Well that's just the point. If you're in the prison business you don't want to depend on a single class of customer. It's important to expand into different markets. And since photographers are already used to spending time in dark, smelly little rooms, they're a perfect target for market expansion.
Originally Posted by highpeak
Forget jail, they just sentence you to six months with a digital slr, photoshop and an inkjet.
So many drummers, so little time.
Part of the problem is that the emphasis in "wiretapping [suspects] without a warrant" is all too often placed on "wiretapping [suspects]," with extra emphasis on the "suspects" part that you omitted. In discussions I've seen on TV, read in the paper, etc., the "without a warrant" part often gets lost in the shuffle -- but that's the really critical part of it.
Originally Posted by L Gebhardt
I heard a story in the 1980s, which may be (and I hope is) apocryphal, about a survey in which ordinary Americans were shown the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, without their being identified as such. The people were then asked if they'd support them as amendments to said Constitution. Most people didn't identify them as already being amendments and said they would not support them as such.
Many Americans seem to want to shred the constitution.
In Japan, there's a been a battle between the energy company employees and the protesters over the un-safety issue of the nuclear power plant in Shizuoka prefecture. This facility sits right on the verge of the plate, and many people have speculated that it will be hit hard in the next big earthquake.
So, over there it's the opposite: The company employees are the ones taking the photographs of the protesters who have come near the sight with banners, and they have conspired with the local authority for some time now. So, it's a slightly different issue here.
But the funny thing is, usually Japan's EPA and almost of all the energy companies here run a little ads on tourist guide books: They do a number of PRs to appeal the public safety and say their facilities are nice for sight-seeing. And this practice hasn't really changed since the 60's, I believe.
Of course you can't get anywhere near those sights, but you can drive by or see them from a distance and go, "Wow, that's nice! This is where our electricity is being generated everyday, and we must be thankful to our energy providers and our government!" I guess I'm just tired of all this.
I'm not in any way in favour of legislation like this, but...
If they want to pass legislation that says something like:
1) if a site is a power plant; and
2) if there are signs at least 4 feet high by 6 feet wide all along the perimeter of the site (say every 100 feet) that say "PHOTOGRAPHY THAT CLEARLY SHOWS THIS SITE IS PROHIBITED" by order of your state legislature,
then it would bring into high relief the political choices that were made when the legislation was approved.
Compliance (or refusal to comply) would be clear, as would the extent of the restrictions on the choices of those citizens who use photography as their means of expression.
There are things which deserve protection from unrestricted photography (e.g. privacy interests which deserve protection, and governmental interests which involve secrets that almost everyone would agree require protection). Everything else should either permit photography without restrictions or, if it has been made subject to restrictions, than the nature of the restrictions and the rationale for them must be "demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society" (to borrow a phrase from our (Canada's) constitution).
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
We live in a mindless time with mindless leaders. That said, I recently visited the Hoover Dam and while in the power room with the generators we were allowed to take all of the Dam photographs we wanted. How about that Dam freedom? Of course the tour guide for the Dam place said they had to beg the Homeland security to get the tour in the powerhouse reinstated. We were the first.
I never liked the name "Homeland Security". It's as stupid as B..h. It's WWIIish. I don't like Fatherland or Motherland either. Then there is FEMA, or should I say Feeble. Go see feeble in homeland he's down by the dock painting the water line on a boat in the water.
Maybe they don't want all of those Kodaks taking pictures with all that foreign film it it. Wait until they prohibit telephone poles in photographs. Hey grand dad what's that? Oh in the Fatherland before Homeland security and Fema we could have telephone poles in the pictures. I've got to hide that one; Oh my, I hope they are listening again we could go straight to Gitmo.
Whenever a law or Governmental ruling is passed for a stated reason, you need to ask who the law is actually benefitting. In not being able to photograph power plants and similar polluters, for example, the environmental movement loses a tool for documenting abuses while the polluters win. Those passing much of the so-called anti-terrorism legislation have ulterior motives or hidden agendas for their actions. Banning photography doesn't make us any safer against terrorism but does keep us less informed.
van Huyck Photo
"Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"
Honestly Though...Does this surprise you coming from the People's Republic of NJ ?
I was trying to shoot a scene of a Con Edison plant in Queens, NY with the Manhattan skyline behind it and was told I'm not allowed to. Worse, I was shooting in Manhattan with a MAMIYA C330 ON A TRIPOD WITH A CABLE RELEASE and was harrassed and ASKED FOR ID by ISRAELI security guards because I was shooting 1 block away and across the street from their consular compound. Luckily we people from The Bronx know exactly what to say in such situations, followed up with "Does THIS look like a spy camera to you?"