
I don't think the Port Authority would like it if you looked at this photo - jrockway
https://plus.google.com/+JonathanRockway/posts/DJV3U7e8enh
======
carapace
You should have offered to take _his_ picture. ;-)

\---

A guy I met who's an American-born Muslim (from Palo Alto) was returning to
the US after a trip abroad (post 9/11) when he was pulled for a "random" extra
discussion with some official.

They sent him into another area and when he got inside, he told me, he looked
to the right and there was one of those huge pictures of the then-President
George W. Bush flanked by flags and everything and he just started cracking
up. He turned to the official behind the desk and said, still laughing, "Can I
ask you a question? Did you guys put that up there or did they make you put it
up?"

The official replied, "Go on through sir, I can tell you're really American."

------
eykanal
Can someone clarify what the hell happened here? Why would anyone think that
it is appropriate to object to a random person taking a photo of a random
public building in one of the largest cities in the world, particularly given
that there are tens of thousands of photos of this building already available
freely online from virtually every angle?

~~~
rbcgerard
after 9/11 basically every employee of a federal building/critical piece of
infrastructure + the associated security/police were on the look out for
people "casing" their facilities, i.e. planning an attack, taking pictures
etc.

This eventually morphed into hassling, arresting anyone taking photos of these
sites...link below has some good info

[https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/09/24/homeland-
securi...](https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/09/24/homeland-security-
focuses-on-suspicious-activity-outside-refineries/)

~~~
peterbonney
I love that in the era of the 15 megapixel smartphone camera, someone thinks a
person with a 4x5 and a freaking _tripod_ is taking a picture for nefarious
purposes.

~~~
jrockway
I bet nobody would have even noticed if I were using a 5DR hand-held.

~~~
gm-conspiracy
Excellent picture, but at 4x5 could you upload something higher res. for us to
look at, please?

~~~
jrockway
I can when I get home, but I use a flatbed scanner to digitize and it just
doesn't get much more detail than that. You need a drum scanner, which are
expensive ;)

~~~
gm-conspiracy
Indeed. The same way the Kai's PowerGoo sample faces were scanned.

------
codingdave
This is one of those situations where one's gut reaction to always respond to
others is misplaced. This is NYC. I've only spent a few months there, but I
saw my share of crazy people yelling at others. That is all this is. Someone
who has no authority over you is yelling that some 3rd party wouldn't like
what you are doing, even though what you are doing is legal, and you are not
on their private property... so treat it like you would any other time you get
yelled at by a stranger in NYC. Just ignore them and carry on.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
A security guard with an pre-existing relationship with the cops who might
pepper his statement with some drama that might or might not have happened to
make sure you get either arrested or detained certainly has an authority over
some random guy with a camera. Also, many police run on informal quotas and if
there's a "letter of the law" arrest here then the cops will probably take it.
The police not here to advocate for you and most are fairly ignorant of many
important legal issues, especially in regards to civil rights.

Why does everyone think calling the cops will magically solve everything and
every cop is a honest truth teller immune from politics, bullshit, and bias?
As someone who is classified as 'white' but has much darker skin than your
average white person (I pass as arab easily), I can tell you, shit gets real
when the cops are bothered and the guy closer to the bottom of the potem pole
usually gets fucked, regardless of merit. The cops will just let the courts
figure it out, so now you're in a cell, spending money on lawyers, etc because
some high school drop-out making minimum wage as a security guard thinks
you're a terrorist.

Its just easier to just accept the bullying and go away. That's what the guy
in the blog post pretty much did. He took a half-assed picture instead of the
one he wanted and felt terrible after. How exactly did any of this make us
safer? Who can he complain to? And if he did, who would even care?

This shouldn't be the status quo in America.

~~~
enraged_camel
Not sure why you were downvoted. I suppose some people just can't handle the
truth, because you're absolutely correct. The police have the power to make
your life hell, especially if someone reports you for "suspicious activity"
and there is an even remotely plausible reason (e.g. "he is taking photos
because he's planning a terrorist attack!").

~~~
drzaiusapelord
HN heavily leans white suburban kid culture. I think when you make claims like
I do that goes against their experiences and they simply don't understand.
They don't understand situations when the police aren't automatically on your
side. That's how life has always been for them.

I remember one of the first times I was pulled over. I was driving my dad's
car, which was a nicer but not terribly expensive, luxury model. The cop
literally had his gun out in a battle pose as his partner approached my
window. I thought that was normal until someone told me otherwise. Apparently,
the cop thought the car was stolen and was expecting a gunfight due to how I
looked (young dark guy in a bmw driving the way most teenagers drive).

