame the Railroad cop, he's doing his job. All private and contract security forces have received papers from the dept. of homeland defense instructing us what to do to "remain vigilant" even during times of low alert. It specifically mentions people taking pictures of hotels, public utilities, etc; it tells us to report such incidents not just to the police but to the FBI. I understand your frustration AND I understand your hobby ( I used to work for Norfolk Southern when I lived in Missouri ). But you have to understand that in this day and age, security is not just about keeping a secure perimeter, but about avoiding liability. If that RR cop sees you taking pictures, and doesnt do what he can to make you stop, and then the yard gets hit by any kind of wacko trying to disrupt the trains, the families of anyone hurt would sue them for everything they are worth (and probably win), EVEN IF IT WAS PROVEN you had nothing to do with the terrorist/wacko. Because you could have. If they didnt stop you, who else did they let get away with this?
For hobbyists like you, its going to have to be understood there are some areas that will be off limits, and the switching yards are going to be big ones. Because they are potential targets. Taking a picture of a train coming down the tracks is one thing. Taking a picture of the yard is another. You have to have permission first to take pictures of their property. Welcome to a new day.
-
Originally posted by MarkVZ
I fear that line has already been crossed.
When will the war on terror be won to an acceptable level that I can once again photograph freight trains in sleepy Artesia, MS?
Should the photographers who post the pictures on airliners.net be considered terrorists as well?
Also, can anybody tell me specifically what part of the HSA prohibits photography of such places?
When are you gonna wake up and realize that they are trying to protect you and others.
What's so hard about asking for permission? They've busted all sorts of terrorists taking pics of trains buildings airports bridges ferries and such. Do you want these guys to complete their missions?
-
Had they called the police, the cop probably would have got a laugh out of it before politely telling the railroad to not waste their time. Might have told you to just leave them alone if they're that sensitive, but that's about it.
Railroad photography is a popular and longstanding hobby with a lot of people. There are many books dedicated entirely to the subject. Taking pictures of rusty old SD-45's or such doing yard switching is hardly a national security threat. More like it's a silly excuse to get rid of unwanted people.
AKWEAV--60 years ago, the guys running the train would likely have stopped and waved at the cameraman, or at least thrown some extra coal on the fire to make a nice smoky cloud. This includes the Denver & Rio Grande Southern railroad which transported a fair amount of uranium ore for the bomb poject.
Which railroad was it? Some of them have a better reputation with railfans than others. Some are openly hostile.
As for some of the responses I see in this thread--Paranoia is damaging this country a whole lot more than terrorists ever will.
J_A_B
-
MarkVZ, they can tell you do anything they wish. You can tell them to **** off, and the last time you checked you were in the land of the free.
PS: Please don't listen to these communists telling you to give up your freedom for the good of the community.
-
I see both sides of the issue.
However, they accomplished nothing. I got turned away with several pictures of their locomotives, and my name was never given.
I got shortchanged a photo op and had to go find something else to take my mind off of my Aerospace studies for a while. Oh well.
I could have easily gotten pictures of anything there if I was sneaky about it. But that wasn't my goal. It's just a hobby to me.
I'm not arguing the need for homeland security. However, this "guilty until proven innocent" stuff really scares me. I don't enjoy being labelled a terrorist for something so innocent. I've been taking pictures of trains for years. Shouldn't the burden of proof lie on them, and not on me?
Why would they give permission to let people take pictures? How can they be sure they're not giving permission to one of "them?" Think of the backlash that would come if someone found out that they gave a terrorist permission to take pictures of equipment that was later damaged? I think asking for permission was clearly not going to get me anywhere, based on what I was told yesterday. Moot point, really. I never set foot on any peoperty of theirs. Do we need permission to *look* at things?
I was really looking for the legal aspects of what happened to me. I'm just curious as to just how far the HSA reaches. I really wasn't concerned with it before, but this has turned into an interesting little life lesson of the lasting effects of 9/11 and current national policy. I'm glad it happened, though, because I'm learning about something I was once somewhat oblivious to.
-
Mark, I am a railfan, too. In that situation, let them call the police. They may take your name, and check your ID, but they will not stop you from taking pics.
It is a sign of the times that vigilance is required, but they will let you do what you want, so long as you show them you are legit.
