ironhorse
Joe DuPont
Homeland Security finally directs its officers to respect the rights of photographers to photograph federal buildings from public property. The article and copy of the directive from the New York Times:http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/see-officer-i-can-too-take-that-picture/?emc=eta1
dmr
Registered Abuser
It's about {f-bomb}ing time!
sepiareverb
genius and moron
It's about {f-bomb}ing time!
+1. Good news on this front is LONG overdue.
Spleenrippa
Yes, Right There
Good to hear. I am happy for my southern neighbors... Especially since increased paranoia (and everything else) in the USA eventually trickles northward.
shashinka-ichiban
写真家 一番
It's not going to matter or mean much of anything unless the rent a guards get the message. It has not historically been the actual federal officers that have been the problem as so much as the rental cop who just doesn't care.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
For all the complaining that goes on when someone is accosted, this good news is getting very little attention?
monochromejrnl
Well-known
I posted about it yesterday, here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100879
No interest. The linked settlement is an interesting read.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100879
No interest. The linked settlement is an interesting read.
Paul_C
Established
For all the complaining that goes on when someone is accosted, this good news is getting very little attention?
Anger spurs interest and action better than contentment.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Well, I downloaded it and intend to print it and carry it with in my bags. Someone's brain finally worked! 
jan normandale
Film is the other way
"...While the settlement will benefit photographers working around federal buildings, the deal also specifies that officers are allowed to ask the name of the photographer and the purpose of his pictures. The officers are also allowed to take any "lawful steps to ascertain whether unlawful activity, or reconnaissance for the purpose of a terrorist or unlawful act, is being undertaken" according to the Washington Post.
......
If you read the decision there's not much that's changed in my opinion. There is still the right to stop photographers and state that "you are taking photographs for what purpose?” and the implication is "you better have an answer that I like…"
The “fat lady ain’t sung yet” folks!
......
If you read the decision there's not much that's changed in my opinion. There is still the right to stop photographers and state that "you are taking photographs for what purpose?” and the implication is "you better have an answer that I like…"
The “fat lady ain’t sung yet” folks!
Last edited:
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.