If we can't take a picture of Aunt Mabel on the D train ("ummm, how did we wind up at Coney Island?"), the terrorists win.
The New York Daily News on proposed new regulations to help deter terrorism in the subways:
Smiling will still be allowed on the subways, but - sorry, tourists - taking pictures may soon be banned.Transit officials, at the request of police, yesterday proposed prohibiting photography and videotaping in the subway system and on buses - hoping to thwart terrorists from gathering information for an attack.
There are various other rules proposed, such as no walking between cars (I committed that particular crime quite often back when I lived in Gotham City); no shoes on the seats, and no jumping the turnstile even if you have a valid fare card that malfunctions.
NYPD Transportation Police Chief Michael Scagnelli said police would use discretion in issuing summonses to shutterbugs. But violators could be questioned and subjected to background checks, he said, and have their film confiscated.
New York officials were recently planning for possible subway terrorism in a four-hour drill, coordinated by the Office of Emergency Management and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
NEW YORK (AP) _ City officials staged a mock explosion in a lower Manhattan subway station early Sunday May 16, simulating an incident with 200 injured and 40 killed to test protocols and communications among emergency personnel from multiple agencies.
I honestly don't see anything wrong with these rules. Millions of individuals go to theaters, plays, and concerts and they are also prohibited from jumping up and taking photographs. But the world has continued with no outrage.
It is unfortunate that the World War has pushed these same requirements (that many millions tolerate every day in other venues) to the subways as well. But one could readily ask given the threats against us, what took them so long to do this?
There is also a "no eating" rule on the Washington DC subway. It is very strictly enforced. Does that seem unfair and tragic? Well only if I missed breakfast once again that morning. But DC subway riders have tolerated the no eating/drinking rule on subways for 25 years that I have been here.
Why is a "no photographs" rule more onerous?
I think more metropolitan subways should enforce such a rule and ASAP.
Anyone who has been in a nasty, dark, dingy NYC subway must wonder why anyone would need to take photos there.
Jeffrey in DC:
You have no problem with it? I do:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Of course, its just the Bill of Rights, so no big deal...
Well I live in NY and I have to say that it doesn't really bother me. To me, it's for my own personal safety from jackasses. Now, they can very easily plant a bomb or do whatever after learning and studying about our underground rail roads and why the hell should we give them the green light to do so? I'm sorry it maybe going against the Bill of Rights and Consitution but I for one can look past it. We don't need to be able to take pictures in the subway or jump a turnstyle and why the hell should we have our feet on the seats when people use those to sit down on? That's just rude as hell in my opinion and shouldn't be done anyways. Would you put your feet up on a coffee table in someone's house or run around the White House smearing chocolate all over the place? People are just too disrespectful to others' property nowadays and that includes public property. Let's stay united on the real problem facing America please.
"If we can't take a picture of Aunt Mabel on the D train ("ummm, how did we wind up at Coney Island?") the terrorists win."
ummmm...some perspective would help.
gotta define *winning*
(from America's viewpoint).
it's no longer 10Sept01.
A terrorist could easily take pix using a concealed camera anyway.
But I am all for quality of life laws like keep your grubby feet off the seats or get a ticket.
Annie,
"They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty, nor Safety."
Ben Franklin, 1759
Yes
The American People get it the lib Dem.s are having the problem prossing what is happen-ing? Do Not lose Faith in the American People! This has been happen-ing in France for years. and there have been no trash cans either but they are still afraid of the Terrorist WHY?
We the American People will not live in Fear!!!!
Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and All who Fight with her give them Strength and Courage to stay the Course to Victory Amen
Mr. Owens:
Are you beginning to recognize that most of your fellow posters are hateful, violent facists and religious bigots who would put you in a concentration camp as quickly as they would imprison Muslims?
Allahu akbar
Reza,
Mr. Owens is allowed to his freedoms that is what America stands for. We just won't put up with people who want to dominate our world and Mr. Owens is not one of them. You people take any kind of opening and use it to your advantage, isn't that a shame? See, unlike other belief systems, here in America we are allowed to disagree with one another and know that we are protected by our government. If you're attempting to win someone over, think again.
Way to go bob raza loves you and sees you as one of them! this is why we can't elect. libs
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/05/20/clean_air_rules_fuel_gas_run_up?mode=PF
and this is another reason!
Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and all who fight with her give them Strength and Courage to stay the corse to Victory Amen
REZA says: "hateful, violent facists and religious bigots..."
Are you describing muslims, and how they view others not like them?
