The War on Photographers - - PopPhotoJuly 2006
has anyone been harassed like this by authority figures for taking photos? is it necessary to prevent photography in public places to prevent terrorism?
let's discuss it!
Printable View
The War on Photographers - - PopPhotoJuly 2006
has anyone been harassed like this by authority figures for taking photos? is it necessary to prevent photography in public places to prevent terrorism?
let's discuss it!
I think by now you pretty much all know where I stand: apart from classified installations, private property and nuclear installations, the government needs to mind it's own business and quit trying to infringe on the rights of the citizenry.
It’s a fine line. If a guy is taking pictures of the underside of a big bridge in NYC, I'd prefer someone go check him out. He might well be an architecture student - or maybe not. When something bad happens, everyone is gonna be screaming "how did we let this happen?!?!". These are the same people who now bitch about the security in the airport. (EDIT - I'm not directing this last statement at you Jockeys. I'm referring to those who are completely ignorant of both sides of the issue)
There is some tradeoff between security and certain freedoms. It’s a tough balance to work. :shrug:
Jordan
It sounds like the guards were private security, not the government. Or am I wrong on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
Jordan
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnich67
not really.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
Personally, I'd rather take the risk of terrorists attacking than give up freedoms. Even if 9/11 happened EVERY YEAR, I'm still orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to work. And yet, no one runs around insisting that we need to become a police state so that there are less car wrecks.
"oh but jockeys, think of the children!" "oh but jockeys, if it saves one life, it's worth giving up our rights!"
NO NO NO. a thousand times no. I'd rather go down with my hands around the jihadists neck as he stabs me than live half a life because I'm afraid of some invisible menace that MAY happen SOMETIME, SOMEWHERE.
It sickens me that our country has lost it's [polite metaphor for external male reproductive organs]. Face it, when I can't even take a picture of my wife in front of the American flag, on vacation, without security guards hassling me... the terrorists have won.
Its a matter of common sense. Having a cop or soldier - who are fellow citizens and people just like me - not the men in black - politely ask to look in my book bag as I cross a crowded Grand Central Terminal, is not giving up freedoms. They're not reading my notebooks, they're just making sure I don't have bomb. They are doing it on my behalf.
Taking an extra 10 minutes to call the security office at an oil installation you would like to photograph and asking for permission isn't giving up liberty. Its using your head and understanding the nation is in a difficult struggle.
For the most part, I see law enforcement as "the good guys". Do some cross the line from time to time? Yes, and they should be corrected, but that doesn't mean we're giving up our freedoms, certainly not "essential liberty" as indicated in your quote.
Jordan
You are wrong on that ;) The security called the cops.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnich67
The government is getting overzealous with the rights of private citizens all around. This is just one particularly egregious example I hope everyone mentioned in those articles and everyone else being harassed wins their lawsuits, and makes it clear that violations of this type will not be tolerated.
I really wonder what would happen if one of these photographers was also a CPL holder I'm betting we would have another Rodney King type incident.
Frankly I think the Dept of homeland security is a total waste of my money and I think the next president should get rid of it in his first week. None of their actions so far have done anything to increase security and all of their actions have decreased freedom.
Fair enough on the first point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
I agree. I'd trust the NYPD or NY National Guardsmen a lot more than Homeland Security. I still don't think any of my freedoms have been taken away. How has increased security directly and concretely effected you or people you know? I'm not trying to be a wiseguy with that question. I'd really like to know.
Jordan
I for one now have to obtain a passport if I want to run to Canada for dinner, and a co-worker of my wifes can no longer get a new work visa despite working at the same company here in the states for the last decade. Just getting across the border now takes an incredible amount of time, and its not increased searches, its just increased paperwork checks. Thats all that department has done. Put into place policies that prevent people from effectively doing their jobs in order to process paper that makes it look like they are doing their jobs.
When the police are randomly stopping any citizen and searching them, the freedoms of all of us have been infringed, and that is a line we should not allow the government to cross.
Just to throw in my .02 with regards to the photographer incident. I dabble in photography, and I have gone out at odd hours with a lot of equipment, and I definately thought that I looked sketchy. On an average shoot, I might have two or three lenses, one body, tripod, and a pad and pen to make notes. I can certanly understand how someone might think I was a terrorist, stalker, etc, and I wouldn't really mind if police, security, etc came over to have a look and ask questions. Then again, I am completely out in the open and don't try to hide myself or anything I carry, so that should suggest otherwise.
I do not, however, see any need for there to be physical contact made between any officials and myself, should they be called it for any reason. While it certainly could be the case that someone who appears to be a photographer is actually up to something, there is no reason to assume that is the case. For that reason, I side with the photographer in this case.
