If they asked me if I were a lawyer, I think I’d say yes, and that I would sue their ass if they kept harassing me. Your average Metro employee hasn’t any business telling you what to do. It’s not like they’re law enforcement, or even ‘official security’, usually.

If anyone decides to throw together a flash photo mob at Metro stations, I’m in. ’9/11 Law’ – that’s rich.

But it’s all about about big movies and advertising photography, nothing about a random Joe with a camera. There’s also a contact page you can nav to, maybe someone there has some answers.

I doubt it… In Egypt I would full well expect it to be about a bribe, but Libya is a totally different world… never once did I hear the word baksheesh (i.e. tip or bribe). They probably did think I was a spy… even the normal people there had a bit of dictatorially instilled paranoia. It’s funny how the paranoia in the American public is the same one can see in the Libyan or Syrian public. And funnily, I would say that even in Iran they are much less likely to be paranoid than in the US, and they have reason to be paranoid. Welcome to the land of the free and the brave.

Hulk scared.

“Could you explain? What law do you mean?”

Hulk brain hurt.

“How about I take a picture of you?”

Hulk smash camera! Hulk quiet now.

Every time a story like this comes up, several people say that those involved should organize a flash mob and photograph the inexplicably “forbidden” areas. And it’s a good idea. But as far as I can tell, it just gets said over and over and never actually happens. Do the people who send in these stories just have zero interest in any form of organized protest, or is there some reason people are reluctant to do it?

I’d do it myself, but as far as I know, the city where I live doesn’t suffer from this kind of nonsense yet.

@Homestarrunrun, #36: I think my sarcasm detector is broken, because I can’t tell if you’re serious or not.

I don’t think the outrage you see directed here at CCTV cameras boils down to “they shouldn’t have the right to do that!” as much as “they shouldn’t do that.” CCTV isn’t evil or anathema, but it has serious shortcomings, not least of which is that it tends to lull people into a false sense of security.

Obviously when a government (or a private entity, for that matter) is surveilling people for no good reason and/or with malicious intent, it’s a problem, but not because photographs are being taken per se. As a law-abiding middle-class white man with nothing that I know of to hide from the government, it’s not that I’d be directly harmed if the feds decided to set up cameras at face level on every corner and hook them up to a billion-dollar biometric matching database etc. etc. But obviously it’d be bad policy, and I’d sure as hell want those cameras taken down.

#40, couldn’t the same thing be said about some guy with a camera? “He’s just out to monitor the populace for any wrongdoing and infringing on the little bit of privacy we all deserve even in public – I don’t want to end up on some nerd’s flickr page.”
Why do you say that CCTV cameras, and not handheld cameras, are implying that everyone is a criminal waiting to strike? I’d agree that CCTV cameras imply that some of us are criminals, but that’s not the same thing.

It would seem to me that any law that guarantees anyone to photograph public areas would inherently allow surveillance, and any law that seeks to prohibit surveillance would hinder private photography. For exmaple, if wall-mounted CCTV cameras were outlawed we would just see mall security guards with networked camcorders everywhere.

It’s hard to wage the war from inside the concentration camp that you were placed in while you were really busy not protesting the erosion of civil rights. History is full of examples of civilizations that allowed themselves to be enslaved because they were to ‘dignified’ to fight it.

Agree, but I argue this particular example doesn’t even constitute an erosion. There may very well be a modern-day equivalent to “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, but I hardly think you’ll find it concealed in the reactions of an underpaid L.A. metro worker.

And I will lose no sleep worrying about whether Americans consider dignity before a good fight.

Signed:
Déclaration des droits de Petit Poulet

… they’re fine with you taking photos in their underground train network, as long as you don’t use a flash (and I can dig that, third rails etc).

I may be ignorant, but what do camera flashes have to do with the third rail?

My guess is they don’t want other passengers being annoyed with the flash.

CCTV isn’t going to save anyone from a bomb going off in front of a given camera (barring massively good luck or completely stupid terrorists), but it might help identify the bomber after the fact. Also, it will certainly give them something to spin endlessly on the news while they work to amp up the public’s fear level along with their ratings.

We of the BBATPA recognized Executive and all Members who read these words hereby reject the counter-counter terror actions of the clique of the so-called “Declaration by Chicken Little of Rights”.

Further, the BBATPA further authorizes all members to egg the house of the petit bourgeois chicken people.

Laugh while you can, poultry, the rest of us are angry and in motion.

How many times now have you been in comment threads where someone’s asserted that the owner or the owner’s employees can forbid you to take photographs on private property, and someone else has explained (as Zikzak @79 explained to you here) that that’s not true?

If private property isn’t open to the public but is within line of sight of public areas, you can take photographs of it from the public areas. And as Zikzak so lucidly explained, if you’re on private property that’s open to the public, the owner can ask you to leave, but not to refrain from taking photographs.

I’m confused. As Bert Krages’s “The Photographer’s Right” states:

Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.

So do they have a right to ask you not to photograph or do they only have a right to ask you to vacate the premises? I would wager the latter, but I have it from the horse’s mouth (so to speak) that states the former.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

“The Photographer’s Right is a downloadable guide that is loosely based on the Bust Card and the Know Your Rights pamphlet that used to be available on the ACLU website…”

http://discarted.wordpress.com/

Like something from here http://www.spyville.com/minicameras.html or The mp3/sunglasses/camera combo from ThinkGeek http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/a0f3/ ?

I doubt that I would ever get stopped from taking pictures when the camera is well hidden and with a remote capture button… lol.

Signed:
Petit Poulet

While I agree that there are moral (rather than judicial) objections that can be raised against CCTV, my point is that the same objections can, with little or no modification, be raised against private, hand-held cameras used in public.

Either the public should be able to expect to not be photographed, or anyone should feel free to take photos. I can’t see any realistic way of having it both ways.

As for the billion-dollar biometric matching database – what’s the difference between that and some geek using flickr/facebook to train his robot’s face recognition algorithm?
Is it intent? How can we objectively judge actions based on intent if we do not know the intent behind the actions? The government database might be intended to be used to catch rapists and robbers, while the nerd might intend to build a killer robot to smite his childhood bullies.

Intent has to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and can not be used in generalised cases.

I agree that the distinction can’t be fixed videocam versus mobile camera (I like your security guard example). There are uses of fixed cam that most people would agree are good – surveillance art projects, webcams that let you watch the traffic, etc. And on the other side, it may be that there are privacy-violating, insidious uses of still/mobile photography by individuals. The relative prevalence of these in reality might figure into the creepiness differential, though.

Interesting!

If a thousand declare the BBATPA exists, it most certainly does. With ALL legal rights.

Does a subway platform count as “private” property or “public” property?

If it isn’t public property then the security has every right to ask you to stop taking photographs. I’ve had it happen to me before and I always stop because I’m not sure if the subway counts as public or private space.

Anybody got a concrete answer to this?

1. Train stations, telecoms systems etc can be classed as at risk in terms of national security but have to be specifically named as such by the home secretary i.e. there is a known bomb threat at that station on that day.

2. If this isnt the case you are within your rights to take photos of the station from public property i.e. a road or public footpath

3. If your on the staion the station owner is within there rights to ask you to leave, if you refuse then you are trespassing and so are committing a civil offence, not a criminal offence.

Despite all of the above the worker was out of line treating you like that and not giving a specific reason for asking to you leave. Again a “sheriff” should not have been involved as it was not a police matter.

The best way to deal with this is to be calm and polite. If you feel you need to, get permission to take photos prior to going out.