Photography,paedophilia and terrorism

[Brad_]

>>> People with cameras are not a big concern to our government.

 

Ditto here on the west coast...

[leo_papandreou1]

I agree that using a camera doesn’t make you interesting to the government. In fact I think official suspicion of photographers is far less than social suspicion. However, the NSA was in fact secretly authorized to spy on Americans “of interest.” *I* am not currently of any interest (or interesting) but it has become progressively easier over the years to imagine situations where I might become so, and since people experience government not as the monolithic entity of easy conception but instead situationally, as a variety of officials reacting in a variety of ways, Sarah Fox’s friend’s situation shouldn’t be discounted.

[craig_gillette]

When I was in DC this last spring, essentially no one paid any attention to what anyone was doing photographically outside. The White House has fairly tight restrictions while on the tour but none while outside the fence. The capitol has inspection and bag size restrictions but the only photo taking restrictions are the same they've always been in some of the chambers and connected areas. I took pictures in and around the building including on the basement railroad to the office building. Some of the museums had areas where they asked that there be no photography or flash photography but those aren't security issues.

 

There are some tripod restrictions inside some of the buildings, on the immediate capitol grounds, and there are some security "restrictions" requiring inspections of bags, some size restrictions and searches but simply nothing to support the odd things often posted over and over on forums. Apparently there are some concerns about tripods in some of the finished marble areas of some of the monuments but it never came up, I carried mine and ended up not using it.

 

The NSA has had surveillance authority since the Carter administration.

[antoniobassiphotography]

<B>Mark</B>, I think the reaction of people depends on the circumstances too. For example, if I were with my wife,

people would feel more safe. The story you told about the guy shooting the houses of parliament is ridiculous, however

we must put ourselves in the position of the policemen working in the area: if they didn't check on that guy, they might

have been in trouble because it's their job and they are required to take some actions. I was in California shooting along

the coast and settled on a beautiful beach north of Santa Barbara. There was a group of kids playing, the sun was

setting and I started shooting at their silhouettes on the shore playing against the light, without even noticing their father.

I was using a compact camera and must have been about 50 yards away. Nothing happened right there, I took my

shots and started walking towards the car. After about ten minutes, as I was getting on the car, I saw the father running

like crazy towards me: he stops right in front of me and asks me why I was taking pics of his kids. I explained that I was

a photographer and showed him the pictures, that had no details of the kids because they looked like black silhouettes

dancing on the water against the lights. He acknowledged it wasn't the work of a pedophile and told me that he was a

special agent working exactly in that field. He said: "You have no idea what disgusting things I see and what kind of

people there are out there" and we talked for a while but at the end he had me erase the pictures and I did. I realized I should have looked

at the situation more carefully and realized that a father seeing a single guy taking shots at his kids on the beach might not have been the

most normal and appropriate situation. I think we must judge the situation we are shooting in and figure weather taking shots is appropriate

or not. Of course, if you have a 300 mm you can work from quite far away without being noticed but with a 20 mm is a different story and I

would be annoyed if somebody took shots of my kids without saying anything.

[arjun_mehra]

I always wonder what sort of strange gratification a paedophile might get from taking a picture of a fully-clothed child on a tire-swing... Shouldn't these ready-to-freak-out parents be passing legislation to prevent Google.com from allowing people to search for the word "boy" under "images"? Also, of it's illegal to photograph a subway station, shouldn't it be against the law, as well, to permit anyone with a decent memory, a good hand, and a sharp pencil from entering the premises? What if he sketches something alarming upon leaving the platform? Sometimes, one wonders...

[sarah_fox]

Craig, and even Sp ..., I do appreciate your relating your real-world experiences in DC. I'm not trying to win an argument, but rather to participate in the exploration of this issue. Question: Did either of you try photographing the interior of the infamous Union Station, and if so, what was your experience? (And please, Sp..., I would appreciate your refraining from insulting me. I don't believe I've insulted you, and I believe I deserve more respectful treatment.)

 

Craig, one little correction: You wrote, "The NSA has had surveillance authority since the Carter administration." Er... That would actually be the Nixon administration. However, widespread civilian wiretaps weren't conducted without judicial oversight until the current administration. If you want to blame a liberal/Democrat for something, then blame Clinton for the equally odious Carnivore, which broadly monitors our emails.

[sprouty]

OK Sarah, a little too much joke at your expense, my bad. But to answer your question directly: Yes I

photographed the train station, no even noticed...

<P>

<center><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2942182063_baef21352a.jpg?v=0"></center>

<P>Not even when I was two feet away from them...

<center><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/2943041736_989cd47733.jpg?v=0"></center>

<P>And then I photographed the subway...

<center><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/2942182117_71e7e8d25b.jpg?v=0"></center>

<P>Actually I shot a lot in the subway...

