Are Photographers Really a Threat?

[anselwannab]

Forget snapshots for running intel, try Google with their street view virtual "Drive By" technology. When I'm planning run an op (trying to find real Chicago style pizza in Denver) I case out the pizza parlor on Google, find the parking, what stores are nearby for reference.

I just can't wait for Obama to become president so that all this harrassing of photographers can stop.

 

[David Murphy]

I was angrily reproached recently by the manager of a Baskin and Robbins (of all places) to stop taking photographs in their store - which I was not doing anyway. I had Canon P around my neck and I was occasionally studying the frame lines while waiting in line to buy ice cream for my son 9 y/o who was next to me. I guess they assumed I was on an espionage mission for Haagen Daz or something. It created a crisis for the employees. The 20 y/o old something manager girl, supervising a group of teen-age type workers who scooped the ice-cream, was almost sputtering with anger. I had some sharp words with her and stormed out. She insisted I was taking pictures of the ice cream. How could I explain to here the compulsion to ponder frame lines, or even that a film camera was practically useless in dim light and without cocking a shutter (no mega pixel sensors my dear).

To her I was the incarnate image of someone on a perverse mission to compromise their corporate integrity - she'd probably been warned about such evil in her corporate training handbook.

Now note that I'm not even a "street photographer". The mere presence of an obvious "professional type" camera apparently sets off alarm bells among the ignorant and petty of this wold.

I've often wondered what would happen if I went around town snapping shots with a Minox B -- would that land me in Gitmo?

 

[nikon_sam]

and that's why I buy my ice cream at Rite Aid...

 

[David Murphy]

I just can't wait for Obama to become president so that all this harrassing of photographers can stop.

You're kidding right? I know he said he's going to stop the oceans from rising, but I didn't know he was going to solve this problem too.

 

[David Murphy]

and that's why I buy my ice cream at Rite Aid...

Hah! Good one. In fact the photo department at my Rite Aid is right next to the ice cream pen. They are a helluva lot friendlier there too and they like camera nuts.

 

[aizan]

i think i'll keep a printout or two of krages's guide in my wallet. taking photos is an opportunity to educate in so many ways! 😉

david, next time, just tell her you're taking pictures for yelp!

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Do they stop people who wear their cellphones by their waist and tell them not to take photos? I think they should, whether the cellphone is on or not, in someone's hands, being used or simply showed.

 

[jan normandale]

horse crap. .......... Have the police actively sought you out?

Can't say much about the US because I don't live there. A friend who is a pro photographer was visited by the RCMP and municipal police after he took a shot of a transit yard. They tracked him by identifying his plate number. They visited him at his home two days after he had taken the photographs.

Strangely the same transit commission in Toronto currently has a photo contest and promotion to show it's facilities. In May they opened up the buildings he took exterior shots of to public photography during "Doors Open". More than 500 people went through the buildings and over half had cameras and were permitted to take photos. I attended and took photos. Police were on site and cameras were going off all around them. No problems. Go figure.

So it does happen. He now has a police record. For what...?

 

[willie_901]

David,

I understand your indignation at being accused of something you did not do. The manager was unprofessional. She should have told you firmly and clearly that photography is not allowed in the store... that's it. If you raised your camera to your eye again (why wouldn't she think you are taking a photograph?) then she has every right to tell you to leave. I suggest you drop by when the owner is present and tell him/her the manager needs to be trained about how to handle people who take photographs in the store.

I too have been told to stop taking photographs in a retail store (but then I actually was taking photographs). You may take photographs in any place that is accessible to the general public unless you are asked to stop. If you are are asked to stop you must, or you can (worse case) be arrested for trespassing. However under no circumstances can anyone take your camera, film (or recording media). She can accuse you of photographing the ice cream, but all she can do is ask you to stop and/or leave the store.

When I was approached by a store manager, she wanted to know why I was taking photographs. I told her it was for an art project. She told me photography was not allowed in the store. I told her I would not take anymore photographs and remained in the store (with my camera in a shoulder bag) until my family finished their business.

william

 

[varjag]

Photographers *are* a threat: they steal your soul!

 

[sojournerphoto]

I was stopped and instructed to delete a photo recently in London. I had taken a (non aesthetic🙂) picture of the exterior of the Justice Minsistry as I walked between meetings and two 'guards' rushed out and proceed to tell me to delete the photo as I was not allowed to take pictures of that building. Somewhat amusingly this is about 150 yds from the Houses of Parliament, where upwards of 50,000 photos are taken every hour by my reckoning. When I argued my rights they wouldn't budge and became threatening in a veiled manner. I also had an appointment I couldn't afford to be late for and so complied with their request before moving on. However, it leaves an very unpleasant taste in my mouth and leaves me distrusting the UK government further. Weall know that outlawing photography is an early act of dictators and the corrupt.

I have since written to the minister responsible, my local mp and the opposition shadow minister.

Incidentally, I was also told at one point that I wasn't allowed to take photos in a supermarket, but there was no request to delete and the lady in question was perfectly civil, and so I complied.

Mike

 

[jan normandale]

I was stopped and instructed to delete a photo recently in London. I had taken a (non aesthetic🙂) picture of the exterior of the Justice Minsistry as I walked between meetings and two 'guards' rushed out and proceed to tell me to delete the photo as I was not allowed to take pictures of that building. Somewhat amusingly this is about 150 yds from the Houses of Parliament, where upwards of 50,000 photos are taken every hour by my reckoning. When I argued my rights they wouldn't budge and became threatening in a veiled manner. I also had an appointment I couldn't afford to be late for and so complied with their request before moving on. However, it leaves an very unpleasant taste in my mouth and leaves me distrusting the UK government further. Weall know that outlawing photography is an early act of dictators and the corrupt.

I have since written to the minister responsible, my local mp and the opposition shadow minister.

Incidentally, I was also told at one point that I wasn't allowed to take photos in a supermarket, but there was no request to delete and the lady in question was perfectly civil, and so I complied.

Mike

Mike you're lucky. I admin a pool for 'harassed photographers' permitting them to show images and describe the situation they encountered.

Here's the LINK to an Italian visitor's photo of the UK Houses of Parliament. He was ticketed and put through a "Stop and Search" by police for taking a photo of the Parliament buildings from across the far side of the Thames River!

 

[David Murphy]

David,

I understand your indignation at being accused of something you did not do. The manager was unprofessional. She should have told you firmly and clearly that photography is not allowed in the store... that's it. If you raised your camera to your eye again (why wouldn't she think you are taking a photograph?) then she has every right to tell you to leave. I suggest you drop by when the owner is present and tell him/her the manager needs to be trained about how to handle people who take photographs in the store.

I too have been told to stop taking photographs in a retail store (but then I actually was taking photographs). You may take photographs in any place that is accessible to the general public unless you are asked to stop. If you are are asked to stop you must, or you can (worse case) be arrested for trespassing. However under no circumstances can anyone take your camera, film (or recording media). She can accuse you of photographing the ice cream, but all she can do is ask you to stop and/or leave the store.

When I was approached by a store manager, she wanted to know why I was taking photographs. I told her it was for an art project. She told me photography was not allowed in the store. I told her I would not take anymore photographs and remained in the store (with my camera in a shoulder bag) until my family finished their business.

william

William, I think you misunderstand me. First of she did not ask me to leave, but was rude to me. Second of all I completely agree that they have the right not to have pictures taken if they don't want that. The problem was that I was not taking them and she did not believe me, argued with me, and effectively accused me of lying. Keep in mind that this is an ice cream parlor on a Sunday afternoon, not a military base or a defense contractor (I've received much better treatment at those places).

I just think that she and Baskin and Robbins are a bunch of idiots to treat customers that way (in fact I've been going there about 45 years - now never again). My point is that there is sort of a hysteria about photography that did not exist a few years ago in America. Hysteria, fear, coupled with ignorance is what it's all about I'm afraid -- even when out for a stroll with your kid on a Sunday afternoon and stopping for an ice cream one comes across this. Twenty years ago this would not have happened. In fact if there had been any discussion at all it might have been about the relative merits of the camera, or about photographing the family, or whatever.

The incident, while disturbing to me, is far less serious than the various stories told here about attempts to restrain photography in public places. I'm not trying to gather any sort of sympathy or anything (don't need it) --just adding an amusing tid bit about the rather narrow minded and paranoiac times I think we find ourselves living in. Sometimes I think the world is on the edge of returning to the Dark Ages.

 

[Krosya]

I have a simple way of looking at these things - if it's not explicidly forbidden - it's allowed. Just like smoking. Every store has a sign on a door that there is no smoking in there. Fine. I comply. If there is NO sign that says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" - I see it as I can take pics. If someone comes up and has a problem with it - I politely say - "I'm sorry, I must have missed the sign that says "No Photography". Could you please point it out for me and maybe even place it so it can be easlily seen?" Since most of these places dont have such a sign or policy for that matter - they usually let me take photos. If someone gets nasty - I'll put camera away, ask them for their full name, email and phone number for the company's home office and name of their boss. This usually makes them reconsider their position. Key is - be polite, but stand your ground. Be smarter than them.
Funny enough, I had a chance a few years ago to take several visiting dancers to a local shopping mall to do some shopping. Me and 12 girls. All beautiful. All running around like kids, taking pics of everything. Sure enough some idiot called security. Well, two mall security guys, once arrived, ended up being in the pictures with the girls and all had fun. So, I suppose it depends on who and when and how. 😉 (and I have pics to prove this 😉 )

 

[David Murphy]

I have a simple way of looking at these things - if it's not explicidly forbidden - it's allowed. Just like smoking. Every store has a sign on a door that there is no smoking in there. Fine. I comply. If there is NO sign that says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" - I see it as I can take pics. If someone comes up and has a problem with it - I politely say - "I'm sorry, I must have missed the sign that says "No Photography". Could you please point it out for me and maybe even place it so it can be easlily seen?" Since most of these places dont have such a sign or policy for that matter - they usually let me take photos. If someone gets nasty - I'll put camera away, ask them for their full name, email and phone number for the company's home office and name of their boss. This usually makes them reconsider their position. Key is - be polite, but stand your ground. Be smarter than them.
Funny enough, I had a chance a few years ago to take several visiting dancers to a local shopping mall to do some shopping. Me and 12 girls. All beautiful. All running around like kids, taking pics of everything. Sure enough some idiot called security. Well, two mall security guys, once arrived, ended up being in the pictures with the girls and all had fun. So, I suppose it depends on who and when and how. 😉 (and I have pics to prove this 😉 )

Yes, well I admire your guts to take pics in a store. I am aware enough of the current hysteria to not even try it, and at Baskin and Robins' I was not . I was merely sneaking a peak at my frame lines once or twice with the camera pointed at the floor, and that engendered a mini crisis at the ice cream stand! (God knows how we here love to fret and muse over our framelines). Any way so what if I had been taking photos? What are they hiding -- what paranoia is lurking there? To me this is really bizarre.

 

[aizan]

the internet probably has something to do with it. that's the answer to everything nowadays.

 

[JoeV]

Bruce is the Man!

Bruce is the Man!

... have you personally had bush come into your house and take your cameras? Have the police actively sought you out?

Well, if he (or they) had, I couldn't legally speak about it, because of the gag order built into the Patriot Act that demands secrecy regarding the serving of any 'National Security Letter'. So you can't tell. Ever. And no one will find out, unless you disappear.

Back on topic: Bruce Schneier is the man. I read his blog often, and his opinions are well respected, regardless of the slant of whatever paper publishes him. We need watchdogs like him to keep us informed.

The real issue, that rarely gets addressed in these periodic posts about bans on photography, is the role that media (including photography) plays in our culture. All media, especially corporate media, is 'embedded' (read: IN BED WITH), in the sense that media is the mechanism of propaganda, and propaganda is the mechanism by which ogligarchs manipulate the facade called 'democracy' to stay in power.

~Joe

 

[jan normandale]

Well, if he (or they) had, I couldn't legally speak about it, because of the gag order built into the Patriot Act that demands secrecy regarding the serving of any 'National Security Letter'. So you can't tell. Ever. And no one will find out, unless you disappear. .......

All media, especially corporate media, is 'embedded' (read: IN BED WITH), in the sense that media is the mechanism of propaganda, and propaganda is the mechanism by which ogligarchs manipulate the facade called 'democracy' to stay in power.

~Joe

Glad you said that, however I doubt it'll make a difference.

 

[40oz]

I think the comments in this thread point out that there are far more reasons people react unfavorably towards cameras at times than "terrorism." People all have their own insecurities. Not my problem, I say. The ratio of pictures taken to unpleasant experiences is heavily in favor of photography, and until that changes, I'll continue to take pictures on the street, or wherever I happen to choose. And I refuse to let other people's bizarre fantasies affect my life.

And let's be fair. Photography and the free press are the reasons we know about events that transpired at places like Abu Ghraib. So let's not descend into ridiculous conspiracy theories about how the press and world governments are keeping "us" down. The places where photography is restricted are very few and far between in much of the world, and even then, it doesn't stop pictures from being taken. Every time I hear about people being concerned about such restrictions, I feel better, not more fearful. It's the fact that people even consider it a potential problem that keeps it from being one.

FWIW, I've had more problems with individuals than anyone acting on the part of an organization. And very few problems at that.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Mike you're lucky. I admin a pool for 'harassed photographers' permitting them to show images and describe the situation they encountered.

Here's the LINK to an Italian visitor's photo of the UK Houses of Parliament. He was ticketed and put through a "Stop and Search" by police for taking a photo of the Parliament buildings from across the far side of the Thames River!

Jan

Just seen this. Completely bizarre to have gone so far as to issue a stop and search. There are literally thousands of people taking pictures of the Houses of Parliament through out the day. As you say, I clearly was lucky not to be dragged inside and searched etc.

Incidentally, a week later I still have not heard from any of the 4 MPs I wrote to. I will update the thread if I do.

Mike