Stopped Today from Photographing by Airport Security

Just thought I'd share this experience with you... maybe newsworthy to

some...

 

After photographing at John Wayne Airport for several days in the past

couple weeks, and after 3 hours today, I was stopped by security and

told to cease photography inside the airport. Two very large guys were

ready to haul me off if I made trouble. I did protest from the

standpoint of telling the officer who spoke to me that I thought it was

legal to photograph

in a public place. He told me (in a somewhat excited and nervous tone)

that it was against the law. I asked him

which law and if he could show it to me in writing. He proceeded to

tell me again it was simply against the law, and that I wasn't allowed

to photograph in security areas. I told him I wasn't photographing in

a security area. He asked me if I wished to be cited and then discuss

it with a judge, to which I responded that I didn't especially favor

that option, and agreed that I would leave.

 

This was a county/local airport security officer, but he informed me

that

he was acting under the wishes of the Homeland Security Dept. Before

the exchange was over, I was informed that I could apply for a permit

with Airport Administration anytime during business hours. I asked him

if I would definitely be able to get a permit, and he said " No, not

definitely, they'll do a background check first to make sure you

aren't a terrorist." I said OK, and then left the area, happy

to have at least

2 rolls shot for the day.

 

My guess is that after a few days hanging around the airport, or

perhaps just from today, someone noticed that I might be doing more

than taking pictures of my departing loved ones. I was really just

camped out in a couple areas and wasn't hiding much the fact I was

snapping whatever human situation caught my fancy (within reason of

course). Just before the

security person stopped me I had gone to my car to get my jacket to get

ready for some more photography after nightfall. It was almost

immediately after coming

back and entering the building again that I was stopped. I had passed

by security people without incident on a number of occasions in the

past 2 weeks.

 

I'm set to get my permit now, anticipating no gliches, and maybe I'll

feel like part of the family. They're probably going to know me well

if I continue here. I have a vague notion of exhibiting some of the

prints from this project in the Airport, although I haven't researched

it and have no idea if they'd be interested.

 

I have to admit that up until my encounter with big brother I was

feeling pretty comfortable today, almost like a regular Joe

Winogrand.

 

In a way I'm surprised nothing happened earlier, and I suppose it's

good that someone seems to be doing their job...

is what makes opression succeed. Yes, you should have said you'd like to be cited and discuss it with a judge. There would be no sustainable truly applicable charge, that's why the jerk was nervous.<Br>

There could have been a very unspecific, generic "misbehaviour"-type with more unspecific "security" overtones.<br>

This is not the first such complaint on photo.net, and cowardice of the affected photographers usually manifested itself in (a) complying to unlawful searches, being escorted, answering illegal questions etc.etc and (b) seeking rationalizations post-factum in the said forum in a slightly injured and huffed tone<p>

Which I believe is wrong

Ray, you are the minority that is taking the whole matter light-heartedly. When it comes to a choice between national security and the right of an individual, I would rather put up with some inconvenience instead. Security is a tough job because they are responsible for deterring terrorism and what I resent are those that gets to be obnoxious when it comes to a minor inconvenience and blown the issue out of proportion feeling that their individual rights are in danger. Between endangering my rights and endangering my personal physical well-being, I always pick to preserve my life. Its just commonsense.

And remember that "war on terrorism" is a lie launched to keep indefinitely (that's why the "enemy" is so unspecific, by the way, not mentioning the obvious source from which the term was borrowed) - precisely to keep population under control while the launchers continue serious crimes/manipulations inside and outside the country. The weak-minded really start to belive the obnoxious propaganda, while the rest cowardly comply - thus justifying this political extremism, that currently poses as American mainstream politics.

Second that. Notwithstanding our civil liberties, I think one should refrain from doing it in an extended manner, even if it is perfectly within our constitutional rights. Why? Because it provides a cover and an excuse for terrorists. One or two happy snaps are ok, but to shoot roll after roll would just encourage terrorists to be bolder.

 

Not that terrorists really need to do this openly, of course, I mean cellphones have cameras now, and certainly they would be smarter than to carry cameras openly and invite airport security scrutiny. It's the atmosphere I'm talking about-- nobody will believe that we take security seriously if people are just snapping roll after roll without trouble.

You're quite big on words like "coward", aren't you, Michael?

 

I like the "They'll do a background check to make sure you're not a terrorist". Like, it'll be on your CV.

Why, inside USA I can legitimately do that. It's not the words I would throw around easily about journalists in Near East, or any place where opposing the regulations may cost more than an inconvenience (life sometimes?).<br>

And it's hard to argue against that "war on terrorism" is a political fake. You might also have a pretty good understanding of the term's origins, I suspect. ;)

Yep, and a good remark you made too - there is a principle in Jurisprudence that it's not possible to prove the absence of something. (Prove that you never stole apples as a kid) Rather, the accusing side has the obligation to prove the presence of some happening.<br>

Of course, American "justice" system uses or dismisses the notion where it finds it convenient - for example in immigration law: someone who wants to enter the USA on a fisitor's visa must "prove" to an official that he does not have intention to stay.<br>

Now the same in "national security"

Since 9/11; over 2000 jets have been placed in storage; due to the airline industry depression and downturn. Here the TSA guys were freaked out by my Luna Pro; and didnt know it was a light meter. After standing in line with some relatives for an hour plus; waiting for plane info; I got damn bored an pulled out my M3 to take a photo of them. The TSA guys at least know that a Leica M3 is some sort of a camera. I feel less secure than before 9/11; because those that are doing the security/checking seem so more concerned with their power trip; than getting an education on what a lightmeter looks like; and what it is for. The M3 was considered "odd" by the TSA; because it didnt have a flash; and "could not be turned on". Check out the Mojave, California airport area; for the thousand plus new planes; sitting in storage.

Precisely the reason I DRIVE from Denver to Omaha to visit family and friends. Before 9/11 I'd patronize the airlines. Now I don't want to put up with the attitudes, and I drive 8 hours one way instead. I agree that the govt. has been waiting for the next phantom menace to throw at citizens in every dark corner in order to fulfill an agenda, now that the USSR is done. Lessened rights cuz Big Brother knows best. Seems to me N. Korea and that destabilized continent need more attention than Iraq who began cooperating again with the UN.

This story does not surprise me. Similar examples:

 

I was photographing in the lobby of a Hong Kong office building that was very

interesting architecturally. I was told to stop by security. I told them I am an

architect (true) and was interested in their building from a professional point of

view (true). Not interested, just stop. Now, if I was a bad guy, I would not

have stood around in full view with a bag full of equipment, changing lenses,

etc. I would have had a credit card size digital camera and they would have

had no idea that I had taken dozens of photos.

 

Just try to take some photos in a subway anywhere in the world.

 

I was trying to take a general photograph (not of customers) inside a very

interesting shop. Told to stop.

 

I photographed an outdoor bistrot in France - a general shot from about 20

feet away. A woman customer from about 30 feet away got up and

complained bitterly. Here she was, sitting on the pavement and complaining

about being photographed in a tourist area.

 

I was photographing on a beach in Australia where I live - just general shots

with a 90 lens and definitely nowhere near children. The lifeguard came up

and gave me a third degree about what I was doing etc.

 

These days, if you try to photograph a bridge, for example, some fool will

accuse you of planning to bomb it.

 

It pays to know your rights however, because different countries have different

rules. The other problem is that if you push it and challenge the cops to

charge you because you know they can't make it stick, then you will find that

the charge has suddenly become resisting arrest, assualt or something that

they can win because it's their word against yours.

 

Having said that, photographing people in an airport without their knowledge

is asking for trouble, I think. Would you like it?

I guess I disagree with the idea that since they intervened with Ray that the airport is secure. Do think a terrorist is going to photograph an airport continually for 2 weeks? If they need shots they'll take about 1/3 hour at the most. They don't care about the rule of thirds. The fact that it took 2 weeks for the guards to even take action is not reassuring to me. In addition, the fact that people in America with cameras are suspect really scares the hell out of me.

<i>"If I noticed a stranger photographing in my neighborhood for two weeks I damn well would go up to him and..."</i><br>

Right, first stage is compliance to illegality with huffed complaints in an Internet forum.<br>

Second stage is to comply voluntarily stating that as a good sitizen one wants to help his country to fight "terrorism"<br>

Third stage is active vigilance: taking it into one's own hands.<br>

There was a (war-time? Maccarthy era?) poster in the past: "Be Alert!"

and soon there appeared a graffito: "Be a lert! Your country needs lerts."<br>

That's where we are now, aren't we, turning into a bunch of very patriotic lerts. Not speaking of the fact that you'd be breaking the laws accosting someone in the street where photography is perfectly legal.<br>

By the way, what is it that Americans find so incomprehensible about Stalin-era show trials and full support of them by the public (in spite of being so obviously staged)? Look at this offer of voluntary assistance in catching potential "terrorists" with cameras by our modern-day citizen - and no mass arrests or liquidations have taken place in this country to pressure him into compliance

"And remember that "war on terrorism" is a lie "

 

and i guess 9/11 was just a pure fiction too michael? and all

those people who perished that day was just figment of

somebody's imagination?

