7 ms·

> It was decided, I was going to take this photo. However, I was not going to take my time taking the photo. > The Port Authority's policy is not law. This is

by dmreedy 10y ago

> It was decided, I was going to take this photo. However, I was not going to take my time taking the photo. > The Port Authority's policy is not law. This is a public place, and I can photograph whatever I want. The rebelliousness seems a little hollow in the light of admission of being cowed. Of course, I'dve had similar thinking. Is this a known thing, that the Port Authority doesn't want this building photographed? I am unfamiliar with the situation.

poidog22 10y ago
It's almost like he was more pissed off at himself for packing up originally. lol
- jrockway 10y ago
  Yes, I am mad at myself for not just ignoring him, or not calling the police myself. However, I do like to sit down and consider things before making a decision. Did I want to get arrested? Not really. I got my photo and I didn't get arrested, so this is almost the best-possible outcome, right?
  - headShrinker 10y ago
    I think some people don't understand that these corporations and the government have strong legal teams, that can do serious damage to an unsuspecting individual. jobs can be lost, public reputations can be ruined, not to mention financial damage and fines, or worse prison time for innocuous offenses, or physical harm and property damage from reckless violent police. edit: regulation -> reputation
    - jrockway 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal "The prevailing theory was that the lane closures were retribution against Fort Lee's Mayor Mark Sokolich (D) for failing to endorse Christie in the 2013 gubernatorial election. That motive was alleged by federal prosecutors in May 2015, in charges against Bridget Anne Kelly, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Christie, and Bill Baroni and David Wildstein, both of whom had been Christie-appointed officials at the Port Authority. Wildstein pleaded guilty. The indictment charged that the three conspired to commit fraud by illegally exploiting Port Authority resources for political ends." I don't have the resources to contend with the Port Authority.
      - gohrt 10y ago
        Holy cow, Governor Christie's staff masterminded an actual terrorist attack on the NY/NJ, and it was an inside job, and 1 person may have died as a reult.
  - T-hawk 10y ago
    You didn't get your photo. You got a worse rushed photo that's only sort of like the one you wanted. That's not the same thing. The Port Authority's intimidation worked. We need a name for this fallacy: "We are empowered to stop terrorism." "X can be used for terrorism." "Therefore we are empowered to stop X." Some relevant possible values for X: photography, money, cryptography, travel, social media...
    - ascendantlogic 10y ago
      It's easy for us to sit here and type how he was bullied and he should have stood up more for himself...when we weren't the ones in the situation. He calmed down and made clear-headed decisions about his next move(s). It was the right move.
  - 1_2__3 10y ago
    If you were posting this on Petapixel with a little blurb about being harassed then I'd agree with you. But you wrote this article with a civil liberties bent (that I wholly agree with), so while I'm happy you weren't arrested I'm not sure the 'core' of the story is you took a picture and didn't get thrown in jail for it. It's more like you took a picture and had to fear you were going to go to jail for it.
jrockway 10y ago
I don't think it's a well-known thing, but their other properties, like the George Washington Bridge show "no photographs" signs. I make sure to take a cell-phone photo every time I ride my bike up there. They prohibit photographs on their transit system: http://www.panynj.gov/path/pdf/PATH-Rules-Regulations-12-20-15.pdf http://www.panynj.gov/path/pdf/PATH-Rules-Regulations-12-20-... The consensus I get from doing some research is that they are overreaching. Anyone can make any policy they want. Anyone can approach anyone else in public and ask them to do whatever they want. Whether or not there is any force of law behind those policies or questions is up to the courts to decide. A few years ago, someone was going to sue the MTA for their photography policy. Apparently there is a law on the books regarding suing public-benefit corporations (of which the MTA and Port Authority are); if they agree to settle with you, and you choose not to accept the settlement, you are personally liable for their legal fees if the court awards you a settlement that's less than their legal fees. So of course, these policies can't be changed, as an individual can't out-resource the government. I don't know if it's true or not. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a professional photographer. I'm just a guy who tries to visit the park with a few pieces of film every now and again.
- dmreedy 10y ago
  It is a very nice shot, glad you risked it.
  - jrockway 10y ago
    Thanks. It would have been nice if I didn't get part of the guardrail in the frame ;)
- koolba 10y ago
  > I don't think it's a well-known thing, but their other properties, like the George Washington Bridge show "no photographs" signs. I make sure to take a cell-phone photo every time I ride my bike up there. Nice! Whenever I've seen one of those signs I feel like there should a sibling sign next to that reads, "No reading this sign!".
  - 10y ago
headShrinker 10y ago
That's how creeping lack of privacy, lack of speech, lack of personal security works. It's hard to put a finger on exactly how it's impacting you, but it is. The photographer was afraid of the ramifications of his actions. It's unclear what the ramifications are but the fear is not unreasonable. This is similar to how journalists feel in light of the NSA scandals. It's not wrong to write about government overreach but if you cross a line they might come after you so it's best not to approach the line, even if that is a private conversation on a phone or via email. Protestors, photographers, journalists, and people with encrypted data are getting arrested. The first, forth, and fifth amendments are under attack. Cops are progressively getting more violent against nonviolent bystanders. The fear is real. edit: add "about"

by dmreedy 10y ago

poidog22 10y ago

It's almost like he was more pissed off at himself for packing up originally. lol

jrockway 10y ago
Yes, I am mad at myself for not just ignoring him, or not calling the police myself. However, I do like to sit down and consider things before making a decision. Did I want to get arrested? Not really. I got my photo and I didn't get arrested, so this is almost the best-possible outcome, right?
- headShrinker 10y ago
  I think some people don't understand that these corporations and the government have strong legal teams, that can do serious damage to an unsuspecting individual. jobs can be lost, public reputations can be ruined, not to mention financial damage and fines, or worse prison time for innocuous offenses, or physical harm and property damage from reckless violent police. edit: regulation -> reputation
  - jrockway 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal "The prevailing theory was that the lane closures were retribution against Fort Lee's Mayor Mark Sokolich (D) for failing to endorse Christie in the 2013 gubernatorial election. That motive was alleged by federal prosecutors in May 2015, in charges against Bridget Anne Kelly, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Christie, and Bill Baroni and David Wildstein, both of whom had been Christie-appointed officials at the Port Authority. Wildstein pleaded guilty. The indictment charged that the three conspired to commit fraud by illegally exploiting Port Authority resources for political ends." I don't have the resources to contend with the Port Authority.
    - gohrt 10y ago
      Holy cow, Governor Christie's staff masterminded an actual terrorist attack on the NY/NJ, and it was an inside job, and 1 person may have died as a reult.
- T-hawk 10y ago
  You didn't get your photo. You got a worse rushed photo that's only sort of like the one you wanted. That's not the same thing. The Port Authority's intimidation worked. We need a name for this fallacy: "We are empowered to stop terrorism." "X can be used for terrorism." "Therefore we are empowered to stop X." Some relevant possible values for X: photography, money, cryptography, travel, social media...
  - ascendantlogic 10y ago
    It's easy for us to sit here and type how he was bullied and he should have stood up more for himself...when we weren't the ones in the situation. He calmed down and made clear-headed decisions about his next move(s). It was the right move.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  If you were posting this on Petapixel with a little blurb about being harassed then I'd agree with you. But you wrote this article with a civil liberties bent (that I wholly agree with), so while I'm happy you weren't arrested I'm not sure the 'core' of the story is you took a picture and didn't get thrown in jail for it. It's more like you took a picture and had to fear you were going to go to jail for it.

jrockway 10y ago

I don't think it's a well-known thing, but their other properties, like the George Washington Bridge show "no photographs" signs. I make sure to take a cell-phone photo every time I ride my bike up there. They prohibit photographs on their transit system: http://www.panynj.gov/path/pdf/PATH-Rules-Regulations-12-20-15.pdf http://www.panynj.gov/path/pdf/PATH-Rules-Regulations-12-20-... The consensus I get from doing some research is that they are overreaching. Anyone can make any policy they want. Anyone can approach anyone else in public and ask them to do whatever they want. Whether or not there is any force of law behind those policies or questions is up to the courts to decide. A few years ago, someone was going to sue the MTA for their photography policy. Apparently there is a law on the books regarding suing public-benefit corporations (of which the MTA and Port Authority are); if they agree to settle with you, and you choose not to accept the settlement, you are personally liable for their legal fees if the court awards you a settlement that's less than their legal fees. So of course, these policies can't be changed, as an individual can't out-resource the government. I don't know if it's true or not. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a professional photographer. I'm just a guy who tries to visit the park with a few pieces of film every now and again.

dmreedy 10y ago
It is a very nice shot, glad you risked it.
- jrockway 10y ago
  Thanks. It would have been nice if I didn't get part of the guardrail in the frame ;)
koolba 10y ago
> I don't think it's a well-known thing, but their other properties, like the George Washington Bridge show "no photographs" signs. I make sure to take a cell-phone photo every time I ride my bike up there. Nice! Whenever I've seen one of those signs I feel like there should a sibling sign next to that reads, "No reading this sign!".
- 10y ago

headShrinker 10y ago

That's how creeping lack of privacy, lack of speech, lack of personal security works. It's hard to put a finger on exactly how it's impacting you, but it is. The photographer was afraid of the ramifications of his actions. It's unclear what the ramifications are but the fear is not unreasonable. This is similar to how journalists feel in light of the NSA scandals. It's not wrong to write about government overreach but if you cross a line they might come after you so it's best not to approach the line, even if that is a private conversation on a phone or via email. Protestors, photographers, journalists, and people with encrypted data are getting arrested. The first, forth, and fifth amendments are under attack. Cops are progressively getting more violent against nonviolent bystanders. The fear is real. edit: add "about"