5 ms·

Thanks for the details. It is always interesting how the most innocent things are seen as danger by an autocracy.

by lolc 2y ago

Intralexical 2y ago
Everything which is not allowed is forbidden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbid...
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Sir John Laws, nominative determinism in action.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  That is a bit optimistic. China doesn’t really list what is allowed, it’s whatever they want to allow or forbid after the fact.
- robocat 2y ago
  https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH-QzbS4yK7Pn3O3kTERFX6kZ4v-Gk0TWMjX-aB10oqzWK65RcD8xDZiBDf-TEDKxanpEz2nqYvBiICUEIHeTgmvhbzze1PCWfaPNj0RtpV8vBFJaCBHOFzsXIDU-01WOTQXUf-Gp_oUk/s1600/don'twww-scarfolk-blogspot-com.jpg https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi...
nimbius 2y ago
[flagged]
- acdha 2y ago
  Only the last sentence of your first paragraph is true: it’s legal to photograph the police and public spaces _but_ doing so may involve you needing to deal with lawless cops and that can be extremely risky depending on who you are and what mood they’re in. Dealing with that culture should be one of our top priorities.
  - dahart 2y ago
    Indeed, the ACLU agrees. Not sure how parent got that bad info, but there’s a rather famous pamphlet called “Photographer’s Rights” meant to carry in your pocket or camera bag to hand to abusive law enforcement, should one run into it. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/photographers-rights https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/photographers-rights https://www.krages.com/phoright.htm https://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
- eru 2y ago
  At some point it was illegal in NYC to go out with a with a mask on, while it was also made illegal to go out without a mask on. (That was when they were both protests that made them ban masks (that obscure the face), and Covid that made them mandate masks. But I think the laws were written broadly enough that both covering and not covering your face were technically forbidden.)
  - remram 2y ago
    Do you have any reference for that? I live in NYC and was here for the whole pandemic, and this is the first I hear something like that.
    - eru 2y ago
      I got it from Matt Levine's Money Stuff, Bloomberg email newsletter. It's the post from 2020/04/21: > Everything is mask crime > We talked last week about a hypothetical minimalist legal system with only two crimes: Wire fraud, for stuff you do in your house, and coronavirus-related curfew violations, for stuff you do outside your house. If you go to someone’s house and murder them, that’s violation of your local stay-at-home order and you can be arrested for that; who needs a law against murder? I wrote: > > You’d need a regime of sentencing enhancements (leaving the house to do murder is worse than leaving the house to jaywalk), and you’d probably need like one more law for domestic violence, but the point is that you can get a pretty parsimonious legal system if that’s what you want. I do not actually think it’s what you want. > The reason you shouldn’t want it is that any sort of minimalist legal system like this leaves huge room for discretion. If the only crime is a fairly common and trivial one like leaving the house, then the people who get prosecuted and severely punished for it might be the ones who leave the house to do murders, but they might not be. They might be people who leave the house and are otherwise disfavored by the police, prosecutors, judges and juries. Poor people, members of minorities, people with unpopular political beliefs, that sort of thing. > Anyway a fun fact about New York state law (via public defender Sam Feldman) is that now: > * It is illegal to be around people without a mask, and > * It is illegal to be around people with a mask on. > There’s an executive order requiring masks in public when you cannot social distance, and a state law forbidding them. So pretty much anyone who goes outside in New York is breaking the law. Presumably they won’t all be prosecuted. He quotes https://twitter.com/srfeld/status/1251228271645208577 https://twitter.com/srfeld/status/1251228271645208577 as the source.
- criley2 2y ago
  For the record: it is legal to photograph police in all of the US, and is a protected 1st amendment right. Some states or localities might try to outlaw it, but they always lose when challenged. Some police may simply ignore the law and punish you for exercising your rights, but that's different than it being illegal. With regards to photography on US railroad tracks, there is no law against it. However, railroad tracks are private property and in the US private property owners can control your photography on their property or trespass you from their property, and due to the danger of pedestrians on tracks, railroads understandably disallow pedestrians on tracks for photography.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    This. Some over-aggressive transit police will try to keep you from photographing their trains, but if you're not on their property, they can get over themselves. I've had transit police notice that I was watching trains, and come over to see what I was doing. I told them that I was watching trains. I was in a place that had a clear view of their platform, and they didn't like me hanging out there and watching. They said they'd like me to watch trains somewhere else. I told them that I was on private property, and it wasn't their private property, so I didn't care what they'd like. (I did have permission from the property owner.) The transit cops didn't say anything more, they just looked rather startled.. Now, if a cop with jurisdiction tells you to leave, you may ask him to cite a statute, but in the end, if they insist on you leaving, you probably need to obey, even if they're wrong. But as you say, they are wrong - it's not illegal to watch railroad tracks from public property, and it's not illegal to photograph.
sib 2y ago
For many years, the most accurate (paper) maps of the Soviet Union were those created by the CIA. The USSR's own maps included lots of intentionally incorrect data.
- grotorea 2y ago
  Funny since the USSR spent quite a lot of effort making good maps of other countries.
- obscurette 2y ago
  I remember from my childhood (early seventies is Soviet Union) that it was allowed to print road maps with straight lines only and distances between cities were always at least several kilometers wrong. I also remember when my classmate lost the map when orienteering (these were relatively accurate) and he and his parents had a lot of trouble because of that.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    I believe back then you could only get orienteering maps from the military too.

