Photographer Meets Homeland Security Agents

[tamerlin]

And what would happen if you refused to let them inspect your car? Even if you politely said that you are respectfully denying them permission.

Well, as newcanonman pointed out, that's blatantly illegal for them to do. If they
don't have probable cause or a warrant (which requires probably cause anyway),
there's no justification for them to search your vehicle.

 

[scottgee1]

If you're interested in which way the political wind is blowing in the U.S., check out these little bombs which are clearly designed to limit free speech:

S. 271 and H.R. 513 - "527 Reform Act of 2005"

I suspect George Orwell had this kind of madness in mind when he wrote 1984 and Animal Farm.

FWIW/ScottGee1

 

[RubenBlaedel]

---, "Here's my ID and NO you may not toss my vehicle unless you have legal reason to do so". I would have later talked to their supervisor and explained my rights and if neccesary talked to a lawyer.
I've spent my life standing up for others AND myself (sometimes to my detriment), and I will always do so.
Oppression feeds on your fear. Being "at war" doesn't mean I accept being treated like "the enemy".

I do not get this - if the officers were met with more friendly attitude, like : I am justing taking a picture of this bridge because it is beatifull in the sunsett, and of cause you can look in my car, here is my papers - thanks and keep up the good work etc." , these kind of episodes would be much more easy on us all - and then complain to your senetors or guvonors (your local MP in european terms) and get them to changes these tight rules - but dont let it out on the officer on the street that lives at the risk 1500 bigger then you do of getting killed - the officers who drives you kids home if the are lost/drugged/confused whatever in the middle of the night and the officers who- like it or not keeps drunkdrives as well as terorists of the roads . I think they have a harder time then we do trying to get a nice picture ! the Orwell - Kafka thing is out of proportion

 

[nwcanonman]

Ruben,
I'm not sure if you've ever lived in America, but we have inalienable civil rights here, guarenteed by our Constitution. When you allow any bully, whether he has a badge or not, take away that freedom, it's wrong and should be objected to.
Many people put there lives at stake helping the community every day, and some don't wear badges and carry guns. Many of us have done it for years, as volunteers - NO PAY - actually it's cost me thousands of dollars in buying me equipment and thousands of hours of my own time.
We don't do it for ego or money, we do it because it needs to be done and we do it well. And we don't break the law or push people around just because we can either.
Law officers can do there jobs properly without theatening innocent photographers and most do.

 

[RubenBlaedel]

NWCANONMAN - I agree - and as far as I know we have about the same civil rights in Danamrk as in the US - all I am saying is that in my experience - meeting officers of the law with friendlyness and perhaps geving them a little more space to operate in, than what the law describes - will ease the tension on their work and will at the end make everybodys life easier. It is not he officers on the street who made the anti terror laws - it is the people that you and your fellow countrymen voted for that made these laws and living in a democracy it should be trough them that you fight these laws ! I have been stripped search, I have had my car tossed and once I have had my home searched (by mistake - wrong floor). They did have prober cause if they had been to the right address/floor - While they were searching my home I got things cleared up with one of the officers and they said they were sorry and left. The next day I got a letter from the comanding officer empasizing how sorry they were - I did not give them hell but said No Problem. So I am not arguing that we should not have civil rights protecting us to the maximum - I am saing that in all the cases we I really does not matter if we are searched etc. make life easier for the officers - I would not like to ´do their job ! For instance because of our freedom speach, democracy and civil rights neo nazis are alowed to wark the streets demonstrating for a new third reich. This pisses me and a lot of other people of. Some people it piss so much of that the counter demonstrate - and then the officers have to protect the Nazis from the counter demonstrators - and who gets all hell - the Officers being called Nazis because they do their job protecting some arseholes democratic right to demonstrate agains democracy.
Policeofficers, Ambulance drivers and firemen are being herassed dayly - in the UK fires are started in order to get the firepatrol to a certain place - were it is then being ambushed! we are talking about firmen that risk their lives to save people getting killed - the are being attacked by younngsters with rocks and steal pipes etc. - At trafic accidents ambulance drivers get beaten up by relatives to victims etc.
So if we are innocent being nice to an officer of the law, firedept or medical service can not be that difficult.
And now that everyone knows about the restrictions to shot bridges traisn etc. why not get a permit from your town hall or police - so you can show officers that you have permission to shot bridges - raisl etc. in the period 2002-2009 for a project etc.
I am not trying to start any political discussion with you NWCANONMAN and I do not live in the US so I can only speak of experience in Europa And I do like this forum for not having endless discusions on politics - so please do not take this as a provocation 🙂 cheers ruben

 

[RML]

Having to ask for a permit to shoot in a public place would seem to me more than infringing on my liberties. Seems more like living in a totalitairian state, where curfey and limited access areas are rule. I recall a bit of history about 60-65 years ago when this happened to be common place in most places in Europe. Back than there were resistance groups opposing the German invaders, their oppression and their arbitrariness. IMO people resisting any infringment on civil liberties should be lauded instead of asked to keep calm and not rock the boat. I usually get very agitated when asked these kind of useless and arbitrary questions, asked for no good reason other than satisfying some over-zealous person's power kick. I remain calm and polite but adrenaline is rushing through my veins and I get hyper focussed. I don't like this agitation and can perfectly well live without it.

A reason why I no longer watch/listen to any news is because the news is only interested in bringer sensational news, often working on the fears and prejudices of the people, increasing these day by day until we've created Hell in our minds even though there's no real Hell in the real world. We screw up our minds ourselves with misplaced fear and anger and then blame it on "the other" (foreigners and minorities in particular).

My name is Remy, and I've been news-free for about 5 months now. I'm calmer and more tolerant than ever before but I know I still have a long way to go. Day by day, step by step I'll get there. Nirvana here I come. 😛

 

[Pherdinand]

Hm. This thing became a pretty cool thread. OK, a good read, i mean.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm inclined to be polite to the police, etc., too, but there's an implied contract here: they have to be polite too. Two stories:

Twenty or so years ago I made a short business trip to India (manufacturing wooden cameras, actually). When I came back -- long hair, beard, jeans -- I was strip-searched at London Heathrow by Customs. They were delighted when they found a strip of rolled-up lavatory paper in my watch-pocket: obviously, here was my stash. They ceremoniously unrolled it. Nothing, of course.

Customs: "What's this?"

Me: "Loo paper"

Customs: "Why?"

Me: "Have you ever been to Delhi Airport?"

Eventually they said, with the air of someone who knows they are dealing with a criminal but can't prove it, "All right. You can get dressed now."

I dressed in silence and as I left I said, "Next time, a little civility wouldn't come amiss."

I thought they were going to jail me on the spot...

About 15 years later Polaroid gave me a load of outdated Sepia film. I was shooting some on the beach near my house in Kent. Three teenage girls (about 15) asked what I was doing. I told them. I took some pictures of them, and gave them prints. To reassure their parents, I wrote my name, address and phone number on the back of a scrapper and said, "If your parents are worried, or wonder who I am, they can call me."

Half an hour later the police came 'round. Even when I showed her lots of books and magazine articles, explaining that photography is what I do for a living, the young policewoman sniffed and said, "Hm! An opportunist photographer!"

So I don't think AP is exaggerating much.

I also have stories about dealing with La Migra in the United States, and of being threatened when I called out "Careful!" to a no-neck 'security' guard at LAX because I was afraid he was going to drag my Leica off the table to smash on the floor: I'd already had to have the viewfinder glass replaced after it had been banged around at the same airport. "I could arrest you for shouting at me," he yelled.

Finally, please don't tar all lawyers with the same brush. Civil liberrties organizations have lawyers too. We're not all fascists/opportunists/ambulance chasers/bottom feeders.

Roger W. Hicks, LL.B. (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[RubenBlaedel]

I think that my oppinion on the officers of the law etc. is so far from what Remy and Roger have experienced that a further discussion will be pointless - I will continue to behave my why towards them and join you in a hope that our world will be a more peace full place to live - news or no news - cops or no cops - terrorists or no terrorists - all the baest ruben

 

[RML]

Don't feel offended, Ruben. All of us have our experiences and our opinions, and all of us are entitled to them. I respect your views and attitude; I wish I could hold them more often than I do right now. Peacefully getting along would make our photographic experiences a lot better, sometimes at least. 🙂

 

[bmattock]

I want to thank everyone for keeping a cool head in this discussion. It is great that we can talk about such controversial things without getting angry with each other. Despite our differences in opinion about such things, we're all friends here.

I will say that in the USA, we tend to wear our 'rights on our sleeves' and that's often a different response than one sees in Europe and elsewhere. We still think of our liberties as something recently hard-won and paid for in the blood of patriots, so we often react strongly when we perceive that they are or may be trampled upon. Where one person might react to a slight bending of their rights as a minor issue, to be dealt with by registering a complaint with the proper authorities, some of us Americans tend to see the same incident as a skirmish leading to a battle that if left undefended, will be taken as a matter of course. In other words, if we don't fight the little battles, the war will be lost by default.

Civility (on both sides of the badge) never goes amiss, as Roger Hicks said. And Lord knows I have failed to show any kind of respect for the law when it would not have hurt me to have done so, so it is something for me to work on in myself. But civility does not stop those bent on restricting liberties from doing so. I stop being polite when someone kicks in my front door, and I expect they'd understand that.

