I hope that will never happen to me

Just consider: if an individual is really gathering information with the intention to cause harm... would this person go and photograph something conspicuously with, say, a MF camera?

Not in my book. Spies tend to be a little smarter than that.
Click to expand...

Not so fast there, Mr. Bond. I actually knew one former U.S. spy -- he was one of my professors in college. Naturally he wouldn't identify the agency he had worked for or give too many details, but he told us some funny stories.

He did mention that he had worked in the former East Germany -- he was stationed there perfectly legitimately, as a military attache -- and his specialty was photographing restricted military installations. His method was to visit the place with his wife, strike up a chat with the guards, and then take souvenir "snapshots" of them with his medium-format Rolleiflex camera. Of course, he'd aim the camera a bit wrong -- you know how confusing those waist-level finders are -- and his new friend would be off to the side, while the forbidden structure would be front and center. The medium-format negatives provided plenty of detail when enlarged.

I've also got a book -- "Piercing the Reich," by Joseph Persico -- about the OSS' inflitration of Nazi Germany during the Second World War. It includes some excerpts from the OSS training manual for spies. One interesting instruction was that if you are in public and feel you are under suspicion, the best way to allay that suspicion is to behave in a very bold, obvious manner (they suggested walking up to a policeman and asking directions.) The manual noted that everyone assumes that spies are sneaky and furtive, so if you're behaving conspicuously, people usually will assume you're innocent.

For what it's worth, this be-obvious tactic has served me well in my few ventures at street photography. Aim the camera, take the picture, smile warmly, wave thank you, and then move on. Maybe the OSS was on to something.
 
Well... yeah, there is the "hide in plain site" tactic. Something my ex father in-law did while he was in US Army. He and a fellow officer were able to visit Yugoslavia as tourists in the very early sixties.

Here you had two very charming african-american guys who knew a bit of the language and wanted to see the world. Traveled by foot, train and hitching rides. They took quite a few photos and were occasionally reminded, politely, by the police not to shoot certain things. Trains, bridges, official buildings., stuff like that.

He still has the photographs of himself and his fellow intelligence officer having a great time in Tito's world. Some of them taken by Yugoslavians who were happy to help the two unusual tourists.
 
George S. said:
I'm even wondering if these specific police officers acted as the photographer stated. Come on, can't you see that he played everything up in his article? He's a good writer for sure, and we'll never know the REAL truth, nor if there really WAS that tone of voice and all what that tone really inferred to him.
Click to expand...

While this is true there are simply too many examples for them all to be false. This is hapenning with increasing frequency. Now I'm not comenting from the fanatical left. I"m a card carrying member of the Republican Party; however, I don't hink the police were causght in the middle. When ordered to do something illegal, you don't do it. be you a police officer, a soldier, or an employee at worldcom cooking the books. Now I believe most polce are good people. A former police officer friedn of mine put it well though when he said "I think there are about the samepercentage of evil cops as evil bag boys, but the worst the evil bag boy can do is smash your eggs or bread, the bad cop can arrest you, harass you, or shoot you"

There are good people and bad people sound like some of these folk (particulalry the federal agent who was lying and breaking the law left right and center) were bad.

The photographer doesn't sound liek a bad person, just not overly bright. He should have handed them his lience, cooperated fully, then filed a report and called a lawyer or the ACLU. It was a dumb risk to take to anagonize them.
 
I was a police officer for almost 30 years and I was never given an order that I thought was illegal. Like a previous poster said- most times not just one law falls under what you are investigating or what you are asking/ordering someone to do, but several stautes always apply. It's when we get tied up in all the post-911 "homeland security" measures that are new laws on the books, is when the going gets sticky, and even I don't see the need for all these new laws, nor do I consider some of them "constitutional", but that's a matter for others to determine and hopefuylly change, not to be changed on the spot by some rookie cop on the street.
 
greyhoundman said:
I've been stopped and questioned, and I'm a Scotch/Irish hillbilly.:)
Click to expand...

My lawyer did mention that the cops would get in a lot of trouble if they had a pattern of only stopping young bearded men who appeared to be middle-eastern, so a middle-aged caucasian woman (or a Scot/Irish hillbilly) would likely be confronted as well.

I've found being polite and willing to compromise, solves most of the problems.
Click to expand...

Agreed, 110%!
 
While this is true there are simply too many examples for them all to be false.
Click to expand...

This is fallacious. In colonial Massachusetts accusations of witchcraft were made against hundreds of people, and ALL of those were false.
 
It sounds as though we generally agree that HSAII sucks and that Ian Spiers would have done well to in effect commit a strategic retreat and a follow up with authorities,

According Mr. Spiers account, it seems like the "federal agent" was the one driving. I can also imagine that there was a report by a "concerned citizen," who probably alerted the police who were required to alert federal authorities. At that location Mr Spiers was probably one out of ten people that day shooting pictures at the locks. Its kind of like people taking pictures at the US Capital In Washington, DC. How do you determine who in the crowd of tourist photographers is a potential terrorist? There everyone is kept at a great distance and generally everyone is eyed very closely.

Which leads to this in my mind. If the locks are that important (I doubt as important as the US Capital or the Golden gate Bridge) then people should be kept well back from it and enforcement should be done even handedly.

Mr Spiers doesn't strike me as an idiot or a jack-ass, just a very young person who hasn't been confronted with truly overt discrimination. I agree he should have handed over his ID. Given who he is and given the place, I can also see how gets to feel indignant for having been confronted.