Just remember, they are not trying to limit your freedom, they are just being careful. No civil liberites are being abused.
-
J_A_B,
This was a Kansas City Southern yard in Artesia, MS.
Nothing to the town really except for a few abandonned, dilapidated old storefronts, a church or two, a few dozen modest houses, and the railroad yard.
I believe the units I was taking pictures of were GP-40's. I'm not sure, because I come from Alco territory in northern Michigan. I'd post a few of the pics I got, but I'm at a loss for hosting right now.
-
Are we talkin' about passenger trains or freight trains?
If it was freight, what was the guy worried about? That an order of Huggies wouldn't reach Walmart in time?
Thars no way it'd be a target. One dead, with Huggies and JVC televisions littering the landscape.
That guy seems like an arse to me. All hopped up on goofballs, and buying into the hype with just a bit too much zeal.
-
Of course he is, Nash, he is a freakin guard for the railroad. His whole sorry life, all he wanted was a badge and a gun, with a T-billy and the right to use it. Instead, he gets the golf cart with a yellow light. How would expect him to act?
-
You nailed it Liz, afaic.
Zactly the way I see it.
-
"This was a Kansas City Southern yard in Artesia, MS. "
No wonder. They have an almost fetish-like obsession with safety. It's their way of standing out against the (much larger) competition.
I am fortunate to live here in Ohio just an hour's drive from the Ohio Central RR's shops. They LIKE it when people take their pictures.
EDIT:
Being a railroad cop is actually a pretty good job. Safer than city/county law enforcement and they usually make more too. A couple of my cousins got on with UP in this role and they make twice as much as I do. Of course a regular plain-jane security guard (which railroads also employ) is a different matter entirely.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Nash
Are we talkin' about passenger trains or freight trains?
If it was freight, what was the guy worried about? That an order of Huggies wouldn't reach Walmart in time?
Thars no way it'd be a target. One dead, with Huggies and JVC televisions littering the landscape.
That guy seems like an arse to me. All hopped up on goofballs, and buying into the hype with just a bit too much zeal.
Nash I expect a little bit more out of you......this post was completly narrow minded.
Imagine right in front of the huggies car was a tank transporting chlorine, or hydrazine, or amonia, or hydrochloric acid, or any other type of HAZMAT wich if blown up could contaminate one of many residential areas the trains do go through.
People arent alloud to take pictures of Aircraft on our flight line here with out a pass. What's so hard with calling the railroad up and getting one?
-
Thanks, J_A_B, I wasn't aware of their attitude towards railfans.
Yeah, up north I'd never get that sort of rude reception when dealing with the shortlines, even today. I was pretty shocked to have someone suggest that I was up to no good with my picture-taking.
I'm a pilot as well, and the heightened airport security has created some interesting situations. I recall one night, I got pinned down at a grass strip south of Memphis by a T-storm. I called the place I rented the plane from, and told them to not wait up for me, as I was going to be late. Anyways, I get back to the small regional airport at 2 in the morning, secure the airplane, pick up my flight bag and walk off.. However, my car was on the other side of the fence. The FBO was locked down, nobody home. I soon found that I was trapped inside a cage of barbed wire surrounding the airport. I walked up and down the fenceline, hoping to get noticed by a guard or something, but no luck. I ended up having to carefully (as possible) pitch my flight bag over the fence into some tall grass, and scale the barbed-wire fence. I found the whole thing pretty humorous. The fence couldn't keep this lowly Cessna pilot from crossing the boundary, yet they expect it to stop terrorist acts?
Anyways, I guess my dealings with the HSA haven't been so great to this point...
-
Gunslinger,
What sort of installation do you work on?
-
Originally posted by Nash
If it was freight, what was the guy worried about? That an order of Huggies wouldn't reach Walmart in time?
You'd be surprised at the havoc cause by a few derailed tankers full of chlorine, especially in a densely populated residential area, blowing them up it would be ten fold.
-
The comparison wasn't of the place the photos were taken because that to me is irrelevent. What is relevent is the ACT of the photography....while in upon itself is not a crime can be used to commit criminal acts.
What I was saying about the flightline was that it is strictly forboden.....unless you have a pass. They tell you the areas to stay away from and sometimes provide an escort.
