Civil Disobedience

RObert Budding

RObert Budding

D'oh!
Local time
5:02 AM
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
1,502
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts
View My Gallery
I was taking a few shots of the new convention center in Boston yesterday when I was confronted by a security guard. She informed me that I could not photograph the building without "special permission" from the manager of the site. I explained that I had helped pay for the building, but she was unimpressed. So then I asked her where her jurisdiction ended. Could I shoot from across the street? She looked puzzled, so I told her that she would have to arrest me. I went on shooting and she left me alone.

Have we gone a bit over the top on security? Do terrorists walk around with medium format film cameras? Or would they just use a cell phone camera and capture images undetected? Does this silliness make anyone feel safer?

Anyway, at some future date I will email all of you with a Blackberry as I seek to raise bail money.
 
This happens over here too, Robert. Apparently all terrorists use 40 year old mechanical cameras while all the people with camera phones and digi compacts are left to snap away unmolested. Actually, with some buildings in London they're more worried about commercial use of the pictures than anything else. Crossing the road and fitting a longer lens tends to defeat the overzealous security guards here every time. They're a bit like a guard dog on a chain really.
 
markinlondon said:
This happens over here too, Robert. Apparently all terrorists use 40 year old mechanical cameras while all the people with camera phones and digi compacts are left to snap away unmolested. Actually, with some buildings in London they're more worried about commercial use of the pictures than anything else. Crossing the road and fitting a longer lens tends to defeat the overzealous security guards here every time. They're a bit like a guard dog on a chain really.
Click to expand...

But this guard dog had no teeth. Rent-a-cops can't arrest you. Except for a citizens arrest and, as far as I know, I broke no laws.
 
You're right, Robert and here we don't even have the law of "citizens' arrest". As a member of the public you may only detain someone if they have openly committed an offence which would get them at least 5 years in jail. The problem is with property boundaries which can extend onto the street. Once you're off that private property the guard has no rights but can of course call the police.
 
RObert Budding said:
She looked puzzled, so I told her that she would have to arrest me. I went on shooting and she left me alone.
Click to expand...

Classic, we are run amok with people ill-trained and ill-equipped for real threats. Who, when confronted, can cite no authority for their alleged authority 🙂

I wish I could have taken a shot of her expression.
 
I was once on the property of a school that had just been built and hadn't been open yet when a janitor approached me telling me that I needed a permit to photograph the building. When I explained him that this is my hobby and that it's not going to be published anywhere he went on asking me how I would like it if he would come to my house to take pictures. Of course I told him that he was most welcome to do this. He then closed his speech by telling me that he knows a few things about buildings and that this one was not interesting at all to photograph. Obviously I had to thank him for telling me what is and what is not interesting. 😉
 
RObert Budding said:
I was taking a few shots of the new convention center in Boston yesterday when I was confronted by a security guard. She informed me that I could not photograph the building without "special permission" from the manager of the site.
Click to expand...

IANAL, but I did have a conversation a while back with one who is regarding things like this.

One exact quote was "If an arrest is made or a summons is issued, there must be a statute cited", meaning that you must be accused of breaking some specific law that actually exists.

Private security guards (and even sworn LEOs at times, unfortunately) are known to sometimes make up the laws on the fly.

My attorney friend suggested to me that if I was ever confronted for shooting something, to politely (emphasis on politely) ask what statute or regulation I was breaking.

He also suggested to be very careful about escalating things, and that it would be more prudent in many cases to play dumb, appear to cooperate, and come back when the RentACop was not looking.
 
About a year ago I was told by a security guard at Canary Wharf (a huge financial center, for you non-Brits) that I needed a permit to take pictures there, even of the exteriors of the buildings. He said the whole area was private property and that was the rule. Didn't matter that it was for non-commercial use. I actually tried to get said permit, but no one ever answered the phone number given to me. Then I saw on the Canary Wharf Website lots of really nice photos of the entire complex. So now I take pictures there once more -- no one has bothered me again (yet).
 
I've bee asked to leave Victoria station for similar reasons by a community support officer, I kept my mouth shut but I find it a bit hard to take that someone paid to protect the public from criminal activity would involve themselves in a civil matter. And anyway do they really think that something like the 7/7 london bombings could be prevented by something like this? I think those bombers just did a walk through the week before.
 
Toby said:
I've bee asked to leave Victoria station for similar reasons by a community support officer, I kept my mouth shut but I find it a bit hard to take that someone paid to protect the public from criminal activity would involve themselves in a civil matter. And anyway do they really think that something like the 7/7 london bombings could be prevented by something like this? I think those bombers just did a walk through the week before.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the London bombers took photos of the underground with Leicas. Quiet, fast lenses, hand holdable at slow shutter speeds. It's the waepon of choice for terrorists!
 
RObert Budding said:
I was taking a few shots of the new convention center in Boston yesterday when I was confronted by a security guard. She informed me that I could not photograph the building without "special permission" from the manager of the site. I explained that I had helped pay for the building, but she was unimpressed. So then I asked her where her jurisdiction ended. Could I shoot from across the street? She looked puzzled, so I told her that she would have to arrest me. I went on shooting and she left me alone.

Have we gone a bit over the top on security? Do terrorists walk around with medium format film cameras? Or would they just use a cell phone camera and capture images undetected? Does this silliness make anyone feel safer?

Anyway, at some future date I will email all of you with a Blackberry as I seek to raise bail money.
Click to expand...

Actually the smart ones sit at home in their jammies and use "Google Earth" to capture their images. It's just us citizens who get subjected to this crap. And it appears that this type of stupidity will end anytime soon.

Oh yes, I feel safe when I know a minimum wage rent-a-cop is on the job helping keep the world's largest democracy safe from photography.

Bob
 
Robert - 2 extremely sensible and reasonable comments from you. These are weird times and we all need to stand up for common sense. When I went to the USSR in 1987, Intourist sent me a booklet that included the rules for photography. Essentially, they were happy for just about anything to be photographed except railway stations, airports and military installations. And so it turned out - I went around on my own and took pictures all the time and was left in peace. The only bad moment was when I raised my camera at a queue outisde a shop and a big white Volga car pulled up and a uniform shouted at me until I put the camera away. The West has become much more paranoid than the USSR.
 
As I understand it you can photograph anything as long as you are on public land. As soon as you step onto private or government land it's at the owners or managers discretion.

It's always worth pointing out to over-zealous security staff that they have no real powers.

Though bear in mind that under our new crazy anti-terrorism laws (in the UK) anybody can be apprehended for any reason at any time.
 
RObert Budding said:
It's public property. The convention center was funded by the people.
Click to expand...

Actually its not really public....I work for a city, and even if its paid for with tax dollors or public donation it then becomes city property, and they can enforce laws or restrictions as the city sees fit. Look at it like this, tax money pays for police cars, but you can't just get in and drive it for a while.....and if you think those don't compare, well the city thinks that their the same.
Its private/public property, the city lets us use under their terms.

It sucks for me because I actually have to enforce the permit rules (which I don't agree with) at parks and tell photographers they can't shoot.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
A new book find
Replies
6
Views
2K
Guth
G
P
Product Photographers Replaced by Robots
Replies
8
Views
2K
RichC
RichC
N
Advice for "Security Guards"
Replies
1
Views
939
willie_901
willie_901
rhl-oregon
Preserve Us Our Losses -> 2/14-3/13/14 exhibit in Oregon
Replies
4
Views
1K
rhl-oregon
rhl-oregon
N
'You are not allowed to photograph this building'
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
9K
LeicaFan
LeicaFan
Back
Top Bottom