Photographing Army COE Facilities

How is any of this in the category of "I know my rights crap."?

I was confused by this as well, particularly as I haven't found Sanford to be particularly annoying. Quite the opposite. Case in point that it's way too easy to misunderstand one's intent in the absence of facial expression and intonations. Hence the need for caution in the language we use in emails, etc.

it's way too easy to misunderstand one's intent in the absence of facial expression and intonations

Ok, add a smile...

Ok, add a smile...

:(... oops!

 

here we go... :)

He simply wanted to assess your purpose in being there.

The difference of perspective in looking out and looking in.

No harm, no foul.

The reason he asked questions in the manner he did was to make an assessment while being careful not to say anything suggesting you could not do what you were doing.

He was judging your intent by your reaction.

Simple as that.

Yep. . . I wouldn't worry about it or take it personally. It is a bit of infrastructure, and it does't hurt to inquire when someone he doesn't know is walking around taking photos. It sounds like he was pleasant and polite.

Yes we do.

We shoot what we like......;)[ATTACH=full]1363391[/ATTACH]

Pretty snazzy case! :)

Yep I was fortunate to come across an old stock NIB leather Nikon made for that model.

Rightly or wrongly, as camera use has increased exponentially, there’s a greater discomfort with and suspicion of photographers among parents with kids in the park, women who may feel “spied” upon, and some who work in public.

Just to clarify.

My encounter with the officious caretaker was back in the 1970s, long before current paranoia about paedophiles and the like. And there were no children in the area anyway. In fact there seemed to be no excuse for the caretaker's action, since he obviously had enough time on his hands to pick an argument. So no sympathy for the guy from me!

 

And it's just one incident picked at random from quite a few subsequent such experiences.

 

Things have indeed got worse over the years. We now have architects claiming intellectual property rights over pictures of their buildings, security personnel scrutinising every camera-toter with suspicion, and, as mentioned, the Mumsnet vigilantes shooing away every male within sight of public parks and primary schools.

 

It's getting to the point where just raising your eyes from the ground and looking around is viewed as a criminal offence.

Edited November 7, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

It's getting to the point where just raising your eyes from the ground and looking around is viewed as a criminal offence.

Not my experience.

 

To each her own.

It's getting to the point where just raising your eyes from the ground and looking around is viewed as a criminal offence.

You questioned how I could misread your comments so in the casual thread about bad photos. It may be that your proclivity toward hyperbole and exaggeration puts a spin on your words that you don't realize is so extreme and actually affects the meaning of the words you write. If you think you're being misinterpreted, consider that it's your own way of communicating that's contributing to that.

Rodeo said:

"It's getting to the point where just raising your eyes from the ground and looking around is viewed as a criminal offence."

 

Yeah, I've heard that!

 

In my town you are allowed to lift your eyes when crossing the street, but if you stop to actually look at anything....the guys with nets appear out of no where.

Yesterday late afternoon golden hour I took a walk to our local fair grounds. In a section of a huge parking lot they had set up a layout of large canvas drive-through Covid testing stations. I've been by them many times taking night walks. It was windy and cool here and the light was strong, low in the air and contrasty but not harsh, really nice. So I headed over bout 4 to catch the tents in the light and walked all around the very large parking lot for about 45-1hour. Was losing the light when a young security guard, college age I'd say, came and very politely asked me why I was photographing the tents. He didn't ask me to leave or stop and he was really a nice kid so I told him why. He thought it was cool, never a hint of a threat, just doing his job.

 

So why would he ask me what I'm doing? Well where I live there's a certain number of people who believe Covid is a hoax that's been hyped and exploited by one political party to win an election against another political party. Some of these people identify as "anti-maskers" and some might be "anti vexers" too and these people might be upset that based on the narrative as outlined above, that some might label a" bat-crazy paranoid conspiracy theory" their party has been declared to lose the election because what they label a conspiracy satisfied their self-fulfilling prophecy and thus it must be true. People that might be in those groups might want to channel their rage at a manifestation of their worse nightmare. So with all that possibly going on, and as I actually was technically trespassing as there are posted signs that all the locals ignore, no problem and the guard was really nice and apologetic about having to ask me, how could I get upset about that?

 

I'm not giving this anecdotal story to make a commentary of certain political movements, I just wanted to supply the back ground to the guard's actions and explain that he had a good reason to ask me. There was no reason for me to pull out my pocket bill of rights and throw them in his face. . . this time :)

Not sure the pics are any good, but nice light. I should have gotten better pictures. Have to go through them.

In this day and age, people are, rightly or wrongly, suspicious. Clearly some people are overly zealous in their suspicion. Fair questions on your part in this case would certainly have been "I'm sorry, who are you, exactly?" & "May I please see some credentials?" Or, "Let's walk into the building together and address this issue with your supervisor."

 

You'd have also been perfectly within your rights to whip out a note pad and copy ID/badge number & name. NO legitimate officer of the law -military or otherwise; nobody of any actual authority- would be turning away so you could not see insignia on their shirt/jacket/uniform. Seems like this was simply some douchebag with an attitude. Under the circumstances, as described, it also seems you had zero reason to answer any of this @$$hole's questions.

