Hey, there! Log in / Register
Is this photo a national-security threat?
By adamg on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 8:10am
I happened to be walking by Long Wharf yesterday when I looked out at the harbor and saw this huge ship heading toward the Tobin. LNG tanker! They're kind of amazing to see, so I started walking at a good pace down Long Wharf. It was moving faster than I was, so about two-thirds of the way down, I stopped and took a couple of photos. Then I got closer to the plaza at the end of the wharf and took a couple more, including this one.
See the police car? When I got to the waterfront, I'd just raised the camera to my face when the cop told me no pictures. He was nice about it, said something about orders from above, told me this wasn't even one of the big tankers, but, no, I didn't press the point, which is probably why I'm typing this at home, rather than from a bench at Boston Municipal Court (about a minute later, he told somebody else to put their camera down).
Yet, obviously, I was able to get pictures without being stopped, just a bit further up the wharf. As could have anybody else in the throngs of tourists enjoying a nice day on the water, some no doubt with way better zoom lenses on their cameras. Meanwhile, on the other side at the end of Long Wharf was a couple closely examining a map on their smartphone. Or were they secretly taking photos? No, probably she really was a local and he really was a visitor and they were just figuring out where to go next.
Obviously, security for giant containers of flammable gas is a good thing, and maybe it does make sense to station officers at every vantage point along the harbor. But is it just security theater when any yutz can just stand a few yards back and do whatever it was they were going to do at the water's edge?
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
There is absolutely
no reason you shouldn't be able to take photos of the LNG tankers. That's the local PD making up nonexistent laws as they go along.
Security Theater. The same
Security Theater.
The same reason I have to take off my flip-flops at the damn airport.
Cripes.
You wear flip flops to the airport?
That's almost worse than terrorism. Have some respect for yourself and get some loafers.
I agree. We should organize
I agree. We should organize a zombie march flash mob pillow fight to protest this outrageous police state. This is almost as oppressive as all the cops showing up the other night after the Great Hippie on Hipster Whole Foods Riot of 2011.
Security theater
Good term: security theater. You should trademark it.
http://thedailypatdown.com/
http://thedailypatdown.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
In situations like these,
In situations like these, where a cop is making an unlawful order to stop a civilian from taking pictures when no such law exists, it's always a matter of one's tolerance for pushing back against authority. I certainly can't hold it against someone for not wanting to spend the rest of the day in court, or worse, and potentially dealing with more legal issues down the line, for not obeying an order to cease taking pictures. But it is still disconcerting to see police imposing non-existing laws on the public.
Adam, would you be willing to contact the BPD and inquire about these alleged "orders from above"? (What does that mean anyway? His lieutenant? Commissioner Davis? Secretary Napolitano? God?)
The cops answer to an even higher authority
The mayor.
The cop also may know that Adam runs this clandestine, highly subversive website and were targeting him.
Why Everett?
I watch these massive ships sail past the office about once a week. They are cool to behold, but it is a bit disconcerting knowing that billions of gallons of highly inflammable liquid is crusing near thousands of businesses, tens of thousands of people and some very expensive real estate.
Whenever these things come in, they shut down Logan, close the harbor, and halt traffic on the Tobin. Surely there's a better place for these things to dock?
The liquid in the tanker is
The liquid in the tanker is not highly inflammable.
No, you're right, but it can
No, you're right, but it can certainly become flammable really quickly.
Actually, while it's
Actually, while it's theoretically possible for the fuel to become flammable, it's difficult to do in practice.
If these tankers came by my window every day, I'd be still be more worried about you knuckleheads driving to work every day. And I'd be safer standing at the window than I would be stepping into the shower.
So the security threat is
So the security threat is that someone may bump it into the Tobin Bridge?
Aren't those synonyms,
Aren't those synonyms, anyway?
I believe the Excelerate and
I believe the Excelerate and Neptune offshore LNG terminals are now in operation. So I don't see why they still bring these ships through the harbor, with all of the related security costs.
We must have passed each other
As I was there just after it passed. I figured that I could try to take a pic just for the sake of seeing what would happen, but I didn't really have any reason to do so.