Thanks for the details. It is always interesting how the most innocent things are seen as danger by an autocracy.

by lolc 2y ago

Thanks for the details. It is always interesting how the most innocent things are seen as danger by an autocracy.

Everything which is not allowed is forbidden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbid...

readthenotes1 2y ago
Sir John Laws, nominative determinism in action.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
That is a bit optimistic. China doesn’t really list what is allowed, it’s whatever they want to allow or forbid after the fact.
robocat 2y ago
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH-QzbS4yK7Pn3O3kTERFX6kZ4v-Gk0TWMjX-aB10oqzWK65RcD8xDZiBDf-TEDKxanpEz2nqYvBiICUEIHeTgmvhbzze1PCWfaPNj0RtpV8vBFJaCBHOFzsXIDU-01WOTQXUf-Gp_oUk/s1600/don'twww-scarfolk-blogspot-com.jpg https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi...

nimbius 2y ago

[flagged]

acdha 2y ago
Only the last sentence of your first paragraph is true: it’s legal to photograph the police and public spaces _but_ doing so may involve you needing to deal with lawless cops and that can be extremely risky depending on who you are and what mood they’re in. Dealing with that culture should be one of our top priorities.
- dahart 2y ago
  Indeed, the ACLU agrees. Not sure how parent got that bad info, but there’s a rather famous pamphlet called “Photographer’s Rights” meant to carry in your pocket or camera bag to hand to abusive law enforcement, should one run into it. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/photographers-rights https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/photographers-rights https://www.krages.com/phoright.htm https://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
eru 2y ago
At some point it was illegal in NYC to go out with a with a mask on, while it was also made illegal to go out without a mask on. (That was when they were both protests that made them ban masks (that obscure the face), and Covid that made them mandate masks. But I think the laws were written broadly enough that both covering and not covering your face were technically forbidden.)
- remram 2y ago
  Do you have any reference for that? I live in NYC and was here for the whole pandemic, and this is the first I hear something like that.
  - eru 2y ago
    I got it from Matt Levine's Money Stuff, Bloomberg email newsletter. It's the post from 2020/04/21: > Everything is mask crime > We talked last week about a hypothetical minimalist legal system with only two crimes: Wire fraud, for stuff you do in your house, and coronavirus-related curfew violations, for stuff you do outside your house. If you go to someone’s house and murder them, that’s violation of your local stay-at-home order and you can be arrested for that; who needs a law against murder? I wrote: > > You’d need a regime of sentencing enhancements (leaving the house to do murder is worse than leaving the house to jaywalk), and you’d probably need like one more law for domestic violence, but the point is that you can get a pretty parsimonious legal system if that’s what you want. I do not actually think it’s what you want. > The reason you shouldn’t want it is that any sort of minimalist legal system like this leaves huge room for discretion. If the only crime is a fairly common and trivial one like leaving the house, then the people who get prosecuted and severely punished for it might be the ones who leave the house to do murders, but they might not be. They might be people who leave the house and are otherwise disfavored by the police, prosecutors, judges and juries. Poor people, members of minorities, people with unpopular political beliefs, that sort of thing. > Anyway a fun fact about New York state law (via public defender Sam Feldman) is that now: > * It is illegal to be around people without a mask, and > * It is illegal to be around people with a mask on. > There’s an executive order requiring masks in public when you cannot social distance, and a state law forbidding them. So pretty much anyone who goes outside in New York is breaking the law. Presumably they won’t all be prosecuted. He quotes https://twitter.com/srfeld/status/1251228271645208577 https://twitter.com/srfeld/status/1251228271645208577 as the source.
criley2 2y ago
For the record: it is legal to photograph police in all of the US, and is a protected 1st amendment right. Some states or localities might try to outlaw it, but they always lose when challenged. Some police may simply ignore the law and punish you for exercising your rights, but that's different than it being illegal. With regards to photography on US railroad tracks, there is no law against it. However, railroad tracks are private property and in the US private property owners can control your photography on their property or trespass you from their property, and due to the danger of pedestrians on tracks, railroads understandably disallow pedestrians on tracks for photography.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  This. Some over-aggressive transit police will try to keep you from photographing their trains, but if you're not on their property, they can get over themselves. I've had transit police notice that I was watching trains, and come over to see what I was doing. I told them that I was watching trains. I was in a place that had a clear view of their platform, and they didn't like me hanging out there and watching. They said they'd like me to watch trains somewhere else. I told them that I was on private property, and it wasn't their private property, so I didn't care what they'd like. (I did have permission from the property owner.) The transit cops didn't say anything more, they just looked rather startled.. Now, if a cop with jurisdiction tells you to leave, you may ask him to cite a statute, but in the end, if they insist on you leaving, you probably need to obey, even if they're wrong. But as you say, they are wrong - it's not illegal to watch railroad tracks from public property, and it's not illegal to photograph.

sib 2y ago

For many years, the most accurate (paper) maps of the Soviet Union were those created by the CIA. The USSR's own maps included lots of intentionally incorrect data.

grotorea 2y ago
Funny since the USSR spent quite a lot of effort making good maps of other countries.
obscurette 2y ago
I remember from my childhood (early seventies is Soviet Union) that it was allowed to print road maps with straight lines only and distances between cities were always at least several kilometers wrong. I also remember when my classmate lost the map when orienteering (these were relatively accurate) and he and his parents had a lot of trouble because of that.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  I believe back then you could only get orienteering maps from the military too.