What is Digg?76 Comments
- JeffPH, on 12/29/2008, -1/+35Photography is not a Crime!
- troymccluresf, on 12/30/2008, -1/+27Seriously, why are people so goddamn scared of cameras these days?
- AdrenalineWerks, on 12/30/2008, -2/+26This is just another example of power-tripping individuals wanting to instill *FEAR* in to the general population. Yes, 9/11/2001 was a sad day for this country, but every day we continue to live in fear, is another day they win. "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself!"
- swanksalot, on 12/30/2008, -2/+25Funny how the police can never actually cite the specific law that photographers are allegedly breaking. All that matters is that they have side arms.
- niradg, on 12/30/2008, -1/+14Achtung! Vere are ze papers?
- mranalogue, on 12/30/2008, -1/+13I've been asked to leave from this same area myself. After thirty minutes of being harassed by cops they realized that they could not arrest me for standing on a public sidewalk and since I didn't have any criminal record (they did full background check which was then followed up by a phone call from Homeland Security!!!) they let me go with a vague warning that I need to call the police station at ask for permission before I photograph from public sidewalk in Los Angeles port areas. Somehow during the 45 minutes I was detained by cops and security guards they never even batted an eyelash at any of the dozens of people who walked or rode their bikes up and down that same sidewalk. It was only the guy with a camera who was a potential terrorist in their eyes.
- GoKings, on 12/30/2008, -1/+12I'll pretty much sum up the entire article and response from the police:
"9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11... Give us your freedoms... 9/11" - dmoffitt, on 12/30/2008, -2/+13I'm so very tired of the Police State mentality we've allowed to occur lately in the USA. It's disgusting :(
- DigitalisAkujin, on 12/30/2008, -1/+11They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788 - chroko, on 12/30/2008, -0/+9So: a bunch of incredibly stupid public servants believe that they are about to become the victims of Saudi-Arabian terrorists.
Apparently one of the prerequisites for being a cop is that you have to be borderline retarded. - Spor, on 12/30/2008, -2/+11The U.S. government has turned 9/11 into a success. It's tragic that so many innocent people had to die, but by destroying the constitution and the rights of citizens the government has done far more damage than the act of 9/11 itself.
- redrabbit, on 12/30/2008, -0/+8Just for future reference to any diggers here, if you are on ANY sort of public property, you are allowed to photograph no matter what or where you are. You could photograph arrests, little kids without permission, anything. It's often called "standing in" for the public. (Though be cautious about photographing the kids. Even though you're legally allowed to, I know a journalist who was put in intensive care because the mothers saw and beat the crap out of him. This same guy photographed the first Gulf War without a scratch, too.)
some reading on photog's rights:
http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photogr ... - jamesdkirk, on 12/30/2008, -1/+9I have to agree completely with you on this one, Thomas (well, I've yet to read about one of your adventures that I disagree with!) You have my dig, and a comment as well. Be aware however that the digg equivalent of the Long Beach Harbor police are likely to try and vote down my digg and comment because I don't spend the majority of my waking time like they do in attempts to game and control this system. I know that you know however that I often like your stuff on FriendFeed and have left more than a couple of comments on your flickr pages as well as your blogs. Just taking the advanced chance to CYA in this post 9/11 world! ;) Please don't stop doing those things you do.
- inactive, on 12/30/2008, -1/+9If they can't cite the law, they're violating your rights.
- animenick65, on 12/30/2008, -1/+8More and more it seems like we are living in a Police State. This is stupid and crazy. What ever happened to the intelligent and caring police officers that used to patrol our streets? Now they are to be feared and avoided just to avoid the hassle the cause.
- redrabbit, on 12/30/2008, -0/+7"You are not legally required to provide identification to the police unless they are charging you with an offense."
Is this true, diggers? - armadilo, on 12/30/2008, -0/+7I'm pretty sure cops & security guards just try to annoy Thomas Hawk at this point, hoping that they make their way onto the Internet.
- jba68, on 12/30/2008, -0/+7Is it this specific area that is having all the trouble? Maybe it is the fact that this is a refinery and could be considered a target by a terrorist. I think in this sense they have an obligation to check up on someone taking pictures. However that being said, once your are checked out, then you should not be harrassed.
- jadenton, on 12/30/2008, -2/+8You are not legally required to provide identification to the police unless they are charging you with an offense. Threatening to arrest you for not showing identification is itself a crime. Refuse to show it, insist they book you, then have your lawyer clean them out and end the careers of the individual cops involved.
- tnoy, on 12/30/2008, -0/+6Does Giuliani work for their PR department now?
- GoKings, on 12/30/2008, -2/+8He should have just grinded on the police car... Oh wait this is Thomas Hawk... Still should have just grinded on the police car.
- TonyLocNE, on 12/30/2008, -0/+6Well, in the numerous cases where police officers have intervened in photographers taking pictures of an arrest, the biggest reason is that they're scared because of the indisputable evidence it produces.
I was once charged with "interfering with government operations" for taking photographs with my phone of a guy who was being detained and handcuffed by eight cops. I was on a public sidewalk and was told I had to leave. I asked them why I had to leave and they responded by stating that I was endangering the lives of those around me. I told them that that was ***** and they asked me to step back (which is their right to an extent). Well, I took the 15 yards back and continued to take pictures. After taking a couple more pictures one of the cops came, bum rushed me against his car, threw me in handcuffs, and whisked me away. A friend of mine who was standing next to me said that they made me "disappear" in less than 20 seconds. ***** up *****. Photography is NOT a crime! - Garlik, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5More like
Tony Hawk's Digital Downhill Long Beach Harbor Underground 4, amirite? - whostar, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5That is ridiculous. I agree with you completely that they had no right to stop you from taking pictures in that location. On the subject of the background checks, that tends to be standard procedure for most departments. For example, lets say your get a flat tire and a cop stops to help you. Don't be surprised if you still get asked for your license/registration and have a check run against your license plates. There have been plenty of times that the person they stop to help happens to have a felony warrant out for them. So many officers are instructed to perform these checks on stops that may not seem to warrant them on the surface. Contacting Homeland Security is a little over the top though.
- honestmonkey, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5Let's assume that what you say above is correct for the most part. I'm not going to research it right now. What did he shoot "illegally"? There are only two situations where you might conceivably shoot illegally. "Certain military installations or operations" or "People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy." That is it. Are you saying Thomas/Andrew snuck onto a military base, or shot with a telephoto lens into someone's bedroom? Really?
If you are out in public, and can see it, you can photograph it.
And "Joe", is that your real name? - linagee, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5I have the gold star on my chest right here! Just like I was instructed to wear! Please don't harm us!
- Kinsbane, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5According to the Long Beach Municipal Code, commercial films, television episodes, and commercial still photography require permits - but the LBMC doesn't define exactly what constitutes (in personnel, equipment or otherwise) what would be construed as "commercial" - because of this, it's up to law enforcement to make that distinction on their own, and it's widely open for interpretation. Where I live, the Santa Clarita Municipal Code goes so far as to define non-commercial filming and photography to include student and family films and photography.
- Yashar, on 12/30/2008, -1/+6Screw people who use 9/11 as an excuse to get whatever they want!
- jcrockerman, on 12/30/2008, -2/+6I live in Long Beach and I've never had any trouble with my photography on public sidewalks. Maybe they just didn't like HIM.
- dracostimpy, on 12/30/2008, -1/+5"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself!"
What about manbearpig? - DigitalisAkujin, on 12/30/2008, -1/+5You're right but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned and given attention to.
- jefree, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4The edge of the slippery slope of fear mongering. 9/11 didn't change the laws. Public land is public land and permits are an end around on freedom.
- bossm4n, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4This is much more of a problem in California, especially around the LA area. Most of the laws around that area were established pertaining to the movie industry, thus they require permits for photographing, filming, etc in many or most public areas. As a professional photographer, I have mixed feelings about these regulations and about the incident involving T. Hawk. I've had this exact same thing happen to me, and in states other than California. In fact just last month I was photographing a commercial property for a client who occupied the majority of the office building. The bank who also leased space there, freaked out when they saw me shooting there and came after me. Even after calling everyone's corporate offices, checking me out thoroughly, calling the client, etc, they refused to let me photograph the exterior of the building. The silly part about most of these "security" concerns is, they are scrutinizing the people standing out in broad daylight not trying to hide what they are doing, yet thousands of people could be driving down the road doing all the documentation they wanted while going totally undetected--which means your efforts to monitor and control the "problem" are meaningless.
- Insightful, on 12/31/2008, -0/+4California's does not have a stop-and-identify (Terry Stop) law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson. The only exception is when you are operating a vehicle then you must show the driver's license.
As Jadenton said, law enforcement officers cannot arrest you for not showing an ID. They can arrest you for other reasons, legitimately or not, but all you are required to is to provide your name. Put it another way, police can legally ask you anything. You are legally allowed to remain silent.
My recommendation is you be brief (anything you say can be used against you), always answer truthfully (see previous) , insist on your rights to either silence and be on public property. - adameros, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4Time for a flash mob (do those still happen?) with lots of people showing up there with cameras.
- bubba9999, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4This will keep happening until lawsuits are filed and judgments are granted showing that the photographers are within their rights. Until some precedents are set, the rules and their enforcement are subject to ambiguities like this.
- robdazomba, on 12/30/2008, -1/+5Prepare to be buried for criticizing Thomas Hawk. The guy's hitting this "defender of everyone's rights" schtick pretty hard and most people on Digg are so hoodwinked, they will fall over each other to digg you down for that.
- ghaltmann, on 12/30/2008, -2/+5This kind of stuff needs to be nipped in the bud immediately lest we face even harsher rules in the future. Dugg.
- Barackalypse, on 12/30/2008, -0/+3Do you routinely photograph important infrastructure from bridges? I could sit on my street photographing all day and probably never see a police car, but if I go downtown and film the water treatment plan from the Interstate bridge, I guess I'd be talked to within 30 minutes.
- Barackalypse, on 12/30/2008, -0/+3The sidearms aren't the problem, the problem is they are considered the legitimate arm of the law, even when they are wrong. Take that same guy with that same gun, but make him not be a peace officer, and he becomes rather impotent in that you can deal with just him, and not the full martial apparatus of the increasingly armed and hostile State.
- PresRob, on 12/30/2008, -0/+3How about a city-wide shoot from the bridge day?
- nathanus, on 12/30/2008, -0/+3http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathanus/3101546101/
Something very similar happened to me in Long Beach also. - BBryan, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3same thing happend to me but at the hollywood reservoir. and the dumbass private security was using 911 as the reason wy
- chroko, on 12/30/2008, -1/+4You do understand that the magnitude of cuts is not the same as the spending? They are not proportional.
For example, the stupid war in Iraq has cost the same as the past entire 50 years of NASA funding. 50 ***** years.
Instead of Iraq, we could have a man on Mars - right now; have funded healthcare for every child for the next 20 years - and still have money left over.
Instead we have a bunch of dead soldiers. - tnoy, on 12/30/2008, -1/+4They'll just try to arrest you without cause, then when you resist, they'll charge you and arrest you for resisting arrest.
Pretty standard practice these days! - Insightful, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2Here is the first sentence of Port of Long Beach's official response from Art Wong:
"Generally, we've asked our Harbor Patrol officers to tell photographers that for safety and security reasons they should come to our Admin Building, and present identification. blah blah 9/11 blah If they [the police] were too zealous, please accept our apologies and contact me to arrange another visit."
Art: why don't you do your job by meeting the 2012 deadline set by Congress to scan the contents of every cargo container headed to U.S. ports instead of harassing photographers.
Police officers: Please tell me you'd rather make go after criminals rather than obeying a PR flack's order to ask photographers to present their papers.
I'd say let's call Art and arrange the visits that he has so graciously offered.
Art Wong, Port of Long Beach Assistant Director of Communications/Public Information Officer, (562) 590-4123 or wong@polb.com. - jba68, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2then they would all just be lawyers.... who would be a cop then?
- Barackalypse, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2The stupid Iraq war is costing about $262 billion a year (almost exactly the same amount as interest on our stupid national debt). For the sake of comparison we budgeted $386 billion for stupid Medicare and $209 billion for stupid Medicaid and SCHIP this year, so our yearly Federal heathcare costs are already double what the stupid war costs. Its all wasted money.
- LawMan227, on 12/30/2008, -1/+3I was about to lose my mind by how simplified your explanation was (and incorrect), but the link you provided has every point I was about to type. So I dig you up for the link, down for the comment.
- hitkaiser, on 12/30/2008, -1/+3That's what he says
-
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is