Is Google a national security threat?
Because in a matter of seconds it led to me this photo -- http://huntoftheseawolves.net/blog/wp-content/uplo... -- of -- gasp -- tankers and the Tobin Bridge!
unlawful enforcement
In an ideal world that authority would only be given to worthy individuals (who are rare). In this world, it is given to human beings such as ourselves.
Once, i had my truck parked on the curb because i was waiting for my girl to pick her up from work, and an MGH police officer was parked next to my truck, but completely on the sidewalk (even though he has a designated spot just a few meters away). He came and got in his car and apparently, was not pleased by the fact that i did not immediately facilitate him by moving my car so he could get out more easily. So he came next to my car in his, opened his window and started yelling, not introducing himself or anything, just yelling that i should have moved my god*** truck and more profanity and also threats. I was so shocked that he had driven away before i could even respond.
Police officers are often loud, rude, and they use their power to threaten us. All in the name of. The only compensation we get for this behavior is the fact that police officers put themselves in harm's way for our safety. But that is only part of their function. As officers they should be courteous and respectful to everyone, and more often that not, they aren't.
I also wanted to take a photo of a tanker, and a civilian cop came up and asked what i thought i was doing. I forestalled him by saying i was leaving, but those guys are pretty jumpy. On another occasion i photographed the Tobin bridge and they came to ask for my ID and told me they had snipers and divers and everything. I did not believe that guy, i think he was just trying to impress me. Which he did, he gave me an impression of ignorance. It's a bit over-hyped and hopelessly inefficient. Better to try an intelligent approach like stealthily finding out what the bad guys are doing, in stead of randomly harassing tourists.
My favorite abuse of
My favorite abuse of authority story is when my boyfriend came out of a store and some guy yelled that he should learn to park his car better. He gave the guy a "whatever" look but didn't say anything. Next thing he knows the guy comes charging over yelling "do you have a problem?" A moment later the guy stops and tells him he forgot he didn't have his uniform on understands why he wasn't properly defferential. Clearly this cop was under the impression that wearing a uniform is a license to act like a jerk.
Something similar happened to me with an unmarked car
The Officer Friendly I dealt with a couple years back got his sweaty spanx in a twist because I didn't let him cut into moving traffic *as he was running a stop sign*. He was in uniform, it turned out, but he was driving an unmarked car.
He marched up to my window, read me the riot act, ran my license, registration, looked for stickers. Unfortunately for him he found nothing out of order so he had to let me go. I used my better judgement and shut my hole throughout all of this, although I really wanted to remind him that he was unmarked, had no basis for pulling me over, and ran a goddamn stop sign, but I figured I'd save that for the court date to appeal the ticket---but it never came to that. The freakin' prick.
divers
They definitely do have divers - I know that because my brother-in-law works with law enforcement and homeland security and gets called in for details whenever an LNG is coming in.
I believe the "from above" is DHS, in this case. I think it's stupid, but feel pretty helpless to do anything about it.
Again, it's all about one's
Again, it's all about one's tolerance for confronting authority. If one has a high such tolerance, and the resources to deal with the legal system, then the response is to ignore the cop and continue to take photos. At some point, the cop will either drop the matter, or he will arrest you, likely for a vague charge such as "contempt of cop" or "disorderly conduct", because there is not a law forbidding photography of LNG tankers.
The improper response is to argue with the cop that you are allowed to continue to take the photos he is forbidding. Arguing will get you nowhere. Either drop the matter and move on, or continue to take pictures.
Under no circumstances should you give in to his demands to view your photos or to delete the photos you have already taken. If the cop forces you to delete the images under threat of arrest, state very clearly, and loudly, that you do not consent to a warrantless search of your person.
unlawful enforcement
In an ideal world that authority would only be given to worthy individuals (who are rare). In this world, it is given to human beings such as ourselves.
Once, i had my truck parked on the curb because i was waiting for my girl to pick her up from work, and an MGH police officer was parked next to my truck, but completely on the sidewalk (even though he has a designated spot just a few meters away). He came and got in his car and apparently, was not pleased by the fact that i did not immediately facilitate him by moving my car so he could get out more easily. So he came next to my car in his, opened his window and started yelling, not introducing himself or anything, just yelling that i should have moved my god*** truck and more profanity and also threats. I was so shocked that he had driven away before i could even respond.
Police officers are often loud, rude, and they use their power to threaten us. All in the name of. The only compensation we get for this behavior is the fact that police officers put themselves in harm's way for our safety. But that is only part of their function. As officers they should be courteous and respectful to everyone, and more often that not, they aren't.
I also wanted to take a photo of a tanker, and a civilian cop came up and asked what i thought i was doing. I forestalled him by saying i was leaving, but those guys are pretty jumpy. On another occasion i photographed the Tobin bridge and they came to ask for my ID and told me they had snipers and divers and everything. I did not believe that guy, i think he was just trying to impress me. Which he did, he gave me an impression of ignorance. It's a bit over-hyped and hopelessly inefficient. Better to try an intelligent approach like stealthily finding out what the bad guys are doing, in stead of randomly harassing tourists.
As someone already said two
As someone already said two seconds of google searching turns up photos of LNG tankers IN Boston Harbor, including ones that show the security precautions the authorities take (in case that's the concern).
That said, I've taken photos of LNG tankers coming in before and never been hassled by the cops.
The whole thing reminds me of one time when a friend and I were on a photowalk in the North end and we were by the entrance to the naval base up there. Through the entrance to the base we saw something out in the harbor, a ship I think, and tried to take a picture of it. Immediately the guard at the entrance began yelling that we weren't allowed to take pictures. Of course, at the point the only thing you could see of the base was the entrance itself and a slice of the parking lot. I kept on thinking though that if I were a terrorist or spy interested in gaining information about the base what I'd do wouldn't be to walk up to the entranceway and snap a photo. I'd sit over in East Boston or on a boat in the harbor with a telephoto lens and shoot everything that was going on in the whole place.
Authorities need to realize that there's a barn door issue here. There's no way you can keep people from taking photos of an LNG tanker on its way through the harbor. Hassling web masters who are taking photos because there's a cool massive ship coming through accomplishes nothing.
Sounds like . . .
. . .security theater for the police. Make them stand around and tell people "no photos" when anyone can walk a few yards away and snap photos to their hearts content? "orders from above" indeed.
Here is a well-written
Here is a well-written lawyer's perspective on photographers' rights and the "War on Photography" --
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id...
Americans are cowards
They demand every single nonsensical step be taken to ensure "safety" even when it does nothing of the kind.
Nothing new here.
Who demands this?
I don't know a soul who would "demand" this type of stuff. This stuff does not come from the "demands" of Americans in any way shape or form.
We ARE demanding it, just not the way you think
We 'demand' it by remaining silent when authority figures and their organizations step over the "do not cross" line just a liiiiitle bit, over and over again, going a little further each time. If not enough people stand up for our rights, no matter how minor they might be, they WILL be taken from us. Things like this set precedent for future policies.
For example, putting up CCTV cameras in a public park. Some people may say "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of", and it's that attitude that allows a city/state to say "Well, we have them in the public parks now, so we're going to install them on the streets NEAR the parks too, just to be sure." Then they're going up in MORE streets and in MORE buildings.
It's easy to GIVE the government power to do something. It's much, MUCH harder to take that power away when it becomes abused.
What you are describing is . . .
. . . Is aquiessence to such things - and on that we agree- but there is no wellspring of Americans marching in the streets demanding this stuff. This comes from the top down complete with contrived phony two party "debates" - and now not even that nicety.
... AND THAT'S WHAT COMES
... AND THAT'S WHAT COMES FROM MEN AND WOMEN DANCING!
'Americans are cowards...'
...doth say the chicken??!!
Thank you for speaking for all Americans everywhere. You are truly omniscient.
Snapped pictures with no police action at TD Garden
Monday night I walked down to the TD Garden and took pictures of the police presence. I took them at a distance, but it was obvious to some cops what I was doing. No one gave me a hard time. Of course there were a dozen Satellite trucks parked in various places.
You do have to wonder if they are doing much more the CYA.
Calling Officer Nice
Where's The Law when you need him? I'm guessing in this case he wouldn't defend the enforcement of a non-existent "statute".
Honestly I have no idea.
I've seen these issues on UHUB about the T and stuff but have honestly never heard them on the street or around town.
I know it isn't against the law to take pictures anywhere, the only possible thing I can think of is that certain public areas can be marked "off limits" by the government for different reasons, so if you go on them after you are told not to, you would be tresspassing, or if you are allowed to enter under special circumstances (no bikes, pictures, talking, ?) then I don't know. I doubt it but thats my guess.
Could the Boston Public Library make a policy of not allowing pictures inside? Could a police or fire station? Could the Boston Common? Fanieul Hall?
In general, if the public is
In general, if the public is allowed access to an outside facility -- whether it be Long Wharf, Boston Common, Columbus Park -- then photography is completely fine.
For a privately owned facility, such as a store or museum, the owners can forbid photography, If you do take pictures and are told to stop, you could be asked to leave by the property management, and failure to do so could incur a trespassing charge. The property management still cannot confiscate your camera or demand to view or delete the images you already took. For example, the Gardner Museum completely forbids any photography. The MFA permits photography without flash or tripods. As for institutions such as the library, which are partly publicly funded, I don't know. For what it's worth, the BPL's policy is like the MFA's (http://www.bpl.org/general/policies/photography.htm).
Note that this only applies to the insides of such private institutions. If you are on the public street, you can shoot the building's exterior to your heart's content, and the property's management can do nothing about it.
Just Menino trying to seize control, cash from energy companies
The massive security and photo "ban" sounds like Hizzoner's ongoing attempt to seize control of what passes through the port of Boston (now under USCG control) and extort "security" money from the energy and shipping company(s) involved. Not unlike his attempt to seize control of Carson Beach and the state "appropriations" to pay for policing there. Although modern LNG tankers and their cargo are inherently safe, for years Menino has been trying to drum up fear of them. If the public isn't allowed to take a picture, it must be dangerous, right?
Adam or someone else should challenge the "ban" to determine who issued it. I'm sure many lowly patrol officers would be grateful to be free of enforcing this sham. BTW, the tanker in the picture is the "Matthew". For plenty of pics, including a nice aerial shot above Conley Terminal, google LNG Matthew.
Seems correct to me
I think you hit it. Just another part of the Menino regime.
So whatever happened to those
So whatever happened to those offshore LNG terminals we were supposed to get so that the tankers no longer needed to come into the harbor?
They exist, but it was never
They exist, but it was never said that it would cover 100% of shipments. It only keeps the number coming into the city down.
I love these articles!
What is everyone's obsession with taking photos of federal buildings, airports, tankers, subways, etc. Covergence of technology is great, cameras on our cell phones, books that think, unemployed people who blog, what a world we live in. Do we choose to make the world better, helping our fellow man? Nope, we choose to complain, to act as of being told not to take a photo of a boat, or bridge, etc, is taking away our right to breathe.
I like the person who brought up the CCTV issue - so basically any hipster doofus with a Minolta can snap photos for his flickr stream, but we can't have cameras in public places to help look out for robbers/rapists, etc? Hrrrm, that doesn't seem right.
As for the threat of LNG tankers, who'd want to blow up Everett? Ah Everett - Gateway to Saugus. Home of the memorial stadium, the Costco Strip mall, Maybe they think Rupert Everett is in danger? If you've seen any of his movies, you'd agree.
This is, as always the 'don't give up yer freedoom' - right I see it here in the constitution "93rd Ammendment - can use iphone to take photos of Ashmont T station" - how could I have missed it? It is right after the "My right to have an oversized carry on and make a big deal when security want to open it up at the airport and throw a stink."
Currently, the theory around the tin foil hatted folks is that it is the US preparing us for a police state, by enforcing all these rules at the airport, not allowing you to take pictures, etc. Now this makes sense, until you realize how much of the US' population doesn't travel by plane, or have a passport, or even think of snapping a photo of a building. So hrm...maybe it is to try to protect us? From who, you say? Terrorists? Nutcases? Ebola?
If anyone thinks that Americans don't need protecting, tell me Bush got re-elected, and why I can't go two days without hearing about Sarah Palin. People just don't care about you and your stupid photo. Don't people have jobs anymore? Or do they spend all their time looking for things to complain about?
Oh yes, way too much security. It isn't like someone slammed a plane into a building or anything. Oh wait...
September 11, 2001 does not justify these police tactics
Please do not insult the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died that day by even trying to suggest that a ban on photography of "sensitive" subjects would have prevented 9/11/01. I cannot think of a more severe insult to the victims' memories than by using their deaths as justification of a lot of what has happened in this country in the subsequent ten years.
If I am doing nothing illegal -- and taking a photograph of an LNG tanker, or a T station, or Logan Airport is not illegal -- then it is none of your business, nor that of the police, as to why I am taking those pictures.
It is you who insult their
It is you who insult their memories, and of the lives thrown away overseas because your solution to 'don't take a photo!' is to whine about it on the internet. Oh no, someone is using 9/11 as a tactic to seize control of the US! Guess what folks, there is something ruling your lives and watching your every action, and he is called THE INTERNET.
We're in the midst of the cult of the amateur; where people can either create their own news, distort facts, or keep searching for what they believe is truth until they find a site that validates your opinion. The same rationale is in the minds of pedophiles; if you can find enough people who agree with you, you must be right, right?
Keep that in mind as you sleep under your blanket. When you decide to pick up a gun to defend the rights of this country against its enemies, vs attacking in absentia some cops just told to guard a tanker, then you can have a say Until then, go back to your latte, your macbook, and move out of the way.
What a damn fool thing to say, anonnymess
First off, military service is not a prerequisite to having an opinion or excersizing one's rights. We all get those. Maybe you need to revisit your fourth grade civics class.
Second, I happen to have served, as have a great many of both my and my wife's families. And I feel confident that they'd agree with me when I say that you can take your nationalistic, fear-mongering, undemocratic attitude about who does and doesn't get to point out wasteful and ineffective police intrusion into the lives of private citizens - and stick it up your ass.
With all due respect, of course.
Sarah, is that you?
Sigh. When did being an ignorant boob become so fashionable?
A good while back....
See Dicken's depiction of this sort in Martin Chuzzlewit (based on encountering them during the course of his 1842 visit).
There's a difference between
There's a difference between someone going around snapping photos of you and a security camera capturing your actions for no direct reason. A security camera in a public place is meant to prevent crime, yes? Or at the very least, if a crime is committed, it is used as evidence of the crime. However, 99% of the time, the camera is NOT recording crimes, it is recording the innocent and legal actions of everyone that happens to walk in front of it. Will your recorded image ever be used for non-crime-related things? Probably not. COULD it be used? Yes.
Here's a good analogy for you, re: someone taking photos vs. passive and broad-sweeping surveillance. If you're walking around town and talking on a cellphone, anyone standing close to you could hear your conversation, and even write it down, if they wanted. That's legal, and most people are fine with this. We're in a public space, there's a certain amount of privacy we give up. HOWEVER, if a government entity were to be wiretapping everyone's cellphones every time they left the house, you probably wouldn't be so OK with it.
That's the difference between someone taking photos of you while walking down the street, and security cameras on street corners tracking your every move. The photographer has a specific target: you. The cameras just capture EVERYTHING, then they can decide how they want to use that information later.
The question you need to ask
The question you need to ask is why someone SHOULDN'T be allowed to take pictures of buildings or LNG tankers or subway platforms. Who cares WHY they're doing it. Maybe they're creating art. Maybe they like the architecture. Maybe, like Adam presumably was, they're impressed by this massive boat coming through the harbor. Maybe they're train enthusiasts who want to document subway platforms. Maybe they're paraphiliacs who want to go home and jack off to a picture of government center. Maybe they're just doing it for the lulz. The point is in a free society it is presumed that you have the right to do something unless there's a compelling case not to. In this case there would seem to be no compelling case to for preventing people from taking photos because there's simply no way to keep a terrorist or other person with nefarious intent from surveilling an LNG tanker on its way through the harbor.
You make ludicrous references to the need for protection and the need for security but you don't actually give a damn about security. How do I know? Because you're defending useless security theater. What Adam experienced is, as someone pointed out, "security theater." It's the authorities making a show of being tough on security while, as Adam demonstrated, there's no actual practical security benefit to their actions. And the stupid sheep like you gobble it up.
If you don't like it, go back
If you don't like it, go back to Russia!
Oh, a grown man talking a photo of a boat, isn't that cute.
Get a job, hippie.
Stems from reluctance to allow LNG back into harbor
It's been only about a year since the city "allowed" these ships back into the harbor under heavy surveillance. Menino had been pushing for an offshore unload site to be built at the LNG company's expense but failed to get that stipulation.
As a result, the only way they feel "safe" allowing it in is if it's guarded all the way into port and I'm sure that's where this "don't look at the ship" mentality/policy is stemming from.
The Feds were already brought to task about allowing photography from public spaces of the exterior of federal buildings (see Homeland Security directive here). I bet if you pushed hard enough you'd win using this as precedence since these aren't even federal buildings, they're private carriers in public water. The cops have even less reason than their federal buildings argument to keep you from taking pictures.
Offshore Unloading Site
Yes, that would be safer in theory, but I seem to remember that the Coast Guard squashed one idea because it would have put the boats in a less protected zone. Such a terminal would also have to have substantial security, as would the pipeline it fed, and would be far less visible to the public eye.
While I wouldn't call these ships idiot proof or inherently safe, they are very heavily endowed with numerous safety features. It would take quite a caper to bomb one ...
and such a caper would be more likely to be exposed by a random citizen noticing something off ... right?
The sad thing is, the random
The sad thing is, the random citizen is so self absorbed, they would fail to notice three arab guys wearing suicide vests with a big diagram of a ship, if a cop nearby told said citizen to stop snapping photos with his nikon.
The citizen would then say it is the cops job to be a cop, and not harass people wearing trendy vests, or someone talking a photo, and then he would blog and tweet about it as the city went up in flames.
And that's the truth, ruth.
Blow it out your ear, dear
Thanks for playing, though.
You guys are great!
Before I started reading these comments I knew where they were going to be headed. "Cops are mean". I am not a police officer, but this is comical. What did you want this cop to do? Seems he politely asked Adam to not take pictures. Why? Because he was told to. Why? Probably because someone with a camera could be seen as someone with a weapon. Now, of course, a cop in a cruiser parked on a wharf isn't going to stop much, but a show of force can sometimes deter. What was so wrong with him asking a person to stop taking pictures if it could in some small way (albeit very very small) help with safety? You people are great.
Try again
Don't insult our intelligence. The cop has no business whatsoever to ask, or demand, that Adam stop taking pictures. Banning photography does not provide one iota of added safety. Perhaps the police should erect a giant curtain around the entire harbor to prevent anyone from getting a glimpse of these terror-inducing ships cruising our waters?
To do his job, and to not harass law-abiding civilians.
What's so wrong with
a rectal exam before entering an office building if it could help in some very, very small way. If you don't have a bomb in your bum, what's the worry?
What other rights should we throw away if it helps just a little bit?
If you fear the boogie man, you should stay home.
Answers for questions
Leave law-abiding citizens alone.
If he was told to shoot photographers on sight, you'd have no problem with that either? If he was given an unlawful order to carry out, I'm pretty sure he is under no requirement to carry it out.
I think it was pretty clear from his request to Adam that he didn't mistake it for a weapon on approaching him. So, that's a red herring. Also, I don't see anyone complaining that a cop was parked on a wharf as a deterrent.
The 4th (unreasonable search/seizure) & 14th (due process & State can't deprive life/liberty/property) Amendments. They still mean something to the rest of us even if you're willing to give yours away.
usually
usually i can see these tankers coming in in the middle of the night from my apartment window usually 330-4am, all you can see is a large ship moving behind the north end surrounded by blue flashing lights and with a helicopter flying around it
What do we expect the cop to
What do we expect the cop to do? How about not harassing law abiding citizens.
Entirely Pointless
Entirely pointless.... correct me if I'm wrong, but even if you launched shoulder fired rockets at this thing, the LNG inside would not explode? LNG is NG in liquid state, which I believe is not combustible, no? So really, this is all silly...
Not entirely
LNG needs to return to a gas state and mix with oxygen in the air to provide the right fuel mix to become explosive. A leak in one of these tankers (or a catastrophic failure) will result in a quick repressurization and increase in temperature turning the LNG back into a gas and instantly mixing with the newly available surrounding air. At about 5-15% fuel to air mix, you can ignite the air.
Fire a missle at the tanker and you'll rapidly vaporize a portion of the LNG, start a fire, and mix the components with air...you would likely end up with a fireball. As the aerosolized fuel burned, it would heat the rest of the LNG, vaporizing it, and continuing to fuel the fire.
For example, here's a test of an LNG fire on water that the DOE was performing to evaluate fire risks of LNG tankers.
Be a journalist!
Adam, how about contacting the BPD and giving them the opportunity to explain on the record their policy regarding photography, the origin of the "orders from higher up," and the authority under which they are enforcing those orders?
Why would he do that?
When just rolling out a hack "article" is easier and insights his crew of "Government sucks" and "cops are mean". Don't come to this site for objective or fair journalism. Its simply a place to, hopefully, see links to city related pieces. Once in a while Adam seems to think he's a writer and not just a guy who knows how to use Google Alert and copy and paste. Look past that and stay away from the comment section and the site is bearable.
You're slipping
You usually make a reference to my weight.
I don't use Google Alert (there are other ways to find out what people are talking about online, y'know - FeedDemon's wonderful). And I didn't say cops were mean, my point was to note a policy that looks like security but really isn't, but don't let what I said interfere with your rant.
And, yes, I plan to call BPD (I didn't yesterday because it was a crazy day, didn't have the time, that's just what happens when you try to do too much and struggle mightily to pretend to be a writer).
Thanks, Adam. Keep us posted
Thanks, Adam. Keep us posted on the official line from BPD why one of their officers was forbidding photography from a public space.
About this particular anon
For some reason, I have a strong feeling that this particularly hostile (consistently anti-blogger) anon is a disgruntled dead tree media person who you happened to annoy somehow in the past.
Troll
Why should he if you're not even going to take your own advice?
Nobody ever made that claim
Nobody has ever claimed that this site is fair and balanced, or free of bias. Never, and it's better because of that. UHub is run by one guy and his opinion on matters is quite clear. You seem to be under the impression that this is ABC News or the Washington Post. This is a guy writing a blog.
BPD spokesman: Photo taking is OK
I spoke with Eddy Chrispin, a BPD spokesman. Bottom line: "From a constitutional standpoint, you can't tell the public not to take a photo in a public place."
He said that, especially in today's world, officers might ask anybody doing something that looks like it might be suspicious - such as taking photos of an LNG tanker or "major infrastructure" what they're doing - but telling them to put away their cameras? No. He seemed a bit surprised when I told him the officer had cited orders from above.
Good to hear the spokesman
Good to hear the spokesman knows his Constitution.
The problem is that if you had disobeyed the cop on the scene, he still could have ended up arresting you for some vague and bogus charge such as "contempt of cop", and now you would be facing the ramifications of dealing with the legal system, even though you know, and the department acknowledges, that you did nothing wrong.
Does your original hi-res pic show the cruiser's number? It would be nice for the cop to get a reminder that he was mistaken in his order.
Why, yes, it does, but ...
I don't think it would be fair to that cop to complain about him, because I think he really was following orders, so any talking-to should really be with whoever told him to make people put their cameras away, not him.
If, indeed, he actually had
If, indeed, he actually had those orders. Vague handwaving about orders from higher ups need not be interpreted as truth, if you ask me.