Like I said in another post Reza, you're a hypocrite!
i find bob owens a very valuable,
thoughtful poster.
he brings a moderation and a high level of thinking skills to the
admittedly difficult topics
and emotional responses of some posters.
if bob's a "lib" he one of the few
i've seen recently who has earned my respect.
and that's becasue,unlike Reza,
he's a man of thought,
not an ideologue.
his mind is able to breathe.
it's "still living".
something Reza's mind has apparently
never had much contact with.
under those circumstances,
one can see how Reza
would "hope to win Bob over".
how easy it must be
to channel the mind
of a non-deliberative person
towards hate.
sad.
islam truly has no faith in mankind.
Reza, Bob Owens is right.
We forget the freedoms and liberties that we have and we take them for granted. Instead we feel a insecurity from your family members and so we pass laws against ourselves---this is not right.
Even if a potential terrorist was taking pictures and was arrested, he would recieve a ticket and let go. There would be no prosecution.
We have a society..Protect from the borders out not the borders in.
This is the same mind set for gun control. Pass laws against law abiding citizens and remove the law abiding citizens rights.
I remember years ago when it was very popular to be wearing gold chains. People in New York were getting mugged on the street and having their chains stolen. So what did New York do? They passed a law forbidding gold jewelry to be worn on the street.
This is the mind set that will usher in the Big Brother era. People will not feel safe, so we will all take a mark for tracking (sound familar?).
Why dont they just ask everyone to get on the subway with their eyes closed?
Bob Owens -
You have a right to your opinion. It is, after all, indeed a free country. However, the issue is about taking photographs in an location where individuals are paying the NYC MTA to provide them with services. This is not an open field, city streets, or "public place", but a location where a customer is purchasing services to be delivered, through the contract of buying the subway ticket. The people who receive those services have a right too to ensure that the services (subway transport) are provided by the MTA in a safe manner.
The Declaration of Independence says:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
There is no doubt that among those inalienable rights that NYC MTA is trying to preserve, "life" fits at the top of the list. "Life" indeed is the FIRST of the "rights" referenced in Declaration of Independence. (I notice that the ACLU and so many other people completely miss that word.) After isn't the Declaration of Independent both the nexus and the moral guidepost to why the United States itself was created?
Or do you think those guys in 1776 were just misguided rebels whose statements have no bearing on today's world?
And what happens by the way if you remove "life"? Not many freedoms left after that except in Heaven.
Regardless, lets assume that you are correct; that what MTA is doing is terrible wrong and against American laws and principles.
OK - if you think so, why have you not been contacting every theater, most museums, every playhouse, and the countless other places prohibit photography?
Go into 1/2 of the major department stores in NYC or any major city (like Paris) and start pulling out a camera to take photos. See how long before security approaches you.
If you are also spending all your time also protesting this activities, then please let us know and it is fair to hear you out. Let us know how waving a copy of the Constitution has worked to department store security, when they take your camera and call the cops. I would genuinely like to hear your stories as to how you have been fighting for this cause, and your experiences. You can email them to me at: jeffreyimm@earthlink.net
Now - if you have NOT been actively protesting no photography in all this other locations which have had such rules for YEARS, here's my questions to you: (1) why not? are you unprincipled? (2) why are you choosing to condemn such rules when they are intended to SAVE LIVES, but you can't protest it to deal with theater, department stores, etc.? Does that seem incredibly unbalanced to you?
Again, you have the right to your opinion. I would also suggest that you show the courage of your convictions and protest ALL those who have such rules, not just those who are trying to ensure safety of New Yorkers (including my daughter).
A lot of people use the phrase about whether doing one thing or another is "letting the terrorists win". That's interesting. If we are fighting a war, the main thing in winning a war is staying alive. Ask any WWII vet. The only thing I am certain of is "the terrorists win" when they kill Americans. If we can do something to help stop that, I am all for fighting a war to win.
Our children are counting on us to have that wisdom and make the tough decisions, just as our parent/grandparents did in their life times.
But I really like that phrase from The Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
Boy, we don't hear that enough. It is music to my ears, and I think it really defines what America and American values are all about.
I'm totally amazed! All of you have forgotten that for years the sleepers have been put in place. They are here among us.
Securing the borders is a necessary step, but we must watch out for the innocent-looking neighbor that is about to place a bomb on the subway, train, or at the public library.
I would love to go back to the way it was in the days when we go walk down to the tarmac and board a plane without worrying about bombers or enter a public building without worrying about being blown away by someone's handgun.
I wish I could go shopping and not worry about surveillance cameras watching my every move to prevent shop lifting or not worrying about my child being kidnapped on the way home from school or being assaulted to the school bus or killed at school by a bully or disgruntled victim.
Our rights are being eroded because Americans and the world are not the same as they were. I wish we could go back, but we can't, and Bob, perhaps you could suggest a solution for all of the problems I have listed above. Preventing homicide bombing and the release of biological agents is only one of them.
