WARNING! Be very aware of WHERE you are shooting in the United States!

What an experience! Is there some new law I don't know about? With a few exceptions, it has never been illegal to photograph buildings in the United States from a public street, including federal government buildings, with perhaps a few exceptions like military installations. Another question I have about this episode is: what right do federal agents have to detain and question somebody without arresting them?

You DEFINITELY need to notify as many people in the media as possible. AND CALL YOUR SENATOR AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE. Call your local TV stations, the "other" newspapers, and if possible, go beyond the local stations, newspapers, etc. There are way too many of these situations popping up all over and the only way to stop it is to bring as much attention to them as possible.

The officers should have, VERY POLITELY, asked some questions just to get "a feel" for what you were doing, THEN LEFT YOU ALONE!!

Brian,

I guess the rights they have to the extent that you are willing to stand up for what you believe in (you and I should already know that personally). In cases like this, be uncooperative and it will cost you much more than an hour of your time. It is my understanding that under the Patriot Act (and I know that I will be corrected if wrong), is that if there is reasonable suspicion, the authorities have greater latitude in detaining and restricting ones rights to a lawyer. And many courts have already decided that "reasonable" can be very broad when dealing with "national security" interests.

As I stated in a another thread about the historic view of the current situation in the US, I wonder how situations like this will be viewed.

It makes me want to get a handfull of disposable cameras and go shoot some federal buildings in hopes they's overplay their hand with me. The lawsuit should set me up for a nice retirement!!

Patrick,

Contacting the media can only go so far in today's world. I know of a situation back on 9/11/02 regarding a diverted airline flight, and the public never heard what really happened. It is amazing, but understanding how people will react under times of "national security". I remember my Mom. who worked in a aircraft spinner factory during WWII, said that even she and her neighbors worked side by side on the factory floor - they never acknowledged it public. Remember "loose lips, sinks ships".

Unfortunately, Chris could end up being labeled as a "crackpot", or his vision of what happened "unfounded"; or even worse.

Imagine what could have happened if you were a foreigner.

The Patriot Act basically increases the authority for the government to conduct surveillance and does not impose restrictions on photography. In fact, the only reference to photography in the Patriot Act is a provision authorizing the government to purchase more cameras.

The fact that the government is buying more cameras to protect security raises another point. Why do people tend to freak out over the act of taking photographs? In my opinion, it is high time to question the premise that photography is a tool for terrorists. When you examine the recent acts of terrorism, none of them depended on or could have been prevented by curtailing photography. The September 11 terrorists did not need photographs of the World Trade Center or the Pentagon to find their targets, McVeigh did not need photographs of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City to park a van, and supremacist groups have not needed photographs to carry out hate crimes. If anything, having photographers around when these people were planning their activities would have discouraged their crimes. In addition to standing up for their rights, photographers should also work at dispelling the notion that photography is a useful tool for terrorists.

Like many photographers who live in the U.S., I read reports like this with growing alarm. Like Chris, it has been my habit for years to wander around downtown streets taking pictures of whatever caught my eye. I know that it sometimes looks demented, but in my whole life my right to do it has never been challenged. Occasionally, someone asks with obvious curiosity what I am doing, and when I say "Oh, just taking photos for my hobby" they might look at me like I'm nuts, but nobody, official or unofficial, has ever tried to stop me. My undestanding has always been that I am within my rights to take photos of public buildings and people from the street. That I might need a release if I try to publish the photos, and I might need permission to enter private property to photograph something, but nobody can stop me from TAKING photographs from a public place.

Increasingly, when these kind of accounts come up in forums, there is inevitably someone saying, "Oh, but now things are different because of the USA PATRIOT Act."

Another thing that is supposed to be different because of the USA PATRIOT Act is the law regarding detention and arrest. My understanding of the law on this is that a law enforcement officer can stop you in a public place and ask you to identify yourself and to explain your presence in that place. They can detain you briefly for questioning in the place where you were stopped and can even pat you down. However, to take you anywhere else for further questioning, they have to arrest you, and inform you of your Miranda rights, including your right to a lawyer -- unless you go voluntarily with them. Is this not still true? Again, people allude vaguely to the USA PATRIOT, and write that the powers of the police to detain people without arresting them have grown, and that your post-arrest rights such as access to a lawyer have shrunk.

But is this so? What, SPECIFICALLY, does the USA PATRIOT have to do with my rights to walk around and take pictures, and to be free from arbitrary prolonged detention and questioning? Does anybody actually know?

I have a contract to shoot archival B&W negatives of ancient plats and maps that are rotting away at a courthouse. They are about totaly gone; and are moved each moved a table; shot and returned to their drawers. Each is so frail; that they will break if held at one end. I shoot about a 1/2 drawers worth every few weeks; process; and then scan the negatives too. They get full sized copies on bond; a 4x5 negative; and a digital scan. Since 9/11 ; there is this huge delay in getting our two equipment bags into the same courthouse. There is always a new hire; that doesnt even know what a filter is. Today the work is halted. We are requesting to be paid for the time spent in the delay; due to the fondling of the equipment; fingerprints; removing film from filmholders on occasions. Time costs a small business man money. The county could assign the same person to do the inspection; but this would be efficient; not their hallmark it seems. The government workers seem to have a regular check; and dont have a clue on the costs associated with the McCarthyism type delays that a small businees owner has. We have a check list of our equipment; and a digital image of what each item looks like; to speed up the "inspection" process. They seem to allow Realtors into the courthouse all the time; who snap "digital" images of portions of land plats; to avoid the 6 dollar copy fees. The better guards know what a light meter is; and why they are used. Inspection and Security costs are an expense to doing business. We tried shipping the film direct to the courthouse; they lost it.

Chip L. wrote:

"Unfortunately, Chris could end up being labeled as a "crackpot", or his vision of what happened "unfounded"; or even worse."

You're absolutely right. If Chris, and others who've had similar experiences, don't say/do anything they don't run the risk of being labeled.....EXCEPT AS SPINELESS WHIMPS!!

Of course bad things can happen if you speak up, but worse things WILL happen if you don't!!

Despite their occasional public image as bizarre extremists, in addition to contacting your senator, etc, I'd call the ACLU. This kind of thing pisses me off to no end. I'm fairly regularly questioned by local authorities when I'm out with my camera (and I'm in Athens, OH). Usually they're just doing their job and I don't mind since for the most part it isn't a problem. They've only really gotten in my face about it twice but the worst experience of this type I had was when I was interning in DC in the summer of '02. I was on an assignment for the AOC to shoot some images of the O'Neill House Building which was going to be demolished. I shot some from one side, then went over to the other side of the building to get a better angle. I was at the far edge of a parking lot next to the building and I started taking more pictures of the building. I was there maybe a minute when two Capitol Police officers came over and started questioning me. Apparently I was breaking the law because I was apparently photographing a Federal parking lot (wait, what?) and could be photographing a congressman's car, which apparently has something to do with a breach of national security. Whatever. I eventually got them to understand that I was on official business (I really was just trying to do my job, and you'd think that the ID hanging around my neck would have tipped them off). It was a pain in the ass, but fortunately it didn't lead to anything but a ten minute debate at the end of which I just left. I also had repeated, smaller problems setting up my tripod for certain work, despite having a tripod permit.

The Patriot Act and Homeland Security give me the creeps. Everyone's a suspect and when they decide to corner you because of something stupid like even just having a camera near a federal building, then from that point on you basically have no rights. It happens all the time, even though it shouldn't. Just go stand in front of the Supreme Court building for a half hour and you'll see tourists of all kinds being stopped and questions for taking snapshots in front of the building. This kind of policy doesn't solve anything, it only makes people angry and makes people trust the government less. And personally, I think it needs to be stopped. There's no excuse for treating US citizens (or anyone, for that matter) in this way. They're so overly suspicious of everyone that they're wasting their time questioning the wrong people and generally just pissing people off. How to stop it? I haven't a clue. For now I guess just make as much noise as possible and hope to annoy someone in a place of power into action. Never underestimate the power of persistent irritation.

Brian, I think it will take a Constitutional lawyer to full answer that question. Maybe you could get the Photo Net lawyers to provide some perspective on the Patriot Act and our general rights. Some say that the Patriot Act (and other recently enacted laws) are overly broad, and to this point there has only been lower court rulings (and they are all over the place in their interpretation). So far none of the lower courts rulings have made their way to the Supreme Court to my knowledge. I also believe that the Supreme Court has differed to the interests of "national security" in the past when considering whether to take a case or not.

Sometomes the banning of cameras only has to do with money flow to peoples pockets; and not security at all. Here many of the event photos; accident photos; here are shot by several fellows who work as security; fireman; EMT's etc. They supply photos to the newpapers; car wreck lawyers; etc. One even has a photo business. They make extra money one the side; and dont want anybody else to horn in on their "business". Banning of cameras means that their average photos still make them money; because of the lockout on others. We do alot of trial posters; and the prints are many times shot by the same cast of characters.

When people support legislation with fascist elements like the "Patriot" Act because, "I'm a good citizen, I have nothing to hide", I wonder how people can be so naive. This is but a minor example of how an innocent citizen can have his rights trounced by idiots given police power, a heaping dose of paranoia, and the encouragment of legislation like the Act.

Sorry for the cross posting, but I hope that this will help in furthing discussion. I posted this in the Leica Forum.

In order for us to understand the implications of the USAPA this link may be of help.

(link)

It does deal with concerns about computer privacy under the Act (and some might say leaning towards the left), but also provides a link to the Act itself.

William, others: I'm basically tired of hearing people retreat from doing things that they have done their whole lives because of some vague fear of the USA PATRIOT act. I come back to the same question. Is there actually anything in the USA PATRIOT act that reduces my rights to take photographs or extends police powers of detention and arrest, or is it simply that some police take advantage of public ignorance of that law to assert powers that they didn't have before the act was passed, and which they STILL do not have?

From what I have read of that law, it was a bad law, hastily passed, which significantly reduced civil liberties unnecessarily. However, I cannot believe that it gave police all the powers that they are asserting under cover the of that law.

Bert answered part of my question. The USA PATRIOT act is silent on the rights of photographers. What I can legally photograph has not changed. But what about the powers of the police to detain, question, and arrest people who are doing something "suspicious", like photographing things that the officers believe they shouldn't be photographing.

Hmm. I would contact that ACLU. This might be ripe for a photographic protest. What would they do if 100 photographers showed up one day to take pictures of the outside of the building? Or, better, if 100 photographers showed up in public spaces outside of Federal buildings around the country?

Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves.

The Patriot Act expanded the powers of the government to seize materials (e.g., library and bookstore records) and detain persons suspected of terrorism and clandestine intelligence pursuant to a warrant but did not expand the power of law enforcement personnel to stop, question, or arrest people in the absence of a warrant. Police and security officers do not have the right to detain persons against their wills or to seize their property if they do not have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.

Sad to hear of your episode with the authorities. If only they are aware that by their over zealous actions they are in reality acting as agents for Mr Bin Ladin and company. Yes, they are continuing the acts of terrorisiom that Osama started. I don't think that any of us law abiding photographers have a problem with security personel and law enforcement officers being vigilent and alert, but when they start behaving like the gestapos towards us, then I think its high time for a re-evaluation of where all this is leading to. Osama is laughing at us.

It's not just federal buildings. Bridges, dams, schools, airports. I was hassled by lifeguards at a county pool. They called security. Fortunatly the pool manager knew me. If Not for that they may have called the police. Paranoa abounds, one of many reasons I got sick of news photography and quit.

I dunno if you were doing anything else or acting weird or what but they seemed to have reson for alarm is the only thing I can thik of them doing something like that. I guess its that same level of fear that keeps me from shooting certain things like governemnt buildings or people rather becasue I fear trouble or something like that. As the feds had fear for you they took negative action,...that same fear is now a part of everyday life in post 9-11 america where freedom of speech aint free.

But i do agree in letting media or senators, people like that let them know. Or run it by a lawyer. FIght the freedom man!! good luck

USA - Home of the free?

We are moving into frightening times, and it has nothing to do with terrorists...

Sorry to hear about your experience Chris. Raise a fuss, sue them if you can, and do your best to publicly embarass those who violated you.

In the meantime, lets all dust off our copies of Orwell's "1984", and ask ourselves how much of it applies to 2003.

I'm going to go down to the Federal Building in Columbus, Ohio tomorrow and take some pictures. Anyone want to join me? I'm available anytime after 1PM.

Chris, Sorry to hear about your unfortunate experience. This seems like a good time to pass on a website I was given earlier this year: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm which contains very useful information about the rights we have as photographers. On a related note, the Patriot Act does not remove anyone's Fifth Amendment right to due process, so if you feel you are being hassled by police in the US, you may wish to contact a lawyer. The right to an attorney applies to US citizens and foreign nationals alike. Obviously, it is best to resolve a policeman's concerns without calling a lawyer, but if it isn't possible to effectively communicate with the police by yourself, feel free to state that you want a lawyer present and they must comply. Again, Chris, sorry to hear about your experiences, and I hope the website above is of assistance to others.

Bert, thanks for your clarifications. The USA PATRIOT Act doesn't seem to have anything to do with this situation, then. If the officers actions were legal, they were legal before the act was adopted, and if they were illegal before the Patriot act, they are still illegal.

It would seem that these officers were completely outside the law. They needed probable cause to take him to an interrogation room and question him for an hour, and it is hard to see how observing him photographing a statue in front of, and storefronts near, the federal building can, by itself, possibly provide "probable cause".

But even if photographing the building is so inherently suspicious as to provide probable cause, the officers should not have taken him into custody and interrogated him for an hour without properly arresting him and providing him with his Miranda rights, such as the right to have a lawyer present during the interrogation. Is that correct?

After illegally detaining him for an hour, they then illegally confiscated his property (the film).

It seems to me that Chris was arrested, whether they called it that or recorded it as such, since from his account, it does not seem that he was free to leave at any point. Does Chris not have a good claim for false arrest in this situation?

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

-Benjamin Franklin

Federal agencies are REQUIRED to hire quotas of minorities, women, veterans, and DUDs. Yesiree Bob, I do mean DUDs! DUDs such as mental cases, attitude problems, and outright dummies. Basically, Federal field offices MUST hire from a supplied roster, and they CANNOT reject more than two names in a row. Or, there is some similar rule in force which keeps any field office from "cherry picking" personnel on the basis of merit. Only the Washington office gets to cherry pick its personnel. Over time, the role of DUDs in government has evolved into providing low-water marks against which other Federal employees look good enough for promotion. But, as you can understand, some of the DUDs have become very bitter about their plight.

You must also be super-aware of the near-universal "morality" in government entities. The essence of that "morality" is, "The worst sin is admitting a mistake". The usual result of this "morality" is merely the squandering of a few billion dollars here, and the squandering of a few billion dollars there. But when that "morality" sufaces in law enforcement agencies, you get incidents like Ruby Ridge, WACO, and lots of little "Akrons".

So Chris, once you get over your initial shock, more shocks lie in store for you. One is that your experience is not particularly unique. Another is that the DUD who orchestrated this fiasco was probably only trying to justify his job, or else qualify for a promotion. He will probably forget about you by dinner time, if you let him. Another is that if he, like "Fearless Fodsick", accidentally shoots a couple of photographers during some fiasco he started, he will be reprimanded and transferred to temporary desk duty in another state. And that will be all of the punishment.

The vast majority of Federal Officers work hard and intelligently to make America a better place to live. So the worst damage from this "Akron fiasco" is that it generally undermines respect for law enforcement, which in turn causes a loss of financial support for, and community cooperation with, law enforcement agencies. The whole process is potentially a vicious circle, so you are wise to expose it, even though you are unlikely to receive any personal compensation.

Sue him? For what? You will have witnesses, you think? And he has the film, didn't you say?

In summary, the Federal DUD situation is something like transferring problem priests around to different parishes. The big difference is, as you found out Chris, some Federal DUDs carry guns. And no one in government will admit to any of this situation, because to do so would hurt their chances for promotion. Perhaps we should pause to realize why the U.S. Constitution embodies such a severe and far-reaching distrust of government.

Cheers,

I've written about this before here. Things have changed since 9/11. Folks are more jittery in certain situations dealing with people. Airports are just one example. Other examples are cited with people's experiences as evidenced with comments made here.

I find that if you keep your cool it can work out, even tho it may not work out as you intended. If security people and/or police pounce all over you, try to keep emotions in check, your goal should be to keep control of the encounter. It will usually have a better outcome with reason, including thoughtful and kind words which, even if they're not justified, will help in bringing people around to what you want to accomplish.

I was downtown Minneapolis recently and walked inside the second floor of the Hennepin County Government Center with another photographer friend. I saw some possible creative images photographing Minneapolis City Hall from inside the Government Center.

About two or three police offiers were inside. We had all of our camera gear, medium format, including tripods. I decided to walk up to one of the policemen, briefly visited with him and explained what we wanted to do. He politely said, "you two guys can photograph anything here. As a matter of fact let me take you over and show you the American Flag. Be sure to take pictures of that. And, oh yes, by the way, thank you for asking us before you set up." We spent about an hour photographing all around the Government Center. And I got some neat pictures of Minneapolis City Hall looking through the checkerboard windows of the Government Center.

We were at another building where they didn't want us to photograph and we respectfully kept our camera gear packed away.

Each instance is different. Each person is different. The same person came react differently to these situations in a variety of ways. I find that if you stricke up a conversation with people, talk to them, maybe they've had a bad day, then you can determine if you should proceed. A telephone call just to check may even be appropriate now.

Just a few years ago I could photograph at the airport without a problem. I doubt if that could happen now. I have realized things have changed and usually if a little patience, kindness, TLC, will help. And if it doesn't, try your dardnest to walk away with a smile on your face. I've traveled all over the world and this place is still pretty hard to beat.

Chris

When I first saw this on the Leica forum this morning I was outraged. If there was some sign up that said "no photography" maybe it would have been a different story. If they took my film, I'd be contacting the ACLU and some lawyer. Since when do they have a right to sieze film? Federal building? How often do people take tourist photos of the White House and other Fed buildings in DC for instance?

Never any treatment like this in the US. Outside of the country, nope. I've had hands waved in my face saying "no photography" blah blah, but that is as far as it went. I've been in three middle eastern countries. No problem, very polite when they say to move on. China, no problems. These are countries where human rights are not exactly a highlight.

I support you in publishing your experience. Satisfaction in itself. I suppose you already know you will get nothing from the government, not even an apology.

Chris,

I am extremely sorry and upset to hear what you had to go through, enough so that a copy of what happened to you will be e-mailed to both my US State conressman and senator.
That is with exclusion of your name.

David Sereda,

1984 is alive and well and here now.
It seems as if the current administration has taken substansive material from Orwell's text and have applied it as policy.

Unless We The People do something about it, and soon, we will have no ones to blame but ourselves.

Perhaps "Animal Farm" has also taken place here in the "Good Old USofA"?

This is a very valuable post, and I will be careful about photographing Federal Buldings.

Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, a person photographed the activity of Pearl Harbor. These photographs were used by Japanese intelligence to plan the attack on Pearl Harbor. In addition, spies from Germany have taken pictures, which look as innocent as an amateurs photo to plan a raid on the Eastern Coast of the US in the 40s.

What you don't know is that the authorities may have inner intelligence of a possible attack on that Federal Building in Ohio.

President Bush made it clear that we were going to lose some of our freedoms. That is the nature of our country now. It is childish to go out and to challenge the government on these issues by re-creating the scene of photographing the Federal Building in Ohio.

I have not heard of any sensitivity of Federal Buildings in San Francisco. We are a tourist city and they take many pictures of out buildings, and we have a port.

The decision to protect your Federal buildings is likely a local decision. Police departments go through fazes.

I think it is best to call off the photographing of Federal Buildings in your area. The police there do not need your harrassment, just as they don't need the new problems of our tension filled relationship with the Mideast world.

The police bluff themselves into all kinds of work, and spying and camoflage is part of their trade, like a soldier's. The only way you can survive this is to know all of the laws, and hope you are surrounded by police and officers that are perfect and don't tell lies. Good luck. The police must think like criminals if they are to defeat criminals.

Therefore, I think you may sue, but your announcement is far more valuable to all of us.

I know of a book of water houses, dams in serving New York was recently published. The author is not allowed back to re-photograph these gatehouses and lakes due to sensitivity regarding the Terrorist Acts.

Rather than to pretend that the world is not at war; I would advise you to go with the new resistrictions and to tell your story to others as much as possible. This is the second story I have read here at photo.net. The other story was of a student who was arrested for photographing a building or something for a school classroom assignment. That was when we were at a higher alert color. Then, two days later, the alert level was reduced, so i guess you can now do what he did and not get arrested.

While I do not like the resistrictions on photography, you must realize the power of photography. A camera in the hands of a good photographer can move millions of minds, betray a country, and make strangers perform for you! No longer think of it as just a harmless tool.

I is obvious that the superiors of these officers put out an alert in order to cause this to happen. That is where the it all started, locally.

I feel for you; but the situation won't likely change in the short term.

Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

Be very, very glad your 'Federal' officers never get transferred to Washington, D.C. Every building there is a 'Federal site,' and they would need good-sized camps to haul in every person (i.e., visitor) with a camera out and about "shooting statues, buildings, and monuments."

Our land of the free.....

I've been harassed in two instances by New York City's 'finest'. Once on a bridge and again on a train platform--both public spaces. In both cases, they threatened to take my equipment and questioned me in a rude and accusatory manner. In the second instance, I was told that it was 'against the law' to photograph any public transportation without the station manager's permission-this 2 years after Sept. 11... When will it stop? I went home and scoured the City Council lawbooks and came across NOTHING that indicated my actions were illegal. Part of the problem is that many law enforcement officials don't think for themselves--either they're incapable or instructed not to (I suspect the latter, but in my experience the former seems likely as well).

Heard on NPR about a Middle Eastern man hassled for taking pictures of WTC as it fell, from Beacon, NY--about 2 hrs north of the city. Turned out he was undocumented and now he's packing his bags. Probably safe to say he wouldn't have been deported otherwise--there was no evidence of the man being anything other than a good (non)-citizen.

This stuff is out of control. What's most infuriating is the crap I see on a daily basis in the presence of NYPD that is not dealt with that actually AFFECTS PEOPLES LIVES...

There is an article in the February 2003 PopPhoto about taking pictures of bridges. Their webside doesn't have a link to it so i'll just type it in here.

Stop! Bridge pix nixed!

Restrictions against what photographers can photograph continue to tighten: now it's bridges. Shoot the Verrazano Narrows Bridge in New York and you might spend a night in the slammer (or at least have you camera or film taken away). How about that most photogenic of spans, the Golden Gate in San Fran? Uh-uh. The California Highway Patrol haas recently stopped dozens of photographic offenders in mid-click. While there have been "no pictures" rules in the past, never have they been enforced as vigorously as they are now. "use of camera prohibited; striclty enforced" sign were posted in September on many New York City bridges. It's all about terrorism, of course: nervous police are concerned that some sleeper cell member might photograph structural details for a future attack.

Think that's a strech? Tell it to the judge. Find any other bridges with photography bans? Send photos of the "Banned" sign to us: Banned Bridges, Popular Photograhpy & Imaging, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019

That is the article from Feb. 2003 PopPhoto. There is also a picture of a sign that bans photography. I don't think they would do anything in my town, Princeton IL, about 7,000 people unless you were a minority. Ben Franklin has an appropriate quote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I was out shooting at night on Sept 10 and 11. I was stopped by the police both nights. Everything was cool, perhaps because I expected it and understood that I might have looked a bit suspicous to them, carrying two spotlights, backpack, and a tripod, first on a deserted country road, later out on Haines Point in downtown DC.

Yeah i understand you. look at me my friend. if i was in your place i would have been subjected a more worse situation. I make it a point to shoot when i with my family, often now.

I always thought that the USA was the most free country in the world. George Bush has stated this in some of his speaches.

We had a discussion of a similar incident last year, though it did descend into claims it was a hoax and that "there was no proof this ever happened" from some memebers of the forum.

Here's a link to a report of the incident http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1441

Briefly it's "An amateur photographer named Mike Maginnis was arrested on Tuesday in his home city of Denver - for simply taking pictures of buildings in an area where Vice President Cheney was residing."

While the PATRIOT act doesn't give the police any greater explicit powers to detain and/or arrest anyone they think is acting suspiciously (as far as I know anyway), it does, by association, make such actions easier to defend and it does lessen public objections to such acts. People are now much more likely to put up with actions they would never have put up with before, simply in the name of security.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin

It's all about terrorism, of course: nervous police are concerned that some sleeper cell member might photograph structural details for a future attack.

Well that makes perfect sense. It's not like terrorists can go out and buy postcards and picture books with pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge and such, is it?

Chris,

Whatever you do, you may want to contact the American Civil Liberties Union.
They can be found on the internet at this location Here.

isbn: 1-887128-76-X

If this happened to me I would be quite relaxed and certainly not "pissed off". These folks are doing their jobs at a declared time of war. My reaction would be: "Hi, I'm just taking some pictures of the sculpture and I'm happy to help you out in any way." I would then show my biz card and offer to let them develop the film and make copies of it.

Why not?

I would then provide them all the details they required for proper identification, with a smile. If I was with my SUV, I would invite them to inspect the vehicle.

After it becomes obvious what the nature was of my intentions, I would thank them for being alert, and ask them to kindly advice where they prefer I not shoot in the future.

I,for one, am grateful for their vigilence. Lots of dedicated people are on the alert. It's no mistake that there have been no terrorist attacks in two years my friend.

Relax and enjoy our great country. Cheers.

Well these terrorists might not be the brightest around. Remember the truck driver from Ohio that wanted to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blow torches? For those that didn't see the story, it would have taken them 12 to 24 hours to acomplish the task with their blowtorches.

But also points to a man that also was well liked in the community, a naturalized citizen, yet had ties to Bin Laden. So what are we to do? Lock everyone up?

It's no mistake that there have been no terrorist attacks in two years my friend.

Stupidity of the kind Chris was subjected to has not contributed to this. There's real security and then there's idiocy in the name of security--they aren't the same thing.

Relax and enjoy our great country. Cheers.

Just dont try to photograph it unless you enjoy being chased down by goons, locked in a basement for an hour, and having your personal property searched and seized. If Chris' description is accurate, he did try to be pleasant and explain his perfectly reasonable behavior and this was the result.

"What you don't know is that the authorities may have inner intelligence of a possible attack on that Federal Building in Ohio." Are you suggesting that we should accept the restriction of civil liberties without any evidence being provided to the public? I hope not.

"President Bush made it clear that we were going to lose some of our freedoms." Please tell me where in the constiution he is given the power to take any some of our freedoms.

"It is childish to go out and to challenge the government on these issues by re- creating the scene of photographing the Federal Building in Ohio." I contend it is an act of patrotism.

"I think it is best to call off the photographing of Federal Buildings in your area. The police there do not need your harrassment, just as they don't need the new problems of our tension filled relationship with the Mideast world." I'm not going to harrass the police. I'm going to exercise the rights given to me in our constitution.

That really is too bad. And I most emphatically do NOT mean that in a patronizing way. It really is too bad. On so many levels.

One level it is too bad that you assume since you look "born and raised" here that should be enough. I know you don't mean it "that way" but then nobody does. I am going to assume you weren't walking around with a certified copy of your birth certificate. That is the only way to "prove" you were born here. I say that because I just got that lecture this summer at the border, while entering Alaska. I showed my AKDL but that wasn't good enough and I should be aware of that. It didn't matter I did have them for the 4 small children in the car. Children aren't going to blow things up. The reason I refer to this is they are right state issued ID does not prove you were born or raised here, only that you are here now. And if you call the DMV they can pull up your driving record, but they aren't going to pull up your birth certificate. That being said it does not excuse the interrogative behavior. When you aren't racial profiling you need to treat everyone equal.

The one thing your story doesn't tell us is if there were a bomb threat. Or a recent memo sent out about security at this time. And it would make sense that you wouldn't know and they certainly wouldn't tell you. Security typically heightens around anniversaries. And that is as it should be. It could be that your reactions to them were not as innocent and you felt they were. It could be you fit a profile of response and behavior. This is not saying you were illmannered, or should have been suspected.

Why are those taking pictures looked at with suspicion? It is the best way to case a place. To make an accurate record of where security is located and good access points are. Realistically, how many people in your area would find your local Federal Building worth taking a picture of. If it isn't in a tourist area, how many would even find the sculture worth photographing. Most locals pass such things without ever looking twice, it has become part of the background of their daily life barely noticed. Again this does not justify or excuse the behavior of the security.

I believe in treating people who work in public safety with understanding and kindness. There are bad apples, no denying that. But to condem all would be the same as racial profiling. Besides, I figure it has got to be hard to do a job where everyone is suspicious of you and talks unkindly about you for doing the job that they want you to do. A job that really needs to be done. I think I would get grumpy and curt from time to time too. And after years of dealing with the general public.......... well I think I could certainly turn into a sour puss.

Intead of starting another hate war, why not try and contact the supervisor of those involved. There is a system for lodging complaints, maybe you can reach an equitable solution. And understanding. Would it really be so terrible to try and understand why? How the situation can be prevented in the future, for both sides? I think a little understand on BOTH sides could go a long way here.

tn

I am sorry you went through this. I had an incident in DC when i was walking around shooting some photos. As long as I was in the tourist area no problem but when iwas taking some shots near a state dept or some other building , I had two secruity folks come up and ask me what i was doing . I told them and they just asked me nicely not to photograph that particular building. '

I think there is a fine line between protecting ourselves as a country and society in todays world and giving up some of our personal freedom to do so. With you, they definitely seemed to step over the line. I suspect there are going to be many gray areas and these issues will become more complex over time. mark

STAY AWAY FROM "PUBLIC PARK" TOO!!!. About a month ago I went to the park to try my 300mm lens. It was hot (summer), so I stayed in the car and took some pictures from there. Police officer came and knocked on my window. He said: "what are you doing?". I said: just taking snapshot. He ordered me to get out of the car and go to the curb with my hand on my head. He searched and tapped my body and ask if I have any weapon. I was embarrased being search like that. He asked for my ID and call his office for ID check (something like that). He asked my if I have any warrant on me or have ever been arrested. basicly I was interrogated for taking picture in the park as if I was doing something criminal. He even called a backup. and then he asked my if He can search my car, I said yes, so He went there to search my car. I had a photography book in my car so I showed the book to him. Good thing I have a clean record. He let me go after I answered all his questions ranging from: my age, why this park, what's your job? when did you get your camera? what are you photographing? etc, etc. I couldn't sleep well for two days after that incident. I don't mind being asked, but asking me to put my hands on top of my head and search me in the park?.. c'mon, I was so embarrassed that I don't think I will ever bring my camera to the park again. Sorry for whatever happened to you Chris. Peace.

I deleted your name but forwarded your account to both Republican and Democratic Representatives here in Oregon.

Actually,wellcome to George Bush's brave new world. Just wait to see what it'll become like when Arnold takes over!

I am a full time press photographer and am well familiar with this kind of security BS! Does anybody really think that this no photography rule is really going to help anything? Does anyone really think that this is going to stop terrorists from getting there photos? The sad truth is that the people who come up with these crackpot rules actually believe that they will do some good! This is what scares me the most, not the terrorists. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to come up with dozens of ways to get photos undetected with todays technology. This must be a big joke in terrorist circles. Not only does are government come up with this stupidity, they actually inforce it! A lot of times with some overgrown cowboy bozo that in reality is probably a pretty decent person, but lacking in the ability to think for him/her self. A probabable job requirement I am sure in certain areas. This is the biggest threat to liberty, not the terrorists, but ignorance.

Randy

i wouldn't want to be one of these 3 guys if someone bombed this building the day after you were there and when the invetigations started there daily log said "saw man taking photos of building and surrounding buisness's, asked him what he was doing, he said nothing,so we went and had a donut". they were over the line,..but..we are at war and all it cost you was a little time and a roll of film. If someone had over reacted when they saw an obviously born and bread white man just parking his ryder truck in front of the federal building in Oklahoma there wouldn't be a memorial where that building once stood. You didn't give up any liberty that day you gave up your inosence about the times we live in. Be glad you were in America and that the mistake wasn't covered up by dropping your body in a swamp.....Get your film back and move on.

Once again: untrained people doing "security" jobs put us MORE at risk. Just look that the ones doing "screening" at airports. If the assumption is that *everyone* is a suspect the system is doomed from the start...and it will continue to fail, as proven by the ABC "test" shipment of depleted Uranium which went totally undetected (for the 2nd time in a row).

Once again: they catch the innocent person while the real stuff goes right under their nose.

But, on a more serious note is that as long as Herr Bush is power, with the "new and improved" Patriot Act II you are lucky you were let go at all... God forbid you were of eastern descend...

Hi,

This type of story sure seems to be more and more common. I'm a Canadian, and I haven't been harassed in this way, so it's not really my problem, but I have a suggestion. Maybe it could be organized, maybe not.

How many photo.net photographers could get together in a single location? I dunno either, but gather them all up (New York city might be a good choice), wander down to a building that's under surveilance, and photograph it like crazy. You'd need a large group, and you might want some media photographers there in case you all get detained. If it's a large enough group, just the event could be newsworthy. Another day, or later the same day, gang-photograph a bridge. Do the airports, large commercial buildings etc. Do it in multiple citys if possible.

If you're careful about breaking any 'reasonable' laws, the sheer silliness could get attention that the issue needs. It could be a chance to bring the problem to a wider audience.

Good luck.

Don

Hell... do it nude and have that Tunick guy photograph you. :)

<<These folks are doing their jobs at a declared time of war.>>

The War on Terrorism is about as much a valid war as The War on Drugs...

As long as their is drugs there will be a war on drugs.

As long as their is terrorism, there will be a war on terror, should we expect our rights to express ourselves through our chosen medium never to return?

This is exactly what Bin Ladin wanted.

In DC I was questioned 5 times as to what I was doing taking pictures, despite the fact that terrorists probably don't care about f.stop's when taking pictures, but I'm brown so that explains it all.

"I,for one, am grateful for their vigilence. Lots of dedicated people are on the alert. It's no mistake that there have been no terrorist attacks in two years my friend."

So you're telling me approving visas for the 19 hijackers a few months after Sept. 11, removing air marshals due to TSA budget cuts is easily balanced out by the fact that the vigilant agents in Akron, OH are ever on guard watching for pesky devious terror cells walking around downtown with their cameras? Awesome! I feel safe already, walking on the streets knowing I can be frisked for no good reason.

September 11, 2001, I feared the enemy. September 2003, I fear my government.

Patriot act - general rule of thumb I like to use about laws - if it passes quickly and with an overwhelming majority probably was not debated as much as it needed to be.

chad

"While I do not like the resistrictions on photography, you must realize the power of photography. A camera in the hands of a good photographer can move millions of minds, betray a country, and make strangers perform for you! No longer think of it as just a harmless tool."

Wow! That's an incredibly dangerous thought. Let's change the words "photography" to "the press", "camera" to "pencil", "photographer" to "reporter". Now it's a really scary thought! After all, we have a Constitutional Amendment that specifically states that Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of the press...

So, if I read the author of the italic words above correctly, anything that we may have that can be used to change the minds of other people, be it cameras, the press, radio, television, the internet, anything is fair game for the government to restrict our use of in the name of National Security? That's terrifying. Might as well strike the first several Ammendments to the Constitution. What was that called... the Bill of something or other.

Geez, folks. I cannot believe that any of you with any self respect whatsoever are coming down on the government's side in this clear violation of Chris's civil rights. Welcome to the USSRofA.

(rant mode off)

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

Eric

Any attack on innocents is wrong. Having said that, i wonder if anyone knows about SEPTEMBER 11 1973, THE HORRIFYING CHILEAN COUP BY THE CIA. The goverment has declassified this information. American goverment intervention to overthrow a democracy by salvador allende caused 30,000 deaths. WHY NOT TALK ABOUT THAT?democracy is not favorable for american goverment. a country cannot be as powerful as she is if democracy thrives all around the world. Look at GRANADA for example. Also american forces murdered South Koreans in the small island off the coast of south korea in 1950. the phillipines. PEOPLE LIKE ASHCROFT have caused MCCARTHYSIM to return to america. If the instance of EUGENE DEBBS is repeated in this country, then we are going back 50 years. NOTHING HAS BEEN ACHIEVED. The best solution is to read and question the government. Look at the facts. Yes america is the greatest country in the world. It is what it is because a price has been payed many a times in foreign lands, by torturing people in countries, COUPS, HOSTILE TAKE OVERS, DRUG WARS FOUGHT BY THE CIA. This has to be read by the american people. Nevertheless i want to appreciate the photography community which is so opened minded, although i am a muslim , they have never thought of me as different.

A very good example of how the terrorists have won, and how we let them do it.

One thing to note is that this type of treatment (and worse, up to and including being shot at and killed, lynched, etc.) has been commonplace for minorities in the US for decades, and they have had to suck it up and get on with their lives, because nobody gave a damn about them. Now that it's happening to the "White folk" you guys can get a sense of the deep inner frustration and outrage that these people have been through, while the leaders spout "Land of the Free" at every opportunity. It's a good thing the photographer wasn't from an Islamic country, or else he might had worse happen to him.

Chris, what happened to you should have happened to John Ashcroft while he traveled across the country explaining in private to prescreened groups why America needs the Patriot Act to preserve... to preserve... to preserve, uh, I don't know. You tell me. I can't wait till next year when the Republican convention comes to NYC. They won't be coming back anytime soon. We're practicing our Bronx cheers already. And there will be dancing in the streets when those people get what they deserve on Election Day 2004. Save your response for the ballot box. America *will* be free again, and you won't have to stand on one foot and take your belt off before boarding a plane. Stay tuned, and tuned in. You just had your consciousness raised. They've shown you their vision of the future. It's up to you to vote for yours.

If this happened to me I would be quite relaxed and
certainly not "pissed off". These folks are doing their jobs 
at a declared time of war. My reaction would be: "Hi, 
I'm just taking some pictures of the sculpture and I'm 
happy to help you out in any way." I would then show my 
biz card and offer to let them develop the film and make
 copies of it. 
Why not? 

If this guy's wife, daughter, whatever, is ever attacked by a would-be rapist, I suppose he's say "by all means sir--my daughter or wife would be happy to accomodate your request. In fact, I have a sister and daughter-in-law you'd find attractive; would you like me to show you the way to their home?"

Is this guy for real? My goodness. It's one thing to respect authority. It's another altogether to be such a spineless accomodator and be such a "conformist," to the extreme that he apparently believes you're just supposed to always blindly never ever ever ever question stupidity.

Joseph Stalin, Lenin--whoever it was--surely must have been referring to likes of this when he was talking about "useful idiots."

LRH

Gosh guys, settle down. First of all, just cooperate with whomever it is that wants to detain you, go wherever they ask (as soon as they show you their identification) and remain calm. I'm sure you don't look like a terrorist. I'm sure if "they" were thinking logically they'd realize that if you were you'd be a bit more discreet. Regarding disaster photos - Kelly's thread up there is right, "first responder types" often bring cameras intending to get hot photos and don't like competition (remember, back in the old days the firemen would light the fires themselves?) 99% of the time, if you calmly state, "there's no sign posted that says PHTOGRAPHY PROHIBITED, I'm sorry," or if there's a guard posted, ASK, it'll be ok." It happens to everyone. I'm a colonel in the Marine Corps, at a small camp in east Africa. Last night the C130 brought in a new lens, so I changed out of my uniform and started hiking along the airstrip to this spot where I knew I could get the sunset over the mountains. I had to wait for an aircraft to clear the taxi way, so I opened my bag, put on the new lens and started fiddling with it. Soon as the plane cleared my path, the Air Police scooped ME up for questioning! Fortunately the more senior guys knew who I was so I got released in time to get the shot, but this was a well trained educated smart sergeant in the US Air Force, just doing his job. I reminded him that they still haven't posted "no photography" around the airfield...having been in this business 26 years I kinda know it's prohobited, but that's my point. Just be reasonable and calm. Eventually everyone will settle back into complacency. I do think some sort of "amateur photographer's association" ID card would be a good thing though. Some sort of sanctioned piece of paper with your name and photo on it that credentials you - not necessarily as a professional - but as someone who should reasonably be expected to walk around with a camera planted on your face. Just a thought.

Vr/Stone

If this account is accurate, it suggests that federal security agents believe that people who want to photograph federal buildings for criminal reasons will stand around in plain sight and in such a way as to make it obvious what they are up to, and take their time doing so. Despite the availability of small, easily concealed, affordable, automatic cameras at every electronics shop in the nation. Politics aside, I find it rather worrying that those appointed to protect us are apparently so ignorant.

F that, This is still America and I'll shoot wherever I damn well please, Thank you. Shit happens, I think we are doing a good job with security and, unfortunately sometimes an over zealous idiot will take it too far. The guy who harrased you probably got beat up too much in high school and now has some "issues". I think (and hope) this is just an isolated incident. PS _ Walter, we miss you on Photocritique,

In reviewing Chris's story he states he heard "someone yelling" and he "ignored it"until he saw that it was 4 police oficers and they were yelling at HIM. Isn't it possible the officers thought you were ignoring THEM and maybe trying to leave the area? After they stopped you most likley one of the officers obtained your ID's and radioded for a backgroud check.And he probably recieved a response you didn't hear.Later in your story you say you heard the officer on the phone saying "No its 298,not 297!". Even tho you were doing nothing wrong by photographing a government building,you may have #1 aroused their suspicion by doing so,#2 further got their dander up by not stopping immediately,#3 worst of all your SS# came back to a crimnal with 3 felonies!,and the address on your licence had changed recently!!. So now these officers think they caught a wanted man.And took you in for further questioning. So far so good UNTIL they realized THEY made a mistake.If your CORRECT SS# shows your NOT a criminal,and your other IDs check out OK. They should have apologized and sent you on your way. But they were probably running on adrenalin and couldn't just let you go. They DEFINITELY should not have taken your film.Maybe if you were sure of your rights and made a big enough stink over it they wouldn't have taken it.Did you remember their names and/or badge #s?.If not it may be hard to get you film back.That is if they didn't just throw it in the garbage after you left. Going thru all your stuff and asking the same questions over and over,and giving you tough time are the ways cops question people. When the police initially stopped you and your SS#(albeit an incorrect #) came back to a wanted felon,do you know what he was wanted for?.Maybe he was a murderer or a cop killer,or even a terorist!!.You dont know what (mis)information they were assuming was YOU. This entire story started with a one digit mistake and the mistake of confiscating film.I know its very unnerving to be questioned by the police and I'm sure your quite angry.and I'm not trying to defend overzealous police.But think about what could have happened,if you reached into your camera bag they could've thought you had a gun and shot you dead on the spot,or if they didn't FINALLY realize they used a wrong SS# you could've sat in jail for hours,or even DAYS.

This is a VERY dangerous world we live in now,2years & 5days ago I thought an aircraft was a mode of transpotation now I se them as terorist weapons.The person next to you on the street didn't explode killing dozens.You had a roll of film wrongfully confiscated. Sorry if I sound unsympathetic,but it could've been much worse,if they thought you were a REAL threat you would still be there.Or if you were of middle east descent who knows what might have happened I love my country but fear my government Marc.

Contact BIll O Reilly of "The Factor" He was just saying he was looking for a story of how peoples rights have been ifringed upon since 911. Give him a call I'm sure he would be interested.

Without wanting to upset any of you Americans, I have to say as a european that America seams to be suffering from excessive paranoia. Whilst the events of 11 Sept were horrific, the knee jerk reaction of your politicians can only be described as ridiculous.

I was in the USA when the attack took place and was also effected by the restrictions in the first 2 weeks after 9/11, such as not being able to stop and look at the Golden Gate Bridge or take a photo of it. As now it would appear that you are automatically regarded as a terrorist if you are not American or if you have a camera, I personally wont be visiting the USA again. A lot of my friends have also cancelled plans to visit the USA. In the long term, this will not be good for the USA.

Terrorism will always happen and Bushes "war on Terrorists" is a bit of a joke. In the UK, the IRA killed many thousands of people with bombs, and we in the UK just got on with our lives and accepted we as individuals had to be careful about suspicious packets, cars etc. I have never been stopped in Europe from taking photos of anything, except military bases and then having asked on occasions have had permission to photograph military items, even in Cuba and other communist countries.

Forcing restrictions your liberties is not the answer. Not all foreigners, or muslims, are terrorist. America is proud to be "the land of the free" but as an outsider, this certainly does not appear to be the case.

In short, I guess you need to stand up and fight for your rights and tell your politicians that you want to get on with your lives.

I am from sweden, a peacful country in the northern europe. This is just amazing to hear. A country which allows anyone to own firearms, but is seen as a criminal if walking around with a camera? What would happen if I am a tourist - a foreigner - photographing a monument in your country? Brutaly put in jail? Guess I will chose other countries for my photographic journeys. Btw, in sweden you are allowed to photograph anything, except military installations. And owning a firearm is illegal here with few exceptions. (Sorry for my poor english)

Victor, just curious, if there were, god forbid, simultaneous attacks by an organized group of people from outside the UK, against as an example, Heathrow, Parliament, and Buckingham Palace, where 3,000 people perished within a 1 hour time span, would the people in the UK "just get on with their lives" - business as usual?

What would happen if I am a tourist - a foreigner - photographing a monument in your country? Brutaly put in jail?

Of course not Anders. I live near San Francisco and drive across the Golden Gate Bridge often. Every day there are thousands of tourists, most from other countries, who photograph it. It is not a crime to take pictures in the US - don't let the hysteria in this thread dissuade you. If you sneak up on the bridge in a row boat and take detailed pictures of it's foundation and anchorages, I suspect you will be questioned though. Use common sense.

I was in New York City last month. Took lots of pictures as thousands of other tourists, many from overseas did - no problems.

"Victor, just curious, if there were, god forbid, simultaneous attacks by an organized group of people from outside the UK, against as an example, Heathrow, Parliament, and Buckingham Palace, where 3,000 people perished within a 1 hour time span, would the people in the UK "just get on with their lives" - business as usual?

-- Brad Evans , September 14, 2003; 05:52 A.M. Eastern"

In the long run Yes. Sure there would be outrage and national morning, but yes we would get on with our lives. Just like we did after the Blitz in WW2.

I may be wrong, but apart from Pearl Harbour, America has never been the taget of a massive attack until 9/11 (?) and the shock is deep. In the UK, we had IRA attacks often several times a week. How you and I handle these event sis therefore different. But life must go on.

Hey Brad,

If you lived in a country where over 11 _thousand_ people get killed by legal fire arms every year and a similar number through other means plus similar bonus of people dying in road accidents, would you go on with your life, business as usual? Or would you be too scared to go out of the house at all, let alone drive a car? Or do you look at the statistics objectively and conclude that the odds are stacked in your favour?

Bush's "War on Terror" is fast becomming "Revenge on Terror". And looking at Israel, we know where a cycle of revenge ends. Or actualy, we don't...

A concerened European.

<<Is this guy for real? My goodness. It's one thing to respect authority. It's another altogether to be such a spineless accomodator and be such a "conformist," to the extreme that he apparently believes you're just supposed to always blindly never ever ever ever question stupidity.

Joseph Stalin, Lenin--whoever it was--surely must have been referring to likes of this when he was talking about "useful idiots."

LRH>>

Well Larry,

You have managed to refer to security as "would-be rapist(s)" and myself (and I suppose my 'ilk') as " never ever question stupidity..'; "idiot(s)". That's a mouthful my friend. Please do not resort to libel in making your points.

I imagine my point of view is somewhat tempered by the fact that I had a student who died in 9/11; and I know of 5 others. One did RA work about 10 feet from my office. These were young people--about your age Anno-with full-lives ahead of them. I do not live nor work in the NYC area.

I also know a wonderful man who owns a nearby camera 'superstore' whose wife was on one of the planes: some of the folks on photo.net are aware of this store and story, I am certain. He is now a widower with two small children. He works very hard, has created many new jobs for photo folks in the last few years, and actively uses his store to assist charities. He never asks for recognition; pity; and so on. Life goes on. In Yiddish parlance, he is a 'mensch'.

I often think of him when I hear about folks worried about the minor inconvenience of security inspection. That makes it very easy to smile and say: 'what can I do to help you out'?

Incidentally, I do get questioned by security, with my camera, on occasion. Here is one such shot I took in that circumstance. After providing all the info desired,the conversation and 'check' usually ends with a view through the viewfinder and a quick lesson in how to compose a good shout. Of course, Larry, I do hope we need not argue on the composition:-)? Or, perhaps you should critique composition rather than attack those helping to keep us safe. Cheers.

Akron is in the Northeast? When I lived there they called it the Midwest (likewise debatable). On to the major point: if we are not careful we become like our enemies. Terror begets terror, and repression is always waiting in the wings of officialdom in the event of any hint of possible threat--and in the perennially paranoid mind of patriots, everything is a potential threat. (Sorry for the excessive alliteration.) I am not surprised by what happened to you. What continues to surprise me (although I am not sure why it should) is that most of the populace support the police and other authorities in their overzealous efforts. How does one break that mindset? I don't know, since there is always someone out there manipulating the fear that inheres in the masses, and making a career out of it--and feeling justified about doing it as well. Let us not forget that we were fighting the perils of communism all the way on the other side of the globe for many years. The repressive types have got to find someone and something to be suspicious of, and this time it was your turn. Next time it will be mine, or someone else on this site. How does one defeat a mindset? With attorneys? I doubt it. The attorneys are almost always on the side of the repressors. SPEAK OUT. Thanks for doing so here.

This is the kind of 9/11 outcome that I have always feared most for our friendly neighbours to the south (I'm Canadian). I've seen a fair amount of the blame for 9/11 and other situations originating from the terrorist haven of Canada.

Is it not true that there was a proposal to amend sections of the patriot act to allow for secret arrests and indefinite detentions?

Watching out for people with cameras seems pretty much like a losing battle; for example, several mobile phones already offer a camera as a standard feature. Although the image quality is bad, it's not 100% useless and it's going to improve. Are the officers going to ask the motives of every person taking to the mobile phones that have a lens turned to the federal buildings and such during the calls?

It's OK to try to protect people, but I just don't think being trigger-happy with persons that have equipment suitable for photography is a very good part of the plan. Especially if good manners are thrown out of the window.

I've been living in Japan for 3 years, and while I'm very happy here I do sometimes think about how nice it will be get back to the openness and freedom of the US (my native country). I guess this thread has put a dose of reality into me. It's disturbing to hear about this incident and others like it. Obviously, I can't really understand the mindset that's prevailing in the US post 9-11, not being there, so I don’t want to criticize those who advocate the position of grin and bear it (and be thankful for it).

I would like to respond to this comment someone made above:

“What continues to surprise me (although I am not sure why it should) is that most of the populace support the police and other authorities in their overzealous efforts. How does one break that mindset?”

I hope as more people have experiences like Mr. Auman's, or hear about these happenings, the mindset of acquiescing to having one's rights trampled will be broken. I’m therefore thankful that this story was shared. As these types of things happen to more people there has to be a public outcry – right?

I wonder how it will be returning to the US, post 9-11?

re: Photography of bridges.

Does Mr. Ashcroft propose 'burning' all library reference material with images of American bridges? And think of the post card racks with California and New York bridges, more fodder for the shredder?

The government should work on ways that will 'hamper' would-be terrorists, not methods of 'restricting' freedom among the citizens.

Anthony, despite all the hot rhetoric, the US is not yet an armed camp. A lot of what is being said by those opposed to the changes in the way life was before 9-11 (myself included) is so that it won't turn into an armed camp. History has shown that if you allow for bad law with good intentions, it is hard to get back to center; and many innocent people hurt in the process.

Reports like these may be the tip of the iceberg, or they can be isolated cases. There is no way to be sure. In the mean time we look forward to your return, and wish you well. If anything you'll be returning to a country divided along almost every line you can imagine. But hopefully we will weather it and come back together.

A very good friend of mine (professional photographer) was driving along a country road and came across an accident. There were several cars parked and people helping sort things out. He stopped the car to take a few shots, no there wasn't any blood and body parts strewn across the road. But this particular accident involved a semi-truck and a midsize auto. He later found out that there was a death involved as well. He did not know any of this at the time and was just taking a few shots from afar.

To make a long story short, the police got there and tried to take his camera. He refused, knowing his rights (illegal search and seizure) and was arrested on the spot for obstruction.

This case was drawn out forever, with the local sheriff's department doing all sorts of lying and underhanded things to my friend. He wound up having to settle out of court for "time-served" and community service. This even though his lawyers told him that they probably could have gotten him off, emphasizing "probably."

At one point the police officers told him, "Either we'll get you convicted of "obstruction" which can be over 1 year in jail. Or we'll draw this thing out so long in court that you'll wind up with $80,000 in legal fees. Either way you lose."

Clearly I'm leaving out a *ton* of specifics here, but this was a very small rural community in southern Michigan before any terrorist attacks. It is quite strange (and scary) how law enforcement officials can take certain "liberties" when a person with a camera is concerned.

My friend has since been "banned" from entering Canada because of this "mark" on his record and harrassed incessantly from local police in that particular town (our hometown).

Sueing in this case is really a difficult proposition considering the "vague" laws and their interpretations by lawyers, judges and police. Especially when weighed with the prospect of "losing" and still paying said lawyers thousands of dollars. It's just a lose, lose situation for the individual involved.

In retrospect, my guess is that my friend could have saved an awful lot of trouble by just being extremely cooperative and accomodating with the police involved.

Is it right or fair? No. That my friends, is life. This is the state of the country that we live in.

Do you think that we will somehow be able to change the way all the police and government officials operate by suing the pants off of everyone? Hardly

Is there a solution that would be derived by passing laws that restrict the rights of the police and government officials more? Maybe, but that isn't happening today.

We can arm ourselves with the information of what is happening in the world and control our responses to the situations: expect to get hassled and expect to be able to respond relaxed and controlled when this happens. Expect that you actually might lose a roll of film, it sure beats being arrested and racking up thousands in legal fees.

I am not interested in getting worked up about what rights I am "guaranteed by the constition." I am interested in what is actually happening in the real world and how I can prepare myself for that. This has been a valuable discussion if for no better reason than to prepare us with more useful tools for the trade.

Pat

Washington DC, all positive attention, no harassment of any kind.

Wow - I just got back from spending the week in Washington DC, where I spent a lot of time standing around each side of the White House, Capitol buildings, etc., waiting for some good light.

My loitering, picture taking, and big bag of camera gear brought little attention, except the occasional tourist who felt comfortable enough to ask me to use their cameras to take pictures of their groups in front of the White House or the U.S. Capitol. I did draw the attention of a local news crew, and became the only tourist who was interviewed and aired for an evening news story about the upcoming renovation of the closed stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.

While touring the Washington Monument, I took interior photos of the construction technique used (all masonry, no steel except for the elevator shaft), all under the watchful eye of the ever-present security and cameras.

While touring the U.S. Capitol, (east side of which is dug up from the four-story underground foundation), I tucked my camera around the plywood walls surrounding the block-sized construction sight to get some great shots of the Capitol and its foundation with the huge construction pit in front of it. Again, the security left me alone.

Maybe I didn't fit any "profiles", or maybe the park rangers, Secret Service, and local police are well trained, but my entire trip was photo-oriented and stayed uneventful.

To read the occasional stories about the abuse of expanded authority, I am appalled at where we are heading, but so far luck has been with me.

In the long run Yes. Sure there would be outrage and national morning, but yes we would get on with our lives. Just like we did after the Blitz in WW2.

OK Victor, I understand. Question: During WW2, did the UK place any additional restrictions on its citizens that regulated behaviour? Such as restrictions on photographing government buildings, bridges, bases, coastlines, etc?

I can't believe the people above who defend such repressive actions. Wait, yes, I can: repression occurred against me in a different context when I wrote e-mails protesting bizarre administrative practices at the University of Florida in 2000-2001. Before you know it, I was being considered a dangerous and disruptive person. After all of the shouting was over, I never got my MA in Spanish there at the age of 56, even though I already had two graduate degrees from the joint. So, if university administrators cannot be expected to defend First Amendment rights anymore, should I be surprised that the police cannot be expected to defend basic freedoms? I guess not, but I will say this: when photographers don't defend the right to take pictures, don't expect anyone else to do so. I am glad that most photographers here express outrage over this incident of yours, rather than try to defend the "authorities."

Those of you who made reference to the bill of rights may appreciate this bogus article (bogus for how long though?)

http://www.theonion.com/onion3847/bill_of_rights.html

Chris- What happened to you is a blatant violation of your rights. Report it to the ACLU, make sure that article get's published- and don't stop there. If similar things are happening to other people(those kids for example) make sure their stories get heard to.

1 Red Chinese can be wrong. 50 million can't.

Bas: Or do you look at the statistics objectively and conclude that the odds are stacked in your favour?

Bas, of course, I look at the daily risks of life and make informed choices. Just getting in my car and driving to work poses risk. No need to load your argument with deaths from firearms!

Question: Let's say something similar to 9/11 happened in the Netherlands (3,000 people dead in less than an hour). How many of those events could your country absorb before your economy ground to a halt? If your government infrastructure and national symbols were being attacked, would there be any "restrictions" regulating behaviour placed on its citizens? Restrictions where people photographing government buildings, bridge foundations, etc might be QUESTIONED about their activity.

If photography is so suspect, how about the part of the populace with "photographic memory". 1 in 100,000 enjoy this ability (to an extend).

These kind of abilities, to draw a picture accurately to the last detail from memory, are a true threat to our national security. Since noone knows who has this ability and around 3,000 people in this country do, ..... (Fast forward 2-3 years:)

So, here is a sneak preview of PATRIOT ACT III.

This decree is sent out from Washington: (To the tune of Herodes, here I come, cowboy style)

that for the sole purpose of national security and to succeed in our (NOTE the 'our' here) war on terror, all able bodied persons living or visiting the United States forthwith have to submit to blinding. Signed Ashcroft & Co.

The following month, in the then partially Braille based press, there will a laudation of this popular measure, as I quote : "We applaud the executive order of yesterday, to set the age for blinding at 7 years or school entry, so that no child will be left behind."

If all beauraucrats work as they normally do, alphabetically, I will have a small bit of satisfaction, seeing Nathan Cohen's (SEE HIS POST ABOVE and shutter if you can) blinding operation in the still partially picture carrying press, before my own eyes are taken out two months later.

Sorry, Nathan about your eyes. I hope you feel better now and more secure.

Hi Frank,

I can see most clearly, at least with reading glasses and a 4 x loupe:-) That's how I get all those socko shots. Thank you for asking.

It would seem that a sense of vision may be a product of experience and age. Call it wisdom of aging, if you wish.

I do feel safe and I do feel that I am happy to help out when asked. Just have nothing to hide, I geuss:-) Never, ever been abused. Always cooperative. Always asked relevant questions. Always answered relevant questions.

Sounds like a good formula in war time:-)

"The officers should have, VERY POLITELY, asked some questions just to get "a feel" for what you were doing, THEN LEFT YOU ALONE!!" -- You think so Patrick??... It was the day after 9/11 for one thing. You took shots of a federal building! Who cares if you were obviously born in the states. All terrorists don't have to be from the Mid East right??... What if you WERE a terrorist?.. How are they supposed to know that you're not. It's better to be safe than to be sorry again. They're just protecting our country. And sheesh... it was only one day after 9/11 and you act surprised. How silly.

Brad: No, I don't think the Netherlands would react the way the US has. First of all, we do not have an all powerfull, elected (or supreme court appointed!), president. Neither do we have only two parties, making sure that in a yes-no vote any party can win on it's own. We have a multi-party coalition and the prime minister's job (usualy the party leader of the biggest party) is to keep these people working together and comunicate with the monarch and heads of other states. No power hungry types to be found. Being out of the country for three years and having an outsiders view now, I am even more impressed with how well it works. Having the constitution with the most civil liberties in the world is not worth a damn thing if the president and congres use it for toilet paper.

The second reason is the media. They are not in it just for the ratings as much and therefor don't simply go for "fear sells".

Third, the Dutch are good at minding their own business. Always have been, always will.

I don't know how long this wil last, but I hope it will for a long time.

Bas, you didn't answer my question: How many of those events (9/11) could your country absorb before your economy ground to a halt? If your government infrastructure and national symbols were being attacked, would there be any "restrictions" regulating behaviour placed on its citizens? Restrictions where people photographing government buildings, bridge foundations, etc might be QUESTIONED about their activity.

You're still going of an a tangent trying to load your argument with Bush, the Supreme Court, the Dutch minding their own business, etc.

Please answer my question above. Also, in general and on topic to this thread, can your police officers QUESTION a citizen about activity they think suspicious?

"Gosh guys, settle down. First of all, just cooperate with whomever it is that wants to detain you, go wherever they ask (as soon as they show you their identification) and remain calm. I'm sure you don't look like a terrorist. I'm sure if "they" were thinking logically they'd realize that if you were you'd be a bit more discreet."

YOu gotta be joking!? What does a 'terrorist' look like? Tim McVeigh, did he look like a terrorist? Did Bundy look like a serial murderer? What an insane thing to say; what method is that to rely on ones 'looks'. That is the sort of ignorant, elitist and fascist attitude that is destroying America.

I suppose you know for a fact that there is a 'book on looks'? And that all law enforcement is trained accordingly?! What a joke...

Let's see: "look at picture 1, this is Akmed, he's a terrorist. Thus all middle eastern people are suspect"

What a moronic suggestion...

Terrorism will always happen and Bushes "war on Terrorists" is a bit of a joke.

Victor, as a European you have the perspective to note something that, per Bush administration pronouncements, is officially unpatriotic (or worse) for an American to express. The thing to note, however, is that the law enforcement officials described at the beginning of this thread are merely doing what comes naturally to law enforcement officials.

The people who created the Bill of Rights recognized the inherent nature of government officials and police, and felt compelled to put checks on that nature into the Constitution. Law enforcement officials have always chafed at liberties and restrictions on what they can do. It's not necessary because of malevolent intent-- they understandably desire unrestricted authority and power to do whatever they deem appropriate for their job of protecting the public from criminals that are a constant and pervasive threat to security. Unfortunately, law enforcement officials are merely human, and there is the inevitable risk that they crave power and authority strictly for its own sake, to advance themselves and build bureaucratic empires. This is what the Founding Fathers attempted to prevent with the Bill of Rights.

9/11/01 provided an unprecedented opportunity for politicians and officials to cast off the burdensome yoke of restrictions under which they had long chafed. At that moment, the public (and their representatives in Congress) were sufficiently shocked and terrorized that they were willing and even eager to surrender their liberty to a president who wrapped himself in the Flag and uttered simplistic promises of security and vengeance. John Ashcroft the Holy Crusader rode in on his white horse, gathered together many long-deferred dreams of law enforcement agencies, and offered up the USA PATRIOT Act that would Save the Country. Congress swiftly enacted it, and the rest is history.

As we know, the USA PATRIOT Act makes little explicit mention of the Terrorist Threat of Photography. Which is, at last, my point. The greatest "benefit" of the USA PATRIOT Act isn't in its actual wording, but in the unwritten implication. Local, low-level officials were now emboldened with the Authority to accost, arrest, and detain anyone they consider "suspicious" or that they simply don't like. After all, we are At War; they are the front-line foot-soldiers of a vaguely-defined, open-ended, and most likely perpetual "War on Terror." And each and every one of us is a potential Enemy from which they must diligently protect their territory.

So we can whine and complain all want want about supposed violations of "rights" and "illegal" seizure of film. If they're ever questioned, the officers will merely assert that "we are at war" and they were doing an exemplary job of protecting their building (or whatever) from a potential terrorist threat. Their bosses will probably commend them for it, and insist that freedom to photograph must now yield to Protection From Terrorism (however they arbitrarily choose to interpret and implement this goal). How can anyone argue successfully about that, especially in this Time of War, and especially when Bush officials insist that any criticism is treasonous and supports terrorism?

I don't know what advice anyone can give to photographers now that officials from federal officers down to private rent-a-cop security guards enjoy de facto arbitrary authority to arrest and detain "terrorists" and confiscate their "weapons" (i.e., film and cameras). One workaround might be to avoid built-up places like cities where such officials abound, and photograph only outdoors in national parks and undeveloped places where there are few genuine terrorist targets (and few officials to protect them). But even there it's impossible to know what some park ranger or local constable might be looking for.

Photography is now a risky proposition in the United States. It is impossible to know what some official might decide is forbidden, and what he might decide to do if you commit the forbidden act of photography in the territory he makes his living protecting. The terrorists' success was not in the lives they took on 9/11, but in affording opportunistic politicians and petty authorities an excuse to remove the restrictions the Bill of Rights had wisely placed on their authority and actions.

Good lord... has the world gone mad? I want all you guys to know that your children are watching--and we're learning. Do you want us to think that the way to solve serious problems like terrorism is to be overzealous, paranoid, and warlike?

Luckily, most of us know what's going to happen in 2004, and hopefully many of our rights will be restored. However, we also know that our reputation as a nation is being damaged by the hour, and it's going to take a lot of time, hard work, and compassion to show the world that our country isn't as bad as it seems. This summer, I spent 5 weeks photographing Australia and New Zealand on scholarship, and the kids there know all about our policies. I think they were very relieved to find out that we're not all clones of Mr. Bush.

Incidentally, my friends and I have also been stopped from photographing public buildings. I refused to give up my film from my Yashicamat, so the security goon let me go with an embarrassed look that said, "Sorry... we both know that terrorists don't take snapshots of the federal building." A friend of mine, on a different occasion, gave up his film while taking pictures of the post office for an assignment, and he still hasn't gotten it back (this was more than a year ago).

I disagree with those who say "if you don't like America, you should leave it." If you don't like it, you should change it!

Thanks for reading.

I suppose Aldrich Ames wasn't an amateur photographer. Otherwise, he would have been caught by some flat foot before he did a trillion dollars worth of damage to US interests? Yeah, right!

Excesses of any kind need to be exposed, and DUDs in government agencies need to be identified and isolated. But it is never easy, for the reasons I mentioned above. Chris, just do the best you can, but MOST DEFINITELY with the advice of a good lawyer.

Cheers,

Interesting stories. I guess I'm not alone.

Apparently, in my town (at least according to a rentacop that was hassling me) the rentacops work with law inforcement agencies to "keep an eye on the downtown area," which involves video taping, identifing, and questioning anyone taking pictures -- even if you are obviously shooting pictures of statues from a publice sidewalk.

I haven't been able to figure out what they do with your the information, but I think that this service that they are providing for the town is another example of one of the essential problems with the Homeland Security movement (and the patriot act): the open nature of the actual interpretation and enforcement empowers the wrong people (e.g., bored, aggressive rentacops).

Brad, a question for you, how do you win against an enemy like this? They have no physical borders, no standing army, they answer only to their interpretation of their religion, and if you don't rid the earth of them all, they will come back (I guess like cockroaches). I guess I just don't see an end to it. And I am sincerely open to hear how someone can see an end to it, beyond genocide (and I pray to God that we never see that by any nation). Because as long as the terrorists exist we will need something like USAPA by some peoples accounts, and the restrictions that security entails by those same accounts.

Chip: The answer is in understanding. Why are the "terrorists" angry? We've got to remember that they are people, too. They're mad because of stupid U.S. foreign policy, oppression of the Muslim faith throughout history, and the fact that many Americans (or Christians, or Caucasians, or whatever you like) are greedy, wasteful, and closed-minded. Although I'm sure I'll get slammed for saying it, I can sympathize with their cause (but not with their means of achieving it). War really isn't a good idea because, as has already been said, the "enemy" is borderless and shapeless--and it can't simply be bombed. You can't fight fire with fire.

Excellent. I always like to remind myself that this is the land of the 'free' ...

So let me think, ah yes, I have to carry an IDENTITY CARD (you may call it a driving license, but anytime you HAVE to carry it, it's an identity card!) The cops & feds now act like the gestapo, and it seems we're now all generally guilty rather than presumed innocent these days. So much for the US human rights moral high ground.

Incidently I'm also totally ok with APPROPRIATE measures to combat the risks of terrorism etc, but I think we've gone too far these days.

Graham

"Brad, a question for you, how do you win against an enemy like this?"

Perhaps a quotation from our 16th US President can help you see the proper path forward. "The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend."

"The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend."

Like Hitler in Europe?

Your experience is stunning. This is how far and more the people hired by our tax dollars would go if you give more power than they should be getting. By the way, they haven't been given that kind of power yet. I would ask you to talk to media and a lawyer. The bottomline is that this kind of behaviour by police absolutely doesn't make help security in the sense that they are OBVIOUSLY WASTING their time doing this, instead of spending their on better aeas and things. If these dumb police officers are doing our security, we know just how secure we are.

Brad, if we had made friends with Germany after WWI, rather than trying to punish the country and pushing it into economic collapse, then it is likely that Hitler would never have had the appeal he had--and would never have come to power.

No, you cannot negotiate with a Hitler, but you can lay the peaceful groundwork so that a Hitler does not come to power. Instead, we are creating thousands of Osamas and other future terrorists by our heavy-handed tactics, and our children and grandchildren will be paying for this kind of bush-league stupidity for years to come.

Sue the retarted people for all their worth. If citizens don't fight this hyped up S%!T known as homeland security then we are all perpetually screwed. Personally, The USA can kiss my white naked ass, I would rather live in france.

Brad: 1) I don't know, nobody _can_ know and 2) Chris wasn't merely being questioned. This was an arrest and interrogation, nothing less.

I am trying to point out that I believe there is a case of over reacting and thereby trampling on peoples civil rights. And I do believe this over-reacting comes from the members of congres and the president having too much financial gain from comming to, and staying in, power. For them too, fear sells. The media, trading the same fear for ratings, makes people let the goverment get away with it.

Chris, You, and EVERYONE here *MUST ACT* to STOP THIS CRAP! (i.e., vote the bastards out) The U.S. of America is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave. It's looking more like a mob of fear ridden right-wing loudmouths who, if they had their way, would repeal the "Bill Of Rights" in the name of fighting terrorism. This administration is scared to death and they want YOU to join the posse where due process amounts to shouting "somebody get a rope."

This is SERIOUS people. Those officers who held you had NO PROBABLE CAUSE. Period! We either act now to end this, or we cringe in fear of the gestopo! Me, I'll take my chances with the terrorists.

paul.... 6 year U.S. Navy veteran (68-74), reactor operator, nuclear submarines

Well, I know what I'm doing in future elections, I will be voting against the current crop of politicians. If they get booted out, maybe the next batch will get the message. Ben Franklin had it right, in that quote about giving up freedoms. Elected officials supposedly take an oath to uphold the Consitution, not trash it.

That description *really* spooks me. Change few geographical names and it could be description of event from Poland in the sixties... Photographers here are *still* struggling with mindsets like this, even when it's more or less fourteen years since stupid laws forbidding photographing of various "classified" object were lifted.

I began taking pictures of the Federal Building in Columbus Ohio from 4:56PM today. At 5:03 an armed guard came out and respectfully asked me what I was doing. He then asked for my ID and called an officer from the gsa to come down to question me. The gsa officer asked me why I was taking pictures. I said I like taking pictures and had no particular reason for taking pictures. He indicated that taking pictures of the building is discouraged due to security concerns after 9/11, but since this is a public place pictures are permitted. Just before leaving I told him about Chris' experience in Akron. I told him I was concerned about the infringement of civil liberties and that I was making sure that the officers in Columbus were acting in an appropriate manner. I praised their professionalism and thanked them for doing their jobs. I also told him I will email the URL for this post. I left them at 5:14. See below some pictures from the experience.

Another shot

Think about it: people of the lower (or lowest) cognitive/intelligence ranks are given guns and told to watch for suspicious activities around town.

Sounds like a desaster is bound to happen. What on earth will sound/look suspicous is up to their tiny minds. Doing a hand-spring on the lawn somewhere might land you shot/in jail for terrorist activism now; all since some dumbwits saw their suspicions raised by your silly activity ... . such as photo-taking ... and you and I tremble.

Heil Bush and Ash

Who has allowed these goons to watch out for us, over us? These watchers would not be able to decipher anything right ... Who is their "supervisor", what ground rules are there?

None, we now know ... the boss is out sucking up money for his campaign, the riff-raff is policing our towns ...

Building this time!

Though this article doesn't pertain directly to photography, it does relate to the patriot act and how well it's being used to fight "terrorism".

Soon, we'll all be considered terrorists

Prosecuting meth chemists for trading in weapons of mass destruction is obscene. For those of you who have been of the "I'm not a terrorist so why should this concern me?" mindset - take these cases to heart. None of these crimes had anything to do with terrorism, yet they are all prosecuted as such because of the deliberately broad language in the patriot act. Don't pretend to be shocked when photography begins to be legally considered terrorist surveillance.

We're well down the road to a society that's in a constant state of "war" against . Anyone else here feel the urge to turn around and take the other fork in that road?

to say "We're well down the road to a society that's in a constant state of "war" against [insert ambiguous conceptual enemy here]."

But I used the wrong kind of brackets and it got stripped out. That'll teach me to actually look at the preview page!

After the attack on September 11 2001, President Bush said that if we gave up our freedoms and way of life, then the terrorists had won.

I encourage you to educate your local officials regarding our constitutionally protected rights. One idea is to have 2 - 100 photographers meet in front of the Federal Building in your community and take pictures of it. If inappropriately challenged, you'll have plenty of witnesses and a record of the officals behavior. If not, you can praise them and you'll meet a number of like-minded people. A win-win no matter what the outcome. The newspapers are always looking for stories and this could be a good one no matter which way the officals behave. We must not let our constitutional rights be infringed by well-meaning, but confused officals.

BTW: If anyone thinks that a terrorist couldn't get all the visual information they need by driving past the building with a video camera, using an SLR with telephoto lens, or by standing on the sidewalk with one of the new camera / cell phone they don't understand today's technology.

After the attack on September 11 2001, President Bush said that if we gave up our freedoms and way of life, then the terrorists had won.

As he sayeth, so shall it be! The very day he made that speech, the freedom of Americans to move about was under curtailment -- commercial airline traffic was still halted, and private General Aviation use of the nation's airspace was held up for more than three months even after commercial aviation was restored to something like normalcy. Before any Cessna 182 was allowed to take off again, the Patriot Act was put into place, essentially repealing the Bill of Rights.

At this point, two years later, it's still nearly impossible to travel without carrying identification (remember "Papers, please" from the bad old days of the Soviet Union?) -- despite the fact that there is still no law requiring any American citizen to have any form of documentation (including a Social Security number). We can be arrested and held without access to a lawyer, without being informed of our rights, and potentially without bail, indefinitely, if we're suspected of "terrorist activity" -- and the laws that define that term are being regularly used to prosecute perfectly ordinary criminals.

The "Land of the Free" has been dead for just over two years. The newest evil empire is doing very well, and thanks for asking! But why is this thread in the archived General Photography forum, and highlighted on the main photo.net page? It hasn't been primarily about photography from day one -- and without aggressive trimming by the moderator, it won't ever be; as such, it really doesn't (IMO) belong in the archives. And yes, that means I think this posting should get the axe, too...

oh..ya.....how dare law enforcment use any tool possible to prosecute a guy cookin' meth. Your really going to bring the right back to center with that one.

I know this is getting off topic, but the topic could easily spill over into something very relevant to us as photographers. Politics and photography don't usually mix, but here the implications can be far reaching. Also, I'm a bit offended at the insinuation that I'm defending meth dealers because I'm outraged about this legal scope creep.

Nobody's arguing meth is ok. Nobody is arguing that the guy shouldn't be punished. Just like nobody is arguing that photographing a federal building *should* be a crime.

The issue is that the guy mentioned in the link was not a terrorist caught in the act of producing chemical weapons, but is being charged as one. Similarly, if there were a local ordinance against photographing certain buildings, a photographer stopped for taking photographs could be held as a terrorist doing surveillance by the same leap of logic. It's as bad as charging someone with armed robbery when they're caught cheating on their taxes simply because both crimes involve money and the perp had a nail clippers in his pocket. There are already laws on the books to deal with drug users and dealers, and the sentences and procedures applicable to those crimes are what should be used in those cases.

Also, to think that my goal is to sway the opinions of hard core right wing partisans is laughable - they are beyond reason, and proud of it. My goal is to get thinking individuals of all stripes to consider thoroughly what their complacency means for the future of the country.

Seriously people - if this kind of thing bothers you at all, write to your reps. On the surface, they may not seem to care about much other than money, but they do worry about losing the next election, and they have staffers to read their mail. And when mail comes in in large amounts, the issues do get on their radar. Take the 10 minutes, say your piece. An unvoiced opinion is no good to anybody.

Donald, surely this thread does qualify as being about photography, even if it is not about the technical side of photography. Without the right to photograph--and the right to photograph freely without harassment--there is no future to this site. If there was ever a thread that was central to what we are about as photographers, then it is this one, in my opinion, and I hope that it is archived pretty much as it is. It's a messy thread, but these are messy issues, and I hope that the thread isn't discarded just because it invites political opinion. After all, the right to photograph is a political issue. We need to thrash this issue out thorougly--for some time to come.

Hello all and thank you for all your time and responses. I am really blown away. I am still a little overwhelmed by the episode and all your responses so give me some time and I will respond specifically to some your comments and I will let you know what happens with any new developments.

Thanks for your time. Keep shooting! (I am going out tomorrow again at lunch!!)

Chris

Stuff like this pisses me off to no end. I second the motion to call the ACLU. As far as I'm aware, as soon as your free movement is restricted, you are by definition "under arrest." Cops will also run with anything you tell them, as it falls under "consentual conversation." Thus you have to be guarded in anything you say. A comment such as "What, are you nuts? You think I'm going to blow the place up or something?", (which would be a normal response) turns into YOU mentioning BLOWING UP something, which in turn creates more problems.

I don't know (unless you are operating a vehicle) if an officer even has the right to ask for your drivers license. I would NEVER give my social security number to anyone, and I would demand a written reciept for my film.

We've lost too many rights over the last few years. We aren't nearly as free as we used to be. Plus, there would be so many existing photographs of government buildings available, terrorists wouldn't need a camera; just a library card. (Oh, they are following up on books you're reading too!) :(

>> "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin <<

With fear (yes fear, in this country, of speaking my mind), I can only point out the obvious: any government with such broad powers would have been a wet dream for Tricky Dick (a.k.a. President Nixon). I cannot help but think that all the contributors in this thread are being blacklisted by the current Cheney Administration or its zealot powerbots (directly or indirectly).

The Founding Fathers would cry themselves to death to learn that the once-oppressive Europe (well, the majority of it) has learned most of the lessons this, their beloved, hard-earned country has forgotten: separation of Church and State, free education, abolition of absolute power, and distribution of social responsibilities.

One can argue that broad security powers make a society safer: I'm sure that's what made the Soviet Union such a resounding success among its citizens and its enemies (hint for the sarcastically-impaired: the Soviet Union was a very very very bad chapter for humanity).

Photography, like all arts, well, anything, can be abused by anybody. Because a few abuse anything should all be regulated by the new "Divine Right" of National Security? It is the inability --either because of laziness or complacency-- the inability to think and process complex issues that have always fomented drastic mistakes (the Reichstag fire, the Crusades, the broadcast of Phoxed Noose, etc.) If one must promulgate with bumper-sticker slogans, here's one:

Checks and balances, not blank checks.

Well, it's unfortunate that our society has come to this, but personally, I'm happy to know that our agents and officers are doing their jobs and that they haven’t yet been emasculated. We can't have it both ways ... so many are decrying the current administration for not acting on what they may have known *before* 9/11. Now for being simply questioned we cry and rant that our rights are being violated?? What if just one airport security guard had been more alert and taken one hour of time to investigate any one of the 9/11 hijackers before they boarded an airliner to convert it into a "weapon of mass destruction." How many lives might have been saved? Still, I'm sure the ACLU would have been in line to protest "rights violations" and "racial profiling".

One gentleman, who describes himself as being a "6-year Navy veteran" was particularly vocal about the need to "stop this crap." I find that a rather interesting statement, considering his proclaimed experience as "reactor operator, nuclear submarines." HYPOTHETICALLY, would you suppose this gentleman would have been able to shoot photos in and around said reactors for the sheer joy of practicing photography? Would we sleep well at night knowing that he or someone like him was allowed to remove such photos from the base and share them with family and friends? (Rhetorical question - I know the answer. My family has a long history with law-enforcement and military service, and the Navy in particular.)

Apples to oranges? Perhaps not necessarily so... Treason and Terror are both serious threats to our security as a country and as citizens. The determining factor in either case would be intent, but how is that so easily determined? "Hi sir, I see you're taking pictures of our building and the surrounding area. You wouldn't be planning to come back with a bomb to kill us, would you? Haha… Of course not. We have to ask - it's our job, you know. Have a nice day!" Likewise, would it be even more appropriate to utilize a “non-confrontational approach” -- to make a mental note of the event or post a sign in appropriate legalese that essentially says "Attention potential terrorists, please, pretty please, do not take pictures of our building with hopes of blowing us and our workers up."

Our country has suffered tragic losses from terrorists, both foreign and domestic. In fact, you may remember a "pioneering" event in Oklahoma City in 1995 that just happened to involve a Federal Building as the target. Is it logical to assume that someone with designs on a similar such event might use photographs of the building, access roads, exits, visible security to plan such dark and terrible goals?

Don't believe for a second that I am interested in sacrificing *any* of our constitutional rights for the sake of security. I do, however, believe in common sense. In these days of heightened security (I believe you were at the Federal Building on the DAY AFTER the 2nd anniversary of the most deadly terrorist attack on US soil), I expect to be questioned and if necessary detained if I stray, whether accidentally or intentionally into a "sensitive" area. I expect the officers whose duty it is to prevent another tragedy like Oklahoma City or 9/11 to be alert and vigilant in their call to protect us, sadly, even from our fellow American citizens if God forbid we encounter another Timothy McVeigh.

Had you been detained overnight, denied the opportunity to consult an attorney, or pistol-whipped and questioned under a bare light bulb, then yes, I would be very, very concerned, and I would be on the side calling for immediate action of some sort. However, being questioned for an hour, even surrendering your film (are you certain you weren't "persuaded" to offer it?) for 30 days is not terribly out of line. I agree the officer probably suffered from an overdose of machismo, from your given perspective. However, I don't see anything terribly wrong with being detained and questioned for an hour.

I think your post title and general message theme was of sound advice – be aware where you shoot. We do live in a free country, where we can roam freely through public places, recording images of our society with an eye of (what used to be, before Photoshop) absolute truth. We can also speak our minds in public and criticize our government and its representatives without fear of government reprisals. Like children, we often don’t recognize that freedom has a price and bears *our* responsibility as citizens of this great country. Common sense is a small price, for which some (and I’m not pointing fingers here) are evidently bankrupt.

-Richard

Try shooting in NYC its even a bigger nightmare than the rest of the country. The one thing that seems to scare me more than anything is that there's no clear answer about any of this stuff unless you land yourself in a heap of trouble and manage to get it all the way to the supreme court. I stopped shooting architecture altogether, too much hassle in the end. It's funny I always shot buildings because I don't have to ask a potentially crazy bulding if I can photograph it. but now I shoot people cause they are less trouble. What's sad about it is, all the discussion and posturing about not letting "them" win. Well here's a new flash for everyone: "they" already won and "they" are not done with us.

"Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals." -from the AP article linked by Aaron Loutsch

How many photographers have any substances that have the capability to cause death or serious injury? My guess is somewhere close to all of them, just like most people. Household cleaners can cause serious injury, and common substances such as fertilizer HAVE been used in weapons of mass destruction.

This is something to worry about, don't you think? Yes, it's easy to brush off calling a meth lab a terrorist organization, but what happens when one of us is arrested for photographing a federal building, and detained indefinitely until they can determine why he or she has metol, hydroquinone, glycin, sulphite, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, bromide, borax, boric acid, potassium iodide, benzotriazole, etc. at home?

Personally, I don't want to worry about what LEGAL things I can no longer do because my government wants to defend against all the "evil-doers."

So, if I understand you correctly, Richard, you think it is perfectly acceptable to detain, interrogate, and then confiscate the film of a citizen who has broken no law? If that is so, then I think you and the other voters who think as you do are more dangerous to civil liberties than Bush, Ashcroft and the rest of the current administration. Your complacency and willingness to accept this type of indignity encourages such action by the government.