I don't know the situation with your friend's wife and she has my sympathies. Is it specifically because of a new law or something that her work status has changed? I completely agree that the bloated bureaucracy is doing a terrible job in the execution of security measures. And that is unacceptable, but I don’t' think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Again, I don't think that these examples have ever been essential liberties guaranteed to American citizens. Situations change and documentation requirements change with them. That area has always been the purview of the government. That's nothing new.
The other issues (passports - why is it a big deal to get a passport once every 10 years? - and not being able to go to Canada for dinner) sound more like a matter of convenience than freedoms. When we are at war, we need to make sacrifices and convenience often comes first. People made relatively big sacrifices during WWII for example.
The government has done a poor job explaining why they are doing what they are doing. They're afraid to ask us to make sacrifices and that is a mistake. They should trust us to do that.
If a policeman stops me while I'm walking down the street in my suburban town because of some new "anti-terrorist" law, then you're right. Given the context it would be ridiculous. If a state trooper checks my bag while I'm on a crowded commuter train travelling to an obvious target, that's a different story. There may have been threats; you have the London bombings, etc. Under the circumstances, it’s appropriate. Again, this is common sense. What law btw specifically allows our police to stop people randomly and without cause? - as if police couldn't find a reason to stop you if they wanted to before 9/11.
I think we just disagree on what constitutes governmental meddling in the life of an average law-abiding citizen. To me, it sounds like much of the concern is on a conceptual level. I'm convinced that I've not lost any essential freedoms nor has anyone I know.
I certainly respect your concerns and I'm not trying to denigrate them. I just don't understand them all that well. :D
Jordan
there were several incidents in the article, in a few, actual policemen (women?) did the harassing. the first guy was detained without being arrested, had his person searched, and a few of the others had property confiscated. one guy spent a few hours in a cell, if I read it correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnich67
Now, I'm as inherently distrustful of law enforcement as anyone, perhaps moreso, but how can anyone see unwarranted search and seizure of private property as NOT violating the 4th Amendment?
I have a CHL and frequently pack, and interestingly enough, I get LESS harassment from cops when they find out. I mean, it makes sense logically, (in my state, CHL licensees are fourteen times less likely to commit crime of any kind) but I guess I'm just so used to getting a hard time it sort of caught me off guard the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
one more thing and I'll shut up for now. This is from a book I recently read and I think it's rather relevant. emphasis is mine.
As the villainous Dr. Ferris in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand so forthrightly put it:
“Do you really think we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against – then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.”
Seem familiar? There are days when I start to wonder if the DHS's mission statement isn't a paraphrase of this.
Agreed, but highly doubtful it would ever go away. Getting rid of a government program once it's implemented is like trying to get rid of something that's impossible to get rid of! Shortly after Homeland Security rolled out, In our rural Minnesota town of under 3000 people, I was behind a huge brand new decked out fully loaded Ford Excursion on a frontage road. It was crawling along at less than 5mph (speed limit 30mph). It was a homeland security vehicle and the driver was scanning the area in an almost comical exaggerated manner. When I saw all of this, I said to myself out loud: "Oh, come on, give me a break!!" A waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
Now.....I too am hesitant or even opposed to giving up additional personal freedoms for what I believe to be an illusion of increased safety, but... for different reasons than many:
There's an adage: "People who have nothing to hide hide nothing". Search me, search my car, search my home, search my computer. I have no fear or vehement opposition to such practices.
My concern in the loss of personal freedoms at the hand of government and those in authority positions is the potential for ABUSE of that power. Perfectly innocent people getting harassed by corrupt individuals who have the law behind them to act. That to me is of greater concern than simply the potential for law enforcement to stop me and ask me to show what's in my wallet, car, home, computer, etc.
Chris L
When I went to college in NYC (1966), I used to like to walk across the George Washington Bridge. I live in Italy now but in 2005, I visited NYC with my wife and her two sons and I took them for a walk across the bridge. From the moment we set foot on it until the moment we got off, we were followed by a policeman on a bicycle. We weren't stopped or interefered with in any way, but the sensation of being watched was very uncomfortable and, needless to say, I wouldn't do it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnich67
You see, my reaction to this is to feel safer and appreciate that the police are being vigilant. I would have smiled and said "how ya' doin'?" to the policeman because I know I have nothing to worry about from him. We view things from different places/perspectives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimensch
Jordan
guess so. I'd feel quite the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnich67
I dont need the babysitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnich67
I'm the kind of asshole that would tell my wife and kids to stare back for about five minutes. It's funny how quickly people will leave you alone when you do that. Plus, it's not like he can arrest you for it.
