You can't take pictures of Federal Buildings

[MattKing]

She was polite and did not give the guy a hard time at all. She was informative and told him over and over again what he had to do.

I agree, and this is IMHO why this is important.

If someone in authority is polite and informative, while they may be wrong, they believe they are right, and are most likely to respond positively to learning what is in fact right.

You probably cannot do the teaching right there, but there is a decent chance that subsequent contact with her supervisors may result in her doing the right thing the next time, and every time therafter.

I've worn a uniform, and been in a position of authority like this (customs officer) and last time I checked, I was human then (and thus capable of getting it wrong).

Matt

 

[walter23]

Perhaps we should just stop having all conversations unless they are conversations of love and mutual respect and back-stroking so that nobody gets their feelings hurt. And then we can ignore the problems of the world as if they weren't there. We could pretend like the greatest robbery of all history didn't happen and all the party players thereof (of which the Federal Reserve which is a non-governmental entity is a member), were simply doing their job and we should not question them or their motives.

We're on the same page here. Fighting between ourselves draws attention away from where it ought to be placed; on the richest, greediest motherfuckers to ever rob the world blind (and by this I mean the bankers responsible for destroying their companies and sending the economy into a spin while taking home enormous *personal* profits, as well as the defense industry war profiteers), and on their legacy of reduced personal and press freedoms.

 

[walter23]

are most likely to respond positively to learning what is in fact right.

Hah! The police you've been talking to are likely a very different species from most of the ones I've ever encountered. Perhaps you're thinking of the German tourist police; those sexy blonde 20-something women who smile and greet you in Berlin. But they don't count as police officers.

 

[MattKing]

are most likely to respond positively to learning what is in fact right.QUOTE]

Haha, the police officers you've met are apparently a very different species from many of the ones I've met.

I've not only met police officers, I've cross-examined them under oath .

It helps to understand a bit where they are coming from.

Matt

 

[walter23]

I've not only met police officers, I've cross-examined them under oath .

It helps to understand a bit where they are coming from.

The difference probably lies in what your relationship to the police officer is. A person accused of a crime (and I mean even a stupid thing that's not a crime, like photographing something from a public street) may find that pointing out where a police officer is wrong is just going to increase his immediate hassles, no matter how politely he points that out. The exception might be where the police officer does in fact realize (s)he is wrong and understands the legal ramifications of arresting someone for something that isn't illegal (of course they can invent all sorts of things anyway; disorderly conduct or some such crap).

I mean, if you're some kind of fellow officer (customs you said?) or other person in the legal system, you're going to have a very different experience of the police you meet - you're not going to be under their authority, dealing with the pointy end of their figurative stick.

 

[MattKing]

Walter:

I was a customs officer in the 1980s, and since then have practiced law.

As a customs officer, part of our training concerned the danger of the "20 pound badge". That was a reference to how easy it was to get carried away with the authority one had, and as a result do a much poorer job of enforcing and applying the law, while at the same time decreasing the respect the public has for a peace officer.

I've certainly run up against difficult and unreasonable peace officers. I've certainly advised people that one of the least productive things to do in life is to argue with a peace officer who doesn't agree with you. In my experience, however, most peace officers listen, in most circumstances.

One needs to pick ones battles, and more importantly, where and when to fight them.

While I have no hesitation to apply criticism where it is due, I should add though that in my experience most peace officers are dedicated, hard working and well trained, and I am grateful for the often thankless job they, for the most part, do for us.

Matt

 

[johnfromnorwich]

This has become a big problem in the UK - particularly in major cities. Police have been quite proactive in preventing photography of any kind they don't like, whilst in total ignorance of the law (forcing people to delete images from digital cameras, seizing film, using CCTV to track the movements of photographers then - in one recent case following - a guy's car and seizing his camera equipment). They've been using 'anti-terror' and 'anti-paedophile' legislation to harass allcomers and it's getting worse....

Opposition described here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/11/police-terrorism-photography-liberty-central
Photos from recent demonstration here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/4640065/Photographers-protest-outside-Scotland-Yard-over-new-anti-terror-law.html

 

[walter23]

While I have no hesitation to apply criticism where it is due, I should add though that in my experience most peace officers are dedicated, hard working and well trained, and I am grateful for the often thankless job they, for the most part, do for us.

Me too, up to a point. I'm glad I can call someone if there's a lunatic attacking someone on the street, or breaking into my car, or that kind of thing.

On the other hand, detaining and harassing photographers and press - that's pretty much 100% wrong. The situation that started this thread is the least of the problems people have been facing lately. Just google it; photographers are being harassed absolutely everywhere. A lot of circumstantial evidence points to it being a systematic effort to hush the press (and by this I don't just mean the New York Times, I also mean all the unaffiliated outlets like indymedia and to some extent perhaps people's blogs). If you read enough of these stories a few patterns emerge: police forces harass photographers who photograph them conducting police business (e.g. arresting people - which could easily mean "arresting people with excessive force" or "arresting people at political demonstrations"). *Federal* agents have detained and interrogated photographers for taking "suspicious photographs" on at least one occasion (Albuquerque NM) and police have questioned, harassed, and recorded the identities and information of photographers on too many occasions to count. Perhaps most telling of all are the tales of border agents confiscating the equipment (including memory cards and laptops containing images) from war journalists returning home. It goes on and on, and it's all very political and pretty obviously unrelated to the threat of terrorism.

Will all this new found "hope" and "change" actually change anything? I don't know. The problem spans borders; Britain is particularly bad for it right now. Canada seems okay to me, though I did see one advertisement for an RCMP terrorist line that implored people to report any suspicious acts of photography.

 

[johnfromnorwich]

The public are being actively encouraged to regard photographers with suspicion

http://sionphoto.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/26/poster_3.jpg

What grates the most is that if I was going to take covert surveilence pictures of an intended target, I'd probably want to use a small discrete camera (like a mobile phone for example?) that would enable be to get near said target. I certainly wouldn't cart a Mamiya RB67 round.... er left oh sorry right a bit er hold on, I've dropped the cable release, damn the sun's gone in I need to remeter....

 

[Richard Wasserman]

Matt,

I agree with you completely. I am a large format documentary photographer and often work in areas where it would be easy for the police to give me a hard time if they chose to. I have never had this happen. Officers will often talk to me to see what I am up to, and I am always happy to chat with them. I am sometimes glad to see them as I feel safer with them around. Very often they understand what my purposes are and are very supportive and have suggested areas to work in that I had not considered. At the least, they wish me a good day and leave me alone. I am careful to not knowingly do anything illegal, and the couple times I unwittingly was where I maybe shouldn't have been, that fact was pointed out to me, I was allowed to finish shooting and go on my way. My experiences have been with officers from many jurisdictions and they have always been positive. I don't know if I have just been lucky or what, but I have been doing this for about 15 years and have had only positive interactions with law officers.

Richard Wasserman

Walter:
While I have no hesitation to apply criticism where it is due, I should add though that in my experience most peace officers are dedicated, hard working and well trained, and I am grateful for the often thankless job they, for the most part, do for us.
Matt

 

[Moopheus]

The Fed is not a Federal building anyway.

And I thought Congress only had naming rights for Federal property:

H.R.6267 (1982): Designates the building known as the Federal Reserve Board Building, in Washington, D.C., as the Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The buildings are Federal property. The Federal Reserve Board is a quasi-independent federally chartered bank that manages US currency, banking and lending policy. The Board Chairman is appointed by the president to a four year term, which can be renewed until he serves 14 years, or 14 plus the balance of any prior partial term if he is appointed to replace someone mid-term.

 

[MikeSeb]

I'm almost convinced that the only reason photography is being stifled is because it is a convenient way to restrict freedom of the press. You stifle photography of federal buildings and of police officers and suddenly you've got control over what sorts of imagery gets published when it comes to political issues and issues of police conduct.

That's a bit overwrought. It seems more like simple ignorance and sloth. When you have no f---ing idea what you're doing because you're ignorant to begin with, or because the supervisors themselves are ignorant or poor leaders, it's much easier to default to the most restrictive position you think might apply. No one ever much got in trouble for being too restrictive, in that way of thinking.

Stopping one guy from photographing the Federal Reserve is a long way from a police state. Take a breath.

 

[2F/2F]

Still waiting for the facts on this one......

I hear a lot of opinions so far. What does the law say??? Everything else is irrelevant. I have heard over and over again that certain buildings are off limits for photography due to laws passed or orders given after the Sept. 11 Attacks, but have never dug deep about it because I have never wanted to shoot pix of one of the supposed off-limits areas. Is it true, or is it not? Somebody give us some real information. I don't care what everybody thinks. What is the law?

Maybe, just maybe, to actually get anywhere with this discussion, it belongs on a message board that is concerned with issues of the law, as opposed to analog photography. These discussions always go nowhere. There are a bunch of people with *opinions* who repeatedly and incorrectly state them as fact, who will jump down your throat the second you act somewhat objective and mention the actual laws. The time that your opinion really matters is when you go to elect the folks who make our laws. Not on the analog photography Internet group.

We all know it's B.S., on a personal and Constitutional level, and is nothing but a way to slide in foundations for restrictions on published imagery, information, art, and journalism, as is always done in a nation that is in a pre-Fascist state. But it would not be the first time that B.S. was made into law.

 

[Andy K]

Is that the Federal Reserve Building which is free to view in Google Earth streetview from any angle you choose?

 

[Barry S]

The Homeland Security Act is Dead Link Removed and the Patriot Act is here. Neither bill contains *any* reference to photography. There are no laws I've ever seen or heard of aside from some *very* narrow restrictions that may apply to selected military or Department of Energy installations, and people with a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g.,behind the curtain of their home).

 

[walter23]

That's a bit overwrought. It seems more like simple ignorance and sloth. When you have no f---ing idea what you're doing because you're ignorant to begin with, or because the supervisors themselves are ignorant or poor leaders, it's much easier to default to the most restrictive position you think might apply. No one ever much got in trouble for being too restrictive, in that way of thinking.

Stopping one guy from photographing the Federal Reserve is a long way from a police state. Take a breath.

It's not one situation though, it's been increasing in frequency. You don't have to dig too deep to find countless reports on it in people's personal blogs, discussion forums like this, and news sites.

The UK is especially bad for it right now.

 

[Chazzy]

The Homeland Security Act is Dead Link Removed and the Patriot Act is here. Neither bill contains *any* reference to photography. There are no laws I've ever seen or heard of aside from some *very* narrow restrictions that may apply to selected military or Department of Energy installations, and people with a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g.,behind the curtain of their home).

That's what I was waiting to hear. I've read that the Patriot Act restricts the photography of federal buildings and bridges, and had no idea that it isn't true. At least I hope that your source is correct.

 

[2F/2F]

That's what I was waiting to hear. I've read that the Patriot Act restricts the photography of federal buildings and bridges, and had no idea that it isn't true. At least I hope that your source is correct.

Well, there are 177 pages in the Homeland Security Act, and I have not even cracked the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Acts since about three years ago when doing some research.....plus there are Executive orders....of which there have been many screwed up ones throughout history....

 

[Travis Nunn]

Do we know what kind of set up this guy had? Lights? Tripod(s)?

 

[Barry S]

Executive Orders, public laws, and the Code of Federal Regulations are published in the Dead Link Removed. Nothing has to be read in it's entirety because keyword searches are available for everything.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

From the video on YouTube, it appears he had a hand-held camcorder, and was videotaping the outside of the building.

 

[Drew B.]

....but you can take pictures "from" federal buildings! I've done it....

 

[2F/2F]

Executive Orders, public laws, and the Code of Federal Regulations are published in the Dead Link Removed. Nothing has to be read in it's entirety because keyword searches are available for everything.

Good to know. Thanks

 

[c6h6o3]

The buildings are Federal property. The Federal Reserve Board is a quasi-independent federally chartered bank that manages US currency, banking and lending policy. The Board Chairman is appointed by the president to a four year term, which can be renewed until he serves 14 years, or 14 plus the balance of any prior partial term if he is appointed to replace someone mid-term.

I was wrong. Now I know. I wonder: was the cop in this case a sworn Federal law enforcement officer of some kind or an employee (aka rent-a-cop) of the FED?