Thread: The War on Photographers

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.

Jordan

Originally Posted by jockeys

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 sounds like the guards were private security, not the government. Or am I wrong on that?

Jordan

Originally Posted by jnich67

It’s a tough balance to work.
Jordan

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

Originally Posted by jnich67

It sounds like the guards were private security, not the government. Or am I wrong on that?

Jordan

You are wrong on that The security called the cops.

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.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

You are wrong on that The security called the cops.
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.

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.