Again with the Photographer Harrassment

[JoeFriday]

yeah, I know.. they have a tough job and often pay with their lives.. I'm willing to take that into consideration... and I don't think they should be open to litigation for not doing their jobs to the satisfaction of the general public

I guess my point is that when the police screw up, they're not really held to the same standards that we are.. if they expect to be 'above the law' in at least that regard, they ought to know the law when they are detaining someone because of it

 

[anselwannab]

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. Kind of weird that they "ran" at him, is this building so ugly no one takes pictures of it. Was Bill Clinton nearby? I wonder if there was something else that made him stick out, or maybe the guards were bored.

Look, we just kept a foreign company from buying a UK company that would run our shipping terminals. (Not the ports themselves. Can you imagine the Coast Guard ships being sponsered by "Right Guard" or AAA?) Xenophobia is the game everyone can play nowadays, right and left.

As to erosion of liberties, do you think that just started happening in 2000? Where were you when they took the Bill of Rights, and twisted "freedom of religion" into "freedom from religion" along with using the 2nd Amendment to justify taking people's firearms, not letting people defend themselves.

I don't want to get off on a rant here......

When did Dennis Miller stop being funny? Dennis Leary too? When I listen to them now they side like nursing home residents complaining about "kids these days." George Carlin kept his wit, he might have lost his mind, but he's still on the bleeding edge.

Anyway...

 

[John Camp]

Checking photographers has nothing to do with security measures needed to fight terrorists, any more than taking nail clippers away from elderly ladies inproves in-flight security. Instead, it has something to do with the lack of thought given the security measures. There have been some improvements in air safety, but on the ground, we're no safer now than we were before 9/11, and civil rights have IMHO certainly been eroded. "Security" has also been used as an excuse for all kinds of weird behavior by politicians and cops. Some cops (not all by any means) revel in the assumption of extra-legal authority that allows them to get away with stuff on the grounds "he might've been a terrorist...better safe than sorry." All of this sounds like I'm anti-cop, but I'm not: the change (for the worse) just seems clear to me.

Also, I've spent a LOT of time in Israel, working on archaeological digs, during both the first and second intifadas. I would say that there is probably no country on earth that is more serious about security: and every other Israeli you meet seems to be a street photographer. Israeli security guys don't care about street photography: That's because believing that photography will help a terrorist is simply a TV fantasy, and the Israelis are not interested in fantasies. What, you need a picture of a door to walk a bomb into a cafe? You need a picture of an airplane to hijack one?

I'm on the board of an American scholarly organization with a facility in Jerusalem, and did an analysis of our security needs. The conclusion was that we had two choices: leave, or assume some risk and stay. The fact is, nothing we could do would prevent a determined terrorist or terrorist group from hitting us, if they wanted to hit us. The same is true here. If a group of X terrorists infiltrates the Grand Ole Opry, or a local county courthouse, no number of over-weight and under-trained security guards will stop them: at that point, it's too late.

What we really need is to gather, assimilate and pass on good-quality intelligence; and we need real border security. What we have is a situation where the intelligence agencies are at war with each other, and the ports and borders leak like a sieve: but the security guards get away with an apology after illegally detaining a photographer, on the grounds that they were just providing security. That kind of security can kiss my butt.

Just my opinion...but I'm not all that humble about it. 😀

 

[JohnL]

<snip>
That's why they want a policy explanation and that's why today a memo was issued offering very clear specifics on what to do with people taking pictures in public places.

... and I wonder what those "very clear specifics" contained exactly?

 

[JohnL]

Come on Bill, we need a photographers' rights association. You are the just the guy to organize and run this! I'll be happy to start the Canadian arm of this organization.

Second that!

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

I think John Camp succinctly summed it up. He is right, we are concentrating on the wrong things. Which, in the end, is a waste of time and resources, and diverts us from the real dangers.

No one is anti-cop ... I'm just pro-great cop, intelligent cop, smart cop, cops who think before acting. Harassing photogs is a wasteful effort that is nothing more than an illusory-make-us-feel-more-secure Flinstone chewable.

It might not hurt us to learn a bit more from Israel and the UK about what it really takes to be secure. But my guess is we are too damn arrogant and stupid to do so.

 

[Al Patterson]

Amazing.

It's clear to me that some form of uniform guidelines would help both officers of the law and photographers.

Time to start IQ testing the knucle-dragging morons we have been hiring as police. Also time to practice the Heil Hitler! salutte for the Nazi moron cops.


(And, when police stop this garbage, I'll give them the resppect they THINK they desrver, AFTER they start EARNING it... )

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

As to erosion of liberties, do you think that just started happening in2000? Where were you when they took the Bill of Rights, and twisted"freedom of religion" into "freedom from religion" along with using the2nd Amendment to justify taking people's firearms, not letting peopledefend themselves.

Not sure where you're going with the comedians...

I don't think it all started with 9/11. There had been a little thingcalled "COINTELPRO" back in the 70's. I do think that that horendousday (Sep. 11) has become the source of a lot of wierdness here.

I think it's more than simply bad form when a visitor from a friendlynation is treated completely as an "auslander." Simply becaause hiscamera was in use near a courthouse and small group of misinformedpeace officers decided action was necessary.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Time to start IQ testing the knucle-dragging moronswe have been hiring as police. Also time to practice the Heil Hitler!salutte for the Nazi moron cops.


(And, when police stop this garbage, I'll give them the resppect theyTHINK they desrver, AFTER they start EARNING it... )

I don't think I would take it that far, really.

Please, lets not have this discussion degenerate.

 

[shaaktiman]

Israeli security guys don't care about street photography:

Not my experience shooting in Jerusalem. Were it not for my hebrew speaking girlfriend I would have been detained.

So Bill, am I alone in wanting to hear the details of your confrontation with the park dudes? What happened?

 

[bob cole]

for all the deservedly good things one might say about Israeli security, I have actually seen them feel around inside the baby carriage of an infant...They check everybody...We used to think that women and children were more or less safe risks...Not the Israelis...No one is a safe risk...Not before 9/11 and surely not now...So someone with a camera gets the same scrutiny as anyone else...

This is an instance where -- despite the seeming ignorance or arrogance of some law enforcement people -- discretion is the better part of valor; it's better than a clubbing, a broken camera and possibly much worse, including a police record.

 

[bmattock]

Not my experience shooting in Jerusalem. Were it not for my hebrew speaking girlfriend I would have been detained.

So Bill, am I alone in wanting to hear the details of your confrontation with the park dudes? What happened?

Really, not a whole lot. I wandered into Washington Square Park last Sunday around 2 p.m. Took some photos, and saw these two park rangers talking to a citizen, looked like they were giving directions. I was about 20 feet away, and I framed up a shot with my Yashica Lynx 14. One of the officers stopped me and said "Excuse me, sir." I looked at him and he said "I didn't give you permission to take my photograph." I thought about it - he was right, he hadn't. But then again, I didn't need it, either. I lowered the camera (after all, the shot was lost, no point in continuing) and walked over to the pair of them.

I asked if there was a law that I was unaware of that restricted photography in the park.

The first cop volunteered that I needed his permission to take his photo, or he'd arrest me if I kept trying. I could take a photo of anything or anyone else, he said.

The second cop hurredly explained that his partner "had a thing about having his picture taken." I replied that a) I was not going to take his photo, but b) since he was a public official in a public place, I was well within my rights to take his photo and there was not much he could do about it, let alone arrest me.

He said "I don't like people to take photos of me" and I said it sucked to be him, since as a public official, he had selected a career path that made him a public official and protected even less than the average citizen by privacy laws.

At that point, the second officer told me that they both understood I had a perfect right to take the first officer's photo, but it was time for me to leave now. I wished them both a good day and departed.

That's it. Nothing much. I suspect that some cops are not used to having people not just immediately do what they demand. I respect the cops and the dangerous job they do. I don't give them carte blanche to walk all over my rights in order to do it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[peterc]

I also think it's a red herring. Security cameras are not street photography. They are not singling me out, following me around. They are not personal.

Possibly ... but do you have any more knowledge of what people with access to the photos taken by security cameras do with them than you do of those a street photographer might snap you at the same time?

Peter

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Isn't it fascinating how dangerous a camera can be in the eyes of the law enforcers?

Sheesh...

I do agree, however, in that by demanding the guards to apologize the guy is making a point that makes him look just mean. He should have been satisfied with the apology he got from the judge. After all, he's more than the poor guards who didn't have their brains turned on when they took him into a cell.

Let's hope they kept them on afterwards—unless they were Wally World's special bargain brains, in which I'm sure the warranty already ran out!

 

[MelanieC]

Possibly ... but do you have any more knowledge of what people with access to the photos taken by security cameras do with them than you do of those a street photographer might snap you at the same time?

No, I don't. And you're right -- but it still is not immediate. It is the difference between, say, yelling at someone from behind the wheel of your car, and going right up to him and yelling in his face. Looking vs. staring. Dodging vs. pushing (I mean through a crowd, I don't mean developing film or prints, heh). The first is impersonal. The second is personal.

I'm not saying it's rational. I'm just saying it's my reaction. I don't personally like to make other people feel uncomfortable, so I won't do it to other people. Other photographers are free to make their own decisions about these things.

 

[x-ray]

that's not a bad idea.. forming a photographers union for real.. setting up a membership with dues to handle legal issues like this

Organizations like NPPA and ASMP do exactly that and more. I was an NPPA
( National Press Photographera Association) for years and it's a great group.




http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

 

[peterc]

I'm not saying it's rational. I'm just saying it's my reaction.

And it's a valid reaction. I'm in no way arguing that you shouldn't feel that way ... I'm just pointing out that, yes, you are being watched. And by people you don't even see.
Any street photography I do (which is very little) generally includes more than one person and is more based on the event than the person.

Peter

 

[John Camp]

I was about 20 feet away, and I framed up a shot with my Yashica Lynx 14. One of the officers stopped me and said "Excuse me, sir." I looked at him and he said "I didn't give you permission to take my photograph."
Bill Mattocks

Ah. Now it comes clear. It was the *Lynx.* You didn't say that before. If you'd been using a Leica, or even a ZI, you'd have been okay...

As for photographers hassled in Jerusalem, and baby buggies searched...that does happen, especially if you're a foreigner, and even more so if they think you might be a press photographer. Israeli security does not like the foreign press; and, I think (a personal opinion) for good reason. But the guy who reported this had a Hebrew-speaking girlfriend, so he *was not* detained. In other words, he had somebody local to vouch for him, and they lost interest. They didn't take him way for two hours just to play games with him. They don't have the time to waste. As for the baby carriage, who better to quote than Paul Simon...

"The bomb in the baby carriage was wired through radio...these are the days of miracles and wonders..."

The point I was making about the Israelis is that they don't screw around. The threat there is real and immediate and demonstrated, and if they think there's any chance that a baby carriage looks a little hinky, they will check it. They do all kinds of odd things -- if you're a young foreign guy with longish hair, when you go back out through Ben Gurion there's a good chance that the security person you'll talk to is a young pretty girl with big brown eyes and a charming smile, and about nine feet away looking in another direction is a largish man with a big blinkin' gun, just waiting for her to call...

And if you're going into a crowded cafe with a backpack and a thickish security man tells you to stop, you better stop, because if you don't, he might shoot you, and when they take the books out of your bag later, everybody will say what a shame it was, and he'll be back working the next night.

That's because the threat is real and has been assessed; but I don't think anybody would say that the Israelis (or even the foreigners living there) are timid about talking to their cops, or even yelling at them, or worried that they will be harassed for the sport of it. Everybody knows what the situation is, even if nobody likes it...

But I'd say that the cops who talked to Bill weren't about national security; they just didn't like the idea that their picture was being taken, and I think that's a mindset that was created after the videotaped LA beating that ended in the riots...A mindset that suggests that intimidating photographers is not a bad thing, generally.

I won 't post on this subject any more, because I really do start to rant; a kind of uncontrollable geek-out...I don't mean to offend anyone, and I apologize if I have.

