The photographer WAS NOT HARASSED!

[sarah_fox]

<p>Always an interesting topic!</p>

<p>Augmenting your experiences from a different angle, I took a few snaps inside Washington's now-infamous Union Station with my 40D and a (Russian) Zenitar fisheye. I also had a camera bag slung over my shoulder. I just happened to be there by dumb luck and was curious whether I'd get hassled. Long story short, I didn't. Perhaps it was because the lens was tiny (even smaller than an 18-55). Had anyone noticed the cryllic lettering or the "Made in Russia," I might have been under more suspicion. Anyway, as a middle-aged, white woman happily taking a couple of casual snaps, no problem.</p>

<p>I can also walk into airports without a camera, board planes, get off on the other end, rent a car, and move on, all without a hassle. I've done this many times. However, my son, who is of mixed race and looks somewhat Middle Eastern, is reliably detained and interrogated anytime he tries to fly. He now travels exclusively by Grayhound Bus, which is generally a very long and unpleasant experience.</p>

<p>Every time I take any photographs in the vicinity of our local power station and refinery, I do get approached. I'm always friendly and cooperative, and I have no problem. However, I wonder whether I'd be treated with more suspicion if I were (1) male, (2) younger, (3) non-white, or (4) someone with a strong, unidentifiable accent. My son is a really good kid. I raised him well and taught him to be polite and considerate always. It's interesting that he is seen so reliably as a potential terrorist. I can almost guarantee you that if I handed him my camera and had him photograph the local power plant (alone, without my being there), he'd probably be detained for questioning, and I'd have to come and get him.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Mikael, thank you sir. in my younger days i might have shaken my fist in the face of anyone who i felt was even remotely challenging my rights...but as i get older, that's my last resort, not my first. i've found that civil communication is usually less dangerous and more productive than chest thumping. in this instance...i got what i wanted, they got what they wanted...my rights weren't violated...so why the hell would i want to cause a problem for anyone? :)</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>My good friend Michel....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>somehow your experience seems to reinforce the idea that there is a problem. Why would anyone have to go through such extreme as to contact the plant manager and discuss with him for 1/2 hour on the phone the idea of taking a couple of photos of his plant from a public location?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The answer: I didn't <em>have to </em>call the TVA rep...I chose to. Of course, I realize that in essence you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong)...why did i feel I had to call to get some type of assurance that I wouldn't be harassed if I took the pictures? Answer: for one thing...as I mentioned earlier...I wanted to be certain that it is actually legal to take such pictures. I tried to research the legalities via the internet and ran across a website that deals specifically with legal issues regarding photography. Their advice (and they mentioned nuclear facilities in particular) was to make contact with authorities on a site by site basis...as restrictions (if not laws) might vary. (sorry, I can't remember the site or I'd gladly provide a link). Not having studied the law in regard to photographing facilities that are of high priority when it comes to national security...it sounded like a good idea to me. With all respect...I fail to see how that making a simple phone call can be regarded as "extreme". This wasn't some terse conversation with someone I felt was an adversary. In fact, I felt like I'd known the guy for years by the time we finished...and found that we're neighbors. The conversation wasn't limited to the photography issue. We talked about everything from March madness (the NCAA basketball tournament...not as my wife thought...the annual linen sale at J.C. Penney's)...to President Bush's visit to Chattanooga in 2007. Secondly, we're talking about a nuclear facility. Taking (what we might consider to be) <em>extreme</em> security measures at a nuclear facility isn't something that came about post-9/11. It began with the Manhattan Project, with the Oak Ridge portion of the project being located about 75 miles north of where I now live and 25 miles from where I grew up. (If you think security at Sequoyah is extreme...try photographing the research facilities in Oak Ridge, or the plants that continue to manufacture nuclear weapons and enrich uranium and plutonium). Outside of military bases, you won't find any more heavily secured areas in the country.</p>

<p>Is a nuclear facility made any more secure from terrorist attack by security guards asking for identification and the purpose of someone taking pictures of that facility? I'd guess...probably not. But if law enforcement asked the same questions of the same person taking pictures of a bank...I doubt we'd find the questioning unreasonable. Once again...if all that I'm asked are those two questions...I'm fine with it. Doesn't seem extreme to me...just reasonable. Harassment...that's another thing altogether.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Sarah, I want to respond to your post...but after a night without sleep due to my chronic insomnia kicking in...I now feel the need for some shut eye. So, I'll be back tonight to talk some more!</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>The classic trope of the authorities checking your "papers" is really aimed at causing people to exercise self-censorship. Even the Gestapo couldn't be everywhere in wartime Germany, but by establishing an environment where you could be asked for your identification papers at any time, they created the necessary aura of fear that probably worked better as a limit on rights than the actual arrests did. I expect China is similar today. That picture in my mind of the German secret police asking for papers (or the Russians in the bad old days) is why we Americans bristle at the idea of presenting identification when we haven't done anything remotely suspicious.</p>

