Fairly self-explanatory...
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,1458253
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
a well intentioned pinhead is still just a pinhead...
Ours is the strength of ten because our cause is just, but they have Bureaucracy on their side...
Trains Magazine posted in there E-Mail News Wire today the new rules for photographing Boston's MBTA in or from public areas.
If you are willing to identify yourself and have your name in a databank, no problem, no pass needed.
Go to it railfan, expect to be challenged, asked for identification and the reason for photographing (railfan is fine). Your name will be put in a Police System database. They will check, over time, if your photography is in a "suspicious pattern".
Don U. TCA 73-5735
ndbprr wrote:Could somebody please quote the part of the US Constitution that say's photographing trains is a "right".
First ammendment -
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.
Photography from a public place is considered by the courts to be a form of freedom of speech.
RudyRockvilleMD wrote:I signed the petition because it affects not only railfans but all amateur photographers and tourists. Trains News Wire carried a news item about the photography permits, but from what I read the language seems to be vague and the concept seems to be unconstitutional. The proposed New York City photography permit seems to be similar to the NJ Transit photography permit requirement that NJ Transit subsequently dropped after it received many comments opposing its policy to require photography permits
The Trains NewsWire Link, "Rudy RockvilleMD" has referenced is:
http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=2254
There seems to be a rush to judge the perception of the danger posed by those of us who point a camera in the directions of anything railroad---Particularly, on the upper East Coast, and in large cities... Looks like the jihadists are able to keep proving,even passivly they can still erode our personal freedom, even by using our on inferances..
ndbprr wrote:Sorry but the owner of a train does not have to let you photograph it any more than someone has the "right" to sit on a your public street and photograph you or your house. You would call the police and rightly so.
Actually, you may not like it, but that is the law. By the way, if you were right, Google Maps would be illegal.
Anyone has the right to photograph you or your house so long as they are on public right of way or private property with the owner's permission and are taking pictures of things in plain sight.
This has been upheld in courts of law many, many times. You may call the police, but they'd be doing nothing illegal.
Same applies for railroads.
By the way, "e-petitions" are crap and have no effect whatsoever on anything.
Erie Lackawanna wrote: ndbprr wrote:Sorry but the owner of a train does not have to let you photograph it any more than someone has the "right" to sit on a your public street and photograph you or your house. You would call the police and rightly so. Actually, you may not like it, but that is the law. By the way, if you were right, Google Maps would be illegal.
Yep as long as your on public property.
Not the Constitution, but how about the Declaration of Independence? .... "Life, liberty and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS."
eolafan wrote: ndbprr wrote:Could somebody please quote the part of the US Constitution that say's photographing trains is a "right".Not the Constitution, but how about the Declaration of Independence? .... "Life, liberty and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS."
The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing in this country, the existence of the United States of America as a sovereign state was recognized by the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Also, the Founding Fathers used the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" because it sounds a lot better than the intended "Life, Liberty and Property". Also see the phrasing of the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution.
There was another thread discussing the new Homeland Security Act a week or so ago, so I went looking an found it. Now you can read it for yourself, kind of an interesting read.
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1175343/ShowPost.aspx
It doesn't make rail fanning against the law, but I think some one bullet, gun-hoe Barney's will have fun.
There were also some other threads [don't remember if they were here or another forum, been awhile], where the FBI and HLS were going to start monitoring RR forums and RR photo sites for possible terrorist activity.
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309
When those things are in the public view, they have no illusion of privacy. You may not like me taking picture of you while you're sitting on your front porch but if I'm not on your property there isn't a thing you can do about it, same goes for the trains.
BTW, when I was in Boston last October, I took all sorts of pictures of the Metro no questions asked. IMO, much ado about nothing.
inch53 wrote: There were also some other threads [don't remember if they were here or another forum, been awhile], where the FBI and HLS were going to start monitoring RR forums and RR photo sites for possible terrorist activity.
Freedom vs Life?
3,000 dead in the Middle East and the Press goes wild! 3,000 dead in the streets of New York, in Towers I once worked in, how fast they forget.
If you are a "Railfan", then anything you can do to help protect American Railroads, including helping Police to eliminate you as a threat by showing ID, is a duty. To gain access to some buildings after 911, I had to be finger printed, cleared, and new Badges issued.
Some wanted to make a "Federal Case" out of it. I was happy it was being done, to protect me, to protect the City.
DMUinCT wrote: Freedom vs Life? 3,000 dead in the Middle East and the Press goes wild! 3,000 dead in the streets of New York, in Towers I once worked in, how fast they forget. If you are a "Railfan", then anything you can do to help protect American Railroads, including helping Police to eliminate you as a threat by showing ID, is a duty. To gain access to some buildings after 911, I had to be finger printed, cleared, and new Badges issued. Some wanted to make a "Federal Case" out of it. I was happy it was being done, to protect me, to protect the City.
You obviously don't live in a historic district. Happens every day.
We are supposed to worry about people taking pictures of trains when our borders are wide open, allowing any terrorist to walk in? We have millions of illegal aliens in this country violating our laws. Go arrest and deport them and leave the railfans alone. I refuse to get a permit or register my name with the gestapo to take train pictures from public property!!!! There is something in this country called the CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Part of the problem seems to be that there is a sizable number of Americans who are more than willing to sacrifice some of their rights and live in a police state in order to guarantee their personal safety. Based on personal observations, this attitude predates September 11, 2001.
You may be right. But from my perspective, sacrificing (or scaling back) some rights in exchange for a higher level of personal safety and "living in a police state" are two vastly different things -- the latter is an unlikely extension of the former.
While the additional security checks at the airport are a PITA, I'd rather go through them in exchange for a reasonable guarantee that none of my fellow passengers is bringing a weapon on board with the intent of commandeering the plane. By my measure, that does not constitute "living in a police state".
If we were truly living in police state, we would not have the problem of 15 to 20 million illegals hiding among us -- if that's the current guess. They'd be long gone, or would never have gotten into the US of A in the first place.
Aren't those the same ones who scream n holler to the news media? Who then holler about the president, HLS, FBI, and Attorney General for invading their privacy, so congress then holds hearing and drags every one over the coals to find out why.
I mean they should have known better.
Then if some thing does happen, they scream n holler, because the president, HLS, FBI, CIA, Attorney General and military intelligence, didn't do anything about stopping it ahead of time. So, then congress drags every body over the coals to find out why.
Don't know why they didn't see it coming.
Guarantee???? What guarantee??? The only thing I see thats guaranteed is us loosing more rights. Will someone please tell homeland insecurity there are no guarantees in life...get over it and move on.
I for one refuse to be brainwashed into being scared that someday somewhere (here at least) mabee I might be the victem of a terrorist attack if I am in the right place at the right (or wrong) time ...yada yada yada....
I would rather take my chances and live Free!!!!
(this isn't aimed at you Paul, at least not in a hostile way)
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Part of the problem seems to be that there is a sizable number of Americans who are more than willing to sacrifice some of their rights and live in a police state in order to guarantee their personal safety.
Poppa_Zit wrote: ] You may be right. But from my perspective, sacrificing (or scaling back) some rights in exchange for a higher level of personal safety and "living in a police state" are two vastly different things -- the latter is an unlikely extension of the former.
The knee-jerk decisions with which our government has responded to terrorist attacks will, by and large, do nothing to make us safer, but they are taking away simple rights. And that's how a police state is born.
Remember Ben Franklin's classic quote:
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
Now there's a thought, from a man who knew a thing or two about oppressive government.
A police officer asking why you are taking photographs, is an officer doing his job. Police look for the out of place, the unusual. Right after 9/11 I worked for a small publication in Denver and went to take pictures of the Dept of water building in Downtown, Denver. Within five minutes of me taking my first picture I was escorted out of the area by Denver Police and told that under no circumstances was I to return and take more photos. Most people who heard about this were upset and thought I should ream them in an article. I thought about what happened for a long time and decided to do nothing. I believe that the cop was somewhat in the wrong because I was on public property taking pics of a public building. But as I thought of it I asked myself, what would I have done if I was the Police officer, I think I would have done the same.
You have a right to pursue happiness, and so does everyone else, if you have to be inconvienced a little to pursue that happiness, than so be it. Today we are so caught up in me first that we forget that what we do is not always seen as normal behaviour to others. Be respectful to those that dont understand and take the time to tell them what it is you are doing and why. You never know you might make a friend!
As far as an agency such as a commuter railroad saying dont take pics, after seeing the pics of Madrid and London, your damn right I want them asking everyone that is taking pics, what are you doing. If you dont like the rules, than you have the right to break them, and you also have the right to pay the consequences.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: eolafan wrote: ndbprr wrote:Could somebody please quote the part of the US Constitution that say's photographing trains is a "right".Not the Constitution, but how about the Declaration of Independence? .... "Life, liberty and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS."The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing in this country, the existence of the United States of America as a sovereign state was recognized by the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Also, the Founding Fathers used the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" because it sounds a lot better than the intended "Life, Liberty and Property". Also see the phrasing of the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution.
Sorry, I forgot that you are an expert on constitutional law
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.