 

To the opposite of this incident, I recently drove through a similar fence/gate & stood on the grounds of a similar dam/lock facility on the Ohio River, out in full view in broad daylight and shot more than a few photos of the structure with 2 different devices. The only people I had talking to me were a couple fisherman- some old guy & his son.

 

To the opposite of this incident, I recently drove through a similar fence/gate & stood on the grounds of a similar dam/lock facility on the Ohio River, out in full view in broad daylight and shot more than a few photos of the structure with 2 different devices. The only people I had talking to me were a couple fisherman- some old guy & his son.

 

Yeah, but who gives a shit about that dam....

 

 

 

 

;)

“It's getting to the point where just raising your eyes from the ground and looking around is viewed as a criminal offence.”

 

Or raising your eyes to look at a bird.....

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Moving On

Before a trip to Hawai'i a few years ago I purchased a new P&S camera and matching underwater housing. I wanted to test the housing to make sure it was actually waterproof before the trip, so I took it to the local rec center pool. I did not take the camera with me, just the housing. I was in the process of multiple excursions to the bottom of the deep end when a lifeguard (nice young kid, a bit embarrassed to approach me) came to the side of the pool and between dives said some mothers of young children had expressed concern I was photographing them illicitly and without permission. Grateful I had the foresight to avoid bringing the camera, I showed the lifeguard the empty housing and explained what I was doing. He gave an obvious sigh of relief, thanked me, and went off to report my innocence to the concerned parties. There will always be exceptions, but I like to think a little bit of forethought and consideration go a long ways towards resolving potential conflicts.

As the guy who posted the first sign at Kentucky Dam (TVA), I can confirm that the same sign is posted at Barkley Dam (USACE).

 

 

 

However, like Ricochetrider, I have walked right past that sign at Kentucky Dam many times and photographed many things, including the Delta Mariner taking rocket parts to Cape Canaveral and the 101st Airborne returning home (who knew they traveled by barge). I have never been stopped, questioned, or even looked at sideways as far as I know.

They will come out at Barkley Dam if they think you are pissing on the Weather Forecasting Stone, but once you let them in on the joke, they back off with a smile.

 

 

Yeah, but who gives a *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* about that dam....

There are more than a few people who would like to damage the US infrastructure. It starts with reconnaissance.

It starts with reconnaissance.

Wonder how much information can be gotten from the "satellite" imagery on google maps for that purpose?

You'd have also been perfectly within your rights to whip out a note pad and copy ID/badge number & name. NO legitimate officer of the law -military or otherwise; nobody of any actual authority- would be turning away so you could not see insignia on their shirt/jacket/uniform. Seems like this was simply some douchebag with an attitude. Under the circumstances, as described, it also seems you had zero reason to answer any of this @$$hole's questions.

 

I think this is a good point about this encounter too. It seems so strange to me that he seemed to be "hiding" his shoulder badge from my seeing/reading it.

 

If I hadn't been caught off guard, I should have thought to clarify just who exactly he was, or at least who he was affiliated with. I've fortunately had very few encounters with law enforcement in my life, but if, say, I've been stopped for speeding, even a uniformed officer will generally clearly identify themselves by name, or at least say "I am an officer/deputy/etc with such and such agency" and also make sure I can clearly see their badge/name tag if I look at them. Uniformed officers approaching you, say, on the street, might not explicitly say their name/affiliation but will make sure you can clearly see it. I've asked for cards before(always in cases where I was reporting a theft or some other incident at work, unfortunately a not uncommon occurrence, and wanted it so that I had a record of the officer with whom I've spoken) and sometimes the only delay is if the officer pulls out a generic department card and has to hand-write their name and badge number on it.

 

So, yeah, an attempt at seemingly hiding credentials does ring an alarm bell to me also.

Wonder how much information can be gotten from the "satellite" imagery on google maps for that purpose?

You could probably distinguish a bridge from a dam. As far as security, footings and approaches, probably not.

Last year I was at the missile museum at the White Sands Missile range.

 

It seems that photography is allowed in the museum, including outdoor exhibits,

but not the rest of the missile range. The exact rules of what you can and can't

photograph I don't remember, but it isn't so easy to keep what you can't photograph

out of the background of what you can.

 

Since 9/11 many government sites are more restrictive. Even ones completely

unrelated to defense.

 

It would be nice of anyone asking about your photography to explain

the exact rules for the site.

It would be nice of anyone asking about your photography to explain

the exact rules for the site.

I wonder if it’s possible that some guards and janitors aren’t after strict application of rules, especially if they’re not citing them in their encounters with visitors. It may well be that they have been asked or are taking the initiative to engage visitors as a way both of getting a read on who’s around and possibly determining from a bit of conversation if there’s anything worth being suspicious of.

 

Unless guards and janitors show me a clear indication otherwise, I’m going to afford then the benefit of any doubt and assume they’re engaging others just as they may engage me and that that’s as much for my protection as anything else.

 

Being a photographer hasn’t made me particularly suspicious or defensive. In many ways, it’s made me more accepting of and interested in those around me. If a guard seems suspicious of me, I tend to understand it and, if I can put my response to that into the next picture I take, I’ll forever appreciate the interplay.

Before going into the White Sands museum, they check our IDs in a process that takes many minutes.

 

Also reminds me on an art museum where photography was allowed with a free pass.

At one point my pass got covered up, and I was asked about why I didn't have one.

 

But yes, give them the benefit of the doubt.