<center><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/2942182145_4662e1bce9.jpg?v=0"></center>

<P>and I photographed people with beer guts wearing heavily laden backpacks in front of the white house...

<center><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/2942182179_bbfa632146.jpg?v=0"></center>

<P>I even photographed the monument that was in the planet of the apes (though it looks like some has replaced

the head for some reason)...

<center><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2942182205_9c127c0a22.jpg?v=0"></center>

<P>

Like I said, no one even blinked an eye.

[sarah_fox]

Interesting. Thanks, Sp... What sort of camera and lens, BTW?

[sprouty]

One of these:

<P>

 

http://wesclark.com/am/zero_m_1.jpg

[sprouty]

Sorry I couldn't resist...I was actually using a Nikon D700 and a 50mm lens for these particular shots.

 

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/07/nikon-reveals-r.html

[summitar]

George Orwell got it right.

 

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

Who would have ever guessed that one of the major political parties of the US would be in thrall to those who worship bronze age fairy tales, and want to impose their ignorant beliefs on all citizens.

 

I am glad I experienced the US at its zenith. So sad.

[tholte]

It seems that many of the posters on this thread are afraid of their own shadows, that's the truly sad thing in my opinion.

[matthijs]

Hmmm, catchy title.

 

I skimmed through the experiences.

 

I'm from The Netherlands and we're pretty o.k. around camera's. That said I'm not always comfortable taking pictures and that's caused by the above mentioned public fears.

 

 

Example: nobody took any notice or offense of me taking pictures of my 6 year old daughter's group swimming lessons using a DSLR with a medium sized white zoom lens. But I still felt like someone could tap my shoulder at any moment.

 

 

Silly but true. And I don't like the feeling. (stupid media...)

 

 

Regards, Matthijs.

[manuel barrera houston,]

several weeks ago, I was stopped, harassed, by the security yokels of a building downtown, and then by the local yokels that wear the blue and guns for taking photographs of buildings that were damaged by hurricane ike, they are idiots and I have gone out several times to do the same thing since then. did receive a letter of apology from the security firm after I threatened to sue. good things that there are still few idiots and not many:) after explaining to the yokel who wears a gun on the street that the same right that he has to have a video camera on his car is the same right that I have which is really the right to no expectation of privacy in a public place (few exception, i.e., like don't take photos up women's dresses while climbing stairs) , like a street or city easement, he asked what are you a lawyer or what, looked at him and said yes,

[sarah_fox]

Sp, thanks for your constructive feedback. I'm glad to see that the climate for photographers at Union Station has improved in relation to prior reports. I like to think that we are slowly turning the corner from this 9-11 nightmare, but as the cliche goes, I don't know whether the light I think I'm seeing is the end of the tunnel or a train. I hope that all who are throwing insults around from the anonymity of their home computers won't someday look back and say, "Wow, I wish I had taken that stuff more seriously." Just because you don't experience it personally doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[studiocox]

Hi Mark,

 

Thanks for what has become an interesting thread, I have done street photography on and off (mostly off till recently)

since 1992. First with an old Konica Autoreflex TC SLR now I get out there with a Canon 1Ds Mark III usually with a 24-

70 on it although sometimes a 70-200 as well. So it is difficult to hide what I am doing (not that I try) I prefer to act like I own the space I am in.

 

I have had no problems to date taking photos more luck than anything else I suppose in fact on a number of occasions

people have come up to me to say hello or sometimes chat.

 

I have had one problem related to photography though which I was extremely unhappy about at the time. Oddly enough I

wasn't taking photos at all lens cap on etc when I had my first incident. I took my daughter to a story reading activity at

the local library one day and happened to have a DSLR with me. I didn't want to leave it in the car due to the potential of

theft despite it being insured and chose to take it into the library, where I put it on a table and started to read a book

whilst nearby my daughter enjoyed the stories. Suddenly this irate woman came up to me raising her voice accusing me

of all sorts of threats to the safety of children by taking photos of kids in the library (while camera remained off with lens

cap on sitting on the table). I then told her to go away and questioned her sanity, which thankfully she did and I started

back into the book.

 

About ten minutes later she came back with the Library Manager who apparently took offence to my reaction to his staff

(not that she wore the badge they wear or identified herself as staff). I just thought she was a nut, anyway he then

lectured me on the heinous things I was doing (reading a book with a camera is especially dangerous you see) please

save the children etc. Anyhow I managed to get an apology from her for making false accusations at the time and then

wrote a letter of complaint to the council General Manager which led to a further apology from their Director of

Community Services for the incident.

 

As a parent of young kids I refuse to buy into the hysteria, of course real threats exist out there. However the threat

does not come from a lens in a public place. If I am in public chances are I will be filmed or photographed the same

applies to my children. When they and I are in public we are wearing clothes (to protect our modesty) so any photo taken

hardly constitutes a threat to our welfare in a public space. If someone is aroused by the appearance of clothed people in

public that again does not constitute a threat eyesight and memory can be related to a lens and a picture. Thoughts do

not threaten me or my children only actions can. Oddly enough this fear and hysteria which is infecting society here in

Australia as well as other parts of the western world is not only irrational but also ridiculous. Since now we appear more

horrified by what other people might think rather than what people actually do.

 

On terrorism and photography this hysteria about being alert and dobbing in someone taking pictures is more driven by

Governments wanting the public to feel they are doing something about the threat rather than any real benefit in

combatting that threat. Life is a risk if you are so frightened stay at home for the rest of your life, just remember you

could slip in the shower and kill yourself that way dead is dead. So stop worrying about what might be and live your life.

 

Cheers,

 

Daniel.

[sprouty]

Sarah, I'm not sure if you last comment was directed at me or not (no offense taken either way), but I will respond: I judge the general attitude of the public towards photography based on what I experience and what I hear from reliable sources. And with respect to street photography, that would be from people who have a large body of work and continue to produce images.

 

Threads like these are notorious for bringing out all kinds of people who, for the most part, don't work in the genre, who have no firsthand experience, but plenty of "my friend" stories. So if I was critical, skeptical, and sarcastic to you (for which I have apologized), it is only the result of years of carrying my camera with me everywhere, all over the world, at all times of day and night, and never having any altercation. It has also been my observable experience that cameras are everywhere and the vast majority of people pay absolutely no attention to them.

[tholte]

Sarah, "I hope that all who are throwing insults around from the anonymity of their home computers won't someday look back and say, "Wow, I wish I had taken that stuff more seriously." Just because you don't experience it personally doesn't mean it doesn't happen." A few people disagree with you and all of a sudden they are "throwing insults around"? If I was as paranoid as you I don't think I would get out of bed in the morning.

[mark_loader]

I detect that most responses here are from folks living in the US. I would be interested to hear from those living in the UK if their problems are as bad as have been reported in the photo media. There is an officer, below a constable ( I think ), and it seems a lot of grief stems from these guys. They just don't seem fully informed, or worse, are ignorant of the current laws that apply to photography. Maybe they just need to be taught properly and communicate more effectively. Hmmmm...communication...that might just work....love from downunder...Mark

[sprouty]

Mark, I live in the US but I travel quite a bit so my experience extends to the Czech Republic, Belgium, Germany,

Estonia, Mexico, Switzerland, Canada, and from the east coast to the west coast in the USA.

[lex_jenkins]

Seems like most of these debates can be summed up this way:

 

1. It's never happened to me. Therefore it's never happened to anyone.

 

2. It's never happened to me. Therefore I am lucky.

 

3. It's happened to me. Therefore it happens to everyone.

 

4. It's happened to me. Therefore I am unlucky.

[Brad_]

>>> Threads like these are notorious for bringing out all kinds of people who, for the most part, don't work in the genre, who have

no firsthand experience, ...<P>

 

 

I find that to be so true. A lot of people here make projection-based proclamations about the subject. Taking their own feelings and

insecurities about the subject and then

projecting that onto how the public on the street <i>should feel</i>. Without any benefit of first-hand experience of shooting on the street.

It really says more about those making statements and their inner feelings.<P>

 

These threads pretty much all go the same way. The only thing missing on this one is quoting (usually inaccurately) Ben Franklin.

But it's still early...

[aaron meyer]

"...the pictures...had no details of the kids because they looked like black silhouettes"<BR>

<BR>

And still,<BR>

<BR>

"...he had me erase the pictures and I did"<BR>

<BR>

Why on earth would you acquiesce to that? His request was patently unreasonable since the children were obviously unidentifiable and by his own admission the work was clearly not pedophillic in nature. He had no legal or logical basis to ask that you delete the photos.

[sarah_fox]

Tim wrote: "A few people disagree with you and all of a sudden they are "throwing insults around"? If I was as paranoid as you..."

 

Now I spent many a year studying this sort of stuff. If I remember correctly (and I think I do), I believe paranoia is a mental disorder. Put in the vernacular, you just called me insane. Most people would consider that an insult -- unless you are a qualified mental health professional, have seen me clinically, and have done the requisite testing to make that diagnosis with some degree of validity. Dr. Holte, unless I'm totally detached from reality, I don't think we've ever even met.

 

I'll ask you, with all respect, have I unsulted you somehow, tempted though I might be? Can I ask you to be as civil with me as I am trying to be with you?

 

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

 

Sp... I might have been referring to you at one time, but not anymore. I do appreciate you apology and the more civil tone. It would be great if others could follow your example.

[tholte]

Sarah, I don't think you are insane! I think you are misguided, certainly not insane. And yes, it is entirely possible to be paranoid without being insane. That I don't agree with you does not mean I insulted you.