you Must Be Criminals

[joeyuboats]

I think what I mean is the quality and material of the articles. For example, Trains had a couple of 2 part articles way back on the Boston&Maine that were EXTREMELY well written, and also a 2 parter on RR in New England, that were VERY good. Also have--from 1969--IIRC--article on Detroit & Mackinac--only 3 pages, but FLAWLESS!! The newer writers just do not seem to be as detailed, thorough, and good. Maybe its just me--am 62 in 2 weeks, so yeah--I'm getting old.

[chapmaja]

You must be Old Joey, Like Me. I too agree to a certain extent because I see a bias towards the 'company line'. I tend to be sympathetic to the LABOR side. I also think they have become too FOAMY. But then again they have the news and I read it and disseminate between the good, the bad and the ugly.

I am only in my mid-40's, but I think a lot of media has gone that way. I seriously question is news organizations and magazines still know what an editor is? You see some pretty glaring mistakes in online news media from supposedly reputable news agencies now that never would have happened in the days of printed news papers and magazines. Magazines have fallen into the same trap with editors no longer doing the editing job.

[Steve B]

It's intriguing that none of the people who are cool with this policy have defended the indefensible declaration that note-taking and binocular use on public property is suspicious. This proclamation would subject many of us, me included, to interrogation. It's also interesting how often the people who back these latest rounds of police-state rules are the same ones who style themselves proponents of "small government."

[ns8401]

It's intriguing that none of the people who are cool with this policy have defended the indefensible declaration that note-taking and binocular use on public property is suspicious. This proclamation would subject many of us, me included, to interrogation. It's also interesting how often the people who back these latest rounds of police-state rules are the same ones who style themselves proponents of "small government."

There was a photographers bill of rights put out some time ago. I would suggest you carry one.

About the most they could do is trespass you should you be on railroad property, they do not have the right to unilaterally take your stuff away from you for being “suspicious” especially on a public street or sidewalk. Nor can they make you delete images off of a camera or grab it and do it for you. There are protections in the constitution that apply in these circumstances.

[Steve B]

It's intriguing that none of the people who are cool with this policy have defended the indefensible declaration that note-taking and binocular use on public property is suspicious. This proclamation would subject many of us, me included, to interrogation. It's also interesting how often the people who back these latest rounds of police-state rules are the same ones who style themselves proponents of "small government."

There was a photographers bill of rights put out some time ago. I would suggest you carry one.

About the most they could do is trespass you should you be on railroad property, they do not have to right to unilaterally take your stuff away from you for being “suspicious” especially on a public street or sidewalk. There are protections in the constitution that apply in these circumstances.

I remember now about that photographer's bill of rights, thanks for the reminder.

There have been many cases of people in the US (not necessarily railfans) standing in public spaces, having their cameras seized by authorities and only having them returned after getting thoroughly humiliated.

[justalurker66]

It's intriguing that none of the people who are cool with this policy ...

Who are you accusing of being cool with the policy (or, in this case, a definition of suspicious activity)?

[PatAzo]

This looks like one of those threats that could head off the slippery slope of being closed. But I called it from a railfan prospective much ado about nothing so I'll expand on my opinion.

The police do not have the resources to respond to every "suspicious" person near the railroad. The rules establish requirements for training employees to observe, assess, respond" to possible threats. The key is to assess possible threats. Appendix A of Part 1570 is where the binocular reference is. Put it into the context of the rest of the descriptions. Put it into the context of, "Combinations of actions and individual behaviors that appear suspicious and/or dangerous, inappropriate, inconsistent, or out of the ordinary for the employee's work environment, which could indicate a threat to transportation security" A railfan setting at the Judd Ave picnic table writing down locomotive numbers is not going to bring out the SWAT team. Go over to DOW chemical, photograph the security cameras, take notes on patrols, ignore the locomotive switching the plant and yes you will be suspicious.

As for being suspisious...so what? Police solve crimes and prevent crimes by doing just what the rules describe. Being suspicious isn't illegal. I encounter the police a couple times a year. Generally the conversation is the same. What are you doing? Then half the time "why are you doing it" and the other half "Is there something special coming". I had a policeman tell me where a couple good business parking lots to watch trains from "where the rest of you guys usually are". The Mattawan police invited me over to the city office to see pictures of grapes being loaded into reefer cars back in the day. Then we sat in the Chiefs office looking at pictures of restored Ford 8N tractors. Even caught trespassing by the CN Police the officer said stay off the ballast and gave me his card asking that we help be the "eyes and ears" of the CN Police.

