Freedom of Photography vs. Police

[tobycline]

<p>It looks as if taking photos on the street, especially of buildings, isn't against the law at all, but police officers don't seem to know this. Take it for what it's worth from this <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072502795_pf.html">Washington Post story</a>.</p>

[michael_spencer3]

<p>This comes up every once in a while since Washington DC is full of tourists taking pictures of everything and there are so many security forces. It even happed to me while I was standing in the median strip on L'Enfant Plaza Promenade in back of the Smithonsian Castle. Private guard ran over and told me it was illegal to take pictures of the Dept of Energy building and I gave him a short lecture (i.e. not only not illegal, but not even suspicious behavior). Also reminded him that <a href="http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1066">Eleanor Norton was holding a hearing</a> on the subject that week and threatened to turn his name over to her. I have some hope that having an article so prominent in the Washington Post will tamp down the enthusiasm of some of these anti photography zealots. Maybe Eleanor will be motivated to hold more hearings. msp</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Toby, I had read the article earlier, and thought this was one of the best I've seen. The links in the text are equally as good, especially the 10 stories of photographers running into problems.</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>Kudos to the Washington Post for writing well and illustrating an article that needed to be written and is of importance to most of us. I found out in reading it for the first time that the TSA cannot legally forbid most photography of its checkpoints, a point that comes up with me at least six times a month, and routinely I am told 'photography is forbidden'. I think I shall look up the law and/or regulations and seek a clarifying letter from responsible authority (authorities) about what is/is not forbidden about photography at such aviation checkpoints just so I can drag out a copy when challenged next.<br>

Of course, taking a photo means you WILL be singled out for special anti-terrorist screening, but that's the price to pay, and be sure to take names AND write letters, because as citizens (or legal residents) or even lawful tourists, we must uphold our rights.<br>

Just about anything we can legally (lawfully) see, probably should not be forbidden to our cameras, with some very rare exceptions.<br>

Toby, very kind thanks for the post; it will change part of my 'street' behavior-- not my comportment which I hope always is exemplary in the face of authority . . . .but my willingness to go toe to toe with someone in authority about what IS the law vs. what they THINK is their idea of what they imagine the law might be based on nothing more than some supposition they dreamed up or were told by someone over a hamburger or donut at Winchell's.<br>

Yesterday after a particular grueling 'secondary' screening at LAX where they are most rude (not so at say, SEA or SFO where they can be most pleasant, but at LAX), I let a supervisor have it, took names and will write letters . . . . . and dressed the supervisor down (after, of course, I was released from 'secondary' as being 'terrorist free') as always. I WAS FLYING ON 9-11 in a United Airlines 747 jet, and I understand the idea of danger in the sky, as it might have been my jet that could have been chosen instead of the other two United jets . . . . and thankfully it was not, so I know both sides of the coin.<br>

But at other stations, such as SEA especially, where I am known, I am treated usually with greatest kindness and courtesy, and the personnel at LAX have no excuse based on my identical behavior and requests (for security of my equipment, hard drives, and personal body).<br>

If you have a point to make to cops or TSA or anyone for that matter, wait until it's resolved, and you're let go or released, then start taking names . . . . because once it's determined that you're no threat, there's really little excuse for re-detaining you for asking for names, and I always ask that they write them down for me (or give me a card if they carry them).<br>

They always seem somehow 'unable' to do that, but I persist and always get them. Then they gotta go write a cover your ass memo or report . . . . which takes time from eating donuts and other things . . . . and explaining to supervisor . . . . . and hopefully just deters bad behavior in the first place. It's good to know the name of your Congressperson if you have interaction with Federal security officials. <br>

In an unrelated immigration matter, I once had a secretary from Malaysia who was ordered back to Kuala Lumpur (but not told of it), for her immigration hearing, though she was a student and it was finals week.<br>

I put in a call to my local Congressman and called the then INS regional director. In due time, a new directive came out in which US law was countermanded, the requirement she go to her home country for the interview was retracted and she had to walk four blocks with me to the local federal building, INS Office for her interview. Her INS file had a big PINK JACKET around it. <br>

Q 'What is that pink for' ?<br>

A. Congressional interest.<br>

The whole process was over in three minutes instead of several weeks. She got her 'Green Card' interview approval 'on the spot' -- no trip to Kuala Lumpur ever took place, even though routinely required.<br>

Never underestimate the power of Congressional interest (or the press), when it's been communicated to the federal agency . . . . . most Congressional staffers' primary interests are watching over the interests of constituents, and that can pay off handsomely to be a registered voter in a strong Representative's District.<br>

john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

[tobycline]

<p>John, I'm an airline pilot and have to deal with the TSA on a daily basis. You know what TSA stands for? Thousands Standing Around!</p>

<p>I too am glad I saw that WP article because I've been told by city police officers to stop taking pictures of the capital building in Columbus, Ohio. What? I paid for the building, so I should be able to make a photo of it, right? </p>

<p>Know your rights, be kind, and don't let someone tell you no who doesn't have the authority to tell you no.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Toby, I'm sure you "paid for" the Pentagon buildings too so test your argument by shooting it with your peaceful camera.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>British related <a href="http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1724916/met-commissioner-i-guarantee-photography-guidelines-interpreted">version</a></p>

[edrodgers]

<p>I'm a photographer in D.C., and I'll jump into this random photographer's rights thread and say what I usually say. There needs to be a balance of security and liberty. Maybe there is no law prohibiting photography of Federal buildings, or for that matter private property, but there are regulations, rules and policies that apply.</p>

<p>In my opinion, it is not worth the trouble to argue with a person charged with protecting us that you really, really wanted a picture of that huge piece of concrete. It is not helpful to protest, take pictures of the security people, or take pictures of anything during questioning, to give a lesson on constitutional rights, blah, blah, blah. They may not be able to legally stop you for photography, but if you escalate, they have every right to detain you.</p>

<p>I will respect and honor any requests by anyone charged with public security for me to explain what I'm doing, display my photographs, produce ID, and/or leave the area. I will do it quickly, and pleasantly. Maybe there are no laws against taking pictures of federal buildings, but it is within any officer's right and duty to investigate or challenge anything that is suspicious in their opinion.</p>

<p>It is an inconvenience to me, yes. But there are millions of other things to take pictures of in the city, and moving on is really not a big deal. They are not out there trying to take away your rights, and I doubt seriously that they are confronting you for their own amusement.</p>

<p>Even in DC, confrontations are rare. Things really aren't that bad out there.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Things really aren't that bad out there

 

So true... Just not worth worrying about. If anyone is expecting perfection, then this probably isn't the hobby/activity for

you.

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Well said Ed!<br /><br />I'd like to add that if there's a particular gov't building, department etc you want to photograph just call ahead and ask. I think most people would be pleasantly surprised. Most PIOs etc I've ever dealt with are very helpful.<br>

And just like Ed is saying, there's hardly ever any point arguing with the guy or gal enforcing. It's kind of like whining to your mailman about the price of postage. Sure, they"ll smile and pretend to listen but they can't do squat. On the other hand, if you are indeed treated poorly write down the time, date, place and - if possible - badge number etc and later talk to a superior officer. If you can't get the badge number(s) and you think the officer will go postal if you ask for it, write down some identifying details along with the place, date, time. That way you can tell the superiors later on that you had a problem with officer X at place, date, time and "I didn't get a badge number but the officer was 6', bald, blue eyes - or whatever happens to be the case.</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>The above advice to contact the PIO (Public Information Officer) of the appropriate government agency involved, is wonderful and when long, long ago, I was with Associated Press and later with another publication that required entrée into private stores and photographing in them amid 'store detectives' it often was something I relied on. I often was accosted by store detectives, once surrounded by six of them, and simply told them to call their boss's boss's boss, to be sure of my clearances, since the clearance hadn't worked its way way down the chain of command from the executive suite.<br>

But the vast bulk of my shooting, more than 90%, is impromptu, and that obviates the ability to 'call ahead' or 'write ahead' for permission and special dispensation from any PIO. My time line even prevents cell calling ahead, as the ideal photo opportunity often presents itself within a second or two, and frequently within no more than one to five minutes at maximum . . . .with some exceptions of course.<br>

It is for that reason that it is essential that we be aware of our 'rights' and the need to be able effectively to interface with the so-called 'security' personnel, who cannot see more than the fact that your camera is larger than the tourists' and therefore assume (using totally wrong logic) that somehow a larger camera and larger than normal lens equals greater terrorist threat.<br>

Reasoning with them sometimes works: 'Now doesn't it stand to reason that if I were an actual terrorist, I'd use the smallest possible camera, especially now that they have super-small digital cameras with 12 megapixels that will take photos with EVERYTHING IN FOCUS, which you will know if you're up on photography, and if you are not, I'll be glad to chat with you about it to help you with the next guy you want to stop.'<br>

I always try to be ultra polite -- no sense in getting detailed or thrown into jail for a simple photo, but again no sense in rolling over and missing what may be a great shot because of fear of possible consequences from some under informed yahoo who is overly impressed by his/her own badge.<br>

I do have a law degree and nearly two decades of law practice (ended long, long ago), so I have a leg up, but that can be something that causes resentment, too, as law enforcement people often resent those they regard as 'lawyers' so I do not always call attention to my credentials unless it is something my judgment tells me will help rather than hinder.<br>

An important point: It is counterproductive in almost all circumstances to get into a brouhaha with almost any security officer, private or public, and even worse to escalate that encounter, as the escalation can bring with it new and worse claims.<br>

Occasionally, however, actions by security officers who are ill-informed and who seek to do egregious harm, such as having one erase an entire flash card, confiscate a flash card, etc., unless they get compliance, or chase a person off a public street, require there be a measured response. Note the word 'measured'.<br>

Like the 'street' photographer who constantly must be in touch with his/her environment and the people/things around and about, the relationship between the photographer and security personnel during an interface and even before and after always must be the subject of scrutiny and self-scrutiny by the photographer . . . . to have the photographer keep asking himself not only 'am I right' but 'how will I appear to others who are on the other side' of any possible disagreement.<br>

I generally end any encounter with the goal of leaving a smile on the face of any security person I have an encounter with, even if only to tell a revealing story, a joke, an anecdote, or just to 'hang around' and 'shoot the bull' to help educate them to the realities of what it is I do, time and circumstances permitting . . . . and in appropriate circumstances and when I deem it appropriate to show them 'SELECTED' recent captures that show my work to the best ability to have them appreciate what it is I do . . . . so they cannot easily cast me and my work in a bad light.<br>

Generally, this approach works, and especially while driving cops ALWAYS have the right to see your driver's license. When asked for ID in public (not driving) I ALWAYS offer my passport and if asked for a driver's license, I always reply, 'Well, a passport is much better ID, and that's what I've given you, and it will be enough, as you well know.' (I don't offer anything else, even if asked if I have a driver's license . . . . that question either gets a nonresponse or a response that 'it doesn't matter if I do or don't, a passport is the FINEST IDENTIFICATION IN THE USA, and it will be enough, basically repeating myself, and not offering a driver's license.) No sense in allowing snoops to go on a fishing expedition or a chance to append your driver's record with useless nonsense as they might easily do, as a driver's license is attached to a variety of databases, I'm sure, and probably is readily linked, whereas a passport probably in most cases is much harder to link I would suspect (my conjecture, but I'd be willing to place a side bet on that conjecture, based on reactions and experience).<br>

And so far, no one has pushed the issue farther. (I always carry my passport, as it is the one document that cannot easily be forged, and no one carries 12 of them as people did drivers' licenses at one time . . . .) <br>

A passport also has certain security features that a driver's license does not have, though if officers do not know how to look, it may be a useless security measure for those examining a passport (but next time you go to the airport, look at the TSA officer with the little flashlight inspect your passport, and you'll see what I mean -- there must be some microscript or some such hidden there -- sort of like the microprint in the strip on a $100 bill?)<br>

Encounters are very, very seldom, and often can be seen coming to be avoided . . . . which usually is the best solution of all, but if one must arises, or one arises where unexpected, a cool, calm, educated demeanor without nervousness and with straight talk, coming from a position of authority helps greatly I've found.<br>

(I've yet to photograph in Washington, D.C. recently. The last time I was there, about a decade ago, I was free to walk the half of Congress, and once almost knocked down one of the most revered Democratic leaders on the second floor of Congress as he was not looking when he was about to duck into his private hideaway Capitol building office . . . . . and then I was with a Russian citizen whose father had once worked for the KGB (or so I was told, then only as a physician).<br>

Times have changed.<br>

I'll be interested to go back, especially now that I've learned how many 'Pentagon equivalents' have recently been built in the greater D.C. area to combat terrorism and surely every one of them must be bristling with security and I would suppose few of them are well-marked for innocent photographers like me with labels such as (Second Assistant headquarters for the anti-terrorist fight), while of course the terrorists probably know full well where most of them are . . . . of course.<br>

(An aside: Once, while flying into Moscow and reading 'The New Yorker and while living in or near Saratoga, CA and Santa Cruz, CA not far from Lockheed's headquarters and Moffett Field, Naval Air Station, Mountain View, California, I learned that the CIA's famous Blue Cube and its famous satellite tracking devices were within a bazooka rocket's range of a convertible vehicle stopped in traffic at the intersection of two nearby major freeways.)<br>

I had lived in that area for several decades, ignorant that those giant parabolic dishes controlled the USA's spy satellite communications against the 'Red Menace' but found about it in a public article in a very famous publication en route to Moscow . . . . where of course the Soviets had known about it for a very long time, before the Soviet Union disintegrated.<br>

I suggest that there are very few 'secrets' that the wandering 'street' photographer is going to come across with his/her camera, in fact, I'd be surprised in my lifetime if I've even seen one, though I have seen some major newsworthy events, from the riots in Harlem after the Martin Luther King assassination to the days-long top-down burning of the Ostantkino Television Tower which hovered over Moscow and which broadcast nearly 100% of its broadcast communications to the Russian citizens in the region.<br>

Fact is, I wouldn't know what to do if I took a photo with a 'secret' in it. I probably wouldn't even recognize the 'secret' . . . . . and if it were a US secret and I were fully advised of its importance, I probably would prevent its being distributed. I'm no Wikileaks kind of guy, though I have learned in my lifetime that Daniel Ellsberg did reveal lots of truths when he released the Pentagon Papers, and the USA may be the better for that; McNamara (Defense Secretary) has admitted the Viet Nam war was 'trumped up' vindicating the anti-war people, while I sat on the sidelines without a position.<br>

I'm a documenter, not a fomenter.<br>

I'm looking for the revealing 'photo' not necessarily to change things. I don't have an agenda, except possibly 'the truth'.<br>

And in doing so, presently I have no axe to grind.<br>

Except to stop those occasional ill-informed 'security' people who occasionally make a mockery of their own job by their own malfeasance and ineptitude from time to time (many do a wonderful job and are sorely needed and that is not to be denigrated . . . . they protected me flying on 9-11 and every day since, as I fly a great deal and have for them great thanks).<br>

john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>