Taking Pictures is a Sign of Terrorism; According to DHS

[JoeKitchen]

Just read this one. 

Homeland Security photography alert is ‘a seed of fear’

[Rob C]

Well, it's easier, more rewarding, and more publicly visible to hassle a photographer shooting (pictures) out in the open, than it is to catch a better disguised threat to society.

The trouble, of course, began with digital: now that these cameras are able to make pictures through walls, through clothing etc. photography has become not just a public nuisance and threat to propriety, but an even more serious challenge to the continuation of our enjoyment of our calm, litter and drug-freed streets and pleasant city ambience.

Even here, in LuLa, there are those trying to subvert the safety of the status quo: I swear that I have seen many images of buildings, often with glass fronts! that offer double threats to the security of those within, not to mention those passing innocently beneath should explosions occur or shots ring out.

Where do I ring to complain, and to whom?

[Robert Roaldi]

Just tell people it's for the archives.

[KLaban]

When I was shooting regularly in the UK I carried a leaflet explaining that I'm a photographer not a terrorist and which also outlined UK law pertaining to my rights. I had colleagues who were often challenged by security personnel and the police: it was somewhat surprising how often these folk were ignorant of the law.

[RSL]

It's the same way in the States, Keith. I always carry a summary of the law by Bert Krages, an intellectual property attorney who's also an avid photographer. It always amazes me that law enforcement people don't know more about the law with respect to implied consent when you're on public property. If you shoot in the U.S. you can download Bert's summary at http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm.

[bassman51]

I’ve been harrassed by local police in a town near me, and by private guards a number of times.  While I haven’t backed down, I’m a retired white guy with no facial hair. I shudder to think how I would have been treated had I looked more like the “other”. 

And I really fail to understand why anyone thinks a terrorist would setup a tripod and spend a long time carefully framing their shot, often with filters.  They’re a lot more likely to keep walking with their phone or vlog-oriented compact while casing the joint.

Sad times and ignorant people with a little power ...

[Two23]

I like to photo trains, and for awhile I was getting hassled fairly regularly.  The most notable was around 2002 when I went to photo the Kate Shelley Trestle at Boone, IA.  You would think no one would hassle you in the middle of Iowa, but no-o-o-o!  I was on a public road, in daytime, and a private security guard pulled up and said I couldn't photo the bridge.  I told him I certainly could, was on public property, and he needed to leave me alone.  He persisted, and I politely told him to fuck off.  That seemed to set the old guy off, and he yelled, "I have automatic weapons in here!"  I replied that I had a .338 magnum rifle sighted in for 400 yards on my backseat, but so what?  (And I did, too.)  That only seemed to upset him even more.  He said he was going to handcuff me and arrest me.  I reminded him his authority was  only on his employer's property, and if he so much as touched me I would sue his employer resulting in his certain termination.  He said he was going to call the police on me.  I beat him to it--I called the sheriff's dispatcher and told him I was being threatened by a crazy man with a rifle.  Police were there within ten minutes, LOL!  They searched his car and pulled out a Ruger 1022 (small .22 rifle.)  LOL, so much for the bad ass "automatic rifle."  Deputies left me alone to photo my train but spent some time explaining things to security guard.  I've since thought of the guy as the mean old troll that lives under the bridge.  I went back out there a few times that year afterwards but never saw him again.


Kent in SD,
(the Big Billy Goat Gruff)

[ripgriffith]

I’ve been harrassed by local police in a town near me, and by private guards a number of times.  While I haven’t backed down, I’m a retired white guy with no facial hair. I shudder to think how I would have been treated had I looked more like the “other”. 

And I really fail to understand why anyone thinks a terrorist would setup a tripod and spend a long time carefully framing their shot, often with filters.  They’re a lot more likely to keep walking with their phone or vlog-oriented compact while casing the joint.

Sad times and ignorant people with a little power ...

+1

[Two23]

And I really fail to understand why anyone thinks a terrorist would setup a tripod and spend a long time carefully framing their shot, often with filters.  They’re a lot more likely to keep walking with their phone or vlog-oriented compact while casing the joint.

I've thought about this and have talked to cops who stopped to ask what I was doing.  Almost always they just seem curious, but there were a few that seemed to genuinely think I was a threat.  I've come to call it "Sheltie syndrome."  I'll explain.  I once had a girlfriend who had a hyper Sheltie dog.  Knowing these dogs were originally bred to herd sheep etc., I did a little experiment one night.  I took about eight croquet balls and set them in a group on the floor.  The dog watched intently.  I then moved one of the balls about 2-3 feet away from the rest.  The dog went nuts!  It ran over and started barking the the stray ball and kept nosing it back towards the group.  I've come to think that most cops are looking for anything that seems "different," out of place, and they key in on that.   One time when I was in Chicago taking photos of the Loop trains, I had a CTA cop come over and ask for my ID, and then tried to tell me I wasn't allowed to take photos.  I pulled out a photocopy printed off from the official CTA website that outlined their policy and went down the list point by point--not using flash, not using tripod, not selling the photos, etc.  I asked on what basis she was objecting to my taking a few photos, based on the official policy?  She couldn't come up with any.  I then pointed out that while I had been just harmlessly standing off to the side, out of the way, taking a few discreet photos, and while we were talking, several people boarded the trains with large rolling suitcases.  I asked her why she didn't question any of them, even though a person boarding the trains with large containers with hidden contents was absolutely a bigger potential threat than a guy with a small nonexplosive camera.  She replied that she sees people get on the trains all the time with large boxes, backpacks, etc.  I then pointed out that if someone really wanted to do harm, they definitely should not have a camera but instead be carrying a large crate full of dynamite, because they wouldn't attract any attention at all.  She was speechless and left me alone.


Kent in SD

[Rob C]

This, for its justification as a free pass for tripod heroes, implies that bona fide terrorists have not already factored in the camouflage effect of that big Gitzo. Are we sure, either way - are the cops sure?

Remember, they learned how to fly an aircraft (large) even if not quite how to land one properly. Never underestimate the mind of the rascal. Nor of the out-and-out villain, either.