THOU ShALT NOT PHOTOGRAPH VA HOSPITALS

.
Gentlemen { terminology used loosely },

* I'm assuming female members wouldn't be involved in this CatFight !

It's Friday { Saturday } ... Is This Really Necessary

Put The Egos Away ! Put some friggin film in a frigging camera,
and go take some friggin pictures. Before someone starts another
" Film Is Dead " , or " Stop Bath vs Water Rinse " thread.

50,913 Members at this moment, we all love analog photography
lets take a little time to make each other right, instead of, who is wrong.

I Eschew Negativity ...

Enjoy The Weekend !

Ron
.

I believe that you will want to address your letter to the Department of Defense, as DoD is responsible for security at VA facilities.

another thread on "ignore"

Your letter is quite long winded, but from what I get out of it you are asking what you can photograph at the VA even though your issue is that you were standing on VA property distracting security personnel and possibly blocking an entrance and exit point and trying to conduct a business transaction with someone that was there for business with the VA but you were not there to escort them. Does that sum it up?

I say drop it or just ask if you can photograph the VA from on the property or do you have to be off the property to photograph it.

I believe that you should have the right to photograph whatever you want to from public property, or with permission on private property and if they don't want it photographed they should put up a wall, but as someone that has had to spend an unfair amount of time in VA hospitals I would also ask you to please not distract the VA Police while they are trying to keep the hospital safe for veterans that are too sick to defend themselves.

To the OP; Less is More! Follow the advice of Sgt. Joe Friday; The facts, just the facts.

Always get the name, or ID badge number, of anyone confronting/challenging you in the manner you describe.
Include that person's name in any and all correspondence.

In all facets of life, there is a chain-of-command. Send your inquiry to the head of the specific VA hospital in question first.
If the response is not to your satisfaction, then send a follow-up inquiry to the regional head of Va hospitals, and so on, working your way up the chain.

Good Lord. You send this and the BEST you can hope for is agent whatshisname has a good laugh, wads it up and tosses it in the trash.

This is a letter from a kook. The next time the Committee That Really Runs Things decides to assassinate a prominent politician they'll use this letter in their scheme to pin the crime to you. They'll have video of your lookalike passing out "Fair Play for Photographers" leaflets in front of the Libyan embassy. Time magazine will have a grainy (analog, of course) photo of you in your backyard with your camera in one hand and a rolled up copy of Aperture in the other. We will all learn the story of the three years you defected to digital and then re-defected back to film. A hastily-convened committee will report that you acted alone.

Dan Daniel said:

I will raise another issue related to hospitals: patient privacy. I walked on to the grounds of a nearby hospital one day with a camera on a tripod, and by the time I had all three legs on the ground there was security guard by my side saying that I couldn't take photos. I asked him why, and he said it was to protect patient's privacy. I said that I was not including any people in the shot. He said that the hospital was erring on the patient's side, and he gave me the name and number of someone to call to discuss access for photography.

All very nice and polite on his part. Having recently been involved with the US Census and going into hospitals and other facilities, I had been cued in to the amount of attention paid to this issue at such places. I think the law is referred to as HIPAA?

So, there is a chance that the camera was responded to on this basis. In my reading of your letter, you were on the hospital grounds when asked not to photograph, although still outside their 'secured' zone. Expecting a guard to determine dry firing, etc., is not reasonable. To protect patient's privacy, the blanket policy is 'no cameras.'

A simple follow-up call to the director of facilities or such should answer this.

Click to expand...

None of this is relevant, nor is any of Lyga's rant. The law is simple. If you are on private property, the owner sets the policy. Government property would be considered "private" in this kind of instance, and when for instance Dan "walked on to the grounds" he became subject to their policies. If he were photographing the grounds from a public place, there isn't anything they could do about that. If a person is in view from public property, hospital patient or not, on private property or not, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, because they are in public view. They do have rights to their image and likeness however, and a releasewould needed to use such an image commercially, or they could sue you. The same goes for property. That would be a tort matter however, and not a "crime" per se, and is relevant to the use of the image, not the making of it.

If you are on public property, you can photograph anything you can see, regardless if it is on public or private property. The only exceptions to this are certain "sensitive" installations. These are usually posted as such, and are usually "top secret" military installations and the ilk. The exterior and grounds of VA hospitals as seen from public space aren't on the list AFAIK.