<p>The problem is of course we're willing to trade freedom for safety, and we have had a government which has grown up on the idea that "they have a job to do and they're not going to let a little thing like the consitution stand in their way". The arbitrary and contradictory rules we operate under as photographers makes it difficult to follow the rules even if we're willing to do so because we don't know what the rules are, and neither do the people who enforce them.</p>

<p>I don't know that there is a solution, but I guess the lesson is to try to look non-threatening and try to be cooperative where possible, and rely on image stabilization rather than tripods. The less "professional" the equipment, the less people seem to be hassled (judging from the stories), though why terrorists would be more professionally equipped is difficult to imagine. I guess it's just the world we live in.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>David, i agree.. why on planet hearth a terrorist would want to look professional? " ITS ME.. IM FULL EQUIP WITH THE LATEST GADGET " doestn sound very 007 ; ) since every guy who own a big camera get asked so many questions and get already in the suspicious gang.. IF someone would like to become *invisible* he will certainly and simply use a small camera / cel phone / flickr / image bank / google earth / google street... dont you think?</p>

<p>Funny thing is when you have a cel phone or a small camera nobody ask you question or get suspicious...maybe thats the reason i need to give my girlfriend to get a Leica M9? mmmmm thanks you very much people your suspicion give me a good reason finnaly to get one! LOL ....</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Sarah...forgive me, but while you're on "hold", David's comments reminded me of something I need to say before getting some sleep.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The classic trope of the authorities checking your "papers" is really aimed at causing people to exercise self-censorship. Even the Gestapo couldn't be everywhere in wartime Germany, but by establishing an environment where you could be asked for your identification papers at any time, they created the necessary aura of fear that probably worked better as a limit on rights than the actual arrests did</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>David, While I don't reject your assertion that fear plays into the scenario I described...in this case I feel it's less about creating fear...and more about the idea that fear can be alleviated by questioning photographers. As I've stated...I doubt that the questions serve to make people safer, but a whole lotta' people believe it does. In the case of TVA...living in the Tennessee Valley for most of my life, I know that this agency puts a high premium on positive public relations. If they were to harass photographers I'm sure there would be complaints. If they chose to to allow photographers to take photographs of the plant as often as they like...day or night without being approached by security, and the public caught wind of it...you'd have a massive public outcry and heads would surely roll. Even if you don't buy into the concept that such agencies actually care about alleviating the fears of the public...one thing you can count on: they don't want to lose their jobs. If giving the public a false sense of security is all it takes to secure those jobs...rest assured, they'll tell you what you want to hear.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I don't think the public would "demand" to censor photographers unless someone manipulated them into it. That belief means you have bought into the climate of fear that has created by overzealous public officials and security guards, who want to convince themselves and others that they are doing something worthwhile.</p>

<p>They're not addressing the fears of the public, they're creating them. And photographers are an easy target, with little recourse unless they happen to snare a photojournalist. There is no real danger, just the perception of it.</p>

[jgalyon]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think the public would "demand" to censor photographers unless someone manipulated them into it. That belief means you have bought into the climate of fear that has created by overzealous public officials and security guards, who want to convince themselves and others that they are doing something worthwhile.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, I didn't say anything about "censoring" photographers. I only spoke of their present policy that might lead to photographers being asked for I.D. and asked the purpose of their photographing the site. And note that i said <strong><em>might </em></strong>lead to the photographers being approached by security. It's my understanding that not everyone is automatically approached. It's left largely to the judgement of the officer on duty. <br>

I haven't bought into anything. I'm not saying that I entirely accept the policy...I'm just saying that I'm in a better place to understand how this particular agency thinks and acts having lived here all my life. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>They're not addressing the fears of the public, they're creating them.</p>

<p> There is no real danger, just the perception of it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In many instances, I agree. In the case of military bases and nuclear facilities I don't believe it's just perception...but reality. Long before 9/11 military bases were off limits to photographers....not because of the threat that an army would march across the plains of Kansas and mount and attack on an Army base, but because of the possibility of espionage and sabotage. If a military base armed with hundreds or thousands of soldiers is still considered to be at risk...why would we feel that a nuclear facility is out of the risk of the bad guys? At the risk of beating the horse to death...I in no way condone harassment...and I don't condone illegal censorship. I just don't see what the hell the problem is with security guards asking for I.D. and a simple explanation for someone taking photos of a high risk security area.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[jpo3136b]