I can sympathize because I am "brown" as well and on more than one occassion as a young man had been stopped because some "concerned citizen," in my very own neighborhood, thought I was up to no good. I can't say that I have had the pleasure of a federal agent come along to read me the riot act.

So I place Mr Spiers and the cops as being caught in the middle by a very sloppily drafted and enforced set of psuedo-laws.
 
Last edited:
jlw said:
This is fallacious. In colonial Massachusetts accusations of witchcraft were made against hundreds of people, and ALL of those were false.
Click to expand...

Needs more proof, in my book.

:)

Cops are just folks in the middle, asked to enforce rapidly changing laws, each with a different perspective on those laws.

National ID is not a legality here in the US, but since Federalization has been a slowly approaching eventuality. I carry mine, much like I always carry my passport when in other countries. It makes things easier, and has saved me from more than one trip to City Hall for a weekend stay (why do these things always seem to happen on Friday, when the judge has gone home?) What I find interesting is our society's disconnect betwen the laws that allow one to be held sans charges for a few days, and the inconvenience it causes the held and those around him. I can't say as to be able to recommend better, though. There are those held for years that haven't had charges levelled against 'em, but that's always been the case.

I've never been asked to hand of my cameras, but I have been asked to not take pictures in certain places, and always after getting the shot I wanted.

I think the upshot of this whole thing is the impression that taking pictures, photography of any kind, is seen more and more as "taking" something from society. I know pleny of people that don't want their pictures taken. The French take it to an extreme by their laws that would make Msr. Brenson unable to perform his art.

Take the picture. Move on. If it's a tense area, move on all that much faster, or else get a letter from the mayor of whatever area, or better, just call the police and tell 'em what you plan to do. They might (as I've had done once) send an officer that was interested in photography out to see what you are doing, who hindered only to the point of an interested bystander asking questions, a pleasurable experience, indeed.
 
A couple of things about this:
I think the photog is most upset about the "us and them" attitude from the officers involved and that he felt he was being lumped in with "them".
When I see various police depts either apologizing for or announcing the discontinuance of profiling I take that as evidence that profiling is being used rather widely. And certainly by citizens who report suspicious activity--too mnay people I know see skin color in itself as suspicious.
That said however, I think he(Mr. Spiers) took it harder than I would/did. But he seems to be young--mid twenties?-- and I know that at 44 I am a whole lot more relaxed about life in general than I ever was at 24.
I know the constitution fairly well, but in a similar situation I'm not going there with the officer. If I feel there is a serious problem then I will deal with it after the fact rather than escalate the immediate situation(see paragraph above)
We talk around here about the "slippery slpoe" of GAS, well that's like Kansas coverd with sandpaper compared to the HSA slope.
Rob
 
jlw said:
This is fallacious. In colonial Massachusetts accusations of witchcraft were made against hundreds of people, and ALL of those were false.
Click to expand...
Okay I walked into that one; however, the difference here is we are dealing with a wide crosssection of people spread across a wide region of the Country. If this all came from one group of people who lived within a couple of miles, then I would agree.

Aain, I think most police officers are fine people. I have known and worked with many. I am not an anti-police guy. But there are good and bad cops, just like there are good and bad teachers, cashiers, etc. Some people are good, some aren't. Again I think there was plent of fault to go around. A little tothe normal cops, quite a bit to the photographer for the way he handled the situation and a big heaping helping for the federal Agent.
 
About 20 years ago an armored car hit a carload of young school children on a country road. I was a newspaper photographer at the time and when I got to the scene I started shooting photos. A very agitated armored car guard approached me and demanded my film. When I refused he moved toward me and actually had his hand on his pistol--still in its holster.
At that point the sheriff of the county, a old west style lawman, stepped forward and told the guard to back off--that we were on a public road and I wasn't shooting anything any passerby could see. When the gruard said there were "security issues" the sheriff said "bulls--t" and told the guy to be one his way or go to jail. Sure there are bad cops, but I've dealt with far more good ones than bad.
 
kiev4a said:
At that point the sheriff of the county, a old west style lawman, stepped forward and told the guard to back off--that we were on a public road and I wasn't shooting anything any passerby could see. When the gruard said there were "security issues" the sheriff said "bulls--t" and told the guy to be one his way or go to jail. Sure there are bad cops, but I've dealt with far more good ones than bad.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! 99.9% of cops are fine people doing their best in a difficult job to protect individuals and their rights. I hope I never sounded like I was attacking police generally. All police I've ever known personally, and all but one I've ever delt with in his professional capacity have been wonderful.

Two more coments: Someone earlier siad the policeman on the street shouldn't be trying to decide if a law is legal (constitutional) or not. I'm not sure I agree with that. We expect soldiers on the ground during combat to determine if an order is illegal and if it is to refuse to obey it.

Last Comment: What a great group of people this is. Many disparate views, beliefs, and backgrounds. Touching on someof the most sensative issues of the day, plenty of disagreement, and not one bit of anger or hostility. That is rare.
 
I am with you Macbeth... I haven't seen one flame yet on this forum. Frankly, I was concerned about giving my two cents worth (I have never really succombed to shyness). I anticipated that this topic could easily have been a powder keg. Not so here.

The Rangefinder Forum is indeed filled with very nice people.

Everybody join hands and sing "kum by yah." ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom