Posts Tagged ‘rights’

DC Metro’s “No Photo” Policy

Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

It was a long day at work, and I climbed aboard the Orange line metro train at about 8pm, thankful to get a seat. And then the torture began.

The train started up and headed into the tunnel, momentarily coming to a complete halt. We’re used to this in DC. Despite what should be a smooth operation, metro trains here run as if they’re all stuck in bumper to bumper traffic full of aggressive drivers who hit the gas as hard as they can for one tenth of a second and then slam on the brakes as hard as they can so that your net progress is about three feet of track and a chronic case of whiplash. My train was stopped because of a train that was unloading at Foggy Bottom (two stops ahead) because it was in need of maintenance. (Note that the down train might have been at Court House, but the announcements varied).

We finally got to the next station, Farragut West, where we dawdled with the doors open. Waiting. The train operator was courteous and humorous, trying to make the best of a typical metro situation — hurry up and wait. He informed us that metro was moving the broken train out of Foggy Bottom since it had just finished unloading its miserable passengers who would be anxious to fill up my train. Again, this is typical.

Then our driver announced that not only was there a broken train trying to move off the tracks, but that there was also another problem at Foggy Bottom. A bad switch! Uh oh. That sounds similar to the same problem that killed nine people on the Red Line not too long ago.1 Metro is obviously going to handle this with care (i.e., worrying about liability), and that meant handling it for possibly hours. The Red line, since the accident there, has been notoriously slow, and some trains have been stalled between stations for hours. I didn’t want my train to nudge up into the tunnel and get stuck there. I wanted to go home.

As soon as the driver announced the issue, half of the people on my train stood up and left. It was then that I started contemplating my options. My only real option was to cab it home, and that’s rather expensive. After our driver informed us that maintenance personnel had been contacted and were on the way, I thought maybe I could just sleep through it all. After about five more minutes, he updated us, letting us know that the maintenance people were still on their way. I figured this could literally take all night, and I sighed as I grabbed my bag and made my way to the turnstiles.

As I approached, I saw a young lady with her bicycle who had been in my car on the train, arguing with the station operator regarding how to get out of the station. There were other disgruntled passengers there, as well, and the gist was that there were to be no refunds given at the station, we’d have to use our cards (i.e., “pay”) to leave the station, and that we could ask about refunds after contacting metro directly.

It was then I decided to cover my ass by filming the train situation. I figured that it was logical that I’d bear the burden of proof that I was at the station, on that train when the incident occurred, since there are no “tickets” (although I believe that the SmartTrip card that I use does record station entrances and exits). I used my Blackberry Storm to show the train just sitting at the station (and if you look to the opposite side, you can see the crowds of people standing on the platform that would be typical for rush hour, but not 8pm — there were no trains coming or going).

Then I walked back to the station operator, and I was intending to have her tell me (i.e., “the camera”) what the train situation was so that I’d have further proof (they were announcing it on the intercom, but it was weak and I wasn’t sure the audio would pick it up; I really should have thought to record everything starting when I was in the train, but… hindsight), and that is when she accosted me, spouting out gibberish that reminded me of many stories I had read on BoingBoing and the like regarding entirely made-up camera and video “policy,” especially coming from security guards, police, and other types of people who supposedly work “for” the people (while, of course, feeling free to monitor us with constant surveillance).

I didn’t want to push the issue and get arrested for asserting my rights. Again, I wanted to go home, damnit. So, I left the station, paying my way out, and then I took the only alternate transportation I had available, a cab. For $25. Sucks!

Here’s the relevant part of the video I took:


(for some reason, embedding is sucking, so feel free just to click and see the video at YouTube)

Here’s the brief conversation:

Station Operator: “Excuse me sir, are you taking my picture?”

Me: “No.” (I wasn’t really lying. I was taking video. I consider it an important distinction, especially since Metro deems it important to have constant camera monitoring all over its stations, and also since I was pretty sure there was no policy against taking pictures of metro employees)

Station Operator: “Okay, because I was going to say you can’t take my picture without asking me first — ’cause I don’t know what you’re going to do with my image.”

Then she snubbed me, as she had everyone else there trying to get answers.

This morning, I went to the metro website at http://www.wmata.com to look for two things. First, to find some way to get a refund — no luck on that, so I merely sent a complaint form asking how I can get a refund without spending more money (my guess is that they’ll want me to travel (via metro, of course) to the Metro Center office where I’ll get a refund that will equal the amount of money it costs for me to go to the Metro Center office to get a refund. I could do that all day!). Second, to find metro’s policy on photography. Is it in metro’s FAQ? No. Any other logical location? Hell, any location reasonably accessed via metro’s internal linkings? No. Of course not.