But to get back to the subject I originally posted on - if we (photographers) stand still while our right to make photographs in public is slowly restricted in the name of 'security', then the day will come when we will have to have a permit to own a camera at all, and photographers in general will be viewed with suspicion as if we were all criminals of some sort. Yes, sometimes it is just an overzealous cop or a misunderstood rule, and it can all be cleared up over a cuppa and a cigarette. Sometimes it is something more sinister. One must be on guard, because liberties are like a wild animal. They will flee if you don't constantly watch out for them.

And again, thank you, my friends, for showing tolerance of other's opinions in this thread and being calm and cool about it all. RFF is truly a special place.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[RubenBlaedel]

Thanks RML - I am not offended at all 🙂 I was just "climbing of the wagon" (probably not an english expression) Anyway - I see taht you mention a "Ger" - I published two books on mongolia - one on mongolian costumes and one on mongolian jewelry and next year I am going to publish a book and the large mongolian nomadic collection from the national museum of denmark - what is you interest in mongolia ??

 

[tamerlin]

Having to ask for a permit to shoot in a public place would seem to me more than infringing on my liberties. Seems more like living in a totalitairian state, where curfey and limited access areas are rule.

What's even more depressing is that while it used to be a requirement that you get a permit in order
to use a tripod on the Mall of Washington, DC, now it's simply not allowed. No tripods near the
Capitol, which means that you can't really do justice any longer to the sunrise catching the gorgeous
new Native American Museum, or take sunset pictures of the Library of Congress. Given their
magnificent architecture and history as bastions of freedom and democracy, this is a crying
shame.

 

[Socke]

The only close encounter with an official was in May 1997 at Shanghai Airport. I couldn't explain that it was my plane which has been called for and so missed it and had to book another flight three days later.
Thai Air was much more helpful than the Peoples Army of the Peoples Republic of China. 🙂

Traveling to Cuba last year it took me around two hours to get through immigration. I hadn't written the address of my casa particular onto the tourist card but had a printed e-mail with the address instead. There was not enough space to write it down 🙂

The officials were a bit puzzled because the mail originated at the University of Mantanzas and if I'd study there. Then they where interested in my 15KG photo gear and especialy in the Contax G2 and the lenses in leather pouches 🙂
Then I had to show the pictures I took with me on my notebook and we chatted a while about firearms as I had my streetshooter pic as a wall paper 🙂

Only one intimidated was my friend, she waited outside with a taxidriver and didn't know if I made the flight or not.

So all in all, I've been fine traveling around the world.

----------------------
"The way I see it, unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free."
-Major Frank Burns, 4077th

 

[sooner]

Just three quick comments. From an earlier post, it was not illegal for the cops to search your vehicle without probable cause because they asked and you gave them permission. This gets me to my second point, which is that a right isn't a right unless you feel free to exercise it. If you don't feel free to say "no, don't search my car," then it's no right to be free of what would otherwise be an unlawful search. One could say we have a duty to say no where the cops have an UNreasonable view of the situation and should be made to live within their legal limitations, without chumming it up with us while tapping their fingers on the handle of a pistol.

My third point is to Jamie, who asked whether my line about "compenable wrongs" was a crazy attorney point of view. Maybe it's a crazy American point of view, because in our legal system we often equate being wronged with a monetary remedy. There are limits on damages, of course--you won't get a million bucks for being embarrassed. But money helps make you feel better about suffering some loss, even it's being detained improperly and feeling shamed, and it helps punish those who violate your rights. Otherwise, the law becomes "no hurt no foul," and that doesn't exactly punish or deter unlawful acts.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Reuben & Bill,

Reuben: not pointless. It merely illustrates how what the French call 'Anglo-Saxon' attitudes differ from those of the civilized world.

Bill: Not only Americans. Remember the line from Rule Britannia: "Britons never, never, never shall be slaves."

As a Cornishman (Goedelic Celt) living in France I tend to see both sides of the story. On the one hand, never cave in to officialdom. On the other, another story:

Shooting the Arc de Triomphe on 4x5 inch. A policeman strolls gently over; waits until I have finished; then says, in French, "You know, you really ought to have a permit to do this." Tells me where to get it. I go there. No interest. No problem...