Let him pass it up the line
I don't think you have to run cover for a cop...they're big boys and know how to handle blame shifting. If you don't identify him and file a complaint, then how will they know who above him needs a talking to either?
It doesn't take much time to
It doesn't take much time to complete a complaint form online --
http://www.cityofboston.gov/police/complaints/Defa...
Of course, the cop's not going to be fired because of what one civilian alleges the cop to have said. But at the least, it causes someone in the department to recognize that a cop overstepped his authority.
Yeah. . .
. . . I doubt any cop wants to do this nonsense.
Not fair to the rest of us *not* to complain
Making a complaint isn't guaranteed to change anything, but not making a complaint is guaranteed not to change anything.
I don't know if the problem is a single rogue cop harassing law-abiding citizens who are minding their own business, or if the problem lies higher up in the food chain, but in either case if you don't make a specific complaint you can guarantee that the problem will continue.
You have a point . . .
. . . but it takes resources and time to complain and no one wants to get on a "list" and half of us would end up cheering on power against the individual because that individual doesn't match up perfectly to our "ism". And the other half wouldn't do anything more than write an anonymous letter on the internet.
Kind of a sad reflection of
Kind of a sad reflection of what's gone on in our country the past ten years that someone (not you, Adam, just in general) might be afraid of lodging a complaint against a cop out of fear of ending up on some government terror list.
No way that happens.
The Boston Police have zero power in terms of putting people on "watch lists". I honesestly don't even know what a "watch list" is. Would you even know if you were on it?
I would not be so certain of
I would not be so certain of that. Why, then, does the official T photo policy (http://mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Police/P...) stipulate that officers are to record the name and address of anyone taking photos on T property?
True, this is the Transit Police and not the BPD, but the idea that photography is a suspicious behavior seems to pervade police departments everywhere.
Getting the name, date of birth, and address.
Is standard for any 'suspucious person' call.
I'm just saying they don't get put on a "list".
I'm not saying they are or
I'm not saying they are or they are not. But according to the posted policy, T police (I can't speak for BPD) are to forward the details of anyone taking photos to the MBTA Transit Police Department Intelligence Unit. Is this information shared with federal authorities? I don't know. But the T police would certainly be storing the details of someone who was not doing anything illegal.
The fear of not wanting to complain to the authorities over a matter that could be construed as a national security interest (taking a photo of a tanker) is definitely real.
I doubt it.
The Feds will call on local agencies that have come into contact with persons they have an interest in, but probably aren't taking information on people who take photos of LNGs, especially white people born in the US.
Probably not . . .
. . . and I don't think the BPD is who we have to worry about when it comes to lists.
Yes and you get 0 percent of
Yes and you get 0 percent of the answers to the questions you don't ask. What is this, the SAT?
Lets question everything! Like how a fat unemployed nerd gets to collect unemployment and still can afford MacBooks and lattes! Why are so many blacks on welfare? Why is Cambridge a sanctuary city and still doesn't have a decent Taco place, why are Americans so obsessed about things they are told not to do?
I recall when people got so upset after 9/11 about how it would take longer to go to security, and you see soldiers and cops with rifles...have you people been outside the US? Just because you don't see the security, the people watching out for you, it doesn't mean it isn't there. People vomit out information as if it is gospel into twatter, blogs, youtube...and people like the folks here lap it up. Oh gosh, police state!
Yes yes, it is out right to question, bill of rights, 14th ammendment, why are blacks loud at movie theatres why do white people walk funny etc etc. Maybe people need to start living their life and see security as part of it.
Next time I see someone with a camera in public, I'm going to shout at them until they run away and hide.
Aw, how sweet
You remembered to bring up my weight this time!
I can't stand lattes and we're strictly a Windows/Linux household. Why, if you can imagine, on a client-site visit yesterday, I had the person I was training on something take over at the monitor because the Mac mouse they use didn't have a single button; just too damn weird.
Also, haven't collected an unemployment check in two years now, but thanks for your concern about me feeding off the public trough and all.
Also, as my immediate family will tell you, I have grown increasingly crazed in my dotage and so will not run away when you start screaming but will instead just stand there and bellow back.