So, I did a search for “photography” on their website and got a bunch of stuff about media photography requests, and this:

Metro Transit Police Chief Michael Taborn will respond directly to questions about Metro-related security and policing issues during an online chat this Friday, Sept. 12, when he hosts “Metro LunchTalk Online” — a live chat from noon to 1 p.m. Taborn welcomes questions about security and policing the Metrobus, Metrorail and MetroAccess systems during this special online chat for National Preparedness Month….

Washington, DC: Mr. Taborn, there has been recent Congressional scrutiny of Union Station security targeting non-commercial photographers in public areas. While Section 100.8(a)(2) of WMATA’s use regulations affirms the legal rights of photographers on WMATA property, I have heard many anecdotes of WMATA employees incorrectly telling photographers that their activity is not allowed. Would you consider communicating to your staff that individual photography conducted in a safe manner is legal in public areas, and that photographers can actually be a security asset to the agency? Other transit agencies that have attempted to stifle photography (either by regulation or arbitrary enforcement) have found themselves on the wrong side of First Amendment-based legal precedent, and I would hate for WMATA to be in such a position.

Reply: Hello photograhy fan. People are permitted to take photos in our rail system. We do not “own” Union Station. That’s Amtrak.

We see our rail system as a tourist destination, and I’ve seen some beautiful photos of our stations, especially the ceilings.

The main restriction we have on photographers is that they are not permitted to use tripods. Why? It’s a tripping hazard. Someone else may not realize they are standing so close to your tripod and we can’t have people tripping–especially in a station environment where there is a lot of danger with trains and high voltage electricity.

We have no intention to regulate photography other than by restricting tripod use.2

Did metro employees not get this message?

Here’s what I’m going to do today. I’m going to print out Mr. Taborn’s comments as well as the applicable section of Metro’s policy (which can be downloaded here) on some handy sheets of paper, and I’m going to carry them with me. The next time I find some metro employee trying to assert some false authority, I’m going to hand over a copy.

Also, just to see, I Googled “100.8(a)(2) metro” to figure out where metro had hidden its policies. To get there on metro’s website, one must click “About Metro” (note that the About Metro button is also a drop-down, which doesn’t have the next link, which is why I couldn’t find it in the first search), then click “Data Use and Privacy Policy” and then click “systems of records notices” … uhm. Okay, that backtracking didn’t work. Actually, I couldn’t find any backtracking that worked. Is metro’s policy inaccessible outside of Google?

Meh, I give up. I also don’t foresee getting a refund.3

UPDATE: At unsuckdcmetro (awesome site), there’s an account of someone who didn’t get off the train: Two Hours from Farragut West to Vienna = FAIL

Cross-posting at Unsuck DC Metro: Of Refunds and Photos

  1. Thanks to Unsuck DC Metro for correcting this from fact to speculation [<]
  2. WMATA [<]
  3. Note: It’s unlikely that I’ll get a refund because I traveled one stop and paid for the trip from one stop to the next (not the full price to my destination). There’s still a minimum, though, and I did feel robbed and shat upon by the station operator who was rude and inconsiderate. The argument that I bought and paid for a one-stop trip could be compared to me trying to buy a song legitimately online, and it only half downloads (due to technical issues on the seller’s end), and the seller charges me only half of the cost and tells me to go away. It’s not like I can return the half that I received, but it’s rather worthless to me in its form. I essentially traveled three blocks for the cost of traveling about five miles. I don’t think that’s right. (Specifically, I paid $1.35 to go three blocks, and I would have had to pay $1.85 for the completed trip.) [<]

My Inalienably Unalienable Rights

Thursday, June 18th, 2009

Last night, Keith Olbermann’s segment on Countdown’s World’s Worst included a criticism of Newt Gingrich’s misquotation of the Declaration of Independence. Gingrich quoted it (in quotes, mind you) as saying:

We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Olbermann corrected him scathingly, quoting the true text as being,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Perhaps Olbermann didn’t know that there is more than one display copy of the Declaration of Independence, and perhaps he didn’t know that the original Jefferson handwriting draft, as well as at least two other display copies, declared our rights to be “inalienable,” not “unalienable.” That could have been an embarrassing error on his part, and I’m wondering if he actually sent any of his staffers (staffers, interns, himself?) to investigate Gingrich’s text, just to make sure.

Gingrich claimed to be quoting from the National Archives display. Despite my attempt to verify by going to USHistory.org, which has an article on the very inalienable/unalienable distinction, showing that different display copies indeed show different uses, with the final being “unalienable,” the site lacked a reference to the copy on display at the National Archives.

Maneuvering my way through the National Archives website led me to The National Archives Experience: The Digital Vaults site at digitalvaults.org, which has an early (1823) engraving of the Declaration of Independence (that looks a heck of a lot like the one in the movies), which was, appropriately enough, displayed “backwards” (which is rightwards for a print engraving, right?), and caused me some effort to find the text in a “forwards” version to figure out where the backwards in/unalienable would be. I did find it, and, as you can see, fortunately for Olbermann, it’s “unalienable” in this version. I’m wondering if his staffers took the time to do this verification.

archives-dec
Here’s a screenshot from the National Archives website, and, below, a cutout, mirrored for your reading pleasure.

archives-dec2

Pot-ential?

Friday, June 12th, 2009

Drug Czar

Despite Obama drug czar Gil Kerlikowske’s admonition that marijuana will still be federally outlawed regardless of the reduction of “war on drugs” rhetoric, there appears to be an increase in legal measures both at a state and federal level to legalize pot within the next few years, or at least severely reduce penalties for distribution.

According to SFGate, California’s budget crisis and increased public support are tipping the scales regarding pot legalization. The efforts include a July ballot measure in Oakland to create a cannabis tax category and hearings in the fall on a bill for decriminalization. The bill would allow limited cultivation, sales, and personal possession, but pro-decriminalization groups like TaxCannabis2010.org, estimate billions of dollars in sales tax revenue gain if marijuana is legalized.

Of course, even if California manages to legalize marijuana, the federal government still outlaws it. Activists hope that successful state initiatives will motivate change in the federal government, and the underlying states’ rights issue might set a tone conducive to the constitutional ideology of allowing states to grant greater freedoms to its citizens despite federal efforts to impose.

This dynamic is evident in the same-sex marriage issue today — some states are legalizing same-sex marriage while bills are being proposed in Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to outlaw it. The concept of infringing upon freedom was played out to great detriment when the federal government passed the prohibition amendment, The Noble Experiment manifest in the 18th Amendment, later repealing it with the 21st Amendment. Today, marijuana legalization opponents argue that states’ rights should trump the federal government in issues like gay marriage, abortion, and gun rights, while arguing that the federal government trumps state sovereignty with regard to personal use of marijuana.

While this interplay carries on, the sting of the federal prohibition against marijuana has already become less severe with Obama’s new pot dealer policy. Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the feds would no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries, and that states would be able to set their own marijuana laws. Regardless of such sentiment, the feds are still convicting and imprisoning dispensary owners.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, in June, a federal judge in Los Angeles handed over a year and a day prison sentence to a medical marijuana dispensary owner as an act of leniency, instead of the mandatory minimum five-year sentence for dealing in marijuana. This perpetuates the state-given rights versus federal prohibition issue, but it does establish some precedent and indication that, as Kerlikowske suggested, the tone of the drug war is being overtly and quickly lowered. What to watch for next is if California does legalize personal use, whether the federal government will conform to Holder’s assertion that states will be able to run their own show with regard to marijuana law.

Cease and Desist

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009

[Edit: Is THIS irony, stupidity, bravado, or just plain funny?]

[The above link will now get you a 404 error (it originally linked to the infringing site's plagiarism of this very article). Apparently, the owner or operator of the infringing site finally saw the C&D letter (delivered by automatic RSS theft and reprinting) and complied with it. I am still reviewing the site for State of Protest material, but it looks to have been removed. If you're reading this, owner/operator of The Atheist Mind, thank you for complying, and I strongly suggest you cease and desist with your continued infringement regarding all the other sites from which you are stealing content and reposting it as your own. I will personally be looking up every website that you are stealing from, and I will be contacting those owners to let them know about the infringement. For everyone else, if you see a site stealing content, please contact the true owner of that content to let them know.1]

If you are reading this post on a website or other content provider other than stateofprotest.com or an RSS reader with the RSS link being either http://feeds2.feedburner.com/StateOfProtest or http://www.stateofprotest.com/feed/, the site/provider you are reading from is guilty of copyright infringement, and I request that you boycott and report that site/provider and in the future acquire State of Protest work from the source or an authorized RSS feed. (Short excerpts with direct links to this site are generally acceptable, as are reprints of posts on the State of Protest myspace page).

If you are one of the sites infringing upon my rights, if you do not cease and desist from such infringement, I will send you a C&D letter, and I will follow up on it with legal action if necessary. In addition, I reserve the right to post the C&D letters that I send, as well as any other information about the sites that infringe upon my rights, such as Whois information, so that others can be aware of your presence.

Today, I was alerted to a site that has been stealing content since 2006 from sites like Pharyngula, Freethought Radio, State of Protest, and others. It’s called “The Atheist Mind,” located at http://theatheistmind.info . I found this out because I got an alert that the Twitter entity “@atheistmind” started following me, and I was amazed to see that the site was full of full articles from State of Protest without permission, proper credit, or linkage back to State of Protest of any kind (thus why I could not detect it before). I sent a Tweet to @atheistmind stating:

Giving you a chance to cease & desist from unauthorized use of State of Protest material before I send C&D letter to your site host. Respond

I thought that it would be polite and proper to give the owner a chance to quit the infringement before I took action. I waited, and @atheistmind posted yet another Tweet with a link to the Atheist Mind website, so I took that as a “fuck you,” and I proceeded to send the cease and desist letter.