I had some friends at a similar experience visiting us Washington D.C.. They came in December of 1991, they were Canadian citizens who were born in Eastern Europe. They decided to take some pictures of the Pentagon, and were stopped by military police who demanded to see their identification and then were detained for questioning. They weren't happy with their experience of the United States, and decided that they would never return. I can't blame them. What's strange as you can buy pictures of the Pentagon at any corner drugstore in Washington. If you decide to visit our nation's capital, you should be OK if you don't photograph key government buildings, military installations, the water supply, railroad crossings, or anything else that might be considered a military target. I am not an attorney but I think that Chris did the right thing by answering the officers questions. A policeman can always arrest you for any reason. The charges may not stick, the prosecutor may decide not to press the case, but you still get to spend the night in jail. From my experience at demonstrations, all you have to provide the police with is your name, your address the profession. You don't have to answer any questions that they ask but being diplomatic and helpful can save you a lot of hassle. Once you're away from the police then you can scream bloody murder, write your congressman, are a few really want to get back at them join the ACLU. Cops hate that.

In fairness to the police, you have to remember that Al Qaeda split their operations into two teams. The first team was an intelligence gathering and support operation. These teams were responsible for photographing the targets, collecting information on security and passing it on to the team that was to carry out the action. Local police might mistake you for one of these operatives no matter how silly it may seem at the time. In any case when your stopped by an officer you have the right to request identification. If the officer does not comply and then you don't have to answer any questions and should under no circumstances go with that alleged officer. If you're a member of the press that of course you have more rights, if your editors want to back you up. Maybe you might try carrying one of those NYPI photo passes! Working in Washington D.C. does present some challenges to ones believe that America is a free country, when the alert level goes to orange I get frisked going to launch. I brown bag it.

Dear Richard (Kozik),

You said: "However, being questioned for an hour, even surrendering your film (are you certain you weren't "persuaded" to offer it?) for 30 days is not terribly out of line."

Your family may be in law enforcement, but *YOU* clearly missed out on the 4th Amendment talk, thus: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not just good ideas, Richard. It's the LAW!

fyi... I'm the Navy nuclear submarine guy. I hold a reactor operator's license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate commercial power reactors (and have). I hold a senior operator instructor certification from the NRC to teach reactor operations at the senior level. I routinely need (and get) unescorted access to nuclear reactor plants, both here and abroad. I know what I'm talking about. AND GUESS WHAT, YOU *CAN* TAKE PICTURES OF REACTOR PLANTS. As long as you do it from outside the fence. People do it every day.

Frankly, I understand that it's post 9-11 etc and we want to try and prevent a reaccurance of that horrible day. Totally understandable.

What we do NOT want to do is become some big mass of paranoid freaks acting all hysterical. The thing is, precedence for this very thing exists in so many respects of life not limited to the government's post 9-11 legislation etc.

Example: certain family members freaked out because I had put photographs of them on my personal webpage--photographs of them which I took (with their full knowledge at the time) years ago when they were like 13-15 yrs old. Meanwhile, the URL to this site was something like ****personal.ispusers.com/~larrytuaz/photo_pages**** What child pedophile, rapist, etc is going to find that page on his own? It's not like it was, say, www.larryharrisonjr.com or something obvious like that.

The odds of someone finding that website without being given the URL is like someone obtaining a person's unlisted number by totally guessing and dialing just any-old bunch of numbers. Please! Did this persons really think that they would find themselves molested, raped, their children abducted etc because of 20-year old photos of them--which, by the way, DID NOT even specify who they were by name?

But to hear these people talk, you'd think I had put their lives in real serious danger.

God, how hard did I roll on the floor laughing at THAT notion!

But that is what people do. One bad thing happens and they freak out and overreact in such ways. There are probably 25 times more kids killed on their Big Wheels every year than are hunted down via the Internet and taken prisoner, killed etc. Yet, you let ONE child become a victim--ONE CHILD--and all of a sudden--oh my gosh!!, the Internet is evil! I better take those photos off my website of personal.ispusers.com/~lrhisbad/~photos/kids because someone might manage to get lucky and guess the URL, ascertain who such & such is even if their name is not mentioned and the photo is 20 years old, track down that long-lost (un-named on the website) 3rd cousin of mine who now weighs 125 lbs more than she did then, recognize her despite all the changes to her in the last 20 years, and take her and her kids hostage!

OH NO!!!

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people are.

So, in light-minded stupidity--and the word "minded" really shouldn't be used since such choices certainly were not formed in a reasonably-functioning brain--someone very obviously doing nothing but taking a photo of the Golden Gate Bridge must be a hazard, must be planning to use that information to blow the bridge up at 5 pm at rush hour (because--of course--only by taking photos could the person know that 5 pm is rush hour--duh!). So, by God, we must not let them do that. We must ban all photography so as to ensure safety.

All that they're ensuring is the creation of more overreaction and stupidity inconveniencing us so much as to begin to be just as much of a tragedy itself as 9-11 was.

Sure, 9-11 was a horrible tragedy, and quite frankly I think there are too many Birkenstock-wearing, hippie-dressing, Microbus-driving peaceniks who have forgotten and think that humming "Koom-By-Yah" (sp?) to Saddam Hussein and his ilk would solve the problems. Yet another stupid bunch.

But just as stupid is to be so skittish about everything you live in fear and perpetuate this stupidity by trying to outlaw everything. You can't do that--and even if you could, you shouldn't. The price to the quality of the life for those still alive to enjoy it is much too high.

This really sets my blood boiling. To be detained for photogrqaphing a public building which you, presumably, pay taxes to maintain is unforgiveable.

I do not fault you for your reaction, but I do believe each time a person meekly cooperates under such circumstances it adds to the problem. All the rhetoric about having to give up personal freedom because of Sept. 11 is BS. Every time we give up such rights, no matter how small they may seem, we hand another victory to the terrorists. Those people hate our country and way of life and want to destroy us. Incidents such as this prove they are succeeding.

To quote Benjamin Franklin, Those who sacrifice common liberties for safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety......

So you finally have reached the police state. We, in Poland, had that kind of trouble during the martial law period in 1981-82. Your country seems to have grabbed the police-state slot Poland vacated in 1989.

I am a South African and on a recent trip to the states I got stopped at every airport as I was told I have been "randomly selected" (we were doing a lot of touring and in the 13 flights we did I was "randomly selected" on every one). This meant that I had my luggage checked twice before each flight and I was always the last to board as I had to unpack my backpack before every flight. I agree with what was said earlier. Imagine if you were a foreigner like me and I had done the tourist thing and taken shots of a federal building.

Not to make light of what happened in the US 2 years ago, but America under El Presidente Bush, is a truly horrible place and all holidays I have been planning to Alaska and the lower 48 have been cancelled indefinitely. Canada and Europe will be getting my hard earned dollars. You know Bin Laden has won, when the US violates the rights of it's own citizens with such gay abandon.

there is too much collective national fear. and not just of terrorists. we fear eachother. we fear our neighbors. we fear our co-workers. we fear the man walking down the street with a camera. and we fear our very government.

the best place for a fight is at the voting booth. we have to fight this bull shit policy with our votes. we can not re-elect these fear preaching war making americanists. its not the fault of inept security. its the fault of our elected elite. greed pervades the top branches of power. they long to "save" our country from the evil doers. the constitutions job is not to promote american culture. it is to protect our rights and freedoms as citizens of this country. it is not a competition. everyone else in the world does not have to live just like us: overweight, afraid, and self absorded. but we insist on it at our every convinience. how many americans speak a 2nd language? hardly any. but we insist that the rest of the world learn ours. . . ridiculous.

we must make friends, not with murder and war, but with compassion.

furthermore, we have become the evil doers ourselves by supporting, with our votes, weak politicians who lust for power and feed off the spoils of revenge. they have thrust our nation into a time of "war," clouding our minds with security when we all see the true goal of this revenge.

for your reading pleasure, from the ACLU, THE PATRIOT ACT II:

http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/safeandfree.cfm?id=12234&c=206

now talk about something to wipe your ass with. these issues are alot bigger than photography. its about the very foundation of the american government. its about freedom. and its about change.

to the voting american public: please change your mind in 2004. we dont need oil. we need love.

And the irony is that police jumping all over hapless tourists and photographers will have absolutely no impact on terrorism. Re: 9/11 - is there any evidence to suggest that the attackers photographed the World Trade Centre to plan their attack? Anyone taking photographs with nefarious intent would do it clandestinely with a small digi compact.

By doing this sort of thing the authorities can say that, ostensibly, they are 'protecting us', whereas in reality they are just going through the motions, making life difficult and tedious for the great majority and achieving absolutely nothing.

With ALL DUE RESPECT, thank god you were let go after 2.5 hours....

Remember that the U.S. government are holding hundreds/thousands of people (Without charge and legal representation) in camps *in case* they are linked to terrorist organisations. What about the innocent people amoungst the guilty group-members though ? They are denied basic human rights - talk about democracy !!!

Re: Patriotism

I quote Dr. Samuel Johnson, 18th century English man of letters: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".

Chris, your account confirms my decision to not visit the United States: as I'm no US citizen, law enforcement can essentially lock me up and throw away the key. As 80-year old women have been stopped at airports, I don't think my "non-Arabic" appearance will give me any rights.

I've told the following stories a few times in Photo.net but will repeat them as they might help you see Chris' experience from an international perspective:

Late last year, I photographed the awful kitsch-style Christmas decoration in a German railroad station. The pictures could have doubled as documentation of the pillars and beams that held the station's roof, i.e. you could have calculated the amount of explosives necessary to cut the pillars, from the pictures. I was doing this within 15 ft. of two Federal law enforcement officers. I made quite a fuss of getting my camera out of the bag and setting exposure, to make sure they had plenty of time to stop me in case they wanted to. They didn't even ask me what I was doing.

About 25 years ago, an uncle of mine visited the town where he had been born, and took a picture of his family's old house; he was detained within minutes. Law enforcement interrogated him for a few hours but then let him go, though they kept his film. Fortunately he was a citizen from a foreign country, so his "vanishing" would have brought down an army of lawyers and diplomats, and it happened in a 150 per cent Catholic country--my uncle's a priest. Which country?

Communist Poland.

What a wonderful opportunity to get your film developed for free! Only minor inconveniences involved: Turnaround rather slow (> 30 days), the need to include a federal Building in your composition (might spoil the regular flowers in a bowl approach and prove to be very difficult in a fine art nude). Don't forget to attain the guards attention inconspicuously (wearing a turban might be considered overdoing it).

I worked at a Ritz Camera and had a customer with a similar experience: he was taking pictures of some bridges and a power plant in Central PA and someone must have called it in because the State Police showed up at his house in Pittsburgh the next day. He didn't lose his film, but was a bit shaken up.

My only questions is: If protection of Federal Buildings is so important, why is ANYONE allowed to have a camera in Washington, DC? I have many many pictures of many many Federal Buildings and Monuments from the Capitol, as does nearly every other American. The Federal Building in Akron just isn't going to get international attention. Sorry Akron cops, but you're just not that important.

I must say the real problem here is attitude and I don't mean by the police, or other public safety personnel. I don't want anyone walking around in my town on my streets foaming at the mouth like the bunch here. It sounds to me like the most vocal posters here feel that their rights supercede the rights of others and that is a crock.

The actual lessons that could be learned from this episode are getting lost on the mob mentality, and the desire to sound like the poster child of idiocy. To blame things on one individual (Bush) is to show your ignorance of how the governmental system in this country works. If things were as bad as all that you certainly would not be able to post this kind of propaganda here. And yes it is propaganda. Anytime you bastardize the truth to swing the vote to your side it is propaganda. This country was created by it. And in this era we plunk down 50 cents everyday to buy it.

Does this mean that this situation couldn't have been handled better?? Of course it could. By name calling and paranoia?? NO! The lesson to be learned here is that we need to place more value on quality security than we already do. Not less more. What do I mean? Let's start with being willing to pay for "rent-a-cops" who have not only the background checks but the psychological profile that is capable of dealing with the great pressures and strain of the job. Then let us train our security staff. I mean really train them. Not only in observation technique, but in how to deal with people. At least two weeks of intense training on how to take abuse. I would say 12 hours a day of being abused to two weeks straight would be a good start. Crack once you are out of the program.

There are those of you who would disagree with this. You are also the reason these people need this training and more. They also need to be paid more. But those of you who feel the security personnel are terrible are the very reason why we cannot get staff that is better trained and better equipped to deal with the issue. I also feel these individuals should get an all expenses paid trip to a spa/resort for a week every year so the burden of constant abuse doesn't keep building up.

The other thing here that I find absolutely absurd. Is those here who say you can get the same images with a camera/phone that you can with an SLR. These are the same ones who ban and pan a P & S. Please explain.... If I were to case a place I would want photographs that showed me every detail, with as little distortion as possible. Chances are I am going to attack either in the dark or in a crowd. In either case I need the layout memorized, and I need details.

But, if I were a terrorist. I would not blow up anything. I would become a "journalist" what better way to spread my message to millions of gullible people?? Especially in America where people are looking for conspiracies under every rock. The whole revolutionary war was based on a lie........... There was no Boston Massacre. It is however the first example of protesters attacking the police and when the police responded.......... propaganda took over.

If you do not like the situation become a part of the solution. Instead of talking out of your back side. Come up with real soutions. Don't foam at the mouth about what you think is wrong. Come up with workable solutions. As well as how to fund them. Keeping in mind that most of the regular citizen, you know those peons with the P&S.... they want security and they want to feel safe on their city streets. And they feel uncomfortable when they see some person taking pictures of an ugly building with a sculpture that has been there so long it is no longer important. Because after all those P&S owners have rights too, and there are more of them. So under democracy, shouldn't what they want count for more???

Just a thought.

tn

If you're planning a mass "shoot-in", split into two groups--one to actually participate in the activity in question, the other (1 or 2 people would be fine) waiting out of harm's way with cameras concealed, ready to record the law enforcement reaction.

And this isn't just about the Patriot Act--I'm pretty sure Federal buildings have been a problem since Oklahoma City. 9/11 just made the rules a little more likely to be enforced.

I've also had trouble with private security, find out what the photo laws are in your town so you can react appropriately. In L.A., I found out that overly broad permit regulations aimed at movie crews did not exclude lone amatuers. Thus in L.A. when hassled I backed down and left before they called the police. Back home in San Diego, however, I had the luxury of telling a guard that had ordered me off a public sidewalk to "go ahead and call the police--somebody needs to educate you as to what the law is, and I'm not succeeding". He backed down to just requesting I.D., something I had no legal need to give him (which I pointed out), but which I provided as a means to deuse a tense situation.

There are limits as to what police and security people can force you to do, but there are rather limited laws preventing them from pretending to powers they don't have. A security guard certainly CAN demand your film. Most people, not being sure of the law, hand it over. Only if you've done your homework in advance can you be confidant enough to tell him to go P up a rope.

Also clouding the issue in this case is the fact that Federal security guards are for the most part sworn peace officers, which gives them both more powers and more legal lattitude for error than your run-of-the-mill private security.

• Ignorance is Knowledge
• Slavery is Freedom
• War is Peace

Welcome the New World Order.. give up your right to bear firearms and cameras... they are both lethal weaopons in the hands of a terro *ist. (relax Pentax users)

Being Australian, I've watched from the outside as the U.S. slowly but surely turns itself into a carbon copy of Orwell's Oceania. It's scary indeed, since you guys have all the weapons, and they can quite easily reach all over the globe. But seeing the overwhelming sentiment expressed in this threat that what happened to Chris was wrong and must be stopped gives me hope that Americans can still express their opinion and also act on it by getting together to remove Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft at the next election, get rid of the Patriot Act, and stop this fascist and totalitarian nightmare before it goes even further.

As for the people in this thread who think this is just a little misunderstanding on the part of the security people, you are WRONG. This is totalitarianism. American people, do not let this monster grow any bigger. Kill it now.

As for me being Australian, where do I stand? Unfortunately, in the same position as most Americans. We have a government that rubber stamps anything the U.S. wants. Luckily, life on the ground in Australia since 9/11 hasn't changed too much. I've gone out to take photos around Sydney once since then, and I was accosted by a security guard who wanted to know my life story. Significantly, if I were to relate my life story, there wouldn't be any instances where I was stopped and questioned by a security guard, for this was the first time anyone has tried to stop me taking photos of my own city. I was luckier than Chris, though, because I simply ignored the security guard until she stopped talking to me. I know it's only a matter of time before Chris' experience is delivered first-hand to all of us.

We live in supposed democracies. We're supposed to be able to make a difference. Remember that when the elections come around. And for those of you voting in the U.S., I hope the new electronic voting machines don't prevent you from voting your government out. For all our sakes.

Better start getting used to it

Sorry to be blunt, but thats the truth of the matter... Things will NOT get better ot change unless there is a change higher up. Directly or indirectly these actions of the lowly minions are endorsed and even encouraged by the rulers/apparatchiks from above.

If some guy knows that he could get jailed/fired/fined for violating a persons rights he would be less apt to do it, but on the other hand if he knows that the worst that could happen was a nudge-nudge-wink-wink from his boss and sent on his merry way...he would carry on with impunity.

"A fish rots from the head downwards" Old Russian saying.

t.n., you are missing the point, which is:

• there is no law which makes it generally illegal to photograph government buildings in the United States. There has been no change to laws about what may be photographed since the "War on Terror" started.
• there should not be anything suspicious about somebody photographing a monument or a statue in front of a government building.
• even if it is reasonable for law enforcement officers to be suspicious of photographers, the law is quite clear on how far "reasonable suspicion" can be taken. In the famous Terry case of 1968, the US Supreme Court held that law enforcment officers are allowed to briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes, without arresting them, if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed a crime or is about to do so. "Reasonable suspicion" must be articulable and specific, not just a hunch, or generalized paranoia. During an investigatory stop, the police can pat the person down for their own protection if they reasonably believe that the person might be armed and a threat to them. Such an investigatory stop is also called a "stop and frisk" or a "Terry stop". A "Terry stop" is supposed to be relatively short (i.e. 20 minutes or less), and should not involve taking the person from the place where he was stopped, or seizing property. Since 1968, there have been a very few cases where Terry stops longer than 20 minutes were considered justified. If the "Terry stop" does not produce information that provides "probable cause" to believe that the person has committed a crime, the detention must end and the person allowed to go about his business. Or, if there is probable cause, the person should be arrested, told why, and informed of his rights, including his right not to answer questions and to have a lawyer present.

This is the LAW in the United States, and none of this was changed for U.S. citizens by the USA PATRIOT act, which mainly dealt with government surveillance and matters like wire taps, subpoena of records, and the like. (The USA PATRIOT act did give the INS much greater powers to detain immigrants, which in my opinion was unfortunate and unnecessary, but this is another subject and not relevant in this case.)

Whatever else you may think of the officials' behaviour in this case, and however reasonable you may believe it was considering the current situation, it was ILLEGAL. If the facts are as presented, those officers might be subject to disciplinary action, to criminal charges, or civil suit for false arrest, civil rights violations, etc.

Since the United States is a country built on laws, I think it is very alarming when law enforcement officials operate illegally. If they need greater powers to fulfill their appointed functions, they should go to the Congress and convince the representatives of the people to grant them those powers, not simply assume them, and expect through intimidation to get away with it. How can you argue with that?

"Better start getting used to it"

Never! This country was created as a response to such treatment. Our hallowed dead veterans made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our protection against it; namely, the US Constitution. And the Constitution is being shredded before our eyes.

If Chris had been adjudged an "enemy combatant" by President Bush, not only would he have been arrested, but he could have been held incommunicado, without the opportunity to appear before a magistrate or confront his accusers. Those rights are guaranteed by the Constitution to US citizens, no matter how heinous or dangerous the crime or how compelling the probable cause for detention.

If you think the Patriot Act is bad, wait until they pass Patriot II, now pending before Congress. The very fact that there is one single member of either chamber who is not outraged at the very introduction of such legislation is a death knell for liberty in America.

This is to share a (remotely) similar experience that did not turn out badly for me, but still bodes ill for civil rights. Back in February of this year I stationed myself with a tripod next to the Dumbarton Bridge, which crosses San Francisco Bay on the southern end. I wasn't taking pictures of the bridge, which was to my rear, but of a railroad trestle that is further south. I was taking my time and generally enjoying the day. After a while I realized that two Highway Patrol cars had pulled up near-by and that the two officers were obviously looking at me and having some sort of discussion. I waved and went back to what I was doing. One of them then came over and said, "Hi!" I said "Hi" back and asked if there was a problem. Then I noticed that the other officer had stationed himself behind the open door of his car and had his hand on his gun. He did not draw it. Suddenly it dawned on me that this was about photography and terrorism. I laughed out loud and asked if that was the concern. The answer, of course, was "yes". I then offered the officer my business card; he rather sheepishly replied that he had been instructed to ask to see my drivers license, "if that would be OK with you, Sir." I think he was a little embarrassed about the whole thing. So I gave him my license, he went back to his car and, I assume, called in for a warrant check. I went back to taking pictures, switching lenses, filters, etc. About 20 minutes later, both officers came back, returned my license, genially asked me some questions about photography, and gave me a ten minute explanation that they were "just following orders" and thanking me for volunteering to let them see my license "without probable cause," as we used to call it. They left and I have wondered ever since how we came to a place in our history where even law enforcement is embarrassed by what the Patriot Act authorizes, maybe requires, them to do. I am 56, 5'10", white, overweight, balding, and do not (I hope) meet any profiles that General Ashcroft may have concocted. I wonder how my encounter would have gone if I were younger, darker, etc. or more belligerent. Had they invited me to "go downtown," as they used to say on "Dragnet," I probably would have declined the opportunity. If I had been confined for hours in the bowels of the federal building, I would not be a happy camper. My encounter turned out OK. I have no complaint against the officers who talked to me. I utterly condemn the mindset in Washington which would destroy our individual freedoms in the name of protecting us. "In order to save the village, it was necessary to destroy it." Vote the rascals out!

I shoot for work, from public and private land. When I shoot from the public land I simply stay out of traffic and anyone's way so as to not impede on anyone else's freedom. When I shoot from private land I get permission of the owners. Mind you, I said shoot FROM private land. If you are on a public street you are not doing anything wrong unless they want to consider it loitering. Don't wait too long for a picture. :> Incidentally, I have been stopped by police who ask to see my "permit" for taking pictures. Ignorance is becoming commonplace, but I hate it when the ignorant are armed.

I bet if you make up a business card that says "Chris Auman - Photographer of Federal Buildings across the USA" you will get a tour next time! :>

Brian-

You are missing the solution, which should be the point. People are enforcing the law. PEOPLE, who regardless of any delusions to the contrary are just as human as everyone else. Yet, they are being asked to do a super human job, detect and interpret everyone's intentions in a 2 minute chat. While at the same time being verbally abused on a daily basis. Do you think you could do that job without proper training or support?? I know that I couldn't.

You are also expecting them to have every statute and regulation memorized. Many of which cancel eachother out.

At the same time you are avoiding or ignoring the fact that there is a large portion of the population that does want increased security measures. They may not be as loud, but that does not mean they are not out there. What you are saying is that their wants their needs are irrelevant. That is BS and undemocratic.

I know that I am using "you" here. Please take it as the collective "you" and not as a personal "you". This is not meant as a direct confrontation with you as a person. But a frustration with the collective thought process that only wants to complain and not work to improve things.

And I do mean that you are not working to improve things. To actually DO something about the situation means finding a solution, find a way to fund it, and then spend a minimum of 2 years trying to get it through. Want to know why "the other side" gets what they want?? They actually come up with an idea, figure out how to fund it, and then stay in the ring and fight for it. That is the way of things. If you don't like it you have to be willing to work your arse off to change it. The "other side" is willing, why aren't you?

That whole free will thing is a real bugger. You can't expect the "other side" to do your job for you. Why would they want to? You don't even want to.

tn

Since I spent several YEARS photographing the World Trade Center while they were under construction and quite frequently since, does that make me a potential terrorist? Where is the line drawn? BTW, my daughter is a flight attendant who normally worked American Flight 11. Fortunately, 9/11/01 was her day off.

We Have Met The Ememy-- and He Is Us--- POGO

As long as an officer treats me the way he/she would expect to be treated in the same situation, it would be fine. Courtesy goes a long way. However, the originator of this thread, as it reads, was not extended due courtesy. Far from it. No one wants to be insulted, bullied, harrassed or intimidated for doing what amounts to nothing in the good old USA.

Also, I suspect that someone, somewhere is reading this thread and logging names. Oh well.

If you voted for for that idiot in the whitehouse, you're to blame for this.

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com

Good luck getting your freedom back.

The only problem is that, even with well-documented event, participants would still be charged with something (even unrelated to the photogrpahy). Seems that the Nikon cameras which upload images to a remove location are a partial solution to the threat of film confiscation.

And something from another perspective:

t.n. No I'm not, the law surrounding Terry stops, arrests, etc is supposed to be part of the basic training of every law enforcement officer, federal or state, in the country since 1968. Everybody knows about Miranda procedure because they see it all the time on cop shows. While not as much a feature of cop shows, Terry is just as basic, and cops know about it. It is not something a cop might have missed in the class if he went to the bathroom at the wrong moment. These officers were way off-base. They thought that the post 9/11 environment allowed them to make up the rules as they go along, and it absolutely does not.

I lament the fact that people (on both sides) here (and everywhere in the U.S.) get so emotional over issues of which they know very little.

On the right we have the "Let's bomb the whole damned Middle-East and be done with it" crowd. The same people who wear the "America's Full, Go Home" bumper stickers. On the left, we have the "It's the end of America as we know it because of the evil, fascist Bush and his cohorts" crowd. The same people with the "No Blood for Oil" stickers and peace symbols.

Both are extreme political viewpoints that ignore the realities and complexities facing America today.

These issues demand our attention as well as our factual understanding. Just because your parents raised you with a political leaning and you listened to a political talk-show this afternoon does not mean you're well-informed or objective in your beliefs. One of the many problems facing America today is that people form opinions based upon emotion or due to peer pressure (it happens ALL of the time). Very few know what the hell they are talking about and fewer still have the nerve or motivation to really educate themselves and stand up for an informed opinion.

Regarding this topic, I'd say that hardly any person here in this forum who has complained about the Patriot Act or fascism etc. has endured *any* repurcussions from its passing. I spent a couple of nights underneath the Manhattan Bridge here in NYC while we were under the so-called "Orange" alert and passing cops didn't even look at me with my 4x5 on a tripod. I've also successfully (and unsuccessfully) boarded planes with tripods and hand-inspected film. The freedoms we enjoy here are still in place albeit with some added inconveniences. All of these doomsayers are full of it.

I detest what happened to Chris and he has every right to raise hell as much as he sees fit since it is obvious the federal agent exceeded his authority.

But to tell people who they should or should not vote for, or to present a political viewpoint as fact is disrespectful, reprehensible and offensive as well. The right to vote and form political opinions in this country is as sacred as any other. Let us remember that. Let us also remember that we are all stating our *opinions* - most of them here well-UNinformed. A little humility please folks.

Bush has a history putting away those that annoy him.
http://archive.aclu.org/court/texansunitedvbush_complaint.html

Response to kindness,

Why do "they" have to be kind to you first?? Why can't "you". It is exactly that mentality that causes problems. You can't control the other guy so quit trying. Instead control yourself. It is like anytime you are in public. If you bump someone you have two options. You can apologize and difuse the situation. Or you can act like it is your right to be a human bulldozer. The power is yours, the question is will you act wisely?? How you behave directly effects how the other party will react.

As for the story and many other here. We are only hearing one side. It is like when two children fight. They each have a version where "they" are totally innocent and blameless. Somewhere in the middle is the truth. There is no video evidence showing that Chris talked in only modulated tones with not edge of patronization. By his own addmission he tried ignoring them first. Most people turn around when they hear yelling, like turning when a horn is honked. Combine that with nervousness over being questioned. All adds up to being a little jumpy and acting in a suspicious manner. Yes, that is natural. So is suspecting suspicious behavior. Then there was the confusion with the SS#. That wasn't the fault of the officer present, but the unseen one on the phone. Based on the information given, and behavior observed............ I defy any of you to behave better.

Try a test if you dare. Spend a day with a security person. Get the looks the comments. Try and figure out who is innocent and who is not. As a test have another officer find someone willing to be a bad guy for the day. You have to find this bad guy, or you have failed. How many hours before you become suspicious and look twice at all the "innocent" people about. You can't condem someone for something you can't do yourself. Walk a mile in their shoes. Try some understanding. Or is understanding only required of the OTHER GUY?? If that is the case.......... now I know who to blame for the intolerance in the world. You talk but do you walk?? If not you are just as much to blame.

tn

t.n. you just aren't getting it. Not stopping right away, acting nervous, etc, etc, might support reasonable suspicion. You cannot be arrested in the United States on the basis of suspicion. Arrest requires probable cause, which is a much higher standard than reasonable suspicion.

The police have the opportunity to get themselves from reasonable suspicion to probable cause. If the police have reasonable suspicion, you can be detained (meaning you are not free to leave) briefly without being arrested, provided this detention is short, while the police gather more information. The suspicion has to be reasonable and specific, not just a hunch. The detention must be short and it should not involve a relocation such as taking the suspect to an interrogation room or seizing property. If that short detention produces information that provides probable cause then the suspect can be arrested. Otherwise he has to be released.

How many times do I have to write this? You are doing what these officers did, which is to make up new rules as you go along. In the United States, we are not governed by what you or anybody else thinks is reasonable at the moment. We are governed by laws, and in this case the law enforcement officers dragged the law through the dust.

As far as what responsibility the Bush administration has for this, it is unclear to me. These officers violated the law. Bush isn't responsible for every cop overstepping his responsibility. What I think he and John Ashcroft might be responsible for is creating an environment in which the law officers didn't concern themselves very much about violating somebody's rights.

Your ACLU affilate is:

ACLU of Ohio

(216) 472-2200

www.acluohio.org

4506 Chester Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44103

The ACLU won't help you. This has no glamour, no headline value. You don't have pictures of children or Nazis or even better, Nazi children on your film do you? Besides they have elections to overturn.

What you need to do is find out what complaint procedure is in place at the facility and use it. Then, if they don't respond, then go to the Justice Department, Office of Civil Rights. These guys are the ones to get all frantic over procedural errors by cops. they've been doing it for years. But you didn't get shot so it's unlikely they care either.

To put things in perspective: it is not the three guys to blame. It is the Patriot Act (or Pissing-people-off Act) that is responsible for what happened. The Act exactly told these guys to do what they did to chris (and many others). These guys theimselves are victims as we all are. They are trained just exactly to do what they did. my solution is to vote the C-student out of office and replace him with someone who is willing to reverse the P-Act (or is the voting system still work?).

The bottom line is that: when you have a c-student to run a country, you are screwed. when a country is willing to put a c-student in the office, we are all f-students.

Sorry Chris for what happened to you.

Brian,

This individual case wasn't even dealing with police officers. Even if it was. Police are able to take you in for questioning. And in many cases detain or hold you without charges for a set amount of time. That time limit is determined by local legislation. In some areas that Holding may be 48 hours without any charges being filed.

My point is if you want things to change. What are YOU willing to DO to make a change??

You talk about the training of officers at the academy. Where is the academy for private security often used in airports and guarding buildings?? Also where is the recognition that officers get stressed out and may need help dealing with that stress?? If they admit to being fed up they are crucified for being human. And no one is willing to "rat them out" in the department, because there is no one to replace them. And it will increase the burden on everyone else.

If someone were casing your home. Driving by taking pictures. You get suspicious, possibly call the police. You got a license number. The police find the guy, in his business suit and 4 door sedan. He hands over a real estate card and explains that he is taking pictures of the neighborhood for work. Seems reasonable enough.

One week later your home is broken into. Your child is victimized. Six years later and many trips to rehab for your child, the perp is caught. Turns out he was that real estate agent. Won't you be glad that he was only briefly detained. Only asked a few questions. Good thing the police didn't pay any attention to his jitters or other behavioral quirks. Or run any kind of cross checks or double checks. But the pictures of your home, your child, along with countless other homes and children will be made public in a nasty trial. But hey, so long as that individuals rights weren't violated. It's all good.

Before you poo poo me or try and say the two aren't related. They are. The same laws that give officers the right to detain you for questioning are the same ones that let them hold that monster so they can get the warrents needed to search his car and apartment. Saving your child and many others a lifetime of nightmares. And if I have to choose between your convienience and the safety of an innocent. Well you can bite me. A little inconvienience never hurt anybody. If America was as bad as you claim. No one would ever live to tell about it.

tn

For a more outrage, read: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/14/1848213 And learn about the new and improved Patriot Act II...

On the one hand, these people are working under mandates that date back to Tim McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing at the Murrah Federal Building. So I can see where they're antsy. On the other hand, they are privately hired pseudo-gendarmes without support of statute or law. Splash your treatment all over the papers, and make sure your Senator/ Congressional representative gets a chance to comment.

t.n. you are misinformed. It may be that the police can arrest you and hold you for some period of time before charges are "filed", or you are taken before a judge. To do that, probable cause is required. In many cases, a warrant is needed for an arrest, and the probable cause has to be demonstrated to a judge. Even when that is not necessary, the police must still have probable cause. That is not a matter for state-by-state legislation. That is constitutional law. There is no state in the U.S. where you can be detained for 48 hours without being arrested. It is a nonsense, since a detention that long would be deemed by any court in the country to be an "arrest", for which probable cause would be needed.

Before 1968, the law was that you could not be detained at all without being arrested. The US Supreme Court changed this to allow the police to detain people briefly without arresting them for the purpose of investigating whether there might be probable cause to arrest them. Such stops cannot be done arbitrarily. THere must be "reasonable suspicion". The investigatory stop (or "Terry stop") must be brief. None of this is obscure information for cops. These cops were not just ignorant of the law; they ignored it.

To Mark Coran: No, I do not believe it is “perfectly acceptable to detain, interrogate, and then confiscate the film of a citizen who has broken no law.” However, it sounds like Chris went along willingly and allowed himself to be questioned and “detained.” Had he asked to leave and been refused, asked for counsel and been denied, or been searched against his will, the circumstance would have certainly been grave and illegal. However, he was cooperative. He said, “So I was interested to see how far this was going to go so I went with him. Mostly because I was curious and because I am a quiet, non-confrontational person. I'm not sure I really had a choice though…”

I'm sure the confrontation was scary as hell... However, had he calmly, cooperatively, but firmly stood his ground on the sidewalk, they would have likely conducted a warrant check by radio, asked a few more questions and been done with it. Also, though I’m obviously not a witness to this particular situation, in a typical such incident, the officer would have asked for permission or given the opportunity for a refusal of his request to keep the film. Had Chris spoken up and refused the “confiscation” and the officer did not comply, that officer would have the burden of evidence upon him to substantiate his forced confiscation of the attendant’s property. There would have had to have been some formal charge of some nature against Chris. If he were to insist on the return of the film tomorrow, (even better, have an attorney ask for the quickest response) they would certainly give it back or have to answer with formal charges against him.

To Paul K.: No, I didn’t miss the “4th Amendment talk” – I’m quite familiar with it. Procedures in law enforcement are strictly adhered to – and if you’re not familiar with your rights in a situation or with the law as it applies, your ignorance is your own handicap. To an inverse situation, we have all heard, “ignorance of the law is not a valid defense.” People whine because criminals walk on “technicalities.” There are no “technicalities” – there is the law. And if you willingly comply with a request to be searched or questioned, no law is broken. However, most people don’t seem to know that they can refuse, even though Miranda is played out on television thousands of times a day in hundreds of crime dramas and TV reality shows… We can all recite it from memory.

So are the law enforcement officers then required to draw pictures or hold a roadside class on civil liberties with every suspect to be questioned? Do we consign a bunch of “Mr. Rogers” cops to running around, coddling every criminal suspect? Do we even pay them enough for the responsibilities already heaped upon them? No matter what law enforcement does, it’s never enough AND it is always too much. As it is, a person arrested while standing over a corpse with the murder weapon in-hand and a dozen witnesses standing around who say they saw him kill is STILL considered a suspect until a jury convicts him. And I pray that never changes. If he isn't convicted because the arresting and investigating officer(s) fell somewhere along the way in building in their case and presenting the burden of proof and procedure, we'll certainly damn the cop, but the law still stands. The only difference (besides the obvious) between a criminal who gets off and an innocent who feels "bullied" is that the criminal knows, learns or retains someone who knows the law and how it applies to him.

Regarding taking pictures of nuclear facilities, I never argued the point that one can take pictures from outside a given perimeter (in your illustrated case, the fence). Likewise, I’m sure you can take pictures of a Federal Building from a distance – just not while standing in front of the darned thing – without being questioned. My whole point is that there are limits like the fence at the reactor plant, and the fact that you can’t take pictures *inside* that fence, or for that matter, inside the reactor building itself. To stray beyond those limits is to expect that you would be investigated to be sure that you’re on the up-and-up. If it were me, I would expect that I would be questioned as such, and if I’m not doing anything wrong, I would expect the incident to be brief and then to be released. If I cooperate with a search, I know that I have the right to stop at any time and ask to either be released or to have counsel present, and that specific charges be presented if I am to be detained against my will or for an unreasonable length of time. If I’m asked to surrender my property, I know I have the right to refuse, under the same conditions. If I *willingly* offer my property at the request of an interrogating officer, it is just that – an offer of cooperation. He can not take my property against my will without a warrant. Upon my refusal *AND* if there is reasonable cause, however, in most cases due process allows for me to be detained until a warrant can be obtained. And *IF* I unknowingly broke the law, my ignorance of that law will not save me from punishment.

Oh, and Paul… Please don’t get me wrong. I do admire and thank you for your service to our country. I, too, was tested, signed and slated for the Navy nuclear submarine program in the summer of my seventeenth/eighteenth year, long-long ago (though indeed later than you). However, burdened with teenage bravado, I earned myself a “medically disqualifying condition” by cracking my head into the handlebars of my motorcycle to the extent I needed a bone graft... Turned me upside down for a while, but I survived.

Overall, contacts or confrontations with legal authorities can often be unnerving to many people. Unfortunately, the ones who are usually most rattled are the law-abiding citizens who are surprised by the event. Real criminals are usually prepared to be caught, and are more and more often arrogant as hell. Cops HAVE to be stern and verbally forceful to be effective. They have to possess a commanding persona and presence. (What movie line was it, “You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word.” Okay, maybe not such a good illustration. <G>) The *real* bad-guys are hardly impressed enough, and it’s a damned difficult job. Do cops ever cross the line? Sadly, yes, but the occasions are far fewer than public perception allows them credit for. There is a sickening public image that COPS are the ‘bad-guys’ too… No, they *don’t* have it out for you; if they give you a ticket, you probably damned-well deserved it, and if you’re NOT doing anything wrong, you have absolutely nothing to fear. Thanks to our media, we all picture the Rodney King image of heavy-handed, loose-cannon law-enforcement. It ain’t necessarily so…

Do I want to live in a country where Federal and local governments rule with Gestapo tactics? Certainly not. But I also fear what our society would be under any proposed utopian “give love a chance” posture for our law enforcement and military by those who would gladly emasculate them. For a glimpse, just look at the crime rates in cities where the Second Amendment has been outlawed… (Uh-oh, that’s another can of worms!) <G>

I just think we have a lot of jerking knees here…

-Richard

To: Brian M.... I agree with you 100%. But I think you're wasting your time with t.n. Some folks are more willing to compromise their freedom for a "perceived" greater good than others. (Count me in the others group.) They have no trouble rationalizing the balance between "a little inconvienience" (as t.n. puts it) and the perceived benefit.

It's all fear based. There is only one reason to go to preemptive war: FEAR of something bad happening if you don't. There is only one reason to compromise your freedom: FEAR of something bad happening if you don't. Some are more fearful than others. And it's the degree of fear driven thinking (paranoia) which determines where one falls on the spectrum.

Now, if you're like: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilley, Tony Snow, and most others on FOX, then, you fall into the *SCARED TO DEATH* category. And therefore willing to flush the Bill Of Rights down the toilet and pull the trigger at the first bump in the night. Recall, this bunch have loud mouths and marshmallow spines. Not one of those folks spent a day in uniform guarding the gate when it was their turn. (Although, I guess you can say Bush "protected us" from invasion by Mexico by guarding the skys of Texas while fifty-thousand of his peers died doing their duty.) Yet, these folks are the first to yell, "Lets' go get'em boys!"... as long as THEY are not doing the get'in. In my view, the level of hypocrisy in this administration is galactic.

Alright, then, all you democrats...get off your fat bums and vote this bastard out the next time, will you?

The things that I "fear" happen far more often than someone being rousted for taking pictures. I do worry about those who would choose to victimize our children. It happens daily. And YES I do believe that the safety of our children is more important.

Never have I chosen a side on the political debate. Nor have I ever said the actions of the security staff was correct. I do however take the position that instead of playing the blame game. Take a proactive stance and DO something to improve the situation. All this bellyaching reminds me of 15 yo girls with pms. I have asked before, I will ask again. What are YOU willing to DO to improve things?? I mean actions, not whining.

When you complain about the inconvience of a law you need to understand all the ramifications of changing it. And that does mean that you could be doing more harm than good.

You don't like what the president is doing. Or at least not what the press reports he is doing. What are you DOING to change it?? All I have seen here is people demanding Bush to change, or some other figurehead. Number one why should he change?? Because you whined on a website he doesn't even know exists?? Things will change when those who want change are willing to work within the system to make them change. It takes years. No one will ever say thank you. A lot of doors will be slammed in your face. The closer you get to making a difference the more you will be defamed and slammed on unknown websites.

You don't like the system, Do something constructive. Or is your inaction because you don't really care, you just want to complain. Just keep in mind that every action has a ripple effect and make sure your ripples won't cause more harm than good.

tn

Am I ever happy that I am Canadian. I hope that a tate of paranoia like this never reaches Canada. Actions like this are unacceptable and I cannot see why those who oppose it do not take a stand. Here in Canada many Canadians take a stand against what the Bush Administration is doing to the world and proudly do not support it. If I were ypou I would get a good lawyer and sue.

Well Jay, technically we did the first time. And if it weren't for the Supreme Court things might, and I stress might, be different. The shame of the last election was that there wasn't a call to get rid of the Electoral College, or make substantial changes so the will of the people could be done in the future. But it is the same apathy then that has led us to where we are now.

Martin Niemoller -

In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

t.n - Some of us probably have a nice sized file cabinet at the FBI already (along with the file cabinets from the Nixon Era). Just because some talk here for change, does not mean that they don't demand for change from all levels of their government. But as I said we are an apathetic country. I guess too many other worries (and as I could make a list of them, someone on the right or left would find offense, so I won't).

t.n. As demonstrated above, I'm working to change the system through educating others regarding our rights. History has shown us that you can't lay back and expect things to get better. You must "name" evil behavior and take it head-on.

t.n., I do many things to address these issues. I vote, I write my congressional representative and my senators. I write letters to the editor, and I post my opinions on various websites. I also stay informed about the actions of the government that affect me personally and my country as a whole.

Posting opinions to a website is as valid a demonstration of democracy as any other of these activities because it is expressing our First Amendment right of Freedom of Expression as well as our right of association. To argue that posting an opinion on a website doesn't accomplish anything misses the point.

Richard, while Chris may have gone along willingly, I would expect that federal officers should know what is acceptable police procedure as Brian has pointed out several times.

Alright, then, all you democrats...get off your fat bums and vote this bastard out the next time, will you?

Hey, don't blame me. I voted with the majority. Or at least the largest plurality. But this is America, and the second-largest plurality rules.

There are some books out there on how to create an alternate identity, and the way things are going, I'm starting to consider it.

The most worrisome part of the "Patriot" Act (and you know they're up to no good when the very name implies you're not patriotic if you're against it) is section 215, which gives the government unfettered powers to go through any private records on you, as long as they claim it's in the name of fighting terrorism. Not that you actually have to be a suspect, mind you. They just have to claim that their interest is related in some way.

The records could be anything held by a third party. Bank and financial records. Medical records. Your ISP's logs. Video rental history or library records. Purchases from Amazon.com, or anywhere else.

Under section 215 the government does not need a judges' permission to obtain these records. The third party has no power to refuse, and cannot inform you after the fact either.

Mark,

It takes more than that. Maybe it shouldn't. But it does. You want things to change. You have to be willing to sit through committee meetings, hearings. Get petitions signed. Even with all of that the system moves very very very ( you get the idea) slowly. For every change in the law at least two committes have to approve, and the legal people have to go over and make sure the legaleese is correct.

Nothing changes over night. It also does not change with a few letters to the editor, and web postings. You have to get in and roll around in the mud with the rest of them. You also have to be prepared to compromise. Because if you are not you will be laughed out of the building. Nobody gets all that they want. The reason. Nobody Is ALL Right. No ONE person has the answers.

One side wants never to be questioned by authority. The other side wants not to live in fear of their neighbor. Each side is extreme, and if either one got their way life would be hell. Finding that balance is what is important. And part of that balance is to quit blaming the other side for everything. Grow up and take responsibility for your part in things. Then do something about it.

tn

My wife is a Canadian, and when we have the unfortunately opportunity to visit the local INS, it's an unpleasent experience enough. To make it worse, they won't even allow cell phones with "color screens" (anything more than monocrome) because they can contain cameras. It's ridiculous. There's nothing inside those buildings that is worth looking at anyway- I can't see why they are so afraid. Granted, it's inside the building, so I suppose they want to keep their secrets.

But, I can't see any reason why, unless they post BIG SIGNS that say "don't take pictures, or else" they could have even the remotest, lawful reason for detaining you!

This is the kind of story that everyone needs to hear before they so flippantly sign away their rights in the name of security. I'd rather sleep with a gun next to my bed than be detained for taking photos in a public park.

Where are our freedoms going?

I had similar experience as Chris, with only ONE important detail. I am not US citizen, just a student studying at U of T. I have lived in the US for 7 years now, studied, worked for the University, and paid taxes, just like everybody else. After 7 years stuck at the same place, I decided to take a trip to Los Angeles. I was very anxious; gathered couple friends that were willing to share a car and expenses and head on for the west coast. After long ride, finally we got there. I had a time of my life and experienced something new other than El Paso. But one day, while my friends were at the beach, I decided to take a bus to downtown L.A. I wanted to take some pictures, see what’s down there – simply “explore”. I spent about 30 minutes just walking around and shooting pictures of the buildings and walls and anything I liked. After while I noticed that couple of men are following me where ever I go. I didn’t pay too much attention to them. Dead tired walking the street, I sat down to rest. These two men approached me and ask me for an ID, I gave them my passport and my TX driver’s license. One guy kept asking me questions about my camera and why I was in L.A., while the other was decoding my passport (I am from Slovak Republic by the way). Then they got brutal, maybe because I wasn’t a citizen, or I don’t know why. This one guy threw me on the ground (there was crown off people around, it was pretty embarrassing) and handcuffed me. Thanks to the forced he used to get me down he smashed the camera I have borrowed from a friend. They took me to some building, I guess police station, I had no clue, because it was all too hazy. Another series of questions followed. They made phones calls to my school and I don’t know where else. After telling them several times, I am here on spring break, the agent (as I found out they were from FBI) told me – “Los Angeles is not a place for spring breakers.” Since the camera was damaged, they couldn’t look at the pictures, they had to send an officer to acquire CF reader so they can browse through the pictures. Well anyways, I don’t want to go through all the details, but 3 hours of being forced to say the same things over and over and after they finally realized I am not a terrorist, they released me without any apologies, with no concerns for me or the equipment they damaged. No wonder the tourism rate decreased so much, when they treat everybody like dirt.

There is a page of news about repression here:

http://schema-root.org/news/repression/

-- John Tinker

"We can't have it both ways ... so many are decrying the current administration for not acting on what they may have known *before* 9/11. Now for being simply questioned we cry and rant that our rights are being violated?? "

That is absolutely right on target. When we define the opportuity to earn recognition and better compensation in terms which are impossible to fullfill, it breeds discontent and low morale within the ranks. And then, the best people quit or retire early. And in those conditions, The FAA, the Army Corp of Engineers, as well as the FBI have had to function for years with more DUDs than normal. For instance, during the McVeigh trial, the prosecution had to bring in a forensic expert from Britain, because the FBI crime lab in DC was so "obviously hosed" that its testimony was ruled inadmissable in Federal court! Also going back, during the investigation into the Aldrich Ames case, investigators focused on those Washington FBI agents who were known to have marital and drinking problems. But that only narrowed it down to about two hundred agents! Now does anyone see what I mean by the term "DUDs"? Or am I just addressing a bunch of Possums here?

We need more properly trained, disciplined, and motivated law enforcement officers and investigators. And yet, we can't get more good ones by tarring and feathering the whole bunch for the sins of a few. Obviously, the DUD hiring-quota system is capable of placing an adventuristic amateur with a gun ANYWHERE. And those situations need to be immediately and absolutely condemmed. But let's not overreact and over-generalize, because it could easily make the situation worse.

Cheers,

Before anyone reads this I need to say I do believe we have robbed of our freedom.

I can not comment intelligently on the patriot act. I downloaded its text last night and simply put I don't have the education to untangle the words. I suspect most people don't either. I said earlier that I stopped shooting architecture altogether and that its not true. After some thought I relized I did change my approach to it. I shot the winter garden after it was rebuilt from being crushed underneth the trade center. Before I shot one picture I sat there for a 1/2 hour to 40mins with my camera in full view. I watched as mutiple others came and set up and started shooting right away. they were All summarily escorted out. Each time I was eyeballed but not approached. After a little while I walked around looking at everything, aware I was being watched with my pentax 6x7. Finally after about an hour I approached one gaurd and with a enourmous amount of humility asked him weather there was any way I could take pictures of the christmas lights they had so beautifully set up. He told me I could talk to the building manager and see weather it was possible. I was really bummed out that he said that but I thanked him and put my camera in my bag in front of him and walked away. He then chased me down and told me he would turn off the main lights and lock the doors at 11:30 pm and that he would give me exactly 10mins to shoot from a single location of my choice. I took my pictures I was not totally happy with my results but they were nice photos. when I was done I gave him my business card and asked for his home address so I could print and send him a matted photo. We parted ways after he thanked me for simply talking to him and not running rough shot over him. This doesn't always work BUT arguing with someone never works. Most of these guys are minimum wage rent-a-cops and will not hesitate to ruin your day with what little power they have been afforded. The point of the story was, The shots I did get were better because the lights were dim, there were no people, and no security problems. All three of those helpful things were given to me by the same guys who tossed at least 7 other photographers out on their asses. I try this same approach every time I shoot in a similar situation it works most of the time not all but I can live with that. Also try this: Approach the cops or security gaurds before they come to you. I do believe though, the terrorists have won and the worst part is they are not done with us.

btw some here said they got busted shooting in the subways. There is one law i have a very clear understanding of is: you are not allowed to shoot in the subway system in nyc without a permit from the mayors film office. it was illegal and enforced frequently before and after 9/11. the subways are not public property and the mta will not hesitate to remind you.

post 9/11

As far as I'm concerned, the real silliness behind all this is that many of the bridges and landmarks that seem to be under the "photography ban" are buildings and bridges that have been so heavily photographed in the past that pictures are already widely available. Why ban photographing the Golden Gate Bridge? Has it really changed any in the past several decades? Can't you open up any number of books or magazines and see pictures of it?

I am Polish and I spent my childhood in a communist country. That has taught me to be sensitive to certain things. I can't help being amazed at how quickly the US is moving towards a totalitarian regime, drastically limiting freedom.

The above story is a prime example. Every communist country had many places and buildings marked with a "no photography" signs. You could get in serious trouble for getting even near them with a camera.

Another example is the horribly skewed coverage of war in Iraq in the US media (especially TV), but that's another story.

--J.

What happened to Chris is appalling and it seems that many of us, including me ,have had some kind of incidence involving photos. An earlier poster asks "what are you doing to change this?" You are looking at it. Here's some info on photog's rights http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm What we are doing is informing those that might not otherwise care to the dangers of infringement upon our liberty. The problem with tolerating 'some loss' of freedom is that it opens the door to other losses until you have nothing more to lose. This has been said over and over again and apparently needs to be. Stand up for your rights (without getting clubbed). "There ought to be limits to freedom" George Bush--at a Press conference at the Texas State House, May 21, 1999, referring to GWBush.com ; "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change." -Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 5/22/98; A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls." -Governor George W. Bush, Jr

The debate on when it may be reasonable to restrict photographic is potentially endless, but as Brian Mottershead has repeatedly suggested, it’s largely irrelevant. Whether or not photography can be restricted or prohibited in a particular situation is a matter of law, and the law binds police and security personnel every bit as much as it does ordinary citizens. As Justice Louis Brandeis observed in Olmstead v. U.S.,

“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

It would seem to me that the police in Akron exhibited utter contempt for the concept of government of laws.

General principles, such as those established by Terry v. Ohio, apply in nearly all situations. Such general principles are covered quite well in Bert Krages’s Legal Handbook for Photographers—I’d highly recommend it to any photographer who wants to be aware of his rights.

Additional restrictions may be imposed by laws specific to photography, but to do so, such laws actually must exist. When supported by authorizing law, “Photography Prohibited” signs mean just what they say; in the absence of supporting law, however, they have no legal force whatsoever. I completely agree with Roger Krueger that if you wish to challenge what seems like an unreasonable request to “cease and desist” photographing, it behooves you to know the applicable laws. Unfortunately, specific laws are different in every jurisdiction. In many cases, there are laws that place some restrictions on photography, but in my experience, it’s not at all uncommon for enforcement personnel to claim all manner of authority that they do not actually possess. The ultimate answer, of course, is in the law, but in many cases, neither enforcement personnel nor photographers are aware of what the law actually says or if such a law even exists. Roger mentioned,

I've also had trouble with private security, find out what the photo laws are in your town so you can react appropriately. In L.A., I found out that overly broad permit regulations aimed at movie crews did not exclude lone amatuers. Thus in L.A. when hassled I backed down and left before they called the police.

Here’s a case in which what often is purported appears to differ from what the law actually requires; the governing law is Section 22.350 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code, which reads,

“Sec. 22.350. Permit Required to Use City Property for Commercial Filming Purposes.
No person, as defined in Section 11.01 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, shall use any property belonging to or under the control of the City of Los Angeles for the purpose of making any commercial motion picture, or still photograph, of, or including such property, without first having obtained a use permit to do so from the City Council, or whomever the Council by order, resolution or ordinance may delegate such authority. No such use permit shall be issued until the permit applicant has paid the application fee and the use and service charge required in connection therewith, and until the permit applicant has furnished proof of insurance with coverage as required by the City Administrative Officer in a form approved by the City Attorney.”

Though I’d agree with Roger that it was intended for movie crews (and perhaps large-scale commercial still shoots as well), it seems to inadvertently include a lone professional photographer. It should be quite obvious, however, that it does not apply to a lone amateur and says nothing about use of a tripod. When I inquired some time ago, neither the Entertainment Industry Development Corporation (who issue the permits), nor the City Attorney’s office, nor the LAPD could find the applicable law. My experience in other cities such as San Francisco were quite similar. I suppose it should not be surprising that field enforcement personnel aren’t aware of the laws, either.

I suspect that the situation is similar with other laws in other jurisdictions—there probably are many purported regulations that do not exist, or that are quite different from what they are alleged to be. In many cases, however, there are laws that impose exactly the restrictions claimed, and unless you’ve done a pretty thorough investigation, there probably is a point beyond which pushing the issue isn’ a good idea. I can’t see why politely but firmly asking for the applicable law would be unreasonable. Getting a straight answer may be another matter entirely, however . . .

As a practical matter, photographers should comply with applicable laws. I think, however, that we should insist on no less from law enforcement personnel.

I was harrassed in just the same way, exactly as you describe, on two occasions...but guess where??? Keep trying... Iran in 2000 and China in 1992... two un-democratic countries.

Mark and t.n.,

The truth is somewhere in the middle on this. As someone stated previously the language of the USAPA is not easily decipherable; and until the Supreme Court intervenes, is open to interpretation:

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--

`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a) (2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section. `(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

So it would appear that a judge is needed. But the powers are broad enough that the "safety net" that Congress placed for US citizens on the protection of our First Amendment rights is big enough to drive a truck through.

A portion of the answer is hidden in Executive Order 12333 (http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html). It would seem that under this order only the approval of the Attorney General of the US is needed. Though it does state, "2.8 Consistency With Other Laws. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to authorize any activity in violation of the Constitution or statutes of the United States.". But as shown in the USAPA Sec. 215 there does appear to be interpretations that can be made by government agencies all in the pursuit of terrorists or those suspected as such.

I do wish to thank those here that have argued that we have nothing to fear from our US government. You have shown those of us that were willing to take the time to do some limited research that there may in deed be a reason to be concerned. For it appears that my comments in this thread could be used against me.

For could not speaking out against the USAPA be looked at as aiding the terrorists, or as some say in this time of "war" be considered treason? For could not posting the link to the Executive Order 12333 be looked upon as aiding foreign agents? But I need not worry since I am protected by the words, "...provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.".

I feel safer now....

>>The shame of the last election was that there wasn't a call to get rid of the Electoral College, or make substantial changes so the will of the people could be done in the future. But it is the same apathy then that has led us to where we are now. <<

Agreed.

t.n., your posts on this thread have been uniformly arrogant, presumptious and tiresome. Why in the world do you think anybody would be the least bit interested in a lecture from some random guy on the Internet's on how to live their life, express their opinion or be involved politically?

I can assure you we aren't the least bit interested. You don't know the first thing about anyone here. You don't know anything everyone else doesn't already know, or at least if you do, you haven't posted it. And yet, you keep posting it, over and over and over.

David Ponevac, you have my sympathies. Your experiences are a case for the ACLU, and you have the right to demand compensation from the FBI for the damaged camera. And afaik law enforcement officers have to identify themselves as law enforcement officers before they can ask for any documents.

I'm somewhat happy I'm in Europe, which appears to be more relaxed wrt photography. The worst I ever experienced was a French police officer shouting "non, non, non!" when my Dad was about to photograph some official building in the Bretagne. When he put down the camera and walked away, the officer simply ignored us.

Chris,

I can certainly sympathize with your experience. I too had a similar experience while taking a photo of a Cessna taking off from Long Island MacArthur Airport in Bohemia, NY. I pass the airport every day on my way to work and this morning the light was perfect and the planes were taking off from an area that is barely 300 yards from a major roadway. I decided to take a couple of hours off to get some photos while the light was good. I parked across the street from the runway and walked across to the fence surrounding the runway. Before taking any photos, I METICULOUSLY scanned the area for any signs prohibiting photography in the area. There was a red and white sign in front of me that prohibited trespassing but there was nothing about taking photographs. Not five minutes after I got there, an unmarked police car and a bicycle cop approached me from the inside of the fence. The bike cop asked me what I was doing and although I was thinking “duh”, I told him I was photographing the planes taking off because the light was good and that I was an aviation buff, etc. He asked me for ID and I gave him my NYS driver’s license and my company ID. He asked if my license was “clean”, i.e. without warrants, etc. I told him it was and that he could check if he wanted to and, to my surprise, he got on his radio and ran a check on it. Needless to say I was getting a bit nervous and I asked him no less than four times if it was illegal to take photographs at the airport. He never said “yes”; his only response was “you’re not supposed to”. He then said that there would not have been an issue if I had been taking pictures from across the street with a telephoto lens? What???? And look like I’m trying to be covert?? I’m not sure what he was thinking with that comment but I was thinking "duh" again. After ten minutes and lots of unwanted attention from the bystanders, he took out a memo pad and wrote my info on it. I asked him if I was in some sort of trouble or something and he said “No, you’re not going to get a ticket or anything, this is for me”. I asked if it was to cover his ass just in case I turned out to be a psycho and he said it was. He suggested that in the future I should contact the airport security office to request permission but, as I expected, he didn’t have the telephone number. Needless to say it ruined my day and now I’m paranoid about being on some Gov’t or police “watch list”. The worst thing about it all is that as I was driving back to work, I looked at my watch and realized that the date was 9/10/03!!! I felt pretty stupid about that but now I’m concerned about where I can and cannot take photographs.

On the positive side, I was happy to know that someone is watching our airports.

Theo

When I was in Cuba in 1995 and 1997, I was cautioned about shooting transportation or military facilities (broadly defined). Even so, nobody every bothered me in the least. Let me amend that: the U.S. government has bothered me by requiring me, a U.S. citizen of the land of the free, to get a permit to go to Cuba. Ironic, isn't it? The Cubans will let me in, but the U.S. government won't let me go without permission, and, even if granted, one has to go through miles of red tape to get permission from Treasury. What does that say about us? I am reminded of East Germany, the Berlin Wall, and the "Iron Curtain." We're back in the U.S.S.R., boys, and don't you ever forget it. We cannot come and go as we please. Take it to heart before the fist tightens and comes down. It could happen.

Well, maybe you should start diggin' that tunnel then. Here, I have a spoon for you.

Well, it was the day after Sept. 11. Any other day they might not have bothered you at all.

I've found you have some good officers, then you have some who aren't so good.

What bothers me is they are wasting their time with you when there could be a guy with a bomb walking around just down the street.

There is the 5th amendment and you do have a right to a lawyer while being questioned. Did they read you your rights as they are supposed to?

I was out in a small town in west Texas and saw a rusted, old truck by the side of the road, and stopped to take a picture of it.

The next thing I know this big, grizzly looking guy in a Ford pickup pulls off the road and aims right for me, slams on his brakes and jumps out of the truck and demands to know what I'm doing.

I said, "I'm just taking a picture of the old truck"

He huffs and gets back into his truck and drives off.

After thinking about it, I figured he had a pot farm, or a still, or something nearby, and I probably came real close to getting my head blown off.

With that in mind I'll take my chances with cop with an attitude any day of the week.

<" ...there is a large portion of the population that does want increased security measures. They may not be as loud, but that does not mean they are not out there. What you are saying is that their wants their needs are irrelevant. That is BS and undemocratic.">

To write this passage above is to reveal that the author has no understanding and certainly no appreciation of our Bill of Rights. This core document of freedom was designed to safeguard the minority from the edicts of the majority. Nowhere is it declared in the constituition that the right to free speech, to be free from search and seizure without probable cause and all the other rights that made this country free are subject to majority opinion. If anyone thinks the the Bill of Rights ought to actually have any authority you are said to be expressing "BS".

Suppose that a majority of citizens do not object to police showing up at your home to take a look around and question people just in case something bad is going on. According to the logic above, anyone questioning this conduct is presenting 'BS'. Those who reject the legitimacy of the Bill of Rights, as this author so clearly did, are more prone to be the type who would act out scenerios such as the one in this paragraph if only they could.

To keep the discussion somewhat within photography, the experience encountered by Chris and others is a a small but important window into what this country has become. To harrass and ban photographers for doing nothing wrong demonstrates that our other freedoms in general are at peril. We may need to change the way we do certain things like searching bags to prevent bombings, but we do not need to intimidate and interrogate for an hour or more the photo artist on the street. To allow that to continue and grow will be to turn this once free nation over to black booted thugs.

After reading about this I gave $20 to the ACLU so they will send me a card. I thought it might be useful if I get stopped taking pictures. It will make a nice addition to my drivers license when asked for ID.

This might give the nice officer a reason to take care in his actions from that point on...

What is happening is that Federal, State, and local governments are establishing expanded territorial boundaries where Constitutional due process is abridged. It is essential that this expansion be strictly limited to an appropriate scope and duration. That is because government control tends to be a one-way lunge into bureaucratic mendacity and mediocrity. And these agencies can arise anew from their own ashes, Phoenix-like, for decades after all justification for them has disappeared. And their agents will still be carring guns, Dude.

Keep in mind that several constitutional amendment movements have met all the legal requirements to get put on the ballot. But in recent decades these attempts have been shot down early because the "Extreme Court" just didn't like them. So no one in Washington feels really bound by the Constitution anymore. I felt I must say that in case some photo.net readers just didn't know.

So the current situation is that if you accept unprofessional or illegal behavior from law enforcement agencies, these days you are not just turning the other cheek. Rather, you are giving tacit approval to the embezzlement of your Constituional rights, and implicitly everyone else's Constitutional rights. Shame, Possums.

You must take appropriate, measured, cool-headed, legal measures to oppose the misuse of power. But also thank your lucky stars for all the wonderful people who are doing an excellent job in law enforcement. We just need more like THEM, and fewer like Barney Fife.

Cheers,

First to our moderators for what I think has been "extreme" restraint in this thread. Thank you for allowing the comments here. I hope that as long as we conduct ourselves as we have you will allow this thread to live on at least in the archives. And to the the fellow posters here. While we have differing opinions, I think all in all we have handled this discussion very well. A big thanks to you too. Hopefully those with an open mind mind have learned something from the other side.

I had an almost similar expreience. I like night photography, and was inside a shopping mall in Dallas - early evening around 7:00PM. The mall has beautiful lighting and when you look from the inside, towards the ceiling, the view is marvellous. I had barely taken one shot when I was confronted by our 'Friendly' officer - who 'politely' started to question me. After about 10 minutes of 'polite' questioning, he figured out the whole thing. He told me to leave the premise and not try photographing buildings again - day or night. Is there any rule - anywhere about permissions etc. I had posted a question of the similar kind last month in photo.net, I was referred to some rules that clearly stated that we are allowed to take pictures from public places of public places....

I had a much gentler but similar experience a few weeks back in WashDC. I was doing two of my favorite things - cycling and taking pictures. I let a guard know when I found myself in an embassy area that I enjoyed that area and may take pictures - he said "enjoy!". As I was photographing the second of two embassies I found attractive, a secret service car quietly came up and soon there were 4 secret service men and 3 cars. They were kind and considerate as they ran several background checks, delaying me by 20-25m, and finding my record totally clean.

Naveen,

At the risk of being accused of of "Texas" bashing. Texas does appear to operate under some different rules (at least from those of us from the east. As an example when I moved there in 1991, when you went to the the pool, there were signs indicating that you swam at at your own risk. At the same time some of the malls in the area restricted access to those under 21 (I believe, it may have been 18). But there again tis was a state that had signs at the bars that said it was illegal to carry fire firearms in to establishment that served alcohol.

Other than that there is great debate as to whether "malls" and "town centers" are public or private properties. Under popular definition they are private property. Lucky for many of us, some of the courts have started to recognize that the "mall" or "town center" are like the "town square" and deserving of the First Amendment.

Naveen N wrote

Is there any rule - anywhere about permissions etc. . . . I was referred to some rules that clearly stated that we are allowed to take pictures from public places of public places . . .

It probably depends on where you are. In some states, security personnel may be able to prohibit photography on private property. In California, private property that is open to the public is treated in much the same manner as a traditional public forum. In particular, there is no criminal trespass (at least at the state level) on private property open to the public, so a security guard cannot arrest a photographer for trespassing. Few, if any, security guards are aware of this, although if you sound like you know what you’re talking about, it’s amazing how often security people will back down.

If the friendly “officer” is a private security guard, it’s worth remembering that his police powers are the same as those of an ordinary citizen. This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t be polite, but you’re not under any obligation to produce identification or answer any questions.

Even in California, there is some debate as to whether there is a civil trespass (upon which the property owner or his agent can use reasonable force or request the assistance of a peace officer to remove the trespasser). Several years ago (after a similar confrontation), I posed this question to three different attorneys; one (a public defender) felt that security personnel had little grounds to prohibit photography; another was uncertain; the third (a real estate attorney) felt that politely but firmly standing up to a security guard was fine, but refusing a request from a peace officer to leave the property would be a ghastly error. I guess the answer depends . . .

In practice, many shopping malls have no objection to photography in the common areas, but draw the line at individual shops in the mall. Again, security personnel often are poorly informed on the mall’s official policy.

The concept of private property open to the public was reinforced by Pruneyard v. Robins in 1980, in which it was decided that people had the right to solicit signatures in a privately-owned shopping center, subject to reasonable restrictions as to time and place. In recent years, Pruneyard has been weakened by subsequent court decisions; in particular, it has been decided that large, stand-alone stores such as Home Depot, do not constitute traditional public forums.

It’s important to bear in mind that Pruneyard derives from Article I, Section 2 (a) of the California constitution, so the decision only is applicable in states with similar provisions. I have no idea if Texas is such a state.

Jeff:

WOW--someone finally comes up with the law in L.A.! The LAPD just referred me to the EIDC, and they claimed professional status doesn't matter, technically, everyone needs a permit. But they didn't cite code. Of course, if the law is that hard to dig up, it might turn out that being legally right doesn't keep you from an unwelcome ride. The EIDC person in particular said the LAPD was unlikely to enforce against a lone photographer on their own, but might if requested to by private security.

Robert: <<<<If you are on a public street you are not doing anything wrong unless they want to consider it loitering. Don't wait too long for a picture. :> Incidentally, I have been stopped by police who ask to see my "permit" for taking pictures. Ignorance is becoming commonplace, but I hate it when the ignorant are armed. >>>>>

Actually, there is also "obstructing a sidewalk" if you've got a tripod. And, as mentioned above, some cities do have overly broad film permit laws, which generally aren't enforced unless you have a crew, but can be if you irritate someone. The surrogate police force of rent-a-cops in L.A.'s Chinatown and West Hollywood in particular are made very aware of the film permit laws. (and, per Jeff, are apparently given a wrong interpretation of the law to go on)

tn: <<<This individual case wasn't even dealing with police officers.>>>>

Actually, federal building security are often sworn peace officers, which gives them most of the rights and responsibilities of a regular police officer. (But they're the exception--security guards very rarely are in this category, my understanding is you need the same extensive training as a regular cop, although apparently some railroads do make this effort.)

David: The LAPD is notorious as a problem department. It always amazes me that they and the CHP (one of the most consistenly professional departments I've seen) cover the same turf. (Of course, if I had to deal with what the LAPD deals wth, I might turn into a raging jerk in a few months too.)

Naveen: A mall is private property, although in some instances it functions like a public place. The courts have generally held that malls can compel you to leave if they don't like your activities, although there have been some instances where free speech has been upheld on "private premises open to the public". But phtography is not speech.

Clayton: Who needs rigged voting machines to throw an election? Massive campaign funding by corporations is a far, far more convenient and reliable way to effectively disenfranchise the people. Remember, these are people who understand money well enough to get elected, and technology poorly enough to pass the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Welcome to East Germany Chris. All kidding aside, I think some people are taking advantage of the situation to use powers that the general public would never have tolerated otherwise.

http://www.accentradionetwork.com/st.htm 2-4 p.m. & 9-11 p.m. weekly click on "Listen Live"

If I were a writer and this was my screen play. I would end this movie with a wide shot of Chris walking to the left and out of the scene, camera in hand. Only sounds are his isolated rapid footsteps on the otherwise very crowded noisy street. He walks completely out of the scene as the sound of his hurried footsteps diminish. No sound at all now, just crowds of people moving along the busy mid afternoon side walk. Camera does not move but does a slow zoom in to the crowd. No sound, white light, very bright scene, almost blinding. Silence. Starts to clear, very slowly. Can barely make out shape of black smooth marble statue with jagged edges on deserted dusty side walk. Credits....

They can look in my camera bag anytime.

Julie Nightingale

On July 4th 1998 I and my 11 year old, (at the time) son who I had just bought a Cannon AE1 camera and a lens for, We were in our downtown Columbus, Ohio On High St. In front of the Nationwide Insurance Bulding. I had my camera set up on my tripod and was helping my son to learn how to do time exposure of flowing water. As they have a nice water display in front of there bulding. My son was seting his camera up on his tripod and all of a sudden 2 securty guards come up to us asking me what we are doing. I informed him that I was teaching my son. He then asked if I had permision to take pictures of there water display I said no, that I did not have to have permision to take pictures of there water display from the public sidewalk. They Ordered me to leave and said that if I had taken pictures I was to hand over my film. I told him that I had not taken any, But I had shoot 4. Homer

O.S., you wrote "I'm somewhat happy I'm in Europe..."

A few years ago I had an experience like Chris's while I was traveling in Uganda. Afterwards I remember thinking how lucky I was to have been born in the USA, where such a thing could never happen...

Michael Corbin wrote: "I think some people are taking advantage of the situation to use powers that the general public would never have tolerated otherwise" I am Italian Michael, and I exactly think the same, from what I can understand of the USA living in my country.

And I'm very happy that there are so many people (in this Forum, at least) that are aware of the situation. This is a necessarry condition not to allow "that people" to take even more advantage.

Ste

I think in general, the USA is becoming a less free place to live.

I think, in general, the US has become a much safer place to live. Minor inconvenience should not be confused with the Bill of Rights.

I suspect that the mindset of a police officer or similarly annointed enforcer would vary considerably in his knowledge of the law and his assumptions about what you know. It would be nice to have a plan of action whenever you anticipate a confrontation which would start with your knowledge of both the law in question and recent examples of how it has been enforced - correctly or not. Mention was made earlier of carrying an ACLU card, an interesting idea. I carry camera club cards which are printed up and distributed to members because so many people in authority do seem to be more accepting of you if they understand why you're there, but the examples cited here require something more substantial.

I hate to just give up, especially if there's plenty of eveidence to suggest that I have every right to be there. How do you get that point across without antagonizing the police who may or may not know the difference between what their buddies have accepted as standard practice recently and the laws that should still be applicable.

Come on folks. This is old news. Know your rights. The ACLU has been telling us for decades what to do in these situations:

"Am I under arrest?"

"What for?"

"I consent to nothing."

"I wish to speak to a lawyer."

Always be polite but firm. Don't resist.

If you expect to be treated like a free citizen then you must act like one. And, yes, this could get you in 'trouble'.

Thanks for the reminder, Chris.

Bill

Philadelphia, PA

Know Your Rights: What to do if You're Stopped by the Police

So I was interested to see how far this was going to go so I went with him.

Homer: Thanks for the information. I've been meaning to take some pictures of a water display for some time. I'll be down there later today.

One more comment. I'm a Canadian and 9-11 has changed the way for everyone making photographs everywhere. Last time I took the plane for an internal flight, I was carrying my Zero Pinhole camera. I had to explain to 4 different persons what and why and where and..it's becoming a pain. Same thing, last Sunday, I was taking pictures at a museum whit my kids using my pinhole and 4 guards zoomed in on me, again another round of questions. I would suggest that everyone gets a copy of the book by Sinclair Lewis 'It can't happen here'. Photography is becoming an 'Extreme and dangerous sport'

An incident in Detroit earlier this year. Also a good example of the media getting things wrong (or being deliberately misled by the police). Often the second story clarifying what actually happened gets buried -- or never even written -- and people are left with the impression that the police saved the day and apprehended some bad guys.

===

Monday, April 21, 2003

2 arrested near bridge linking Detroit, Canada; police say they had dynamite

DETROIT (AP) -- Two men were arrested after police saw them videotaping the Ambassador Bridge, the busiest U.S.-Canada border crossing, and found dynamite, a collapsible baton and shotgun shells in their car.

Officers saw the men during a routine patrol late Sunday, police spokeswoman Bernadette Najor said. The men, who were not identified, were being questioned by the FBI, she said.

...

Police were holding the men, ages 26 and 30, on a felony charge of possessing a dangerous weapon because the officers found a collapsible baton -- similar to one carried by police -- in their car.

Police were evaluating whether further charges should be filed for carrying two quarter-sticks of dynamite, which are comparable to M-80 firecrackers, Najor said.

Najor said the dynamite was not powerful enough to damage the bridge.

The men also had a tape recorder and photocopies of immigration papers, Najor said.

...

Posted on Thu, Apr. 24, 2003 Man Arrested Near Bridge Claims Bias Associated Press

DETROIT -A Yemeni man who says the FBI asked him whether he trained with al-Qaida after he and another man were arrested near an international bridge believes he was targeted because of his ethnicity.

"I tried to explain that I have been here since 1981," said Mohamed Elmathil, a native of Yemen. "Of course, I was profiled."

Elmathil, 26, and another man were arrested Sunday near the Ambassador Bridge, the busiest U.S.-Canada border crossing. They were questioned by FBI agents for having firecrackers, shotgun shells and a police baton in their car.

Elmathil said three FBI agents interrogated him for three hours, asking him if he trained with al-Qaida or had been to Afghanistan.

Neither he nor the other man, identified only as having Yemeni parents, was charged with a crime, but police said the case remained under investigation. Elmathil said he got a ticket for having tinted windows on his car.

FBI Special Agent Dawn Clenney would not comment beyond confirming that the two men were released and no federal charges were filed.

Detroit Police Cmdr. Jesse Banks said officers acted appropriately and did not profile the men.

"It had nothing to do with anyone being Arabic," Banks said. "The officers were on routine patrol and saw suspicious activity."

Officers initially said they found a collapsible baton, which they called illegal, shotgun ammunition, two quarter-sticks of dynamite, immigration paperwork and a video camera and audiotape recorder.

On Monday, police said the dynamite actually was two M80 firecrackers. Elmathil said they were left over from last July. He said the shotgun ammunition probably belonged to a friend who had borrowed his car. He said he carried the baton for protection but had never used it.

The immigration paperwork was part of a petition to bring his uncle to the United States from Yemen, Elmathil said.

Authorities initially said the men were stopped for videotaping the bridge. But now police say they were pulled over because of the tinted rear windows on Elmathil's car.

The Ambassador Bridge has about 10 million vehicle crossings every year and handles about 25 percent of all trade traffic between the United States and Canada.

Your Bill of Rights

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To all those yahoos who like to be searched move somewhere else. To all others write to your elected representatives and tell them to fix this now.

Lowell

I think one of the most amazing things about all of this is the reaction in this country to 9/11. The number of US war casualties that have been incurred to win/maintain our freedoms in the last 200 years is in excess of 1 million. Yet the deaths of 3,000 people has everyone acting like it's the single most tragic event in history. Don't misunderstand, I am not cold-hearted, however I can see further back than 2 years. I support President Bush, that's not to say I agree with every decision the government makes. I believe he is working for the good of our nation. Has he done some good things for the country? Absolutely (we finally got someone with morals in office). I can't believe the liberal posts on here that want to blame him for everything gone wrong with our country, like he has some sort of evil plan that will ultimately turn us into a country full of nazi vampire zombies. Were you guys this critical of Clinton? Because his administration laid the groundwork for a lot of the mess that the current administration is trying to straighten out. Newsflash, the United States has had problems for longer than 3 years.

Now to the issue at hand: Chris's ordeal. I think he was abused, mislead, and shouldn't have gone through any of that ordeal. Those officers had no business stopping him. I consider myself to be ultra-conservative, and that sort of treatment outrages me. I'd definitely file a complaint, of course I never would have gone along with them in the first place.

"we finally got someone with morals in office"

nuff said.

Homer: you're a perfect example--if you don't know the law, and don't know when you can legally ignore someone in a uniform, you kinda gotta do what they say. You could've ignored this guy.

Topher: Us giving up our freedoms doesn't mean the terrorists have won--they still don't have Palestine back. If anything, 9-11 harmed their cause more than anyone could've imagined--Sharon was given pretty much free rein to antagonize the Palestinians and then call military strikes when they responded.

What it DOES mean is that Mr. Ashcroft has won, not bad for someone unpopular enough to lose an election to a dead guy....

"Regarding this topic, I'd say that hardly any person here in this forum who has complained about the Patriot Act or fascism etc. has endured *any* repurcussions from its passing"

and you know this...how? Have you talked to each of the posters here, or is it just that good ol' knowin'...sorta like Bush "I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe—I believe what I believe is right."—Rome, July 22, 2001

Like I said earlier, send the message you want, by voting. I plan to vote against any candidate that has "displeased" me. As for private security guards, they do NOT have legal authority to confiscate anything. All they are supposed to do is observe, report, and if absolutely necessary hold you for the police. Most guards are decent people. Some (usually the younger ones) do not know what the limits are and let the uniform go to their heads. Sometimes the best thing to do is insist that they or you call the police.

In central asia I was constantly being reminded of what I could and couldnt do regarding photography, typically in border areas, which is to be appreciated as they have alot to contend with - Basically photography of military and government installations, bridges etc are out of bounds - but at the disgression of the security/military police.

Something I havent experienced in any other western country, except while the USA - the place where you feel safe, but in danger of being misunderstood as something more than just a photographer. 9/11 was a harsh awakening for us all - More people seem scared by what they dont understand: A photographer with an interest in something other than fluffy bunny rabbits, flowers and 'textbook' beauty shots, must be up to something.

Someone wrote that the Bill of Rights should not be confused with minor inconvienence. I fear that the Bill of Rights is, yet again, being totally misunderstood. If someone is chased down by law enforcement, taken into custody, searched, interrogated and forbade from leaving, it is not a minor irritant. It is what the Fourth Amendment is all about! Also, the 4th Amendment discusses "unreasonable" search and seizure. Therefore, the issues of whether an intrusion is minor is actually a core consideration in the Amendment.

This entire discussion is surreal. A photography site is not the place one would expect to have such a discussion. Perhaps the only mix of the two subjects in the past were the power an image can have (i.e. Elian Gonzalez) and some freedom issues such as whether material is obscene and can be banned. Here, we can see that engaging in photography alone now invites legal scrutiny. It was likely to happen no matter what party controlled the goverment.

Abduction and the Lifelong Bondage of Millions of Africans. Genocide of the Entire Native American Race. Jim Crow. Segregation. "Little Boy". "Fat Man". Persistant Endemic Racism.

Hey folks, this is who we are as America. (And this is just a sample of our domestic policy to say nothing of our foreign policy :>)

As a law abiding Black American man, I can honestly say that what happened to Chris is just "A Day in the Life of Andre Noble, USA"

Welcome to your new America, brother.

This April I was taking some pictures in downtown Albany, NY on a weekend evening. I was near the federal court building when I was approached by an officer and asked what I was taking pictures of. I told him I was photographing the new footbridge over the interstate. He politely explained to me that I was ok, but I was not allowed to take any pictures of a federal building.

Early in 2002, I took a couple of pictures inside of a post office in another upstate NY town and was approached by an ununiformed person as I was leaving the building. He asked me "who I was with". After I figured out what he was talking about, I explained I wasn't with any agency; I was just fooling around. He politely told me that I was not allowed to do so and let me go on my way.

In neither instance did anyone demand film or detain me in any way. I feel quite lucky of that.

Being an active duty Air Force member for the last 23+years, the one thing I can tell you about security. All of them have the authority you allow them. Yes some have real authority to apprehend but most security positions only give implied/suggested authority. In the end it is your decision to request the real authority, walk, or "see where this might lead". Having said that I am also a photographer in Northern California. In the last two years I have taken photos of buildings in downtown San Francisco to include federal and finance buildings, the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, the shipyards in Oakland, and other landmarks in the area including several of planes taking off and landing at Travis AFB. I have found if you look and act professional you will be treated the same way. I have only once been questioned(trans american building in downtown SF) and that was to see how long I would be at it. I guess what I am trying to say is that there are hundreds of thousands of federal building, state building, bridges and other landmarks. There are probably twice as many security personell. Their perceptions of what authority they have can be a whole lot different than what they were granted. There are also hundreds of thousands of photographers taking photos of said objects every day without the rampant abuse of authority that some of the above post seem to point to. Has our ability to move freely diminished as a result of 9-11. NO. I will bet the farm that for most their attention to detail has seen a sharp increase though.

John M. > "Has our ability to move freely diminished as a result of 9-11. NO."

The key word here is "freely." And, you must be joking!

I will be honest. If my wife were working in that federal building in question, I would absolutely want security to question everyone taking pictures of it regardless of race or descent. While it may have been an inconvenience, there was really no harm done. Other than your pride, what was really hurt? I will take a stricter security over lax security any day of the week. If they make a million mistakes and prevent just one act of terrorism, it is worth it. Yes, it may be a hard pill to swallow, but I think the situation was appropriate. The demeanor and tone of the guards may not have been, but the action itself was warranted.

Giampiero-

Things are the same as they've always been here in the USA (which includes people whining and complaining without actually knowing what's going on). And if you truly believe otherwise, you're listening to rhetoric, not fact.

I know this because I actually live here.