To quote Sir Robert Mark, lately Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police in London and a very wise man, "Some laws are passed to satisfy public opinion, not to be enforced." Would that more Britons and Americans understood this.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[RubenBlaedel]

Dear Roger
Pointless was perhaps not the right word for me to use as it could be interpreted as "giving up because it is hopeless or the other guy is thick etc." wich was not what I meant. Just did not have another word for saying "at this point we are of a different opinion and there is no goal in trying to purschade each other into changing oppinion - and as this is such a great forum with so many super people it has the qualities to handle that we can exchange oppinions without having to force each others into changing sides on a topic" But yeas even though we understand each other language wise there are diffencies not only between east and west - north and south but also within what we calle the western world - witch is great but something you have to remember - just like it is impossible to be elected president in the US if you do not believe in GOD, impossible to elected president in France if you do not have at least five mistresses and impossible to be elected prime minster in Denmark if you are not a total imbicile etc. please note big 🙂
cheers RUben

 

[nwcanonman]

Rogar,
Oh America has passed many such laws. The "Assault Weapons" ban being a prime example.
#1- The weapons listed in the law were NOT assault weapons. As a former small arms/explosives technician I can tell you an actual "assault weapon" must be fully automatic. None of the weapons in the temporary law were, they were only semi automatic.
#2 - Cosmetic changes (put on a wood stock, not plastic) and a 10 round magazine and the same weapon was still being sold. 10+ round magazines were readily available, legally, anyway.
#3 - At the end of the laws life, there was no statistic showing less crime than before the laws enactment.
#4 - Rifles of any kind are rarely (insignificant percent) used in crimes anyway.
Thankfully, the time-limit ran out on the "cosmetic" law and semi-auto, 10+ round firearms are back on sale - again with no change in crimes commited by them.
But politicians were able to say they "did something" - LOL.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ruben -- sorry for mis-spelling your name. Point taken! But the more stories people hear about different experiences, the better. I STILL try to be polite. But it's hard sometimes.

NWCanonMan -- Yes, well. On my reading, the ONLY weapon that cannot be banned is an assault rifle. If we're talking about a 'well regulated militia' here, they don't need pistols, shotguns, target rifles, etc -- they need fully auto assault rifles.

Then again I once asked HH Dalai Lama about this and as he said, "Nothing you can keep at home is much use against bombers and tanks." This from a man whose family had a Bren gun in the cellar at home in Tibet.

The 'well regulated militia' (if it ever existed) is not a lot of use against an invading army, though it's pretty handy as a resistance. How much need is the USA likely to have of either? (Cynics please refrain from answering).

But from Basic Training what I'd want as a resistance fighter is (i) unlimited plastique (ii) at least one good pistol -- my Colt .45v National Match would be favourite -- and (iii) a Sterling, Schmeisser or similar submachine gun. For a fourth option (based on stories from friends in the Tibetan resistance) a choice of LMG (Bren), GPMG (but the ammo is heavy) or some form Panzerfaust/PIAT.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[bmattock]

Shooting the Arc de Triomphe on 4x5 inch. A policeman strolls gently over; waits until I have finished; then says, in French, "You know, you really ought to have a permit to do this." Tells me where to get it. I go there. No interest. No problem...

To quote Sir Robert Mark, lately Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police in London and a very wise man, "Some laws are passed to satisfy public opinion, not to be enforced." Would that more Britons and Americans understood this.

Cheers,

Roger

From another point of view - if a law is for show only, why have it? There is always the danger that some day it may be taken more seriously, by others who are not even yet born.

I will leave the discussion of weaponry and their intrinsic use for another day and another forum - would that we not get bogged down in this, Dalai Lama's target scores notwithstanding.

I think that men and women of Good Will do not need to have laws restricting their behavior to be put upon them - and that men and women of Ill Will will not obey such laws in any case. The problem, of course, is seperating the one sort from the other, and thus we have laws to moderate behavior and punishments for failing to observe those laws.

One approach would be to regulate everything and enforce only those things noticed to be abused. That would appear to conform to your example at the Arc de Triumph.

Another approach would be to regulate only those things seen to be a problem for society and to encourage respect for those laws by zealously enforcing same. This would until recent times have been the uniquely-strange American approach.

Which is better? We have our own beliefs of course, and I respect those of contrary viewpoint. I would prefer not to have chains laid upon me - whether they be made of steel or foam rubber.

Once upon a time, I worked for a French-owned company that had a factory in the USA. They sent some of their executives over to visit with me, and I went to lunch with them - they were driving a rental car. We approached a four-way stop sign, and the driver shot through it without even slowing down, a casual glance to either side was all he allotted. I asked him (once my heart rate had slowed down enough to permit speech) why he did that. He shrugged and told me that "no one was coming." He asked me if I always stopped for stop signs. I said yes, and he said I was a fool.

We may both be Good Men, but I will never understand the French. To me, the fewer laws the better, but those laws that exist should be obeyed unless they contravene my rights. To him, make all the laws you want - he'll obey the ones he feels like obeying. Who is right? I have no idea.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks