ACLU sues to affirm rights to photograph federal buildings

[bobatkins]

<p>The ACLU is suing Homeland Security, and asking for a ruling that the prohibition of photography of Federal Buildings from a public place is unconsitutional.</p>

<p>http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/MusumeciComplaint_4.22.10.pdf</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Interesting, thanks for this Bob. I have to admit I always ask permission prior to photographing federal or state buildings but that's only because of what I shoot. Had I been shooting a museum, the USDA main building etc from the street I would never ask for permission first.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>There's a ban on most photography on Federal Property without prior permission. This means you can't take pictures inside a courthouse etc.</p>

<p>I think the clarification being asked for here is whether areas of free public access such as plazas and steps outside federal buildings count (or should count) as photography "on federal property" and thus reasonably fall under these guidelines and if there is such a restriction whether it's constitutional. They're also possibly asking for a clarification of whether photography of the outside of federal buildings from the public street is also covered.</p>

<p>The regulation restricting photography inside federal buildings without permission is reasonable. Prohibiting photography OF federal buildings from the outside isn't. The regulations are basically being overused by security personnel to harass photographers on the dubious grounds of "national security".</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Seems to me to just be another example of how those pinkos at the ACLU defend the interests of the camera-toting minority against those of the majority of gun-toting, god-fearing Americans.<br>

To keep those "tewrowists" at bay, there ought to be a ban on photographing any building whatsoever. In fact maybe a ban on photography altogether.</p>

<p>[Am I being too subtle again? All I can say is that a fair percentage here seem to be irony-challenged]</p>

[dr._karl_hoppe]

<p>I'm not an attorney, but I know enough law to be suspicious when someone states that photographing Federal buildings is illegal. If it is, in fact, illegal, then simply cite the statute, the title and section of the U.S. Code, or some section in the Code of Federal Regulations for a rule adopted under statutory authority. It can't be "illegal" just because some bureaucrat or functionary "thinks" it's illegal if there's no authority to back it up. This should be a very easy issue for the courts to resolve. Either there's a law that prohibits photography or there isn't. Of course, if there is a statute on the subject, then the next question is whether it is constitutional.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>In actually building up these buildings the engineering drawings of certain parts are well controlled; with a right to know so the security is not lost. ie the extra secret stuff is not out there to be harvested by some wacko. </p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Read Plaintiff's requests #3 and #4. Seems reasonable, and common sense, to boot.</p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>If it is, in fact, illegal, then simply cite the statute, the title and section of the U.S. Code</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, the law is always open to interpretation and never covers every possible case. For example 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.420 states:</p>

<p>

<p><em>Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of—</em><br>

<em> (a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;</em><br>

<em> (b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and</em><br>

<em> © Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes.</em></p>

<p>Does © also apply to photographs taken not for news purposes? Just because it says for new purposes is OK, does that make all photography for all other purposes illegal?</p>

<p>The there is the catchall "...<em>Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it...". </em>That basically says, it's OK, except when we say it's not OK<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Expecting an explicit statute to cover all possibilities is optimistic in the extreme. "<em>Either there's a law that prohibits photography or there isn't</em>" - if only it was that simple.</p>

</p>

[dr._karl_hoppe]

<p>But read the complaint. The regulations require that notices be posted on the subject Federal property. Apparently that was not done. What the ACLU wants is to toss out the regs as they have been applied to an open public plaza where the general public enjoys unrestricted access. It's not like the videotaping was being done inside the building, it was in an open-air plaza with no notice as to the restrictions. Seems like the agents here over reached, especially as the regulation is enforced differently by the same Federal agents in other cities. The complaint cites Philadelphia as an example. The court will have to work this out.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>This is good news. Governments need to be reminded that they are there by the grace of The People.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>Seems like the agents here over reached</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is my (non-lawyer's) interpretation as well. But that is how I interpreted Bob's original post: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The ACLU is suing Homeland Security, and asking for a ruling that the prohibition of photography of Federal Buildings from a public place is unconsitutional.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> The problem in US (as in here in UK) is that the law enforcement organsiatonis have played ulta-cautious and have looked on the satutes as an free pass to ban photography of any public building. Worse, I am sure that some of them have over-interpreted the intention and looked on it as an instruction.<br>

Someone a few months ago posted a memo from the NY Transport police that clarified what their officers could, and could not, do when they saw a photographer in action and that was a move in the right direction. So attitudes are changing.</p>

<p>This is why the possibility of dictatorship never really worry me - the dangerous ones are the followers who do <em>what they think </em>the leader wants and that can happen (and is happening) in a free society.<br>

By the way I do not want people to start flaming me as to whether this is, in act, a free society. Compared to 3/4 of the world, it is.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>The way I read the above statute it seems perfectly legal to "take" photos for editorial use, since news and editorial very often mean the same in the eyes of the law. I wonder how they will argue on forbidding commercial image use though since buildings have no privacy rights whatsoever. Aside from buildings that shouldn't be photographed because of security issues naturally. <br /><br />I can think of only a very small handful of agencies that would have legitimate concerns about their buildings being depicted. I can't think of a single federal main building for any agency that couldn't be photographed because of "security reasons". Doing an image search on things like DEA main building, NSA main building, etc will indeed turn up many photos so it's not like these buildings haven't been photographed in the past - hence there are no security issues. Privacy as well as security issues for staff is a very different matter though.<br /><br />An example. KCPD main building is smack downtown. I've photographed it plenty of times and seen others doing the same thing a large number of times. Nobody inside get their knickers in a bunch and runs out demanding that the photography stops. Same for the regional main buildings in various parts of the city. Now some (very few) units have locations that are "secret". Units within the PD such as Metro Meth, Career Criminals, Drug Enforcement Unit, Street Narcotics Unit, Gang Squad etc. They're kept secret because many undercover officers work in these units and their identities should be kept out of public knowledge. But, that's not what this particular thread is about really.<br /><br />I have photographed federal court buildings (exterior only) after 9/11 with no problems. Probably mainly because I call ahead and let security (US Marshal Service mainly) know I'll be there. But nobody has ever made a stink about it saying it would be illegal in any way.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>I don't think exaggerating the issues here is going to help much. An inaccurate title could live much longer than the case because people don't read the details. It's not about taking pictures of the buildings, it's about where an individual was taking pictures. At best this may remind the Feds in New York that they need to follow the law like they do elsewhere.</p>

<p>It's not even the ACLU as such, but the New York section over a problem in a New York location. Since this type of problem isn't typically happening elsewhere (as pointed out in the body of the complaint), despite the dramatic posturing in the opening sentences, this isn't likely to change much. </p>

[steve_levine]

<p>I still want to know how that "cameras prohibited" thing on all the NYC Bridges and Tunnels is working out? All of this is "doing something", so they can say we're "doing something".</p>

<p>An idiot can find aerial views of everywhere on the planet in a few seconds. How can photographing bldgs and structures be harmful anyway?</p>

<p>The police and other govt agencies cannot protect us from either blue or white collared criminals. How can they began to think that they can protect us from terrorism, especially by prohibiting photography?</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Most people don't pay a lot of attention to "what they do in New York." New York has a number of players in their political games and they don't necessarily do what the guy in charge says. The Mayor's Office is clear on the policy, it's up to him to get it taken care of.</p>

<p>Current photography shows current conditions including current security measures. A simple comparison of photographs over time can show the kinds of things added since an incident. For example, a number of years ago a disgruntled (or something) driver drove an 18 wheeler into the side of the capitol building in Sacramento. Since that time a variety of different barricades have been used. Pictures can show that. </p>

<p>Like Bob, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that photography is illegal. It's not. Even if it were, your problem would be with the legislative bodies that passed the laws. Have your written your reps instead of this forum?</p>

[Jeffrey L.T. von Glück]

<p>It seems as if otherwise innocent photography has become a suspected activity. But look at the stupidity of things. Can anyone cite an example where photography from a public area aided terrorists in the commission of their nefarious activity? Probably not. More is available for free on the Internet than could be captured by a photographer. Avid railfans have extensive maps and track diagrams that would shame a transit employee, all gotten either free from the Internet or at train shows. </p>

<p>I have photographed the rail scene in Europe and can say that I have never been harassed by transit authorities there. It is assumed that tourists will be photographing trains, stations, platforms, etc. The local gendarmes rarely bat an eye.</p>

[walter_strong5]

<p>Go to <a href="http://carlosmiller.com">http://carlosmiller.com</a> for the Photography is Not a Crime website.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>"Can anyone cite an example where photography from a public area aided terrorists in the commission of their nefarious activity? Probably not."</p>

<p>All you need to do is actually spend a little time doing your own research. I did. Specifically to see if there were open, public, reasonably reliable media sources reporting arrests and convictions of terrorists using pictures. And what a "surprise," they are out there.</p>

<p>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19254592/</p>

<p>MSNBC (The links to the videos are apparently no longer active.)</p>

<p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A34200-2002Jan11&notFound=true</p>

<p>Washington Post</p>

<p>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/09/1092022408239.html?from=storylhs</p>

<p>Sydney Morning Herald</p>

<p>I guess it's up to you to decide if you trust MSNBC or the Washington Post. The Australian article seems to be sourced from Reuters and The Guardian? The only real surprise (OK, it's not surprising) is the naivete shown by photographers about the value of photography in developing intelligence.</p>

[dr._karl_hoppe]

<p>I see your point. Jeffrey seems to be coming at the subject from a railfan's perspective. You can, however, find more pictures and general information on most railroads on the Internet than you could photograph yourself. It's the general state of paranoia that is pervasive which is troubling. The overwhelming number of people photographing train stations, public buildings, etc. are NOT up to no good, they are hobbyists, nothing more, or just tourists.</p>

<p>I think what is frustrating is that people snapping away with cellphone cameras are seldom hassled, whereas someone with a formidable-looking piece of photographic equipment draws suspicion. What is needed all around is a good dose of common sense, something sorely lacking in today's insane politically-correct environment of mindless zero tolerance and suspicion.</p>

[jon_mullen1]

<p>It seems to be an over-reaction when, as already pointed out elsewhere, we can look at just about anything, and anywhere by way of Google earth, etc. The only point that might make some kind of a case with me is concerning the safety of the People who use these buildings regularly.</p>