I often ran into poorly trained security guards that would challenge my right to photograph (videotape footage) a facility or building from a public place when I worked for TV stations. I was always cordial, and if they were persistent in telling me I couldn't shoot footage from a public place I would invite them to call the police. In the few instances where they did just that, an officer would show up and explain the law to the security guard, who would usually then disappear, or occasionally just lurk around and exhibit Olympic grade glowering. Remember, security guard is generally a bottom feeder job, so higher cognitive function in one is the exception rather than the rule. I'm pretty sure security guards exasperate Special FBI Agents in Charge, as well as photographers.

In reality it is very simple. Property control their spaces, but that control doesn't extend to adjacent public spaces. One doesn't need the FBI involved to figure this out, and it is unlikely that they or anyone will bother with this particular incident beyond a good snort..

Brunner's reply

I never thought of Federal Govt property being private: if so, then I guess that they make the laws. BUT...why is that not promulgated instead of being kept secret?

Yes there is some stuff to Google about me. About the I LOATHE WHEN BLACK KIDS.. let me neatly clarify that some of us should not be jumping to conclusions about racism. The BALANCE of that statement was....REFUSE TO LEARN HOW TO READ PROPERLY. TUTORING AVAILABLE (and then I give my contact info). Not really so bad, right?

Long winded letter? I was never accused of being frugal with prolixity but the letter said things that HAD to be said and if I offended any LAW ENFORCEMENT or PATRIOT types I apolgize for the sensitivity issue but cannot retract what NEEDED to be said. 'Nuff said.

I thank ALL for their valuable input. If David Lyga is 'hung' at least he made his desperate point! - David Lyga

David Lyga said:

IAbout the I LOATHE WHEN BLACK KIDS.. let me neatly clarify that some of us should not be jumping to conclusions about racism. The BALANCE of that statement was....REFUSE TO LEARN HOW TO READ PROPERLY. TUTORING AVAILABLE (and then I give my contact info). Not really so bad, right?

Click to expand...

No, still bad. Do you not loathe when white kids refuse to learn how to read?

David Lyga said:

Long winded letter? I was never accused of being frugal with prolixity but the letter said things that HAD to be said and if I offended any LAW ENFORCEMENT or PATRIOT types I apolgize for the sensitivity issue but cannot retract what NEEDED to be said. 'Nuff said.

Click to expand...

Maybe it needed to be said in a pub on Friday night, but not in a letter to the FBI. And please try to resist the urge to label anyone who thinks you coud have handled it differently. I'm not law enforcement or a "patriot type"; in fact, I'm all for photographers being able to exercise their rights without having to traverse the chain of command first, but your letter does nothing to help.

David Lyga said:

If David Lyga is 'hung' at least he made his desperate point! - David Lyga

Click to expand...

I really don't care how well endowed you are, and you really haven't made any point at all.

puptent said:

I believe that you will want to address your letter to the Department of Defense, as DoD is responsible for security at VA facilities.

Click to expand...

DoD is not responsible for VA anything, except indirectly as the source of Veterans. The Department of Veteran's Affairs (aka VA) is the responsible agency. Writing any other agency will either get the letter filed under whatever euphemism the FBI uses for 'crackpot', or forwarded without endorsement to the VA security department, which will possibly also just file it as it is not addressed to them.

All civilian Federal real estate is managed or leased by the US General Services Administration. Security is provided at government facilities by any number of law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Protective Service, US Marshall's Service, US Park Police or any one of dozens more. Many of the actual guards are rent-a-cops with grade school educations. What kind of behavior did you expect?

At FBI headquarters in downtown Washington and at the Washington Field Office facility in Manassas, the FBI provides their own security. At the FBI Academy and the lab, both of which are at Quantico, security is provided by the US Marine Corps, on whose base the bureau's buildings sit. I know of no facility other than one of their own for which they provide security. Your letter to a Special Agent is a complete waste of time. Why would you care anyway?

David Lyga said:

If David Lyga is 'hung' at least he made his desperate point! - David Lyga

Click to expand...

Hung? Do you mean hanged?


Steve.

I'd cut the fat and leave the meat. It should probably be about 2 or 3 medium-sized paragraphs. It is basically unreadable to me as is.