Here is the letter I sent, in full, to the email address of the registrant and the hosting provider’s “abuse” email:

To Whom it May Concern:

It has come to my attention that website “The Atheist Mind” (at theatheistmind.info), apparently hosted by Dreamhost.com, has made repeated unauthorized use of my copyrighted work located on my blog “State of Protest” (at stateofprotest.com). Examples include “The Government Doesn’t Run Anything Well,” originally published at http://www.stateofprotest.com/government/the-government-doesnt-run-anything-well on June 10, 2009, and “Dear Murderer,” originally published at http://www.stateofprotest.com/morality/dear-murderer on May 31, 2009. The website “The Atheist Mind” at http://theatheistmind.info has reprinted in full these and other copyrighted materials without permission (example links: http://theatheistmind.info/2009/06/10/the-government-doesn%e2%80%99t-run-anything-well , http://theatheistmind.info/2009/05/31/dear-murderer ). I have reserved all rights to the content originating on my website, State of Protest, and I have not given The Atheist
Mind permission to reprint any content originating from State of Protest.

The Whois contact information for the registrant of The Atheist Mind website indicates that the registrant is Jay Cunningham at 144-90 41st Ave. Apt. #516, Flushing, NY 11355, with a phone number of 917-558-0929 and an email address of payments@huelab.com. Because the email address appears to be potentially unreliable, I have made the decision to contact both the registered party at the given email address as well as the hosting provider for the website, which Whois indicates is Dreamhost.com.

Infringement of Copyright is violative of Title 17, Chapter 5, of the United States Code. The owner of The Atheist Mind website (at theatheistmind.info) must immediately cease the use and distribution of all works derived from State of Protest (at stateofprotest.com), and destroy all copies of same, electronic or otherwise; and the owner must desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future.

If I have not received an affirmative response from the owner, operator, or host by June 15, 2009, indicating that the requirements have been fully complied with, I shall take further action against the owner/operator of The Atheist Mind and the hosting provider.

Very truly yours,

Please join me reporting theft of intellectual property, informing others of who is perpetrating the infringement, and boycotting the perpetrators. Also let it be known that I am utterly serious about pursuing legal action to protect my rights.

Thank you.

UPDATE: I’ve already contacted an attorney to represent my interests in this matter, and a DMCA Notification will be drafted and ready to send in case the owner of the infringing website does not comply by the date indicated above.

  1. PS, some sites explicitly allow for such reprinting of content, and some don't care. Most make their position on content rights known somewhere on the website. [<]

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Whine About It

Monday, June 8th, 2009

Says the Supreme Court.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which prohibits gays and lesbians1 from serving in the U.S. military.

Thank God. I was really beginning to worry that the military was going to start redecorating foreign nations instead of slaughtering their denizens. Now I feel much more secure knowing that our borders are being protected by real men and nearly real women.2

No, no. Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t have a problem with “our troops.” I’m not an anti-patriot. I am a former Marine, remember? I have the utmost respect for the military establishment as it stands to protect my rights. However, I don’t respect the people who run it. Nor do I respect Commanders in Chief who wuss out at a great opportunity to eliminate this absolutely atrocious, discriminatory, and often fatally harmful policy that, among other antiquated and puritan laws, segregates and by definition punishes people for even the hint of being unlike the religiously accepted “norm.” The policy is brutal. It tells the world that we don’t respect homosexuals. That even though we humor them with regard to their fashion sense, their music, and, in some states, their desire to acquire officially recognized relationships, we don’t trust them with a rifle in a uniform. What the fuck?

When I was 17, I got myself emancipated after I graduated high school so that I could join the Marines. Something struck me as rather silly. When I marched across the parade deck at graduation, a full-fledged United States Marine, I was still 17. I wasn’t even the age of majority. I couldn’t buy a beer in 99% of the U.S. I couldn’t buy a pistol. I even doubted my ability to vote (it’s still 18, right?). Yet, my government gave me a loaded rifle and said, “Go fight for your nation.” And I did, proudly. But what kind of principles has a nation got that it would send its children into war, yet restrict them from drinking a beer? Heck, I could have seen bloody slaughter in combat and yet I wouldn’t have been allowed in a theater to see an NC-17 movie.

What I’m trying to say here on what might seem a tangent is that this nation’s puritan ideology is hampering our ability to think and act reasonably and rationally as a nation. It’s embarrassing, cruel, and pointless, and we need to quit it. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is just another in a series of such idiocy.

  1. Honestly, what’s the difference between a gay and a lesbian? [<]
  2. They’re still not allowed to go into combat, you know. [<]