I heard the terroristas can only use photos if made by medium format cameras... so I should be good using my 5x7 to take pictures of the state capitol...
More 'can't photograph government buildings'
-
- Thread starter bsdunek
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Free 4 120 rolls of 2445 Aeroneg, old color film, C-22?
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale FS: Pentax 67 Magnifier
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Plaubel 4x5 Camera Accessories
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Zone VI compensating timer
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
Sold NIKON L35 AD ISO 1000
- Started by Acere
Forum statistics
I was photographing with my 8x10 up on a viaduct one day and a very friendly cop drove up, got out of his car and said, "Just wanted to let you know we got a call that someone was up here with a bazooka. I would have just drove on by you once I checked it out, but I thought you might find that as funny as I did. What kind of camera is that anyway?"
In the conversation that followed this cop (deputy sheriff) made no secret of his disdain for security guards. Apparently they are some of the biggest time wasters that legitimate LE faces. His advice on what to do when hassled illegitimately? Call the cops. A security guard hassling you on public property (at least in the US) is simply an everyday schmuck harassing you. They have no more rights than you. If you are on private property they can ask you to leave and/or call the cops. They can't touch you or your stuff unless someone or something is in real danger.
In the conversation that followed this cop (deputy sheriff) made no secret of his disdain for security guards. Apparently they are some of the biggest time wasters that legitimate LE faces. His advice on what to do when hassled illegitimately? Call the cops. A security guard hassling you on public property (at least in the US) is simply an everyday schmuck harassing you. They have no more rights than you. If you are on private property they can ask you to leave and/or call the cops. They can't touch you or your stuff unless someone or something is in real danger.
Thinking hypothetically...
Let's assume that there is some military installation that the government doesn't want to be photographed. Any idiot could simply walk up and snap off a few frames of the supply trucks rolling in and out of the front gates then LET the guards catch him. By that time, the information has already been "zapped" to enemy headquarters. There is nothing that General Patton, himself, could do to stop it.
We already have suicide bombers. Why wouldn't the Taliban have "suicide photographers" who are willing to sacrifice the loss of their digicams and do a few days behind bars in order to get information back to their bosses?
When you come right down to it, cameras are the LEAST of their threat even IF they are somehow able to photograph some deep, dark secret that our government wants to keep away from prying eyes. Even the technology poses little threat. It's not about the photos. It's not about the cameras. It's not about the internet. None of that matters.
The problem is about PEOPLE and the ideologies they spread. This war (if you want to still call it a "war) is not a war of soldiers and territories. This war is about ideas. Winning the war means getting your message out to more people so they will understand and believe it.
This is a war of COMMUNICATION.
So far, THEY are doing a much better idea communicating their message than our government is.
Let's assume that there is some military installation that the government doesn't want to be photographed. Any idiot could simply walk up and snap off a few frames of the supply trucks rolling in and out of the front gates then LET the guards catch him. By that time, the information has already been "zapped" to enemy headquarters. There is nothing that General Patton, himself, could do to stop it.
We already have suicide bombers. Why wouldn't the Taliban have "suicide photographers" who are willing to sacrifice the loss of their digicams and do a few days behind bars in order to get information back to their bosses?
When you come right down to it, cameras are the LEAST of their threat even IF they are somehow able to photograph some deep, dark secret that our government wants to keep away from prying eyes. Even the technology poses little threat. It's not about the photos. It's not about the cameras. It's not about the internet. None of that matters.
The problem is about PEOPLE and the ideologies they spread. This war (if you want to still call it a "war) is not a war of soldiers and territories. This war is about ideas. Winning the war means getting your message out to more people so they will understand and believe it.
This is a war of COMMUNICATION.
So far, THEY are doing a much better idea communicating their message than our government is.
There isn't one documented instance of a terrorist photographing a target in preparation of an attack. None. Zilch. Nada.
It's all a bunch of FUD, perpetrated by folks with a vested interest in grabbing as much leeway as possible, so they can have easier tromping.
The unfortunate thing is that there are actually people who buy into this garbage. I have a tough time understanding that kind of cowardice.
