Eastern Railroad Discussion > CSX and picture-taking

An item on the TRAINS newswire today says CSX crews are now reporting anyone taking pictures of trains to the authorities. Anyone encountered this yet? Would this apply even at Deshler, where it\'s understood that the r.r. park is there for this purpose? Jim in Wapak out.....

If they took pictures of you in the park at Deshler, you would be on privite property. Now to close to the line outside of there, not sure. I have heard this before on here I believe. Same thing at the station in Marion OH. Now if you are further out of town? As long as you are on public or with permission on privite property I would say you have as just much right to take their picture as they do of yours. But I\'m sure it that doesn\'t always work at grade crossings etc.

I went to the TRAINS newswire and didn\'t see the story you are referring to.

They can report all they want - it\'s not illegal.

FDFrisch

Just wanted to say that I had a run in with a WVA County cop last night tryin to take a picture of some friends that were running over the Alleghany Sub. I was at the grade crossing next to the Greenbrier and he run me off. So much for that pic. But managed to get back to the Alleghany Tunnel to get the pic. The cop told me that trains didnt run throught there at night. I told him, Yeah the did cause I just left Clifton Forge takin pictures of it. He then proceeded to tell me that he could arrest me being on Railroad Property and I said yeah I know... I am in fire and rescue I know all about that stuff. I have 6 friends that are either County cops or State Troopers. So he proceded to get back in his car and Just asked me to go down to the station to take pics. Not really bad guy but I am glad to see him doing his job. Thinking about writing to the WV County office and send my appreciation to them for looking out for things.

Steven Nicely
MP274.10

Yep,
just saw this and posted something about it on the Yahoo CSXTrentonline groups list. Was a little taken aback by it myself. If you\'re tresspassing on RR property, or photographing a sensitive train(Military, hazmat)I understand. Public property, no can understand. If the country is going to get to the point that anyone doing something in public that\'s somewhat out of the ordinary will be considered a potential criminal, it\'s getting really SCARY.

John R
http://www.trainweb.org/phllcoal

fdfrisch wrote:

> They can report all they want - it\'s not >illegal.
>
> FDFrisch

Frank, it is when you are standing between 6 and 7 rail when a train is leaving. Or standing on the yard lead by #2 main signal at Randolph St. Its also illegal when you park by the wye, then proceed over the rip, wye track, 9, 8, and then next to 7 while you take a roster shot. Still illegal when standing INSIDE #2 main at \'the dump\', or when out next to the WAS at \'the man trap\'.

Its amazing G-town isn\'t off limits to fans permanently because of the stupid actions of one railfan.

Practice Safe CSX

It is also illegal to give you CSX id/password to someone. And to take pictures of CSX trains while on duty on the CSX. And to trespass on railroad property to take pictures when off duty.

Your not so innocent yourself *******!

FDFrisch

Can we stay on topic on this please.! I\'ll really interested in getting the "skinny" as to CSX\' stance on this issue. Anyone out there know for sure what it may be?

John R

What it boils down to is the legality of taking photographs of \'private property\'. Everything on the RR is owned by someone, be it an individual person (Dale McCormick for example) or a company (UP, CSX, CN, IC, etc). Now I don\'t know the law, but someone probably does.

So, does any law say that it is illegal to take photographs of someone\'s private property without their expressed permission? Which is basically what railfanning is: taking photographs of \'private property\' (though its rolling down the tracks) without expressed permission.

So there may actually be a legal stance on this. Just the first time it has been enforced.

As for my ID - Been \'deactivated\' since the first of the year, I\'m on leave, and don\'t need access it like I did before. So I get to call and have it \'reset\' when I return in a month so that people cannot access the mainframe.

Photos on CSX property - Only taken one while on duty on the CSX, and it was of a G094 at W. Garrett. Some punk stole a numberboard from the engine when it was parked in N. Judson, so I took a shot to send to the CSX Police.

Trespassing on CSX property - Just as illegal as it is for anyone else. Never been questioned when I\'ve been parked along the ROW next to a crossing, so I can\'t be causing THAT big of a nusiance. So yeah, I\'m guilty of trespassing, just not guilty of blatant and dangerous trespassing.

