Gentlemen,
I think I now know why the jury had verdicted against the BNSF in the case of the 2003 crossing gate accident. The mood of ordinary people is swinging against corporate America at large, as it is the big private companies that are responsible for harrassing ordinary citizens quite a bit. The debate here shows clearly that railroads and big factories etc. tend to take away civil liberties from people and bossing them around even for no reason other as to demonstrate their ability to. Now, the courtroom is one of the last resorts where ordinary members of the public, then called jurors, can hit back. Again, it may well be that they are not even openly aware that they do but the antipathy against that big blood suckers has slowly grown towards a certain hostility. It is of course not just the railroads but also the big banks who had behaved quite irresponsible for a long time, it is the large chemical companies who produce cheaply and sell expensive (see the chinese made tooth paste one or two years ago). Now the people may just have had enough and hit back when they can.
What do you think of this my theory?
usersatch [snipped] I am an attorney. Without giving any "legal advice", I will tell you that cops, rail security, etc. have the right to act like assholes. Just try and file a 1983 lawsuit against an officer for being "vigilant". Any act of "non-cooperation" (e.g., not showing ID, not being forthcoming, etc.) can be construed as disorderly conduct which will wind you up in the clink. Indeed, you may ultimately beat the charge in court, but that will cost you money, time, and sanity. Law enforcement love to validate their jobs/esteem with the new DHS regulations because they are so vague that virtually anything can be construed as a "security threat". My personal policy is don't push it. While I may beat the charge, it's not worth the hassle. I have been screwed with by CSX/NS cops, State Troopers, and local police while railfanning. Once I have provided ID and a reasonable, truthful, and non-confrontational explanation (I'm here to take pictures of trains because I like trains and I model trains), I have never had a probelm. Most look at me like I have a dick growing out of my forehead for liking trains, but they leave me alone once they know I'm just a rail geek.
Law enforcement love to validate their jobs/esteem with the new DHS regulations because they are so vague that virtually anything can be construed as a "security threat". My personal policy is don't push it. While I may beat the charge, it's not worth the hassle.
I have been screwed with by CSX/NS cops, State Troopers, and local police while railfanning. Once I have provided ID and a reasonable, truthful, and non-confrontational explanation (I'm here to take pictures of trains because I like trains and I model trains), I have never had a probelm. Most look at me like I have a dick growing out of my forehead for liking trains, but they leave me alone once they know I'm just a rail geek.
[EDITED] "1983 lawsuit" is not the title of George Orwell's famous book 1984 -1 ,or even the year otherwise, but instead refers to Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code [of laws and statutes of and by the U.S. Federal government, 'codified' = organized sanely], which pertains to suits against all governments adn their officials for deprivation of civil rights 'under color of official action', etc. If you want to know more, go to a law school course on it.
Of course, you could just ask them how many 'real security threats' - such as the graffitti vandals, thieves, and trespassers [EDIT] such as the people on ATVs or dirt bikes who ride all over the R-O-W - that they've arrested in the past week, as compared to how many railfans that they've hassled . . .
Others have pointed out that the more of us are out there watching the tracks and trains - with 'the most potent weapon of all, a radio or cell phone' - the less the actual risk of terrorism and sabotage. But "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" . . . .
[EDIT] I have in mind a video spoof of Achmed the Terrorist 'wanna-be' trying to get photos of a rail yard. But he encounters a couple of stereotypical 'foamer' railfans, 'Boorish Bob' and 'Dopey Dan', who try overmuch to be friendly and helpful. As a result they instead unwittingly and repeatedly foil his dastardly intentions - kind of like the ''Home Alone'' movie but at the railyard instead . . .
[EDIT]
usersatch Law enforcement love to validate their jobs/esteem with the new DHS regulations because they are so vague that virtually anything can be construed as a "security threat".
Ahh - perhaps that explains why, then, UP recently opened the 'Spike' observation tower - note- to the public, to take photos - at North Platte's Bailey Yard. Ironically, the 'Original Post' involved a UP officer, didn't it ? Wonder if he knows what the gang in headquarters is doing up there ? . . . And maybe that explains why there are now so many 'viewing platforms' in the various towns that we know so well - and more on the way . . . Who's 'out of step' here, really now ?