Also I keep hearing this word "public road" as public as it may be the dept of transportation owns the roads you were standing on and the rails you were photographing. So yea....if you are on public road and committing possible suspicious acts you can be told to leave. It's that simple.
it's because of acts by people like this security guard that several terrorist plots have allready been foiled.
-
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
-
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.
-
"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
-
What if Mark was doing a nice watercolor painting? Could they bust him then?
-
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.
-
"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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. "
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
Thanks to everyone for their responses. I see and understand both sides of the issue. However, I won't let this stop me from taking pictures from public property.
There were "no trespassing" signs posted at this site, which I obeyed. I know how railroads are about people on their property, and I respect that.. it's for my safety. I do just fine with the great zoom on my camera.
If they had asked a few questions, they would have found that I was an Aerospace Engineering student at the state university 10 minutes from their facility. I wouldn't go through all that trouble to create an alaby for taking pictures of a railroad facility in MS. I offered to show them my pictures, but they weren't interested. Paranoia is the right term for it. I agree that if they didn't want their operations to be seen, they should build a wall or solid fence around their facility. When I drive by railroad operatioons, am I supposed to sheild my eyes from what I might see? What if instead of a camera, I had pulled a weapon out of my car? What could they do to stop me anyways? I sat there and took pics for 10 minutes before I was apprehended. Vigilence is great, but what does it boil down to, besides a false sense of security? They couldn't prevent a harmless college student from leaving with images. How would they accomplish site security when it comes to real terroists?
This has been a great lesson to me. I consider myself to fall on the conservative side. I didn't pay much attention to to the people complaining about the HSA, and I figured that if one was doing nothing wrong, he or she had nothing to worry about it. Call me overly trusting. I still see the need for the HSA, and I agree that the railroad employees did the right thing by coming out to see what I was up to. I like to see that they are on the lookout. However, they crossed the line when they disallowed my photography. Like I said, the evil aspects fof the HSA never bothered me until I was confronted by them. It's really quite humbling, really. It made me really examine my own political views.
I'd like to become more versed on the legality of what they did with regards to the HSA for any future encounters. I want to stand for my rights, but first I need to become more educated, and I realize this.
-
Ok. I didnt shut up. So sue me. :D
I really dont think Homeland Security is the problem. I know some of the stuff sounds a bit nuts and when they first came out with some of the "recommendations" I was as fired up as any liberal about the "infringment on my rights" and "loss of freedom". Actually the Patriot Act is far more invasive than the basic stuff we are discussing here and even more ambiguous in true gains for security. But as far as HS goes, I truly believe that once we have become at least acclimated to the necessity for more security, good old common sense will restore itself and most of the stuff thats just plain silly will go away. People are still just a little jumpy right now, and maybe even a little scared, although its mostly under the surface.
If you truly consider yourself in the "conservative" bracket, and want to see us return to some sort of normalcy within our lifetime, excercise your right to vote. I'm not going to turn this into another Prez debate thread, there are enough of them. Just saying.
-
I never wanted anyone to "shut up." I value your opinions and viewpoints. I won't ever learn anything by talking to people that I agree with all the time. I came here curious about the scope of the HSA and I'm learning things.
As far as the election goes, I'm leaning heavily towards Bush, although this little incident made me re-examine my decision. It just shows how poorly I am truly informed if such a little thing can do that. I'm curious as to what Kerry would truly do differently about this HSA and Patriot Act stuff.
-
I hear all this talk about how bad the patriot act is. Well I have to say you have every right to be concerned cause it is putting alot of trust and faith into your govt.
However, no one talks about the good parts of the act. Before this sections of DoD, CIA an FBI were not ALLOWED to talk to eachother and share information. This clears up alot of compartmentalization that goes on in said agencys. A recent example is a spoiled attempt at attacking the brooklyn bridge. CIA shared with FBI who shared with local law enforcment....specific info helped thwart an attack....intercepted phone conversaions proved it when a suspect phoned home that the "weather in brooklyn is hot right now" Pretty interesting stuff if you ask me.
-
Heheheheh, you guys can arm youselves to the teeth with firearms but you can't take a picture of a train heheheheheh now thats funny!