Practice Safe CSX

I was taking pictures in Petersburg Virginia area a couple of months back on CSX. I was on public property, had a camera in plain view, heard the engineer on the scanner say "vehicle parked at milepost XXX- better send someone to check him out".

I stayed put and shot trains for several more hours. Nobody every showed, and none of the following trains bothered to call me in...

It is a joke. Taking pictures from public property of almost anything is legal. There is a little thing called expectation of privacy that does not exist in public places. As far as I know (not a legal beagle) only a person\'s face requires a signed release (except for "public personas" such as politicians and celebrities). Taking pictures from public property of an engine on a railroad is like taking pictures of someone\'s car in their driveway from the street. They don\'t like it, have them put it in the garage.

To borrow a line from our gun nut buddies, they can have my camera when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

CSX_CO wrote:

> What it boils down to is the legality of taking photographs
> of \'private property\'. Everything on the RR is owned by
> someone, be it an individual person (Dale McCormick for
> example) or a company (UP, CSX, CN, IC, etc). Now I don\'t know
> the law, but someone probably does.
>
> So, does any law say that it is illegal to take photographs
> of someone\'s private property without their expressed
> permission? Which is basically what railfanning is: taking
> photographs of \'private property\' (though its rolling down the
> tracks) without expressed permission.
>
> So there may actually be a legal stance on this. Just the
> first time it has been enforced.
>


This is the true discussion intended in this post.

Of course it is legal to take photographs of "private property". If this weren\'t true then the only "legal" photographs would be those taken by the owners of said property.

The question is where IS it legal to take photographs of trains.

Public property: any city,county,state,federal road/street; parks, parking lots open to the public.

Private property that you own or have permission to be on.

Another big part of this is where do you park your vehicle especially at road crossings. Laws by state/county differ. In Indiana the property line on county roads is 20 feet each side of center of the road (single lane roads).

What are the property lines at RR road crossings? Road crossings are "right of ways". How close can one be to the tracks at a road crossing. I would say definitely as close as the gate crossing mechanism.

Interesting post except for the flaring.

FDFrisch

I copied this off the NYSW list over at Yahoo! groups. This was posted there quite awhile ago but I think this should clear some things up, I hope.

Subject:  Photographer\'s Rights document.....



The link to this article was posted to the NERails list.
Realizing that it has some very useful information regarding
how we go about photographing our favorite subjects, I have
reprinted it here for all to see..........



The Photographer\'s Right

About this Guide -
Confrontations that impair the constitutional
right to make images are
becoming more common. To fight the
abuse of your right to free expression,
you need to know your rights to take
photographs and the remedies available
if your rights are infringed.

The General Rule -
The general rule in the United States
is that anyone may take photographs
of whatever they want when they are
in a public place or places where they
have permission to take photographs.
Absent a specific legal prohibition
such as a statute or ordinance, you are
legally entitled to take photographs.
Examples of places that are traditionally
considered public are streets,
sidewalks, and public parks.
Property owners may legally prohibit
photography on their premises
but have no right to prohibit others
from photographing their property
from other locations. Whether you
need permission from property own-
ers to take photographs while on their
premises depends on the circumstances.
In most places, you may reasonably
assume that taking photographs
is allowed and that you do not
need explicit permission. However,
this is a judgment call and you should
request permission when the circumstances
suggest that the owner is likely
to object. In any case, when a property
owner tells you not to take photographs
while on the premises, you are
legally obligated to honor the request.

Some Exceptions to the Rule -
There are some exceptions to the
general rule. A significant one is that
commanders of military installations
can prohibit photographs of specific
areas when they deem it necessary to
protect national security. The U.S.
Department of Energy can also prohibit
photography of designated
nuclear facilities although the publicly
visible areas of nuclear facilities are
usually not designated as such.
Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside
their homes.

Permissible Subjects -
Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully
from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers

Who Is Likely to Violate Your Rights -
Most confrontations are started by
security guards and employees of
organizations who fear photography.
The most common reason given is
security but often such persons have
no articulated reason. Security is
rarely a legitimate reason for restricting
photography. Taking a photograph
is not a terrorist act nor can a
business legitimately assert that taking
a photograph of a subject in public
view infringes on its trade secrets.
On occasion, law enforcement officers
may object to photography but
most understand that people have the
right to take photographs and do not
interfere with photographers. They do
have the right to keep you away from
areas where you may impede their
activities or endanger safety. However,
they do not have the legal right
to prohibit you from taking photographs
from other locations.

They Have Limited Rights to Bother, Question, or Detain
You -
Although anyone has the right to
approach a person in a public place
and ask questions, persistent and
unwanted conduct done without a
legitimate purpose is a crime in many
states if it causes serious annoyance.
You are under no obligation to answer
such questions in any state and do not
have to disclose your identity or the
purpose of your photography.
If the conduct goes beyond mere
questioning, all states have laws that
make coercion and harassment criminal
offenses. The specific elements
vary among the states but in general it
is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear
that they may injure you, damage or
take your property, or falsely accuse
you of a crime just because you are
taking photographs.

Private parties have very limited -
rights to detain you against your will
and may be subject to criminal and
civil charges should they attempt to
do so. Although the laws in most
states authorize citizen\'s arrests, such
authority is very narrow. In general,
citizen\'s arrests can be made only for
felonies or crimes committed in the
person\'s presence. Failure to abide by
these requirements usually means
that the person is liable for a tort such
as false imprisonment.

They Have No Right to Confiscate Your Film -
Sometimes agents acting for entities
such as owners of industrial plants
and shopping malls may ask you to
hand over your film. Absent a court
order, private parties have no right to
confiscate your film. Taking your film
directly or indirectly by threatening to
use force or call a law enforcement
agency can constitute criminal offenses
such as theft and coercion. It can
likewise constitute a civil tort such as
conversion. Law enforcement officers
may have the authority to seize film
when making an arrest but otherwise
must obtain a court order.
Your Legal Remedies If Harassed
If someone has threatened, intimidated,
or detained you because you were
taking photographs, they may be
liable for crimes such as kidnapping,
coercion, and theft. In such cases, you
should report them to the police.
You may also have civil remedies
against such persons and their
employers. The torts for which you
may be entitled to compensation
include assault, conversion, false
imprisonment, and violation of your
constitutional rights.

Other Remedies If Harassed -
If you are disinclined to take legal
action, there are still things you can do
that contribute to protecting the right
to take photographs.
(1) Call the local newspaper and see if
they are interested in running a story.
Many newspapers feel that civil liberties
are worthy of serious coverage.
(2) Write to or call the supervisor of
the person involved, or the legal or
public relations department of the
entity, and complain about the event.
(3) Make the event publicly known on
an Internet forum that deals with photography
or civil rights issues.

How to Handle Confrontations -
Most confrontations can be defused
by being courteous and respectful. If
the party becomes pushy, combative,
or unreasonably hostile, consider calling
the police. Above all, use good
judgment and don\'t allow an event to
escalate into violence.
In the event you are threatened with
detention or asked to surrender your
film, asking the following questions
can help ensure that you will have the
evidence to enforce your legal rights:
1. What is the person\'s name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do
they intend to stop you if you decide
to leave? What legal basis do they
assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film,
what legal basis do they assert for the
confiscation?

Disclaimer -
This is a general education guide
about the right to take photographs
and is necessarily limited in scope. For
example, it does not cover important
issues such as publication and copyright.
For more information about the
laws that affect photography, I refer
you to my book, Legal Handbook for
Photographers (Amherst Media, 2002).
This guide is not intended to be legal
advice nor does it create an attorney
client relationship. Readers should
seek the advice of a competent attorney
when they need legal advice
regarding a specific situation.
published by:
Bert P. Krages II
Attorney at Law
6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97223
www.krages.com
© 2003 Bert P. Krages II
Your Rights and
Remedies When
Stopped or
Confronted
for Photography
February 2003

One other aspect particular to photographing railroad property is this: Railroad markings are corporate trademarks. As long as you\'re taking photographs for personal use, you\'re ok. However, if you want to use the photograph for commercial purposes it may be best to check with the railroad. A fellow railfan I know works for a major airline. He and his friends wanted to use a company logo on their club\'s model layout and had to get written permission from his employer to use the logo. They asked the company for permission and got it.

I am working on a historical book and have a setof railroad advertisements in my personal collection that I am going to use. Some are pre-1900 but one map and two ads are post 1940. Ads and maps are considered intellectual property of the corporations that commissioned them. If the ads were copyrighted before 1923, they fall into public domain. Materials created after 1923 still have enforcable copyright restrictions. When I contacted the railroad\'s contact person to seek permission to use the ads and map, I threw in the pre-1923 material and explained that so far as I knew, the copyright law placed those materials in public domain. Their response was that they had no objections to the use of the material, good luck with the project and they would appreciate a copy of the final publication for their historical files.

I don\'t know FDFrisch...but we have people just like this (Dick Adams ring a bell to anyone in Eastern PA?)....

Well said CSX_CO, brother! "They" ruin our free time by being selfish with theirs!

Common sense.

If you have it, you shouldn\'t have any problems.

If your brain has left the building, all you will do is cause problems for others.

supersock wrote:

> Common sense.
>
> If you have it, you shouldn\'t have any problems.
>
> If your brain has left the building, all you will do is cause
> problems for others.
>
> [%sig%]
I couldn\'t have said it better myself, Rat.

--jag

If it gets to the point where one cannot indulge in railroad videotaping or photography from legal locations, then the terrorists have already won a great victory. I feel that if an officer tries to tell me to leave a place on a public road right of way adjacent to, but not within the railroad right of way at a public road - r.r. crossing, then nobody else should be allowed to go anywhere near same crossing. The roads that cross the tracks should be closed until the powers that be think the threat is gone or diminished.

Also, I think it a little funny that basically you have the taxpayer - paid police force out there protecting somebody\'s "for - profit" company on my dollar. I realize railroads are considered "vital" transportation facilities, but they are still in business for only ONE reason and that is to make money. If private companies can be given preferential treatment in terms of protection, then maybe each of us should be entitled to our own personal police officer stationed on our street or front sidewalk.

The other solution is that, if the railroads don\'t want people to see their trains, then they should build tunnels over the entire right of way at their own expense, and be subject to lawsuits from citizens who accidentally happen to see a train they wish not to see. That would be ridiculous, of course, but then equally ludicrous is the apparent assumption by over - zealous police that everyone they encounter with a camera at a railroad site is probably up to no good.

The railroad industry leaders miss the fact that with an extra set of eyes, and ears and cell phones out there on any given day, at no cost to them, I might add, the chances are reduced that Kahlid, Ishrat or Mohammed will try to pull a stunt under the scrutiny of a bunch of people that might at least turn them in, and at worst, take them down. Also, most railfans are happy to assist crews when problems occur at remote locations. I have personally assisted trainmen where they had undesired emergency brake applications by giving them a ride alongside the train to look for parted hoses or wheels on the ground. With a mile or more train length, the time the train sat tying up the mainline was reduced from an hour or more to a mere 15 minutes. Surely, that must save the railroad money in terms of possibly having to call another crew to relieve the other that may outlaw as the result of a long delay. The railroad industry ought to take a serious look at how they might "employ" the voluntary services of those willing to keep an eye out for problems and assist when possible.

I digressed, but it all ties into the subject of legal rights and the perceptions by both railroad companies and police in general that cause harrassment of innocents. In most cases, officers are doing their job in checking what you might be doing, and they usually don\'t mind leaving us alone as long as we show them some ID or explain the reason for the photography. Until the Bill of Rights is suspended or amended, or until a law prohibiting photography of certain subjects due to a national security issue is made, you have every right to enjoy your hobby legally and sensibly, just as much as any person can go float down a navigable waterway to enjoy a day of fishing. If a Saturday can\'t be spent relaxing along the tracks awaiting a train or six with friends, what would us poor guys have left to enjoy?

Intended in the spirit of encouragement and reason...
Jim Kosty

ConductorAl wrote:

> One other aspect particular to photographing railroad
> property is this: Railroad markings are corporate trademarks.
> As long as you\'re taking photographs for personal use, you\'re
> ok. However, if you want to use the photograph for commercial
> purposes it may be best to check with the railroad. A fellow
> railfan I know works for a major airline. He and his friends
> wanted to use a company logo on their club\'s model layout and
> had to get written permission from his employer to use the
> logo. They asked the company for permission and got it.

A photograph of something bearing a trademarked name or logo should fall under the "Fair Use Doctrine". You\'re essentially using their trademark to describe something of theirs, which is nominative fair use. You can\'t describe a McDonald\'s without using the trademark "McDonald\'s".

However, if you want to use a trademark owned by someone else in a for-profit way, you need to license it from the owner or otherwise obtain permission. Theoretically, you can\'t paint the Conrail can opener on a model box car unless you\'ve obtained permission. (excepting the case that you\'re using decals from a company that has obtained permission)

Are there any railfan-lawyers out there that actually want to explain this stuff and write a FAQ? The whole "intellectual property" thread crops up here about once or twice every three months, and it\'d be nice to just point to the FAQ instead of letting all the confusion build.

Jim Kosty wrote:

> If it gets to the point where one cannot indulge in railroad
> videotaping or photography from legal locations, then the
> terrorists have already won a great victory. I feel that if an
> officer tries to tell me to leave a place on a public road
> right of way adjacent to, but not within the railroad right of
> way at a public road - r.r. crossing, then nobody else should
> be allowed to go anywhere near same crossing. The roads that
> cross the tracks should be closed until the powers that be
> think the threat is gone or diminished.

Wake up and smell the coffee. You do realize that if we shut every single railroad crossing, there would be no reason to run trains either, on account that nobody would be able to go anywhere to buy stuff, go to work, deliver cargo, and so forth? Your arguement is not rational. Just because you get bothered by cops at a railroad crossing does not give you the right to insist that everyone else be denied access. Perhaps either you or the cop were being excessively agressive or stupid?

Shutting down the entire country just because you were wronged is not an option.

> Also, I think it a little funny that basically you have the
> taxpayer - paid police force out there protecting somebody\'s
> "for - profit" company on my dollar. I realize railroads are
> considered "vital" transportation facilities, but they are
> still in business for only ONE reason and that is to make
> money. If private companies can be given preferential
> treatment in terms of protection, then maybe each of us should
> be entitled to our own personal police officer stationed on our
> street or front sidewalk.

You need to read the Constitution. Try Article I, Section 8, where Congress has the right and power to regulate interstate commerce. That includes telling cops to watch over privately-owned railroad tracks, bridges (like the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit, MI, and Windsor, ON, Canada), airports, etc. Also at the end of that section is the "necessary and proper" clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18):

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Congress has the power to make a law providing for police protection of the infrastructure (roads, tracks, rivers, etc.) of interstate commerce. The Executive Branch is in charge of enforcing that law. So Congress sets up the laws and says "protect our country" and the President and his advisors figure out how to do so and put the plan into action.

I also don\'t see how you can claim it is preferential treatment. You think some terrorist is going to personally attack your home? Did you tick someone off with some of your racist comments? If a terrorist blows you up, you\'re dead. The impact to the rest of the country is minimal. Outside of a terrorist attack that damaged or destroyed a very large (larger than oh, 25-50k people) residential area, or an attack that killed >5000 people, the economic impact of a terrorist attack to a residential area or <5000 people is minimal. That\'s why protecting industries and infrastructure (including water treatment plants and aquifers) is important. You forget that if a section of track is damaged and out of service for a significant time, or a major highway bridge is destroyed, that it has a domino effect. The railroad loses money from the damage, the cargo it can\'t ship, etc. The industries using the railroad, highway, etc. lose money because they can\'t get their raw materials. The workers get laid off because the companies don\'t have any production and can\'t afford to pay them. The rest of the country doesn\'t get any goods to buy. And so on.

> The other solution is that, if the railroads don\'t want
> people to see their trains, then they should build tunnels over
> the entire right of way at their own expense, and be subject to
> lawsuits from citizens who accidentally happen to see a train
> they wish not to see.

You\'re nuts. Please try to be a bit more rational in the future.

> That would be ridiculous, of course, but
> then equally ludicrous is the apparent assumption by over -
> zealous police that everyone they encounter with a camera at a
> railroad site is probably up to no good.

I don\'t like it, you don\'t like it, many other people don\'t like it, but the cops essentially have to do what they\'re told. If you don\'t like what they\'re told to do, take it up with them and their bosses, or better yet, don\'t vote the idiots in (or keep voting for the idiots) that come up with these plans.


> The railroad industry leaders miss the fact that with an
> extra set of eyes, and ears and cell phones out there on any
> given day, at no cost to them, I might add, the chances are
> reduced that Kahlid, Ishrat or Mohammed will

Your racism really lends your arguements credibility, sir. If you insist on assuming that the only people who want to mess with the United States, or railroads, or otherwise want to do Bad Things are named Mohammed and come from the Middle East, I will insist that you remove your racist bigot self from Trainorders, or that you are removed. There are plenty of non-middle-eastern idiots that have engaged in acts of stupidity or terrorism. I don\'t think the Irish Republican Army is staffed by people named Mohammed, nor is the KKK.


>try to pull a
> stunt under the scrutiny of a bunch of people that might at
> least turn them in, and at worst, take them down.

Okay. First off, you\'re promoting vigilante justice. You\'re telling us that if we see "Mohammed" trackside looking shifty, and possibly screwing with the tracks, that we should "take them down" presumably by shooting them or beating the crap out of them.

Second off, I\'d like to step back to a video that was posted here several months ago where some idiots were throwing stuff on the tracks as a train was coming and passing through. That\'s not much different in effect than a pre-meditated terrorist attack, if they actually succeed in causing a tanker full of HAZMAT to derail and spill. If I recall correctly, it looked like white teenagers throwing stuff on the tracks. I guess according to you, they\'re not Arabs so I shouldn\'t pay attention, right? Or perhaps I should go "take down" some juveniles (and get arrested and sued for daring to touch some parents\' poor babies)?

> Also, most
> railfans are happy to assist crews when problems occur at
> remote locations. I have personally assisted trainmen where
> they had undesired emergency brake applications by giving them
> a ride alongside the train to look for parted hoses or wheels
> on the ground. With a mile or more train length, the time the
> train sat tying up the mainline was reduced from an hour or
> more to a mere 15 minutes. Surely, that must save the railroad
> money in terms of possibly having to call another crew to
> relieve the other that may outlaw as the result of a long
> delay.

While it is nice and polite and a good thing to offer assistance, the lawyers and executives of companies have to look out for the interests of the owners and stockholders. Those interests include making sure they\'re not liable for someone who gets injured while on their property (legally or illegally) or lending assistance. If I may make an analogy:

Scenario 1:

You\'re driving down the highway and you get a flat tire. You pull over and start changing the tire. Someone comes along and offers to give a hand, and you accept their help. While changing the tire, the car falls off the jack and crushes their hand or foot. They sue you for having a faulty jack, not following the proper tire-changing procedure in the manual, negligence, and so on.

Scenario 2:

You live in a house with a big yard and a pool and central air. It\'s running near 100 degrees outside, and you\'re inside on a side not facing the pool, watching the ball game on TV. A neighborhood kid climbs the fence you have around your back yard (clearly tresspassing), climbs onto your diving board, attemps to do a double reverse backflip dive, cracks his head on the end of the diving board, falls into the pool, and drowns. The kid\'s parents sue you for not having a fence that the kid couldn\'t climb, for having a dangerous diving board, for not monitoring the pool at all times, and for not having NO TRESPASSING signs posted every 6 inches apart on your property.

(Note here that I am not making any assumptions or claims about guilt or negligence or responsiblity on either side. That is irrelevant for the purposes of my arguement.)

This is what the railroads think about when they see railfans or trespassers or other (potential) idiots on or near their property. They absolutely do not wish to have to face this sort of situation. That is why they are extremely uptight about anyone that\'s not an employee being on or near their property. They have to look out for their interests. Their interests include not being sued because some idiot drove their four-wheeler on the tracks and got hit and is now permanently riding a different four-wheeler called a wheelchair. Sure, you will claim that you\'re responsible and you will take responsibility, but the railroad can\'t accept that because they\'ve been burned before, and the legal system doesn\'t allow them to hold up a magic waiver to a jury and say "he signed off on his right to sue!"

Go talk to a real lawyer if you think I\'m wrong about this.

> The railroad industry ought to take a serious look at
> how they might "employ" the voluntary services of those willing
> to keep an eye out for problems and assist when possible.

The railroad industry does not wish to pay the insurance industry $10 trillion a year in liability insurance for the "volunteers", nor do they wish to pay out the millions needed to train the "volunteers", handle the logistics of dealing with all the "volunteers" and the information and problems and so on that would be created by such a program. See my point above about having to worry about being sued. Such "volunteers" could be viewed as "de facto" agents for the railroad, so if the "volunteers" don\'t do what they\'re supposed to, the railroad would face having to defend itself from yet another lawsuit.

> I digressed, but it all ties into the subject of legal rights
> and the perceptions by both railroad companies and police in
> general that cause harrassment of innocents. In most cases,
> officers are doing their job in checking what you might be
> doing, and they usually don\'t mind leaving us alone as long as
> we show them some ID or explain the reason for the photography.

Corporations have the right to protect their interests and assets. Bet you didn\'t know that the phone companies have the right to wiretap you without a warrant (since they\'re not police, they wouldn\'t be able to or required to get one anyhow) if the integrety and security of their assets (the telephone system) is threatened. If you\'re trying to hack the phone system, scam free calls, or disrupt/destroy the phone system, they can listen in. Since this is also criminal activity, they call the Feds in (who actually need a warrant before they can start their own wiretaps or use information from the phone company\'s taps and records). The same reasoning is behind cameras in workplaces -- companies have the right to protect their assets, which includes making sure employees aren\'t making off with office supplies, or trade secrets, or prototype products.

The police and fire departments are charged with protecting public safety and law enforcement. That means they get to check on people to make sure the people are not going to endanger themselves or others or are breaking the laws. Fortunately, police have to follow the legal system from the Constitution down to local laws, and that includes search warrants, Miranda rights, habeas corpus, and due process.

> Until the Bill of Rights is suspended or amended, or until a
> law prohibiting photography of certain subjects due to a
> national security issue is made, you have every right to enjoy
> your hobby legally and sensibly, just as much as any person can
> go float down a navigable waterway to enjoy a day of fishing.
> If a Saturday can\'t be spent relaxing along the tracks awaiting
> a train or six with friends, what would us poor guys have left
> to enjoy?

*Sigh.* You need to check your history. World War II had the Office of War Information and Office of Censorship to control what was published in the media and try to ensure that "national security" was preserved by making sure people didn\'t do things (like take photographs of potential targets) that could aid the enemy.

Also, you have no *right* to enjoy any hobby legally and sensibly. You have the *freedom* to pursue hobbies within the legal framework of Federal, state, and local laws. Those laws say things like "trespassing is illegal" and "possessing kiddie porn is very illegal" for a reason. There is no right to watch trains just as there is no right to collect kiddie porn. Collecting kiddie porn is illegal for various reasons, and has been repeatedly upheld to be such. Laws can be passed that say "you can\'t photograph or watch trains", but there are two immediate problems that such laws would face. the first would be enforceability: How do you make sure people don\'t watch trains? It\'s essentially impossible. So many people would be guilty soon as they ventured within a few miles of their homes. The second would be the political viability/backlash of such laws. Assuming that the people were informed that the legislation was being introduced (before it was voted on and made law), the people would be lilely to laugh their butts off at the idiot lawmakers trying to pass something so obviously stupid and unenforceable.

The Constitution, being the Supreme Law of the Land, does not give you the right to pursue a hobby. You and so many others seem to think that you have this right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Sorry to burst your bubble, but that\'s the Declaration of Independence, which really does not have that much legal status. Those principles weren\'t codified into the Constitution (Supreme Law of the Land). While the courts check against the Declaration of Independence as a statement of intent of what the Founding Fathers wanted, it by no means grants you the right to take pictures of trains. Sorry.

>
> Intended in the spirit of encouragement and reason...
> Jim Kosty

I encourage you to go read the Constitution. Then take a good long look in the mirror. You have some issues with racism that need some attention. The presence of a few idiots in the Arab world does not imply that the entire Arab world consists of idiots. Similarly, the presence of idiots in the United States (like the ones behind the "Freedom Fries" thing, or the ones that wear white sheets and burn crosses, or the ones that make millions with rap music and then shoot each other) does not mean that everyone in the USA is an idiot.

If the next terrorist attack was from the Michigan Militia, or from the Bloods or Crips, or from the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Alliance, would you be screaming that all militia groups, or all young black males, or all homosexuals and bisexuals are terrorists?