As for photography the ACLU has a good page on your rights. An interesting piece I read is that the Supreme Court hasn't directly ruled that all photography is protected by the First Amendment. Photography that has a message and an audience is considered speech and protected. The fervor about photographing passenger rail died down when the suit over photographing Federal buildings from the sidewalk reached the supreme court and the government's case folded.

[Talk]

...As for photography, the ACLU has a good page on your rights. An interesting piece I read is that the Supreme Court hasn't directly ruled that all photography is protected by the First Amendment. Photography that has a message and an audience is considered speech and protected. The fervor about photographing passenger rail died down when the suit over photographing Federal buildings from the sidewalk reached the supreme court and the government's case folded.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech ... ers-rights

The worst that will happen will be having to talk with a police officer/bull. Just tell them and if they ask show them your photos/notes. They would need a warrant, however, I would just show them. Saves you a lot of trouble. If they ask you to delete them, Don't, You should be completely fine. Not to mention that most of the crews at Judd know that railfans frequent the area.

[AARR]

As long as the conversation is civil (no name calling) there is no "threat" to locking it (Did you mean to say "thread"

This looks like one of those threats that could head off the slippery slope of being closed.

[M.D.Bentley]

IF I had a Nickle for every time I saw someone taking picture of my train , well that's a lot of nickels. TSA follows us too. They often inquire when they see someone following us and taking pictures. I've instructed them to approach and ask what they were doing.

[chapmaja]

In my opinion, a lot of this discussion boils down to one idea, civility. Will the officer (no matter what department) act in a civil manner to the person he is talking to about photographing trains, yards, equipment ect? Will the railfan act in a similarly civil manner when approached by an officer? If the answer to both questions is yes, then the railfan can be a great asset to the railroads from a security perspective. Often times railfans can see things that security can't see.

One example was when I was railfanning the TSBY years ago. I knew they were headed northbound through Lakeland, and would arrive in a matter of minutes. I witnessed several high school aged students (some of whom I knew from teaching and coaching in the district), placing things on the rails near Zukey Lake Tavern. I happened to see a Hamburg Township officer by Lakeland Hardware, talked to him, he called the railroad. Turned out the kids have placed several different items, including several bricks on the tracks. The crew came north, was able to stop and remove the debris from the tracks before continuing on. What would have happened if the train had come through at speed>? Hopefully nothing, but with the trail next to the tracks in that location, and M-36 nearby as well, anything struck by the train could have been flying debris and could have injured someone or damaged a car (if not derail the train).

Another incident I recall was a railfan who was down at Judd St by the end of Wyoming Yard. CSX was running a coal train outbound. The railfan noticed sparks coming from one of the hoppers on the train and got the attention of another crew that was switching the storage place nearby. Turnout out the brakes had locked up, the train was brought back into the yard before the train continued onward. Would this have been a huge issue? I don't think locked brakes on a mainline train are a good thing. At best it would have damaged the wheel and brakes to the point of needing to be replaced. At worst, the train derails.

This doesn't include the times people have called in because people were riding the freight trains. (This isn't the times when riding freight trains is acceptable like it used to be).

[Doktor No]

Thank you PatAZO and chapmaja. My point exactly. We had a Canadian military train parked in Wyoming Yard while I was working. Foamers all over the place walking around the train, totally oblivious to our work going on by us. We had Wyoming police come down and throw them all off the property and kept an eye on things until the train left towards Ottawa, Ont.
Yeah, be nice, be cool and a lot of you will not have a problem but remember, the police don't know who you are or your motivations UNTIL they ask. Answer as you would like to be answered and you will be fine.
And KEEP OFF THE PROPERTY.

[PatAzo]

I suspect the objections stem from concerns with police contact and requests from the police that you identify yourself.

Admittedly I don't have a firm opinion. While Michigan doesn't have an ID on demand law and I could argue since I'm not doing anything illegal there is no requirement for me to ID, it has been easier to talk to them and ID when requested. I doubt I'm anyone's secret list though CN knows exactly how many times I've contacted while on their property. Frankly a smart phone and a PC do far more spying and data collection than the local police could hope to do.

[DaveO]

Frankly a smart phone and a PC do far more spying and data collection than the local police could hope to do.

If only that was true. The use of the StingRay gives law enforcement detailed information about the movement of people. There are too many stories out there where that information was collected in breach of our laws.

[PatAzo]

My point is that handing my ID over to a cop once or twice a year is not in my eyes an egregious violation of privacy. It may be the slippery slope so to speak. But far less than we let the cell companies and Google do. Even Stingray relies your phone to spy on you.