Questioned by the FBI and Local Police

JBrunner · Feb 28, 2008

Curt said:
My point was that the officers that questioned you might have had a good reason to do so. Just today there was a shooting at a bus stop in LA with multiple injuries and that's no joke.

The perpetrators were terrorists posing as Large Format photographers? Wow, that's slick.

arigram · Feb 28, 2008

JBrunner said:
The perpetrators were terrorists posing as Large Format photographers? Wow, that's slick.

After all, LF photographers do hide their faces under dark cloths and their cameras are large enough to contain any sort of weapons inside.
Remember Tintin?

Bruce Osgood · Feb 28, 2008

Last year I took a 4X5 picture of the Brooklyn Bridge while set up in the middle of the road in 4PM rush hour traffic. I was in a little triangle painted in zebra stripes to keep two way traffic apart. Three police cars passed and not one stopped. Maybe it was because of rush hour traffic.

Uhner · Feb 28, 2008

c6h6o3 said:
I have more faith in the Constitution and in my fellow countrymen than to believe that we will devolve into full blown fascism. It's just not in our nature.

Well I do too, but there have been serious attacks on open society from several directions for quite some time now, and not only in America. That scares me since I don’t believe that there is any society that, under any circumstance, can’t revert to full blown totalitarianism…

As a worst-case example, that will put the fear of god into any but the most unimaginative student, I recommend reading “Ordinary men” by Christopher Browning. Browning shows, with frightening clarity, what ordinary men, with ordinary nature, are capable of doing and rationalize to both themselves as well as others.

c6h6o3 · Feb 28, 2008

Uhner said:
Well I do too, but there have been serious attacks on open society from several directions for quite some time now, and not only in America. That scares me since I dont believe that there is any society that, under any circumstance, cant revert to full blown totalitarianism

As a worst-case example, that will put the fear of god into any but the most unimaginative student, I recommend reading Ordinary men by Christopher Browning. Browning shows, with frightening clarity, what ordinary men, with ordinary nature, are capable of doing and rationalize to both themselves as well as others.

Thanks. I'll look it up.

Perhaps I'm living in a fool's paradise, but the darker the administration's abuses become the less cynical I get. I guess I believe that this country has just about had a bellyfull of George W. Bush and that even "the teeniest, tiniest wafer-thin mint" will cause us to vomit him back out.

If this can happen at Gitmo, surely there's hope.

Karl K · Feb 28, 2008

OK, but where will it end?

I recognize that the times in which we live force us to give up some freedoms of movement and access. But, at what point do we stop and shout, "enough is enough?"

I live in a quiet northern NJ suburb, Livingston. Downtown, which consists of one major intersection, recently underwent a renovation, with new stores and condos constructed in a style reminiscent of 1930's New England. I walked over from my house at 9:00PM with my Hasselblad and a few lenses and a tripod to shoot the store windows and the big clock lit up at night. There were no stores open yet and no condos were occupied. I set up across the street on the sidewalk about 40 yards away.

Before I was able to get my light meter out for some readings, a night watchman tapped me on the shoulder and told me, "No pictures allowed." I protested, mildly at first, because I thought I could explain my situation. But he refused to listen. Finally, I just continued what I was doing and the watchman get out his cell phone and called someone...I don't know whom.

Anyway, no one ever showed up that night, so I returned several more times to shoot around that same area and all over other streets of Livingston at night.

I always respect someone's privacy, but photographing an outdoor shopping area is not intrusive IMHO.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Feb 28, 2008

arigram said:
After all, LF photographers do hide their faces under dark cloths and their cameras are large enough to contain any sort of weapons inside.
Remember Tintin?

Oh those mischievous Foreigners and their wily eyes! What a treacherous bunch.

Brilliant, Ari! I'm a huge Tintin fan, but I totally forgot about that one.

MP_Wayne · Feb 28, 2008

I think view camera users (and perhaps anyone who uses a tripod) will have to get used to the harassment. Since 9/11, we have a hyper-paranoid, cell-phone equipped public, driven by the ongoing government sponsored climate of fear, calling authorities at the drop of a hat. On two occasions, a colleague and I were checked when taking photos in a public area at the end of an airport runway. The first instance was a visit by the city police (who had no issues and said he had to come because someone had called).

The second instance was the airport security patrol operating OUTSIDE the airport boundary. When he told us we had to leave, I questioned it because the city police had said on the earlier occasion that it was ok. "The police don't know what they are talking about for this case.". Then, he claimed I was "within" the approach cone (which later research showed was bogus) even though it is a public street and sidewalk. When I resisted that concept (and it turns out later I was correct to refute his claim), he came up with the excuse that a loose wheel could fall on me. When I stated that could happen anywhere along the glide path to the runway, he then tried to suggest I could get killed like the people at the hotel killed by the Concorde crash near Paris. I challenged him on that as I know that area well from my time working in Europe and the hotel was nowhere near the approach path of any runway. The Concorde was crippled by fire and was struggling to return to the airport and happened to fall on the hotel.

Finally, he laid on the best b*llsh*t reason: "My tripod and metal Cambo was interfering with the Instrument Landing System (ILS)." Again, I challenged that considering there was an 8 foot all metal chainlink fence between me and the ILS on one side, and that large aluminum cube vans, trucks and tractor trailers went by our location constantly a few feet away on the other side.

He was undeterred and became such a distraction that I finally just gave up and moved on. I have since checked the regulations and I will be unmoved the next time.

JBrunner · Feb 28, 2008

Karl K said:
I recognize that the times in which we live force us to give up some freedoms of movement and access.

Sorry to just snip this out, but it is such a broken record. What times? What's so friggin special about now? That we are in a war? Yeah, some war. What is spin termed the "War in Iraq" is simply the attrition of occupation in a country with a resistance. Domestic terrorist activity? After 9/11 what? And what will happen to the next idiot who stands up in coach and says he's taking over? Do you think he will be alive more than 30 seconds? Maybe he'll last a minute because it takes the less versed extra time to kill someone with thumbs and ball point pens, especially with a hundred and eighty other people all crowded around with the same intention.

Compared to the "real" wars of history this "threat" to our way of life and security is miniscule, and certainly not worth trashing what democracy stands for. I'm not ready to give up basic freedoms to make some idiot chicken little with a cell phone help make some bureaucrat's report look like he's effective.

Threats exist, they have always existed, and always will.

What is really different these days is the pansy ass way in which some people are willing to give up the very things our fathers, and their fathers fought and died for. All because were so so friggin special, that we live in special friggin times.

arigram · Feb 28, 2008

You said it Jason!

When I think of my parents and grandparents having to go through bloody civil war, world war ii and nazi occupation, dictatorship and all kinds of political unrest, hunger and poverty, I realize that I live in pretty good times.
I also realize that things would have been much more peaceful and more democratic if we didn't let a handful of crazies to ruin it all for us. I mean, there is not any real reason for war, hunger and suffering any more.
Wild animals are aggressive only when hungry or threatened and we have come beyond that.

Be a revolutionary, fight the oppression, snap a photo.

Bluechapel · Feb 28, 2008

In 2004 I encountered the same problem in DC. (Granted I was also carrying my xl-1s video camera.) Was setting up a shot of a truly funky building (new) across the street and down about a block from where I was when an armed guard asked for i.d. I gladly produced an Oklahoma id and within a few minutes had more than a dozen people standing around wearing sunglasses and bad suits. Turns out when I sat the bag down to grab my film camera, the video camera lens (with the cap on!) was pointing right at the front door of a federal building where there was a very high profile trial being prepped for.

Did I get the shot? Yeah, but it wasn't worth the effort. I did end up capturing the entire encounter on audio through the video camera though, which was pretty cool.

MP_Wayne · Feb 28, 2008

JBrunner said:
What times? What's so friggin special about now? That we are in a war? Compared to the "real" wars of history this "threat" to our way of life and security is miniscule, and certainly not worth trashing what democracy stands for.

Dead on. I was a police officer in an earlier part of my life and while the vast majority support liberty and civil rights, there are some who believe a more surveilled, controlled society will result in easier "judicial" administration. And, it is fair to say, that some politicians are also of this bent. Finally, if one reads the copy in defense contract adverts in magazines like Janes Defense Weekly (I am sure there are other publications), selling helicopters, for example, is cited as a means to provide "rapid mobility and deployment to suppress insurgent activity" (and I read those adverts back in the early 80s!). And, for defense contractors especially, fear sells units and generates great margins!

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but 9/11 and the resulting "culture of fear" has provided selected law enforcement, political, military and defense contractors with the ultimate justification for these draconian measures. Since 9/11, if one takes a contrary position, usually the discourse will result in being labelled with some single, inappropriate word like "liberal", or "extremist" or "terrorist-supporter". And the corporate news organizations in the US and Canada have been willing pawns in the perpetuation of the climate of fear, because "if it bleeds, it leads" (and it gets better view share and better ratings gets higher ad revenues).

