Mike A
Allowing Ads
JBrunner said:Photography is not a crime. Criminal activity involving photography is.
Makes about as much sense as banning cars to prevent drunk driving.
f you think THAT'S bad, we've got people like Lord Wakeham in England trying to get all water sources (including old wells in people's back yards and 'public' lakes) privatised, so that any drink of water costs money - !!
Frank-G said:You're kidding, right?
I see flying saucers.The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
gr82bart said:What was all the bruhaha about?
Like I said - doom and gloom.Sparky said:Be prepared to defend your rights or LOSE them. Do you think once a 'no photography' law is passed, that it will be repealed?
When I see an anthill, I step over it. I don't put on mountain climbing gear.Sparky said:ignore it and it'll go away, huh?
dmr said:I'm in Chicago most of this week on business, and I saw this (?) item on the local news this morning (August 28, not 16) that said that UP and Metra had rescinded an earlier item (which prohibited photography), and now DOES allow photography from the Metra platforms.
They said that they still reserve the right to question anybody acting suspicious, with a camera or not.
Mike A said:Cool deal, thanks for updating, I'm glad to see common sense prevailed. This could not have possibly been a corprate decision.
Mike
Frank-G said:I see flying saucers.
Dave Parker said:I can't see how it is Fascist,
Dave Parker said:I can't see how it is Fascist, they own the property hence they have the rights to govern what is done on that property...
Not saying I agree or disagree, but if you don't own it, which in this case we don't, then you can't dictate what goes on...far from being fascist when a company decides what can and can not be done on their private property!
Dave
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?