I was "bothered" a couple of weeks ago (harassed is too strong a word for what happened) by a couple of cops in a patrol car who passed me while I wa shooting the exterior of a defunct building at an abandoned state mental hospital FROM ACROSS THE STREET.
"Are you taking pictures?" (Well, guys, what does it look like?) "You know, that's state property;... you can't take pictures of the buildings here." I don't trespass (when I was 20 years old I might have; well actually, now that I think of it, I last tried that when I was about 40, but let's not go there in this thread). To the officers: if I accidentally parked my car in the wrong spot, I apologize. Can't take pictures of a soon-to-be-torn-down building that, technically as a taxpayer, I actually own in some small part? You must be kidding.
The last time I was in LA a few years ago, I took my kid up Mulholland Drive in the Hollywood Hills. We pulled up just beneath the famed Hollywood sign, where there is a small sign warning about rattle snakes. Stayed in the car to take a few shots not wanting to find out if the sign was to be believed (probably should be). Then we drove over to the Mulholland Dam, which holds back the mighty LA River (um, it's totally dry most of the year; you have to see it to believe it). Anyway, one can walk across much of the dam and see some very interesting views. There are signs posted warning that photography is verboten. This I get. I don't like it, but I get it. I hate all the repression going on in the post-9/11 world, but forwarned, I complied. There are surveillance cameras all around. I would have liked to get some pictures, but my fear of being arrested outweighed my photographic inclinations (that and worries about getting back to the airport on time).
I wonder: If 9/11 had destroyed something other than the WTC, today, would I be able to take this shot? Or, would the authorities be carting me off to Gitmo for some waterboarding? There has to be a better way to secure our safety AND protect our civil liberties from repression.
Having commuted through the World Trade Center for years and having second or third degree connections to a number of victims of the attacks (parents of several different families with whom my kids went to school, the fiance of a friend's sister, among others), I certainly do have a raw nerve that will never heal from the horror of it all. That said, if the best means we have of separating potential terrorists from the rest of us is by harassing people with cameras aimed at landmarks and other interesting structures, then we are in very deep trouble as a society.
In a way, the terrorists scored a victory. They got us to give up some things we hold dear in exchange for a false sense of security. Meanwhile, Cheney & Co. were getting us to wlling accede to all kinds of pointless repression by playing to our very worst fears. This is a slippery slope. The bad guys used cell phones. It does not follow that all cell phone users might be terrorists. Suspicious behavior is suspicious behavior (a la Supreme Court Justice Powell on porn: I can't tell you what it is, but "I know it when I see it."). By itself, taking pictures ought not to constitute suspicious behavior. Enough ranting from me....
I imagine that there must be as many amateur photographers among the police as there are in any other random segment of the population. A cop who shoots photographs as a hobby would understand what we're doing. The other ones are simply ignorant of the strange ways of all of us folks.
I now carry a Moo business card (thanks to MabelSound for tipping me off to this) in part to have something to justify what I do in public places. I'm sure it's hardly worth the nice card stock it's printed on, but at least it lets police and security people have a chance to scrutinize me for something other than my ocassionally long beard.