Reza, you posted:
“Mr. Owens,
Are you beginning to recognize that most of your fellow posters are hateful, violent fascists and religious bigots who would put you in a concentration camp as quickly as they would imprison Muslims?”
On the contrary.
While I may disagree with my fellow posters on certain things, sometimes vehemently, we Americans have a Constitution and Bill of Rights, two living documents that have no equal in the modern world. We seek dissent, bring it forth, and hope that by the free exchange of ideas, the best thoughts spring forth and grow, and the weak and evil thoughts, when exposed, will shrivel and die in their ignorance.
While certain ideologies may grab and sway the public conscience from time to time, the mediating effect of a free press makes sure that the overall timbre of discourse never flows too far to the right or left. While there may be a momentary surge towards a certain viewpoint, political equilibrium keeps us from wandering too far from our core.
Yes Reza, there are those in our midst who ignorantly espouse radical concepts, even more extreme than those they decry as evil. But that is why as American citizens, we have an obligation to point out these injustices, and make things right by exposing them to the light of day and voice of reason. That is the true power of the United States.
One of our greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln, held the idea that right makes might. He held this idea strongly, enough so that he led a country to war over it, in which at least 618,000 Americans lost their lives.
One hundred forty-four years have past since President Lincoln made the impassioned Cooper Union Address, and his truth rings out now. RIGHT MAKES MIGHT.
I don’t fully expect you to understand the context of that statement and its context as a non-American, and I am equally sure that quite a few of my fellow American posters will either not understand its meaning, or will ascribe to it a meaning the speaker never intended.
But we are a nation of thinkers, Reza, dreamers of dreams, and a passionate lot. Not every idea espoused will be judged worthy. It is the struggle to find those worthy ideas that sets us apart from the rest of a cynical world.
One wonders if Reza's idea of 'violent, right-wing fascist' is anyone to the right of Nancy Pelosi.
There you go....WE are BEING INCONVENIENCED because of insane muslim immigration to the west!! And they whine about checkpoints!! Wankers....someone needs to make an example of a cleric.
Crusade NOW:
someone needs to make an example of a cleric.
I nominate al Sadr.
NYCL's Dunn is right in this respect: "There is no reason a tourist taking a snapshot in a subway car should be interrogated by the police or face the prospect of being taken into custody."
I would not want to impose this situation on tourists either, only on terrorists. Unfortunately, imposing the sorting function on the police is too big a burden for me to ask of them when there are other, better things for them to do in the WOT not even the greatest being looking over all the other shutterbugs in the rest of the city.
The legislature ought to pass a law requiring all NYCL associate legal directors to accompany police to the investigation of all suspicious bags found on subway transit systems to make sure no one's civil liberties are violated in a grossly excessive way. Maybe they should be responsible for opening them first.
Alasksa - >
I can assure you Alaska, there is no law forbidding the wearing of jewelry on the street in NYC, must be an urban myth?
Bob -
I agree with you on almost every point in terms of Constitutional philosophy. But I just don't think it applies in this case. I don't believe that although the public may traverse a subway system, that it is inherently such a "public place" that all rights of the Constitution apply without any regulation.
If that were so, at airports individuals would have the right to pass out any literature for any cause, and while that might seem noble on the face, Airport Authorities have prevented Moonies, Krishna, etc., from doing that for years.
You could also make the same argument about public traversing a playhouse, movie theater, department store. Using your logic, I should have a Constitutional right to take photos at all those locations, when clearly I can't.
How is a Subway Transit Authority different? I am sure the main concern is taking photos once you buy the ticket - there is little "public space" before you do that, and then once you buy a ticket and are in the Transit system, the MTA has the right to make rules that it deems appropriate to safety and well-being of their customers.
Like I said in my initial posting, DC Metro prevents you from eating on Metro System. Metro Police will remove you from the train, and remove you from the system, and have actually arrested people for eating a sandwich on the DC Metro (with handcuffs and all). And by the way, we have a very clean subway system. Regardless, those are tough operating rules. But no one questions their right to make those operating rules. Does WMATA have the right to make such a rule? Sure, they run the operations for Metro system for the customers.
Once you are in a transit area managed by an "authority", they have "authority" over public behavior in the transit system: airplane, train, subway, bus, ship, etc. Such operating authority to make rules is fundamental to all public transportation operations. How is the MTA photography issue different?
So if NYC MTA says no photography, that's "their" right as a "Transit Authority" responsible for the NYC subway operations.
MTA recently stopped a woman from "selling" her books in the subway aisles. She sat down with copies of some of her writings and asked for "donations", but really she was selling them without a permit in MTA's eyes. MTA has a "right" to decide who can and who can't sell products in the transit system where they have "authority" (e.g., with a permit, etc.).
