Issues regarding photography and public security

I do not often review this foum much anymore, but I do want to add a

personal thought regarding photography, public safety, and terrorism.

 

In my 62 years roaming this planet, I have never experienced an

aggressive attack on my country (USA), until 9/11. I was peacefully

driving to work in California when I heard it on the news.

 

Since then, I realize that there is a true and genuine need for the

US government to take serious precautions to proctect us from future

attacks...if possible.

 

If this means restricting photography at critical monuments,

buildings and structures, then we need to find other subjects to

photograph. How about mountains or, better yet, beautiful nudes!?

 

I love photographing the Golden Gate Bridge, but since 9/11 I have

been restricted from working at the base of the supporting structures.

 

We also live in an age where many people believe that our children

are the objects of predation...and, having been a teacher for 32

years...I know that this is a genuine and well founded concern.

 

We live in a very fearful and paranoid age.

 

Let me give you an example: shortly after the 9/11 event I was taking

photos in a public area using an old Soligor spot meter, which looks

like a gun. There were police in the area. I was using it.

Fortunately, nothing happened, but I suddenly realized (that cold

sweat of terror!) that I could have been shot since the exposure

meter looks like a gun and I was aming it a people and the police

were looking at me.

 

I simply think that we all need to be very patient and flexible right

now until this hysteria passes.

Hmmmm... I sense a tension between:

<blockquote>

Since then, I realize that there is a true and genuine need for the US government to take serious precautions to proctect us from future attacks...if possible.

</blockquote>

and

<blockquote>

I simply think that we all need to be very patient and flexible right now until this hysteria passes.

</blockquote>

"If this means restricting photography at critical monuments, buildings and structures, then we need to find other subjects to photograph. How about mountains or, better yet, beautiful nudes!? "

 

Todd the problem is, there is no such restriction on photography - your right to photograph in such places is still protected under the constitution.

 

The problem is that many in law enforcement seem to have taken it upon themselves to act as if there is such a restriction

Todd, with all due respect, with the spy gear available today any terrorists to be will take any pictures of any subject at any time. Therefore, the ban on photographing objects that are accessible to public is nothing more but a smoke cover invented to conceal our vulnerabilities and to make you feel better. And to control you. I don't feel safer on a NYC subway just because the ban on shooting in subways is pending and ultimately will be enforced. Yes, times they are a changin' but my brains are still working.

It isn't even precisely the lack of ability to photograph some objects that bugs me--if they

passed a clear, specific law I'd be cranky, but I'd be O.K. with it.

 

What I'm far, far, far from O.K. with is people creating their own version of the law and

trying to enforce it, or hopelessly vague laws being enforced at a cop's discretion in

situations the law's writers never intended.

 

Cops making up law as they go isn't security; it's anarchy, headed towards facism.

 

FWIW my encounters with cops while shooting have been innocuous, it's the rent-a-thugs

who've really been over the line. (I have more than my share of encounters, I shoot a lot of

night).

<i>until this hysteria passes</i><p>Like after next November or January, when maybe we can return to having a run of the mill schmuck in the White House, instead of the super schmuck we have now?

"If this means restricting photography at critical monuments, buildings and structures, then we need to find other subjects to photograph."

 

Like the incumbents leaving? That would make for some nice keepsake photos and a "I Survived the Idiots" T-shirt.

 

It's something the clowns can do, so they do it, instead of trying to figure what really needs to be done and doing that. It all reminds me of the guy looking for his lost car-keys under the corner lamp-post 'cause it's too dark to look down the street where he dropped them.

Roger, what is worse than cops making up law as they go is judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg making up laws as they go and city councils making them up as they go knowing full well that it's very difficult to get a bad law or a tax reversed once it goes into effect e.g. Prohibition or Jim Crow or the Spanish American War phone tax that lasted over 100 years. What it boils down to is arbitrarity is the result of knowing that they can get away with it.

 

Gee, I wonder if the Germans citizenry _truly_ did not know or could not really do anything about Dachau and the socialist takeover of their country in 1933?

 

When business owners are told by the government that smoking tobacco (a legal substance) is now a criminal offense because it's harmful regardless of whether or not Anthrax filtration systems could be installed, while doctors are told it's ok in 20 states to murder partially born babies, the USA is in trouble.

I thought the idea was not to give in to terrorism? I've never seen as much "giving in" as in the last couple of years.

 

"I simply think that we all need to be very patient and flexible right now until this hysteria passes" how would that sound in Germany in 1936?

"Patient and flexible" sounds like a euphemism for touch your toes and take it up the keister.

 

Feel free to give up your freedoms in exchange for the illusion of security. That's the wonderful thing about a free nation - you're free to do just about anything you like as long as it doesn't hinder or harm my freedoms.

 

Just don't expect me to give up my liberties without an argument.

 

If you really believe that giving up the right to photograph publicly accessible areas will make you any safer or that the authorities will stop there you're mistaken. Let them get away with unwarranted infringements in any area and eventually you will have to avert your eyes around railroads or bridges and whenever an authority figure approaches to avoid being detained or beaten for acting "suspiciously".

Andy: In 1938 it would sound a lot like Chamberlain.

