6/12/2004: Photographers protest proposed subway photo ban
 

http://cellar.org/2004/subwayphotographers.jpg

Elsewhere on the Cellar we are discussing the status of freedom of speech, and this image plays directly to it. It turns out that NYC's Metropolitan Transportation Authority has proposed a ban on taking photographs in and around the subway. The worry: terrorists could use such photos to study the system and build attacks on it. The reaction by photographers: this is absurd! And so 100 of them met at Grand Central Station and proceeded into the subways en masse, taking pictures of everything they could in an act of civil disobedience.

full story (NY Times registration req'd)

right. stupid homeland security patriot act bullshit. the towers are still falling.

Christ, even in Vietnam you're allowed to take photos of the public transport.

<EM>> has proposed a ban on taking photographs</EM>

<EM>> taking pictures of everything they could in an act of civil disobedience.</EM>


Nitpick: until the ban passes, it's not civil disobedience.
Anyway, I totally agree with Jean Miele (as quoted by Lumberjim). This ban is stupid.

Blogger Jason Holliston notices that a photo ban has been in place on the London Underground for a while, and wonders where the protestors are.

London sucks.

The Brits must bust a lot of tourists.

:(

They seem to be ok about big ben and parliment but the wholle area is covered in new razorwire fences and is more densely populated by security cameras than anywhere else I've seen, real tourist friendly.

Erosion only steals away scarce few particles of dust per day. But left unhindered, it can be the most destructive force on the Earth. Likewise for freedom.

We need some to build some retaining walls, and soon.

It's too late. No one really wants freedom any more. They cheer the erosion.

'Fraid you're right.

Bleaker than hell, ain't it? Is "bleaker" a word?

I assume that by "no one" you are referring to the ambiguous, largely stupid "general public." The same general public who values safety over freedom. Unfortunately, the stupidity of many often outweighs the intelligence of the few.

You have a good point, and I know what you mean, but until you have experienced a real threat, you don't know what you are talking about.

I live in the suburbs of DC. A year and a half ago, we had a month of beautiful fall weather. The famous DC humidity was finally gone, and the temperatures were really nice. Cool, but not cold. It was the perfect time to be taking the kids to the local playground every day. The Fall is the one nice time of year around here. Well, we spent the fall weekends inside. We gave up our freedom, because there was a maniac going around shooting random people. It sucked. The kids wanted to go out to play, and we made them stay inside. It drove us all up the wall. The cops finally found the fucking sniper, and now we can go outside again.

The DC sniper proved to me that even I will give up some of my freedoms for safety. I still walked to the Metro every day, but I wouldn't let my kids go out to the playground because it was too easy a target.

It's not just me. Ask any woman if they walk alone at night. They give up their freedom for safety.

There are lots of bad neighborhoods in this world. People stay home because it isn't safe to go out. They are giving up their freedom for their safety.

I know you meant something else, but the reality is that people will choose safety over freedom almost every time. You would too, if you ever felt unsafe.

But in your example, you hadn't "given up" your freedom, you made a choice. You didn't lose your ability to go outside, you just chose not to exercise it for the well-being of yourself and your kids. I would have made the same choice. But no agent of the government was watching your front door, threatening punishment if you exited. And once the threat was removed, you were free to spend time outdoors again.

Whereas in the example of the ban on photography in subways, if a police officer sees you taking a photo, you WILL get in trouble. The government is not suggesting, asking, or urging people not to do this... they are forbidding it. And for very wishy-washy reasons.

The difference is not subtle, it is vast. Huge.