Does MTA also not have the right to regulate that as well? I may not like some of the rules either, but I recognize that for Transit, Airport, Railway, and other Transportation Authorities have a responsibility and a right to make such rules for the safety and efficiency of transportation and their business.
If MTA does not have this "right", then what "rights" do they have as a Transit Authority, and where would that end?
Can I get on a bus, stick my head out the window and call people filthy names because it is my "right to free speech"? Wouldn't happen. Why not? Bus driver is going to kick me off. Do you think when I tell him about the Bill of Rights, he isn't going to kick me off the bus? No way. Its his way or the highway (literally).
In summary, "Transit Authorities" are "authorities" and when on a "transit system" their "rights" must also be upheld to ensure transit system operations that they are responsible for.
So I see no "Constitutional" issue here at all, although it is a worthwhile philosophical discussion. But beyond the philosophy (which is great), I don't see how this practically applies.
No one NEEDS to take photos on the subway, so photo-taking should be banned. Also, no on NEEDS to take photos (except terrorists or train nuts-and who cares about them) of railways, airports, airplanes, military instalations power plants, oil refineries, mines, chemical factories, industrial plants, docks, wharehouses, R&D facilities, parking structures, big box stores, strip malls, stores, houses, back yards, foreplaces, swimming pools, swingsets, bbqs, or chairs. Just ban cameras.
But Hammer, if you make cameras illegal, then only criminals will have cameras.
Wait a minute-- why do I think I've heard this before?
Jeffrey,
Take a law class, okay? The bus driver has every right to toss you becuase you are distracting him and other drivers, thus posing a clear threat to both the passengers of the bus and surrounding vehicles. Your right to free speach ends when it is a threat to public safety.
I think the idea about banning cameras in public transportation hubs is about as valid as banning cars to prevent drunk driving. Well, accept for the fact that the car plan would in fact work. Do an internet search on spyware and discrete camera systems.
Not only is a camera ban illegal (a statement you apparently disagree with), but it is technically unenforcible (a fact you cannot ratioanlly disagree with).
I think it will be shot down in fairly short order, either by public opinion (even John Q. Public knows and inept law when he sees one, and he votes), or through the sharp work of an ACLU lawyer, even though they are the guyswe typically like to cuss.
John, you said you wanted to make "sure no one's civil liberties are violated in a grossly excessive way."
Tell me, when does it get to be excessive? After the gas, or before the oven?
Remember that governments, no matter their initial intentions, are gluttonous beasts. The have the appetite to take, but lack the capability to give. Be very, very careful with your rights. Once you give them away they do not coe back easily.
Moral cowardice is never acceptable, folks.
From http://www.nycsubway.org
"...An interesting unanswered question is: "Why prevent only NEW photography?" Is this a prelude to even more bans, this time on web sites? nycsubway.org includes over 11,000 photos of the subway lines, past and present, and over 17,000 more of transit systems worldwide. Should these be considered historical documents or a source of information to terrorists? Webmasters and contributors could even be labeled terrorist facilitators. Even the Library of Congress has close up, detailed photos of key structures and bridges, "soft targets". Will the government aim to censor the Library of Congress? It doesn't even have to be the government. Any legal action by MTA lawyers to "encourage" rail fan web sites to shut down in the name of security will cost a fortune to defend against. Short of support from an organization like the ACLU, many sites will fold. Permitting a ban on NEW photography is another step toward removal of ALL of these websites, in the name of "security"...."
Bob is right about strength and civil war we have let to many in.
Nathen you are Right we have the 2nd add. for this very reason we the people must protect the American way of life and not allow shrira law any where near our shores first of all that would mean no more beer or wine and many other things.
As far as taken pictures the libs see a threat to liberty I see a threat to life. and the frist thing the Constution talks about is the right to life than liberty then the persute of happiness well i look at taken pictures as a persute of happiness which is last on the list. If a terrorist is taken pictures than that is a threat to life. First on the list. for my simple mind i would support #1 frist without #1 you have no #3 but this is from a smiple mind..
A gun in hand is better than 2 cops on the phone
Part of the Americam Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and all who Fight with her give them Strength and Courage to stay the course to Victory Amen
PS James Brown still LOL Like the Bambi into Burger LOL
A camera ban is unenforceable, and pointless. Would a terrorist obey this law, or cut a hole in his jacket pocket to stick the lens through?
We should focus on real security measures, not half-baked ideas. You have hundreds of thousands of people a day riding subways, carrying bulky bags, wearing bulky clothes, completely unchecked. Would a camera ban make you safer?
I don't think allowing transit authoritites to create rules that they believe are in the interests of ensuring the safety of passengers is "moral cowardice". Moreover, I think that is a gross insult to all of the nation's transportation authorities who have been working 24/7 to try to find ways to improve the safety of Americans since 9/11.
I have seen no one comment on the legitimacy of transit, airport, railway, and other transporation authorities to make such rules except to wave a copy of the Constitution.
We need to work harder than this as citizens. The "ACLU knee-jerk" approach to automatically opposing any new rule does not work and will not help us move forward. More rational and balanced thinking is required in considering the pros and cons of issues, but most of all in understanding the PRACTICAL merits of such issues.
The one thoughtful comment was that banning photography on subways may be unenforceable. That may be if the operating rule was only enforced by police. Let me tell you a practical example of enforcing another transit operating rule. In DC Metro, eating is prohibited. Everyone knows this and it is drilled into passengers via signs, etc. If you pull out a sandwich, some other passenger is invariably going to inform you of the transit rule. They may even tell Metro Police. Since breaking the rule means you will be thrown off, most people won't break the transit rule. Do a few people break the transit rule out of thousands? Maybe. But who really enforces the transit rule? The traveling public, NOT the transit police. So such a transit rule is enforceable, the question is it enforceable by the transit police 100% of the time? No. However, my point is that it does not have to be. The "law-abiding" citizen will also support the enforcement of that rule, and therefore it is "enforceable". Again, possibly not 100% of the time, but most of the time. And if it could save lives, why not?
We approach a new age where tough decisions will need to be made. Refering to every regulation as a step down to a police state is unrealistic, unpractical, and counter-productive for public discourse.
I think we will have to take a stand on some issues and take risks. Given the repeated reports of possible "casing" of the Northeast Railway corridor, which links very readily with the NYC MTA, SEPTA, and WMATA, the "rights" issue on this topic has no legs.
But the first place to start in such a discourse is to recognize that the USA has laws in addition to the overarching Constitution that balance our daily lives, and that they include "operating rights" granted to such transportation authorities.
Perhaps Americans may decide to reduce the control and actions of such transportation authorities. That is a choice we can make in democracies. However, the first place is to recognize that such authority relationships exist and why. You don't need to "take a law class" to do that.
I notice no one seems to be concerned about the "right to photography" at theaters, playhouses, department stores, etc. Given the passion here, I was hoping to here of some protests at locations where photography is prohibited now. Guess no one is concerned about anyone who is actually limiting rights today, just someone who might. I was sort of hoping we might hear about a picket in front of Sax 5th Avenue today regarding the Constitutional tragedy of their operations. Guess not.
Also try getting some meaningful photos with a camera snuck into a pocket with a hole cut into it. With a lot of practice, luck, and skill, you might be able to get photos of another passenger's face. But you probably won't be able to get photos of the subway infrastructure, alarm points, surveillance cameras, exit points, ceilings, tunnel escape routes, etc. - things that a terrorist would want to know.
Maybe that would force terrorists to rely on hopefully more limited public information on transit authority infrastructure. It could help drive terrorists to believe given the limited information it is too risky a target to succeed, or alternatively they take the chance based on limited information. And then other security tools such as new surveillance cameras etc put in to protect NYC subway can do the job that they were put in there for - to identify suspicious individuals.
But if anyone has a 35mm or high grade digital camera, and can snap photos of the surveillance cameras, escape routes, tunnels, rails, ceiling, etc., a tragedy is bound to happen.
Rather than "moral cowardice", I applaud the courage of NYC MTA for trying to think ahead and head off terror acts. It is easy, like the grandstanders on the 9/11 commission, to point fingers at people after something has happened and say what they should have done.
It takes real courage to step out there ahead of the situation, and to try to prevent that from happening. We will need to do this again too. So we need to put more efffort into our thinking on such matters as citizens as our country's, cites', and families' lives may depend on it. MTA officials put their careers on the line for such issues, which God willing, will never materialize.
It is hard to create preventive measures on the war on terror, because who will ever give you credit for success? The only way to succeed is for an attack not to happen. And in a free society like ours, that is going to be impossible to prevent inevitably. However, it is an essential effort for our country to continue to succeed. Because such measures could still save thousands of lives, and even if an anti-terror measure is not 100% effective, it may still save thousands of lives.
No one posting here (I hope) would want to know that they opposed a safety measure that could have prevented the tragic death of thousands.
I wonder how many are familiar with the prevention of Chicago subway cyanide attack? Or the recent vials of substances found at DC subway? etc., etc. There are many besides Islamist extremists who would delight at such an attack, and cheer in the street at American casualties. The largest cyanide bomb recently captured was from White Supremacist / Nazi William Krar who is now safely in jail. Krar was arrested with fake UN credentials and information on NYC. NYC's subway would have been a natural target for him, as subways have been for terrorists in Japan and Russia. In addition to the Islamist extremist sleeper cells in the USA, there are active Nazi and Anarchist/Communist extremist groups who have attacked USA and plan to do so again.
The "hate America" message of the Islamist extremists resonates with such other organizations as well. They hope to leverage America's preoccupation with the public terrorist threats, and create new attacks of their own. They too are at war with the USA.
We must never forget that we are a nation at War. Complacency is our greatest enemy. That means that now USA's truly greatest generation will have to make the tough decisions for the preservation of our country and our people, including unpopular choices that are the right ones.
Our police and preventive measures cannot be everywhere. But we can make the job of terrorist attack harder and save lives.
Jeffery,
You miss the entire point.
On the practical side of the issue, you obviously know little of surveillance technologies. Shooting a picture through a hole in your pocket ended with World War II everywhere but in the movies. Modern still and video technologies are so miniscule and so covert that the recording device can easily embedded in everyday things such as sunglasses and hats. Ever seen hidden camera work on “Dateline” or other network television shows? Pay attention to episodes where they are trying to catch a scam artist. Often times they have cameras and microphones within conversation distance of a suspected criminal, often for prolonged periods of time. If you’ve ever seen this technology in action, you’d also know the quality is of sufficiently high grade to satisfy any intelligence gathering needs.
You seem stuck on the idea that potential terrorists are walking around like news photographers, with photog vests and huge 35mm lenses like you see at sporting events, taking pictures of doors. I don’t know what you do in the Maryland/DC area, but it obviously isn’t within the intelligence community.
Please do a simple web search on these technologies as I suggested earlier. If you will, you’ll see just how pointless this idea is on a practical level.
To be honest, a much greater technological threat are the combination PDA/GPS systems or cell phones that text message. Or, someone intelligent enough that over the course of using a subway a few hundred times a year has developed an acute memory of where things are. You know. All daily commuters.
BUT JEFFERY HAS TO MAKE THIS WORK!
So, we need to ban cameras in the subways, and with them cell phones with camera capabilities. Add PDAs and similar devices, such as laptop computers, portable radios, MP3 players and all other small electronics that could conceal these devices.
Ban hats, sunglasses and people with big hair or bulky clothing, because it is easy to hide camera technologies within these items. I guess all hip-hop fans and “weight-challenged” Americans who prefer loose clothing will have to walk to get where they are going. Either that, or ride naked.
Then we’ll have to restrict the ability of terrorists to simply memorize the subway by riding it by restricting their ability to see, which is by far the most likely surveillance method anyway.
So, we’ll pass another law making it mandatory that all commuters must wear black hoods to keep them from seeing the layout of the system. It is after all for your greater good, folks.
But this still leaves the possibility that blind terrorists can use one of their other senses to map out a station, perhaps by pacing things off as they walk from point to point, or maybe by simply feeling how something works with their hands. So we’ll probably have to elevate them off the floor on a platform of some sort to eliminate the pacing, and retard their ability to touch things by putting something over their hands.
So, we’ll have a subway full of naked people with black hoods over their heads, standing on a box with something attached to their hands –perhaps wires – all in the name of public safety.
Thanks, Jeffery.
I think you just gave Lindy England a job with the MTA.
Jeffrey in DC/Maryland:
Even though Bob Owens has a few valid points, I'm still with you 100%.
Bob Owens:
I've been waiting to see your answer to Jeffrey's point about other places where photography is banned - theaters, department stores, etc.
Another knee jerk reaction. With modern technoligy there is no way you can enforce this.
Another knee jerk reaction. With modern technoligy there is no way you can enforce this.
Dear Bob,
Again you astound me...Are you seriously comparing a ban on picture taking in a subway to a loss of personal freedom? Come on! Pick your issues with more care! I was not posting when the Airport security measures went into effect but those must have driven you WILD! :)
Relax Bob...I do not think we will be any worse for the wear if we are not allowed to take photos on the subway...Hey! come to think of it, you just might be better off..Think about this...You could set up a booth at a subway entrance and sell pictures to tourisits and terrorists alike!! Why let our security measures interfere with our enemies RIGHTS Eh?
About Reza's comments...Reza would not want too many men like Bob in his Mosque...Bob is way too free thinking for Islam:)
Bob -
One poster indicated that you are the "voice of reason" on this group. But you view that having a subway rule to protect safety of citizens as either (a) 1st step to a police state complete with Nazi gas ovens, (b) "we’ll have a subway full of naked people with black hoods over their heads, standing on a box with something attached to their hands –perhaps wires – all in the name of public safety", and (c) suggesting that transit authorities have the right to protect the safety of passengers - "I think you just gave Lindy England a job with the MTA."
As the "voice of reason", do you think maybe you have gone a tad bit over the top in your response?
You suggest because someone could use a technology to defeat this transit rule, then rule should not be allowed. I think you miss the point, which is to identify suspicious individuals taking photographs at inappropriate locations of the subway. This rule helps: (1) reduce the number of individuals who would innocently be doing this, and (2) allows transit authority to take steps against such suspicious individuals.
Even if this transit rule does not prevent all sabotage, the fact that it could prevent some sabotage makes it worthwhile. There is no "silver bullet" or any single rule or process that will prevent all terrorism from possibly taking place.
You give the example of a blind terrorist marking off spaces wandering around the subway. OK that is possible - I don't see how that would identify the things saboteurs need to know like surveillance cameras and tunnel infrastructure, etc. But regardless, I would ask so what? Anything is possible, but still transit authorities have the right to reasonably protect citizens from efforts to sabotage the subway.
With a country at war, these are reasonable sacrifices to make. Such transit rules are not at all the same as a Nazi police state, and the comparison is rude, inappropriate, and insulting to all those trying to protect American citizens.
Actually, I am familiar with digital cameras and hidden cameras. I have seen Pen Cameras and extensively used small HP Photosmart cameras. Most sabotage planning is not as sophisticated as in the movies or as in TV. Pen Cameras take crummy shots of dark spaces with little light (like the subway areas in question), and using a flash with them would be a dead giveaway. With a palm-sized HP Photosmart, which I used in London and Paris, you have a limited zoom and for dark areas it will NOT take the photo without a flash.
Hidden TV surveillance camera videos require a lot more effort, training, sophistication, and I am not as confident as you that the volunteer al Qaeda army has that with their sleepers. Moreover, when you see those "hidden camera" videos on TV - what are they filming? They are filming: faces, human bodies - within normal vision. The saboteur is concerned about surveillance cameras, subway roof, tunnels, alarms, etc. They are good "photo" opportunities and they either above or significantly out of range of normal vision.
While I don't have a camera-phone, I would expect the technology to be similar, and imagine that getting useful quality photos of surveillance cameras, etc. is also going to take some conspicous effort.
The point of the rule is to have it to use for those suspicious individuals that could be looking to harm Americans and other subway users, and reduce the number of "harmless" camera users to allow the police to do their job in identifying potential suspicious individuals.
Clearly the transit authorities have enough information to stick their neck out and propose this new transit rule that they believe could reduce the possibility of terrorism.
Security Environment in Which New Transit Rules Are Being Made:
Security for train travelers stiffened
http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20040521-101101-4296r.htm
Amtrak Police Search Three Trains
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120600,00.html
Stringent measures, screening mark U.S. travel
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/05/04/travel.security/index.html
Police: Paris train stations evacuated
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/04/08/france.rail.evac.ap/index.html
Rail bomb 'linked' to Madrid terror attacks in March
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-04-02-spain-bomb_x.htm
FBI, Homeland Security warn of possible transport plot
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/02/fbi.alert/index.html
Al-Qaida man planned Italy railway bomb
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1178246,00.html
Explosive Device Found on French Train Tracks
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115087,00.html
UK: Anti-terror marshals to ride trains
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1169164,00.html
Amtrak's tunnels could be targeted
http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20040323-100141-3505r.htm
NYC: Lunatic Causes Subway Bomb Scare
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/20749.htm
Australia tightens train security
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitedstatesaction/message/5270
Police search for Madrid terror train bombers: nearly 200 dead, 1400 wounded
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/11/spain.blasts/index.html
... and that's JUST THE PAST 2 MONTHS...
ALSO CONSIDER...
February 6, 2004
At Least 30 Killed in Explosion in Moscow Subway
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Russia-Explosion.html?8na
January 28, 2004
FBI, DHS Warn of Possible Subway, Rail Attacks
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitedstatesaction/message/4183
December 26, 2003
Spain police find railway bomb
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitedstatesaction/message/3581
(NOTE: and they didn't do anything, did they?)
December 12, 2003
DC Blue/Orange Subway Lines Closed - Suspicious Packages Blown Up
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitedstatesaction/message/3432
November 25, 2003. Homeland Security Warning Against Homemade al-Qaeda Cyanide Threat
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35825
WASHINGTON - Al-Qaida terrorists have developed a crude device designed to spread deadly cyanide gas through the ventilation systems of crowded indoor facilities such as subways, according to a closely held security directive issued to law enforcement by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and obtained exclusively by WorldNetDaily. "Al-Qaida remains intent on using chemical or biological agents in attacks on the homeland," says the internal warning. "Terrorists have designed a crude chemical dispersal device fabricated from commonly available materials, which is designed to asphyxiate its victims." Marked "For Official Use Only," the five-page memo issued Friday says the device produces cyanogen chloride gas and hydrogen cyanide gas, and can be placed near air intakes or ventilation systems in crowded open spaces or enclosed spaces.