JC

 

[SDK]

Checking photographers has nothing to do with security measures needed to fight terrorists, any more than taking nail clippers away from elderly ladies inproves in-flight security. Instead, it has something to do with the lack of thought given the security measures. There have been some improvements in air safety, but on the ground, we're no safer now than we were before 9/11, and civil rights have IMHO certainly been eroded. "Security" has also been used as an excuse for all kinds of weird behavior by politicians and cops. Some cops (not all by any means) revel in the assumption of extra-legal authority that allows them to get away with stuff on the grounds "he might've been a terrorist...better safe than sorry." All of this sounds like I'm anti-cop, but I'm not: the change (for the worse) just seems clear to me.

This analysis hits the nail on the head for me. In case you didn't see my poll, which got moved to here, one of the times I was stopped by a policeman for photography in public was in January 2002 in South Boston on the waterfront. Details; I was questioned and checked out for photographing a police helicopter (with a Leica M6 and a 90mm) as LNG tankers were coming into Boston Harbor. Another photographer who I did not know, was also stopped at the same time for photographing the ships with a Canon and Zoom lens. Bystanders were looking at us like we were spies for Al Qaeda and eagerly pointed out the guy photographing ships to the Boston police. The policemen also questioned a fisherman. They told me there was a new law prohibiting photographing the "special operation" of the LNG tankers coming into port. I never did find out what the wording of the statute was, or if it was temporary. Seems like it probably violates the First Amendment, but I'm no legal scholar. They took down my name, took my ID, checked me for warrants, asked who my employer was, what my work and home addresses and phone numbers were, and told me not to photograph the ships. You've no idea how nervous being put through something like this makes you.

Aside from the legal issue, I kept thinking what a waste of police time this was. If a terrorist group felt the need to photograph ships entering the harbor, they would probably be a lot more covert about their surveillance. It would be very easy to rent a hotel room in one of the tall hotels bey the waterfront or airport (using a fake ID) and take all the photos and video they wanted of the harbor, with little chance of discovery. And it's not like you can't easily get a chart of Boston Harbor to help plan a naval attack. It seemed like an incompetent strategy, trying to make the public feel like something was being done to stop terror, despite the fact that what was being done had a low chance of being effective or lead to finding real terrorists. Meanwhile they were trampling on the First Amendment rights of several people.

I understand the Boston Police were ordered to stop people from photographing the LNG tankers that day, and they did not arrest anyone that I know of, so I don't blame the officers too much. I blame the politicians and security experts who organized the operation. They must have known what they were doing would not be effective in fighting terrorism, and would violate citizens' civil rights, but they thought appearances were more important in the wake of 9/11 than real security. So I felt the public was being abused and not really protected in the name of the "war on terror."

Recently I discovered PhotoPermit.org, a website that documents harassment of photographers by police, security guards and private citizens. There have been a few cases in the past couple of years rather worse than Ben Hider's detention:

1) Man detained for photographing refinery from sidewalk.
2) Railfan passenger arrested in New Orleans.
3) German TV cameraman detained and video seized of New Orleans Postal waiting lines.
4) Doctor detained and handcuffed at police station for taking photo of power lines.
5) Photojounalist forced to destroy film In DC.
6) NYCLU sues NYC for detaining Indian Filmmaker Rakesh Sharma and wrecking his videocamera.
And here's The NYCLU page for more details on Rakesh Sharma's case.

Fortunately most photographers seem not to be having these problems, but it's disturbing to see new US cases like these almost every month, in big cities and small towns both. The "Land of the Free" needs to clean up its act at home. Otherwise criticizing human rights abuses abroad may not be taken seriously.

Steven D. Keirstead, Boston, MA

"Man having created the concept of God the Creator, found himself unsatisfied. For despite the proven pragmatic value of this image, through which the fine arts of music and literature, of architecture, painting and sculpture, together with the less fine arts of murder, thievery and general human exploitation, had been carried to new heights, there was still something unfulfilled: the impulse of curiosity in man was still hungry."
- Paul Strand, from the essay "Photography and the New God"

 

[JimG]

And it's a valid reaction. I'm in no way arguing that you shouldn't feel that way ... I'm just pointing out that, yes, you are being watched. And by people you don't even see.
Any street photography I do (which is very little) generally includes more than one person and is more based on the event than the person.

Peter

Some are being watched more then others. This is third year I've gone to this Ceaser Chavez celebration. Each time the police were there photographing young Hispanic males. I assume to later identify them as possible gang members?