-
You can take pictures of trains, planes and skyscrapers, but you should simply be aware that those things are monitored. Not prohibited, monitored.
-
lol what kind of loser takes pictures of trains as a hobby. u americans are messed up.
trains are point a to point b. nothing else.
go get a girlfriend. jeez.
-
She's a thousand miles from me, gotta occupy my time somehow ;)
Really, you can make anyone's hobby seem trivial if you look at it the right way. I get satisfaction from flying, aircraft design, and taking pictures. Photography happens to be the cheapest and least stressful.
Don't worry about my hobbies, and I won't worry about yours.
-
What Lizking said.
I have a feeling that the employees who talked to me acted outside of their authority, and I'm standing up for my rights. Photography of trains is not prohibited here. Some people were simply mistaken in their actions. We got hit hard and we're still jumpy about some things.
I love my country and this is reflected by my concern. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. If my only gripe is that I got turned away from taking pictures of trains once, I think we're doing pretty darned well.
-
Seriously, if you can only take photos of "approved" sites, you guys are living in some semi-commie society. Whats next, no photos of things with political interest, without permission that is, because *insert random babble about terrorism here*. Just ask a permission, cant be that much of a trouble no? Only thing you now need is a "strong" leader to take advantage of your reduced liberties.
In free world people can photograph places, that are publicly accessed or are common knowledge. In and around airports for example, _without permission_. This goes well along with the "not guilty untill proven otherwise".
No matter if somebody owns it, but if he lets people in without restriction, it is considered as public place where people can photograph the property (not the other people tho, without their permission). If you want to restrict this kind of activity, you have to restrict access and/or cover the secrets. Everything else is for loosers like N-Korean commies. Maybe your women should be forced wear Burkhas too, for their own safety you know.
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
In free world people can photograph places, that are publicly accessed or are common knowledge. In and around airports for example, _without permission_.......
Maybe your women should be forced wear Burkhas too, for their own safety you know.
So one should absolutely not question the motives of people?
A grade school or nursery school is a public place, so hypothetically some 50 year old guy, not a relation to any student walks in and starts to measure the place, photographs and starts making sketches of the building, paying extra attention to exits, ventilation systems, etc.
In your opinion would it be out of line for a teacher to ask WTF is he doing there?
And its France that controls the dress of it's citizenry.
-
Unless i misread something the railroad employee was just that an employee in a co. truck so heres my response :
A: He didnt have the right or authority to tell you to cease and desist you activity on public property.
B: you were not violating any state or federal laws.
C: i they were concerned they should have called the local autorities to investigate.
I understand gunslingers point of veiw however we still have a constituition and rights protected by that contitotion. unless the facility has "federal" sighns prohibiting pictures you are free to snap away. However it is within the jurisdiction of local, state and federal authoirities to verifiy your identity and background and if necisarry "monitor" your actions.
-
Yanno if our government just enforced the laws that were already on the books there would have been little or no need for the Patriot act.
-
Originally posted by MarkVZ
Don't worry about my hobbies, and I won't worry about yours.
dude, just think about it, you're taking pictures of TRAINS... don't people laugh at you?
-
"dude, just think about it, you're taking pictures of TRAINS... don't people laugh at you?"
As opposed to pretending to be a fighter pilot on the internet?
J_A_B
-
ROFL. America does seem to be gripped by paranoia these days. I have guys from over there crowing about all the "freedom" they have, which I supposedly do not have living on my tiny little island, and then a thread like this pops up! :D You can have a gun and shoot stuff, but you can't shoot a train with a camera! :rofl
I think ack-ack nailed it - too good to miss. :D
I'm a bit of a train buff myself. I can take all the pics I want of trains, and can enter railway property to do it. Took this one in Yorkshire just the week before last.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/45212.jpg)
Of course, my TLI isn't paranoid, despite the fact that we got bombed by the IRA for years. Hell, I can even drive a train if I want to. Just to rub it in.... ;)
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/driver.jpg)
Great thread! Made my freaking day. :lol
-
From what a Brit friend tells me, trainspotting is a very popular hobby in the U.K. and Euro.
ack-ack
-
You have a good eye for pictures Beet1e....or a good camera (perhaps a little of both).
Any particular story to that 4-6-0, or was it one that was just lucky enough to escape the torch?
