You can't take pictures of Federal Buildings

[c6h6o3]

Didn't know that, did you?

[youtube]sA8-CxZkZZg[/youtube]

 

[david b]

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.

 

[DWThomas]

I guess the question is, was she right? Or is this another of the many episodes of making up the law as we go along.

DaveT

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

What day of the week was this person working I wonder? I'm tempted to go put this to the test with a view camera, and a few ex-colleagues who still work at the Fed in tow.

 

[Pinholemaster]

This lady knows nothing. Too bad cops never have to read the US Constitution, especially when they swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

 

[MikeSeb]

As widespread at this sort of nonsense seems to be, one can only assume that the officers on the beat are simply not getting adequate training in these issues. They can't all be that ignorant--I hope.

I hope someone here chimes in with an explanation of what the law actually states; it should not surprise anyone if the clowns in Congress haven't indeed passed a law to prohibit photographing certain federal buildings. After all, they regularly pass laws for the rest of us from which they are exempt (Social Security tax, for instance....)

 

[removed-user-1]

I guess somebody should turn me in, then... I took a photo of a federal building in Wilmington, NC last weekend.

I think the Federal Reserve Bank buildings do receive some extra security considerations, however I used to walk past the one in Charlotte everyday, almost always with a camera, and I am certain I've photographed that building (not that the photos were very impressive, it's just a big modern brick building...). Nobody ever approached me but this was before 9/11. I've checked online and so far I haven't found anything specific prohibiting photography of federal buildings.

 

[Kino]

Another instant law maker.

God this country needs more people like this!

Just wrote to my senator; suggest you send something to your lawmakers as well, bringing this problem to their attention.

This has to stop!

 

[Barry S]

She was 100% wrong, but unfortunately it's often the rule around Federal areas in DC. It's completely arbitrary and every officer and security guard is a law unto themselves. Sometimes they wrongly restrict you and sometimes they don't. After 9/11, laws and due process got thrown out the window. Gives em something for their incident logs, I guess.

 

[c6h6o3]

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.

Polite and informative, but 100% wrong. Of course you can take all the pictures you want with any sort of equipment you want. The man was on a public sidewalk on Constitution Avenue, for cryin' out loud. The Fed is not a Federal building anyway. It would have been different if he had been on private property rather than on a public sidewalk.

The National Academy of Sciences next door to the Fed has much more interesting grounds, by the way, and they won't hassle you.

 

[matthewbetcher]

wow... I guess I REALLY shouldn't have been shooting the fbi building with my 1950's Moskva5. Although I did love the irony while I was shooting...

 

[walter23]

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.

This begs the question: Who cares if the fascism enforcer is polite when (s)he tells you your ability to behave as if you lived in a free society doesn't exist?

 

[Chan Tran]

She was wrong but I would not want to get into the hassel. I just take a picture for fun and it's not worth it.
I could take a picture simply with my eyes and mind if I were the bad guy.

 

[Perry Way]

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 see. Well then by the same logic, what's to stop any one of us from being informative and telling them IRS over and over again what they have to do? Say... say we just don't want to pay the taxes anymore? The polite element is what makes everything copacetic, right?

:rolleyes:

 

[eddie]

I often shot the Capitol, Supreme Court, Jefferson & Lincoln Memorials in the 1980's. If I used my view, and tripod, I needed a permit. They were easy to obtain. At the Capitol, it got to the point where I would just call the person who issued the permits. She'd tell me to go ahead. When I was approached by Police, they'd call her, and she'd OK my presence. Same with the NPS, and shooting the monuments. It didn't require a lot of effort....
After the Oklahoma City bombings, things changed a bit. At the Capitol, I was limited in where I could set up, and escorted by an officer. I haven't tried post 9/11, though.

 

[walter23]

I often shot the Capitol, Supreme Court, Jefferson & Lincoln Memorials in the 1980's. If I used my view, and tripod, I needed a permit. They were easy to obtain. At the Capitol, it got to the point where I would just call the person who issued the permits. She'd tell me to go ahead. When I was approached by Police, they'd call her, and she'd OK my presence. Same with the NPS, and shooting the monuments. It didn't require a lot of effort....
After the Oklahoma City bombings, things changed a bit. At the Capitol, I was limited in where I could set up, and escorted by an officer. I haven't tried post 9/11, though.

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. Sure press might be able to get passes, but suddenly you've got the power to issue passes to whomever you feel like and arrest people who don't have them. In other words, no more free press.

Whether that's by design (I strongly suspect it is) or by coincidence, that's the ramification.

You're sure as hell not going to stop a terrorist attack that way.

 

[Perry Way]

I often shot the Capitol, Supreme Court, Jefferson & Lincoln Memorials in the 1980's. If I used my view, and tripod, I needed a permit. They were easy to obtain. At the Capitol, it got to the point where I would just call the person who issued the permits. She'd tell me to go ahead. When I was approached by Police, they'd call her, and she'd OK my presence. Same with the NPS, and shooting the monuments. It didn't require a lot of effort....
After the Oklahoma City bombings, things changed a bit. At the Capitol, I was limited in where I could set up, and escorted by an officer. I haven't tried post 9/11, though.

Congradulations for you! You follow orders very well, just like the "good" slave they want you to be.

The question then becomes, at what point does following orders break your sensibilities?

 

[eddie]

Congradulations for you! You follow orders very well, just like the "good" slave they want you to be.

I resent being called a slave, good or otherwise. You don't know me, or my politics. All I was saying was it's been their policy since before 9/11. And, getting the permits (at least back then) was not an inconvenience.

 

[Perry Way]

I resent being called a slave, good or otherwise. You don't know me, or my politics. All I was saying was it's been their policy since before 9/11. And, getting the permits (at least back then) was not an inconvenience.

I was very very careful with my choice of words. I did not call you a slave. Please re-read. I said what I said to stimulate your mind with where humanity is going in the "United States". Notice I was being very very careful with how I called the name of the country. It is no longer United States of America. There is a legal distinction between the two.

 

[eddie]

Reread your post. You did call me "the good slave they want you to be." You chose those words.

 

[optique]

She was 100% wrong, but unfortunately it's often the rule around Federal areas in DC. It's completely arbitrary and every officer and security guard is a law unto themselves. Sometimes they wrongly restrict you and sometimes they don't. After 9/11, laws and due process got thrown out the window. Gives em something for their incident logs, I guess.

Not just DC. In Texas, cops interpret the law the same way. When I am approached by the law over some minutia(sp?), I am convinced they are really just bored, and most of lapses in their judgement can be blamed on boredom.

 

[Perry Way]

Reread your post. You did call me "the good slave they want you to be." You chose those words.

I said "just like......" which is spoken from a position of comparitive conjecture, not as a matter of fact.

Sorry to be the subjective cause of your being angry. I will refrain from comparing you in the future to anything.

 

[walter23]

I said "just like......" which is spoken from a position of comparitive conjecture, not as a matter of fact.

Sorry to be the subjective cause of your being angry. I will refrain from comparing you in the future to anything.

Partisan politics and arguments like this are a major distraction that we've got to get past.

 

[Perry Way]

Partisan politics and arguments like this are a major distraction that we've got to get past.

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.

On second hand thought, I think that is what "they" would want us to do. Nobody questioning them. Nobody standing against their usurped power. Everyone singing Kum-Bah-Yah and having love-fests around the campfire, roasting marshmallows with Stepfordville smiles on their faces.

:rolleyes:

 

[Greg Heath]

photo law

www.photolawnews.com

ran across this site,some interesting articles, not sure how old.

Greg