Doing "street photography" at an airport may be pushing the envelope a little too far in today's climate. From a legal standpoint, an airport is not a "public" place the way a public street or highway are.

 

Most airports are operated by independent governmental or quasi-governmental authorities who either own the land on which the airport is built or lease it from the landowner to operate the airport. In the New York City area, it's the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey.

 

In that sense the premises of the airport can be considered "private" property. If the entity in possession of the premises asks you to leave and you fail to do so, you can be charged with trespass.

 

If anyone wants to do this type of photography at an airport, applying for the facility's permission may be a good idea along with showing them a sample of your portfolio. If you build up friendship and trust with personnel at the airport, you'll be recognized as a regular. Buy the security guys, janitors, other workers some coffee and doughnuts, etc.

 

I'm a railfan and post-9/11 make sure I take pictures of trains and rail facilities only from the public thoroughfare; once I set foot on railroad property, I'm liable to being arrested and charged with trespassing. Pre-9/11 the atmosphere was very relaxed. It's new world photographically after 9/11 and not an entirely inviting one either.

I might have acted differently 20 years ago as far as putting up resistance. But frankly I think of my free time as fairly precious to me now, and I don't wish to spend it in a courtroom. I've been there for minor traffic violations in the past, and... Guess who won? I don't have the monetary resources either to get into it. And to tell the truth, I wasn't 100% sure what my exact rights were in this situation, given that I was being told I didn't have any with regard to photography. Add to that the fact these guys were BIG, and they had guns.

<p>

If I can get a permit, that seems reasonable to me, if not ideal. My ability to photograph there is more a concern than making myself an example. Let other people with better means do it... At the same time I wonder if this permit thing is going to run smoothly. If it were a huge area where the same guy would never see me I'd just ignore it.

<p>

My thought was as Frank suggests. On the way home, I started thinking, Now, what if I <i>was</i> a terrorist? They just let me get away! Was this guy just taking the easy way out so he could get his boss off his back, and have the issue dispensed with? That's what worries me about bureaucracy being in charge of security. When it comes right down to it, it's essentially a paying job we're talking about, and all people want to do is the easiest thing that pleases the higher-ups.

<p>

btw, I haven't spent 2 full weeks there... only 5 days at about 2-3 hours per day, and only once on consecutive days.

Kent has got it right.

 

Anyone who thinks that America is somehow more immune to a terrorist attack these days, is sadly mistaken.

 

We're wasting all our time and money on a country that had very little chance of causing us harm. And ignoring countries that have the money to hurt us (Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the Sept 11th hijackers came from), that have the hatred to attack us (Pakistan, an unstable place that also happens to have nuclear weapons), or have had actual terrorist attacks against the US (the USS Cole in Yemen). Not to mention the crazy dictator in North Korea who may actually be able to reach the mainland US with nuclear missiles.

 

And then there is the fact that the states don't have the money to implement the "security measures" that congress, the white house, and the Department of Homeland Security crammed down our throats. Don't get me wrong, I wish the Iraqi people all the best. But I'd rather have spent $87 billion on keeping better track of cargo ships, air-freight flights, "dirty-nuke" material sales, and a national security apparatus that has departments that talk to each other, instead of being tied up in petty "power games".

 

I fear that there is going to be another serious attack that will cost more American lives. And we�re wasting our time training our airport/courthouse/railroad security guards to hassle photographers. It�s not like the government has turned up 300 photos of Logan international that the 9/11 terrorists were using to plan the attack. If terrorists are taking photos of something, I�m sure they aren�t sitting around doing it for days on end.

 

Is it worth it for photographers to fight the battle that Mr. Bender suggests? I don�t know. As was stated above, airports are in a sort of legal middle ground as far as "public vs private", so it's not like it would be a simple fight. I guess it depends on how much of a difference you think it would make, how much you care, and how much money/time you have on your hands. For me��maybe. I guess I�d have to see how I felt at that particular moment. But probably not.

<i>If I noticed a stranger photographing in my neighborhood for two weeks I damn well would go up to him and ask him what he was doing. I'd expect the police to do the same, and to follow up on his story.</i>

<P>

I can't really back you on that one Frank. How many of us here took 100% of our photos in places where we weren't a "stranger". I don't need the police spending their time and resources following up on every tourist photographer that wants to shoot photos of "small town Americana". I'd rather have them actually doing something useful.

<P>

Then again, use that $87 billion to beef up the nation's police forces, then fine, good times. There should be more neighborhood/police interaction anyway. It'd be nice to have an officer stroll through the streets more often. One that your kids could get to know instead of fear. But as it stands, there are rapists and murderers out there that I'd rather have dealt with.

I'm with Jeffrey.

And...of course security policies won't succeed in making terrorism end, because it's obvious that it's not possible to keep everything under control, without some freedom restrictions that would be unacceptable, expecially in the US. IMHO it's important, anyway, to keep a certain climate, to make security more and more visible, even if this would import some inconvenients (like it happened to you, Ray - yes, I too would apply for a permission, it seems to me extremely reasonable).

Mr. Bender, who is so able to speak and uses that rude word so easily, what would he do, if he was chief of the security of a public place?

Freedom is the best thing we can fight for...but there is someone out there who laughs on how stupid we are, and uses this freedom to plan and act something terrible. So what is the right balancing?

Forget my bad English, but it seemed to me very important to contribute an answer to this question.

 

Marco

oops...I wanted to say: 'forgive my bad English'...!!!!

 

Marco

I don't know Frank, is it much different than going back to the same street where lots of people are? Like Wall Street, or Rodeo Drive, or Hollywood Blvd? I wasn't standing in front of someone's house really.

Very interesting discusion. I agee w/ everything said...

 

Had I been Ray, I'd probably have done precisely what he did. Certaily not "cowardice," just common sense. But I would have stewed about it all the way home. Had he "told it to the judge," he probably would have lost and been convicted of trespassing - airports are not public property. And I do understand securitie's discomfort w/ someone, uncredentialed, repeatedly (i.e. over the course of days) photographing in an airport.

 

The bigger question, in my mind, is how to deal with the self-appointed Nazis who insist you not photograph in public places. I can't count the number of times I've been accosted by people here in Paris for taking photographs in public places, even while 'tourists' snap happily away. There's something about having a camera bag and serious equipment, and patiently waiting for the right shot, that draws the ire of people. My response when told not to photograph in a public place is to tell the person to mind his own @#$#@ business. That usually shuts them up; if they threaten to call the police, I'll invite them to do so. Most people give up at that point. I guess they are used to people dumbly complying, and when they don't, they don't know what to do and give up. This does NOT work with police however. When they inquire, I politely pack up and move along.

Josh, you are a man of sense.

 

I would have thought that it was clear to everyone that the US has gone after the easy (sic) target of Iraq and has avoided either Saudi Arabia (too much money at stake) or Pakistan (too dangerous and explosive).

 

The State Department seems bent on sheilding Pakistan, even though they are a proven and regular supporter and instigator of Terrorism and have even helped North Korea get the bomb. Even today Pakistan's secret service, the ISI, sheilds the resurgent Taliban, reaps profits from, and therefore protects, Afghanistan's opium trade, and sends fighters (terrorists?) into Afghanistan and India. All of this is currently acknowledged by other US departments and by other Western powers.

 

The trouble is, is that Pakistan is seen as too hot to handle, so their inconvenience is denied and minimised and Musharref is given the carrot and stick treatment by Washington. Whether this is sensible or not is debatable; however there is no doubt that it is grossly hypocritical and flies in the face of the 'we'll hunt them into their lairs' rethoric applied to terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism since 9/11, which nowadays seems feeble and risible.

 

On the subject of photographing in airports - can't they put signs up saying it is forbidden, if it really is, and point to the relevant law? How else are citizens to Know that it is against the law if those that are employed to enforce it are not educated well enough to quote it or at least paraphrase it themselves?

Loitering at an airport snapping photos definitely qualifies as suspicious behavior in my book; I'm surprised they didn't submit you to proper questioning. Sounds like security isn't all that tight over there.

>>>

My opinion is that Xinbad and Bender are looking for a Facist Police State to fit their preconcieved positions.

>>>

 

Frank, sweetie, it's always nice to be noticed by you! I don't how what I said would support your contention, though.