I'm decently well off now and don't often deal with this stuff much or just
don't notice it anymore, but growing up I was certainly treated a certain way
my white friends were not. I don't blame them if they don't understand this
automatically. They never had those experiences and its understandable. But it
is annoying to be auto-downvoted like I'm making all of this up or have some
big agenda. I rarely talk about this stuff to be honest, mostly because of
reactions like this.

~~~
pavel_lishin
You're right, most people don't understand just how lucky they are to be born
that way. But those are exactly the people who _should_ be standing up to this
sort of bullshit, because they can do so with less risk.

~~~
stcredzero
Throughout history, some risks when doing activism as a privileged member of
society:

    
    
        - Oppressing one group while championing another
        - Oppressing the group you are championing
        - Acting in anger and alienating potential allies
        - Acting in anger and discrediting potential allies

~~~
pavel_lishin
I mostly meant personal risk; I'm less likely to be severely harmed,
physically or financially.

~~~
ebfe
That's patently not true. You're far more likely to be harmed than, say, women
or Asians, though the latter are oppressed.

------
dmreedy
> It was decided, I was going to take this photo. However, I was not going to
> take my time taking the photo.

> The Port Authority's policy is not law. This is a public place, and I can
> photograph whatever I want.

The rebelliousness seems a little hollow in the light of admission of being
cowed. Of course, I'dve had similar thinking.

Is this a known thing, that the Port Authority doesn't want this building
photographed? I am unfamiliar with the situation.

~~~
jrockway
I don't think it's a well-known thing, but their other properties, like the
George Washington Bridge show "no photographs" signs. I make sure to take a
cell-phone photo every time I ride my bike up there.

They prohibit photographs on their transit system:
[http://www.panynj.gov/path/pdf/PATH-Rules-
Regulations-12-20-...](http://www.panynj.gov/path/pdf/PATH-Rules-
Regulations-12-20-15.pdf)

The consensus I get from doing some research is that they are overreaching.
Anyone can make any policy they want. Anyone can approach anyone else in
public and ask them to do whatever they want. Whether or not there is any
force of law behind those policies or questions is up to the courts to decide.

A few years ago, someone was going to sue the MTA for their photography
policy. Apparently there is a law on the books regarding suing public-benefit
corporations (of which the MTA and Port Authority are); if they agree to
settle with you, and you choose not to accept the settlement, you are
personally liable for their legal fees if the court awards you a settlement
that's less than their legal fees. So of course, these policies can't be
changed, as an individual can't out-resource the government.

I don't know if it's true or not. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a professional
photographer. I'm just a guy who tries to visit the park with a few pieces of
film every now and again.

~~~
koolba
> I don't think it's a well-known thing, but their other properties, like the
> George Washington Bridge show "no photographs" signs. I make sure to take a
> cell-phone photo every time I ride my bike up there.

Nice!

Whenever I've seen one of those signs I feel like there should a sibling sign
next to that reads, " _No reading this sign!_ ".

~~~
jrockway
This is a good analysis of the situation:
[http://imgur.com/gallery/mSHi8](http://imgur.com/gallery/mSHi8)

------
blaze33
This is an issue of freedom of panorama [1], there's the following citation
for the US:

The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not
include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of
pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the
work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or
ordinarily visible from a public place. — 17 U.S. Code § 120(a)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama)

~~~
smilekzs
I wish every time someone tries to assert too much authority on me (or any
ordinary citizen) there is a way for me to quickly find these citations to my
legal rights that I can point to them and tell them to F off......

~~~
pfooti
Keep a few printouts of the PDF from here handy. Not saying that you'll be
listened to, but at least you'll have resources to assert your rights.

[http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm](http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)

------
dmourati
Details from photojojo about photographer rights:

[http://content.photojojo.com/photo-technique/tips/legal-
righ...](http://content.photojojo.com/photo-technique/tips/legal-rights-of-
photographers/)

Reading between the lines a bit I suspect this passerby was relaying
instructions he got in some kind of "security" training ostensibly about
terrorism. If he discourages you from taking the photo, and a real security
incident can be avoided, so much the better. If he overplays his hand and, for
example, tries to restrain you at the scene, this causes a bigger story and a
blemish to his employer at the very least.

I think you handled it correctly. Bend, but don't break. Know your rights.
Understand what is at stake and then decide if you want to risk standing your
ground.

------
slr555
In the US virtually all public places and people are fair game for
photographs. One has no legal expectation of privacy in public place in the
US.

That said, I am more qualified to be on commenting on petapixel than Hacker
News. On photo web sites there are endless stories of overreach by individuals
and institutions that attempt to limit a photographers right to take
photographs in public. The situation in the USA is different than many other
countries where photographing anyone associated with the military, any
military installation and a great amount of "infrastructure" sites are off
limits to photographers.

So while the Port Authority probably has no legal standing to limit
photography it is interesting to ask if they have any logical standing for
doing so. In numerous texts on the topic of physical security this issue is
addressed. Security experts typically say that persons taking video or photos
of secured locations with particular regard to photos of perimeter security,
lighting security and cameras might be viewed as suspicious actors.

That common sense advice is taken to an absurd extreme here as it is highly
unlikely that a threat actor would utilize a 4x5 camera, which is cumbersome,
obvious and reliant on labor intensive film processing, on a tripod to take
surveillance photos.

I experienced a similarly absurd episode when taking a photo of the weathered
hopper control levers of a NYC garbage truck. A sanitation worker informed me
that it was not allowed to take photographs of NYC vehicles. While I was
tempted to inquire what the strategic import of the garbage control levers
was, I held my tongue, finished my pictures and left.

As an example of how crazy people get at photographers check out:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97hfxth3aas](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97hfxth3aas)

------
tombrossman
For a truly ridiculous example of this, see this "Chaser's War On Everything"
clip is which the same guy films a few different sites dressed as an American
tourist, and later as a Saudi (in a thobe and gutra - had to look up the
terms).

The security response is hilarious in how differently they react when the
clothing changes.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxq4Y7QUdPA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxq4Y7QUdPA)

(Bonus, watch the same clowns hire a limo + guys in suits jogging alongside
and use that to get into a 'secure' conference site in the related video in
the sidebar. Comedy gold.)

------
pavel_lishin
Good on you. I wouldn't have taken the tripod down at all; if he thinks you're
doing something illegal, he can call the police, and they can sort it out if
and when they arrive. You're not obligated to hang around after taking a legal
photo and wait for them.

~~~
brianwawok
Except that if the police decide to take you down to the station, inspect your
memory card, and shake you down a bit.. then even if they let you go.. you
lost an entire day for what gain? Do you think protesting against the security
guard and him seeing you dragged off by cops is going to change the policy or
his attitude in the future?

The only way to "change" anything would be to follow up with a lawsuit if they
harass you and get the port authority docked some money. Anything short of
that and "you lose". Not sure it is worth everyone's time to follow through
with a lawsuit.

~~~
antonvs
> _you lost an entire day for what gain?_

With this attitude, you are literally part of the cause of the problem.

If you're not willing to stand up for your rights, you have no basis for
complaint when they are removed.

~~~
ascendantlogic
Ok well how about you go out there and pick a fight with that security guard
instead of typing about it on the Internet. It's real easy to say stuff like
this when you weren't the one in the situation and it's not your life that's
on the line.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _not your life that 's on the line._

That's a bit hyperbolic. I'd wager that if most HN readers were in the same
situation, they would not be in serious danger.

~~~
ascendantlogic
Perhaps then you haven't been paying attention to the news. I'm not some
alarmist that thinks every cop is looking to kill people but given the number
of high profile fatal interactions lately I think everyone is more on edge and
I wouldn't blame anyone for attempting to de-escalate a situation instead of
taking some militaristic "high road" to prove a point.

To be sure, I realize the initial interaction was with what presumably is a
security guard and not an actual LEO. However if the OP had taken a
belligerent attitude it's not unreasonable to assume that law enforcement
would have become involved quickly.

------
Finnucane
When I lived in NYC, this sort of thing would happen every now and then. And
never a real cop--always some pseudo-authority figure who thinks he's a cop
and knows the law better than you. Got into quite an argument with a ConEd guy
once. _Usually_ the easiest way to deal with it is the way this guy did--wait
for the a-hole to go away, then come back for your photo. It happens less now
that I don't live in New York any more, even when I am out with a big,
conspicuous camera like an RB67 or one of my 4x5's. (Actually, then people are
more curious than aggressive!)

~~~
jrockway
Every time I go out with my 4x5, I meet people that are interested in it. I
took 6 photos yesterday and met three other photographers who were interested
and were of course very pleasant and enjoyable to chat with.

I also have a GW690ii that people ask me about all the time. I was even
"stopped" by the police once (while in a somewhat precarious position to get
the angle I wanted)... to tell me how cool the camera was.

Film photography is really great for meeting people in public. The world is
not all bad; it's 99.9% good. But the negatives tend to have a larger effect
on your world view than the positives, so you should be careful to not bias
yourself away from being different.

~~~
Finnucane
I have one of those Fujis too--they're great. One time I was walking through
downtown Boston with it, passed a family of tourists, and I hear the kid say
"Dad! Did you see that guy's camera!" Yeah, most of the time, people are cool
with it. Just, you know, people are people and some have to be difficult. And
it's a common problem for photographers--some really have had dangerous run-
ins with cops, physical threats, and so on.

------
AnimalMuppet
My thing is watching trains. (Hey, everybody needs a hobby.)

So I was in Salt Lake, at a place where I can watch both the UTA Frontrunner
(commuter rail, but heavy rail, not transit) and the freight tracks, because
they're side-by-side. There are some signals on the freight tracks that tell
me when something's coming, and there's a station there on the passenger rail.
I park on the opposite side from the passenger platforms, in the parking area
for an abandoned business.

One day these two UTA security guys came over to talk to me. They see me just
sitting there watching their platform, and they're responsible for its
security, so that's fine.

But when I explained that I was just there watching trains, they tried to
pressure me into leaving. I told them that I was on private property, and it
wasn't _their_ private property, so I didn't care what they preferred that I
do. They backed off.

I've been approached by police several times, asking what I was doing. Once I
said that I was just watching trains, I was sometimes cautioned to be careful
because I was in a drug trafficking area.

Once I was hassled by railroad security, but in that instance I had parked on
their property, so they were not out of line. They just asked me to move my
car.

Disclaimer: I am middle aged, white, and fairly conservative in appearance.
I'm going to get the benefit of the doubt as much as anyone ever does.

------
JoeDaDude
FWIW, the ACLU has some information about the legality of taking photographs
in public spaces of objects that are in plain view [1]. See also, this
guidance [2] issued by a law firm about taking photographs. Note that I am not
a lawyer, or even a photographer, so I submit these as available information
to consider, but I cannot offer any experience or guidance in using the
information.

[1] [https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/photographers-what-
do-...](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/photographers-what-do-if-you-
are-stopped-or-detained-taking-photographs) [2]
[http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm](http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)

------
mc32
As long as you're on public property you can take almost any photo --some
exceptions exist for military installations, research facilities, etc. Private
property owners can and do have the right to deny you the ability to take
pictures from their land --so, as long as you are on public land (i.e. no
restrictions to the public) you should be ok, in the US. Other countries can
have different laws.

~~~
sfrailsdev
Well, there are some provisions in California and other states meant to
prevent photos only possible telephoto lens being taken of private property,
because of photos of celebrities. Not sure what the legal consensus is on
these, but I suspect there will be more consideration of such laws as drones
become more normal and provide viewing angles that let you see over privacy
fences.

But a building without a private residence is fair game.

~~~
ShakataGaNai
The tldr on most laws about telephoto/private property/etc is "reasonable
expectation of privacy".

For example: If you stand on the sidewalk and take a picture of someone
sunbathing nude on their front lawn, 10 feet away. Assuming there is no fence,
you're perfectly in the right.

Flip side someone sunbathing nude in their backyard with 10 foot fences, if
you took a picture of them say using a drone... then they can go after you
because they had a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Same thing with famous people in their backyard and the paparazzi who get out
the 800mm lenses and take pictures from the next mountain over. The famous
person could reasonably expect some privacy in their backyard.

~~~
gohrt
"reasonable expectation" constantly changes in response to technology. The
police and courts are fond of reminding citizens that they have no reasonable
expectation of privacy when they store documents in cloud storage, for
example.

------
ergl
This happened to me a few years ago. I was minding my own business taking
pictures, when a police car stopped over and an officer asked me what I was
doing.

Apparently, I was near an official building, and they told me not to
photograph in that street. I was told to "visit the website" if I wanted to
look at pictures of that building. They then asked me to show them the
pictures in order to check that I hadn't taken any photographs of that
building, to which I replied that they were welcome to try, as I was using a
film camera. They replied "okay, we believe you", and went away. Truly
bizarre.

------
ShakataGaNai
At one point in time I was taking pictures of random things around BART (SF
Bay Area's medium rail system) stations... because... bored photographer. I
had a employee first attempt to confiscate my camera and later threaten to
call the BART cops (who are notorious for shooting first... and covering ass
later).

Ironically they do have a photo policy
[http://www.bart.gov/about/business/permits/photopermits](http://www.bart.gov/about/business/permits/photopermits)
which isn't that different than it used to be. Basically as long as its non-
commercial and you aren't sneaking in somewhere, it's fine. However that gate
employee insisted what I was doing was illegal, private property (ha! PUBLIC
transit), yada yada yada.

