Sorry, I don't see what the beef is. You did something someone found suspicious (who amongst us hasn't), some HSA guys showed up and made sure you weren't a terrorist or a kid-toucher.
That sounds like good follow-up rather than a civil liberties violation; although there are more and less efficient ways of following up (less efficient would be the construction photo story).
The problem I have is not when they question me, but when they harrass me. And asking questions just doesn't reach the level of harrasment. Having a cop threaten to confiscate my camera while holding her hand on the grip of her pistol, because I am shooting the Lackawanna Rail Terminal; now that's harrassment. Especially since this and this are already out there.
Just asking questions? Sounds to me like that is their job.
On a side note, I agree with Merc that Americans are risk averse. They also get bent out of shape about "civil rights violations" rather too easily. We have more civil rights than anyone in the world, which is why we sometimes have trouble distinguishing between a desire and a right. This is part of the general conflation of want with need.
On a side note, I agree with Merc that Americans are risk averse. They also get bent out of shape about "civil rights violations" rather too easily. We have more civil rights than anyone in the world, which is why we sometimes have trouble distinguishing between a desire and a right. This is part of the general conflation of want with need.
If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered that, they should then rouze themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure for them the ends for which government was at first erected.
Anyone here know who said that? No googling allowed
The problem is people are to afraid of risks, but not of risks to our civil liberties. Without the liberties, ancient names, and specious forms, are so far from being better, that they are much worse, than the state of nature, or pure anarchy. 9/11 killed 3000 people...less Americans have died from terrorism than from peanut allergies. People need to consider things in perspective. We absord all the deaths from car accidents, we can't absorb the long term damage that would be done by collapsing the basic philosophy on which liberal democracy was built.
John Locke...and I have no problem with it as a cautionary note. Vigilance in the pursuit and preservation of liberty is a good thing. However, I don't think Locke's advice is at the forefront here.
By my reading of the OP, there was no unlawful search, seizure, detention or other insult to civil liberty. The agent was simply asking questions, ostensibly, to follow up on a report of suspicious activity. Reasonable questions from one with lawful authority normally do not rise to the level of infringment.
Seems to me that people frequently overlook an important point when exercising their rights in public places: the exercise of your rights must be in balance with the rights of others. Considering the course history has taken since 9/11, I think it prudent to ask a few reasonable questions about activity in a public place that may for good reason seem suspicious. The trick is to balance the rights of an individual against the rights of the public at large, via delegation of authority to appropriate agencies, to provide for public welfare and safety.
This message brought to you by a federal employee working hard for your aviation safety (speaking strictly for himself), who is also a retired veteran, a Republican with mild Libertarian leanings, a constitutionalist, and a close, personal friend of the 2nd Amendment.
John Locke...and I have no problem with it as a cautionary note. Vigilance in the pursuit and preservation of liberty is a good thing. However, I don't think Locke's advice is at the forefront here.
By my reading of the OP, there was no unlawful search, seizure, detention or other insult to civil liberty. The agent was simply asking questions, ostensibly, to follow up on a report of suspicious activity. Reasonable questions from one with lawful authority normally do not rise to the level of infringment.
Seems to me that people frequently overlook an important point when exercising their rights in public places: the exercise of your rights must be in balance with the rights of others. Considering the course history has taken since 9/11, I think it prudent to ask a few reasonable questions about activity in a public place that may for good reason seem suspicious. The trick is to balance the rights of an individual against the rights of the public at large, via delegation of authority to appropriate agencies, to provide for public welfare and safety.
This message brought to you by a federal employee working hard for your aviation safety (speaking strictly for himself), who is also a retired veteran, a Republican with mild Libertarian leanings, a constitutionalist, and a close, personal friend of the 2nd Amendment.
As a veteran and a retired federal employee I will have to disagree here. Where the train jump the tracks here is the "suspicious activity". The man was taking pictures of parked school buses!!!! How is that suspicious!. Were these top secret buses? Of what possible use would a picture of a parked bus be to a terrorist? How is our national security and safety threatened by anyone taking a picture of parked buses?
The security at our airports, ports, nuclear and chemical installations is filled with holes. Our border security is non-existent. With all this we have the personnel and time available to check out a man who was taking pictures of parked school buses. Doesn't that make you fell safer? I will sleep better to night. BTW my 3 granddaughters live in Atlanta and ride the school buses.
I want due diligence on security matters but lets be real here. Taking pictures of school buses is not a matter of national security.
Here is a picture of my granchildren getting off a school bus in Georgia. I used selective color to fool the terrorists so they can't figure out they are actually yellow. Feel free to turn me in to those zanies at Homeland Security
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
As a veteran and a retired federal employee I will have to disagree here. Where the train jump the tracks here is the "suspicious activity".
I agree that ~>99% of the time, such "suspicious activity" will be completely harmless. I also agree that our money, time, and effort isn't always prioritized properly. We can also disagree about the potential threat of terrorism against our children. We have only to look to Israel for an indication of that. Perhaps we're more sensitive to it locally because we had a few school bus brake lines cut last year.
However, my point remains that having questions asked of you, in response to a report of "suspicious activity" is not necessarily an infringement of civil liberties. I don't believe there is a Constitutional right to be unquestioned. Having received a report of "suspicious activity" from someone who may well have been a Nervous Nelly, my guess is the agent had a duty to follow up.
Again, in refering to the OP as written, I see no indication of unlawful search, seizure, or detention...no prohibition of picture-taking...no threats or intimidation. A few questions were asked and I assume the agent left satisfied that nothing nefarious was afoot.
So, which civil liberty was infringed?
Edited to add: I really like the picture, by the way.
I agree that ~>99% of the time, such "suspicious activity" will be completely harmless. I also agree that our money, time, and effort isn't always prioritized properly. We can also disagree about the potential threat of terrorism against our children. We have only to look to Israel for an indication of that. Perhaps we're more sensitive to it locally because we had a few school bus brake lines cut last year.
However, my point remains that having questions asked of you, in response to a report of "suspicious activity" is not necessarily an infringement of civil liberties. I don't believe there is a Constitutional right to be unquestioned. Having received a report of "suspicious activity" from someone who may well have been a Nervous Nelly, my guess is the agent had a duty to follow up.
Again, in refering to the OP as written, I see no indication of unlawful search, seizure, or detention...no prohibition of picture-taking...no threats or intimidation. A few questions were asked and I assume the agent left satisfied that nothing nefarious was afoot.
So, which civil liberty was infringed?
Edited to add: I really like the picture, by the way.
I haven't been adressing it as a civil rights issue I have been adressing it as a "stupidity" issue. I want to see an effective and efficient response to the real threat of terrorism and it just irks me when I see $, staff time, and resources expended on stupidity.
While no civil right was infringed it is intimidating and potentiall embarrassing to be have federal agents knocking on one's door and questioning one about one's activities. This may be a necessary evil at times but it definitely wasn't in this case. It was STUPID!
Before I left NYC Andy and I got together and did some shooting one day. Since we were going to be on the subway and might want to do some subway shots I checked the MTA's website to see of there were any prohibitons against photography on NYC's subways. The only restriction was against the use on tripods.
Well Andy and I were on a subway car and we were revieiwng our shots, not shooting. A conductor came by and said "You can't take pictures on the subway". I didn't argue with the man and Andy just pointed out that we weren't taking pictures. The train comes to the next station and two cops come on and take Andy and myself off because the conductor said we were taking pictures. I pointed out to the lads that one, we weren't taking pictures and two, if we were it was permissable according to MTA's own regulations to take pictures on the subway. During this whole useless incident the train is being held in the station and hundreds of passengers are being delayed.
Was this an infringement on my civil rights, no but it was a waste of time, money, staffing and resources and it was STUPID!!! I am tired of 9-11 being used as an excuse for stupidity. Every time some numbnutz has a cow because someone is taking a picture the rationalization is "9-11". I say enough already. Stupidity won't make us safe or free. We won't end terrorism by being stupid.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I agree but disagree. I think the patriot act is lacking one GIANT thing..."common sense."
Orwell was off by 22 years.
he wasn't off by any amount of years... 1984 was chosen because the book was completed in 1948 (yes, published in 1949, but that wasn't known when the title was set)... his was a commentary on how things were, are and always will be, his was a commentary on human nature
but hey, I agree with your sentiment entirely-sorry to nitpick
We are the music-makers; and we are the dreamers of dreams.
... come along.
Was this an infringement on my civil rights, no but it was a waste of time, money, staffing and resources and it was STUPID!!! I am tired of 9-11 being used as an excuse for stupidity. Every time some numbnutz has a cow because someone is taking a picture the rationalization is "9-11". I say enough already. Stupidity won't make us safe or free. We won't end terrorism by being stupid.
^5 Harry. But all this stupidity is our fault. We have allowed ourselves to be dragged down this path. Our lack of individual envolvement with our government ... of trusting out elected officials to do the right thing ... our individual and collective abdication of goverment oversight has allowed this federal govenment to abuse its power upon the general population of this country as well as abroad (i.e. attacking a sovereign country without real cause ... similar to confronting a person for taking photos of a few buses or harassing a person just because they have a camera on a subway is all an abuse of power exercised without due cause). And we are all to blame for allowing it to happen and allowing it to continue.