A shortline railroad in my area (Ohio Central RR) bases an operational 4-8-4 and 4-6-2 with a 4-6-0 under repairs and a 2-8-0 undergoing restoration (the connie should be operational next year). It makes for a lot of photo opportunities--they have great relations with their fanbase, going so far as to give occasional tours of their locomotive shops. My poor camera skills combined with Ohio's lovely weather (heh) means most of my pictues are rather poor.
Bitish locomotives always have such small tenders. Was it common British practice to stop at every station even into the '40's and '50's?
J_A_B
-
Why, thank you, J_A_B. :)
The camera I have now is one I bought in August. It has 4 megapixel resolution - much better than what I had before. Bitish locomotives always have such small tenders. Was it common British practice to stop at every station even into the '40's and '50's?
We had stopping trains as well as express trains. One of our most famous engines was No. 4472, The Flying Scotsman (4-6-2). This locomotive was used to provide a non-stop service between London and Edinburgh (400 miles), and its tender was big enough for all the coal needed. I found a good website about it here (http://www.southernsteamtrains.com/flyingscotsman.htm). Because of the length of the trip, more than one crew was needed, so the tender had a crew corridor so that crews could be switched between the locomotive and the front carriage of the train.
In America, do you have classifications for diesel locomotives like "Bobo" and "Coco" - and even "Boco"? The train I drove had two carriages, drawn by a Clayton Class 17 (http://www.eastbank.btinternet.co.uk/clayton.htm) locomotive. It had a single cab in the centre, but with two separate driving positions each with its own set of controls, and was a "Bobo". When the loco had a cab at each end, it was known as a "Coco", but I can't remember the exact definitions.
-
I think I'll need to re-install MS Train Sim!:)
-
Originally posted by Mime
dude, just think about it, you're taking pictures of TRAINS... don't people laugh at you?
Have you any idea...any idea at all how retarded that statement makes you look right now...
-
well, at least he's clearly continuing on the path he has chosen (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=130763).
-
"In America, do you have classifications for diesel locomotives like "Bobo" and "Coco" - and even "Boco"? "
In US common practice with diesel locomotives is to just refer to them by their maufactuere's designation. Thus we're left with a confusing jumble of letters and numbers like SD-45, GP-40, C40-8, etc. I'm more of a steam loco guy myself.
J_A_B
-
S! The Flying Scotsman. Thanks for that link. Is it modled in N guage, I wonder.
-
In the news just now, I heard that from tomorrow, all visitors to the US must comply with this Homeland Security thing by having machine readable passports. The EU started using these in the early 1990s. I was one of the last people to have the old type.
Government advice here to folks visiting the US: http://www.dhs.gov/us-visit <- I scanned this site for "trains" but found only advice about not taking explosives aboard trains. Hmmm, I'll remember that for next time. ;)
J_A_B, you should come to the UK, where we have numerous restored steam railways. I could probably come up with a list of about 20. One of my favourites is the Swanage Railway - http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk in southwest England. You can take all the pictures you want, ride on the trains, visit the signal boxes, get a ride on the footplate of a steam loco, and for an affordable price you can even learn about the trains and enjoy a driving experience, along with acting as fireman and "second man" - you get to uncouple the train at the end of the line, change the points to route the engine onto the parallel track and back up to the other end of the train. I've done that and it was hard work lifting those couplings off, and I got covered in grease!
When I first went to the Swanage railway in 2000, I thought the steam locos might be decrepit heaps of clanking old iron. That was not the case at all. The one hauling our train looked and sounded like a well oiled machine.
-
Originally posted by Torque
You'd be surprised at the havoc cause by a few derailed tankers full of chlorine, especially in a densely populated residential area, blowing them up it would be ten fold.
In Russia/USSR this is a standard Civilian Defence situation, we have posters of what to do in case of chlorine or ammonia leaks on almost every civilian defence stand.
BTW, here it's officially prohibited to take photos of railway stations, bridges, tunnels, ports and other strategic transport objects. In Moscow subway you can get fined for taking pictures, and they can make you expose film to the light.
In Soviet times you could get into real trouble if you were caught taking pictures of "strategic objects". It's interesting that when we slowly get rid of paranoia - Americans pick up the flag we dropped ;-)