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.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.
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.
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: drones, free speech, nyc, nypd, protests
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, to be sure, I don't believe he's nearly as guilty as the NYPD would have us believe, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I did not defend the charges the NYPD are bringing against him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bottom up crime......criminal
Top down crime.......noble piece prize
Can you see the logic in that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> when you are caught jaywalking.
Ohm for gawd's sake. Yeah, I'm really worried about that happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Isn't sad that even France is more open.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll get flack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with the CONTENT of what he did, but he could have done it differently and without breaking any laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media Coverage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Media Coverage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forgery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forgery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forgery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forgery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forgery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forgery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forgery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forgery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forgery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forgery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forgery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forgery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I Want To Know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uncle Sam is starting to look like the dirty pervert uncle that no one likes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uncle Sol maybe..
Uncle Chiam..
Uncle Moshe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironic tyranny
Not bad, but they should've gone for maximum irony and used a drone to kill him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ironic tyranny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(sarcasm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it a police thing?
Do they think it's a competition or something, and really want the award to show off to people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember Aqua Teen Hunger Force?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few points from someone who actually works on drones
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones
> "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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones
He'll be locked up for good... oh wait this wasn't in NYC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones
how many manned helicopters can the department afford?
that is the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones
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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trumped up?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trumped up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nullification
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The missile would have taken care of it without any pesky criminal charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drones in law enforcement
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's NY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NYPD at the core
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Street Art
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]