Security stole my TriX

Steve Smith said:

No it can't.... and it does not.


Steve.

Click to expand...

Paul McCartney's song Give Ireland Back to the Irish was banned in the UK. A clear example of suppression of political speech, as I view political speech.

When you go out taking photos carry an old memory card with you. If you don't have one, go buy a cheap one.
Beforehand, practice up on your sleight of hand.

If anybody hassles you, flip a convenient lever on the camera, palm-off the digital memory card and show it to the idiot who is hassling you. After that, pretend to "power off" the camera, put the lens cap back on and snap the cover back onto the camera or otherwise obscure the camera from view. By putting the camera back into its case you are giving the appearance that you are not taking any more pictures.

90% of the people today would not be able to tell the difference between a digital camera and a real camera from ten feet away. As long as you do what you are told, the guy will probably just tell you to leave and never come back. Ostensibly, you have complied with orders given. If you handed the guy a blank memory card and he tried to download it, he would never know that you did anything other than erase the data and hand it to him.

But for military installations and other government facilities the only thing a security guard can do is eject you from the property or have you arrested for trespassing. If you are on public property there is nothing they can legally do except POLITELY ask you to leave. Also, if you are on public property, anybody can photograph anything they want as long as it is something that could be seen by an ordinary, law abiding citizen who was standing on the same spot. The right to publish those pictures is another kettle of fish.

lxdude said:

I get really sick of seeing the comments by people in other parts of the world, especially Europe, regarding how things are here in the US. News media cannot be trusted to give an accurate and complete picture.

Click to expand...

In Europe most photographers are more concerned about how things are in the UK. There is a legendary thread in the Leica forum about stupid security dogmatists in London:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...ice-photographers-uk-my-fellow-criminals.html

My favourite story: some austrian tourists were forced by policemen to delete photos of a bus station... it was this station:

Google Street View

Will british police stop drivers of Google camera cars?

It's really no surprise that these guys over-react. They sit and stare at monitors or endlessly patrol the same route over & over & over. Nothing changes...not the scenery...not the course of the day. It's a very boring version of Groundhog Day. Then, prayers are answered and someone, maybe a terrorist or an evil doer, appears on the scene and starts indulging in suspicious activities. All the lectures and memos about being the frontline of defense and of being heroes floods his brain and he leaps into action. Flashlight at the ready he confronts this nefarious bastard and demands his film canister!

A decisive win for freedom and democracy!!!

Sorry, but I've had too many encounters with pin heads who have attempted to stop me from enjoying a legal, peaceful activity. I respect those security people that are truly involved in protecting critical assests. I don't respect those amoung them who switch off their brains.

Best regards,

Bob

PS...fwiw telling armed Coast Guardmens repeatedly to f*%k themselves is not a good plan. Based on personal experience my advice is to say little and let them talk.

lxdude said:

Paul McCartney's song Give Ireland Back to the Irish was banned in the UK. A clear example of suppression of political speech, as I view political speech.

Click to expand...

Banned by the two main broadcasting authorities in the country, not by the government. I'm sure TV and radio stations in just about all countries have banned records.


Steve.

Yeah Bob, a guy I know was driving through a small university town around midnight, on the one main thoroughfare (a state highway) and found flashing lights in his mirror. He pulled over, and a university security guard told him he pulled him over for doing 50 in a 35. The guard then asked my friend to wait for a sheriff's deputy to arrive to give him a ticket.

Incredulous, my friend informed Barney Fife that he had no authority to pull anyone over on a public highway, and the deputy would have had to witness the infraction to give him a ticket, and it's the middle of the goddam night with no other traffic, and he would have to be crazy to sit there detained by a f**kin' rent a cop waiting for 20 minutes for a real cop to arrive so the real cop could explain all that to him!

Then he drove off.

Steve Smith said:

Banned by the two main broadcasting authorities in the country, not by the government. I'm sure TV and radio stations in just about all countries have banned records.


Steve.

Click to expand...

Let's see, the BBC is funded by a television license fee, classified as a tax, as well as direct government funding and was run by governors appointed by the Crown upon recommendation of the government. Correct?
I know you guys do some things differently over there, but over here we would call that a government funded and controlled corporation. It's hard to imagine it could avoid all politicization.
I mean, I know the board was autonomous in theory, but come on. They were essentially government appointees. Even if they acted without direct pressure, who put them in their position? And whose interest was likely greater served by banning it -the government's or the public's?

BTW, I don't want to imply agreement with McCartney. Or disagreement.

I have had encounters with security a couple of times, and both have been friendly.

The first was when I was photographing an old building in Waltham, MA (this one). I hadn't realized that there was a reservoir next to the building, on the other side. So while I was there with my camera, a township cop came by and asked what I was doing and checked my ID. While he called in to verify my ID, I told him that I was photographing the building. I asked him if anyone had reported me, to which he said no. I didn't believe him since he said he was passing by and saw my car -- my car was parked on a side road, and he wouldn't have seen it if he wasn't on the side road. Anyway, I didn't argue. I asked him if I broke any laws unknowingly (there were no 'no photography' signs around), and he said I hadn't. I guess since I was near a reservoir, someone saw me and called the cops. I don't blame anyone for this. In hindsight, I think I should have just informed the police of my intentions to photograph an old building near the reservoir. As far as I recall, the cop did not tell me to stop taking photographs, but I just left since I was done anyway.

The second time was in Bethlehem, PA. I had taken a dead-end road to the end, and was photographing a (former) steel plant building. Again, there were no 'no photography' signs and I was on a public road, outside of the steel plant's gates. I had just taken two frames when I noticed a pickup truck coming towards me at great speed. For a moment I went 'uh, oh!'. I stopped photographing and waited for the truck to pull over. It did, the driver got out in a big hurry and asked what I was doing. I told him that I was just taking some photographs and showed him the camera. He heaved a big sigh of relief, and explained that there had been some thefts recently and he was just checking up. He apologized, told me to continue, and drove off.

I think it is always a good idea to ask permission, or inform the authorities if you intend to photograph something that is a "secured" installation, or if your actions can be deemed suspicious by an average person.

Camera= Bad. Fishing pole= good.

Terrorist.

nawagi said:

And now the karmic payback: a few weeks ago I was arrested for taking a picture of a water tank from a public sidewalk. The police were friendly. The water company cop was insistant that I get collared, even though the cops were on my side. They told me that the judge will throw it out as there is no evidence of trespassing. I loved the irony- years of sneaking around and finally popped on a legal location.

Click to expand...

Curious: Are you using "arrested" in the legal sense (your free movement was impeded, e.g., you were stopped and questioned) or the common sense (you were taken into custody and transported to the station)?

The latter seems very odd.

The former I see/get all the time. (I like to take walks, have an aging hippy look and live near a High School. "Hey, kid! Wanna try something really cool?")

Sanjay Sen said:

...there were no 'no photography' signs around....

Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter if there were such signs. With some exceptions for military or other "sensitive" installations, anything you can see while standing on a street or other public property can be photographed to your heart's content without restriction, and without the permission of the property owner.

There are limitations on what you can do with the images; you couldn't, for instance, publish the images as part of an ad campaign without the owners' permission, or use the images to portray the owners in some kind of false light. Otherwise, though, they can't stop you if you're not on their property.

rpsawin said:

It's really no surprise that these guys over-react. They sit and stare at monitors or endlessly patrol the same route over & over & over. Nothing changes...not the scenery...not the course of the day. It's a very boring version of Groundhog Day.

Click to expand...

I worked that job for several years while I was in college. To a certain degree you are right. It can be very boring.

Regardless, there are some very strict laws that the company and its employees have to comply with or face legal liability.

First off, it is possible for a company to hire sworn police officers. If that is the case, things are a bit different. A sworn officer DOES have full police power while he is on the job but those powers only extend to the company's property boundaries unless there is a compelling reason such as hot pursuit. But the majority of security officers for private companies are not sworn. Anybody who can pass a background check and a job interview can be a security officer.

A security officer can NOT detain another person who has not committed an infraction in his presence or he has reliable evidence such as security camera footage to prove it. Even if an infraction was committed in his presence there are limits on what he can do. He can not use force unless there is a good reason. When he IS allowed to use force, he is only allowed to use force in proportion to the actions of the other person. In other words he can not use a weapon unless the other person poses a danger. He certainly can not use a firearm, regardless of whether he has training and a permit to use a firearm, unless the other person tries to use a firearm against him. A possible exception to that would be a disproportionate situation such as a 7 foot tall, industrial-sized bad guy, high on drugs who is rushing toward you shouting, "I'm going to kill you!"

Long story short... private security officers are are fairly powerless when it comes to dealing with people who are otherwise law-abiding members of the general public. Unless you have broken a law, there is little they can do except ask you to leave the property. The most they can possibly do is hold you until the police arrive.

Also, there are no laws in America that require a law abiding citizen to carry identification unless he is operating a motor vehicle or is performing an act which requires a permit. (Such as exercising one's right to carry a firearm with a permit.) If you are a normal, law abiding citizen who has broken no laws, NOBODY has the right to stop you and question you or ask you for identification. The most that anybody can do it to tell you to leave.

Further, if you are in a place where any normal law abiding citizen can go which is not also private property you can take all the photographs of anything that a normal person standing on the same spot could see and nobody can say anything to you. (If you were using a telephoto lens to shoot pictures through a window, that would be wrong.)

If you are not on private property and you are not breaking any laws the most that anybody can do is to say, "I'm asking you to please move along, sir."

lxdude said:

Let's see, the BBC is funded by a television license fee, classified as a tax, as well as direct government funding and was run by governors appointed by the Crown upon recommendation of the government. Correct?
I know you guys do some things differently over there, but over here we would call that a government funded and controlled corporation. It's hard to imagine it could avoid all politicization.
I mean, I know the board was autonomous in theory, but come on. They were essentially government appointees. Even if they acted without direct pressure, who put them in their position? And whose interest was likely greater served by banning it -the government's or the public's?

Click to expand...

No. We wouldn't see it that way. Yes, the BBC is funded by a licence fee but there is no control of it by the government.

The last time a song was banned (that I know of) was in 1981 when Relax by Frankie goes to Hollywood was banned. This was because one Radio One DJ objected to some of its lyrics. I don't think that would happen today.


Steve.

MikeSeb said:

Doesn't really matter if there were such signs. With some exceptions for military or other "sensitive" installations, anything you can see while standing on a street or other public property can be photographed to your heart's content without restriction, and without the permission of the property owner.

There are limitations on what you can do with the images; you couldn't, for instance, publish the images as part of an ad campaign without the owners' permission, or use the images to portray the owners in some kind of false light. Otherwise, though, they can't stop you if you're not on their property.

Click to expand...

While you are right, and I am aware of these, in my case I think the residents may have gotten "spooked" to see a man (who could be mistaken as a Middle Eastern) walking around a reservoir with a camera! Unfortunately, many people cannot tell a South Asian from a Middle Eastern. Case in point: I was window shopping at a bookstore in the Arts District of downtown Providence, RI, when a couple of (white) guys passed by and one of them said "Just don't fly your planes into our buildings." I was too dumbfounded to say anything!

sandholm said:

I think that magic word here is trespassing. In the "States" he could have been legally shoot by the security guard

Click to expand...

Been living here all my life, and that just aint so. I dont know where you picked this one from, but unless you are posing an imminent threat, and no other way to resolve it, you cannot shoot someone just for treapassing(period). You guys watch way too many movies, and think it is real life.

Rick

Even if you were on private property, they can't make you do that. So, you not knowing that is what exposed your film. You need to develop some real backbone and legal knowledge to take these types of shots, because you will run into problems almost every time.

I will tell you right now: You WANT the police involved in these situations. THEY know the law, have REAL authority, will back you up if you are in the right, and will protect you from the security guard (assuming they arrive in a timely manner).

Here in the States, if you are trespassing, you have to go into it prepared to pay the cost (a misdemeanor ticket), but if you took the photos, they are your property, and any attempt to take them or destroy them is a much more serious crime (theft, coercion, e.g.) than trespassing.

In a case of shooting pix whilst trespassing, the photography itself is not illegal; just your physical location.

Trespassing is also what would be charged for breaking the rules on private property (photographing if "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" has been ordered). However, if "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" has not been ordered, you can shoot on private property until you are told not to.

JBrunner said:

In the US he could direct you to leave. If you refused he could call the police. In the meantime he couldn't stop you from leaving. He could not direct you to delete or wreck your photos, nor "confiscate" anything. That would be theft on his part. He couldn't legally shoot you. In most US states force can only be used if there is immediate physical danger to persons, or in some places with certain circumstances, property. Furthmore, if you are photographing from a public space, (road, sidewalk) anything in view is fair game (but you would need a property release for commercial use of the image). Security guards try to assert otherwise, but it is ignorance or bluster. There are now "special" rules for military installations, airport security areas, and other sensitive areas that exempt themselves from the law in general, but the aforementioned is pretty much how it works here in the US.

Click to expand...

There you have it, as well.

jnanian said:

not sure but i think an oil refinery might be considered a secure installation
these days. and you were trespassing at an oil refinery, right chris ?

a large gas/oil port near me is considered a tight security zone

Click to expand...

In the port of Brisbane you need a Level 1 security pass. It is on signs everywhere. The Refinery is a private operation and has no such thing. You only need clearance for the boom gate ahead. Next time I will do slight of hand with a dummy roll.

2F/2F, I don't trust the police here. I've seen nothing but revenue driven work from their ticketing and fines. They would probably fine me then ticket me for jaywalking when I goto the car. :rolleyes: They don't care about my candid street shooting however.

Also in the USA or elsewhere I don't think any guards would be shooting bullets at photographers next to an oil refinery.....

Krzys said:

Also in the USA or elsewhere I don't think any guards would be shooting bullets at photographers next to an oil refinery.....

Click to expand...

But there is always that chance for good comedy...

For the benefit of the OP I found this.

That applies to a neighborhood..

David Grenet said:

For the benefit of the OP I found this.

Click to expand...

I love this sentence from that link:

"It is not trespass if a person comes onto your property to build or repair a fence, or to put out a fire."

In other words: don't shoot at the firemen when the roof is on fire

I really understand why you would want to photograph in these places at night, shame that we are so damned jumpy these days. Once upon a time they would just dismiss us as nut cases and move on, but times have changed.
I shot some pictures of our local cheese factory at night, incandescent lights and stainless steel make for interesting photography.
If you ever get a film out alive, would love to see the results.

tony lockerbie said:

I really understand why you would want to photograph in these places at night, shame that we are so damned jumpy these days. Once upon a time they would just dismiss us as nut cases and move on, but times have changed.
I shot some pictures of our local cheese factory at night, incandescent lights and stainless steel make for interesting photography.
If you ever get a film out alive, would love to see the results.

Click to expand...

And I for one would like to see why we "better buy Bega", so Tony, please post some of your cheesy shots for us.

As far as I know, the law in all Australian states relating to photography is pretty much the same as in UK or USA or any "civilized" country. Regardless of where you are "caught", no rent-a-cop or even a real police officer can legally demand deletion of photos, exposure of film, or confiscation of film or equipment.