Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



NYC Artist Satirizes Law Enforcement Drone Program; Gets Book Thrown At Him By NYPD

from the for-all-the-tough-talk,-the-skin-is-surprisingly-thin dept

If there's one thing authority figures hate, it's anything that goes counter to the narrative and/or puts their pet projects in an unfavorable light. A New York City artist is learning this the hard way after he and some friends took aim at the police department's drone program, plastering the city with satirical ads touting the "safety" provided by the new eyes in the sky.
On September 16, 29-year-old “Essam” and a group of friends blanketed lower Manhattan with posters designed to look like official New York Police Department signage. “Drones: Protection When You Least Expect It,” read the slogan below simple ideograms of families running from unmanned aerial vehicles. Essam and his team disguised themselves as employees of the outdoor advertising firm Van Wagner, which manages the advertising space on bus stations and kiosks throughout the city. All told, they swapped out about 100 ads.

“We see this trend throughout history of military technology always coming to the civilian world,” the Army veteran told Animal New York. He says his goal is for the conversation about domestic police use of drones “to reach a mainstream level where we are talking about this at the dinner table.”

Needless to say, the PD was highly unamused. Its "weeks-long manhunt" for the artist finally culminated in an arrest... and a handful of trumped up charges.
Essam Attia, 29, was hit with 56 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument, grand larceny possession of stolen property and weapons possession after allegedly having an unloaded .22-caliber revolver under his bed at his Manhattan apartment when he was arrested early Wednesday.

He posted bail, which was set at $10,000 bond or $2,500 cash, and is due back in Manhattan Criminal Court on Dec. 3.
Attia hoped to generate some awareness and kickstart discussion about the increasing prevalence of law enforcement drone usage. Unfortunately, it looks as though the NYPD is only interested in providing its narrative, one that is free from criticism or transparency. It also seems to be particularly bad at actual "police work." Essam signed many of the posters with his artist signature ("ESSAM") and participated in a barely-anonymous interview and yet it took a "weeks-long manhunt" to track him dow.

Calling his lookalike posters "forged" is stretching the truth to fit a hefty criminal charge, one that appears to have been levied solely out of spite. Perhaps if Essam had just placed his posters over the NYPD's, he wouldn't also be facing the grand larceny charge, but that's just quibbling over theoretical outcomes. The larger issue is the First Amendment. No one ever guaranteed free speech without consequences, but it does seem like this pursuit of an artist who honestly did nothing more than make more New Yorkers more aware of their PD's tactics has very little to do with bringing a criminal to justice, and everything to do with harshly shutting down criticism in order to deter further critiques of the NYPD. 


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Arsik Vek (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 9:29am

    I know I'll probably catch flack for this, but I really disagree with what he did.

    He broke into the Van Wagner advert boxes and replaced the contents. It's not like he stapled them to telephone poles, or somewhere else public notices are commonly posted.

    Do I think the charges are overblown? Yes. I'd equate it more with trespass and vandalism, but I still don't think this is the Free Speech issue it would be if he'd posted them somewhere more socially acceptable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 10:14am

    Re:

    It's not like he stapled them to telephone poles, or somewhere else public notices are commonly posted.

    Even though everyone does this, it is also illegal to put a sign on a telephone pole, street sign, etc. without permission from the government in many places around the country. As are most signs placed in the medians along highways and similar places.

    if he'd posted them somewhere more socially acceptable.

    Which obviously would not have had the reach, exposure, and impact of what he did. While he may have broken the law, I personally support civil disobediance to draw attention to laws, policies, and actions performed by the government which may not be in line with protecting the citizen's freedoms.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Arsik Vek (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 10:43am

    Re: Re:

    Yes, but most of those things don't involve breaking into private property, taking down the owner's message, and replacing it with yours. That's the part I have a problem with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 10:54am

    The large soda ban is working!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Atroll, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah... about that claim. Bus stops are public property, as are information kiosks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Atroll, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 10:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    and, even though might not have be allowed to put those posters up on public property, it's the same situation as the telephone poles.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:08am

    Re:

    I agree. Pulling down someone's ad at a bustop is vandalism.. Not sure about trespassing at a busstop, but there wouldn't be much of a story if he had been charged reasonably.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    VMax, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:09am

    Vandalism or not, where can I get one of those posters?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Pretty sure the boxes with the ads in them belong to Van Wagner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    MAJikMARCer (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:09am

    Re:

    I don't really disagree with you, but there is very little 'street art' that IS done legally. Hopefully he can get a good lawyer to settle the excessive charges though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Yakko Warner (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:10am

    Re:

    Exactly. This artist isn't quite as innocent as Tim would have us believe. You are free to speak your mind; you are not free to break into property to promote that speech.

    But, to be sure, I don't believe he's nearly as guilty as the NYPD would have us believe, either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Since when is public property not owned by the public? He is a member of the public. Governments are not people anymore than corporations are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:13am

    Re:

    I want one too!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:14am

    Media Coverage

    I would have to assume him getting charged with these kinds of crimes was part of his plan to get media coverage. It's hard to believe anyone who understands the problems of the NYPD using drones would not know what their reaction would be. Including his name on the posters and taking interviews would just add to the evidence that he expected to be caught and charged.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re:

    Just remember that next time you are charged with rape when you are caught jaywalking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re:

    Same here, and I'm willing to pay. Thanks NYPD! You've just helped to advertise this artist and may have gotten him an income.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Atroll, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's what I said

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:18am

    Forgery

    I am wondering what he had that they are charging him with 56 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    He is one member of the public. He needs to run the decision of what to do with the property by the rest of them. Thankfully instead of getting individual, unanimous sign-off you just need the decision of their elected representative(s).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Arsik Vek (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As the AC said, those boxes aren't public property. They belong to the Van Wagner advertising firm. This is like wallpapering over a billboard, or defacing a company's website.

    It certainly doesn't warrant the charges against him unless there's something *big* we're missing, but it's definitely a step above tacking a poster onto a blank wall or a telephone pole.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:25am

    Re: Re:

    The locked box with the ad in it isn't publicly accessible. Entry is trespass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Agreed, not seeing the forgery shenanigans. The fact that this isn't a simple first amendment issue doesn't mean the charges aren't trumped up and bullshit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Rob, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:31am

    Re: Forgery

    IMO, the implication is that the posters themselves are the "forged instruments", at least in the sense the Weird Al's "Eat It" is a forgery of Michael Jackson's "Beat It".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Robert Doyle (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:32am

    Re:

    Whatever you do don't steal it! ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Like I said, not sure about trespassing at a busstop, but vandalism or trespassing would at least be reasonable charges. Calling it grand larceny might has well be calling it a murder suicide.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:36am

    Re: Forgery

    Pretty sure that's just 56 copies of the ad you see in the article. The state is arguing, basically, that a moron in a hurry would think they were real NYPD ads which, when it comes to government stuff, makes them forged instruments.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The charges look pretty inflated yeah.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The difference between this guy's penalty and the next guy who just smashed one of these boxes is the first ammendment issue here.

    The fake charges over and above what is deserved is exactly what is being used here to attempt to silence anyone this guy and anyone who might believe that getting their message heard is worth the legal consequences.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:48am

    What I Want To Know

    Where can I donate to have those posters put up legitly?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re: Forgery

    The article indicates more than 100 poster replacements. So, I don't think the 56 counts were the posters. In addition, the moron in a hurry has nothing to do with forgery - forgery requires an attempt to defraud, and I do not think anyone could argue (with a straight face) that he intended to pass his posters off as originals.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re: Forgery

    Uhh...this time, the state might be telling the truth. In today's world, who wouldn't believe that an official looking poster of a drone firing at a family isn't true?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:58am

    Re:

    It would also make a great T-Shirt. This guy should be selling them to fund his legal defense. I'd pay $20 for one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 12:00pm

    There is no Liberty in NYC, the .22 caliber hand gun will put him in prison on Rikers Island.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 12:01pm

    Re: Re: Forgery

    In other words parody, or 'fair use'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 12:13pm

    You see people without power using hyperbole to make a point is fine, police using hyperbole to get to someone is just wrong.

    I do agree that he trespassed/vandalized or caused minor damaged to private property owned by somebody else and he should pay for it, but trying hard to increase the penalties just because you don't like what the guy has to say is just wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Forgery

    This site needs a 'sick sad world' button.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 12:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Forgery

    I know the phrase is from trademark disputes but it's similar to what the state is arguing here, that there's intent to pass them off as official. I know that's insane but they're still charging him with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 12:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Excellent point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Ophelia Millais (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 12:45pm

    Re:

    Yes, you will catch flak for this.

    They are not charging him with breaking into the advert boxes and replacing the contents. They are also apparently not charging any of the people who helped him. It's not even clear how much of a role he had in the actual swapping of the signage. Instead, they've charged only him with a bizarre set of crimes which you admit are inappropriate. Yet you seem to believe it's OK to convict him of something—anything—because you don't like the fact that the advert boxes were broken into.

    What's worse, the abridgment of his free speech rights, or the injustice of a public which won't accept that he should not be punished at all if he is not found guilty, in a court of law, of the exact crimes with which he has been charged? The innocent—that is, those who haven't been found guilty in court—must go free (and ideally shouldn't be put through the wringer in the first place), even if they actually done something wrong. It doesn't matter if it's a petty vandal or a terrorist mastermind being put on the stand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Ophelia Millais (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 12:45pm

    Re:

    Yes, you will catch flak for this.

    They are not charging him with breaking into the advert boxes and replacing the contents. They are also apparently not charging any of the people who helped him. It's not even clear how much of a role he had in the actual swapping of the signage. Instead, they've charged only him with a bizarre set of crimes which you admit are inappropriate. Yet you seem to believe it's OK to convict him of something—anything—because you don't like the fact that the advert boxes were broken into.

    What's worse, the abridgment of his free speech rights, or the injustice of a public which won't accept that he should not be punished at all if he is not found guilty, in a court of law, of the exact crimes with which he has been charged? The innocent—that is, those who haven't been found guilty in court—must go free (and ideally shouldn't be put through the wringer in the first place), even if they've actually done something wrong. It doesn't matter if it's a petty vandal or a terrorist mastermind being put on the stand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    chcolleran, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 12:46pm

    Re: Re: Forgery

    That will be an interesting argument to make. 'We believe that a moron in a hurry will currently thinks that the city police force would use drones to hunt down and shoot missiles at a family.' Doesn't that mean that they are admitting that they have a bigger problem that is self created?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Ophelia Millais (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re:

    Ugh, sorry for double post. This one (with typo) should be deleted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 1:01pm

    and so the censoring continues. i doubt now if it will ever end and we have only ourselves to blame. what a peculiar species we are!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 1:03pm

    It doesn't matter that its trumped up charges. The NYPD scared anyone that would have tried the same stunt. Fear mongering is what they do best, they won't accept interference.

    Uncle Sam is starting to look like the dirty pervert uncle that no one likes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Arsik Vek (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Re:

    Wow. Way to read *way* more into it than what I said.

    I said I thought what they were charging him with was wrong.

    I stated what crimes seemed more accurate based on the description of events in the article. Trespass, for breaking into the private property advert boxes, and Vandalism, for replacing their posters with his own.

    Who's saying he should be punished whether he's guilty or not? It certainly wasn't me. I can think his actions were wrong while simultaneously thinking the treatement he's getting from the authority is way off base. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

    If I ran a storefront, and somebody broke in to plaster my windows with their posters, I wouldn't classify that as protected under Free Speech. They have a right to put out whatever message they want. They do *not* have a right to do it with my property.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 1:50pm

    Ironic tyranny

    He protested America becoming a brutal police state, so the police hunted him down and threw him in jail on false charges.

    Not bad, but they should've gone for maximum irony and used a drone to kill him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 2:05pm

    Re: Ironic tyranny

    ...Dammit, we need new buttons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 2:13pm

    God bless America, land of freedom!
    (sarcasm)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Kyle Reynolds Conway (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 2:28pm

    Sort of reminds me how important the internet really is. While the physical world would hardly take notice of such fantastic political art created and distributed on the web, the transition into the physical world causes general craziness to take hold of certain people.

