Youtube Removes Video of Maguire Properties Guard Harassing Photographer

[thebakerman1]

I guess even YouTube breaks the law on occasion :(

[viruslived]

@thebakerman1

No... they can remove any video they want for ANY reason they see fit. YouTube didn't break any laws. On the other hand, the guy posting all these videos sure knows how to abuse his freedoms.

[thebakerman1]

@viruslived To each their own, dude.

However, MOST of us say any building sitting in full view of public property is fair game when it comes to photography or video. Privacy laws don't apply when the building in question can be seen in broad daylight from the fucking SIDEWALK.

[viruslived]

@thebakerman1 Yeah I agree with you. I'm just saying the guy filming these videos is just annoying... Yes what he does is legal... for now. The more out of control this stuff gets, the more likely a government official will put their foot down and amend something. Kinda like what happened to cell phones while driving. I don't believe this is exercising rights, this is abusing freedoms. Frankly it's childish.

[thebakerman1]

@viruslived Yes, absolutely. How some of these people approach a given situation say's a lot about how it may play out. Cops do this all the time. They approach a situation many times rather aggressively. Yet if they just acted liked a real human being things wouldn't escalate like they do. But this guy apparently knew about the guards and their erroneous boasting of video-recording of the building being against the law. That's likely why he approached it the way he did.

[skatecubed]

@viruslived Annoying is not illegal, legislating people into submission ends in one of possibly two ways, a revolution, or a totalitarian state, do you want either to happen?

[MKrip808]

The Patriot Act, gives the word "Patriot" a bad name. Next they will call the Nazi concentration camps, health and diet centers and call prisons, freedom fairs.

[govtiscool]

It looks like your attacking the management company and the gaurd services. What's your point and if you took pictures im sure there was a reason why you couldn't.

But looks like the person who was saying it should be resposible not the whole pie.... just saying write back

[skatecubed]

@govtiscool If there is a reason, such as national security, that reason needs to be conveyed, or the officer tower moved to a secure location. Until then, while it is in public view from a public location, it is fair game. It is blind "faith" that there must be something wrong with it if the guards and police are harassing the photographer is EXACTLY the reason people need to stand up for their rights.

[skatecubed]

@govtiscool People who accept, without question, their rights being questioned and violated, people like you, will eventually lose them, along with all their other rights, and they will take everyone down that rode with them.

[bruno1m2m3]

Can't you upload the video to another server? If you already did, please discard this comment.

[ManicEightBall]

As far as I know, if the company makes part of it's property public and lets people walk around freely, they are not allowed to treat it as "private" when someone takes pictures. If it is treated as public, then it's public.

[PlasteredDragon]

Not sure what the fuss is about on the part of this security guard--you are standing on a public thoroughfare--ANYTHING visible from there is okay to photograph, THAT'S THE LAW. This includes both the Gas Company Tower and the security guard who mistakenly thinks he has a right to stop you from taking pictures.

[skatecubed]

Is it just me discarted, or is spooky just another one of those paranoid, everyone is a terrorist, repeater of hearsay bullshitters that believes that there is a great photography conspiracy to attack office towers from public property with out super duper zoom lenses, and steal the souls of the gallant guards with our wide angle lenses?

[skatecubed]

Oh, and Spooky, have you never heard of architectural photography?, it s actually a well recognized type of photography, when you take part in architectural photography, you take pictures of buildings, can be great fun actually, until you meet meatheads like yourself and the security guard, who seem to think that a photo of a building somehow puts the structural integrity of the building at risk.

[skatecubed]

Get your cranial structure out of your posterior orifice and do some research on architectural photography, maybe even sign up for a course on it at your local community college, that is of course assuming you graduated high school with your impressive research and reasoning abilities.

[discarted]

@skatecubed

well said

[LtBitter]

@skatecubed Couldn't agree more. The harassment and post 911 worry needs to stop. I enjoy photography and we should be allowed to take photos without people getting paranoid.

[Spookysr]

Well I dunno' about this 1 Shawn... If the GAS COMPANY TOWER has something to do w/Homeland Security then its covered under the Patriot Act. You can't photo or record it from ANYWHERE. But since I don't know what this tower is I dunno' if its a "high profile target" w/DHS. But the word GAS makes me think it may be a terrorist target. The SG is certainly UNIFORMED as to DHS and the PA. Why didn't he just quote that? You're right that you can photo any bldg from a public sidewalk IF not HPT!

[discarted]

@Spookysr

Another bullshit comment from someone who has no clue what he's talking and just makes more things up with every comment he leaves.

would you say this is about your 8th comment with inaccuracies in it

keep spinning spooky

[Spookysr]

@discarted - You really need to stop your arrogant tirades and listen to reason. You need to research Th PATRIOT ACT and look for photographing HIGH PROFILE TARGETS from anywhere. Its NOT bullshit its sage wisdom you should follow unless you want to go to a CIA torture chamber in CUBA (Gitmo)? Yes now under new administration they will render little clueless shopping mall loitering IDF operatives too. No more diplomatic immunity. You still haven't explained why you do this. What's your mission?

[discarted]

@Spookysr

you really must stop the paranoia and the spreading of false information

so now you're calling yourself a sage? give me a break

everything you have said has been conjecture or just wrong

again, produce the actual law from the patriot act that prohibits photography of "high profile targets"

whats a high profile target anyway

and i don't think youve read the patriot act. youre just regurgitating inaccurate BS youve heard from one of your "sage" buddies

read the blog, UC

[sakkurae]

upload movie to rapidshare or metacafe

[charlie52707]

As a Maguire (MPG) stockholder, I approve of photographs of MPG properties taken from public roadways and easements.

[Spookysr]

@charlie52707 - Even if Shawn is working for some foreign power or friendly-country spy agency in an attempt to case utility buildings & subways for future terroristic activities? I think your OTHER board members would have to say something about that. Why does he take these photos anyway? He never explains his "art" does he. He just tries to keep pushing this constitutional right angle as if he never heard of the PATRIOT ACT; which BTW supersedes it.

[discarted]

@Spookysr

the Patriot Act supersedes the Constitution?

if that's true ol' sage one, then why were bush's illegal wiretaps deemed illegal and unconstitutional this past month

that doesn't seem like the patriot act is superseding the constitution. now does it.