More 'can't photograph government buildings'

[lxdude]

...the novels aren't half bad.

Said Atlas, shrugging.

 

[cfclark]

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

I think you're basically right. Americans at least have less interaction with their immediate neighbors, and are more distant physically (and perhaps emotionally) from their extended families than they would have been 50 years ago. At the same time, the ability to go out in public space unnoticed has decreased, due to the growth in population and the greater number and variety of devices intended to collect and share information. Everyone is more concerned about being monitored--and at the same time is bent on monitoring everyone else, because anyone or anything that doesn't fit the pattern of what they normally observe might be a threat.

(Side note: One of the main underpinnings of the plot of Mad Men couldn't happen today--Don Draper would have been found out in no time at all, because you just can't be "background-less" anymore, for better or worse.)

 

[Vaughn]

Dang, while taking a mid-day break from photographing in 100+ temp in central WA, I drove up to Grand Coulee Dam. I set up the 8x10 camera in some shade in a picnic area and photographed the dam. No one thought I was a danger to society, the gov't, or the massive piece of concrete.

While there is a good chance someone somewhere was watching me (the security vehicles are easy to spot), why is it a tall hairy refugee from the 60's (and possible monkey wrench looking-guy) could hide under a dark cloth without being asked some questions?!

It was probably too hot to go outside and harass anyone...

 

[mjs]

You probably look like a photographer... :rolleyes:

 

[moose10101]

http://newsarse.com/2010/08/06/terrorists-sick-of-being-treated-like-photographers/

 

[bobwysiwyg]

http://newsarse.com/2010/08/06/terrorists-sick-of-being-treated-like-photographers/

 

[Two23]

I'm going to disagree with Micheal. Fifty years and longer ago, people didn't have TV and often sat out on their front porches. They were out in public much more than now. Today, we spend most time inside our homes or at work. I think people are a bit suspicious of having their photo taken by strangers mainly because they don't know their intentions and don't know where the photo is going. As for photo'ing buildings, I was once told by a federal security guard I couldn't take a photo of the Federal Reserve Bank from the sidewalk, but could from across the street. LOL. I like to photo trains a lot, and that's where it gets really interesting. I was once taking a photo of the Elevated train in Chicago, and got questioned up & down by a CTA cop. I pointed out to her that their website clearly says photos from public places are allowed. I also pointed out that while bugging me, she allowed a Middle Eastern guy in his early 20s to board the train pulling a large and obviously heavy suitcase. I asked what was the biggest threat--a middle aged guy from South Dakota with a small camera or an Arabic guy with a big heavy suitcase? (Don't give me any Political Correctness crap here.) It's not restricted to big cities by any means. I was once out taking photos of a railroad bridge near Boone, IA and was getting hassled by a private security guard. I was on a public road right of way and knew this was allowed. I kept making fun of the guy, and he whipped out a carbine and started yelling, "I've got an automatic weapon!" I laughed at him. I actually had a bigger gun with me than he did. I ended up calling the county sherriff, who came out and quickly put the nutcase in his place. I told the guy if he ever threatened me again I would have my brother (an attorney) contact the railroad's legal dept and demand that he be fired. I always push back in these cases when I know I'm on public property and am in the clear.


Kent in SD

 

[eddym]

http://newsarse.com/2010/08/06/terrorists-sick-of-being-treated-like-photographers/

Great! Guess that's the UK version of The Onion? http://www.theonion.com/

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... What will be next?

Me creating a website with pictures of government buildings!

 

[michaelbsc]

I'm going to disagree with Micheal. Fifty years and longer ago, people didn't have TV and often sat out on their front porches. They were out in public much more than now. Today, we spend most time inside our homes or at work. ...

I'm not sure we disagree all that much. I said that 50 years ago people spent far more time in what they considered a "safe zone" rather than "inside the house." At least that's how I remember 50 years ago in a small town, pretty much safe around folks that I considered close.

And the difference is that now we spend more time in an "unsafe" environment, hence the innate desire to broaden the places we consider the safe zone. And the photographer on the street appears to invade that "safe zone" to a degree.

I think it bears discussion, probably in more academic setting than a photo BBS. I thin it is certainly related to feelings of safety.

 

[Steve Smith]

I asked what was the biggest threat--a middle aged guy from South Dakota with a small camera or an Arabic guy with a big heavy suitcase?

Both the same. i.e. most probably zero.


Steve.

 

[dehk]

I almost pushed the Chicago Transit Authority guy on to the rail who tried to tell me i can't photograph Chicago's Subway once. I told him I paid to get in the station and for the ride. He threatened me and my friends about calling the cops, because "No Press Allowed", Press? What?, apparently we need to wear those "I'm a tourist shirt". I didn't leave, but I try to not take as many photos while he was standing there staring at us, that is, until the next station. Same thing in New Jersey btw on PATH.

 

[bblhed]

I can recall a few years ago when getting ready to board Amtrak's Auto Train in Lorton VA I was asked what I was taking photos of, I replied that with this being the longest rail platform in the world with the longest passenger train in the world standing there it just begged to be photographed. The Amtrak woman was really great and told me that I was probably in the best place I was going to be able to get to legally to get my photo and asked that I please not try to exit the platform by hopping the fence for a better photo, and she also asked that I not directly photograph the running gear of the train. I was fine with that, I assume that people have tried to jump the fence for a better photo in the past, and photographing the running gear might make people uncomfortable. She was more looking out for my safety than trying to thwart a terrorist plot. After a few laughs I mentioned that if I wanted photos of a boogie plate assembly I could get one at the local rail museum, and that the last time I was told not to photograph a train I was in Russia she said that it is kind of sad because she could remember that taking photos standing in front of the train was a big part of the trip for some people, and now they are afraid to do it. She also said that once someone does take that photo and others see that it is alright then people start lining up to do it, yeah Amtrak, at least at that station anyway.

 

[Rudeofus]

Go, Maryland!

While I wouldn't call it a decisive victory, at least a Dead Link Removed was dealt to corrupt cops and prosecutors trying to lock up a guy who filmed the cop during a traffic stop. Nice to see that at least the legal system put an end to this travesty.

Result for people photographing in that jurisdiction: cops can not expect privacy while they act in public. Photographers are allowed to take pictures of them, the felony wiretapping charge won't stick.

 

[pdjr1991]

While I wouldn't call it a decisive victory, at least a Dead Link Removed was dealt to corrupt cops and prosecutors trying to lock up a guy who filmed the cop during a traffic stop. Nice to see that at least the legal system put an end to this travesty.

Result for people photographing in that jurisdiction: cops can not expect privacy while they act in public. Photographers are allowed to take pictures of them, the felony wiretapping charge won't stick.

One thing my state did right. so far...

 

[michaelbsc]

Just found another one. It's a few months old actually, but the website I found it on just had a link posted this week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/nyregion/28about.html?_r=2

 

[Rudeofus]

All your Stonehenge pictures are belong to us?

One step forward, two steps back .... Look at Dead Link Removed and decide, whether we should laugh or cry about this.

 

[paul_c5x4]

Hrmm... I have photographs taken of Stonehenge some thirty years ago - Is some numpty quango going to claim copyright should I publish those images...

 

[Steve Smith]

This was discussed a few years ago. I though NT had backed down from this and only bans photography from inside its buildings.

They cannot own copyright by default. All they can do is tell you not to take photographs and ask you to leave if you do. Any photographs you do take whilst on their land are obviously still yours and if you choose to use them commercially the NT will need to pursue you for damages if they think they have suffered some sort of loss by you breaching a contract (conditions of entry).

I expect they would not bother and if they did, probably fail.


Steve.