    It *is* important if it's on the web, but that is mostly preaching to the choir. It seems that political art about technology is more effective when physical. Wonder how long that will last?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 2:35pm

    Re:

    I spent a few days in Zucotti park last year while vacationing. It was an eye opening experience. I always though people talking about a police state in this country were exaggerating until I witnessed it with my own eyes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 2:39pm

    Re: Re:

    Me too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 2:40pm

    Re: Media Coverage

    Sometimes our actions are worth the consequences.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 2:41pm

    Re: Re: Forgery

    The satire is pretty obvious here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 2:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Forgery

    They probably found 56 more posters at his home.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    ldne, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 3:04pm

    Re: Forgery

    56 posters. The morons are claiming the posters are "forgeries" when they're clearly parodies. Unless he made exact copies of the NYPD and various other official logos on them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Yakko Warner (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 3:29pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm just saying the comment "who honestly did nothing more than make more New Yorkers more aware of their PD's tactics" is leaving out the fact that he (allegedly) broke into someone else's property to do it. He is not "honestly doing nothing more than making a public statement" -- in fact, the way he did it was fairly dishonest.

    I did not defend the charges the NYPD are bringing against him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 5:01pm

    Is it a police thing?

    So this makes the second police action recently trying for the prestigious 'Ironic Actions Award'(the first of course being the 'soldiers died for your freedoms, so we're going to lock you up for exercising them' lot mentioned a while back).

    Do they think it's a competition or something, and really want the award to show off to people?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 5:21pm

    I would not be surprised if this guy "disappeared..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 5:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The use of drones without public discussion completly dwarves what crimes this guy has alegedly been "accused" of.......this is a political arrest, and those here willing to put this guy out for breaking a law......then perhaps some of you can explain why your leaders deserve special treatment, for crimes that are vastly more serious

    Bottom up crime......criminal

    Top down crime.......noble piece prize

    Can you see the logic in that

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 5:46pm

    So NYC is competing with Boston for the much coveted Dumbass Award ??

    Remember Aqua Teen Hunger Force?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 6:23pm

    Re: Re:

    Let's forget the missing charges and look at the reported charges, shall we?

    Criminal possession of a forged instrument - That would be his own posters which have the NYC and NYPD marks on them, presumably calling the misuse of the marks 'forgery.' That's a huge one to actually prove. If I slap a Nabisco mark on my bag of cookies, is that forgery? We'll have to see, but I don't think so.

    Grand larceny possession of stolen property - That depends on how much those posters are worth. All they have to do is prove what they paid for each one to make this one stick, so likely a valid charge, ridiculous as it may seem to us.

    Weapons possession - For a .22 caliber hand gun that was unloaded? Not a felony offense, I would think. Just an added slap in the face. If it's unregistered it might stick. Otherwise, yeah, mostly a non-starter without proving that he had it in his possession while he was committing his criminal mischief.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    TechDan, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 8:32pm

    A few points from someone who actually works on drones

    1. You can't use an official police emblem on a non-official advertisement. It's the paper equivalent of impersonating an officer.
    2. Police already use helicopters.
    3. The NYPD doesn't even have drones.
    4. Police already use helicopters.
    5. No police drones are armed. Period.
    6. Police already use helicopters.
    7. No police drones are autonomous.
    8. Police already use helicopters.
    9. The FAA is unlikely to ever allow usage of autonomous drones over a city.
    10. Police already use helicopters.

    Yes, there needs to be a conversation about the future of domestic drone use. It's already occurring in academic circles. However, this guy is going about it in an overly sensationalist way, and broke several laws to do it. This isn't civil disobedience. It's muckraking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Rob, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 9:06pm

    Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones

    You aren't really familiar with the meaning of the term "muckraking," are you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:01pm

    Trumped up?

    > and a handful of trumped up charges.