And I also don't see the point, unless it is to "set up" Mr. Venizelos by trying to get a false answer to your question out of him. You can find out the laws on this very easily, and much more accurately, by consulting a better source...that is if you have a genuine interest in knowing, and are not just disguising a sarcastic personal attack and a venting of anger as a genuine question.

The basics of the laws boil down to:

1) That in the public view is yours to photograph. That in the public view includes anything you can see from public property, and anything you can see from private property that is a public space (such as a shopping mall).
2) You may not violate somebody's or some business' reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone has a hedge in front of their house that would prevent a pedestrian at street level with a normal lens from seeing into their windows, you may not park a cherry picker in front of their house and use a telephoto lens to peer in their windows just because it is parked on public property.
3) Local governments may require permits for commercial (selling the photos as something other than "art") or disruptive (impeding safety by blocking a public right of way or creating a distraction) photo shoots even if they are done on public property.

So, before photographing anything questionable, you need to know:

1) Whether you are on public or private property, and if on private property, is it a public space?
2) What around you establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy?
3) What type of photography you are doing (art or commercial) and what public rights of way you may be blocking.

I agree that a letter written to be published in a magazine to raise awareness about a problem can be polemic, a letter written to a public office to ask clarification about a norm, or to ask punishment for an abuse of power, should only state the facts with a dry style, and formulate the query. This text seems to sit in between and to be not very fit for any of the purpose. Addressing the general public in a "political" way is different than addressing the public administration for a query.

I think the problem here is not just the question whether there was a right to take a picture, but a more general exposure of the agent's arrogance. Regardless of what the norm is, an agent should never in principle use expressions such as those referred in the OP ("pack up and leave") and should not use his "power" when it is much too obvious that the situation is not in contrast with the ratio of the norm. I wasn't there and I don't know if such expressions were used as the final conclusion of a dispute that the agent might have felt exasperating, which might have been the case.

But experience of life leads me to believe that more often than not such situations occur because a person feels he's got "power" and enjoys exercising it. As human beings, we perceive the smallest inner arrogance even when hidden behind the curtain of a formal politeness or correctness. C'est le ton qui fait la musique.

JBrunner said:

If you are on public property, you can photograph anything you can see, regardless if it is on public or private property. The only exceptions to this are certain "sensitive" installations. These are usually posted as such, and are usually "top secret" military installations and the ilk...

Click to expand...

While it is correct that the secret military installations do have an exemption about being photographed, the fact of the matter is that I have never in my life seen anything the military classified as secret that was even close to publicly viewable.

Even on ship when I was in the Navy (yeah, back when Moby Dick was a guppy) if non-secure visitors came aboard there were specific items covered, and there were covers specifically for that purpose. It wasn't left to chance.

So, while you aren't allowed to photograph "secret" things, you cannot mistakenly do so because you'll never see them publicly anyway.

michaelbsc said:

Even on ship when I was in the Navy (yeah, back when Moby Dick was a guppy) if non-secure visitors came aboard there were specific items covered, and there were covers specifically for that purpose. It wasn't left to chance.

Click to expand...

Very true, that.

Years ago during a Boy Scout troop visit aboard the Trident nuclear missle submarine USS Pennsylvania the lieutenant tasked with showing the (very non-secure) boys around warned them beforehand that all dials and guages would be covered and to please not give in to curiosity and take any peeks.

The sailors were all extraorinarily proud of their vessel and anxious to show it off to the kids. But when we entered the missile control room two things quickly and quietly happened. Laptops were immediately closed and jackets buttoned down to hide sidearms.

And towards the stern was an open hatch leading to the reactor and engine rooms. Across the hatch was a simple white string holding a simple hand-lettered note asking the boys to please not go through because there was "top secret stuff" on the other side.

Although all security protocols were rigorously followed that day, the adults always greatly appreciated the intelligent scaling of those protocols to their intended audience.

Ken

^ ???
They had laptops when you were a boyscout??
I think I won my Abacas Badge but can't quite remember.

haha

First, I thank some of you (especially Diapositivo) for coherent replies that do not sink to the level of castigating me for sole purpose of spewing hate. You show your maturity and true class when you speak with factual matters that do not become hidden excuses to tear me apart just because I am not 'just like you'. If you wish to vigorously declaim my thinking, let the facts do that. They are fully capable of that task. My intention did and does still have merit regarding the law enforcement issue and the knee jerk '911 reactions'. I have learned something here but, really, I do not need to be called a kook or crackpot in order to be able to open my mind. But...if you really must, rest assured, I am well versed with absorbing derogatory remarks (since entering first grade, way back in 1956!)

Yes I did make a few mistakes: the letter should have been addressed to Eric Shinseki, the head of the VA Affairs in Washington DC. I DID mail him a copy the same day I posted but it really should have been ADDRESSED to him. Also, most important on this forum have been the comments made about PRIVACY. THAT is where I truly fell upon my face: THIS IS A REAL ISSUE. VA Hospitals are rather 'beyond the norm' with these issues, as combat and even the threat of combat can impart serious mental problems with individuals. Thus, there is need to protect such people from undue scrutiny from people whose purpose can easily get parlayed into the 'enjoyment' of mocking such sorry souls. And a camera can aid in that pursuit. In nineteenth century Britain people actually paid admission to be allowed to enter insane asylums for the sole purpose of laughing and mocking. We are quite capable of sinking, anew, to that depth of human behavior. But I do wish that the guard had been a mite more sensitive to my really innocent intentions instead of acting as crudely as he did.

Diapositivo, decades ago I was in Italy (I am half Sardinian) and could not remember one instance of rudeness from law enforcement. But the USA has a mindset that revels in a 'kick ass mentality' (sports or real life) and common courtesy is too often relegated to a trait we culturally define as 'weakness' or ineffectiveness. The fact that Jimmy Carter was my hero, and no one else's, dramatically illuminates that point. One is not a real man unless the physical force method is at least implied, if not practiced.

Finally for the one track minds out there: By 'hung' I was not referring to something as trivial as the 'X rated' connotation that some of us need to imply in order to be 'whole' in their thought process (because they know no other way to act). But I do thank you for the correction to 'hanged'. THAT grammatical correction to me is very important and for that, this vegetarian will eat crow for lunch. - David Lyga.

David

1973-76
I put myself through photography school, by working as a Nursing Aid in a terminal Geriatric Ward of an Ontario Government Hospital.
Most of our patients were wards of the province and the 40 person ward I worked on the patients were not expected to live more than 2 years from admittance.
Remember I was a photography student, in an setting that had many emotional and visual opportunities.
Not once in the four years that I worked there would I ever imagine bringing out the camera and photographing.
Our soul intent was to make the last days, months or years of these people, somewhat comforting. Some of our patients were taken for walks by us within visual reach of the street , but we would hope to give them their privacy.
I believe the negative attitude you may have experienced is part of this protecting culture surrounding such institutions, and maybe leave it at that. I am not jumping on you , but maybe providing a reason for the response from the other side.

Bob

Bob Carnie, I do wish I could force that guard, along with his superiors, to read these posts and factor into their collective mindsets all the alternating comments made here. No YOU would not have photographed them, but would others have? We know that answer. I am so damn sick and tired of having '911' forced down everyone's throat. Not because it compromises my political viewpoints (which are not so important for the preservation of mankind, who am I?) but because it attenuates more pressing factors like you mentioned and relegates them to a status that becomes de facto less important. The real reason for prohibiting photography on VA Hospitals should be privacy concerns (not '911' garbage or "do as I say if you don't want to be arrested bullshit").

Bob, your humanity triumphed in subliminal ways that speak clearly about your achieved mindset because you did not even THINK of mocking those wonderful people that you not only cared for but learned from. But, desperately, as a culture that expects to grow, we need to expose ourselves to variegated viewpoints, even those that do not necessarily cater to our revered sensibilities. This is how we grow. I want that guard to grow. I want to grow. - David Lyga.

michaelbsc said:

While it is correct that the secret military installations do have an exemption about being photographed, the fact of the matter is that I have never in my life seen anything the military classified as secret that was even close to publicly viewable.

Even on ship when I was in the Navy (yeah, back when Moby Dick was a guppy) if non-secure visitors came aboard there were specific items covered, and there were covers specifically for that purpose. It wasn't left to chance.

So, while you aren't allowed to photograph "secret" things, you cannot mistakenly do so because you'll never see them publicly anyway.

Click to expand...

Out here in Utah and Nevada one encounters certain desert areas where everything except maybe breathing is prohibited. They aren't all over, but they are here. Nearest to me (when sailing) is a weird souped up blimp airport. You aren't supposed to notice the very large, funny looking, and impossibly speedy blimps swooping around. After all, they don't exist.

On the institutional level, people might want to look into the history of the film, Titicut Follies, by Freederick Wiseman-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titicut_Follies

"Just before the film was due to be shown at the 1967 New York Film Festival, the government of Massachusetts tried to get an injunction banning its release.[2] The government claimed that the film violated the patients' privacy and dignity.[3] Although Wiseman received permission from all the people portrayed or the hospital superintendent (their legal guardian), Massachusetts claimed that this permission could not take the place of valid release forms from the inmates.[4] It also claimed that Wiseman breached an "oral contract" giving the state government editorial control over the film.[2] However, a New York state court allowed the film to be shown.[3] In 1968, however, Massachusetts Superior Court judge Harry Kalus ordered the film yanked from distribution and called for all copies to be destroyed, citing the state's concerns about violations of the patients' privacy and dignity.[5]...

"...The dispute marked the first known instance in the history of the American film industry that a film was banned from general distribution for reasons other than obscenity, immorality or national security.[6] It was also the first time that Massachusetts recognized a right to privacy at the state level.[7] Wiseman stated that, “The obvious point that I was making was that the restriction of the court was a greater infringement of civil liberties than the film was an infringement on the liberties of the inmates.”[8]..."

A film I highly recommend. To realize that what you are seeing was happening in 1967 in the US is very confusing; much of it looks like 1850s England.

Being in school in Massachusetts in the late '70s, I knew people working in nursing homes and the local state mental hospital. Getting permission to photograph was basically impossible.

The 'right to privacy' is not always invoked for the good of the individual. It also can keep certain activities unseen.

David Lyga said:

But the USA has a mindset that revels in a 'kick ass mentality' (sports or real life) and common courtesy is too often relegated to a trait we culturally define as 'weakness' or ineffectiveness.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you may find the time to reread my post #43 above. It was not intended as a silly exercise in off topic story-telling. It was attempting to gently make a key point.

A Trident ballistic missile submarine is an enormously higher security location than a VA hospital. Not to denigrate the hospital or its patients. But hospitals do not maintain weapons and delivery systems capable of unleasing more destructive power than all of the bombs and bullets expended during WWII by all sides combined.

Our visit to the USS Pennsylvania (SSBN 735) required we adults and the fourteen scouts to pass through five external layers of heavily armed security checks by US marines. Even though we rode in a military bus, that bus was twice stopped, emptied, and searched with dogs and scanning devices. We were all repeatedly sniffed, scrutinized and wanded. Cameras were confiscated and held. Recording devices likewise. Identification papers and photos were checked and rechecked, as were social security numbers. And there was lots of no-nonsense eye-to-eye contact and direct questioning of everyone.

And yet through all of that...

We did not encounter even a single instance of "kick-ass mentality." Or anything approaching it. To a person the armed marines performing all of those security checks, as well as the officers and sailors on board the ship, were extremely polite, deferential, and accommodating to us, and especially to the boys. The sailors even interrupted their work to make absolutely certain that every boy had an opportunity to scan the horizon through the ship's periscope.

Our visit occurred a few years after 9/11, and had been initiated before that date. It took that long to gain approval. The officer accompanying us repeatedly apologized for that delay. He also apologized for the massively heightened security and any inconveniences it may have caused us. Given what had happened in NYC, he hoped we could understand. Of course we did.

I have never been more impressed with anything else in my life than I was that afternoon with the actions of the US military personnel at Naval Submarine Base Bangor (WA), and especially their application of security protocols towards civilians. And I don't impress easily.

The moral of this story?

That the only valid generaliztion is that all generalizations are invalid.

Ken

brucemuir said:

They had laptops when you were a boyscout??

Click to expand...

They barely had submarines when I was a boy scout...



Ken

Possibly making the issue more black and white than it is, it seems that security comes in two basic flavours. The first being the 'Do what I say' crowd who act aggressively, and are either undertrained, underpaid or have to submit themselves to arbitrary discipline. Or the second, who are very-well trained, paid and have a clear chain of command.

From the examples cited, it would seem the military training is more up to the challenge than civilian training.