<p>John, you know if there's a shortage of you being harassed, we can take care of that for ya. ;-)</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>The more I think about all this, the more I wonder which is worse...the paranoid thinking that tells us there's a devil terrorist behind every camera...or the paranoid thinking that tells us that the devil government is conspiring to strip us of every constitutional right and freedom that we possess.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>John, what a gentleman you are, sir! By the way, if I've never mentioned it before (getting old with a failing memory)...we have a friend in common...or perhaps a common friend ;) Her name is Coyee... Ring a bell? She's told me all kinds of things about you, and being that she and her husband run a photography business...I know they can't be trusted, so I took it all with a grain of salt...</p>

[mizore]

<p>I had a citizen, not a cop or a private security guard, question my photographing a gunsmith's shop in Bolivar, WV, on 9/11 grounds. I had a tripod and an elderly Hasselblad with a chrome 150 lens; I wasn't smiling and I was probably wearing photo ninja black.</p>

<p>What other people have said -- it's not really about security. </p>

<p>For a spy's purposes, the photograph doesn't have to be really detailed, just clear enough to give coordinates. I suspect that just flying over Albany, NY, and paying attention would be enough information to figure out how to navigate by sight down the Hudson to NYC (I've flown into Albany and between Lake George and the Helderbergs, finding the Hudson is trivial -- the 9/11 attackers picked a clear sky day for the deal and their flight patterns very much look like they were using geographic landmarks visible from the air to navigate by.<br>

Those of us out with big cameras on tripods are doing something else -- we're visibly holding ground. The problem isn't modern security but hominid dominance rituals. Smiling, using twin lens reflexes or small cameras, and not staking out the territory with a tripod makes outsiders less threatening to the turf holders. If I'd photographed the same gunsmith shop with my pocket digital or my cell phone camera, the guy wouldn't have said anything. A cell phone with GPS is going to give far more information than a big old Hasselblad on a tripod, but the big old Hasselblad on a tripod is staking out space and making the space under the tripod and out from the lens mine.</p>

<p>Sometimes, being civil with the other monkeys is good policy, whatever their reasons. And sometimes, snarling back works.</p>

<p>Approach the issue as having nothing to do with actual security and everything to do with sense of territory, and it's not the same problem. You are a primate going into another primate's territory or personal space, and there are rituals to perform. Guard critters see the space they're trained to protect as their space -- true of either canine or chimpanzee deluxe, so while the security guards don't own the space, they're hired because they act like they do.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Only half of what they said about me is true! I know Coyee. Her husband has done some good work with photography. She used to sell me paint. They have done several nice frames for me. Some years back her husband did some work with scanning some view camera negatives that I thought was some of the most highly detailed digital print work I've ever seen. He does a fair amount of photo editing and weddings.</p>

<p>I had a roll of Ektachrome run over at North Light a week ago. [Different place, but] He did well, and it was just as cheap as trying to do it myself. I will probably bring Steve the rest of my transparencies as I make them. I would give his lab a spin if you're looking for E-6 processing. He has his own dip and dunk machine. I think one roll of 120mm was eight bucks.</p>

<p>I have thought about applying at that gallery where y'all are, but you know the prices are higher there than what I usually sell for. </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>For the harassment, I'd say +1 for people skills. Even with a five day beard and lookin' rough, I find that with a smile, a handshake and maybe a phone call, I've been able to talk my way into and out of pretty much anything I've wanted to photograph. I've never had a serious problem.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I think that sometimes when people start fussing over "liberal media bias" or "terrorism" or whatever, a lot of times they're pushing their fears or negative emotions off onto an abstract topic. It's a big release of pent up bad feelings, but it often doesn't have a substantive connection to what's actually happening.</p>

<p>There's bad stuff out there, and people can live a real nightmare, but it's often not perpetrated by Godzilla or the Boogeyman. It just doesn't work out that way. </p>

<p>To neutralize nightmares in the shadows, just turn on the lights with a handshake.</p>

<p><em>I'm an old man, and I've known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened. -- Mark Twain</em></p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I'm not saying there is no danger from terrorism, I'm saying that danger from a guy with a camera and tripod is imagined rather than real. Real terrorists (who aren't completely stupid) probably do nothing to draw attention to themselves. They might walk or drive by somewhere to have a look but probably don't stop to set up a tripod! If they take pictures it's probably with a cellphone.</p>

<p>But if you're in homeland security, or law enforcement, or if you're a security guard at a mall, you might want to try to make it look as though you're doing something, even if you're not. It's "Security Theater." And detaining people with cameras or just demanding ID is something they can point to. Just as getting people to take off their shoes in airport security lines does nothing to make the airlines safer, the intention is only to make themselves and the public <strong>think </strong>they're doing something useful. Sometimes it blows up in their face when they detain a BBC cameraman or a wedding photographer doing a wedding. But mostly they trample on the rights on the innocent to make themselves look or feel better.</p>

<p>And no one is a villain in their own mind. So The guard who gives a photographer a hard time at a mall or an office building or a bridge, even though he may know that the photographer has every right to be there is not thinking that he is a criminal for bending or breaking the law. They think themselves the hero for being "vigilant". I expect that someday soon, they won't bother asking for ID, they'll just hold their own cellphone up to your face and their face recognition software will just identify you for them, complete with criminal record, credit check, address, facebook profile, twitter handle, etc. And somewhere in police stations all across the land you will have acquired a police record for "suspicious behavior." Welcome to the 21st century.</p>

[walter_strong5]

<p>John, you need to read your bumper sticker again, you obviously don't understand what it means!</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>I don't know if the rest of you are having a problem with copy/paste...but sometimes it's working for me...others (like now) it isn't. A real pain in the rear.</p>

<p>David, rather than attempt to type your first paragraph, I'll just refer to it. Here's a thought for you. Wouldn't a really smart terrorist consider drawing lots of attention to himself...because no one in their right mind would expect that? (I'm half joking...half serious) On the other hand, how stupid was it for some of the 9/11 hijackers to tell their flight instructors that they weren't interested in learning to take off...just to land the plane? The stupidity of that little planning blunder is only surpassed by the good guys not using their knowledge of this information to possibly thwart the attacks. </p>

<p> Kind of like when I was a kid and I had to lie to my parents to avoid getting in trouble. I never told a logical, well reasoned lie...I made up some really outrageous crap because...who would believe that a kid would have the nerve to tell a lie that big, expecting that anyone would believe it? Sometimes it actually worked...most of the time it didn't. But ya gotta admit there was a bit of genius to it. (or maybe not)</p>

<p>Ah...copy & paste working again. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not saying there is no danger from terrorism, I'm saying that danger from a guy with a camera and tripod is imagined rather than real. Real terrorists (who aren't completely stupid) probably do nothing to draw attention to themselves. They might walk or drive by somewhere to have a look but probably don't stop to set up a tripod! If they take pictures it's probably with a cellphone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You may be right, David. But...then again, how can we really say how a terrorist might think or act? In your own words...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...they <strong><em>might </em></strong>walk or drive by....<br>

...but <em><strong>probably</strong></em> don't stop....<br>

If they take pictures it's <em><strong>probably</strong></em> with a cellphone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> As certain as you seem to be in your views on the subject, sounds like you're still leaving room for being wrong <strong><em>...? </em></strong></p>

<p>I know one thing for certain. If I were a terrorist (and I am not) with plans to shoot photographs of a nuclear power plant, and I had just read this discussion...<br>

I'd purchase the biggest camera and tripod I could get my hands on, drive down to the plant....take pictures til my nose bled, and dare the guards to challenge my rights as a citizen of these United States of America. After all...<strong>I must not be a terrorist...</strong>because as we all know....<strong>terrorists do <em>nothing </em>to draw attention themselves. </strong> They might walk or drive by to have a look, but probably don't stop to set up a tripod...and if they take pictures...it's probably with a cell phone! Oh yeah, almost forgot. I'd call authorities at the plant to o.k. the shoot...which they would gladly agree to! Hell, they might even come along with me, and maybe wth a bit of luck, they'd help me load up my equipment when the mission was over!</p>

[walter_strong5]

<p>I want to add this. You need to understand, John, the nature of "authority". Authority does not exist to respect your rights. Authority exists to protect government or some private enterprise. Once people in positions of authority see you have no stomach for confrontation then they've got you by the gonads. Our rights are not protected by people who are given to compromise, there's no such thing as a "compromise" on constitutional rights. Authority will erode our rights a bit at a time until those rights are completely gone. The process of protecting rights is not for the meek and is not for the "sheeple", its not a pretty process. Our founding fathers did not seek "compromise" with the king of England. Once it was clear he would not respect the rights of the colonists then the colonists went to war with said king. They did not concern themselves with his sensibilities, it was "be free or die" in the process of trying to secure those freedoms. If you are afraid of confrontation, if you are afraid to spend a night or two (or more) in jail then you need to go home, plant your placid ass into your recliner, and then watch on TV while somebody else pays the price to protect your rights. Like the man said John, "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way"!<br /><br /></p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Why risk buying a big camera on the off chance that it might make you look too stupid to be a terrorist? Why not go there with a girl and take a picture of her with your cellphone in front of the cooling towers? Nobody would give you a second look. You could probably get the guard to take the picture for you.</p>

<p>Yes you might find a terrorist teaching floral arrangements in a local community college, but this SMALL possibility doesn't warrant rounding up all the florists in America (or all community college teachers). We have limited anti-terrorist/law enforcement resources. Why not spend them wisely? Plus, it might be safe to walk the streets at night in a police state (if you don't encounter the police) but do you really want to live in one? Is it so wrong to wish the authorities had a lick of sense?</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Walter, Since you seem to think that because I'm not "kowtowing" to your way of seeing things...that I must not understand Mr.Franklin's words...why don't you explain to me what part of it I don't understand? I've made it abundantly clear that in the one incident in which a security guard attempted to wronfgully trample on my rights...that I ignored his demands that I not take my photographs...and told him in so many words....to go ahead and have me arrested if he felt the need. I was ready to turn my vacation into extended jail time if necessary. I had already instructed my wife to call the A.C.L.U. if they came to take me away.</p>

<p> Now, having ascertained that there is no law against photographing the local nuclear plant from public or private property (just not federal site property)....if I received a call in which the TVA spokesperson suddenly changed his mind and directed me not to photograph the plant...I would ignore his directive and take my pictures at a time of my choosing. I still would have no objection to being asked for I.D. or being asked the purpose of my photographs...but if I were harassed, I'd make it my life mission to defend and fight for my rights. I completely agree with you and anyone who believes that many of our rights are being trampled on and eroded in the post 9/11 paranoid world in which we live. I could go on and on in speaking of how much we agree on many issues. But the glaring difference in our thinking is that I don't feel the need to be needlessly confrontational, rude, abrasive, and rebellious toward those in authority in order to defend my rights. Down here in the South, someone with your approach would simply be referred to as a s**t stirrer. That is...someone who needlessly stirs up a stink...just because he has the right to, not because there's any real purpose involved. </p>

[jgalyon]

<p>David and Walter, I could continue this conversation with the two of you until Jesus comes and I feel certain we'd never be any closer to agreeing with one another than at the present moment. Despite our opposing views, I think it's wonderful that we live in a country where we can freely discuss/debate such issues. Whereas I can find areas of agreement in our views...you two seem to ignore this fact. On the other hand, I find many of your views to be to the far right side of extreme on this matter...you guys seem to think that everyone that doesn't agree with is either blind to the truth, cowardly, unpatriotic...or all of the above. I don't discount everything you have to say, but I don't detect any balance in your views...or a willingness to acknowledge that you might not have all of the answers. I don't think the two of you have any idea how extreme your rhetoric sounds to the average person...but I won't waste time trying to convince you. As my son's generation would say...Peace/Out!</p>

<p>p.s - I'd love to sit back and listen to some true life accounts of how you guys have stood up against "the man". Any jail time between the two of you for defending your constitutional rights? Or...is all this talk just theoretical stuff that hasn't yet been fleshed out in real life?</p>

[walter_strong5]

<p>John, its not a matter of how "extreme" my rhetoric sounds to the "average" person. The "average" person is a full fledged member of the "sheeple" who will bend with any wind that blows. "Balance" and "compromise" and "gentlemen's agreements" are not what we look for when it comes to protecting our constitutional rights. Nothing less than a hard nosed refusal to retreat one single step will suffice to accomplish that goal. I do wish I could brag about spending a few nights in jail because I refused to budge one fraction of an inch away from my constitutional rights. Maybe that'll happen in the few years I've left on the planet. This is not an area where "being nice" is the goal. Whoever said "Nice guys finish last" must've been a constitutional scholar. The time for smiling and being friendly is after the victory is won. If the motto of your son's generation is "Peace/Out" then I feel genuinely sorry for them. Peace is not the objective, protecting our constitutional rights is. I'll be glad to settle for the peace of the grave when my time comes. In the meantime, victory will come only to those who are willing to stand in the front lines and fight the battles. Don't Tread On Me.</p>

[waite_watson]

<p>One doesn't have to ask permission to exercise a 'right'! If it requires permission then it is a privilege. A right doesn't require you to show identification. Doesn't require you to make advance reservations. Doesn't require you to tell them when & where you'll be exercising that right or for what purpose you'll be exercising that right! If those things are required then it ain't no right!</p>