OT: The End of Run and Gun?

Check it:

[www.nytimes.com]

That just $uck$. They are intentionally leaving the rules vague to give Police a wide swath of discretion on who they harrass. That just seems like such a violation to those that are just walking around with cameras (like I do all the time).

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

$1 million in insurance? Are they insane?


www.derekmok.com

$1 mil in insurance is a pretty standard issue thing. any business policy you get should contain that. i have that with my gear policy with the hartford $500 a year

Quote

$1 million in insurance? Are they insane?

Yes, D...they are.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

> $1 mil in insurance is a pretty standard issue thing.

But for film students? YouTube videographers? Anybody outside with a camera? I can't tell you how many exercises we've done on New York streets when I was in film school.

Next they're going to be asking kids to get liability insurance to play street hockey or basketball.


www.derekmok.com

not to get political but keep in mind, this is the same idiot mayor who proposes paying poor people for doing day to day things that they are supposed to do anyway - like graduating highschool, keeping a job, going to the dentist etc...

I guess "standard issue" means everyone has it? I never met nor heard of any film students carrying that business insurance / that kind of coverage (& NYC is loaded with film students). Most people don't carry business insurance if they work for someone else. There's gonna be a lot of camera-carrying Far Eastern Tourists (no offense) getting hassled by NYC cops & you can bet they don't have the "standard issue $1 Million liability / business insurance". Cops have much more important things to do that write tickets for unauthorized photography of the Statue of Liberty.

How utterly ridiculous this whole thing is / will be.

...my 2¢

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

i also read somewhere that the bigger national parks are starting to crack down on folks taking their own photos/video - guess it comes down to new ideas for the government to squeeze us for money to keep themselves in guaranteed $200k a year retirement...

What they'll probably end up doing is discouraging tourism. See if those pr*cks believe that the money from the insurance and licenses covers revenues from tourism in New York.

Everybody knows I'm all for intellectual property rights and copyright...but come on. Public places? All photography? Giving police the power to choose who to prosecute?


www.derekmok.com

talked with my news friends in NYC --

1. this is - for now only a proposal - unlikely they'll go after tourists or film students
2. it may be unconstitutional - a juicy free speech case
3. won't affect news crews - they all have city issued "permits" in the form of permanent press passes
4. It's boneheaded enough to probably get thrown out by Bloomberg

Andy

This will seriously hurt my business. I shoot Reporter Demo Reels. Many of my clients are now on the air even though they had no previous on air experience.

Shooting such demo news stories requires access to the public sidewalks, use of a tripod, being in a location more than 10 minutes.

On permits - I wouldn't mind if I were required an "open ended" permit with a press like badge to shoot in the city but requiring a permit per shoot when locations are often decided on short notice is simply not viable.

The need for insurance would drive up my rates such that my clients, ranging from communications majors out of college to those in page programs or PAs, would simply not be able to afford to do this.

My own speculation is that they're really doing this to kill "citizen" initiated news since those are the folks who would be shooting with tripod and being in a location more than 10 minutes.

I think that the focus is actually to kill the papparatzi trade. No standing around holding cameras .. exactly what they do when stalking celebs.

I read somewhere the idea is that if someone takes a picture of police doing something they shouldn't, it's an excuse for the police to remove those images stating the photographer / videographer didn't have a licence. Chalk one more up to the police state.

I've shot student films, low budget features etc in NYC for years and years. Student DO have to get a permit, the insurance is covered by the school policy. That has always been standard practice. can you shoot without it? yes. can you be booted from your outdoor location without it? yes. The $1 million insurance has been around forever. adding ANYONE shooting anything on the street for more than 30 minutes is new.

this sounds like a back door way to shut down photographers and videographers when the cops want to. whether it be a political protest, an arrest or whatever they want. As of now, a public street is a public street. if a cop tells you to 'turn off the camera' you actually don't have to.


in the end, they will never stop tourists, i think it's for stuff like above. I understand that it hasn't actually gone through yet, but this is insane and a very dangerous step to take. i agree with above poster. unconstitutional. hmmm, but will the supreme court as it is now object?

fp

Sure and JFK was shot by a second gunman.

It gives law enforcement officials plausible deniability to stop and ask people taking pictures, potentially survailling secure or what they consider high risk targets.

If your a legitimate tourists, student producing a student project, news crew they are not interested in you.

The supreme court in this country has always sided with the concept of free speech and it will continue to do so.

Graeme, don't you live in England? Last time I was in London I couldn't help notice the density of surveillance cameras. I'm just curious to which police state you were referring too?

> It gives law enforcement officials plausible deniability

Think you're getting your terms mixed up there, Chuck. "Plausible deniability" refers to government agencies, covert operatives, the military, high-ranking intelligence officers etc. deliberately keeping political officials (such as the president) ignorant of certain illegal/borderline illegal practices they carry out so that if the act is discovered, the political officials can say that they had no hand in giving such an order. "Deniability" refers to the fact that the officials didn't give that particular order for the law to be given; "plausible" refers to the steps necessary to insulate said officials, and to the limits of said deniability -- for example, Alberto Gonzales' claim that he had no knowledge of the DOJ purge is not plausible, given the paper trail and the claimed lapses of memory.

There's no application of that concept here. What you're trying to say is that the new law would give legal cover to law enforcement to practise selective censorship. There's no "deniability" to this issue; they are, in fact, making it known by proposing a law. There's nothing covert, therefore nothing to "deny".

> The supreme court in this country has always sided with the concept of free speech and it will
> continue to do so.

Wanna bet?

[www.nytimes.com]

> Graeme, don't you live in England? Last time I was in London I couldn't help notice the
> density of surveillance cameras. I'm just curious to which police state you were referring too?

First of all, Graeme lives in Canada. Second of all, I would argue that you're confusing two issues -- the right to shoot on public property would be an issue of free speech, while the right not to be surveyed, recorded, spied on etc. are issues of privacy. The two concepts are practically diametric opposites. For example, do celebrities have the right to demand not to be photographed by paparazzi? Free speech would argue yes -- celebrities are public figures and fair game because they make themselves visible. Privacy would argue no -- celebrities are citizens like you and me and they should be able to determine what happens to their likeness.


www.derekmok.com

Oh boy...I can see where this thread is going....

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

"Oh boy...I can see where this thread is going...."....

Me too, so I'm going to steer it somewhere different....

I have just re-read the article, and I think the other major issue here is anyone filming potentially 'sensitive' buildings/areas etc. Here in Melbourne, Australia, post 9/11, we've had a number of instances of people being interviewed/questioned about filming our potential terrorist targets. You are now no longer allowed to film at our major rail station without a permit - even from the public footpath in front of it.

Given NYCs sad history with such events, I'm actually surprised there hasn't been bylaws relating to this until now? I would have thought someone filming the front of the Empire State Building for 20 minutes while they were in the queue, and also filming security procedures as a by-product would certainly have arroused suspicion?

If this is simply a revenue rasier (and I'm not sure if it isn't), then obviously that is annoying/a hassle/violating free speech etc etc. If its for issues of personal and national security, then it is certainly a difficult area.

Sorry if I've missed something along here - just my impressions of the article.

I think your point may be right, Justin. But I think it's along the same lines as Graeme's.

If security is the number-one priority, then a democratic society ain't it. Of course a society where people are innocent until proven guilty, where privacy is constitutionally protected, where individual rights are considered equal to (some might say more important than) societal rights, where you can move around however you want, where free speech and thought form the nucleus of the national ideology -- such a society cannot defend itself against terrorism and covert acts of destruction like 9/11. A government with a tight noose, such as China, would have a much easier time stopping terrorism -- just throw every suspect in jail and assume they're guilty until proven otherwise.

The question is, is that what the U.S. wants? A "police state" as Graeme was suggesting? A safe society imprisoned by its fear and the devices it implanted upon itself to quench the fear?

To quote The West Wing:

"The worst threats to democracy are perpetrated in the name of preservation...the unlimited power of the government against its own people"

Today, Gonzales and his cronies, wiretaps, Enron, and executive privilege; tomorrow, censorship, thought policing, presumption of guilt instead of innocence (already happening), arrests without proof (already happening), torture (already happening), mass political purges, gulags, dictatorship.


www.derekmok.com

Yes, I live in Canada, and out in the countryside in a sleepy part of Ontario, near our Capital city, Ottawa. It's private and secluded here, the only threat to that being me running around with telephoto lenses for photographing wildlife: [www.mbpgalleries.com]

Yes, the UK is becoming what Orwell predicted in 1984. There are cameras everywhere and they want to put trackers in every car, and have stated they are introducing ID cards. ID cards, to my mind, are a product of fascist states and Hitler's Germany, not a modern country that holds the roots of western democracy.

One of the key things behind the concepts of 1984 was that there were no personal history records, other than the hidden diary Winston kept. Official history was flexible and changed daily occording to current policy. What was the price of razors last week? How much is a pint of beer?

Quote
It's private and secluded here, the only threat to that being me running around with telephoto lenses for photographing wildlife: [www.mbpgalleries.com
]

Squirrels

The national symbol of Canada

They're all over Ottawa. Cute little critters. Megan loves them.

Graeme

I'm currently in Cambria on the central coast of CA. The squirrels here are so numerous and so friendly that they jump up on your lap looking for food. Love watching old ladies go nuts.