    How exactly is the gun charge 'trumped up'? Are you accusing the NYPD of planting it on him? Otherwise, it's a pretty straightforward charge-- he was in possession of an illegal firearm.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:04pm

    Re: Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones

    > You aren't really familiar with the meaning of the term
    > "muckraking," are you?

    Whether he is or not, you didn't bother to address his more salient point-- that the police already use helicopters.

    Since any potential police drones will not be armed, despite what this 'artist' claims, what the hell is the difference between a cop in a helicopter with a camera on it and a cop flying a small plane with a camera on it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:07pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    > Just remember that next time you are charged with rape
    > when you are caught jaywalking.

    Ohm for gawd's sake. Yeah, I'm really worried about that happening.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 11:11pm

    Re: Re:

    > Yet you seem to believe it's OK to convict him of something—
    > anything—because you don't like the fact that the advert boxes
    > were broken into.

    No, he doesn't support charging the guy merely because he doesn't like something. He clearly said that it's appropriate to charge him with something, because breaking into and vandalizing private property-- and yes, the ad boxes are the property of the advertising agency-- is a crime.

    He also never claimed it would be appropriate to charge him with just 'anything' as you claimed. You're being rather disingenuous here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 7:05am

    Re: Trumped up?

    The bill of rights are considered to be natural rights, rights we are born with, rights that can't be taken away, thus, any charge for possession of a firearm is trumped up from my perspective.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Androgynous Cowherd, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 7:48am

    Streisand Effect

    Good job, NYPD -- now instead of some New Yorkers seeing the posters at bus stops and stopping to question, the whole world is seeing the posters plastered all over the web.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 8:37am

    Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones

    1. Its a prank even if it is not all those people impersonating police officer on TV should be also charged no?
    2. Its a prank.
    3. Yet.
    4. So?
    5. Not yet, wait and see sniper drones near a SWAT team near you any day now.
    6. So?
    7. Not yet and how long will stay that way?
    8. So?
    9. FAA unlikely not the same as will not.
    10. So?

    Is the phrase "Police already use helicopters." some sort of sausage filling?

    Muckraking or not he deserves his right to speak freely, just like the White supremacists, young boy lovers, churches and everybody else that is on the fringe of society, is not up to any government to take action against those people is up to people inside their communities to find a way to deal with them in a non-violent fashion, and without using brute force (i.e. law enforcement, thugs, etc)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 8:48am

    Re: Re: Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones

    Personally I believe the artist is full of s., but still it doesn't justify the actions the NYPD took against him, he was exercising his First Amendment and he may have broke some minor laws for doing it for which he should pay, but he didn't did all that stuff they say he did either so he shouldn't be bullied into compliance by authorities, he should be called out by the public, the police should intervene if this ends up in violence which probably won't.

    Prank artist do a lot more and they don't get the book thrown at them, but because it is someone critiquing the police this is now right?
    I don't believe it is.

    Here is a prank.

    Rémi Gaillard: Radar

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 8:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Does this means Rémi Gaillard would be a criminal in the US?

    Isn't sad that even France is more open.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Thebes, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 11:02am

    nullification

    I have no problems with what he did.
    If the jury isn't hand-picked to aid conviction by choosing tax-feeders for it, AND if the judge doesn't lie and tell jurists how they "must" find- there is no way they'd convict him.

    Of course it always seems that prosecutors choose biased juries of sheeplets on the government's pay. Then a judge lies to them and says "If you believe that the defendant did x, y and z, then you MUST FIND him guilty.

    The beauty of a jury system as originally envisioned is that if merely one man in twelve believes strongly that a "criminal" did right, not wrong, that jurist can keep the man from being locked into a cage for his deed, regardless of what bs laws and procedural rules the political class promulgates upon us.

    I would in no case vote to convict this man, he is an American Hero, nuff said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Rob, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 11:31am

    Re: Re: Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones

    Whether he is or not, you didn't bother to address his more salient point-- that the police already use helicopters.

    I kinda skimmed the list and missed that point . . .

    But since you mention it, it appears that the NYPD is willing to put heavy weapons on its helicopters: Can the NYPD Shoot Down a Plane? Kinda, Sorta, Not Exactly.

    So they already have helicopters. They've got big guns for them. From there it's not a huge leap to arming drones.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones

    will there only be a single drone? perhaps a few?

    how many manned helicopters can the department afford?


    that is the difference.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Jono, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    So you're upset that he didn't show appropriate manners? Are dropping bombs on civilians appropriate manners? Because that's what these machines were designed to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Neil, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 2:12pm

    Crazy

    You guys are arguing laws when Drones are able to shoot you from the skies in your own country? What the heck is wrong with you people?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Dec 7th, 2012 @ 2:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones

    I see... criminal impersonation of public property, grand theft forgery camera jaywalking, conspiracy with intent to commit intent to conspire.

    He'll be locked up for good... oh wait this wasn't in NYC.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Dec 7th, 2012 @ 5:30pm

    If he was so hard to find, why didn't they just send a drone after him?

    The missile would have taken care of it without any pesky criminal charges.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    B, Dec 8th, 2012 @ 5:10am

    Drones in law enforcement

    1stamendment,1983civilrights action and an aggressive lawyer should take care of police retaliation. This artist has been given a dream marketing opp. For his art.
    when I was a police officer I lost a fellow officer in a helicopter crash. Drones provide a cheap inexpensive alternative to choppers eyes in the sky. We as a society need this high tech police protection,unless you accept street crimes are acceptable. It isamajor leap in our protection but should be limited in its uses w strict invasion of privacy restriction. In the confines of fenced yards these eyes in sky need warrants from ths w probable cause. Peeking in houses should be prosecuted even if done by police. What the police are watching should be monitored by public. There is a job for sis recipients could handle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    george, Dec 8th, 2012 @ 5:55am

    Re:

    Yes he broke the law, he removed or cover up paying adverts etc... But you know what? "Screw This Govt!"

    it isnt mine, isnt yours.. it isnt ours.. it belongs to a hostile ethnic minority which considers us to be the enemy and is turning our country into crap (for us.. not for them).

    fighting the system from within the system never has worked, and never will work. I give three cheers to the sign dude.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    george, Dec 8th, 2012 @ 5:59am

    Re:

    Uncle Schlomo is more accurate..
    Uncle Sol maybe..
    Uncle Chiam..
    Uncle Moshe...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    Myke McComick, Dec 8th, 2012 @ 10:48am

    Re: I'll get flack

    Yes you will. It was illegal to throw privately owned tea into Boston Harbor. It was illegal, treason even to take up arms against the British Military backed Oligarchy, it was illegal to print anything critical of the oligarchy or even point out that it existed. it was illegal to smuggle private property (slaves) north to freedom. It was also the right moral & good thing to do every time. Be ashamed to call yourself an American Patriot. It is in your case a lie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Dec 8th, 2012 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Does this means Rémi Gaillard would be a criminal in the US?

    If he vandalized private property, yes.

    > Isn't it sad that even France is more open

    If France is allowing 'artists' to deface and vandalize the property of others in the name of 'openness", then no, it's not sad. That's the kind of openness we don't need.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Mahhn, Dec 8th, 2012 @ 2:01pm

    It's NY

    What's he expect the police to do? It's NY, one of the most abusive police states, if they arn't doing steriods and beating people they're drinking coffee looking for someone to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Wayne Michael Reich, Dec 8th, 2012 @ 10:34pm

    Street Art

    Trespassing and vandalism? Possibly.
    Forgery? Hardly.

    Yet another example of why the NYPD needs to be taken down a notch. Factoring in their past aggressiveness regarding the Occupy movement, this is just another thuggish attempt to control a situation that is beyond their grasp.

    By elevating it to this level, all they've done is encourage further public dissent and distrust.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    Qritiqal (profile), Dec 14th, 2012 @ 5:53am

    Re:

    I kind of agree with you. I think Essam crossed the line.
    I agree with the CONTENT of what he did, but he could have done it differently and without breaking any laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2012 @ 6:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Actually governments may not be people, but corporations are...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This