Undertoad Saturday Jun 12 12:46 PM
6/12/2004: Photographers protest proposed subway photo ban
lumberjim Saturday Jun 12 01:41 PM
jaguar Saturday Jun 12 01:46 PM
Christ, even in Vietnam you're allowed to take photos of the public transport.
mrputter Saturday Jun 12 02:49 PM
<EM>> has proposed a ban on taking photographs</EM>
Undertoad Saturday Jun 12 03:13 PM
Blogger Jason Holliston notices that a photo ban has been in place on the London Underground for a while, and wonders where the protestors are.
jaguar Saturday Jun 12 04:00 PM
wolf Saturday Jun 12 10:59 PM
The Brits must bust a lot of tourists.
xoxoxoBruce Saturday Jun 12 11:03 PM
jaguar Sunday Jun 13 02:21 AM
They seem to be ok about big ben and parliment but the wholle area is covered in new razorwire fences and is more densely populated by security cameras than anywhere else I've seen, real tourist friendly.
hot_pastrami Monday Jun 14 02:11 PM
Erosion only steals away scarce few particles of dust per day. But left unhindered, it can be the most destructive force on the Earth. Likewise for freedom.
russotto Monday Jun 14 02:20 PM
It's too late. No one really wants freedom any more. They cheer the erosion.
xoxoxoBruce Monday Jun 14 04:03 PM
'Fraid you're right.
hot_pastrami Monday Jun 14 04:35 PM
I assume that by "no one" you are referring to the ambiguous, largely stupid "general public." The same general public who values safety over freedom. Unfortunately, the stupidity of many often outweighs the intelligence of the few.
glatt Monday Jun 14 05:02 PM
I live in the suburbs of DC. A year and a half ago, we had a month of beautiful fall weather. The famous DC humidity was finally gone, and the temperatures were really nice. Cool, but not cold. It was the perfect time to be taking the kids to the local playground every day. The Fall is the one nice time of year around here. Well, we spent the fall weekends inside. We gave up our freedom, because there was a maniac going around shooting random people. It sucked. The kids wanted to go out to play, and we made them stay inside. It drove us all up the wall. The cops finally found the fucking sniper, and now we can go outside again.
The DC sniper proved to me that even I will give up some of my freedoms for safety. I still walked to the Metro every day, but I wouldn't let my kids go out to the playground because it was too easy a target.
It's not just me. Ask any woman if they walk alone at night. They give up their freedom for safety.
There are lots of bad neighborhoods in this world. People stay home because it isn't safe to go out. They are giving up their freedom for their safety.
I know you meant something else, but the reality is that people will choose safety over freedom almost every time. You would too, if you ever felt unsafe.
hot_pastrami Monday Jun 14 05:16 PM
Whereas in the example of the ban on photography in subways, if a police officer sees you taking a photo, you WILL get in trouble. The government is not suggesting, asking, or urging people not to do this... they are forbidding it. And for very wishy-washy reasons.
The difference is not subtle, it is vast. Huge.
bjlhct Tuesday Jun 15 02:25 AM
better analogy - airlines
Yes, most people think that the occasional strip searches, the taking off of shoes, the searching of bags, the associated costs, all the various things that waste your time and money without making you safer, are all worthwhile. Not only that, but it's mandated by the government. If you don't like it, not only is there not a competitor to go to that doesn't do this - the government forbids there being one. Ah, the irony of the conservative promising to shrink government and instead nationalizing airport security and raising spending to WWII levels.
xoxoxoBruce Tuesday Jun 15 04:42 AM
Don't you think people, seeing the evidence of the "various things that waste your time and money without making you safer", feel something "must" be going on behind the scenes that IS effective, also?
nioupy Tuesday Jun 15 07:16 AM
I'm a terrorist, i can't take pictures... right...
Kitsune Tuesday Jun 15 01:05 PM
Ever since I got smacked at the Port of Tampa for taking pictures, I've been thinking about what the real reasons are for preventing people from photographing sites because this would do nothing to prevent terrorism. Public transportation, trains, and industrial plants are all high on the list. I was quickly reminded that photographers often bring to light a lot issues with these things: photographing industrial pollution and waste mismangement, transportation safety issues, etc. A lot of people are also indicating that it is being done because no revenue is gained from people taking photographs and to gain permission now costs money. Many state parks now charge huge fees (scroll down to "Photography Fees") and will stop you even if you have a professional-looking camera (any SLR, anything with a long lens, anything that is not a dispo, etc). There is a lot of money to be made and even more illegal/hazardous activity to cover up by prohibiting photography.
jaguar Tuesday Jun 15 01:20 PM
I know in british parks I've copped some pretty awsome fees for wanting to carry in pro-class gear. Switzerland is hell for street photographers, police often harass and if you photograph anything 'intimate' (ranging from a hug to an injury) you can be fined up to 6 grand PER PHOTO .
russotto Wednesday Jun 16 10:05 AM