Sorry to be so cynical, but we as photographers will just have to weather the storm with our wits, sometimes humours, and occasionally our knowledgable defiance, to do the best we can to capture that usually innocuous, innocent image.

Nigel · Feb 28, 2008

MP_Wayne said:
The first instance was a visit by the city police (who had no issues and said he had to come because someone had called).

The second instance was the airport security patrol operating OUTSIDE the airport boundary. When he told us we had to leave, I questioned it because the city police had said on the earlier occasion that it was ok. "The police don't know what they are talking about for this case.". ...

He was undeterred and became such a distraction that I finally just gave up and moved on. I have since checked the regulations and I will be unmoved the next time.

OK, now for my dumb question. -- If he threatened to call the police, then backed off, why didn't you call the police? You were in a public place, minding your own business and were being harrassed. I certainly would have called the cops and explained in my complaint that I was being harrassed by some deranged bozo who was threatening me.

nc5p · Feb 28, 2008

Albuquerque has been a very bad place for photography for many years. I was harassed way back in high school by the APD. My friend was arrested by the FBI for photographing the sunset up by the mountains. (He was let go, minus his film) Driving their excuse is the fact that Kirtland AFB is home to thousands of nuclear warheads stored underground. These nukes are trucked and flown in and out of the city all the time. The APD is even involved in security for these nukes under contract with Dept. of Energy. Two APD cops got into a drunken bar fight in Arkansas last summer while on one of those "missions". Bet some of you didn't know municipal police guard nukes in the USA!

Back in my teen years very time I set up a tripod to shoot some business, here comes the APD cops demanding ID, being abusive, etc. Only when the business owner came out did they finally get it. I've been accused of industrial espionage, upskirting, stalking, planning robberies, etc. I've heard it all. About the only time they don't harass is Christmas Eve in Old Town or the Balloon Fiesta. I think in those cases there are so many shooting photos they would have to turn the Balloon Park into a concentration camp!

It's best to shoot inside city limits with a lookout to watch for cops. If you had noticed, APD has a transfer point at the Alvarado Transit Center next door. There are nearly always cops there dropping off prisoners for transport to the MDC in their vans. The security guards at the Grayhound terminal are ^$$holes. Many Amtrak passengers complain about their abusive behavior. One of them might have called it in.

Out here in the county (or Los Ranchos) the sheriff has never bothered me. Just north of us on Sandia Pueblo you need a permit to shoot, so I have never bothered photographing there.

jeroldharter · Feb 28, 2008

Sounds like a lot of the foreign policy experts here should take a photo tour of Iraq.

nc5p · Feb 28, 2008

Oh,

One more thing, get yourself a scanner. APD has a digital radio system, but the city security guards (city hall, zoo, bio park, etc.) still use the old VHF radio frequency. They have to talk to the regular cops so they re-transmit everything on the valley command channel. Thus you can buy any cheap old scanner and monitor the dispatch frequency. This also works on the west side, as they need to talk to Rio Rancho DPS and Corrales PD, who still use old VHF radios. It won't work east of I-25 or in the county. I used to used a scanner back in my teenage years. When the call went out I'd jump in the car and get out of there! It was great for tripod shoots at night or dumpster diving with friends. Saved me several times.

Kino · Feb 29, 2008

jeroldharter said:
Sounds like a lot of the foreign policy experts here should take a photo tour of Iraq.

Right after you, sir.:rolleyes:

Curt · Feb 29, 2008

Jerold, I took a tour of Vietnam once does that count?

jd callow · Feb 29, 2008

Curt said:
Jerold, I took a tour of Vietnam once does that count?

With or without camera?

Curt · Feb 29, 2008

MattKing · Feb 29, 2008

I've been thinking further about my earlier post in this thread, plus all the other posts too.

It seems to me that at least part of the problem is that there seems to be an almost overwhelming feeling of "us against them" approach to keeping public order, including law enforcement.

One of the things that most of the law enforcement people I deal with here do is work very hard to be an integral part of the community. I expect that that approach isn't unique, but I think it does require some trade offs to work.

If there is an emphasis on law enforcement officers being public servants, then their inquiries are much more palatable.

IMHO questions from a police officer that are intended to confirm that nothing untoward is happening, are not likely to constitute an impingement on my rights, as long as what I am doing is publicly visible, but not transparently understandable to the police themselves (as compared to APUG members). In other words, if their questions are essentially "we don't understand what you are doing here, and would appreciate an explanation", I don't have much of a problem with those questions.

I understand the need to identify the person the police are talking to - I think that it is prudent for them to know that.

Unfair accusations, incorrect assertions of laws/rules, and improper restrictions on actions are unacceptable. Polite inquiries are different.

Matt

c6h6o3 · Feb 29, 2008

MP_Wayne said:
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but 9/11 and the resulting "culture of fear" has provided selected law enforcement, political, military and defense contractors with the ultimate justification for these draconian measures.

I'm not so sure that the public is buying it all that much.

Since I live in the Washington, DC metro area perhaps I'm not a representative case, but around here at least we've become desensitized to the real threats (which are out there) through what I like to call "threat fatigue". Constant DHS threat level elevations, searches, admonitions about unattended bags (twice a day for me), roving TSA patrols with body armor and dogs and nothing ever happens!

This process, of which the hassling of casual hobbyists like us is a part, is eroding our preparedness for response to a true attack when it does come. This is what concerns me the most about the Deputy Dawgs.

23mjm · Feb 29, 2008

c6h6o3 said:
Since I live in the Washington, DC metro area perhaps I'm not a representative case, but around here at least we've become desensitized to the real threats (which are out there) through what I like to call "threat fatigue". Constant DHS threat level elevations, searches, admonitions about unattended bags (twice a day for me), roving TSA patrols with body armor and dogs and nothing ever happens!

Isn't that the point of all that stuff is to try to make sure NOTHING EVER HAPPENS!!! I think so.

That's the thing about prevention---you have prevented it! Does all the stuff the Government is doing actually do anything??? Thats a great question, but the Government is in a no win situation, damned if they do and damned if they don't. They do all that stuff and nothing ever happens---so are they wasting our money or did they really prevent an attack?? If they do all their stuff and we still get attacked--the first question from everyone--"why didn't you do more?"

So to me all that stuff is just part of life in these troubled times, and in the grand plan of my life being asked a few questions by some LE just ain't that big a deal, 5-10 minutes of the day just don't matter.

arigram · Feb 29, 2008

What I find wrong with the whole apathy about being questioned, surveyed and filed by authorities is the notion that policing is the solution to the problem.
The more corrupt a society is, the more presence the police has.
So, to make a society more safe, its not about building larger walls or giving more power to batton-wielders, is about taking care of the root of the problem. But, when the root of the problem is the attitude and actions of the ones in power, then giving them even more power does not help the people, it helps them. Its an ancient practice: use of violence, use of fear, blame others, get more power. How can you fight Terrorism by giving more authority to goverments when they are the ones creating and using it?
You people have heard of Niccolo Machiavelli and his best-seller, The Prince, right?
Or maybe you have studied the tactics of the fascists and soviets?
No? Well, too bad. Ignorance is Strength...
The apathetic, the ignorant, the fanatical...

JBrunner · Feb 29, 2008

23mjm said:
Isn't that the point of all that stuff is to try to make sure NOTHING EVER HAPPENS!!! I think so.

That's the thing about prevention---you have prevented it! Does all the stuff the Government is doing actually do anything??? Thats a great question, but the Government is in a no win situation, damned if they do and damned if they don't. They do all that stuff and nothing ever happens---so are they wasting our money or did they really prevent an attack?? If they do all their stuff and we still get attacked--the first question from everyone--"why didn't you do more?"

So to me all that stuff is just part of life in these troubled times, and in the grand plan of my life being asked a few questions by some LE just ain't that big a deal, 5-10 minutes of the day just don't matter.

Unfortunatly the invasive tactics, general bumbling, and arbitrary rules have been demonstrated to be utterly innefective in providing any real protection against real threats, and I'm not making that up. If it actually served some purpose it would make sense. Do I object to walking through a metal detector or whatever on my way to the plane? Of course not. It serves a purpose in securing an area that needs to be secure.

Ad hoc questioning of individuals going about their every day business is an utterely different thing, and no, I don't need to be quizzed by an official for 5-10 minutes of my day checking to see that "my papers are in order" to feel safe. News flash - you're not safe. Hassling everyday people won't change that, but it helps keep the deluded happy and consuming.

Questioned by the FBI and Local Police

JBrunner

Moderator

arigram

Attachments

Bruce Osgood

Membership Council

Uhner

c6h6o3

Karl K

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

MP_Wayne

JBrunner

Moderator

arigram

Bluechapel

MP_Wayne

Nigel

nc5p

jeroldharter

nc5p

Kino

Curt

jd callow

Moderator

Curt

MattKing

Moderator

c6h6o3

23mjm

arigram

JBrunner

Moderator

Questioned by the FBI and Local Police

Moderator

Attachments

Membership Council

Membership Council

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency