Anti Authority Photography Outlawed

[elfismiles]

We're seeing increasing amounts of this... cept in this case it seems to do an end run around the, "its legal to video/photograph an authority figure in public doing there job" bit.

Bill banning release of police officer photos passes Senate
Dallas Morning News (blog) - Kelley Shannon - ‎May 24, 2011‎
The Texas Senate approved legislation Tuesday banning the release of police officers' photos in most cases, a bill open government advocates opposed. House Bill 2006, by Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, next heads to Gov. Rick Perry. ...

Bill banning release of police officer photos passes Senate
Dallas Morning News (blog)
By Kelley Shannon / kshannon@dallasnews.com
12:00 PM on Tue., May. 24, 2011 | Permalink
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... olice.html

The Texas Senate approved legislation Tuesday banning the release of police officers' photos in most cases, a bill open government advocates opposed.

House Bill 2006, by Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, next heads to Gov. Rick Perry.

It specifies that an officer's photo can be released by a police department if the officer has been charged with a crime, if the photo is evidence in a court case and in a few other instances.

The Houston Police Department pushed hard for the bill, saying releasing officers' photos to the public would endanger undercover officers or those targeted by gangs. Under current law they can keep police officers' photos out of public view, but an officer must sign an affidavit. Police officials said that can be an administrative nightmare.

The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas and other open government advocates said there are already exceptions under current law to adequately protect officers. The groups said an officer photo should be available for public view if an officer dies in the line of duty or is involved in a high-speed chase that's under investigation, among other circumstances.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... olice.html

...

Taking Photos In Public Places Is Not A Crime: Analysis
Too many officials think taking photos is a crime. Here’s why they’re wrong.
Read more: Public Photography Laws - Photographing Police and Public Places - Popular Mechanics
By Glenn Harlan Reynolds
July 20, 2010 6:00 AM

Today, most people walk around with a camera of some sort in their possession. Point-and-shoots, DSLRs and tiny video cams--not to mention cellphones--have become ubiquitous. And yet it seems that in many public locations, security officials are touchier than ever about letting people actually use those cameras. Our guardians of public safety often have the idea that shooting pictures in public places might be a precursor to some sort of terrorism. It's an understandable concern, but misguided. I believe there is a good case to be made that having lots of cameras in the hands of citizens makes us more, rather than less, safe.

Here's how bad it has gotten: Not long ago, an Amtrak representative did an interview with local TV station Fox 5 in Washington, D.C.'s Union Station to explain that you don't need a permit to take pictures there--only to be approached by a security guard who ordered them to stop filming without a permit.

Legally, it's pretty much always okay to take photos in a public place as long as you're not physically interfering with traffic or police operations. As Bert Krages, an attorney who specializes in photography-related legal problems and wrote Legal Handbook for Photographers, says, "The general rule is that if something is in a public place, you're entitled to photograph it." What's more, though national-security laws are often invoked when quashing photographers, Krages explains that "the Patriot Act does not restrict photography; neither does the Homeland Security Act." But this doesn't stop people from interfering with photographers, even in settings that don't seem much like national-security zones.

Tennessee law student Morgan Manning has compiled a list of incidents in which individuals were wrongly stopped. Cases like that of Seattle photographer Bogdan Mohora, who was arrested for taking pictures of police arresting a man and had his camera confiscated. Or NASA employee Walter Miller, who was stopped for photographing an art exhibit near the Indianapolis City-County Building and told that "homeland security" forbade photos of the facility. More recently, a CBS news crew was turned back from shooting the oil-fouled gulf coastline by two U.S. Coast Guard officers who said they were enforcing "BP's rules."

Unfortunately, Manning notes, although such hassling is generally illegal, it's hard for the average citizen to get redress in court--how do you calculate the value of deleted snapshots or photos never taken in the first place?

As the examples above demonstrate, it's a problem that stems as much from cluelessness at the bottom of the chain of command as from heavy-handedness at the top. The officers who crack down on photographers no doubt believe they are protecting public safety. But evidence that photography might be useful to terrorists is slim. According to security expert Bruce Schneier, head of security technology for British Telecom, terrorists don't typically photograph targets in advance. "Look at the 9/11 attacks, the Moscow and London subway bombings, the Fort Hood shooting--no photos," he says. "I'm not seeing a whole lot of plots that hinge on photography." On his blog, Schneier advises: "If you're harassed, it's almost certainly a law enforcement official, public or private, acting way beyond his authority."

Not surprisingly, police tend to be particularly sensitive about being photographed themselves. And many of the cases cited by Manning involve officers discouraging citizens from filming them while they go about their duties. Though one can understand their skittishness, the fact is, our ability to document the actions of public officials is an important freedom, one that can serve as a check against abuses.

Police and prosecutors in Maryland have been taking a particularly hard line. In one case, motorcycle rider Anthony Graber left his helmet cam on while he was pulled over by a state trooper. A grand jury indicted him on several violations of the state's wiretapping laws. If convicted on all charges, Graber could face up to 16 years in prison. In alleging that the GoPro video camera on Graber's helmet constituted a "surreptitious" wiretapping device, prosecutors are making the claim that a person recording his own arrest is violating the police officer's right to privacy.

This is the sort of thing you might be tempted simply to toss in the crazy file. But, in fact, this is one of the comparatively few issues that could merit a new federal civil rights law. Under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Congress is empowered to pass laws protecting civil rights against infringement by state and local officials, and that seems to be what's happening here. A clear federal law would limit cases, like Maryland's, in which local officials use their power to harass those who might keep an eye on them. Passing such a law would make us all safer.

Even in potential terrorism cases, the presence of lots of ordinary folks carrying cameras actually enhances public security. In the hours after the failed Times Square car-bomb attempt, officials searching for clues didn't just look at their own security-camera footage, they also sought out home movies shot by tourists.

So what should you do if you're taking photos and a security guard or police officer approaches you and tells you to stop? First, be polite. Security people have tough jobs and probably mean well. Ask them what legal authority they have to make you stop. (If you're in a public place, like a street, a park, etc., they have none; if you're in a private place, such as a shopping mall, they may have a basis for banning pictures.) Krages advises those hassled by security guards to threaten to call law enforcement. If it's an actual police officer who's telling you to stop shooting, ask to speak to a superior. And remember--you never have a legal duty to delete pictures you've taken.

More importantly, we need better education among security guards and law enforcement. In Britain, the country's police chiefs' association is attempting to educate officers about the rights of photographers. So far, nothing like that has happened in the U.S., but it should. Trying to block photography in public places is not only heavy-handed and wrong but, thanks to technology, basically useless. With the proliferation of cameras in just about every device we carry, digital photography has become too ubiquitous to stop. Let's have a truce in the war on photography and set our sights on the real bad guys. Who, it seems, don't carry cameras anyway.

Popular Mechanics contributing editor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, author of An Army of Davids (Nelson Current, 2006), teaches law at the University of Tennessee and blogs at Instapundit.
Tags: photography, law enforcement, government, smartphone, camera, security, terrorism
Related Stories

* Surveillance Society: New High-Tech Cameras Are Watching You
* Watching the Watchers: Why Surveillance Is a Two-Way Street
* In the Petabyte Age of Surveillance, Software Polices
* The Holes Found in U.S. Border Fence Technology
* The 6 Most Popular Border Fence Technologies
* Obama Set to Provide a New Direction for Cyber Security in U.S.: Analysis


Read more: Public Photography Laws - Photographing Police and Public Places - Popular Mechanics




http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ot-a-crime

[Nordic]

There's no way that can be constitutional. No way!

You can't tell me what to photograph. You just can't. That's like telling me what I can say or can't say, or DRAW, or write.

There's only one way to respond to this bullshit and that's to photograph the SHIT out of them. Constantly, and in great numbers.

[Pele'sDaughter]

There's only one reason for police agencies to do this and that's to protect them from liability. Effing outrageous that legislatures are helping them get away with it.

[Joe Hillshoist]

There's only one reason for police agencies to do this and that's to protect them from liability. Effing outrageous that legislatures are helping them get away with it.

Its also to maintain a monopoly on the control of and gathering of evidence. The two are closely related cos avoiding liability is 90% of the reason the want the monopoly. The other 10%% has to do with having a special place in society, a mystique conferred by their priestlike powers of evidence gathering or something.

[Canadian_watcher]

Americans need to get their shit together and start massive actions of civil disobedience.
This is outrageous.

[23]

Americans need to get their shit together and start massive actions of civil disobedience.
This is outrageous.