'Oh ye of literal minds . . . '
- Paul North.
For the last 8 years, the federal government has been issuing a constant stream of unconstitutional new laws reducing our freedom, and Americans have been cheering for them for it. Americans are under the delusion that giving up a few rights somehow makes us safer.
What you are experiencing during rail fan photography is being experience by people all over our country during all manner of innocent activities.
How do you like the USA Patriot Act now? How about that spooky Orwellian Department of Homeland Security?
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin, 1755
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
That depends on the state you are in and whether it's public or private conversation.
I am an attorney. Without giving any "legal advice", I will tell you that cops, rail security, etc. have the right to act like assholes. Just try and file a 1983 lawsuit against an officer for being "vigilant". Any act of "non-cooperation" (e.g., not showing ID, not being forthcoming, etc.) can be construed as disorderly conduct which will wind you up in the clink. Indeed, you may ultimately beat the charge in court, but that will cost you money, time, and sanity.
Not legal at all.
I agree with PDN / Bert Krasges' except I'd add one more step:
0.) Switch camera to video mode and press record.
My understanding is that as long as one person involved in the conversation is aware that it is being recorded, it is legal.
Be Safe!
Ed
Henry:
I thought I was the only one who sees the Orwellian parallels.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
Going back to the comments about Europe, Ron Ziel, and the 80's. You are back in the Cold War ere, dictatorial Communist block nations terrified of opposition and doing all they can to subvert subversion! Goerge Orwell warned us about such socialistic, communistic, dictictatorial things happening here in the US if we we weren't on guard: a state where all things, all actions, and all people were of a suspciious nature and to be reported to the authorities, no one could or should be trusted except those higher authorities. His warning was that it was the far left, the Socialists and the Communists were to be feared for these abridgements of our precious freedoms. Rah Rah America and the republicans for which it stands! How ironic.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
RudyRockvilleMD Another possibility: What might seem to be a public street may be a street that is actually owned by the plant and the street might have a sign stating that the right to use that street may be revoked at any time. I noticed such a street that looked like it was a public street running through a refinery in Martinez, CA years ago when I wanted to photograph trains crossing the Benecia-Martinez Bridge. I agree with your suggestions about avoiding confrontations and trying to find out what legal (law enforcement) authority a guard might have in trying to stop photographers from photographing their private plant from public property. Just because a private plant guard may have had some minimal law enforcement training, especially weapos handling certification, does not necessarily make them a public law enforcement officer, nor does that mean that they know what they are talking about when they tell you not to photograph the plant even from a public street. However, the best thing to do if you are told not to photograph a plant, even from a public street, is to leave. [emphasis added - PDN]
I agree with your suggestions about avoiding confrontations and trying to find out what legal (law enforcement) authority a guard might have in trying to stop photographers from photographing their private plant from public property. Just because a private plant guard may have had some minimal law enforcement training, especially weapos handling certification, does not necessarily make them a public law enforcement officer, nor does that mean that they know what they are talking about when they tell you not to photograph the plant even from a public street. However, the best thing to do if you are told not to photograph a plant, even from a public street, is to leave. [emphasis added - PDN]
All good points. The only problem here, though, is that if no one ever challenges or confronts them - one way or another, sooner or later - then what is going to make them change their pattern of mistaken, wrongful, and illegal conduct [Q]
You could defy them, risk arrest, challenge it in court, and probably win, after some time and expense, plus a potential arrest record to come back and haunt you for future credit reports, job application background checks, etc. Most of us will prudently choose not to go that route. Instead, it would be better to write a letter - or for more impact and effect, pay a lawyer to write one, instead of paying the lawyer to bail you out of jail - explaining why thay are wrong and asking for an apology and correction [don't hold your breath, though, for that]. Then it's documented within that organization, and may nevertheless get some attention, even if you never hear about it again. The only way to know more would be to go back a few weeks or months later with a copy of the letter[s], and see what happens if and when you are confronted again.
UPReading85 [from 07-21-2009 9;32 PM post] '' . . . a UP cop comes out and tells me to come out of my car, produce my camera and my ID, takes my information, and asks all about what I'm doing. I tell him and photographing trains and that I am on public property, which he AGREES with but still takes all my information down and quotes to me that since 9/11 DHS has told them they have to stop all photographers and ttell them to not take pictures of their facilities.'' The incident happened almost exactly a year ago. I sent a letter to their VP of Public Affairs for the Southern Region and received a letter back from their General Counsel in Omaha stating that [paraphrase] "DHS regulations post 9/11 allow us to interrogate photographers taking photos of our equipment even on public property. Surely you understand our need to run a safe railroad free from the threat of terrorism. While the incident was regrettable, our agent did not violate your rights throught his actions." They didn't cite any specific regulations except in the abstract. [snip - emphasis added - PDN.]
[from 07-21-2009 9;32 PM post] '' . . . a UP cop comes out and tells me to come out of my car, produce my camera and my ID, takes my information, and asks all about what I'm doing. I tell him and photographing trains and that I am on public property, which he AGREES with but still takes all my information down and quotes to me that since 9/11 DHS has told them they have to stop all photographers and ttell them to not take pictures of their facilities.''
The incident happened almost exactly a year ago. I sent a letter to their VP of Public Affairs for the Southern Region and received a letter back from their General Counsel in Omaha stating that [paraphrase] "DHS regulations post 9/11 allow us to interrogate photographers taking photos of our equipment even on public property. Surely you understand our need to run a safe railroad free from the threat of terrorism. While the incident was regrettable, our agent did not violate your rights throught his actions." They didn't cite any specific regulations except in the abstract. [snip - emphasis added - PDN.]
Thanks much for the above-follow-up. I have no idea if the DHS regs allow or mandate 'interrogation' - but they probably don't need to, at least not if limited to ID and purpose. As I pointed out in a previous post above, not providing ID is not protected by the U.S. Constitution - you pretty much have to provide it for any law enforcement officer, which also includes the railroad police. I'm not sure about interrogating as to 'purpose', but I don't see any harm in them asking and us telling that. But telling you to stop photographing went beyond what is allowed.
Here's what the Krasge flyer that is referenced and linked above has to say about that;
They Have Limited Rights to Bother, Question, or Detain You
Although anyone has the right to approach a person in a public place and ask questions, persistent and unwanted conduct done without a legitimate purpose is a crime in many states if it causes serious annoyance. You are under no obligation to explain the purpose of your photography nor do you have to disclose your identity except in states that require it upon request by a law enforcement officer.
If the conduct goes beyond mere questioning, all states have laws that make coercion and harassment criminal offenses. The specific elements vary among the states but in general it is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear that they may injure you, damage or take your property, or falsely accuse you of a crime just because you are taking photographs. [emphasis added - PDN]
Note that the UP letter as you paraphrased addressed only 'interrogation' - not the telling you to stop part. Now, no General Counsel [lawyer] worth his/her salt is ever going to admit or concede in a writing such as a letter that their client's personnel were wrong in doing something. But it's worth noting that while UP went to the trouble to tell you that they were justified in interrogating you, no mention of the 'stop photographing' part was made. Perhaps that omission was an oversight or a misundersatnding of what happened - but I don't think so.
Thanks again for the response. Hope this is helpful.
Dayliner Many years ago now (early 80's, I believe), Trains ran an article by Ron Ziel about the trials and tribulations of railway photography in eastern Europe. The author described his many run-ins with both the police and railway employees, and how he would remain out of sight until the very last minute when photographing trains. It seemed incredible to me at the time that anyone would be concerned about harmless eccentrics taking pictures of trains, and I remember feeling very grateful that we didn't have any such concerns in North America. Never would I have imagined North American railfans having the kind of conversation we are having on this thread. It's probably easier to take pictures of train in eastern Europe today than in parts of the U.S.
Many years ago now (early 80's, I believe), Trains ran an article by Ron Ziel about the trials and tribulations of railway photography in eastern Europe. The author described his many run-ins with both the police and railway employees, and how he would remain out of sight until the very last minute when photographing trains. It seemed incredible to me at the time that anyone would be concerned about harmless eccentrics taking pictures of trains, and I remember feeling very grateful that we didn't have any such concerns in North America. Never would I have imagined North American railfans having the kind of conversation we are having on this thread. It's probably easier to take pictures of train in eastern Europe today than in parts of the U.S.
Another possibility: What might seem to be a public street may be a street that is actually owned by the plant and the street might have a sign stating that the right to use that street may be revoked at any time. I noticed such a street that looked like it was a public street running through a refinery in Martinez, CA years ago when I wanted to photograph trains crossing the Benecia-Martinez Bridge.
I agree with your suggestions about avoiding confrontations and trying to find out what legal (law enforcement) authority a guard might have in trying to stop photographers from photographing their private plant from public property. Just because a private plant guard may have had some minimal law enforcement training, especially weapos handling certification, does not necessarily make them a public law enforcement officer, nor does that mean that they know what they are talking about when they tell you not to photograph the plant even from a public street. However, the best thing to do if you are told not to photograph a plant, even from a public street, is to leave.
Paul:The incident happened almost exactly a year ago. I sent a letter to their VP of Public Affairs for the Southern Region and received a letter back from their General Counsel in Omaha stating that [paraphrase] "DHS regulations post 9/11 allow us to interrogate photographers taking photos of our equipment even on public property. Surely you understand our need to run a safe railroad free from the threat of terrorism. While the incident was regrettable, our agent did not violate your rights throught his actions." They didn't cite any specific regulations except in the abstract. I would have pushed it further (because I not only know I was right, but have the cop, presumably on some time of dash cam agreeing with me) but was moving away from the area in the next several weeks and by the time their reply came did not have enough time to push the envelope further. I have no tolerance for pompous corporations or pompous cops abusing their authority and would have liked to hold them accountable.
RRKen Ulrich I'd call his bluff...come and arrest me for taking pictures form a public road. But, you cop an attitude like that, and he or she will accomodate, with pleasure. Why risk that? Co-operation goes a long way.
Ulrich I'd call his bluff...come and arrest me for taking pictures form a public road.
I'd call his bluff...come and arrest me for taking pictures form a public road.
But, you cop an attitude like that, and he or she will accomodate, with pleasure. Why risk that? Co-operation goes a long way.
Not an attitude Ken...Just like they did in the 60's..it's standing up for what's right. I agree, coopoeration is a good thing...but sometimes it's time NOT to cooperate..to stand one's ground. The sad reality is that our freedoms ARE being eroded on a daily basis...today we can't take pictures of a factory or a train..what will it be tomorrow? Maybe tomorrow you will need a "travel pass" to leave your city or state..
RudyRockvilleMD On the other hand there are federal laws against photographing military facilities.
On the other hand there are federal laws against photographing military facilities.
Wow, then I and about 100,000 other people sure broke the heck out of that law last May when we were all at Andrews Air Force Base (where they keep Air Force One, among other planes), taking pictures of everything, including the flightline and inside hangers.
If they don't want you to take pictures, they don't give you access, don't put it in view, and move the sitelines so far back that you can't see anything. That is what happens out in New Mexico, but people just go right up to the barrier line and set up to try and see something.
My sister took a classic picture in what was then East Germany, on the back side of the wall. It was a sign that, among other things, prohibited photography of that sign.
UPReading85 [edited for brevity] . . . I sent UP a letter describing the incident and that my rights under the requisite case law but they didn't care in the response they sent me just citing more DHS regulations. . . .
How long ago did this happen ? If you still have that letter I'm real interested in knowing exactly which specific DHS regulations they cited, and how. Based on my limited research to date, I'm not buyin' it - but I could be wrong, and that would expedite the research and coming to a conclusion.
Another avenue, that those members here who work for railroads and large industries could help out with - Could you ask any RR police / Special Agents or security types - that you know or work with - Do they know of any such written, printed, or published 'official' regulations, directives, or policies ? And if so, where they are printed or published etc. ? Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide.
That flyer by Bert Krasges is well-written, informative, practical, and useful. [Thanks to ericsp for providing the correct link.] Here's an excerpt that's pertinent here -
How to Handle Confrontations
Most confrontations can be defused by being courteous and respectful. If the party becomes pushy, combative, or unreasonably hostile, consider calling the police. Above all, use good judgment and don’t allow an event to escalate into violence.
In the event you are threatened with detention or asked to surrender your film, asking the following questions can help ensure that you will have the evidence to enforce your legal rights:
1. What is the person’s name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do they intend to stop you if you decide to leave? What legal basis do they assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film, what legal basis do they assert for the confiscation?
To this I'd add -
First - ''Let's just be clear here - You are aware that I'm on a public street or public property, right ?''
Then - ''Who is their exact employer ?'' The uniform - if any - may provide a good clue. If you think there's some misrepresentation, bluffing, or self-aggrandizement going on, then don't settle for ''I work here at [or for] Georgia Pacific'', but instead ask further, ''Well, what I mean is - Are you employed directly by G-P, or do you work for an independent/ outside security company/ contractor ?'' [Don't refer to it as a 'Rent-a-cop company', despite the temptation to do so.] ''If so, which one ? What is its name ?''
Pretty much the law is that if asked by someone who appears to have the proper authority, then you have to provide your ID - name, DL number, address, etc. But that's a '2-way street' - they do, too.
Another thing to look for is if they are armed with a weapon - specifically, a firearm [gun]. Most states now require some minimal training and certification before a security guard is allowed to do that. It would be a clue that you're dealing with someone who has at least some training, law enforcement background, and hopefully better judgment and professionalism, as opposed to a minimum-wage high-school drop-out mere 'night watchman' type who's either misinformed or just trying to throw his weight around. A guard who is authorized to and is carrying a weapon is a serious person, and should be respected accordingly, even if you think they're wrong.
''What is their badge number ? Who is their direct supervisor ? What is his/ her phone number and location ? Will you call or radio them and ask them to come here ?''
''Please show me a written or printed copy of the rule, regulation, or policy that directs or authorizes you to tell me to stop photographing trains here.''
EDIT - ADD - Even - or especially - if the guard goes to arrest or cite you or issue a summons, then they're going to have to fill out the blank on the form that asks for the 'chapter and verse' - or more precisely, the statute or code section that you're alleged to have violated. If it's anything other than 'Disorderly conduct' or / for 'Refusing to Obey a Lawful Order by an Officer', then it may be better for both of you to find that out sooner rather than later. That way, either you can avoid further violation if there is such a regulation, or if there isn't, then the guard can back off before putting him/herself further into jeopardy.
But be advised that if the guard or cop tries or uses the more general 'Disorderly conduct' or 'Refusal to obey' violations for their basis, then your only recourse may be to accept being cited and challenge it later on in court, and show that there is in fact no underlying regulation that makes your conduct disorderly, and/ or that the order was without a legal basis and so was unlawful, etc. - a risky business, for sure.
Finally, note that even Krages concedes that photography of, towards, and within nuclear and military facilities can be prohibited. If you're near one of those, don't be a dope.
There is, in my opinion, a big difference between being cautious and being paranoid after 9-11. I can see a police officer checking out a railfan to make sure they're not causing problems. It has happened to me before, and I understand their situation in that incident. That's being cautious. However, telling a railfan that they can't take pictures just because of 9-11 or because it's a "terrorist activity" is being paranoid, and I've been through that as well.
If a company (like the plant in the original post) does not want pictures taken of their facilities, then there should be signs posted saying so. I would think that it would take a lot of the confusion out of equation. You wouldn't have a situation arise where somebody seems to be saying "You can't take pictures here because we said so."
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
RudyRockvilleMDFor what it's worth download a flyer by Bert Krages which has guidance on photographers' rights on public property. His web site is www.krages.com/thephotographer's right.pdf In these times, even though it might be perfectly legal, it is best to avoid photographing trains where industrial plants are in the background. On the other hand there are federal laws against photographing military facilities.
For what it's worth download a flyer by Bert Krages which has guidance on photographers' rights on public property. His web site is www.krages.com/thephotographer's right.pdf
In these times, even though it might be perfectly legal, it is best to avoid photographing trains where industrial plants are in the background. On the other hand there are federal laws against photographing military facilities.
It looks like he change the address. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
He also has written a book. The cost is pretty low (of course I am used to engineering books), so it may be a good investment for railfans.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
mudchicken Andy: I hate to break it to you this way, but LC is dead nuts on (See my example above - very true)...
Andy: I hate to break it to you this way, but LC is dead nuts on (See my example above - very true)...
From anyone I have talked to, be it police, or SA's, you are on public property, you are free to perform hand stands in the dark on a rainy day.
I will say this, as a railfan who has never tresspassed anywhere that I am sick and tired of companies and railroads trying to restict what I can or cannot take pictures of from public property and this seems like another example of an over reach. For those of you who are familiar, there is a road that runs exactly parallel to UP's Settlegast Yard in Houston and you can legally take pictures from the road of the yard operations all day long without ever trespassing on UP property. One day, while on the shoulder of the road taking pictures of an intermodal train, a UP cop comes out and tells me to come out of my car, produce my camera and my ID, takes my information, and asks all about what I'm doing. I tell him and photographing trains and that I am on public property, which he AGREES with but still takes all my information down and quotes to me that since 9/11 DHS has told them they have to stop all photographers and ttell them to not take pictures of their facilities. I sent UP a letter describing the incident and that my rights under the requisite case law but they didn't care in the response they sent me just citing more DHS regulations. I think we need to stand up to these companies that try to repress our rights from public property.
The 'Table of Contents' for the Dept. of Homeland Security's regulations for 'Title 6 - Domestic Security' is at -
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_09/6cfrv1_09.html
I've browsed through Parts 5, 7, 11, 25, 27, and 29, but have not found anything that expressly prohibits taking photos of a facility.
However - at my current [primitive] level of understanding of this - it seems that each facility can come up with its own 'Site Security Plan' ['SSP'], which could well include such an item or standard as 'Prohibit and discourage photos of the facility, detain suspects and call local police dept., confiscate cameras, etc.', which would then be approved by DHS.
The real interesting dilemma here is that all of the details of those plans are confidential, and so would not be available on-line, filed in a public office, posted, or otherwise available for inspection or review in advance - of after-the-fact. Thus the plant security staff could well claim anything they wanted - and we'd have no way to rebut or refute that.
For the moment, then, the best course of action might well be carry a copy of the standards for the SSP - it's only a page or two - for quick and easy reference. If confronted, then put the camera down, but next ask them to show you where - in accordance with the SSP standards - it is stated in the SSP, in print, that photos are prohibited. That could lead to a very insightful - and inciteful - moment. If the plan bars photos, you're probably done. If the plan doesn't bar photos, then the guard is probably done. This appears to be one of those instances where the applicable principle is - ''You make your [legal] bed, then you get to lay in it.'' After that, then it'll get real interesting to see what happens next.
Unfortunately, this seems to not be a venture for the faint of heart, or for those who dislike or would prefer to avoid confrontation as manifest detraction from the peaceful pursuit of their railfanning hobby.
Some very good information being shared on this topic - thank you.
While photographing the train in town I had an opportunity to ask the brakeman if he minded if I took some photos of the trains while they were working. "No problem" was the response. He did have that odd look on his face of why I would want to! When the train arrived at the chemical facility I didn't even think to ask/notify the company about photographing the trains there. I honestly didn't think I needed to.
What is puzzling though is I can obtain the same shot by using the mapping programs on the net. Go to Googlemaps dot com. The address of the facility is 1429 Lufkin Ave Lufkin Tx. Hit the street view and you have the exact spot I was standing to obtain my photograph.
Can this shot from the internet be used in litigation purposes as stated earlier? I don't want to turn this into a legal debate (and will pose this question to another forum if it gets to off topic). Just curious if all this information available has been taken into consideration.
Thanks,
Bill
A.K. Cummings mudchicken Andy: I hate to break it to you this way, but LC is dead nuts on (See my example above - very true)... MudChicken — I'm not familiar with the details of the Colorado incident. Do you have a link to a local media story on this, or something that details what happened? The devil is in the details. [snip]
MudChicken —
I'm not familiar with the details of the Colorado incident. Do you have a link to a local media story on this, or something that details what happened? The devil is in the details. [snip]
What - the BNSF guys weren't carrying one of their company's 'Citizens for Rail Security' cards ? Or if they were, it didn't do them much good . . .
More seriously, a very quick 'n' dirty search of Google News, fGoogle News Archives, and Google Web for various combinations of BNSF, arrest, Denver, refinery, and/ or photo, from 2001 to date, didn't turn up anything. Not sayin' it didn't happen - reports of that incident might not have made it on-line - just that I'm having difficulty finding it.
- PDN.
Thank you very much for these sources. It is very sad though, to see that such measures in fact will not enhance security whatsoever (as real terrorists would always find ways to circumnavigate security measures) but deprive ordinary good citizens some of their basic rights. This only makes bad press and lowers the reputation that your country rightfully enjoys in the world, because such actions are ludicrous and not to be taken serious.
I truly hope for better times to come up again for all of us honest and law abiding people.
Companies take intellectual property issues very seriously and that includes things that can be photographed even from public property.In the documentary Food Inc, it shows the lengths that Monsanto goes to protect their intellectual property. There is a very cozy relationship between corporate America and various levels of governments; and that has become even more cozy after September 11. Contact your state legislator to clarify your right to photograph and be sure to tell them that you VOTE !
I noticed this last weekend when I went to Big Lake Minnesota to see the new Northstar Station there, I had no problem accessing the parking lot but they had already posted signs of No Trespassing to the Shops to deter Photography. I decided that I will find another place to watch trains that day.
I'm looking . . . to shed some light on this.
I've found a citation to Title 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations ['CFR'] Sec. 27.200 et seq., adopted around November 2007, which required certain 'high risk' chemical plants to perform a 'Security Vulnerability Assessment' and prepare a 'Site Security Plan'. Excerpts from a law firm's newsletter regarding those 2 portions are reproduced below for convenient reference. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that photographs of a facility could be viewed as a 'risk' or a 'vulnerability', which would need 'performance standards' and 'appropriate measures' and 'countermeasures' such as 'limiting site perimeters and site access' to 'detect and delay' a potential attack', etc. ['words in quotes are from the emphasized portions of the excerpts below]. I'll look further when I have more time - or anyone else can certainly feel free to do so.
In the meantime, check out this March 3, 2006 blog post - which it turns out, has an entertaining story about the apparent myths and misinterpretations of what official buildings can and can't be photographed in Washington, D.C. Surprisingly, towards the end are several mentions of Trains, Don Phillips, NJT, and us railfan photographers, as well as the CSX railroad police. Well worth the few minutes it'll take to read.
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200603/msg00048.html
From K&L Gates LLP - ©1996-2009 - All Rights Reserved
[emphasis added - PDN] at -
http://www.klgates.com/newsstand/Detail.aspx?publication=4125
Homeland Security Issues New Regulations Requiring Inventories, Assessments and Security Programs at Chemical FacilitiesEnvironmental, Land Use and Natural Resources, and Homeland Security Alertby Barry M. Hartman Sandra Y. Snyder . November 6, 2007
[snipped]
Step 4: Complete the SVA within 90 days of High-Risk NotificationIf a facility is deemed “high risk” by the Top-Screen process, it will be notified of this status and initially placed in one of four tiers.31 Within 90 days of notification, these facilities will have to complete an SVA.32 This assessment of the facility’s security will include the following components: (1) an asset characterization (identifying the facility’s potential critical assets/dangerous chemicals and its current security efforts to protect these assets); (2) a threat assessment; (3) a vulnerability analysis; (4) a risk assessment (including the likelihood of a successful attack); and (5) a countermeasures analysis.33 Based on this assessment, DHS could possibly change the tier in which the facility is placed. Periodically, covered facilities will have to submit updated SVAs, pursuant to a submission schedule set forth in the regulation, as well as submit revised assessments and plans after any “material modification” to the site.34Step 5: Complete a “Site Security Plan” (SSP) within 120 days of High-Risk NotificationWithin 120 days of notification, a “high risk” facility will also have to submit an SSP.35 The SSP must address each security vulnerability set out in the SVA, describe security measures in place to address such vulnerabilities, describe how the site’s security measures meet applicable performance standards, and implement appropriate measures.36 The regulations include a number of areas to be addressed in the SSP, including: limiting site perimeters and site access; procedures to “deter, detect and delay” an attack; management controls for materials storage and theft prevention; stopping cyber sabotage; and emergency response plans and monitoring systems.37
31. 6 C.F.R. § 27.205 and § 27.220.
32. 6 C.F.R. § 27.210(a)(2).
33. 6 C.F.R. § 27.215.
34. 6 C.F.R. § 27.210.
35. 6 C.F.R. § 27.210(a)(3).
36. 6 C.F.R. § 27.225.
37. 6 C.F.R. § 27.230.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.