It's all a bunch of FUD, perpetrated by folks with a vested interest in grabbing as much leeway as possible, so they can have easier tromping.
The unfortunate thing is that there are actually people who buy into this garbage. I have a tough time understanding that kind of cowardice.
Same in the U.K. You can be asked to leave. If you refuse you are then trespassing.
A security guard cannot physically remove you unless he has reason to believe that you are a danger to people or property.
Even the police cannot have you removed for trespassing as this needs a court order. However, they will usually use a public order offence to get you removed. In the U.K. public order offences are not arrestable, you will just be cautioned.
Steve.
Then they should hide it behind a high wall rather than have it on public view!
Steve.
I do a lot of work on US DOD sites, and the rules are that you cannot photograph Federal property from within the confines of the Federal property if the local "person in charge" has a policy against it. (In my case every military base I've been on has a policy against photographs without permission. I assume whoever runs a federal court house has authority over the property much like the commanding officer does on a military base.)
But, OTOH, you can stand outside the gate and photograph anything visible from a public place, which usually isn't much. I can assure you that there's nothing I have ever seen from outside the gate that's not unclassified. All the "secret stuff" is transported in a box of some kind.
If you were looking for information you'd do better hitting on someone in a local bar than taking pictures of the gate.
MB
I used to work in Oak Ridge, TN where the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is located.
There are several layers of security around the base plus a lot of procedural security.
First, there is a high, chain link fence and several hundred yards of flat, open land. Then there is a second chain link fence flanked by guard houses and armed guards. Inside that are more fences and high brick walls which surround nondescript concrete block buildings.
(Okay, that's a general description but I think you get the point.)
The upshot is that you can take all the pictures you want but you won't see anything but the outside of a chain link fence or, at best, a picture of a brick wall.
Secondarily, any time they want to ship anything important in or out of the facility, they always do it late at night, under cover of darkness. Finally, if they are doing something that is REALLY important, they'll shut down all the roads surrounding the base.
They say that they don't build any nuclear devices at Oak Ridge anymore but unmarked semi-trucks still go in and out of there late at night.
You're right, Michael. If they don't want you to see something, you won't see it. It doesn't matter what kind of camera you have.
What I was referring to is the classic "cloak and dagger" scenerio where a James Bond style character casually walks up to an installation and snaps several photos using a Minox camera hidden in the binding of a book or something. It's the kind of scenario that only really works in a movie. However, that's the kind of situation that small-minded people tend to focus on... The "lone wolf" style of undercover reconnaissance.
The point I'm trying to make is that, even under these narrowly construed circumstances, their arguments STILL don't stand up to scrutiny. All they are really doing is putting on a circus act, designed to make themselves feel like they are doing something to justify their own jobs.
Bottom line: The only people they are kidding are themselves.
There are several layers of security around the base plus a lot of procedural security.
First, there is a high, chain link fence and several hundred yards of flat, open land. Then there is a second chain link fence flanked by guard houses and armed guards. Inside that are more fences and high brick walls which surround nondescript concrete block buildings.
(Okay, that's a general description but I think you get the point.)
The upshot is that you can take all the pictures you want but you won't see anything but the outside of a chain link fence or, at best, a picture of a brick wall.
Secondarily, any time they want to ship anything important in or out of the facility, they always do it late at night, under cover of darkness. Finally, if they are doing something that is REALLY important, they'll shut down all the roads surrounding the base.
They say that they don't build any nuclear devices at Oak Ridge anymore but unmarked semi-trucks still go in and out of there late at night.
You're right, Michael. If they don't want you to see something, you won't see it. It doesn't matter what kind of camera you have.
What I was referring to is the classic "cloak and dagger" scenerio where a James Bond style character casually walks up to an installation and snaps several photos using a Minox camera hidden in the binding of a book or something. It's the kind of scenario that only really works in a movie. However, that's the kind of situation that small-minded people tend to focus on... The "lone wolf" style of undercover reconnaissance.