Couldn't agree more.

Just want to add the caveat that they be nonviolent in nature.

[Nordic]

Americans need to get their shit together and start massive actions of civil disobedience.
This is outrageous.

My first few protests that I ever attended were in the early 2000's, after GWB started taking us into Iraq. I was amazed at how many cops had the singular job of shooting video of the crowds. I mean, it was the only reason they were there. This was in probably 2003, maybe even 2002.

I only went to a few before I realized the protests themselves were bogus, and the authorities had successfully herded them into out-of-the-way places where nobody would even see them.

The protesters were tripping all over themselves to comply. They wanted to show how "nice" and "law abiding" and "polite" they were. Code Pink were the only ones who knew how to actually get in their faces.

[Canadian_watcher]

@23 - yes, non-violent is key.

@Nordic - I feel the same way about that kind of on the street protest. I guess they have a place, but in my opinion what they *really* do is help the state by allowing the populace to blow off steam with no good result, AND the thugs get a chance to lay the beat down & collect intelligence.

Non-payment of taxes, boycotts, ... get creative.
There was a neat one in Britain (to hear David Icke tell it, anyway) where City Leadership instituted a Bin Tax .. I think it was a fine for putting your garbage out on the wrong day or hour or something.. can't remember. But I guess that everyone started putting their bins out randomly and the City couldn't keep up, so the 'tax' was abolished. (not sure on the details) But that's the sort of creative thing ppl have to do.

If Canada would do something more overt, I'd try and organize something here. Our shit is so covert and takes so long to explain to ppl that there's no way I'd motivate anyone. I can't even get my family upset over the stuff that's happening, FFS, and they've got to listen to me 24/7. lol

[Joe Hillshoist]

http://pindanpost.com/2011/05/25/2654/

Slightly OT.

[Project Willow]

I just keep reading the thread title as Anti Authority Pornography Outlawed

[druff]

Couldn't agree more.

Just want to add the caveat that they be nonviolent in nature.

Interesting. Zinn wrote a book published in 1968 called Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order. One of the nine was:

Fourth fallacy: that civil disobedience must be absolutely nonviolent.

In this chapter he quotes Gandhi:

I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence.

Zinn again: "The historical evidence is far from supporting the idea that violence is not effective in producing change." And he goes on to mention Shays' rebellion, labor struggles of the 1930s, "John Brown's violence," the thoughts of Frederick Douglass...

Just sayin'.


http://www.amazon.com/Disobedience-Demo ... 017&sr=8-2

[23]

And in 2002 he came out with:



Maturation of thought (1969 to 2002) happens.

Not to mention:



(The footage contained in this film originally came from raw footage used in a 1986 documentary, The Trial of the AVCO Plowshares, directed by John Reilly and Julie Gustafson. In July of 1983, seven Americans entered AVCO Systems Division, a manufacturing plant for MX and Pershing II missiles in Wilmington, Massachusetts, and damaged weapon parts in a protest against the build-up of nuclear arms. This work documents the ensuing trial. With minimal commentary, Reilly and Gustafson examine the American judicial system, the tradition of non-violent civil disobedience, and the question of a higher moral imperative, beyond letter of the law.)

Just sayin' as well.

[Laodicean]

^ Remember watching this back in 2002. Was hoping CopWatch would really take off.

Seeing the CopWatch.org site now....sad. The site and database that was available seems to be offline now.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

More enactment of the unspoken-

'Reality Need to Know' Act of 12/7/41.

[brainpanhandler]

Non-payment of taxes ... get creative.

I've often considered this and at times have come to the what ought to be the obvious conclusion that it is a moral imperative. There is no significant moral distinction between whether I pull the trigger myself or pay the assassin. And yet non-payment of your taxes in this country will get you in some deep doo doo lickety split. Get creative? Yes. But also brave and willing to suffer some serious dislocation and privation. The government will garnish your wages, put liens on your property, confiscate your property, destroy your credit, fine your ass into destitution and ultimately throw you in prison where your can work your debt off at $1.00/hr.

If Canada would do something more overt, I'd try and organize something here. Our shit is so covert and takes so long to explain to ppl that there's no way I'd motivate anyone. I can't even get my family upset over the stuff that's happening, FFS, and they've got to listen to me 24/7. lol

You lecture them in their sleep?