Again with the Photographer Harrassment

[Socke]

I have seen a number of street photographs in galleries where the subject looks annoyed, angry, offended, or intimidated, and even read comments by the photographer to this effect. Often these comments are laced with a little bit of pride at being able to bag the shot anyway. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think it's not unreasonable to feel a bit violated by street photography, and some people might have past experiences that make them feel even more so.

This is definitely illegal in Germany. I may shoot in the streets but as soon as I publish the pictures I need a release by the person in the picture.
Exceptions are for pictures where the people are not the subject or people at newsworthy events and to some extent people in crowds.
As a photographer you need a good lawyer, we lost a case where we had permission to use the pictures from a staged shot in our print magazin but did use them on our website as well.

 

[Socke]

Not saying what they did is right, but a foriegn guy taking pictures of government buildings might warrant a couple of questions, maybe note his name and check his legal status.

A friend of mine was to Chicago last year and to NY in february, both times he was advised by the travel agency not to take pictures of official buildings, landmarks etc.pp without some sort of permission.

 

[Patman]

I feel any attempt at security is better than none. How far back does it go. I was stopped in 1963 , while in the army, dressed in civies, for taking pictures of my girl friend on in front of McGuire Air Force base because they thought i was photographing the planes. We were surrounded by about 6 MPs with automatic weapons, i had to surrender my camera and the film was taken out and exposed. I was brought back to my company area and my First Sergent tore me a new AH. Talk about being scared to death, i was only in the service a month and this was our first visit from family.

 

[FrankS]

"I feel any attempt at security is better than none."

Sorry, got to disagree with that! If the attempt at security is ineffective and it erodes civil liberties, that's a bad thing.

Come on Bill, start it up! (photographers' rights group)

 

[Patman]

It's only ineffective if no one is caught but catch just one person with a bomb and it's all worth it!

 

[FrankS]

We're talking about harrassing photographers going about their business overtly. If a terrorist needed a picture (what for, I don't know) of something they could do it covertly easily with a camera phone, or one of the Minox spy cameras!

 

[SDK]

I feel any attempt at security is better than none. How far back does it go. I was stopped in 1963 , while in the army, dressed in civies, for taking pictures of my girl friend on in front of McGuire Air Force base because they thought i was photographing the planes. We were surrounded by about 6 MPs with automatic weapons, i had to surrender my camera and the film was taken out and exposed. I was brought back to my company area and my First Sergent tore me a new AH. Talk about being scared to death, i was only in the service a month and this was our first visit from family.

I also don't agree that anything for security is better than nothing. If government does the wrong thing, it wastes resources and time, both for law enforcement and for the innocent that people the police stop. You force law enforcement to subvert the very freedoms they are supposed to uphold, while you find out nothing about the real threats. I'm no expert, but it seems like law enforcement should focus on putting undercover agents into violent extremist groups, to gather more pertinent intelligence on terrorist plots.

I do think that the military has the right to keep some bases secret, and control access and photography in its sensitive properties.

Patman, I hope two AHs makes it easier to avoid constipation. 😉

I don't really care for the 'poll' although I did answer it honestly. Online polls are not that - they are mere surveys and should not call themselves polls. Polls are conducted on a random sample of a group of people, they are not people who are invited to participate - that becomes self-selecting for the response people choose to give

Sorry Bill, RFF calls the feature a "poll", so I was just using that name. I agree it really is just a survey, and of doubtful meaning. I did find it odd that the moderators moved it from the "RFF Polls" to the "And now for something completely different" forum. I guess they thought the police encounter survey was too controversial. Perhaps "RFF Polls" should be renamed "RFF Surveys." 😀

 

[Trius]

Patman: Excuse me? "Any" attempt? Where does it end? How many of my rights do I surrender for perceived security? As FrankS states (and I made the same point in a similar thread a long time ago here on RFF), any competent terrorist would not openly walk up to a restricted facility and take photos. Those who perpetrated the horror of 9/11 worked pretty hard at being covert in the lead-up to their attack. No, they weren't ultra-sophisticated, but apparently US security was even less sophisticated, because in spite of their actions that were noted, they weren't stopped.

It might be instructive to study other countries where civil liberties were eroded in the name of security or other national interests. You'd probably find some interesting names of leaders in your reading.

 

[ch1]

Frank S. and Trius and other Canadian friends,

With all due respect. Why do you, as Canadians, always feel a need to express your outrage at what you consider to be the erosion of American civil liberties? Yes, it is well-known that you dislike Bush/Cheney etc. As do I.

But, why do you care? Or, more pointedly, as an American, why should I care what you think about my country's response to terrorism?

If I, or any American expressed such opinions about domestic Canadian matters would you not be among the first to accuse us of "meddling" and acting "imperialistic"?

Hey, I like you guys - but I really do think that US domestic responses to terrorism (real or perceived) and whether or if they erode our civil liberties are for us to decide - not you.

I mean this is a non-offensive, heartfelt way. You are very good liberals etc. Yet you are regularly "played" by a very different "libertarian" mentality here. Whilst politics doth make strange bedfellows - you are sleeping with a very odd partner!

 

[NoTx]

Even a Republican would have to agree with that!

Yes I would 😀

 

[NoTx]

Its one thing to make an honest mistake .... maybe these officers really didn't know the law.

It is another thing entirely to not have the courage to own up to those mistakes once they have been pointed out to you. These officers, and their union rep, should apologize immediately rather than behave like NBA union reps who habitually feel compelled to defend ANYTHING their members do.

What a sad state of affairs. Meanwhile we are in the largest deficit in our history and nothing is secured. And this is the best security measure they have, harassing photographers ... laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

What is needed is a booklet of laws to send to police departments🙁

 

[FrankS]

Frank S. and Trius and other Canadian friends, With all due respect. Why do you, as Canadians, always feel a need to express your outrage at what you consider to be the erosion of American civil liberties? Yes, it is well-known that you dislike Bush/Cheney etc. As do I.

George, you're starting to wander off the path with your arms flailing here. Can I not express my feelings about what's happening in the US, AND ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD, where photographers are hassled by police for simply doing photography? This in not just about the US, ... (no, I won't say what I was about to..., got to keep it civil)

 

[FrankS]

If I, or any American expressed such opinions about domestic Canadian matters would you not be among the first to accuse us of "meddling" and acting "imperialistic"? Hey, I like you guys - but I really do think that US domestic responses to terrorism (real or perceived) and whether or if they erode our civil liberties are for us to decide - not you.

Meooow!

Just a little "over the top", George. It's not "all about America", this is an issue in many free countries, including Canada and the UK, which you would know, if you could just see past your borders. So there! 🙂

 

[ch1]

Frank,

I am more concerned that you are a very good-hearted person who does not know what Libertarianism is and so you are being used.

If you believe, as I think you do, in issues like national health care, protection of work places via legislation, environmental laws, social assistance to those in need etc. etc. hen you are NOT a Libertarian.

If you feel that the only government necessary is one which governs least and that the ulitmate ideal is no government at all - simply private contractual arrangements then you are, indeed, a Libertarian.

You regularly "enlist" each time the Bugle Man trumpets Libertarianism.

Do you realize that?

Really odd.....

 

[peterc]

I really do think that US domestic responses to terrorism (real or perceived) and whether or if they erode our civil liberties are for us to decide - not you.

Due to the long border we share, the U.S. domestic response to terrorism affects Canadians as well as Americans. Demands on our government and businesses to meet U.S. security concerns have altered day-to-day life for many on this side of the border. And much of what the U.S. government does trickles across the border, so an erosion of your civil rights is a harbinger of what could happen here.

Peter

 

[FrankS]

Okay, so we're past the "How dare you Canadians comment on US policy" rampage?

George, there is simply a difference between governent good deeds like national health care, and government abuse of trust/power. I don't know why I can't appreciate the one while being resentful of the other. They are different actions taken by a government.

 

[ch1]

Due to the long border we share, the U.S. domestic response to terrorism affects Canadians as well as Americans. Demands on our government and businesses to meet U.S. security concerns have altered day-to-day life for many on this side of the border. And much of what the U.S. government does trickles across the border, so an erosion of your civil rights is a harbinger of what could happen here.

Peter

Demands to meet US security concerns are what they are. There is a real disconnect on this.

The NY Times is one of the most liberal newspapers in the US. It is regularly excoriated by the Bushies and the Republicans as a "pink sheet".

Today they had a long article reporting on the lack of security at the railyards around NYC which regularly house tanker cars full of nasty chemicals. You can see what we did with the Dubai Ports thing.

Security is NOT a right/left thing down here in the way it apparently is for you. We took 3000 dead in NYC four and a half years ago. We're not looking for any more.

For us it is a matter of safety and survival - and if it means a few RF'ers get "hassled" for the greater good - well that's a small price to pay.

You don't have to be a flaming "patriot" to know that there are really nasty people out there who want to do really nasty things to us!

 

[FrankS]

"For us it is a matter of safety and survival - and if it means a few RF'ers get "hassled" for the greater good - well that's a small price to pay. You don't have to be a flaming "patriot" to know that there are really nasty people out there who want to do really nasty things to us!"

But those nasty people are not the ones going around taking pictures in the streets overtly. Hassling photographers is not doing one iota of good in the war against terrorism. It is a totally misspent effort.

 

[BrianShaw]

Bacon

Bacon

Most Americans would probably agree that Canadian bacon is "superior". What do Canadians think about American bacon?

 

[peterc]

For us it is a matter of safety and survival - and if it means a few RF'ers get "hassled" for the greater good - well that's a small price to pay.

a. I'm not convinced the hassling of photographers is for the greater good but rather for appearance's sake.
b. It seems a rather high price to pay, actually.

Peter