Of course, this was only because I had a DSLR. I've taken way more
informational photos with my phone and no one ever noticed.

------
Dowwie
Isn't that building where the Holland Tunnel's ventilation system is? I don't
think they've adequately guarded this vulnerability too well if photographers
are a concern.

~~~
brianvan5155
It is the ventilation building for the Holland Tunnel on the New York side;
it's located directly above the tunnel, near the Manhattan portal.

It's not accessible directly via the street. It sits out on a long pier in the
river, with a gate at the pier head. The public isn't allowed on the pier, but
the gate sits along the Hudson River Greenway, a very big and very-highly-
trafficked park. (With plenty of tourists)

It is common for both misinformed law-enforcement types and infrastructure
agency employees (outside of the legal system) to hassle people for taking
photos of infrastructure - construction sites, ventilation towers, power
substations, sensitive landmarks, subway areas, aqueduct facilities, etc. As a
matter of fact, since the WTC is itself treated as a VERY sensitive and
vulnerable site, it seems weird for a PA employee to tell you to take pictures
of it instead. The site is a fortress!

And yes, these people issuing warnings and making threats are all wrong. You
can stand in a public place and take a photograph anytime, there are very few
restrictions on this. It's also fairly safe; there aren't any reasonable
vulnerabilities to public infrastructure that a single photograph from a
public park can uncover. (If there is such a vulnerability, it's not a
reasonable one; it should be mitigated through security hardening, not by
hassling park-goers)

~~~
jrockway
The pier on the left-hand side of my picture is actually a jogging path now;
you can walk almost all the way down to the building. (The careful observer
will also note that the public side of the path has nicer light fixtures than
the private side.)

------
daveloyall
"The Port Authority" is
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_of_New_York_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_of_New_York_and_New_Jersey)

(There are, of course, many port authorities all over the world. This one is a
big deal.)

------
Roboprog
Google maps shows a nice view of it:

[https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7265257,-74.0139319,158m/dat...](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7265257,-74.0139319,158m/data=!3m1!1e3)

May need to adjust the framing a bit.

~~~
jrockway
Wikipedia also has a picture.

The Holland Tunnel is a civil engineering marvel, the first tunnel of its size
to be built successfully. The ventilation towers are what allow cars to drive
through such a long tunnel without asphyxiating the drivers. We should
celebrate what we've achieved as a society, not try to hide them for vague
security reasons.

------
Intermernet
Isn't their reasoning obvious?

That stretch of water is perfect for terrorists to mount a dam-busters style
assault on that building!

What were you thinking publishing a photo like that? You'll only have yourself
to blame when that building is knocked out by the bouncing bomb!

------
rasz_pl
If you like this stuff take a look at those:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQD8EVx5LZM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQD8EVx5LZM)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFSxxi7D4mM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFSxxi7D4mM)

------
lgleason
Nice to see 4x5 photography. Love the look you get from t-max.

~~~
jrockway
Thanks! Tmax 100 is a difficult film. I tried overexposing it like crazy at
first (which usually works well for B&W film if you're in doubt), but it
doesn't respond well to that. You end up with no tonality; everything is black
or white, and very contrasty. Now I meter the shadows, underexpose those by
two stops, and check that the highlights are not too contrasty. This yields
very good results. (My previous algorithm would be to take an incident light
reading in the shadows, or expose the shadows as middle grey. It ends up being
too much light for the film, you do have to take advantage of its
"underexposure" range to get full tonality.)

Acros seems to respond well to whatever exposure you throw at it, but it's
significantly more expensive and yields identical results to Tmax when exposed
carefully. (I save Acros for my pinhole pictures, where its amazing
reciprocity characteristics are much appreciated.)

Tmax 400 is a little different. Basically... if you expose it to light you'll
get a great picture. It's my favorite film, but if I have a tripod, I might as
well aim for a little bit more resolution. In some tests I did last weekend,
the MTF-limiting function of my setup is actually the film, which is a nice
place to be. These used large format lenses I've randomly acquired are some
fine equipment.

------
musgrove
Talk about paranoid. I would have politely reminded that person this is
America, and I'll take a picture of whatever I want. Have a nice day!

------
paparush
Funny. You can Google Street View the shit out of it.

------
mohaps
Hmm, I wonder how's the pokemon population out there? That'd drive them nuts
too! :D

------
wheresvic1
This is incredible. I read the article and I found it really hard to digest!

Who uses Google+ anymore?

------
criddell
> I don't think the Port Authority would like it if you looked at this photo

Fortunately for them, it's on Google Plus.

I kid. Kind of.

