j.curtis wrote:
I commend the "old lady" for taking action. See saw something suspicious, and instead of ignoring it, she had it investigated.
True, if it was suspicious. It wasn't suspicious. Taking pictures is not suspicious, especially in the situation described.
The silly part about the busybodies and over-reactive police is that it is a waste of their time and taxpayer money.
Anybody wanting to take pictures for nefarious purposes can pretend to be examining text messages on their 5 MegaPixel cell phone and click in an instant as they move it to a vertical position, or click as they appear to put it in their pocket, or upside down as they let their arm hang down, pretending to be temporarily distracted, or in any of a few dozen other ways including the old "take a picture of the tourist in front of the airport" trick. The busybodies will never have a clue.
However, most reports these days are starting to run the way of showing that paranoia has abated and the police are mostly clued in now, and not eager to spend much time harrassing photographers, thank goodness.
The rest of the story is that the cops involved ended up with written discipline reprimands on their records as a result of the city having to pay out $8,000 plus incurring their own legal costs and other associated bureaucratic costs. That kind of news gets around pretty fast when cops talk to each other.
Monito wrote:
True, if it was suspicious. It wasn't suspicious. Taking pictures is not suspicious, especially in the situation described.
The silly part about the busybodies and over-reactive police is that it is a waste of their time and taxpayer money.
Anybody wanting to take pictures for nefarious purposes can pretend to be examining text messages on their 5 MegaPixel cell phone and click in an instant as they move it to a vertical position, or click as they appear to put it in their pocket, or upside down as they let their arm hang down, pretending to be temporarily distracted, or in any of a few dozen other ways including the old "take a picture of the tourist in front of the airport" trick. The busybodies will never have a clue.
However, most reports these days are starting to run the way of showing that paranoia has abated and the police are mostly clued in now, and not eager to spend much time harrassing photographers, thank goodness. ...Show more →
The truth is we have no idea of the total story here. We have one side. What is the old lady had little kids and felt that the photographs were stalking her house. Maybe she had been broken into the week before. Maybe, maybe, maybe...
We have a neighbohood watch here like they do all over the nation. People look for behavior that is off the norm. My sister lives on a farm. When they see hunters walking near the property line, they get in the four wheel and go check it out. They remind the poeple of the property line and the No Hunting signs. It is never confrontational, just standard practice for farmers that live in the country.
I've had parents of kids want photos of thier kid taken off my website. Sometimes they are just over the top protective (BTW, I always comply no matter what), and sometimes there is a back story. For example, one mother had a restraining order on the husband was had been convicted for child abuse and now out of prison, had implied to the mom that he was going to take the kid. She did not want the dad to know what team the kid was on. Longshot, sure...better safe than sorry, of course. So I'm not saying this lady was correct, but the truth is, we cannot judge the woman's motives here.
I shot the Federal Reserve Building the other day while shooting other buildings in DC. The sidewalk on the property was completely open, no fences, not barriers, just lawn. About 5 mins in, 3 police came up to me quickly. They said "can we help you?" in a voice that left no mistake they did not want me there. So I could have fussed about my rights and made a big deal of it...but to what end. I just said I'm leaving and left. I just don't see anypoint in carting a big chip on the shoulder about these things. The district police must be paying attention to buildings like this...here are two shots...the first was the crummy shot of the building that got thier attention...and it is a crummy shot...the light was not right.
And here is a shot from the sidewalk...you can see two policemen on the right and one is in the doorway of the building. You can see that this is an open space. Now were my "rights" violated, I don't know...looked like no problem to me. Worth me getting wigged out about? Not a chance...happens a lot. If I was in a situation where maybe they grabbed my gear or some such thing happened, that would be different. I could have made this an ugly situation but it did not rise to the occasion...in my opinion. And they were just doing what they were told to do.
My point is pick your battles, not go to war over every little thing...life is too short.
I got kicked off of the Alamo property for photographing a quince portrait of my niece...all the while tourists are snapping away at everything with a bizzillion cameras all around me....I politely pointed this out, so the rent a cop puffs out his chest and stands in front of my lens. To have a good time (it was late in the day) I stood 1 foot off of the property and cranked my speedlight at full power and POW right in the retinas....lol j*ck*ss
Fortunately I have not had to confront anything more than a fraction of that little experience, Shane. However, I do run through things in my mind to prepare myself for such eventualities, should they arise.
I would have cheerfully said "Yes, please! I'm making architectural photos. Could you help me get some good angles?" I would be doing nothing wrong, and they can ask me to leave, if they really want to, in which case I would quickly, but I'd ask them if they could help me understand the situation by discussing it for a minute a few yards away, assuming that is where they point they want me to move to. I'd make sure to mentally note their names and their badge numbers.
If you aren't doing anything wrong, then it is up to them to state if you are. By being positive and cheerful, they can see that you will be cooperative and non-confrontational.
I know, it takes a bit of steely reserve and I might decide on the spot not to play those cards and just quietly acquiesce. I find no fault with your actions.
Will Price wrote:
To have a good time (it was late in the day) I stood 1 foot off of the property and cranked my speedlight at full power and POW right in the retinas....lol j*ck*ss
You committed an assault and it didn't matter where you stood. Technically you committed battery too, because blinding somebody like that, even only temporarily, is an injury.
You were a bigger jerk than the guard, and you have made it harder for other legitimate photographers to do their thing. You made it more likely that photographers will be harrassed and denied their hobby / professional activities.
Yeah, I could have asked them but these are beat police and I know the answer they would have given so I did not ask.
Maybe my perspecitve about police is different. My wife worked at the US Attorney's office in DC for many years. Over that time, I got to know many district detectives and police...good friends with many. These are 99% good guys doing hell's work. Who knows how they do it. Also a good friend of mine for many years is assistant chief of police here and we serve on the city's Youth Policy Commission together and I've got several good friends who are police here...maybe I'm just used to guys with guns doing one of the most difficult jobs on the planet because I've been around it a lot.
A few years ago I was at the Guggenheim in NYC. The rules of the museum were that photography was allowed only on the ground floor. While I was near the top of the museum (it is a spiral design for those who have not visited) I could not help but notice that literally hundreds of people were happily snapping away with their digicams. Most were hanging over the rail of the spiral ramp and photographing the interior space and, presumably, the hundreds of other like-minded shutterbugs. I watched as numerous security guards roamed around and never saw a single guard approach a single patron asking them to stop taking photos.
I had a D100 in my shoulder bag and thought that all these people clicking and flashing into the spiral open space made a great visual. So I pulled out my camera to grab a shot of the chaos. I didn't even get my camera to my eye before two of the security guards were on me like proverbial white on rice. Guard #1 puts his hand in front of my face like some scene from a third world anti-government demonstration and says in somewhat accented English, "Not your kind. Not your kind."
Now giving this guy the benefit of the doubt and assuming English was not his first language I assume he meant "not your kind of camera" versus "not your kind of person". I don't know if there was that distinction in his mind. I politely point out that there are literally hundreds of other people taking photographs with flashes popping off all around us. But he was adamant that I could not use my camera. I could not glean from him whether he was opposed to me using a "fancy" camera versus a point and shoot. Or, if he was opposed to someone who looked like they might know what they were doing taking photos near all the gallery displayed photographs. I don’t think I was doing anything particularly “professional” looking other than using an SLR.
I understand and appreciate the need and right of the private museum to protect the copyrights of the artists whose art is displayed there. At no time did I ever walk up to a hanging piece of artwork and attempt to photograph it. I knew the rules and didn’t feel the need or point to arguing about it so I promptly put my camera away until we returned to the ground floor where I took a very boring shot.
This experience did teach me a valuable lesson: be inconspicuous and do not look like a photographer if you don't want to be the focus of attention.
Security guards are often more trouble than the police. I'm going to the National Gallery in a couple of weeks...will be sure to read up on what is allowed first...yours is a cautionairy tale!
I had a similar problem with a security guard durng a college tour with my oldest at NYU. Man, my camera was on my shoulder and they did not want to even let me in one building...and I was on the tour with my kid! After a min I just looked at the lead guy and said "I will not photograph in there, I'm not giving you my camera (a Mk2 and 16-35...no bag, just the combo on the shoulder), and that is my kid on a college tour and I'm not going to lose her here in NYC" and just walked on. They did not protest further, but a cop would have either just said NO and meant it, or never said a thing. Oh well, that camera does seem to make some people a little more jumpy than you would think. But you are right, better to check the rules first. In the case of a college tour, it never even occured to me to check the rules...I photograhed all of her tours and never had a problem. Oh well, every situation seems unique in some way or other.
My friend and I were taking baby eagle photos from a bridge that allows foot traffic. Someone reported us to the state police and they showed up and took a report. So I know how you feel.
j.curtis wrote:
Some of you guys crack me up. As long as other people are doing it, it makes it ok that you are doing something illegal/against the rules.
You wonder why we get a bad name sometimes.
Not in support of that...the problem is that the rules can be vague and hard to find/locate...and sometimes diff people (those enforcing as well) read them differently. Google is great this way, you can usally find them pretty quick. For example once the weather breaks, headed to the National Zoo. Curious about tripods there and if any limits on telephoto lenses. Arlington Cemetary, had planned to go there, checked the website and nothing. I called the place and they said photography is fine but no tripods or "professional cameras." I told her that I was not going to sell any photos but all my gear was "professional" and she said "I'm telling you what they told me...you can try to use what you want, but don't be suprised if they stop you." Now that was honest answer! But if I know the rule says no photography...I'm not going to purposefully break it!
j.curtis wrote:
Some of you guys crack me up. As long as other people are doing it, it makes it ok that you are doing something illegal/against the rules.
You wonder why we get a bad name sometimes.
I wouldn't say as long as other people are doing it. I'd say as long as other people are being ALLOWED to do it. Looks like I'll be keeping my G9.
Shane Canfield wrote:
And here is a shot from the sidewalk...you can see two policemen on the right and one is in the doorway of the building. You can see that this is an open space. Now were my "rights" violated, I don't know...looked like no problem to me. Worth me getting wigged out about? Not a chance...happens a lot. If I was in a situation where maybe they grabbed my gear or some such thing happened, that would be different. I could have made this an ugly situation but it did not rise to the occasion...in my opinion. And they were just doing what they were told to do.
My point is pick your battles, not go to war over every little thing...life is too short. ...Show more →
I agree to a certain extent but at what point do you draw the line. The actions currently being taken in the name of "national security", "anti-terrorism", or "public safety" have gotten out of hand. Sure they think they are doing the right thing, but it breeds an environment of fear and intimidation which has been legitimized by figures in authority. The old lady in the Mercedes is simply a symptom of this: call the authorities to deal with a threat to our collective security and they will take care of that person. Call me crazy, but there is not that much distance separating paranoia on the street level from intelligence agents water-boarding security detainees. They have been given either overt or tacit approval to use questionable methods to extract information that will protect the lives of Americans. You don't think that kind of attitude filters down to your average person on the street?
mlorne wrote:
I agree to a certain extent but at what point do you draw the line. The actions currently being taken in the name of "national security", "anti-terrorism", or "public safety" have gotten out of hand. Sure they think they are doing the right thing, but it breeds an environment of fear and intimidation which has been legitimized by figures in authority. The old lady in the Mercedes is simply a symptom of this: call the authorities to deal with a threat to our collective security and they will take care of that person. Call me crazy, but there is not that much distance separating paranoia on the street level from intelligence agents water-boarding security detainees. They have been given either overt or tacit approval to use questionable methods to extract information that will protect the lives of Americans. You don't think that kind of attitude filters down to your average person on the street? ...Show more →
I don't know where to draw the line for you, only me. As with any police activity, the ultimate enforcement and the ultimate breaking of laws is realized one-on-one at the individual level. So far, I've not felt the need to jump up and down, but everyone's line in the sand is drawn at a different place.
I can't get to the CIA attitude filtering down to the street argument tho. I will say this, I recently took a class on Street Photography. In part we studied the history of Street Photographers going way back to the 1920, 30s, introduction of the 35mm camera (read that as small and portable), and this clashing of photographers wanting to take photos of anything, everything, at any time, and the nearly universal negative public attitude about its intrusiveness. In some ways it was more intensely fought over back then because it was a new phenomenon. But this conflict has been going on for nearly 100 years and in no way is this a new battle. It has evolved a bit now with the fact that terrorists do survey targets and use video and film as a primary tool in that process...but I'm just not seeing my rights targeted in any big way that is not without what seems to be a reasonable need (goes without saying that this is my opinion). Where some post 9/11 rules were too tight, they are being relaxed. In other areas they might need to be tightened…people learn but to think authorities charged with these decisions will get it 100% right the first time out is not realistic.
And who knows why those police reacted so quickly to me at the Federal Reserve building. Maybe they had a recent notice to be on the lookout. Maybe they had just not gotten around to fencing it. There is no money in that building so it would not be theft related. Anyway they were just telling me to leave the grounds…not to not take photos specifically (although the two were likely related). They did not yell at me, or grab me, or touch my gear, or anything overly aggressive in any way. As for the lady in the car, I’m almost 50 and I’ve seen behavior like that on an exception basis as far back as I can remember…both in the rural and urban environments. But I talked about that already so no need to re-state those thoughts.
In the end, each person has to make up their own mind about when to shout and when not to. It is a good topic tho and worth discussing.
A couple were banned for life from a shopping centre - because they were taking photos of their beloved grandchildren.
They were ordered to stop taking photos because they were causing a security threat.
The couple were on a four-day break from their home in Spain and wanted to surprise their family by arriving at the centre while they were shopping. But when they went to take a photo, a security guard pounced and ordered them out.
The guard then insisted that cameras were banned because of the risk of a terrorist attack - and barred the bemused couple for life.
The shoppers said
"He said we had committed an act of terrorism.At first I wanted the ground to swallow me up whole because it was so embarrassing - but then I got really angry."
They wrote a letter of complaint to the centre, and received a reply from manager who said taking photos was a security risk.
She said: "By the sounds of it my officers/duty manager didn't explain the position very clearly and for that I apologise."
The shopping centre is private property and has a policy to support the security of the shops, where the taking of photographs needs prior permission. They are welcome back to the centre."
The manager refused to comment further on the centre's security policies, but added that the camera ban was not because of a terrorist threat.
The situation has amazed civil rights campaigners, who say the centre's reaction was 'completely over the top'.
Shane Canfield wrote:
I can't get to the CIA attitude filtering down to the street argument tho. I will say this, I recently took a class on Street Photography. In part we studied the history of Street Photographers going way back to the 1920, 30s, introduction of the 35mm camera (read that as small and portable), and this clashing of photographers wanting to take photos of anything, everything, at any time, and the nearly universal negative public attitude about its intrusiveness. In some ways it was more intensely fought over back then because it was a new phenomenon. But this conflict has been going on for nearly 100 years and in no way is this a new battle. It has evolved a bit now with the fact that terrorists do survey targets and use video and film as a primary tool in that process...but I'm just not seeing my rights targeted in any big way that is not without what seems to be a reasonable need (goes without saying that this is my opinion). Where some post 9/11 rules were too tight, they are being relaxed. In other areas they might need to be tightened…people learn but to think authorities charged with these decisions will get it 100% right the first time out is not realistic.
And who knows why those police reacted so quickly to me at the Federal Reserve building. Maybe they had a recent notice to be on the lookout. Maybe they had just not gotten around to fencing it. There is no money in that building so it would not be theft related. Anyway they were just telling me to leave the grounds…not to not take photos specifically (although the two were likely related). They did not yell at me, or grab me, or touch my gear, or anything overly aggressive in any way. As for the lady in the car, I’m almost 50 and I’ve seen behavior like that on an exception basis as far back as I can remember…both in the rural and urban environments. But I talked about that already so no need to re-state those thoughts.
In the end, each person has to make up their own mind about when to shout and when not to. It is a good topic tho and worth discussing.
I guess my point is that the very fact that they believe that they can ask you to stop taking photos and that you simply agree to comply without incident, without question. Who will question the authority? You have stated that you will not in practice question that authority and that is your right and your personal decision. But the more and more people that actively avoid confrontation with figures in authority, the more hostile the authorities will become with those that do question the enforcement of written or unwritten rules.
It seems these days that the reaction to non-compliance goes over the top. Entire planes are rerouted and have emergency landings over an irate passenger. Tourists are treated as terrorists, and police officers are now infallible, or if they do err, we are to give them the benefit of the doubt. In this post-911 world, we are all supposed to be passive participants in the system. Those that deviate are treated harshly and unfairly for minor transgressions. Whether it be a woman in a Mercedes tracking down an obvious molester/theif/terrorist/whatever, or two overly cocky security guards foiling a plot to blow up the Federal reserve building, we are all now supposed to obey laws and rules that are made to take into account the very extreme circumstances.
Of course this goes way beyond the original post, but I thought it necessary to raise because most people don't see the minor incidents as merely symptoms of a greater problem.