On the one hand, I can see people getting mad at photogs because of what Google is doing with Google streets. It's cool, but they really invade some people's privacy too much. For the most part though, and especially with the article, it's BS. Why do the police need to be called to search this man? The private security could have discussed the issue with him and had it been taken care of with no issues. Instead, he calls the police to have them do his job for him. What could have been a quiet conversation ended up being a shady search.
I don't either, but the bridge does...Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
Jordan
Really? I'm sure that tens of thousands of cars cross the bridge every day. One car with explosives could do a lot more harm than four people on foot with nothing in their hands. This was just another example of FALSE security that is intended to intimidate ordinary people.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnich67
[quote=jnich67;248899]I don't either, but the bridge does...
Jordan[/quote
Then let him watch the bridge, the guy was with his wife and kids. I remember being stopped one time by a couple of overweight small time barnie fife types, my wife was with me ,our small dog, our 8yr old daughter and her friend, there was an empty .308 case on the console , they told us to get out of the vehicle, and I asked why and they informed me it was because of the shell case, I mentioned that it was obviously empty and they told me that they had to be concerned about THEIR safety(not the publics). I told the two of them that maybe they ought to find a safer means of employment. It took them a while but they eventually found a way to give a ticket. This is the kind of crap that will be fostered by a security obsessed nation and/or its govt. Its not your well being they are looking out for. As jockey mentioned(excuse the paraphrase) we are all criminals, we just havent been caught yet, when they find it convenient and serving their purposes you'll be guilty.
[QUOTE=nun2sharp;248907]I'll just say this again and then I'll butt out of this, for now. I disagree that the government "has it in for us" and has a conspiracy going to turn us all into criminals. There are plenty of real criminals for them to chase. The government has enough trouble accomplishing its easy goals. I'm not worried about their ability to turn me into a criminal. This is pretty much the root of our disagreement and arguing details is somewhat useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnich67
I go about my business and if a cop wants to watch me doing it, that's his concern, not mine. You always get a few (not most, but few) overzealous cops - it goes with territory. That happened before 9/11 and will continue in the future.
The question is, should we tighten security given the nature of the 9/11 attacks? I'd say yes. How we go about that is certainly open for discussion and refinement.
Jordan
No, it's not. In order to take down a bridge or other target, a certain amount of research is often required and or done. Catching someone in the process of "casing" the job is a good way of preventing an attack. I'm not intimidated by a cop watching me. Again, you seem bothered by the very principle of it because of an inherent mistrust of any authority. I'm not and I don't think most here are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimensch
And...do you really think we're dealing with people who are so stupid that they won't try make themselves look innocent by bringing kids or an old lady with them? I'm not exactly an evil mastermind and I could figure out that one and a few others.
Jordan
I just don't understand why so many people are afraid. Myself, I find it dehumanizing. Kind of takes the thrill away from many situations.
It is dehumanizing. If someone really wanted to take out a bridge, they likely wouldn't have to go and case it. Discovery channel and History have enough structural programs to show the inner workings of all the major bridges. Where are the police at the architecture libraries?
I hate to be one of those guys, but right around the corner is a 2-way TV in every house and posters of Big Brother saying that he's watching us. People being harassed for taking pictures and walking across a bridge are just the first step.
[QUOTE=jnich67;248911]While I agree that they're not "out to get us" it's only because that's not the motive. The original reason for a police force was to enforce the payment of taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
Over time additional jobs were added to that one but that's where it comes from. It's the idea "you have to do what I say because I have the FORCE (hence...police force) to back it up. If you don't....I'll clobber you.
This seems to be getting the case more and more. In some places more than others. In the UK it has gotten to the point where any kind of knife with a lock is forbidden to carry. (while kitchenknives with which most stabbings occur are still legal oddly enough). There are many more examples of this kind where the government flexes it's muscles against the average civilian with not effect to the criminal.
Somehow they think that adding more laws will do something....but even I can see a way around most of those laws and I'm not even a terrorist or criminal.
Terrorists aren't idiots. If I can think of a workaround...so can they. Stop hassling the general public and start working on the REAL terrorists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnich67
yet if the policeman did this to his wife on a regular basis as she walked the streets we would arrest him and register him as a stalker. If he is stalking you it is an implied intimidation tactic under the law. And therefore a clear violation of ones rights to privacy in their person.
Many Jews didn't worry overmuch until the very day they were rounded up, because they too did nothing wrong.
I'll choose to learn from history and remain forever vigilant against the encroachments of tyranny in all its forms.
real criminals fight back. real criminals are dangerous. real criminals are difficult to apprehend.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnich67
a "made" criminal is so much easier. you say the gov't has enough trouble accomplishing easy things? then why assume they'll take the high road and do the more difficult thing? history has shown time and time again that governments WILL do the easy thing, and go for the easier target: innocent people.