5 ms·

Fake photography licenses for when someone says “you can’t take pictures here”

27 points by mattjaynes 17y ago

sammyo 17y ago
Carying any false ID would be a very very bad idea. They give prison sentences for stuff like that. Fake id on a kid looking to buy beer is one thing, that's probably just going to get taken away, but up against the wrong judge could be a significant issue.
- biotech 17y ago
  The website does have some good advice on the matter: They’re completely fake, of course, and would be illegal to use in any situation where you actually have to show ID, but for showing fake cops when they cite fake laws? Nothing more appropriate than fake ID. So, probably not a great idea to show it to a real cop.
- jcl 17y ago
  In this case, though, the ID is not falsely identifying the individual. While I suppose you might get in trouble with the cards in the article -- which falsely claim they were issued by certain organizations -- I don't think there'd be anything wrong with an official-looking "photographer" ID that does not make such claims. Whether created yourself or under the aegis of a photography club, it would have the same defusing effect on fake law enforcement. Apparently, a variety of real, non-governmental organizations already issue such passes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_pass#News_agency_cards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_pass#News_agency_cards
  - russell 17y ago
    A blogger could have his blog issue himself a press id. Nothing fake there. Hey, PG could issue us all press credentials.
    - tortilla 17y ago
      Sounds like you're asking for trouble :) You work for HackerNews? Straight to Gitmo!
russell 17y ago
Actually a useful idea. In the US, except for some government installations, you can take pictures in outdoor public spaces. Occasionally there are officious bozos that think you can't. However, the Homeland Security one probably is illegal and could get you charged with impersonating an officer.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
callmeed 17y ago
Instead of having a fake license, it's much better to know your rights and be able to defend them to those who accuse you. I'd recommend reading these: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-rights_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-... http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-...
- scotth 17y ago
  Fake license seems easier, less confrontational, and probably comes with a higher success rate.
  - callmeed 17y ago
    When it comes to easy vs. being honest, I usually choose the latter. Then again, when it comes to being honest vs. not being tasered ...
yason 17y ago
To me, even as a joke or means to counter idiotic guard patrols, it is very disturbing to even think about such a concept as "photography license". As if it was an omen of what's there to come in the future. (And I'm talking Western governments here; undoubtedly there already are some heavily regulated countries somewhere that ban public photography partially or completely.) The idea of someone having the power to license another party to take photographs (in public) is just PLAIN WRONG. It contradicts free flow of information, artistic freedom, freedom to document evidence, and free speech in general.
ggchappell 17y ago
This is an interesting idea. But I think it is important for the card not to contain any false information. In the two cases shown, the cards indicate they were issued, respectively, by the U.S. DHS and the San Francisco MTA. And of course they were not. I think a good solution to this, for the U.S., would be for the card to say "United States of America". Then, assuming the person is correctly named and pictured, there are no falsehoods. The card DOES come from the USA, the individual IS authorized to photograph, etc. OTOH, I also agree with user callmeed: > Instead of having a fake license, it's much better to know your rights and be able to defend them to those who accuse you.

27 points by mattjaynes 17y ago

Carying any false ID would be a very very bad idea. They give prison sentences for stuff like that. Fake id on a kid looking to buy beer is one thing, that's probably just going to get taken away, but up against the wrong judge could be a significant issue.

biotech 17y ago
The website does have some good advice on the matter: They’re completely fake, of course, and would be illegal to use in any situation where you actually have to show ID, but for showing fake cops when they cite fake laws? Nothing more appropriate than fake ID. So, probably not a great idea to show it to a real cop.
jcl 17y ago
In this case, though, the ID is not falsely identifying the individual. While I suppose you might get in trouble with the cards in the article -- which falsely claim they were issued by certain organizations -- I don't think there'd be anything wrong with an official-looking "photographer" ID that does not make such claims. Whether created yourself or under the aegis of a photography club, it would have the same defusing effect on fake law enforcement. Apparently, a variety of real, non-governmental organizations already issue such passes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_pass#News_agency_cards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_pass#News_agency_cards
- russell 17y ago
  A blogger could have his blog issue himself a press id. Nothing fake there. Hey, PG could issue us all press credentials.
  - tortilla 17y ago
    Sounds like you're asking for trouble :) You work for HackerNews? Straight to Gitmo!

russell 17y ago

Actually a useful idea. In the US, except for some government installations, you can take pictures in outdoor public spaces. Occasionally there are officious bozos that think you can't. However, the Homeland Security one probably is illegal and could get you charged with impersonating an officer.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

callmeed 17y ago

Instead of having a fake license, it's much better to know your rights and be able to defend them to those who accuse you. I'd recommend reading these: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-rights_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-... http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-...

scotth 17y ago
Fake license seems easier, less confrontational, and probably comes with a higher success rate.
- callmeed 17y ago
  When it comes to easy vs. being honest, I usually choose the latter. Then again, when it comes to being honest vs. not being tasered ...

yason 17y ago

To me, even as a joke or means to counter idiotic guard patrols, it is very disturbing to even think about such a concept as "photography license". As if it was an omen of what's there to come in the future. (And I'm talking Western governments here; undoubtedly there already are some heavily regulated countries somewhere that ban public photography partially or completely.) The idea of someone having the power to license another party to take photographs (in public) is just PLAIN WRONG. It contradicts free flow of information, artistic freedom, freedom to document evidence, and free speech in general.

ggchappell 17y ago

This is an interesting idea. But I think it is important for the card not to contain any false information. In the two cases shown, the cards indicate they were issued, respectively, by the U.S. DHS and the San Francisco MTA. And of course they were not. I think a good solution to this, for the U.S., would be for the card to say "United States of America". Then, assuming the person is correctly named and pictured, there are no falsehoods. The card DOES come from the USA, the individual IS authorized to photograph, etc. OTOH, I also agree with user callmeed: > Instead of having a fake license, it's much better to know your rights and be able to defend them to those who accuse you.