NJlawmaker: criminalize taking pix of power plants

[tim atherton]

From the LF list:

"The New Jersey state Senate Law and Public Safety Committee is expected to discuss a bill today which would make it a crime -- punishable by up to 18 months in jail -- to photograph, videotape or otherwise record for an extended period of time a power generation, waste treatment, public sewage, water treatment, public water, nuclear or flammable liquid storage facility, as well as any airport in the state."


Full article at: Dead Link Removed

(you have to log in to Zip 90201 as a 100 year old female to read it...)

 

[david b]

If I was still living back in the tri-state area, I would have called him a schmuck.

 

[roteague]

More and more, I'm convinced we live in the United States of Paranoia. I'm sick and tired of big brother.

 

[firecracker]

What about sketching?

 

[Lachlan Young]

There is one weapon that is highly effective against these numpties otherwise known as lawmakers. That weapon is threat of defeat in the next election. I think it would be a good idea to name and shame every single lawmaker who tries to suppoert a bill like this and suggest that people might like to vote them out of office for their mindless behaviour.

Lachlan

 

[Flotsam]

Opponents of the bill said it "makes no sense" and is "awful."

The opponents are right.

 

[MenacingTourist]

That's it. I'm moving back to Utah.

 

[DBP]

I know such laws are fairly common in military dictatorships. For example, Iraq under Saddam had tight restrictions on where photos could be taken, as did the Soviet Union. Up until now, I did not think New Jersey was in the same category.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

 

[highpeak]

The prisons in NJ are filled with crooks already. Where are they going to keep the "convicted" photogarphers? Transfer them to exile island?

 

[blaze-on]

The prisons in NJ are filled with crooks already. Where are they going to keep the "convicted" photogarphers? Transfer them to exile island?

Most likely the incarceration would be exile to the most splendid place on earth, with all your cameras...and NO FILM!

 

[kjsphoto]

What Rob said... Totally agree...

 

[Lachlan Young]

There is a simple answer to all this madness - VOTE OUT THE IDIOTS WHO PROPOSED THIS LEGISLATION!!!!!!!!!!!!


Lachlan

 

[L Gebhardt]

The problem is a good portion of the voters actually think this is a good idea. They also love the idea of the NSA wiretapping without a warrant. That's why these assinine bills come up. Many Americans seem to want to shred the constitution.

 

[Andy K]

Well that's Google Earth up the spout then!

 

[Lachlan Young]

The problem is a good portion of the voters actually think this is a good idea. They also love the idea of the NSA wiretapping without a warrant. That's why these assinine bills come up. Many Americans seem to want to shred the constitution.

Do you really think so? In the UK when our govt. decided in its infinite wisdom to try and introduce ID card 'a majority of the population were in favour' according to Tony Blair. However, as several journalists found out when they dug a little deeper, a great many people when they had had the full consequences of the legislation spelled out to them changed their minds.

Do not be afraid to stand up for what is right, and remember that there are a great many gullible people who believe every word spewed by the polititcians. Remember also that the greatest danger to politicians are the honest people who risk their neck to tell the truth about what is really going on.

Stand firm, my friends and don't let your moronic politicians destroy you!

Lachlan

 

[DannL]

Communists and Fascists . . . they're still among us, after all these years. Amazing. Truely amazing. Whittling away at your freedoms, one nick at a time.

 

[SteveH]

Well....
Here in Delaware (just over the river from NJ), they have signs on the power plant fence that state that it is prohibited to photo/video the area. Granted, there is a public road that goes right past the fence. So, I set up the 4x5 and begin to compose when I am interrupted. A gentlemen asks "what are you doing ?". I reply. He states that it is illegal to do so, and demands my ID. Normally, I would just apologize, and start up a conversation with the individual as to why he believes that it is illegal to photograph a subject from common grounds. But this is turning into a different beast.
So, in reply to his demand, I first ask for his ID. He tells me (without showing his ID) that he is an employee of the power plant (however, he appeared to be in a private vehicle). I again ask to view his ID, and he produces a business card. I then ask to view his license to verify that the card is indeed his. At this point in the venture, he tells me "not to go anywhere", as he is calling the police. I then advise him that I am on public domain, and now I wish for the police to be called, as I am being detained without due cause.
He then again asks me for my ID. This time, I remove my wallet, and produce my badge. I then tell him that I am employed by the District Attorney's office, and while I am not on official business, I am demanding that he give me a valid reason for his wanting to view my ID and detain me. He then changes his tune. After bumbling for a second, he begins to tell me that they have had some strange things going on, etc, lately (holes in the fence, etc)., and that it was suggested to them to 'increase security'. I was going to pressure him abit to find out who exactly 'authorized' him to police public domain, but it was pretty clear at this point that he was shook up enough that I made my point.
I did give him my card, and the card of the county police department. I advised him to get into contact with them, as I told him that "for his safety, he should refrain from continuing his 'security activities outside of his property".

Bleh.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Well....
Here in Delaware (just over the river from NJ), they have signs on the power plant fence that state that it is prohibited to photo/video the area. Granted, there is a public road that goes right past the fence. So, I set up the 4x5 and begin to compose when I am interrupted. A gentlemen asks "what are you doing ?". I reply. He states that it is illegal to do so, and demands my ID. Normally, I would just apologize, and start up a conversation with the individual as to why he believes that it is illegal to photograph a subject from common grounds. But this is turning into a different beast.
So, in reply to his demand, I first ask for his ID. He tells me (without showing his ID) that he is an employee of the power plant (however, he appeared to be in a private vehicle). I again ask to view his ID, and he produces a business card. I then ask to view his license to verify that the card is indeed his. At this point in the venture, he tells me "not to go anywhere", as he is calling the police. I then advise him that I am on public domain, and now I wish for the police to be called, as I am being detained without due cause.
He then again asks me for my ID. This time, I remove my wallet, and produce my badge. I then tell him that I am employed by the District Attorney's office, and while I am not on official business, I am demanding that he give me a valid reason for his wanting to view my ID and detain me. He then changes his tune. After bumbling for a second, he begins to tell me that they have had some strange things going on, etc, lately (holes in the fence, etc)., and that it was suggested to them to 'increase security'. I was going to pressure him abit to find out who exactly 'authorized' him to police public domain, but it was pretty clear at this point that he was shook up enough that I made my point.
I did give him my card, and the card of the county police department. I advised him to get into contact with them, as I told him that "for his safety, he should refrain from continuing his 'security activities outside of his property".

Bleh.

Well done - I would have loved to have seen his face when you pulled out your badge!

Lachlan

 

[L Gebhardt]

Do you really think so?

I do, but I haven't cunducted a scientific poll. Many Republicans in Congress think the NSA wiretapping brings them votes when sold as a "Terrorist Survailence Bill". They think it is great that the Democrats bring it up as they feel it helps their reelection cause. At least this is what several publically said on the radio the other day.

I think if the media sold to America as a errosion of rights then the public might come around, but currently that isn't happening.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I think if the media sold to America as a errosion of rights then the public might come around, but currently that isn't happening.

If ordinary people start making enough noise then those in power have to start taking notice - just look at APUG. The internet seems as good a place as any to start.

Good luck,

Lachlan

 

[tchamber]

The prisons in NJ are filled with crooks already.

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.

 

[leeturner]

Forget jail, they just sentence you to six months with a digital slr, photoshop and an inkjet.

 

[srs5694]

The problem is a good portion of the voters actually think this is a good idea. They also love the idea of the NSA wiretapping without a warrant. That's why these assinine bills come up.

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.

Many Americans seem to want to shred the constitution.

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.

 

[firecracker]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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).