October 22, 2003
Paris in sarin attack exercise on Paris Metro
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitedstatesaction/message/2501
November 17, 2002
British MI5 foils poison-gas attack on the Tube
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitedstatesaction/message/36
Thursday June 6, 2002. Chicago Subway Cyanide Threat.
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/cyanide.htm
Grand Jury Indicts “Dr. Chaos”. A U.S. grand jury yesterday indicted Joseph Konopka — the self-proclaimed Dr. Chaos — on two counts of possessing chemical weapons, for storing cyanide in the Chicago subway system. Authorities arrested Konopka in March on suspicion of trespassing in the subway system and found containers of sodium cyanide and potassium cyanide in a storage room, according to the Associated Press. Potassium cyanide and sodium cyanide found in the subway system could have created a cloud of lethal gas if someone had added acid to it, scientists said. Authorities had also discovered a canister in the underground tunnel containing acid to create enough deadly gas to kill everyone in a small house or confined space.
Why would you need to take pictures in a subway..its not a tourist attraction, its not like the govt has said "no pictures in disneyworld, or at the grand canyon"...if a guy is snapping pictures in a subway he is either up to no good or needs to visit the toursim office in the city he is visiting...
I lived near an air base in the city I grew up in and all along the fence were signs warning that there was no photography allowed...went to a concert a couple months ago..photography allowed but no video cameras or recording devices...in none of these cases did I feel my rights were trampled on....like it or not since 9-11 we have to play by different rules...anyone that watched TV that day had to realize that life was going to change.
Is that is what has come to, USAgirl?
Rights should be based on "need" and whether or not you have a feeling that someone is up to no good? Lets just toss the whole Constitution and the millenia of work that led us here becuase of one bad fall morning three years ago?
What kind of Americans have we become that we think that our rights should be rationed by the government?
I refuse to be a coward and surrender my rights to the soft promises of what the government thinks we should have. The government serves US, we don't serve the government.
I'm disappointed, folks. I truly am.
Its going to get alot worse than no pictures on subways after the next attack. We cross the border quite often between canada and the US and crossing has changed since 9-11. The waits are much longer, many more questions from border guards, everyone in the car must have ID and the ID is checked in the system...the days of a 5 minute wait and simply being asked citizenship and are you bringing any citrus fruit across are over...but thats life. Its a different world now...we are at war and things change.
Bob Owens:
What do you think about stringent airport security measures - taking off your shoes, etc? In your view, isn't there a lot of "right infringement" going on when the traveling public is subjected to the current degree of scrutiny? What about the rules pertaining to what can be carried onboard?
I have no idea why anyone would want to take pictures while on a subway.
What would you do, make your way through the cramped areas, asking people if you can take their picture?
It doesn't make any sense to me.
Do I look like the freaking Supreme Court?
I made some simple observations based upon legal precedent, English common law, constitutional law and the historic context of the founding fathers, buoyed by some historical knowledge of the Magna Carta, and the laws set down by Judeo-Christian belief systems two thousand years ago.
I temper that with simple common sense.
CGW, of COURSE we should have hardcore airport security. If you haven’t noticed, airline terrorism has been a terrorist staple since the end of the Second World War. Entebbe, anyone? But you know what? Checking for weapons is one thing, going way out on a limb trying o make every day objects into weapons is another.
Abad, it doesn’t make any difference if it makes sense to you why people would want to take a picture on a subway. Our legal system does not define what we can do, point by point, or require every action require a logical reasoned response and a permission slip from the authorities. I’d like to keep it that way.
There is an alternative if that makes you uncomfortable. Would you like to have a legal system in place that tells you exactly what you can do, in every situation, so that there is none of that pesky ambiguity to trouble your mind?
Try Sharia. You’ll like it.
Or else.
Catherine,
I’m sorry I’m late getting to you, but here it goes:
The first few things the Constitution talks about is neither life, nor liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness.
The Preamble states:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Right after the desire to form a better system of government is the overwhelming desire for justice, though so many seem to miss the other points, as well.
Again folks, checking for munitions is one thing. Attacking threats that don’t exist is the cowardly act of a child or an adult who is too immature to stand up and be recognized.
I’ve had enough of this topic. I shall post no more on it.
Bob Owens:
Check the last part of my post on the May 21 Bin Laden thread.