-New York City, 2003

Chris, I had a similar experience in the city where I live. I was walking with a friend in a public park, we are both BW photo students, so we were walking with our camera in our hands. In the park we stopped by a little building that had an old fenced door with an old lock and chain. This little building is righ in the middle of the public park, it seems in pretty bad shape, there is a ton of garbage stuck behind the fence. My friend loved the look of the lock and fence and started to take shots of it while I walked a few feet away and looked at the rest of the park. A couple of minutes later I turned my head and saw 2 police cars stop near my friend, 2 police officers step out and call my friend. The officers checked our ID and asked why my friend was taking pictures, and my friend said he thought the lock looked nice and would look great on a BW print. My friend said he could give the film to the officer to develop and check if it was ok, and asked why there was a problem with taking a picture of an old building in a public park. The officers then called 2 more police officers, they searched us, searched our bags, and told us they had to take us to the station. We were taken in 2 separate cars, the officer who drove the car I was in asked me questions: "how long have you known your friend, do you know his friends, does he have friends in Egypt or the Middle East, what kind of car does he own, is it an expensive car, do you know where he lives, what exactly is your relationship with him, is he a friend or more?" For most I replied that I didn't know, or asked why they were asking me this. At the station I was taken to a little room where I was asked to fill out a form with my place of birth, my date of birth, my address, my place of work, and how long I worked there. I am not an american citizen, and I work for an big international corporation. An officer then asked me more questions, what was my job exactly, what was my alien resident status, and what was my relationship with my friend. I have never been convicted, arrested, I have never even had a parking violation ticket, and my immigrant status is in order, I told them my place of work and my status as a resident, and they ran some checks. I stayed in that room for an hour and 30 minutes. Then they let me go and stay in the room my friend was in. They said they had to run more checks on us. We heard them make some calls with government agencies. My friend's record is clear as well. He is an american citizen, and a latino. After about 2 hours and a half, my friend told one of the officers that he knew one police officer since childhood and gave his name, he said they could ask that officer about him. Five minutes later, they told us we were free to go, we could keep the film. Strange how they totally changed once they heard my friend knew a police officer. I wonder how long they would have kept us if he didn't. I also wonder what was wrong with taking a picture in that public park.

This is a very difficult subject right now. Many opinions have been expressed on all sides of the issue(s). I'm not commenting on the rightness of these opinions, but just want to add a practical suggestion for those photographers who want to take pictures of what might be considered "sensitive" subjects. I'm going to add a "right angle lens" attachment to my camera bag, so that I can point my camera at right angles from such a subject and still take pictures of it. One source of these attachments is:

http://www.cameragear.com/rightanglelenses.asp

It might just avoid a confrontation and unpleasantness.

Irvin

This is paranoia run rampant. If you wanted to case a federal building you could easily just walk past it or even enter it. I was once told not to take photos of a state courthouse in the neighborhood where I live in California. Fine. But that doesn't prevent me from actually entering the courthouse (of course after passing through a metal detector) to inspect the inside of it all day if I wanted to, all without an appointment or having 'official' business. Once inside you're free to inspect to your heart's content. And not taking photos still does nothing to prevent a bomb-laden truck from pulling right up in front of the courthouse where deliveries are made! There are no barricades. So, which would be the rational approach to security. Put up barricades to keep possibly dangerous trucks at a distance? Or let the trucks come right by but keep those photographers away? :)

The questioning, searching, or arrest of anyone should be based only on "due cause" for suspicion. Is there a meaningful statistical correlation between street photography and any crime? Yes, or no?

So far it seems like the presence of a photographer has merely become an excuse for every "Barney Fife" to put that one bullet in his revolver and start demanding some respect.

But photographic and video images sometimes constitue courtroom evidence, and I fear that the harrassment of photographers could easily become a hidden agenda. How convenient it would be to misuse the fight against terrorism to keep those "Rodney King" videos from ever being made. In my opinion this is a serious issue which goes far beyond the mere inconvenience to a few photographers.

Cheers,

Matt, I agree with your post in part. There is a balancing test between government intrusions and freedom. You analyzed the intrusion compared to the threat and not political polls ect. Your question of balance is the actual issue concerning our freedom from government intrusion. I agree the balance has tilted because there is a clear threat exisiting now, the likes of which we have never seen before. Indeed, if harm came to my loved ones, I would have wished for whatever preventative measures available to have occured especially in light of this.

The part of the post I disagree (to a degree) with is that the intrusion has no real effect. The constitution exists because of the lack of freedom had real meaning. Freedom still counts for something. It may be that the goverment can simply come into our houses for a quick look around because there might be some danger within. A million searches may save a life, but do we do away with our freedom (what you refer to as not a real loss) for that potential? If you were to respond that terrorism warrants more intrusion because it is a much graver threat than crime in general, then your analysis is at least logical. Then it's an issue of whether taking a picture of a building or other subject is a real such security threat or not. There have been some good posts on that. In any event, I respect your opinion.

Hey John,

Good response. I guess I would always err towards being over secure then being not secure enough. I know what everyone is talking about. Sometimes I feel the same way, the thing that most people do not understand though, is the ENORMOUS freedom we have here is not shared across other countries. Yes, sometimes the gov't does step on the toes of people's rights. (I'm employed by that very government) Generally speaking, when rights are imposed upon, even those lawmakers are affected as well. For example, after 9/11, the base I work on closed the majority of its gates and SEVERELY lengthened the time it took to get on base. Even the Generals had to wait in those lines for hours and hours to be checked in by security. Also, when they restricted the parking around the buildings, again, their cushy spots up close were off limits and again, had to suffer like the rest of us.

Sometimes the people making decisions are only human and can often make mistakes. But I honestly do believe they are doing their best to protect the freedoms that our ancestors fought for. They were politicians kills in the WTC attacks as well as "laymen". I don't think it is fair to sharply criticize our president on this and that when he is simply trying to defend his country the best he can. Would you want their jobs?

Thanks again John! You make some excellent points!

Unless you are being charged with a crime, and they state this right away, you should have demanded to be released unless they have reasonable cause to detain you. For crying out loud, you're taking a freakin' photograph! Are the photographer's rights being taken away now? Check out http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm.

I can not believe that there are so many cry babies and whiners here on photonet. You call yourself photographers? You should be ashamed of yourselves. No wonder everyone in the world thinks were a bunch of spoiled brats. Get tough!! It can be exciting to get hassled and/or arrested for doing what you believe in. Nothing worth doing is easy or painless. There are many times that I wished someone would have arrested me because of the lousy photos I took.

If the phrase "One picture is worth a thousand words" still holds truth, as I think it does, then freedom of photography IS as protected as much as freedom of speech. Freedom to communicate is implied by freedom of speech, and photography is communication.

Chris,

You have clearly been through an extremely unpleasant experience. You have suffered unwarranted mental and physical violence, and I feel genuinely very sorry for what you went through. The same applies to the other horrific tales of intimidation that follow your original posting.

However, in case you haven't been paying close attention to current events for the past couple of years, you need to grasp the fact that you are a citizen of the nation of war.

Whether through action or inaction, the eligible voters of a democracy are responsible for the government that rules them, and you and your fellow countrymen have allowed a clique of power-crazed criminals to come to power over the most violent and dangerous nation on earth. Despite actions whose unjustness and blatant criminality have shocked the world, the majority of your compatriots continue to swallow their obvious lies without question, and succumb to the resulting paranoia. And although the most near-perfect constitution the world has ever seen may still seem to guarantee you rights against the sort of treatment you have suffered, I wouldn't recommend trying. Your congress was virtually unanimous in passing laws that allow you, at the whim of one clearly insane man, to be imprisoned without trial or remedy, stripped of your citizenship, deported, tortured, and executed.

The results are spelled out clearly above: citizens of the 'land of the free' now cannot take a photograph in a public park without being detained and intimidated. This situation will continue until you do something about it.

Welcome to the future. It gets worse from here.

Chris,

Freedom is not free!

Since September 11, 2001 we have been living (and are likely to for sometime) in extraordinary times. These officers’ are people just like you and I. They were doing what they had been charged with doing. Help KEEP America free for you and your new son’s future.

Could they possibly have made an error in judgment? Yes. But you, and the people responding to your letter in a negative self-righteous manner, may want to cut them a little slack.

If our Federal Authorities had been a little more suspicious before September 11, 2001 thousands of people, just like you and I may have had their lives spared. I’m not passing the blame. No one realized then, but everyone needs to realize now.

Freedom is not free!

This is really outrageous. I was photographing trees near a resevoir once (facing 180 degrees away from the resevoir) when a police officer in a cruiser told me to stop. Then I wrote a letter to the city parks department and after a month they told me the officer wrong and I had every right to take photos of trees.

I agree with people above who say don't ever allow them to take you inside and interrogate you unless you talk to a lawyer. People MUST be more assertive of their rights.

I don't know what to say. The government have the majority of you totally brainwashed. Please, wake up and do something before your government takes away any more of your rights. The phrase 'I am clearly born and raised in the United States' implies that you would approve of such a thing being done to someone who looked like they might be foreign.

In the end, it is the American people who are responsible for taking action to end the lunacy of current American policy at home and abroad. Do you really think that the Project for the New American Century is a good idea? I hope you can be credited with more inteligence than that.

Simon Charles, UK

James, its that unquestioning, flag-waving attitude that allows George Bush and his Jesus-loving crony John Ashcroft to take a dump on the Constitution like they are. Wake up. Security is one thing but living in a friggin' police state is quite another. Watch out, the decline and fall of America has begun, but it hasn't been caused by Osama, its been caused by our apathy and our own fears.

Can't imagine what will happen to me, being a Muslim foreign student in my early 20's. Although if they do develope the rolls I have in my camera bag, all they will find is pictures of my cousins, flowers, spiders and computer hardware. Don't think I need to explain why I took pictures of those things.

-Assad.

"Freedom is not free!" Man, George Orwell would be laughing his hind end off at that one. Orwell got the story right, but screwed up the year: its not 1984 but it sure is 2003.

Our priorities are out of whack. Let's repair our house before we go out and repair the houses of others. If you don't know what I mean, maybe this photo will make it clear, which happened to be taken on September 11, 2003.

Thought this passage would be of interest in our discussion;

"That portion of the law, Section 215, has become a central focus of criticism from civil liberties groups, booksellers and librarians, and has perhaps been some lawmakers' most frequently cited example of potential government abuse. By disclosing that the provision has never been used, Ashcroft and other Justice officials hope to neutralize much of the criticism and beat back attempts to curb the law, officials said.

The Justice Department did not disclose how many times investigators have used a similar tool, national security letters, to obtain business records. Sources have said that scores of such letters have been used since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." Wash Post 9/19/03 p.A02

Though it should also be noted that Sec. 215 of the USAPA also states;

"`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."

And as reported in in the same paper yesterday:

"Ashcroft's disclosure does not address how investigators have used other parts of the sprawling Patriot legislation. Justice officials have indicated in previous responses to Congress that top-secret National Security Letters used by the FBI are a "more appropriate tool" for obtaining business records in many cases. Scores of such letters have been used since the Sept. 11 attacks, sources have said." Wash Post 9/18/03 p.A13

Great shot of the Daley Center, Andy!

I was told to leave a Metra platform a couple of weeks ago while trying to shoot the east side of a building that was being obstructed by that monstrosity of a platform awning. I found open space, and before I could push a button, Chicago's finest were all over me! Okay, look...show me a black terrorist with dredlocks and maybe I won't get upset next time, but this stupidity has to stop.

Fact of the matter is, if terrorists want to blow up anything, they will. Anyone with a small bit of insight in engineering can figure it out. They can get building plans from city hall or architecture firms without much hassle. Anyone walking around with a backpack full of explosives can run into any ground floor building and level it MUCH faster than crashing an airplane into its upper levels. So what does it help harassing photographers?!?

Let some dumb cop or federal agent arrest me and I will be more than happy to perpetuate the notion that we are a very litigious society. Stop being sheep, those of you who say it's for our own well being!

GET

A

GRIP

AMERICA.

Chris, I am sorry for you experience. You should not have been treated this way, but I do agree that any suspicious activity, including photography of federal sites, should be questioned.

All of the liberals condemed the government for the acts of September 11th, yet at the same time want to prevent authories from doing what it takes to prevent it.

How is the government supposed to protect the people of this nation?

How is the government supposed to protect the people of this nation?

With intelligent risk assessment, not "Salem witch hunt" paranoia. Such over zealous attitudes about improbable targets is silly. The earlier "Barney Fife attitude" comment seemed appropriate.

Perhaps the time hascome to organize photo "contests" where several dozen or even hundred photographers will get together at one time and all excersize their constitutional rights to photograph federal buildings! ;-)

Nick - I agree, all suspicious activity should be questioned... the government and its agents have a right (and perhaps an obligation) to QUESTION just about anything.

There is, however, a difference between QUESTIONING and INTEROGATION. Stopping someone on the street and asking what they are doing is questioning. Requesting to see their ID is appropriate. Detaining them for a brief period of time while the ID is checked is appropriate. Hell, even *requesting* that they go somewhere else for futher questioning is appropriate. The operative word being REQUEST. When requests become demands, either explicitly or implicitly, the agent is possibly going too far.

Excessive detention in the absence of just and probable cause is, plain and simple, unlawful arrest and is both an unconstitutional infringement of civil liberties and may be a violation of criminal statutes. A demand to turn over property (no matter how trivial) without just and probable cause is likewise unconstitutional and may also be a criminal violation. A demand to leave public property without just cause or legitmate concern for public safety is a violation of the right to free assembly: a basic civil liberty.

If an agent of the government demands you go somewhere, or demands to forfeit your property without due process, you are perfectly within your rights to ask "am I under arrest and if so, what for?" If you're not under arrest you are perfectly within your rights to refuse (being polite and respectful in your refusal may not required, but it would be a good idea).

These things are outlined in the Constitution and its respective amendments and they CAN NOT BE superceeded or suspended by any act of congress short of a Constitutional Amendment...regardless of whether we are at war or not. I'm not a lawer, it doesn't take a lawyer to understand these things. This is basic high school civics - or have they stopped teaching this too in order to make room for mandatory drug and sex education?

Yes, in this time of war agents of the government have cause to be more concerned than usual about any activity they observe. Yes, in this time of war we should be more willing to accept a certain degree of increased scrutiny of our activities. This consideration must at all times, however, be bounded by the limits set forth in the Constitution.

I agree that the government has an obligation to secure our safety... but they have an even more compelling obligation to secure our liberties. If you want evidence concerning which is more important, read Article 2, section 1 of the US Constitution where, at the end, it details the oath which the President will swear upon taking office ... in it, the President swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." No where does the President swear to protect our security.

I am from India and hava (bad) habbit of taking pictures wherever it seems interesting. I can imagin I have to be with feds for atleast a day if I got caught in a situation like Chris. I always welcome extra secutity measures for the sake of this country, but is not it foolish to hangover on little things? Suman

First and foremost, let start with the actual facts here; I cannot believe that anyone in the USA would not know the signifigance of September 11 and would even photograph a federal building at anytime around this date. Not only do I think you are obtuse, but inconsiderate. You voluntarily went with the officer, back to the building. You did have a choice, you could have simply said what you were doing and been asked not to take any more pictures of the building and had been on your way. But, you do all of this around the anniversary of the largest attack on the US ! brilliant! You were taken to the outer office of the security department. Not in a dungeon, but on the same floor as the huge cafe, Probation department, and multiple other offices... It an office with a desk, and yes, I am afraid...some lockers. There is no mold, nor is it grungy hole in the wall. You stated yourself; the reason he acted accusatory towards you when he returned was because there had been a mistake in the numbers of your social security number... the person was wanted on three warrants and there was an alert to INS. The officer was very relaxed in conversation with you, there was no threat...in fact the door to the office was opened the entire time, you could have walked at any point and time. You gave him permission to search the bag; he stated after the background check came back and cleared that he was holding the one roll of film that had been in the camera. That he would develop it and if it was also cleared, that in 30 days you could call and come and retrieve the film and photos. It is a wise idea to "ask" before shooting anywhere... Police/officers do not have to give a miranda warning for detaining someone, handcuffing someone (which is usually for the officer's safety and surrounding persons - so is frisking) -- only if you actually are charged with an offense! Also taking pictures of an airport isn't the brightest thing you can do either... Being held for under an hour, which was only delayed by misinformation mistake and a roll of film, of which you can get back. I am appauled that you would take this and turn it around on the officers only doing their job. It wasn't that long ago that a caucasian, short haired, dressed reasonably well, no criminal record and had military background young man--- had cased and possibly took pictures of a building in Oklahoma City, of which was the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building -- 168 people died/along with children. I would not like to see a repeat of this. If you do, that is your freedom.

From what I gather reading Chris' original description of his encounter, he seems to have allowed himself to be questioned and to have voluntarily relinquished his film. Anyone can walk up to you on the street and ask you questions. Anyone can ask you to come with them and answer more questions for as long as you're willing to sit there and take it. Anyone can rummage through or take your equipment and recording media IF YOU LET THEM.

On the slightest suspicion or hunch, police can stop anyone for questioning and detain them, without arrest, for up to 20 minutes (US Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio). They can keep you longer if you don't ask to leave. If you're not driving, you do not have to identify yourself or produce a formal ID on demand. We don't have to "show our papers" here in the USA. Refusing to answer questions or to identify yourself is NOT grounds for arrest (US Supreme Court, Brown v Texas).

It's up to you to decide how chatty you want to be if confronted by a policeman. The more info you give them, the more they have to process and the more they may want to know. You might be unlucky and have a name similar to someone who's wanted for murder. Under circumstances similar to Chris' why even tell them who you are in the first place?

I strongly recommend reading Bert Krages' "Photographer's Right" card and the ACLU items linked on his page. These documents give a good outline of what both you and police can do if you are stopped for questioning. Police (and security guards) have been known to make honest mistakes or to bluff and invent non-existent laws on the spot to intimidate people. If you don't stand up for your rights, they can walk all over you.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

- Doug Wright

Photographers, www.FreedomToPhotograph.com needs your stories about run-ins with the law and the outcome, along with how you were treated. Our rights to photograph in public places have been on attack and get even more scrutiny since the homeland security bill was passed. Lawmakers are trying to make in illegal to take pictures of buildings or even have cameras on you in certain parts of cities across America and around the world, even while standing on publicly funded roads and sidewalks.

www.FreedomToPhotograph.com was created to bring awareness to this situation. Sharing your stories will only help to enlighten those who are unaware of the situation, and help lobby lawmakers to enforce the laws we have, protect the rights we have and help pass new laws so that our Freedom to Photograph will not be taken away.

The site is driven by you, the photographer, and is dynamically updatable and ever changing. We encourage you to share your stories, both positive and negative outcomes as we are not trying to crucify law enforcment. To do so, please visit www.FreedomToPhotograph.com and click the Contribute link in the menu. After you fill out the form, a staff member will be in contact with you shortly and provide you with login information so that you may publish your story. If you would like to submit a story anomymously, you may, full directions are located here: http://freedomtophotograph.com/contribute.php

Please help spread the word, and add our link to your site.

My mistake - Posting a message with links that are absolutely no use.

The link should have been:

www.freedomtophotograph.com

Look, you did nothing wrong. You had nothing to hide, right? Then what is wrong with time for the government to make sure you have nothing to hide or planning to do something wrong! Is 2 1/2 hours a bit extreme....yes...especially in the technological world of today, but I would rather they take the time than do nothing about it! What if you were planning to do something and they did not thouroughly question you...then what happens? Look, you can not have it both ways...either we live safer at the expense of some lost time for safety measures or we live unsafely in our noninterfering lives! I am not necesarily saying the government is right in this situation, but think of the alternative. And pardon my extreme rudeness for a minute, but to all of the liberal "ACLU" followers...this is getting stupid!!!! If you have nothing to hide, you WILL NOT be in trouble under this new legislation....QUIT TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE....YOUR GROUP IS BECOMING A JOKE TO THE AVERAGE CITIZENS IN AMERICA!!!! ****I think you could serve your time more wisely defending some serial rapist or murderer because a policeman searched their house before receiving a warrent...letting another criminal free on a technicality****

Dan Whiles said:

"Look, you did nothing wrong. You had nothing to hide, right?"

He also had no desire to have some stranger pawing his gear or to defend himself from rude accusations. Fortunately, we live in a country where we don't have to prove we've done nothing wrong. The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are NOT technicalities.

I respect your [Dan's] right to lick the boots of any cop who feels like giving you a hard time for taking pictures of a public building while standing on a public sidewalk. If you think this is a productive way for policemen and citizens to spend their time, more power to you. Volunteer for thorough inspection and extensive questioning as often as you wish... As long as you're willing to personally pay for the policemen's' time, that's OK by me.

I've got better things to do with my time than to satisfy some cop's idle curiosity or to ease his wild imagination. I hope that most cops also have more useful ways to spend their time. If they focus their efforts on rousting photographers who are strolling down the street, we're doomed. There's one heck of a lot more innocent photographers out there than terrorists.

What if we're not carrying our "papers" when they ask us for ID? Is that illegal, or suspicious now too?

'Anyone walking around with a backpack full of explosives can run into any ground floor building and level it MUCH faster than crashing an airplane into its upper levels. So what does it help harassing photographers?!?'

As everybody knows, kamikaze backpackers are a serious problem in Israel. I'm wondering how the Israeli Police deal with photographers and taking photograps of buildings, bridges etc - does anyone know?

I'd like to hear some stories of photographer who have asserted their right to take photos. All I've seen here is "I stopped and left" "I offered him my film" etc. Come on, I know you people are out there somewhere.

To Dan Wiles: The attitudes you express are exactly those that will lead to greater and greater intrusion into our lives. Have you not read the words of our founding fathers?

Your attack of "liberal 'ACLU' followers" was laughable. Don't you realize that the ACLU has grown significantly after 9/11. This growth is tied directly to the Bush / Ashcroft attempt to tread on our civil liberties. The ACLU is not a JOKE to many Americans. In fact people who think as you do are becoming the butt of ridicule and scorn.

It's very easy for an 'enlightened' European to laugh at American paranoia, and to point out that anyone who thinks that the USA is a free country is (at best) living in the past. On the other hand, here's a true story about media-inspired hysteria with much the same effects:

In about 1998 Polaroid UK gave me some outdated Polaroid Sepia film. I went out one evening to shoot off a box or so of this stuff using a hand-held 4x5 camera (MPP Mk. VII, if anyone is interested). At the beach 100 yards from my then home, I encountered three girls in their early 'teens. "Take me photo" so of course I did, and gave them prints; then, realizing the dangers of middle-aged men photographing teenage girls, I said, "If your parents are worried, here's my number," and wrote it on the back of a scrap print.

Forty-five minutes later a policewoman came around and asked what I was doing. I explained, and showed her half a dozen of the 40 or so photo books I have written. She sniffed and said, "Hm, an opportunist photographer."

This is a sick society. The girls' parents didn't even call me -- just the police. This one one reason (a very minor one) why in 2002-2003 I moved to France.

What the French call the 'Anglo-Saxon' societies (USA and UK) have become utterly hysterical and have given the police far too much power. As the slogan went in the last French presidential election, "Vote for the crook, not the fascist." Maybe that was a better choice than either the British or the Americans had.

Here is what a VGA 480x640 pixel Cell Phone image appears like. The jpeg my friend emailed me is about 55K; sent direct from the cell phone to me; and shown here unmodified. It is compressed 900k/55k = 16.4 times by the camera/phone. The next generation will be better; and have more options. In order to email this photo; the sender had to halt their cell phone message with me. I got the email in a few seconds. I wonder if the phones sensor is really 480x640. It might be a barbie cam type 240x320 sensor ; and upsized to 480x640 in the phone/camera. Many super cheap digitals do this "trick"; and results look not super sharp as a result.

I posted the cell phone image to show what current cell phone camera images appear like. In the future; the image quality will be better; and their will be no film or digital memory cards to be confiscated. This poses some interesting questions; the images are zapped up into the ether.

Hell, let's all be rational.

The police officers in New York went up 78 flights of stairs in the WTC to save people who were burning to death. Let's call them "fascist pigs". That'll sound good! "Help me Fascist pigs! I'm covered with burning jet fuel and my skin is peeling off! Please brutal thugs, help me!"

Right wing, let's get rational too. Let's go have a war in the one country in the Middle East that probably DIDN'T help the 9/11 murderers! Then let's say that anyone who protests that war is an unpatriotic scum who doesn't Support Our Troops!

I was in a writers' workshop in Bucks Co., PA. We had a Dutch woman in the group who had been a child during the REAL fascist occupation. After her stories, I know a little of what facism was, and we DON'T have it here today, and even the repulsive John Ashcroft won't change that.

To the poster who moved to France: You know perfectly well that, in order to combat rampant terrorism, the French instituted a special regime of terrorism judges who can detain people indefinitely for unstated reasons, initiate wiretaps without supervision, etc.

In the REAL war against fascism, you could not photograph bridges, water facilities, etc. for very good and cogent reasons. And your cries for a lawyer would have gotten you a few loose teeth from cops whose relatives had been on the Baatan Death March.

Yeah, the Total Information Awareness thing scares the bleep out of me. And I despise Bush and his "Bring 'em on! We're on a Crusade!" idiocy, but this IS a war...

To anyone who would suggest that the police simply were doing their jobs, I would reply, “So was Adolf Eichmann.” There may be circumstances in which “just doing my job” or “only following orders” is a reasonable defense, but in my experience, it’s nearly always proffered to completely evade any personal responsibility, and is preemptively dismissive of any logic or relevant facts, because the person suggesting it most probably could not present any sort of plausible defense for essentially indefensible conduct.

I find it absolutely incredible that breaking the law ever could be considered part of a police officer’s job. I would strongly urge anyone who is interested in the rules for a “stop and frisk” to actually read the Court’s opinion in Terry v. Ohio: A police officer with 30 years experience as a detective observed petitioner Terry, along with two other men, repeatedly pausing to stare into the same store, and then walking away to confer with the others. Suspecting the men of “casing a job, a stick-up,” the officer approached the men, identified himself as a police officer, and asked their names. When Terry “mumbled something,” the officer patted down Terry’s overcoat and found a revolver. He then ordered the men inside the store and arrested two of them for possession of concealed weapons. The defendants tried unsuccessfully to have the weapons suppressed as evidence on the grounds that the search was illegal; the motion to suppress was denied, and the men were convicted. Subsequent appeals were similarly unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court rulings, concluding that the neither the stop nor the search required probable cause, and that a search for weapons to protect the police officer was reasonable, because based on Terry’s conduct, the officer had reason to believe Terry was armed.

Chief Justice Warren’s opinion for the majority makes it quite clear, however, that police cannot detain a person simply on any suspicion or unsubstantiated hunch,

“. . . it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate? . . . Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction. And simple ‘“good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.”’ . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” only in the discretion of the police.’”

Justice Warren noted that any stop or search is a significant intrusion upon personal liberty,

“Even a limited search of the outer clothing for weapons constitutes a severe, though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security, and it must surely be an annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating experience.”

“And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.”

It should be noted that Justice Douglas vigorously dissented, observing, among other things,

“But the crime here is carrying concealed weapons; and there is no basis for concluding that the officer had ‘probable cause’ for believing that that crime was being committed. Had a warrant been sought, a magistrate would, therefore, have been unauthorized to issue one, for he can act only if there is a showing of ‘probable cause.’ We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a ‘seizure’ and conduct a ‘search’ than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again.”

Returning to the initial circumstances of Chris’s experience,

I was very surprised that they closed in on me and the man asked me to step back over by the officers and he immediately told me to give him my bag and to put my hands above my head. By this time I was surrounded by men with guns and standing on the sidewalk in public view feeling embarrassed and confused without a really good reason. . . . The officer at this point proceeded to quickly go through my bag and he arrogantly asked me “why I was talking pictures of the Federal building and the businesses across the street?”

Given the events of Oklahoma City and September 11, it may be reasonable for a police officer to approach a person photographing a bridge or a Federal building and politely inquire what the photographer is doing. However, it certainly would appear that the police in Chris’s situation went far beyond this. I find it difficult to believe that a reasonable person would be convinced that photographing a building constitutes specific and clearly articulable facts suggesting that a crime had been committed, was being committed, or was about to be committed. Moreover, nothing whatsoever reasonably suggested that there was any imminent danger or that Chris was armed, so there was absolutely no basis for ordering Chris to put his hands above his head, or to forcibly search his camera bag. Although Chris wasn’t beaten or thrown in a dungeon, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that he was subjected to a severe, annoying, frightening, and humiliating intrusion on his personal liberty.

Several posters seem to have implied that Chris was partially at fault because he voluntarily submitted to the search and seizure. At least with regard to the initial sequence, it doesn’t sound as if he was offered much of a choice, and he wasn’t given much time to think about how to respond. Suppose that, rather than raising his hands, he had replied, “And if I don’t?” What if he had attempted to stop the officer from searching his bag? The large number of witnesses might have afforded some protection, but it’s also possible that this would have made no difference. Several years ago, the LAPD fatally shot an elderly woman who was brandishing a screwdriver, despite the presence of scores of onlookers.

I suppose Chris could have verbally insisted that they stop, but again, he wasn’t given much time to think about it. I’m sure many of us pride ourselves in knowing our rights, and might even relish the opportunity to tell an abusive security guard or police officer to stick it where the Sunny 16 doesn’t apply. However, it’s one thing to comment from the sidelines and quite another to calmly but firmly insist on one’s rights when accosted by a group of armed and hostile badge-toting individuals.

Nonetheless, I’m an advocate of photographers knowing the applicable laws and regulations and standing up for their rights when unreasonably accosted, recognizing, of course, that it’s far easier to talk tough in a forum such as this than to an armed person who could throw me to the ground, possibly damage my equipment, and subsequently misrepresent the facts to defend his conduct. I certainly find it sad that one must make such an effort to protect oneself from those who are sworn to uphold the law, and presumably protect us all.

I certainly support the efforts of police and other officials to protect facilities that might be targets of terrorist attacks, and don’t deny the difficulties they may face. I do, however, insist that they observe the law, just as they insist that I do. When police and other officials can ignore the law, in essence, there is no law, and consequently, there is little that is worth protecting.

It seems to me that quite a few of us are sick of being hassled for taking innocent pictures in this post 9/11 age. I was thinking really instead of complaining about our loss of freedom, which is what is happening, it might be more productive to figure out away around these restrictions? While the goal of defending our ancient and sacred freedoms is the duty of every citizen and freedom loving person, we also want to take photos without a lot of hassle. Journalists as a group are less likely to be hassled by the police than regular citizens. The courts hold the police to a much higher standard in dealing with the press than joe civilians. My suggestion is that we either buy or create press passes. Earlier I joked that we get New York Photographic Institute press passes. I noticed that several photographic stock agencies will sell a press pass, one place I saw sold a two year pass for 30.00. Here's my idea in brief we create a Photog-net Times press pass, for a fee to support this site and a downloadable assignment letter. You can go to your shoot with press card and assignment letter in hand. Will it hold up in court, I doubt it, but then neither will the charges stick either. Really, what judge is going to convict anybody who took an innocent photo of a bridge? The so called 'Patriot Act' is unconsitutional and will wind up getting struck down. I wouldn't count on any of these passes getting you access to the press section of Congress or the White House, but it should leave free to shoot that nice sunset against the Federal building.

Sorry people, I don't agree with most of you on this. READ all the details of what Chris' situation was & THINK for a second. It was the day after a 9/11 anniversary---in case none of you remember, 3,000 people were killed at the WTC alone by terrorists that had at least scouted their targets if not photographed them. Some have said that photography wasn't used by them to help with their despicable acts--I don't know where they could have gotten this misinformation from since not much has been made public about the case against Massoui (forgive the spelling if incorrect). Chris was photographing a Federal building by himself & wandering around photographing other things as well. Sure, it is all perfectly innocent & I wouldn't expect to be pounced on by law enforcement myself, BUT if you stop & look at it from their point of view it can raise some eyebrows & would have warranted further investigation---the kind of further investigation that all of you have been 2nd guessing the government about for all the terrorist acts committed over the last 10-15 years. You can't have it both ways, either we conitinue with business as usual & leave ourselves exposed to escalating acts of terrorism here in the US or we rearrange our priorities & ideas about personal freedom to be more secure. If you bothered to read the entire statement of Chris' instead of being blinded by your hatred of govenrment, you would have also notived that at 1 point in the questioning the officer said to someone on the phone that the SS# they were investigating was not Chris'--the number was different by 1. A mistake, a crucial 1 at that which could have wound up with an altogether unfortunate outcome for Chris, but it doesn't take much for anyone to change an ID. Not too long after 9/11, a NJ man was arrested for running an ID factory which supplied numerous illegals with fake ID of all sorts--driver's licenses, SS#'s, you name it. Turned out the terrorism charges were recently dropped (apparently he had no link to them) & that's all that was reported on to make this guy sound innocent. But he supplied fake ID to hundreds of people & that is still a crime so I doubt he got off entirely. Anyway, before you chastise me as being some kind of right wing fruit cake, I am an Independent that has many left leaning views as well as right leaning ones. Everybody has to stop looking at the government as their enemy Having said all the above, I do think it was entirely unreasonable for the officers to have taken Chris to a remote location for interrogation. It could very easily have been done in a car, right there where he was detained. I could easily go on, but this is long enough as it is. Anthony P.

I am glad the Government is taking this seriously. The terrorist will stop at nothing to destroy us. Be glad and stop your crying people...contact the ACLU, lawsuits. If someone had told you (and could prove) that a bunch of crazed religious maniacs would crash planes into the Trade Centers and Pentagon killing thousands of INOCENT people, you would have agreed to EVERY security measure. It is time to wake up and realize that a life of bliss is a thing of the past, we are constantly under attack and the threat of danger. Just ask people who live in Isreal. It is time to start being part of the solution, not the problem!

RE: Robert's comments---

ExACTly.

However Robert you fail to mention the thousands of INNOCENT people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and that not all Palistinians are terrosists and in fact many are killed or have their homes bulldozed for no reason. Paranoia is not the solution. More intelligent laws than the Patriot act would do a much better job at keeping the US secure. Harrassing photographers is not the way to go.

Maybe we need to just suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights while we are in this "war". For if we allow any personal freedoms, then we are always at risk for a terrorist attack.

Or maybe a better idea would be to take care of ones own first, before you start trying to "improve" the lives of others in your won image.

Ok, as someone suggested, I re-read the original post.... is what happened a gross violation of civil liberties? There is at least one thing which was an outrageous affront to civil liberties, though to many it might seem trivial to some.

Certainly the initial questioning was justified - especially in light of the significance of the date, and the fact Chris initially disreguarded (innocently, but he was the only one who knew that) the officer's attempts to get his attention. Hell, you might even be able to argue that asking Chris to come inside was legitimate - the stop was made right outside the building. An ordinary patrol officer would have access to phones, radios and computers needed to make a similar check in his vehicle - in such cases, there should never be a need to go to another location unless there is a safety issue. You might even accept that the duration of the detention was justifiable given the confusion on Chris's identity.

So what was the outrageous violation of civil liberties? Keeping the film. No warrant, no arrest, no probable cause... no justification for keeping the film. Even if there was some suspicion that the film might contain evidence of a crime, the appropriate proceedure would be to find a judge to issue a warrant. Chris should have, politely, reqested that the officer either do that or return his film. Only a true jackass would have kept him there while a warrant was obtained - knowing full well that he would incurr the wrath of a judge for bringing up such a trival thing.

I can just hear some of you groaning that I'm making a big deal out of a $5 roll of film. BFD... its just a few bucks worth of film. Ok, so at what point is illegal property siezure a trivial matter and at which point is it a big deal? Are there differnt degrees of civil liberties? Does the constitution only protect you from unwarranted siezure only if the property has a certain value?

The more we allow these "little" violations of civil liberties to go unchecked, the more likely we are to loose them all together. If no one bothers to stand up for the more trivial aspects of our civil liberties, they will go away. If we only seem to care about the "big issues", the little things will slip away while we sleep.

I don't see how we can expect brave men and women to put their lives at risk secure our liberties if we're too lazy or ignorant to stand up for them ourselves. Liberty requires both protection and exercise. Without both it will fade away.

Having complained about DUDs in government, the invarint trend toward bureaucratic overreach, and several other insidious and insipid problems within law enforcement, I also want to give credit where it is due. Whithout diminishing the heroic sacrifices that peace officers have made, including during 9/11, I think it would be unwise to let the sagacity and investigative skills of good officers go without appreciation and recognition. Properly trained and experienced officers have an uncanny, often absolutely spooky, ability to spot trouble. Various court decisions which support detainment and questioning are based on decades of very well-documented experience to the effect that a trained and experienced officer's suspicions have a substantial chance of being correct. And civil society as we presently know it depends on the wisdom and integrity of such law enforcement officers. However, as Kelly so wonderfully demonstrated, any building can be "cased" with a phone camera. SO WHY WOULD A CRIMINAL DRAW ATTENTION TO HIMSELF WITH AN SLR? I just want law enforcement people to get real, and weed out the DUDs who that think harrassing photographers is "job security".

Cheers,

Having posted my opinion once, just a few comments on what others have written.

Police should be able to question about anything...no, they shouldn't. If I am in a public place taking pictures, breaking no law, then I should not be questioned. To do so is a waste of my time and harassment. To tolerate such behavior adds to the problem.

Minor inconvenience should not be confused with the Bill of Rights...who is going to define "minor inconveniences?" Rights, once surrendered, are usually damn hard to get back.

Shouldn't have been taking photographs on or around Sept. 11...are we now saying we can exercise freedom only on specific dates?

As for all the political bashing, I certainly do not agree with all Bush has done and do not agree with some provisions of the Patriot Act. But how many think Clinton or Gore would have done appreciably better?

For the record, I DO write politicians and express my opinion and give funds to pro-rights groups, so I am not just whining here.

As for the comments about all the duds in government service...yes, there is some of that. But as an air traffic controller working in the FAA, I take exception to the emphasis placed on needing to make sweeping changes among government workers. I was working Sept. 11 when the terrorists struck, and I made the comment that day I hoped there would not be a knee-jerk reaction to the attack and as a consequence broad restrictions placed on civil liberties. Unfortunately, we are seeing some of that.

And as I stated in my first post, when those things happen we hand the terrorists another victory....

Flanked by key members of Congress and his administration, President Bush approved Monday a streamlined version of the Bill of Rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a "tight, no-nonsense" six.

The following is not my opinion, I'm just forwarding it for another party who doesn't have internet access:

Uh, are you all very sure it is such a good idea to post your brave but less than administration friendly opinions on such a public, and persistent forum? Have you considered the uses this information might be put to in the event of a domestic purge? Just a thought. I know that with our constitution that will never happen, of course.

-Joey McArthy

I read in this morning's paper that Congressional Democrats and Republicans united to roll back the Bush administration's request for increased funding for Homeland Defense. The chief complaint is that the money already allocated to the department has not been properly accounted for. As far as I am concerned, the Homeland Security Department is now DOA. Because if they already feel un-accountable about money, they could soon feel un-accounatable about ANYTHING. "We're from the GOVERNMENT and we're here to help". Shudder, cringe, puke.

Dean, tell Joey that there are those of us that have already thought of that. And if Ashcroft Inc. came knocking at my door, then that is the price I'll be willing to pay for what my father and uncles paid for with their blood and sweat; and what so many more are doing today in Iraq and Afghanistan; and so many more in the past "wars" have done.

It does make me wonder if these same people would have said that the King of England was doing a great job, and we shouldn't second guess him; back in the 1700's? Or would they have stuck by McCarthy and say that we had to rid the nation of communists at any cost? Or did they side with Nixon, that the Presidency was worth any cost to keep; and those that called for his resignation just spoiled sports or agitators?

So tell Joey there are those of us, given the chance, would have aided in the Underground Railroad, would have hidden Jews from the Nazis, would have refused to give McCarthy names, and would have marched on as many cities in the South as it took till segregation ended. Also let Joey know that many of us probably also called upon the White House to intervene in Kosovo, we asked if there was something that we needed to do as a nation in 1993 after the bombing of the WTC, and stood in candle light vigil at the Supreme Court before and after their decision on the 2000 election. Let him know that many of us asked the President for the truth, when he was attacked by his enemies. Let him know that many of us are more than just our words, or money; but also of our actions. Let him know that there are those of us that feel that a political office is one that is earned and not bought. Let him know not to give up hope.

Let him know that as much as we hate drugs in our streets, we will not allow the USAPA to be used to get a conviction for something it was not intended. Let him know that as long as there is the USAPA or the possibility of the USAPA II; there will be those of us that will speak our mind, will act when possible - at risk the end result of a government that has lost sight of how it was founded over 200 years ago. And finally let him know that these words; "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." and the words that follow are more than words. They are the values that our fore-fathers thought long and hard on. They are the words and values that our nation has tried to live by for over two hundred years. They are the words and values that many have died trying to defend against foe, real and imaginary. They are words and values - by some accounts - the longest living document for the freedom of its people. These are the words and values that some of us are willing to dissuade the current administration and law to TRY to take away from us. Just let Joey know.

In answer to Charles, why would a terrorist use an SLR and draw attention to him/her self? Why not? They were taught to 'blend in' with the citizenry. What better way than to act 'touristy' by snapping some pics. I don't disagree with you that once they found out there was a mis-identification, they should have had the decency to return the film.

To Bill, I never said that someone shouldn't have been taking pictures on or about a 9/11 anniversary or anything like it. What I said was that looking at it from 'the other side'.... I also said that I thought it was unreasonable for Chris to have been taken to some unknown location for questioning & I did leave out that I thought the length of time he was questioned was far too long--even with the mistake in #'s.

And as one that sits in the political middle (though not on the fence!). I am continually astounded by the views expressed by those that are far to the left, and those way to the right as well. I'm not saying everyone should agree with me, just that I can't get over some of the stuff that people actually do believe. Those to the left, you are so blinded by your hatred of Bush & the fact that you still believe he 'stole' an election from you. Had Clinton responded in the same way as the Bush administration has done with all this, you people would be applauding it & maybe even concerned that he isn't doing enough to protect you--thus necessitating considerable tax increases.

Sorry to add yet another political response in a forum that should have very little to do with politics, but I'm just so tired of hearing the same stuff over & over again.

Anthony P.

The vast majority of what the Federal, State, and local governments are doing is WONDERFUL. The United States is one of the best countries in the world. The billion or so people who live in Western-style countries are just damned lucky. I am grateful to be living in a great country, and in one of the best times in history. But sometimes government folks do indeed "expletive" up, and when they do, the situation needs to be identified and corrected.

Let me give you a recent non-photographic related example. The National Weather Service operates the most sophisticated Doppler radar system in the world, right in the middle of Oklahoma, simply because so much severe weather happens here. So some very bright Washington guy got money from "Homeland Security" to use the NWS radar to study the dispersal of potential biological agents. The proposal was to disperse a three part mixture consisting of two inert chemical powders plus inactivated bacteria from an aircraft. The advanced radar would be used to track the dispersal patterns. Well, the OKIES in Norman wanted to know just how safe they would really be after all this stuff was dumped on them. The FEDs initial response was, "perfectly safe". But the OKIES got together and hired themselves one of those famous "Eye-gouging, bone-cracking" lawyers, and then there were some negotiations. Essentially, the FEDs figured out that they would be sued into eternal poverty if anything bad happened to the OKIES around Norman. So can you guess what happened next? The FEDs decided to just use the inert powders, and not the inactivated bacteria in the experiment. So if that three-part mixture was really "perfectly safe", why did the FEDs change it? Because it was perfectly safe for dumb OKIES, but it was NOT perfectly safe for smart Washington guys. That's why.

I can tell you similar stories about sonic boom testing in Oklahoma, hydrogen sulfide emmissions from "Stinker" Air Force Base, follies at the FAA Academy, and more. But most of these episodes happened decades ago, and they would mean relatively little to most photo.net readers.

The essential thing to remember is that George Orwell was not writing about 1984. He was writing about 1944, because he worked in the British defense industry during WWII. He wrote brilliantly about man's relationship to government. George Orwell's revelations will be just as valid and fresh in the year 2084 as they have ever been.

It is sometimes a strange world, but it is the only one we have. I definitely think we still have to pay close attention to what our government does, puppies.

The United States is one of the best countries in the world.

Ha ha! Not if you live in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Cuba, Nicaragua, Somalia... I could go on, the list is a long one.

"in addition to up to 8,000 Afghans killed by American bombs, as many as 20,000 more may have died as an indirect consequence of Bush's invasion, including those who fled their homes and were denied emergency relief in the middle of a drought. "

I'm now wondering how much of this Federal building thing is also intentional misinformation. Does anyone know of the actual statute used to prohibit photography of Federal buildings in general, and Post Offices in partiular?

I’ve never heard of any statute or regulation that prohibits photography of federal buildings—but I’d love to hear the real information if someone has it. For years, I’ve heard of the prohibition against photographing Post Offices, but never have been able to find an applicable law.

I haven’t found it at all unusual for police, and especially private security guards, to claim all sorts of authority to enforce laws that may not even exist. I’m reluctant to attribute to malice what’s adequately explained by incompetence . . . in many cases, enforcement personnel probably are doing what their superiors tell them they can, and may be doing what has been done for years simply because no one ever called their bluff. It’s quite possible that none of them ever have seen the applicable law. However, absent an authorizing law, there is no authority to restrict anyone’s behavior, whether or not someone thinks it may be reasonable to do so. Unless enforcement personnel can point to a specific statute, regulation, or ordinance, there is no way to be certain that such a law exists.

Whenever enforcement personnel claim, “You can’t do that,” it certainly would seem reasonable to ask, “What law says that I can’t?” Many may bristle at a challenge to their authority, but if there is such a law, it’s difficult to see why they should object to the question—if the law indeed supports their position, providing a direct answer would seem an effective means of defusing the challenge. Expecting a reasonable answer, of course, may be another matter entirely . . .

"I've been aware for a while now that taking photos of Federal buildings was prohibited." It isn't prohibited!!! That is the point. The facists in power have fooled you and many others.

Here is the USPS regulation regarding photography while on post office premises. Basically it allows news photography and other photographers need to get permission. It does not regulate photography while off the premises. Taken as a whole, the regulation essentially regulates conduct to ensure that postal workers and the public are not obstructed while doing business. The entire regulation can be found at 39 C.F.R. sec. 232.1

39 C.F.R. sec. 232.1 - Conduct on postal property.

(i) Photographs for news, advertising, or commercial purposes. Except as prohibited by official signs or the directions of security force personnel or other authorized personnel, or a Federal court order or rule, photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local postmaster or installation head.

He was photographing the building on 9/11 or 9/12. Probably the terriorist threat level was "yellow". Probably the law goes into another gear on these days.

39 C.F.R. sec. 232.1—Conduct on postal property.
  .
  .
  .
(i) Photographs for news, advertising, or commercial purposes.

Thanks, Bert—the operative term was “postal” rather than “Post Office.”

The paragraph is a bit ambiguous—does it apply only to the types of photography mentioned in the paragraph title, or does it apply to all “other photographs,” with the paragraph title informational only?

Yes, the paragraph is ambiguous. From the plain language, it could be interpreted either way although the more likely construction is that it is limited to photography for news, commercial, and advertising purposes. Only a court court tell you for sure and none have interpreted this section. In any case, the fact that the USPS has a promulgated a regulation regarding photography on postal property indicates that there are no general prohibitions on taking photographs of post offices.

I can't even read through this entire thread because it makes me so angry. As a proud American who loves my country and her freedoms, I am especially dismayed by this story. We are in changing times. We are losing our freedoms in the name of "protection." I don't feel any safer. If anything, I feel fearful of my own government. (Earlier this year, I was chased away from outside a county welfare office by a rent-a-cop because I was taking pictures of the outside of the building and the interesting lighting. Had it been daytime and had I been a welfare recipient, I could have walked all through the place making elaborate diagrams and nobody would have said squat.)

I guess this is a good time to post this link and encourage fellow photographers to band together: http://www.freedomtophotograph.com/ We need to approach a national photography organization and get some voting numbers behind us. My question is, where and how do we start? I haven't the time, energy nor money to start anything myself, but if someone will step up as a leader, I'd be glad to follow.

DEAR COMRADE AUMAN:

THE PROFESSIONAL INTOURIST GUIDE ASSIGNED TO YOU HAS BEEN SPECIALLY TRAINED BY THE STATE TO ENSURE THAT YOU DO NOT TRANSGRESS OUR COMMON-SENSE RESTRICTIONS AGAINST PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE PEOPLE'S OFFICE BUILDINGS, MONUMENTS, FACTORIES, AND CITIZENS. IT IS HER JOB TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A COMPLIMENTARY POSTCARD-SIZED LIST OF 23 STATE-APPROVED PHOTOGRAPHIC SUBJECTS OF BOTH CATEGORIES (EDIFICES AND PERSONS). WE WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND MORE FULLY HOW IT OCCURRED THAT YOU WERE NOT PROVIDED WITH THIS LIST.

OF COURSE, OUR OFFICES ARE AWARE THAT IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE OF SOME MISGUIDED TOURISTS TO ATTEMPT TO EVADE THEIR STATE-ASSIGNED GUIDES AND TAKE UNWISE LIBERTIES BY GOING OUT ON UNSUPERVISED EXCURSIONS.

PLEASE LET US KNOW WHICH OF THE ABOVE IS THE CASE, SO WE WILL KNOW WHETHER THE APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION IS TO SHOOT YOUR GUIDE OR TO SHOOT YOU.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR MANDATORY COMPLIANCE. ALL HONOR TO OUR GLORIOUS PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC.

MAJOR GRISHKA STEPANKA, HOMELAND SECURITY

When the Clinton administration proposed appropriations to fund the begining of a national police force, there was an immediate and widespread "eyes on stalks" reaction, and a quick and thorough rejection. That is because a national police force could *potentially* be subject to political manipulation, just like everything else in the District of Columbia.

Now there is truly convincing evidence of clear, present, and severe dangers to our country. Nonetheless, any national police force, including Homeland Security, is *potentially* at least some danger to our country also. So it, just like everything else, simply must be held accountable ethically, legally, and financially. But apparently they have already resisted financial accountability, and so by implication, we now must guess what else they may resist.

If a program to train and recruit new Criminal Justice students was put in place promptly after 9/11, a sizable group of folks will be juniors right now, and many will graduate in the spring of 2005. By 2008 or 2009, they will have valuable experience and be able to make a real difference. In the interim, the existing investigative officers are going to be overworked, and less qualified individuals may be pressed into service. So, Possums, be prepared to guard your tender sweet asses for a few years.

~ In response to your entire experience, Sure you were burdened, of course you held anxieties,... although seeing it as invasive, and without warrant is a choice,... I am thankfull at this time in the history of our world there are steps that when taken can keep so many families and neighborhoods safer. Your experience lasted a few short hours in your ? year long existance, For all who have lost a loved one to senseless violence may there be hope in your heart that others will be safer from any danger. By the grace of god may you never feel the hurt of losing a child.

Lamb: These restrictions don't make us safer. Terrorists most likely have all the pictures they need and could easily get more without arousing suspicion. These restrictions are yet another ill advised policy put in place by the idiots in power.

The correct answer to "what's in the bag" is "a camera". The correct answer to "why are you here" is "the anthropic principle". The correct answer to any other question is "I'd like a lawyer", and do make sure you carry the ACLU's number on you.

I was in New York in January 2002. I entirely appriciate the significance of the time, and naturally many people were on edge and security was heightened. On the other hand, here's what happened to me. I had of course taken my camera, and after taking some generally touristy snapshots in manhattan (new years, empire state building and the like) I visited grand central station. Amazing beaux arts architecture. It so happened that there was about 4 marines stationed there (who I hadn't noticed, nor had I taken photos of them). After taking 2 or 3 shots from the ground floor I went up the central stairs, and was grabbed and accosted by a NYPD officer. He demanded my film, threatened arrest, and after I reluctantly handed the film over(since my rewind leaves the film leader out) proceeded to pull out the entire roll, exposing it and then to throw it in the garbage. I was speechless. And while I entirely understand the need for security, I was 16 at the time the way I was treated was excessive and abrasive. The moral of the story being be careful what you shoot (or what might be nearby when you shoot).

Josh Chapman,

I am sorry that happened to you. What happened is quite illegal for your future reference. Next time & hopefully there won't be a next time, take the badge number & name down & report it. Don't argue & don't resist, but stay calm & take the info you need to report his/her sorry arse. The results will hurt him/her much more than you that way.

Just so anyone reading this thread knows, photography in Grand Central Station (and Penn & the subways & port authority) is allowed. What isn't are tripods or you blocking the flow of traffic or a stairwell.

I find all of this very disturbing and am now quite aware that even our Internet traffic is being monitored and perhaps misinterpreted, so I debate even posting this, but I do have an idea that might work: register yourself with the police and government as a habitual photographer.

Criminals have to do this and if photography is becoming criminal, perhaps this would help in the crack down.

Actually, I'm not being completely sarcastic here. In the UK we have people who have hobbies to watch trains or air planes, sort of like bird watches. Yes, it sounds strange, but taking pictures of manhole covers or something like probably sounds weird to them. Anyway, these people can register with the police/security at the airport and don't get hassled.

In fact, they have actually helped stop terrorism! The plane spotters saw someone on the runway who didn't look like the regular team... the reported it and guess what? It was someone who slipped through security and shouldn't have been out there!

I think I read that in a photography mag, but I'm sure you could find out more and actually, PHOTOGRAPHERS AND PLANE SPOTTERS CAN WORK TOGETHER HERE. Many plane spotters are photographers too.

And it is a big hobby too. Don't believe me? Take a look at a web site and the links all around the world dedicated to people just watching airplanes!

http://www.plane-spotter.com

And here's a picture of a happy spotter (link)

And I'd also gladly register my camera, just as a car or gun must be registered. This might even help get my camera back if it was stolen!

Just out of curiousity. I wonder if anyone would complain or question a person if they just sat down with an easel and some paint and painted a public building?

I'll add a pixel to this larger picture.

I recently acquired a new (to me) lens and wanted to test it. Since it's Winter here in Michigan any outdoor shots would yield only tones of black, grey, brown and white and I wanted to check color. So I decided to visit a mall near my workplace. Had lunch then pulled out my camera and made a few shots. Walked up to the third level to get a good overview and made a couple more shots.

Suddenly, a voice to my right demands, "What are you doing?" I turn to face mall security guard. "Just taking a couple pictures", I reply. She made it clear that I was not allowed to take any pictures in the mall and that if I persisted I would be escorted out.

I left and won't return.

FWIW/Scott Gardner

Scott,

Malls are private propery and you must follow their rules. This is different than being in public space.

When the president says, speaking of terrorists: "we will not let them change our way of life", well I guess it applies to this too. This story of yours would not have happened before 9/11. In this, it is a partial victory for the terrorists, since they have succeeded in injecting some fear in your society.

A terrorist will be taking pictures while driving by, or hide his camera in a bag or something, or use a spy camera. He wont be wandering with a big camera like you or these kids.

In any case they should give more consideration to the feelings of the citizen.

It still goes on, so they HAVE changed our way of life. There is also a large contingent of rail photographers in this country. In January of '05, I believe, Metra, the Chicago commuter rail system, arrested two gentlemen taking photos from the platform (public space, not rail private property) in Morton Grove, IL. They were detained and their film confiscated. One of the cops told them that the First Amendment had beet suspended after 9/11. (!!!!!) This incident found it's way onto the web and also into the pages of the Chicago Tribune, and Metra was forced to apologize and to clarify the policy on photography; i.e., that it was OK in public places. BUT, they're still doing it! In the August 2007 issue of Trains magazine on page 12, there is an article about Metra having detained photographers three times this spring. So yes, they did change our way of life---

I shoot office buildings in Washington DC and surrounding areas and I have been approached many times by security guards. Usual interatctions are as follows Them " what are you doing?" Me " Taking pictures" Them 'Why' Me "none of your business" This is usually followed by them telling me I have to come into the building for some reason. To this I always say 'no thank you' and often keep on shooting.

At a privately owned building just across the street from the Pentegon, after being hassled by a guard, I once asked "what is going on in this building that is so secret?" to which I got the answer "Ask your Congressman." Heh.

This usually causes much agitation and radio calls to someone. Eventually a higher up comes out and asks me the same questions and invites me inside. I always decline with no thank you or I dont think so. Then they usually say they are calling the police and that they have my license plate (if I have a car there). "That is fine" or "Feel free" is my usual response.

Based on your story, I am sure as hell glad I never followed them inside their buildings. Make them get real cops and arrest you before giving over any control of your person or property.

Happy shooting!

I must first say that yes I realize how long ago this post started and that it is now 4 1/2 years later.... Second, as I am reading and see your total violation of rights and privacy and the constitution, I must say you my friend should visit www.RonPul2008.com I think what he has to say may interest you!!!

its the new world order. thank you hippies, thank you california

"Regarding this topic, I'd say that hardly any person here in this forum who has complained about the Patriot Act or fascism etc. has endured *any* repurcussions from its passing."

I guess we don't get too many posts from the enemy combatants in Gitmo.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Enough said