The point I'm trying to make is that, even under these narrowly construed circumstances, their arguments STILL don't stand up to scrutiny. All they are really doing is putting on a circus act, designed to make themselves feel like they are doing something to justify their own jobs.
Bottom line: The only people they are kidding are themselves.
Pogo lives just across the state line in Georgia.
juan
You said it. People with power always want more, and to exercise it more easily.
I am glad that they don't summarily execute photographers in these countries, but still hear too many stories online about police harassment of photographers. A friend of a coworker got his P&S camera destroyed by London police after taking a picture of a pub. What worries me even more is that this harassment comes not only from individual errant cops, it is backed up by the higher ups in command, all the way to the top. You can deny all the other cases by saying "Well, the photographer probably was a dick and escalated the situation" or something like that, but not with the Maryland case.
No country is immune against out of control cops. It's the higher ups who make the difference, and that makes the Maryland case so outrageous. I don't want to have to worry about felony charges for filming a traffic scene, even more so if I am a tourist.
Posted wirelessly.. (Logic-Joe)
New article about this in the August 2010 Popular Mechanics on page 52.
Not a lot there, but the author does take the position that folks with cameras enhance rather than threaten security.
MB
New article about this in the August 2010 Popular Mechanics on page 52.
Not a lot there, but the author does take the position that folks with cameras enhance rather than threaten security.
MB
Yes, but even one case is too many.
The problem is that many people read about these cases and assume that it is normal and is going to happen to them. They are more likely to win the lottery jackpot than be harrassed for photography.
It's s bit like when people decide not to fly on an aircraft after hearing a report of one crashing despite it being one of the safest forms of transport.
Steve.
Agreed!
However, I still think that people need to understand that any law abiding citizen can walk down a public sidewalk and take a picture of anything he can readily see without being harassed by the police, private security or anybody else.
Too many people accept the notion that the government, et. al., has the right to tell people what they can and can not do in situations like this when no such right exists and is even prohibited by the Constitution.
We need to make sure that those FEW instances of transgression by officials, government and otherwise, are pointed out and clearly labeled as wrong.
Agreed!
However, I still think that people need to understand that any law abiding citizen can walk down a public sidewalk and take a picture of anything he can readily see without being harassed by the police, private security or anybody else.
I agree too. And for all intents and purposes they can walk down the pavements in the UK and those funny sidewalk things you have in the US and photograph anything they like.
Whilst the levels of harassment should be zero, the actual number of cases is almost negligible compared to the total number of photographs taken in public.
Whilst we should actively campaign for the harassment to stop and complain when we hear of cases, we must not blow it out of proportion or use it as a reason not to photograph something.
Steve.
I took my nephew out for a camera safari, recently. He's in 6th grade. (12 y.o.)
We were out biking and photographing at a local State Park & wilderness preserve.
At first, he was shy about taking pictures... ANY pictures out in public.
Sure, he was probably a bit shy about being handed a 35mm camera for the first time but he specifically asked about taking pictures of other people. I had to explain that he had the perfect right to take any picture of anybody he wanted as long as it was in a public place. (And as long as he was polite about it.)
I took a few pictures of other people and we discussed things like how to control depth of field. (e.g. How to make the person in focus but the background out of focus.) As we did a few of those things he started to loosen up a little. He finally took a few pictures of a fisherman in a boat. It was a good day and we both learned some things.
What I am saying that, overall, there seems to be a general feeling among the public that it is somehow illegal to take pictures in public. To that end, a certain amount of news coverage about people being harassed for taking pictures is good, providing that the news story reinforces the fact that people have the (Constitutional) right to take photos anywhere they want.
I guess the question is, "How much is too much?"
We were out biking and photographing at a local State Park & wilderness preserve.
At first, he was shy about taking pictures... ANY pictures out in public.
Sure, he was probably a bit shy about being handed a 35mm camera for the first time but he specifically asked about taking pictures of other people. I had to explain that he had the perfect right to take any picture of anybody he wanted as long as it was in a public place. (And as long as he was polite about it.)
I took a few pictures of other people and we discussed things like how to control depth of field. (e.g. How to make the person in focus but the background out of focus.) As we did a few of those things he started to loosen up a little. He finally took a few pictures of a fisherman in a boat. It was a good day and we both learned some things.