<p><i>Gee, I wonder if the Germans citizenry _truly_ did not know or

could not really do anything about Dachau and the socialist takeover

of their country in 1933? </i></p>

<p>They just called themselves socialists. The NAZIs were in fact

facists, who rode to power on a right-wing nationalist wave by

claiming that they needed to curb civil liberties in order to fight

terrorism, after a "terrorist attack" on their capital (which they

were, in fact, most likely behind). Just a thought.</p>

<p>I agree with Todd's general call for patience and flexibility,

but this doesn't require conceeding to the erosion of civil

liberties. It just requires being polite, and not pushing more than

you picture is worth.</p>

1. Agreement with M. V. Szulc. If I wanted to take surreptitious photos, no one would ever know.

 

1. In re Chamberlain circa 1938:

 

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

Time to check your history book(s), again.

 

--------------

 

"the basic notion of liberty, equality and brotherhood (the French gave that to the Americans!)"

Patrick, oops. You are right, the Nazi's were socialists in name only just like the Soviets were socialists in name only, but on the left. IMHO, the USA is heading in both directions and thus being split apart at the seams. The closest thing to true socialism we have today is France.

R.M.L.

 

Ummm, "when civil liberties are discussed, no one responds?" How about the ALCU? They not only fight for Civil Liberties, they fight for special liberties. Thankfully, the American Center for Law and Justice has been successfully fighting the ALCU for quite some time now.

Wow, when paranoia runs it sure runs rampant -eh? Also seems like the dogs that bark the loudest are the toothless ones behind locked fences.

 

Recently a bunch of photogs went shooting for the day so they decided to meet in very well know national landmark heavily patrolled by both police and National Guard. One of the group decides to get a pinhole holga shot of the clock so he puts this plastic camera that's totally covered with electrical tape and mounted to a small pocket size tripod on the floor and steps back for his long exposure. Within seconds the police were there.

 

No heated words were exchanged. No threats of imprisonment were made. No recitals or displays of photographers rights. No civil liberties were broken. Nobody lost any god given rights. Nobody was pounding their chests.

 

The only thing that happened was the photog with the holga explained what he was doing and got his shot and the police went back to patrolling.

 

Some interesting thoughts that I had was what if it really was a bomb (which it looked like more than a cam), the police didn't check it out and how many people there are on the main floor of Grand Central Station in NYC at any given time.

 

So yeah, I probably feel a little safer that someone's paying attention. I'm also not going to stop shooting on the subway so I'm not really interested if there's a ban or not or when it goes into effect. But if someday I do get caught instead of beating my chest while reciting the photogs rights word for word I'll probably just rely on my brain and talk to 'em.

Know your rights anyway, you'll be better off for it. No doubt every situation is different. Unlikely it's going to ruin your life. Having been stopped by police twice for photographing myself, I can say that I have mixed feelings about how it was handled from their side in both cases. Don't beat your chest, don't roll over either. Common sense goes a long way.

<i>Having been stopped by police twice for photographing myself...</i>

<p>

Ray, being hassled for repeated self portraiture, now that's pushing it. You should have hammered the bastards. :)

<i>Having been stopped by police twice for photographing myself... </i>

<br><br>

are you really that ugly? <p>

<img src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons6/24.gif">

Goodness, I can't believe how some people are simply so darned gullible! There is no greater terror in the USA than having our rights, freedoms and liberties usurped by those who would "protect" and "defend" us, those who are paid to SERVE us; doesn't anyone remember the McCarthy era? Same play, different actors! This paranoia, this presumed "fear" of terrorism is blown out of proportion by those who thrive on power, those egomaniacs in Washington. Let's face it, they HAVE privledges you and I don't!

 

Giving up our freedoms and liberties will not make us safer; what will it make us safer from, those thugs who like to push and bully the general public around... the police? What do you think they do when they break the law? Do they arrest one another or cover for one another.... They break laws they are paid to enforce! Doesn't that sound like an elite group with weapons?

 

If a terrorist REALLY wanted a blueprint or a photo of a brdige or monument, don't you think he/she can get it from either a public library or the Internet? Come on, let's be real... let's engage the gray matter before talking about giving up our rights!

<i>...let's engage the gray matter before talking about giving up our rights!</i>

<p>

What are you talking about? In your previous posting you are talking about how you want to sensor images posted on P.N.

OK, very funny guys, yuk it up. :P

I think you either misread or misinterpreted what I wrote. One is not the same as the other. Let me explain something that you must've missed out on, OK?

 

I have my own picadillos and I enjoy nudity and so forth; I am totally heterosexual and have a very healthy and satisfied libido, thank you. Let's get that out of the way.

 

What I object to, and perhaps you don't understand or don't WANT to understand is that there are indeed minors that visit this site. I NEVER said that I wanted to "censor" but that this is simply not the right place for it, in view of the fact that there are minors and some who may be offended by soft porn, frontal nudity (yes, crotch shots) and images with sexual content exhibited for the mere shock effect, and nothing to do with "art." I did not say that these should be banned or censored; I said that these belong ELSEWHERE, and that there are plenty of these adult sites that welcome and promote these, where efforts are made to ban minors. What is it about this that you can't, don't or won't understand?

 

I NEVER advocated what you suggest.

 

I have, however, advocated that only paying members be the ones to rate and photos posted because of the blatant abuse by some with mulitiple accounts that rate themselves very high and then go around rating others very low. But, of course, YOU also know this, right? I mean, this is nothing new here at Photo.net. There is a blatant abuse and something must be done; until you or someone else can come up with a better plan, don't discount my suggestion (there's nothing else right now).

 

Cheers to you!

shouldn't that be yuck it up?