I am curious..........
I am curious about how many on here have ill feelings just from the name: DEPARTMENT HOMELAND SECURITY.
When I first heard that this organization was being formed it scared the H*** out of me.......it just sounds so nazi to me, and to all of my european friends also.......
As a veteran and a retired federal employee I will have to disagree here. Where the train jump the tracks here is the "suspicious activity". The man was taking pictures of parked school buses!!!! How is that suspicious!.
Suspicious: questionable, disposed to doubt.
With questionable being the key word here, if you were a parent and saw someone lurking around, what in the picture appeared to be, school grounds taking pictures of school buses, you just might wonder "What is that guy up to?" Parents are pretty protective. If someone calls the police, or Homeland Security for that matter, they have an obligation to follow-up on the call, it's their job. If they didn't follow it up, and something happened, public outrage would follow.
I'd be willing to bet, if those buses were on school property, sthig didn't check in at the office. Because if he did, they wouldn't have had to "hunt" him down. Public schools may be public but since Columbine and other school shootings, trespassing by the general public is not allowed. Wandering around school grounds raises suspicion to many, especially in this day and age.
1) A car with an older male subject driving it drives past a school looking at the kids in the play ground. He does this 4-5 times in a 1-hour period...suspicious? Would you call it in?
2) Two male subjects in their early twenties wearing baggy clothes, lots of jewelry, hats sideways, exchanging something hand to hand, looking all around....suspicious? Would you call it in?
3) Man in his late 70's offers your kid some candy, then walks away....suspicious? Would you call it in?
4) Someone is taking pictures of your kid at the park, then leaves. Your kid got his plate number....suspicious Would you call it in?
5) A car sits outside you house occupied by two men, they sit there for an hour, it's dark out....suspicious? Would you call it in?
It's all in the eye of the beholder.:uhoh Isn't it great to live in a country where we can actually do all the above legally?
1) Just a dad waiting for JR to come out for his dentist appointment.
2) Two straight A students, one getting 5-bucks from the other.
3) Just an elderly gentleman who lived in an era where being nice to kids was perfectly okay.
4) Newspaper reporter doing a story on summer fun.
5) Two friends waiting for a third friend to come home.
I am curious about how many on here have ill feelings just from the name: DEPARTMENT HOMELAND SECURITY.
When I first heard that this organization was being formed it scared the H*** out of me.......it just sounds so nazi to me, and to all of my european friends also.......
The name is dumb- like changing INS to USCIS; they are still the same incompetent jackasses.
However, Nazi-Like? I don't think so. Not nearly grandiose enough.
Also, how do you put up with Europeans who compare us to Nazis all the time? I have european friends and family, and whenever they bring that crap up I tell them to step off. to quote Tome Wolfe "Why is the dark shadow of fascism always falling on America, but always landing on Europe?"
The problem is people are to afraid of risks, but not of risks to our civil liberties
How's this: But let one man read another by his actions never so perfectly,
it serves him onely with his acquaintance, which are but few.
He that is to govern a whole Nation, must read in himselfe, not this,
or that particular man; but Man-kind;
or This: Soveraign Power Ought In All Common-wealths To Be Absolute...
And though of so unlimited a Power,
men may fancy many evill consequences, yet the consequences of
the want of it, which is perpetuall warre of every man against
his neighbour, are much worse.
I am curious about how many on here have ill feelings just from the name: DEPARTMENT HOMELAND SECURITY.
When I first heard that this organization was being formed it scared the H*** out of me.......it just sounds so nazi to me, and to all of my european friends also.......
but what do you expect from a fascist administration? Don't forget Bush's grandfather was arrested and tried for aiding the Nazis.
or This: Soveraign Power Ought In All Common-wealths To Be Absolute... And though of so unlimited a Power, men may fancy many evill consequences, yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetuall warre of every man against his neighbour, are much worse.
Tag, you're it!
Don't know the first one, but the second one is from The Leviathan, and I know one thnig: I sure don't want my government to be a Leviathan. Also, his theory is so fundamentally flawed. I know some of The Leviathan influenced Locke, but Hobbes was so far off the mark. The only way for absolute power to stop warring is for it to be absolute and global, absolute power within common-wealths (i.e. multiple common wealths each with an absolute sovereign) doesn't do anything to solve the problems of anarchy. Even a global one wouldn't, you'd just change international wars into civil wars. People need to just accept that people will always kill each other, so we are best served by making sure we aren't oppressed while we are still alive. Also, having more rights than others doesn't mean you have all of the rights you should.
but what do you expect from a fascist administration? Don't forget Bush's grandfather was arrested and tried for aiding the Nazis.
Fascist Administration? I'm no fan of the Bushes, but it's clear that they aren't a fascist administration. In fact, a fascist administration isn't even possible in theory, without the bureacratic organs of a fascist state arranged to implement fascist policies. a fascist party is possible. But not solely an administration.
Besides, fascism is a real political philosophy that the republican party does not adhere to. The republicans may be conservative, reactionary, statist, mean to children and small animals, and generally bad- but this does not make them fascist.
As an ex-political scientist who wrote a large part of his thesis on a counter-fascist revolution, I am tired of seeing the American left bandy this term about without actually knowing what it means.
Also, fascist does not equal nazi. There were plenty of fascist parties that were not Nazis, and I'm not taking about just Italy. (Google Integralismo, corporatism, Antonio Salazar, or Primo de Rivera to see what I am talking about)
Additionaly, the fact that "corporation" shares 8 letters with "corporatism" doesn't mean that corporations are fascist.
If you want to have a real debate with the American right, its best to use real terminology correctly and succinctly. It's also best to avoid the invocation of Godwin's law. Down Home Folks will immediately stop taking you seriously. Which is what has pretty much happened to the opposition in the US; and now is not the time to abdicate opposition.
Don't know the first one, but the second one is from The Leviathan, and I know one thnig: I sure don't want my government to be a Leviathan. Also, his theory is so fundamentally flawed. I know some of The Leviathan influenced Locke, but Hobbes was so far off the mark. The only way for absolute power to stop warring is for it to be absolute and global, absolute power within common-wealths (i.e. multiple common wealths each with an absolute sovereign) doesn't do anything to solve the problems of anarchy. Even a global one wouldn't, you'd just change international wars into civil wars. People need to just accept that people will always kill each other, so we are best served by making sure we aren't oppressed while we are still alive. Also, having more rights than others doesn't mean you have all of the rights you should.
They are both from Leviathan.
And I agree, to a point, with some of what you say here. Some folks say that Hobbes is weak when analysing international relations (although Leviathan was written to address the conditions of civil strife within England at the time, rahter than address IR specifically) others would say that the Anarchic state of international relations proves Hobbes point.
I certainly want my state to be a Leviathan, although not exactly the sortof leviathan that Hobbes envisioned. The sine qua non of a leviathan, for hobbes, is that it possesses a monopoly of coercive force, and that all men must obey it. Hobbes may go a bit to far in demanding that one must always submit to the Leviathan, but then again, he was writing after direct experience with a civil war where the state monopoly of violence eroded, and devoped into a war of all against all.
Hobbes also believes that the Leviathan exists for the peace and defence of the people, and that a state that ceases to do this will fall. The people may not violate the contract that creates the Leviathan (a position with which I disagree) or replace it with a new one, but also, the Leviathan is bound by the original contract as well. That is to say, even when the law is unjust you may not break it, but neither can the government.
As a social contract theory, it has its problems, and I prefer some of Locke's refinements of it.
But the main lesson to take away from Hobbes is his correct assesment of man as notbeing naturally good, and that whn men live in the state of nature, it is a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Our President would have done well to read Leviathan (or any book, for that matter), as he would perhaps have realized that social order is not natural, but must be maintained by coercive force or the threat therof. When the forces of order are not present, chaos reigns, and that is bad for everybody- thus we have New Orleans, and Baghdad.
Fascist Administration? I'm no fan of the Bushes, but it's clear that they aren't a fascist administration.
Angelo obviously beleives that children should pay for the sins of their fathers, otherwise he would never bring up stuff like this. Hey, if it gets Teddy Kennedy out of office, maybe not such a bad thing...
Back to the original point, I fail to see how this was a violation of anyone's civil rights, and the guy who originally pointed this out actually came out and said that. What happened to him might have been an over-reaction, an inconvenience, may have been down-right stupid. But no civil rights were violated here. He took photos, he was questioned, he kept his photos. And nobody here knows WHY he was questioned, everyone is simply JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS.
Our President would have done well to read Leviathan (or any book, for that matter), as he would perhaps have realized that social order is not natural, but must be maintained by coercive force or the threat therof. When the forces of order are not present, chaos reigns, and that is bad for everybody- thus we have New Orleans, and Baghdad.
An interesting article in Time magazine lately about New Orleans and their crime problem illustrates your point. Apparantly if you got sent to a judge in The Big Easy for a crime your chances of spending time in jail were about 7%. People simply didn't pay for their crimes in N.O. and as a result crime was rampant. Many of those criminals ended up in Houston after the hurricane, and they started committing crimes again. Once they got into a criminal justice system that actually made them spend time in jail in response to the actions they chose to make... well, you get the idea.
"Freakonomics" made this very same point, but in a different time in our country. There the issue was with liberal enforcement of drug laws during the 60's (read that as no enforcement of the drug laws). Low enforcement equals a high crime rate. (the point isn't that the drug laws are good and need to be enforced, the point is that when laws aren't enforced they will be violated. same is true with immigration law).
well i would bet, that the second you didnt let them in to see the pictures they are probably reading this thread and have done extensive research on you, and could possible use that patriot act, and search your house and computer when your at work,
well i would bet, that the second you didnt let them in to see the pictures they are probably reading this thread and have done extensive research on you, and could possible use that patriot act, and search your house and computer when your at work,
I think the opponents of the HSA and the new-style, "lets freak out over everything" are attributing to the government not only grandiose totalitarian designs and despicably evil intentions, which they probably don't have, but also a ruthless efficiency and dedication to their work, which they definitely don't have.
The government hasn't got its s**t together enough to be totalitarian.
For example; when the INS (now the USCIS, same s**t, different can) issued my wife's green card back in 2001, they issued it with a typo. We got hassled back in Nov. of 2005, so we sent the card in to the INS (oops, USCIS!) so that they could correct the green card and mail it back. This was December of 2005. The letter we got said it should be done in 4 weeks or less.
When we check our status on-line, it says they expect tot ake 235-275 days now to fix it. That is, in addition to the 5 months they've already been working on it, it may take 9 more months to, essentially, go to a database, do some data entry to ix a name, laminate a new card, and mail it to me. Even the DMV isn't this bad.
So, even if the gov't wanted to be fascist, the fact is, they are just too damn lazy, stupid, and innefficent.
Why am I not a big-government socialist? See Above.
Boy talk about going off the track. The initial poster never said that his rights had been violated. He seemed to feel that the visit was a bit of an overreaction to his taking pictures of parked buses.
Now everyone is hopping in and trying to use this to promote their current political fancy. The initial discussion had value on a photography forum because it dealt with something many of us have dealt with and/or possibly will be dealing with in the future as photographers.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I didn't want to start a warring political debate (albeit interesting).
But if I made PeterCreek laugh with my "bear arms" then
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
kidding. Yes, I was just freaked out beacuse I've never been approached by the law EXCEPT for "sir did you know how fast you were going?" and that is it.
Just to state some facts and keep things on track:
A. took pictures of school buses in empty parking lot away from school
B. approached by HSLaw Enfiorcement about why I was taking pictures and what of
C. HSLaw Enforcment was pleasant but stern. He never once harrassed me but defended his position of following up and gave examples.
E: Showed him the pictures and he realized what I was doing.
F: Shook my hand and affirmed me for upholding the law.
All that said, it still scared the living poo out of me just because the law found out where I lived and had a report on me.
Boy talk about going off the track. The initial poster never said that his rights had been violated. He seemed to feel that the visit was a bit of an overreaction to his taking pictures of parked buses.
Now everyone is hopping in and trying to use this to promote their current political fancy. The initial discussion had value on a photography forum because it dealt with something many of us have dealt with and/or possibly will be dealing with in the future as photographers.
Comments
man ... you got to get rid of your turbin.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
That sounds like good follow-up rather than a civil liberties violation; although there are more and less efficient ways of following up (less efficient would be the construction photo story).
The problem I have is not when they question me, but when they harrass me. And asking questions just doesn't reach the level of harrasment. Having a cop threaten to confiscate my camera while holding her hand on the grip of her pistol, because I am shooting the Lackawanna Rail Terminal; now that's harrassment. Especially since this and this are already out there.
Just asking questions? Sounds to me like that is their job.
On a side note, I agree with Merc that Americans are risk averse. They also get bent out of shape about "civil rights violations" rather too easily. We have more civil rights than anyone in the world, which is why we sometimes have trouble distinguishing between a desire and a right. This is part of the general conflation of want with need.
If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered that, they should then rouze themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure for them the ends for which government was at first erected.
Anyone here know who said that? No googling allowed
The problem is people are to afraid of risks, but not of risks to our civil liberties. Without the liberties, ancient names, and specious forms, are so far from being better, that they are much worse, than the state of nature, or pure anarchy. 9/11 killed 3000 people...less Americans have died from terrorism than from peanut allergies. People need to consider things in perspective. We absord all the deaths from car accidents, we can't absorb the long term damage that would be done by collapsing the basic philosophy on which liberal democracy was built.
By my reading of the OP, there was no unlawful search, seizure, detention or other insult to civil liberty. The agent was simply asking questions, ostensibly, to follow up on a report of suspicious activity. Reasonable questions from one with lawful authority normally do not rise to the level of infringment.
Seems to me that people frequently overlook an important point when exercising their rights in public places: the exercise of your rights must be in balance with the rights of others. Considering the course history has taken since 9/11, I think it prudent to ask a few reasonable questions about activity in a public place that may for good reason seem suspicious. The trick is to balance the rights of an individual against the rights of the public at large, via delegation of authority to appropriate agencies, to provide for public welfare and safety.
This message brought to you by a federal employee working hard for your aviation safety (speaking strictly for himself), who is also a retired veteran, a Republican with mild Libertarian leanings, a constitutionalist, and a close, personal friend of the 2nd Amendment.
As a veteran and a retired federal employee I will have to disagree here. Where the train jump the tracks here is the "suspicious activity". The man was taking pictures of parked school buses!!!! How is that suspicious!. Were these top secret buses? Of what possible use would a picture of a parked bus be to a terrorist? How is our national security and safety threatened by anyone taking a picture of parked buses?
The security at our airports, ports, nuclear and chemical installations is filled with holes. Our border security is non-existent. With all this we have the personnel and time available to check out a man who was taking pictures of parked school buses. Doesn't that make you fell safer? I will sleep better to night. BTW my 3 granddaughters live in Atlanta and ride the school buses.
I want due diligence on security matters but lets be real here. Taking pictures of school buses is not a matter of national security.
Here is a picture of my granchildren getting off a school bus in Georgia. I used selective color to fool the terrorists so they can't figure out they are actually yellow. Feel free to turn me in to those zanies at Homeland Security
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I agree that ~>99% of the time, such "suspicious activity" will be completely harmless. I also agree that our money, time, and effort isn't always prioritized properly. We can also disagree about the potential threat of terrorism against our children. We have only to look to Israel for an indication of that. Perhaps we're more sensitive to it locally because we had a few school bus brake lines cut last year.
However, my point remains that having questions asked of you, in response to a report of "suspicious activity" is not necessarily an infringement of civil liberties. I don't believe there is a Constitutional right to be unquestioned. Having received a report of "suspicious activity" from someone who may well have been a Nervous Nelly, my guess is the agent had a duty to follow up.
Again, in refering to the OP as written, I see no indication of unlawful search, seizure, or detention...no prohibition of picture-taking...no threats or intimidation. A few questions were asked and I assume the agent left satisfied that nothing nefarious was afoot.
So, which civil liberty was infringed?
Edited to add: I really like the picture, by the way.
I haven't been adressing it as a civil rights issue I have been adressing it as a "stupidity" issue. I want to see an effective and efficient response to the real threat of terrorism and it just irks me when I see $, staff time, and resources expended on stupidity.
While no civil right was infringed it is intimidating and potentiall embarrassing to be have federal agents knocking on one's door and questioning one about one's activities. This may be a necessary evil at times but it definitely wasn't in this case. It was STUPID!
Before I left NYC Andy and I got together and did some shooting one day. Since we were going to be on the subway and might want to do some subway shots I checked the MTA's website to see of there were any prohibitons against photography on NYC's subways. The only restriction was against the use on tripods.
Well Andy and I were on a subway car and we were revieiwng our shots, not shooting. A conductor came by and said "You can't take pictures on the subway". I didn't argue with the man and Andy just pointed out that we weren't taking pictures. The train comes to the next station and two cops come on and take Andy and myself off because the conductor said we were taking pictures. I pointed out to the lads that one, we weren't taking pictures and two, if we were it was permissable according to MTA's own regulations to take pictures on the subway. During this whole useless incident the train is being held in the station and hundreds of passengers are being delayed.
Was this an infringement on my civil rights, no but it was a waste of time, money, staffing and resources and it was STUPID!!! I am tired of 9-11 being used as an excuse for stupidity. Every time some numbnutz has a cow because someone is taking a picture the rationalization is "9-11". I say enough already. Stupidity won't make us safe or free. We won't end terrorism by being stupid.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
he wasn't off by any amount of years... 1984 was chosen because the book was completed in 1948 (yes, published in 1949, but that wasn't known when the title was set)... his was a commentary on how things were, are and always will be, his was a commentary on human nature
but hey, I agree with your sentiment entirely-sorry to nitpick
... come along.
^5 Harry. But all this stupidity is our fault. We have allowed ourselves to be dragged down this path. Our lack of individual envolvement with our government ... of trusting out elected officials to do the right thing ... our individual and collective abdication of goverment oversight has allowed this federal govenment to abuse its power upon the general population of this country as well as abroad (i.e. attacking a sovereign country without real cause ... similar to confronting a person for taking photos of a few buses or harassing a person just because they have a camera on a subway is all an abuse of power exercised without due cause). And we are all to blame for allowing it to happen and allowing it to continue.
-Gary-
Unsharp at any Speed
photos: Scojobo.com
illos: sThig.com
I am curious about how many on here have ill feelings just from the name: DEPARTMENT HOMELAND SECURITY.
When I first heard that this organization was being formed it scared the H*** out of me.......it just sounds so nazi to me, and to all of my european friends also.......
Suspicious: questionable, disposed to doubt.
With questionable being the key word here, if you were a parent and saw someone lurking around, what in the picture appeared to be, school grounds taking pictures of school buses, you just might wonder "What is that guy up to?" Parents are pretty protective. If someone calls the police, or Homeland Security for that matter, they have an obligation to follow-up on the call, it's their job. If they didn't follow it up, and something happened, public outrage would follow.
I'd be willing to bet, if those buses were on school property, sthig didn't check in at the office. Because if he did, they wouldn't have had to "hunt" him down. Public schools may be public but since Columbine and other school shootings, trespassing by the general public is not allowed. Wandering around school grounds raises suspicion to many, especially in this day and age.
1) A car with an older male subject driving it drives past a school looking at the kids in the play ground. He does this 4-5 times in a 1-hour period...suspicious?
2) Two male subjects in their early twenties wearing baggy clothes, lots of jewelry, hats sideways, exchanging something hand to hand, looking all around....suspicious?
3) Man in his late 70's offers your kid some candy, then walks away....suspicious?
4) Someone is taking pictures of your kid at the park, then leaves. Your kid got his plate number....suspicious
5) A car sits outside you house occupied by two men, they sit there for an hour, it's dark out....suspicious?
It's all in the eye of the beholder.:uhoh Isn't it great to live in a country where we can actually do all the above legally?
1) Just a dad waiting for JR to come out for his dentist appointment.
2) Two straight A students, one getting 5-bucks from the other.
3) Just an elderly gentleman who lived in an era where being nice to kids was perfectly okay.
4) Newspaper reporter doing a story on summer fun.
5) Two friends waiting for a third friend to come home.
Did you jump to any conlusions?
SUSPICIOUS:D
However, Nazi-Like? I don't think so. Not nearly grandiose enough.
Also, how do you put up with Europeans who compare us to Nazis all the time? I have european friends and family, and whenever they bring that crap up I tell them to step off. to quote Tome Wolfe "Why is the dark shadow of fascism always falling on America, but always landing on Europe?"
How's this:
But let one man read another by his actions never so perfectly,
it serves him onely with his acquaintance, which are but few.
He that is to govern a whole Nation, must read in himselfe, not this,
or that particular man; but Man-kind;
or This:
Soveraign Power Ought In All Common-wealths To Be Absolute...
And though of so unlimited a Power,
men may fancy many evill consequences, yet the consequences of
the want of it, which is perpetuall warre of every man against
his neighbour, are much worse.
Tag, you're it!
but what do you expect from a fascist administration? Don't forget Bush's grandfather was arrested and tried for aiding the Nazis.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
"Nazi" - Please - give me a break. Maybe we should just stick our heads in the sand and hope nobody else targets us for attack.
The name doesn't scare me - may just say "Don't Tread on Me" to outsiders
"Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Don't know the first one, but the second one is from The Leviathan, and I know one thnig: I sure don't want my government to be a Leviathan. Also, his theory is so fundamentally flawed. I know some of The Leviathan influenced Locke, but Hobbes was so far off the mark. The only way for absolute power to stop warring is for it to be absolute and global, absolute power within common-wealths (i.e. multiple common wealths each with an absolute sovereign) doesn't do anything to solve the problems of anarchy. Even a global one wouldn't, you'd just change international wars into civil wars. People need to just accept that people will always kill each other, so we are best served by making sure we aren't oppressed while we are still alive. Also, having more rights than others doesn't mean you have all of the rights you should.
Fascist Administration? I'm no fan of the Bushes, but it's clear that they aren't a fascist administration. In fact, a fascist administration isn't even possible in theory, without the bureacratic organs of a fascist state arranged to implement fascist policies. a fascist party is possible. But not solely an administration.
Besides, fascism is a real political philosophy that the republican party does not adhere to. The republicans may be conservative, reactionary, statist, mean to children and small animals, and generally bad- but this does not make them fascist.
As an ex-political scientist who wrote a large part of his thesis on a counter-fascist revolution, I am tired of seeing the American left bandy this term about without actually knowing what it means.
Also, fascist does not equal nazi. There were plenty of fascist parties that were not Nazis, and I'm not taking about just Italy. (Google Integralismo, corporatism, Antonio Salazar, or Primo de Rivera to see what I am talking about)
Additionaly, the fact that "corporation" shares 8 letters with "corporatism" doesn't mean that corporations are fascist.
If you want to have a real debate with the American right, its best to use real terminology correctly and succinctly. It's also best to avoid the invocation of Godwin's law. Down Home Folks will immediately stop taking you seriously. Which is what has pretty much happened to the opposition in the US; and now is not the time to abdicate opposition.
They are both from Leviathan.
And I agree, to a point, with some of what you say here. Some folks say that Hobbes is weak when analysing international relations (although Leviathan was written to address the conditions of civil strife within England at the time, rahter than address IR specifically) others would say that the Anarchic state of international relations proves Hobbes point.
I certainly want my state to be a Leviathan, although not exactly the sortof leviathan that Hobbes envisioned. The sine qua non of a leviathan, for hobbes, is that it possesses a monopoly of coercive force, and that all men must obey it. Hobbes may go a bit to far in demanding that one must always submit to the Leviathan, but then again, he was writing after direct experience with a civil war where the state monopoly of violence eroded, and devoped into a war of all against all.
Hobbes also believes that the Leviathan exists for the peace and defence of the people, and that a state that ceases to do this will fall. The people may not violate the contract that creates the Leviathan (a position with which I disagree) or replace it with a new one, but also, the Leviathan is bound by the original contract as well. That is to say, even when the law is unjust you may not break it, but neither can the government.
As a social contract theory, it has its problems, and I prefer some of Locke's refinements of it.
But the main lesson to take away from Hobbes is his correct assesment of man as notbeing naturally good, and that whn men live in the state of nature, it is a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Our President would have done well to read Leviathan (or any book, for that matter), as he would perhaps have realized that social order is not natural, but must be maintained by coercive force or the threat therof. When the forces of order are not present, chaos reigns, and that is bad for everybody- thus we have New Orleans, and Baghdad.
Back to the original point, I fail to see how this was a violation of anyone's civil rights, and the guy who originally pointed this out actually came out and said that. What happened to him might have been an over-reaction, an inconvenience, may have been down-right stupid. But no civil rights were violated here. He took photos, he was questioned, he kept his photos. And nobody here knows WHY he was questioned, everyone is simply JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
That was just...wrong.
"Freakonomics" made this very same point, but in a different time in our country. There the issue was with liberal enforcement of drug laws during the 60's (read that as no enforcement of the drug laws). Low enforcement equals a high crime rate. (the point isn't that the drug laws are good and need to be enforced, the point is that when laws aren't enforced they will be violated. same is true with immigration law).
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I think the opponents of the HSA and the new-style, "lets freak out over everything" are attributing to the government not only grandiose totalitarian designs and despicably evil intentions, which they probably don't have, but also a ruthless efficiency and dedication to their work, which they definitely don't have.
The government hasn't got its s**t together enough to be totalitarian.
For example; when the INS (now the USCIS, same s**t, different can) issued my wife's green card back in 2001, they issued it with a typo. We got hassled back in Nov. of 2005, so we sent the card in to the INS (oops, USCIS!) so that they could correct the green card and mail it back. This was December of 2005. The letter we got said it should be done in 4 weeks or less.
When we check our status on-line, it says they expect tot ake 235-275 days now to fix it. That is, in addition to the 5 months they've already been working on it, it may take 9 more months to, essentially, go to a database, do some data entry to ix a name, laminate a new card, and mail it to me. Even the DMV isn't this bad.
So, even if the gov't wanted to be fascist, the fact is, they are just too damn lazy, stupid, and innefficent.
Why am I not a big-government socialist? See Above.
Now everyone is hopping in and trying to use this to promote their current political fancy. The initial discussion had value on a photography forum because it dealt with something many of us have dealt with and/or possibly will be dealing with in the future as photographers.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I didn't want to start a warring political debate (albeit interesting).
But if I made PeterCreek laugh with my "bear arms" then
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
kidding. Yes, I was just freaked out beacuse I've never been approached by the law EXCEPT for "sir did you know how fast you were going?" and that is it.
Just to state some facts and keep things on track:
A. took pictures of school buses in empty parking lot away from school
B. approached by HSLaw Enfiorcement about why I was taking pictures and what of
C. HSLaw Enforcment was pleasant but stern.
E: Showed him the pictures and he realized what I was doing.
F: Shook my hand and affirmed me for upholding the law.
All that said, it still scared the living poo out of me just because the law found out where I lived and had a report on me.
So those are the facts.
photos: Scojobo.com
illos: sThig.com
Party pooper!