What I am saying that, overall, there seems to be a general feeling among the public that it is somehow illegal to take pictures in public. To that end, a certain amount of news coverage about people being harassed for taking pictures is good, providing that the news story reinforces the fact that people have the (Constitutional) right to take photos anywhere they want.
I guess the question is, "How much is too much?"
I think the paranoia over taking photos of buildings coincides with a general increase in touchiness by people over having their picture taken in public by strangers, especially pictures of their kids (and perhaps rightly so in that case). What's ironic is that the default snapshot device these days is not the Instamatic of 30+ years ago but the cell-phone camera, which doesn't seem to make people nervous, even though it allows the casual photographer to send the image anywhere instantly with no filter as to content, etc. (witness the occasional flaps over underage kids sending nude or semi-nude photos of themselves to each other). On the other hand, if I show up with my Pentax 6x7 and start taking photos on the street, I'm the one who draws the attention, because the camera is so big and noticeable and I must look like I have some purpose in mind other than casual snapshots. If I really wanted to do something nefarious, I'd pull out my phone and snap away, and have the images sent to whomever and deleted from the phone before anyone was any the wiser.
I've held the opinion for some years now that we are witnessing a sociological change, specifically a change in the "social contract" that constitutes the concept of privacy.
As someone noted above, this appears to be specifically a "western" problem, so don't negate my explanation because it's about "Westerners" specifically. That point is germane.
50 years ago, the majority of Westerners spent the majority of their time either alone or in the company of close family, friends, or other associates. Public time was substantially less than now.
Now let me postulate that people have an innate need for some amount of "privacy" in their life, but as the western world grows more crowded (we take walks in the park instead down a country lane these days) the amount of time "near" others not in our comfort sphere (family and friends) has dramatically increased. In order to satisfy our innate need for privacy people are beginning to extend the concept of what's "private" and reduce the concept of what's "public." For example, many people think that sitting quietly in their seat on the city bus affords them some "privacy" although there is another person - probably a stranger - actually touching them in the next seat.
I've brought this up before in threads about harassment for taking pictures in public, but no one has ever responded. Perhaps I'm off the mark.
Michael
No, I think you're right on the mark! With the increasing amount of data being gathered electronically (and often without knowledge or permission) by people accessing databases, the sale of databases, government surveillance and internet marketing, plus various Acts and Regulations brought in to "protect citizens privacy" there is definitely a shift in society's perceptions on the whole issue.
Technology, a sensationalist media and increasing population concentration is making everyone more aware, more fearful and more suspicious of their neighbour, their government and their sense of identity. Whether real or imagined (and it's really a combination of both) freedom is being eroded and replaced by control - or at least by an invasion of what we used to consider "privacy".
Another way of saying the same thing is that people are becoming more concerned about themselves and their personal comfort, and less concerned about the welfare of society as a whole.
The legacy of Ayn Rand?
.
Another way of saying the same thing :
United We Stand, Divided We Fall !
Just Saying ...
Ron
.
Another way of saying the same thing :
United We Stand, Divided We Fall !
Just Saying ...
Ron
.
No, I don't think that's exactly it. Your point is a consequence of the change, but I don't think it is the precipitant. I believe the change is spawned by the encroachment into our "zone of safety" by the stark realities of the modern urban society, and the reflexive push back is to redefine our collective concept of privacy to satisfy our psychological makeup.
10K years ago people might spend many days alone, or in a "trusted group" environment, as a regular occurrence. Today the mere act of getting to work in most Western cultures involves the preparation equivalent to going out to battle in some ancient cultures. Witness that this is even one of our metaphors for going to work in the morning.
Tut, tut. Kind of touchy aren't we?
Objectivism is certainly incomplete, and the rabid fundamentalism of its adherents (and some detractors) ensures that it cannot escape the legacy of incompleteness because it cannot be rationally discussed. At least not with any of the "Objectivist" camp. But the novels aren't half bad.
Michael
Last edited by a moderator:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |