Photographer and Security face off yet again

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

Went to meet my wife downtown for lunch today, we met at a building that consists of twin towers, each 25 stories tall, connected by an all glass atrium that's about 15 stories high, I would guess. There's a hotel in there, an ice rink, and restaurants and shops all over the bottom level. My kid's day care is there.
As I approched the building, I noticed 5 window washers each suspended by a yellow rope, about 10 stories up. 4 side by side, the other about 4 stories up, they all had similar patterns of white soap against dark glass, they're talking and laughing---- obviously a photo waiting to be taken.
Stupidly and unusually, I wasn't carrying a camera, so I had to run back to the car for my Ansco Anscoset which I keep under the seat. Got back, shot a couple of frames from the sidewalk, then walked up the ramp to the entrance of the building (it's on the second floor) where I could get these guys all in a line from the side.
Shot 4 or 5 frames, I was done and putting the case back over the camera, and he was coming down the ramp towards me. Large guy, looked exactly like Secret Service , the dark suit and all, except he had a hand-held walkie-talkie.
Let me say right off that this guy was civil about the whole thing, he didn't act like a jerk at all. But he displayed a serious "no nonsense" attitude.
"Excuse me sir, but the building has a 'no photography allowed policy', you'll have to stop." I said "S'okay, I'm done anyway."
He continued, "It's prohibited to take photos of the structure." And I said, "Well, I was actually shooting these window washers hanging from the ropes"... he couldn't see them from where we were standing.
He said, "I understand. But it's prohibited to photograph the structure."
I said, "Don't you think that's kind of absurd?" and he replied basically, look, I'm paid to enforce the rules here.
I told him, "You've spoken with me, I've explained what I'm doing, you've seen my old-timey camera, I think it's obvious I'm not a threat here."
He said, "We can't be too careful. There have been instances of people photographing buildings who were discovered to be terrorists."
I thought Right. But I didn't want to argue with the guy.
Then he said, "I'm not going to confiscate your film..." and I interrupted, "You can't do that anyway, it's illegal."
He looked at me like he didn't know that, then he said, "I know that. Just keep your camera in the case, and it will be alright."
Then he says--- "Actually, it's okay if you take photos of people in and around the building---" Wait! says I, that's exactly what I was doing, shooting those guys on the ropes. "
"But they were on the structure..."
I let it go at that. I thanked him for being civil, and went on to meet my wife, I was now pretty late.
After thinking about it, I remembered the hotel in the building, and was thinking there must be lots of tourists who shoot the place, do they stop them? I wish I had asked.
I googled the place, Plaza of the Americas, Dallas, and one of the first hits was on Webshots, about 10 photos of the place. Alot simpler for a terrorist get his information that way than to actually travel to the site, and raise suspicion by doing his own photos.
And does anyone actually think a single act of terrorism has been prevented solely because some security guard stopped somebody from taking a photo? Can you imagine some terrorist operative, sent on the mission to get the photos, returning to his "cell leader" and saying, "Well, the mission is off. They stopped me from taking the photos," and the leader saying "Damn! Foiled again!"

 

[pshinkaw]

Remember, these are the descendants of the guys who were surprised when Jack Ruby walked into a police station and shot Lee Harvey Oswald in front of television cameras.

 

[cbass]

KZ,

A similar thing happened to me last week. I was driving my car along a main street in my town. The town police pulled me over. The officer was very polite as he informed me that my town has adopted a "no driving" policy. When I asked him why he said "We can't be too careful. There have been instances of people driving automobiles who were discovered to be terrorists."

Of course, my story was made up but is it any more ridiculous that what actually happened to you? No.

Stopping photogrpahy doesn't stop terrorism; it only stops artistic expression. I give both you and the security guard credit for not losing your cool.

 

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

It all boils down to the line from Frank Herbert's "Dune", which I have seen repeated here in another thread concerning this subject:
"Fear is the mind-killer." Might end up being the mantra of the future.

I like your story, Chris. It would have come in handy if I had had it while in my discussion with the guard. Wouldn't have changed anything, though.

 

[jan normandale]

Hi Krasnaya_Zvezda


Earlier today I replied to a similar line at http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4431
here are my comments , curiously they have a similarity. Meaning what? Probably everyone else is thinking the same thing you or I am.




My curiosity is piqued by the size of the camera. It seems that the larger the camera the more likely to attract negative attention. Currently cell phone cameras are snapping shots everywhere. Security? It isn’t on the radar.

The point is it’s all a crock. The ‘bad guys’ who ever they may be will never be as conspicuous as an amateur. Finally many records already exist in the public domain as postcards, photo libraries, local newspapers, and professional journals. So this whole issue of photography and security is a red herring. All the photos are already in existence.

There have been previous posts on this topic. All of them have a similar thread. Security people are ‘enforcing’ things on the fly and invoke a lot of code words with an implication of ‘national or internal security’. Most times this is contestable however few have time, so by default the photographer walks away.

What’s the driver? Who knows? Probably a self feeding loop of institutionalized government regulatory paranoia, coupled with enthusiastic overachievers genuinely believing they are ‘on the job’. Publicly; over kill is never viewed as a bad thing.

 

[amaksimchuk]

I was harrased several times downtown LA

I was harrased several times downtown LA

I like going downtown for street/architectural shots. Apparently, most if not all the skyscrapers and plazas around them are now off limits to photographers.

A couple of times I was politely asked to not take pictures by local security guards. You see, I was observed taking pictures on the perimeter video cameras. Once, a guard in Well Fargo bank plaza was downright rude and demanded I leave the immediate area... Paranoid maniacs

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Following that same line of logic, they should make telephotos illegal, for they allow you to take pictures of buildings from far away without the guards inside them being able to see you.

Not only have we lost basic freedoms in this sense, but by the police/guards acting this way, they are making the real criminals more dangerous, for they will just go underground more, while we are left with our rights curtailed.

I know a girl who was 16 at the time, she was taking pictures inside a mall...she was followed by a security guard and told her she should never take pictures inside ever again, because she could be a terrorist.

One could argue with the guards, but the law is so broad that one would be taken in without anybody knowing for years where you are, and it would all be legal for the government to detain us indefinitively. Just because we dared think we were free to take a picture.

Yeah, I think we're winning.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

My short rant... The bad guys have been using cell phones and R/C car parts for oh... ten years now? It doesn't take much for the evil yet inventive person to find ways to exploit everyday objects.

A great photograph is not required for a malcontent to develop a plan. Pencil, paper and a keen set of eyes does just fine, thank you. Very simple technology really. And, it has worked well for over four centuries.

"Sean, fetch me that wonderfully charming rangefinder I have in the car... With the marvelous photographs we shall produce, I can extort at least 9 million from the governments of the world."

Fear is indeed the mind killer.

 

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

I'm not normally a demonstrative type, but I'm thinking.... I'd like to get some photographers together, maybe 4 or 5--- also, someone with a video camera, someone with a tape recorder ---- a lawyer wouldn't hurt, either. We'd go down to Dealey Plaza in Dallas, and stand around taking shots of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. No one would question us, no one would have any problem with us. A thousand people do that every day. Then, we could go on a walk through downtown Dallas, lingering on random corners, always staying on public sidewalks, conspicuously taking shots of different buildings. I'd like to see what happens then, what kind of reaction might ensue. Might make a statement. Possibly. Of course, as gabrielma says, we might end up in Gitmo, too. But we'd have the whole thing on video tape, and conversations (confrontations) on audio tape as well.
I'm seriously thinking of doing this. What do you think?

 

[jan normandale]

I'm not normally a demonstrative type, but I'm thinking.... I'd like to get some photographers together, maybe 4 or 5--- also, someone with a video camera, someone with a tape recorder ---- a lawyer wouldn't hurt, either. We'd go down to Dealey Plaza in Dallas, and stand around taking shots of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. No one would question us, no one would have any problem with us. A thousand people do that every day. Then, we could go on a walk through downtown Dallas, lingering on random corners, always staying on public sidewalks, conspicuously taking shots of different buildings. I'd like to see what happens then, what kind of reaction might ensue. Might make a statement. Possibly. Of course, as gabrielma says, we might end up in Gitmo, too. But we'd have the whole thing on video tape, and conversations (confrontations) on audio tape as well.
I'm seriously thinking of doing this. What do you think?

I think all photographers should throw $1.00 each into a pot and hire the best civil litigation specialist around to pierce this paper tiger that is being held up in front of photography. When the pot hits a big number take bids from legal firms on a fixed price basis and have them take on the case.


I'm in let me know where to send the contribution.

Jan

 

[Penguin_101]

I like going downtown for street/architectural shots. Apparently, most if not all the skyscrapers and plazas around them are now off limits to photographers.

A couple of times I was politely asked to not take pictures by local security guards. You see, I was observed taking pictures on the perimeter video cameras. Once, a guard in Well Fargo bank plaza was downright rude and demanded I leave the immediate area... Paranoid maniacs

As growing up in a banking family, I would also ask you to leave any building that is a bank. That is the first thing that robbers do.

 

[jdos2]

I'm curious about what possible grounds a public edifice could possibly be restricted to with regards to photography. It's silly.

We can't carry lighters on airlines. Matches (the same ones that were used to attempt to blow up a trans-continental flight a few years ago, mind you) are fine. I had to throw mine away before I got through security on my way to Lisbon a week and a half ago. They wouldn't let me through. Fine, I threw 'em away.
On the return flight, just before bording, I threw the lighters I had bought into my checked baggage, and had matches in my coat pocket. I didn't make security in Lisbon, where Mr. Red Tape insisted that they were quite prohibited on Continental. So I tossed 'em.
Going through Newark for my connecting flight, I saw the sign prohibiting lighters even in checked baggage (oops!) and arrived home in Cleveland... To find they weren't removed (outside pocket) and had a light for a smoke.

Such confusion for such a little thing. I guess fear beats thinking hands down.

The best line from The Incredibles: "They are penetrating the bureacracy!!!"

Carried my flash in my carry-on. Rather more dangerous as a weapon, I think- considering the voltage and current with which it works...

 

[Flow]

I think it is getting quiet common for public places to prohibit people from taking pictures. It is quiet sad for us though. But I would not argue if I was asked not to take pictures. I heard from my friends in Montreal metro they do confiscate your films if you take pictures there and it is legal for security to do that.

Sometimes it may not be paranoid about terrorists or security, sometimes they do not allow you to take pictures because some of the building are considered as private intellectual property. That is what my architech friend told me.


Flowen

P.S. Penguin_101 you a linux user? 😛

 

[DougK]

I think all photographers should throw $1.00 each into a pot and hire the best civil litigation specialist around to pierce this paper tiger that is being held up in front of photography. When the pot hits a big number take bids from legal firms on a fixed price basis and have them take on the case.


I'm in let me know where to send the contribution.

Jan

Now that's a cause I'd be proud to support. Where do I sign up?

 

[T_om]

I'm curious about what possible grounds a public edifice could possibly be restricted to with regards to photography. It's silly.

In the US, you can photograph all you want, legally, from a public right of way. It's the law. Note, however, I said "public" as in "owned by a governmental body and not private property".


However, an earlier poster said this:

... while we are left with our rights curtailed.

I know a girl who was 16 at the time, she was taking pictures inside a mall...

Guess what... "inside a mall" is NOT "Public property". That is private property and you have no legal right to shoot there at all. Period. Nada. They don't even have to provide a reason, they only have to say "don't shoot here"... And if you persist after being told not to shoot, they can have you arrested for trespass.

Never equate 'public access' as 'public property'. It will save you no end of hassles.

Tom

 

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

Sometimes it may not be paranoid about terrorists or security, sometimes they do not allow you to take pictures because some of the building are considered as private intellectual property. That is what my architech friend told me.


Flowen

I've heard that absurd argument too. So what are they afraid of? You'll use your photos to go off somewhere and build an exact copy of their building?
You build something that takes up a city block, and it's a thousand feet tall, and you want to 'protect' your intellectual property. Better to do the Christo thing and wrap it in plastic, then it can't be seen by anyone.
I think alot of the paranoia stems from a false sense of self-importance. "Of course they would target our building, we are very high-profile..."
There's a hideous, fortress-like building, 15 stories of windowless dark gray walls just across the freeway from my office. I'll never forget that on 9/11 that building was evacuated after the attacks in New York. Why? It's name also happens to be the World Trade Center. OK folks, the world famous symbol of American power World Trade Center in New York has been attacked by terrorists, and even though it's 1600 miles from us, and we're a dump that nobody has even heard of outside Dallas, we better evacuate, because you know, we're a symbol of American power, too.
Even on that day, when no one really knew what was happening, I knew that was completely stupid.
Inflated self-worth compounded by paranoia. It all so absurd.

 

[Penguin_101]

I've heard that absurd argument too. So what are they afraid of? You'll use your photos to go off somewhere and build an exact copy of their building?
You build something that takes up a city block, and it's a thousand feet tall, and you want to 'protect' your intellectual property. Better to do the Christo thing and wrap it in plastic, then it can't be seen by anyone.
I think alot of the paranoia stems from a false sense of self-importance. "Of course they would target our building, we are very high-profile..."
There's a hideous, fortress-like building, 15 stories of windowless dark gray walls just across the freeway from my office. I'll never forget that on 9/11 that building was evacuated after the attacks in New York. Why? It's name also happens to be the World Trade Center. OK folks, the world famous symbol of American power World Trade Center in New York has been attacked by terrorists, and even though it's 1600 miles from us, and we're a dump that nobody has even heard of outside Dallas, we better evacuate, because you know, we're a symbol of American power, too.
Even on that day, when no one really knew what was happening, I knew that was completely stupid.
Inflated self-worth compounded by paranoia. It all so absurd.

The design is a copyright. It is the same as someone taking a picture of you and making millions on it.

 

[Penguin_101]

P.S. Penguin_101 you a linux user? 😛

Yep!!! 😀

and I am getting ready to take my site on my own servers and they will be running Unix (Sol. 10).

 

[Flow]

Penguin_101,

Oh that is cool. Haha though I would love to bable about Linux but I think this is the wrong forum to do so. Will just do that on linux.com. Haha...


Flowen

 

[Flow]

Hmmm just back to the topic on taking pictures and the annoying securities. I am used to people telling me to stop taking pictures and put away my gears. So all I do is just walk away and I do not like to argue too much. It is really annoying that we, as photographers, cannot simply enjoy taking pictures. It is really sad how the society has become.


Flowen