9/11 Sparked Decade Of Madness Against Photographers

[Bob Hubbard]

Ten years ago today, terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center, suddenly turning all photographers into suspected terrorists.
But there has never been any evidence that terrorists used cameras to document their targets before striking them.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/911-sparked-a-decade-of-madness-against-photographers

Bruce Schneier, a man who obsesses about security more than I obsess about photographers’ rights, pointed this fact out in a memorable 2008 article which needs to be revisited today.

Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.
Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.
Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?
Because it's a movie-plot threat.
​

 

[elder999]

On the other hand, restrictions agains photography have long been the rule within certain industrial sites-power plants, and shipyards, for example, not just for proprietary reasons, but because they are legitimate targets in war. Of course, we're engaged in a war where we're all supposed to be the "target," and where malls, busy streets, museums, sporting events and the like are not just simple gathering places, but places of potential danger....the reaction to photography is just one example of the atmosphere of fear we've been living in for a decade-not to mention, with the omnipresence of cameras in cell phones, a way of clamping down on those who might expose other abuses of our rights.

 

[granfire]

On the other hand, restrictions agains photography have long been the rule within certain industrial sites-power plants, and shipyards, for example, not just for proprietary reasons, but because they are legitimate targets in war. Of course, we're engaged in a war where we're all supposed to be the "target," and where malls, busy streets, museums, sporting events and the like are not just simple gathering places, but places of potential danger....the reaction to photography is just one example of the atmosphere of fear we've been living in for a decade-not to mention, with the omnipresence of cameras in cell phones, a way of clamping down on those who might expose other abuses of our rights.

But it seems we all have become suspects as well.

This os turning into something closer to the Communist snipe hunt of the 50s.

 

[Carol]

But I like to photograph power plants...esp. hydro plants...they are cool!


Hydro Power by Sikaranista, on Flickr


Mine Falls Park 011 by Sikaranista, on Flickr


Reclaiming the Mill by Sikaranista, on Flickr

 

[Bill Mattocks]

[video=youtube_share;FJH9F7Hcluo]http://youtu.be/FJH9F7Hcluo[/video]

 

[Razor]

It's been happening very prominently in London as well; photographers being stopped by Police just because they are taking photographs of landmarks etc. Sometimes its even professional photographers, being stopped because they are doing their jobs.

I don't really understand what the point is in any case, as with many of the things Police seem to stop people photographing there are already pictures in the public domain.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't really understand what the point is in any case, as with many of the things Police seem to stop people photographing there are already pictures in the public domain.

Security Theatre.

 

[elder999]

But I like to photograph power plants...esp. hydro plants...they are cool!

Yeah, but go inside an operational one and you'd likely see signs prohibiting photography, some that go back to the late 40's, no doubt....(cool picks, btw-if you ever get out this way, there are still hydro plants in Colorado that Tesla built-Xcel energy gives tours AND lets you take pictures!)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

About the only type of photography that I don't care for is 'ruin porn' which is popular in Detroit. I don't care if people take such photos, I just don't care for them. And about the only type of photography that I'm against is so-called 'urbex' photography, which typically (but does not always) involves trespassing on private property in order to take photos (and vandalize, and spray-paint graffiti, and smoke dope, etc). I don't 'get' that kind of behavior, but I'm not against the photography as much as I am against the trespassing. Private property should be respected. The property owner has no right to stop you taking photos from a public place, but they have every right to stop you from trespassing on their property to get the photos you want.

 

[jks9199]

On the other hand, restrictions agains photography have long been the rule within certain industrial sites-power plants, and shipyards, for example, not just for proprietary reasons, but because they are legitimate targets in war. Of course, we're engaged in a war where we're all supposed to be the "target," and where malls, busy streets, museums, sporting events and the like are not just simple gathering places, but places of potential danger....the reaction to photography is just one example of the atmosphere of fear we've been living in for a decade-not to mention, with the omnipresence of cameras in cell phones, a way of clamping down on those who might expose other abuses of our rights.

I'm going to use this as my starting point, and my take on some of it.

It's not a war on photographers, or tourists, or anything else. It is a heightened awareness of the potential concerns about some activities -- and some of those activities overlap with photographers. And that awareness has spread from a small subset of people (some law enforcement, security personnel, and the like) to a lot more people -- including people who don't really know much more than they've heard all the "See Something - Say Something" PSAs.

So, some guy is taking pictures of a bridge, or even just a building. Once, it would have been ignored. Today, someone sees him, and calls the cops. The cops show up -- and some of them don't know any better than the guy who called. So they "interview" the photographer... who, sometimes, we have to admit, has an agenda when something like that happens, or just plain is stubborn and obnoxious about things. Stupidity and needless drama ensues, from both sides.

Add in the ease of posting things to the web, and the proliferation of cameras in cell phones, cheap digital cameras and more, and we get into another area of problems. More people are taking more pictures and videos of things that might not have been photographed or videoed before. Including police encounters... Once again, add a conflict of well intentioned folks sticking to their guns, right or wrong, on either side... and more needless stupidity and drama comes up.

 

[granfire]

I'm going to use this as my starting point, and my take on some of it.

It's not a war on photographers, or tourists, or anything else. It is a heightened awareness of the potential concerns about some activities -- and some of those activities overlap with photographers. And that awareness has spread from a small subset of people (some law enforcement, security personnel, and the like) to a lot more people -- including people who don't really know much more than they've heard all the "See Something - Say Something" PSAs.

So, some guy is taking pictures of a bridge, or even just a building. Once, it would have been ignored. Today, someone sees him, and calls the cops. The cops show up -- and some of them don't know any better than the guy who called. So they "interview" the photographer... who, sometimes, we have to admit, has an agenda when something like that happens, or just plain is stubborn and obnoxious about things. Stupidity and needless drama ensues, from both sides.

Add in the ease of posting things to the web, and the proliferation of cameras in cell phones, cheap digital cameras and more, and we get into another area of problems. More people are taking more pictures and videos of things that might not have been photographed or videoed before. Including police encounters... Once again, add a conflict of well intentioned folks sticking to their guns, right or wrong, on either side... and more needless stupidity and drama comes up.

Well, no.
Really.

See, it's a matter of light and the seasons.
I look down my street and see something new every day, or differences from morning through evening (and the best sky usually on Thursday mornings, when the trash cans are out)

One point is that most of the landmarks have been photographed many times over. The pictures are in public domain, often the architectural plans as well.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm going to use this as my starting point, and my take on some of it.

It's not a war on photographers, or tourists, or anything else. It is a heightened awareness of the potential concerns about some activities -- and some of those activities overlap with photographers. And that awareness has spread from a small subset of people (some law enforcement, security personnel, and the like) to a lot more people -- including people who don't really know much more than they've heard all the "See Something - Say Something" PSAs.

So, some guy is taking pictures of a bridge, or even just a building. Once, it would have been ignored. Today, someone sees him, and calls the cops. The cops show up -- and some of them don't know any better than the guy who called. So they "interview" the photographer... who, sometimes, we have to admit, has an agenda when something like that happens, or just plain is stubborn and obnoxious about things. Stupidity and needless drama ensues, from both sides.

Add in the ease of posting things to the web, and the proliferation of cameras in cell phones, cheap digital cameras and more, and we get into another area of problems. More people are taking more pictures and videos of things that might not have been photographed or videoed before. Including police encounters... Once again, add a conflict of well intentioned folks sticking to their guns, right or wrong, on either side... and more needless stupidity and drama comes up.

I agree, but I will say that legal behavior is not "needless stupidity and drama." One does not defend one's rights by choosing to forgo some legal behavior that makes other people nervous, angry, or worried.

I could apply the same logic to a neighbor who calls the police because they notice that you have a pretty massive firearms collection and they know because you clean your guns on your back porch in full view of their own backyard. They call the police, who get involved, and all kinds of questions and answers begin; more "needless stupidity and drama." Perhaps, to appease the neighbors, you should simply not own so many guns, eh?

To me, that falls under the same category as "abusing" one's rights. If it's a right, it cannot be abused, by definition. If a person should simply choose not do it because it gets people angried up and the police have to get involved, then it's not exactly a right anymore, is it? Now it's a privilege, and one which not only can, but has, been revoked.

I don't *care* how many people's panties get in a twist over my photography. If what I am doing is legal, then too bad for them.

That said, I no longer go out of my way to antagonize anyone. If they get in my face and demand I not take photos of them, I just move on. I don't engage them in conversation. However, I also do not turn over my film or camera to them, display the photos I've taken, or delete them on their demand either. I just ignore them and walk away.

I've had police demand to see my camera, show them my photos, and delete certain photos. I have traditionally politely refused. So far, I have not been arrested for it. Needless stupidity and drama? Not from my point of view.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, no.
Really.

See, it's a matter of light and the seasons.
I look down my street and see something new every day, or differences from morning through evening (and the best sky usually on Thursday mornings, when the trash cans are out)

One point is that most of the landmarks have been photographed many times over. The pictures are in public domain, often the architectural plans as well.

Thanks, that's a very good point. Watching the video I posted a link to, quite often the questions are:

Q: What are you taking photographs of?
A: Whatever I want to take photographs of.

Q: Why are you taking photographs of XYZ?
A: Because I want to.

Really, what other explanations are there for exercising a right? I see things that I want to photograph. It can be due to anything; a reflection, an ironic juxtaposition, even the clouds and how they reflect off of something I'm photographing. Am I to explain my (pardon me for using the term) artistic vision to an authority figure, for their approval or disapproval? Only official, acceptable photographs with art that some hourly-wage security guard understands is acceptable now?

Maybe I'm taking photographs to practice with a new lens or camera, or to try a new angle I hadn't tried before, or perhaps I'm experimenting with exposure. Maybe I'm taking photographs to test my right to take photographs.

And maybe, just maybe, it's none of anyone else's business.

 

[granfire]

Thanks, that's a very good point. Watching the video I posted a link to, quite often the questions are:

Q: What are you taking photographs of?
A: Whatever I want to take photographs of.

Q: Why are you taking photographs of XYZ?
A: Because I want to.

Really, what other explanations are there for exercising a right? I see things that I want to photograph. It can be due to anything; a reflection, an ironic juxtaposition, even the clouds and how they reflect off of something I'm photographing. Am I to explain my (pardon me for using the term) artistic vision to an authority figure, for their approval or disapproval? Only official, acceptable photographs with art that some hourly-wage security guard understands is acceptable now?

Maybe I'm taking photographs to practice with a new lens or camera, or to try a new angle I hadn't tried before, or perhaps I'm experimenting with exposure. Maybe I'm taking photographs to test my right to take photographs.

And maybe, just maybe, it's none of anyone else's business.

Just for giggles, phrase it in colorful (not obscene!) wordy explanations, see how long it takes for their eyes to glaze over, amid artsy talks, peppered with tech detail! :lol:

 

[jks9199]

The "needless stupidity and drama" I referred to takes place on both sides. You have the person who decides that they're going to make it as hard as possible on the cop, so you get the smart *** answers, or "what are you going to do about it?" or even "I can too be here!" as they're trespassing. You also get the cop or security person who refuses to listen, demands the camera, or otherwise steps all over himself trying to handle it. Both sides get their egos involved, and the NEEDLESS drama results.

Flip side... cop looks at, asks the photographer what's up, get's a reasonable explanation and everyone goes on their way, no drama and stupidity. Or even the cop recognizes there's no violation of law, and tells the complainant that.

Exercising your rights is indeed your right. But you don't have to be an *** about it.

The cops have a job to do. But they don't have to be asses about it, either.

If both sides are reasonable about things, everything tends to work out better.

 

[granfire]

The "needless stupidity and drama" I referred to takes place on both sides. You have the person who decides that they're going to make it as hard as possible on the cop, so you get the smart *** answers, or "what are you going to do about it?" or even "I can too be here!" as they're trespassing. You also get the cop or security person who refuses to listen, demands the camera, or otherwise steps all over himself trying to handle it. Both sides get their egos involved, and the NEEDLESS drama results.

Flip side... cop looks at, asks the photographer what's up, get's a reasonable explanation and everyone goes on their way, no drama and stupidity. Or even the cop recognizes there's no violation of law, and tells the complainant that.

Exercising your rights is indeed your right. But you don't have to be an *** about it.

The cops have a job to do. But they don't have to be asses about it, either.

If both sides are reasonable about things, everything tends to work out better.

If, indeed.
But it seems we have lost a great deal of reason.

something like "blah blah blah RIGHTS blah blah. Yada yada yada make me! Yada yada yada"

Naturally the opposite works well, too."bark bark bark AUTHORITY!!! growl growl growl cower!!!! Snarl!"

When generally a smile and a 'what's up?' gets you much further in life!


I think it's part of how the conversation is initiated...
I got chewed out once fr taking a picture I was not supposed to take. But the gentleman, one of Ky's finest was ever so nice about it. (but 12 years ago the world was indeed a nicer place) I had no problem to engage in into a conversation after the incident. (not sure if he was the lucky one...he was posted in the museum part of the Horse Park, getting to listen to the guided tours. I am sure he is now an expert on the Chinese horse )

But sadly these days the conversation does not start friendly, but with an accusation, veiled or unveiled and the assumption of wrong doing or ill intend.

Seems we have let our mind get poisoned with the idea that everybody really is out to get us.

 

[CanuckMA]

Flip side... cop looks at, asks the photographer what's up, get's a reasonable explanation and everyone goes on their way, no drama and stupidity. Or even the cop recognizes there's no violation of law, and tells the complainant that.

Exercising your rights is indeed your right. But you don't have to be an *** about it.

The cops have a job to do. But they don't have to be asses about it, either.

If both sides are reasonable about things, everything tends to work out better.

Why do I have to provide a 'resonable', or any, explanation to an authority to be allowed to do something that I'm allowed to do?

Standing in a public place, taking a picture of a public place, I should not have to explain myself to anybody. Because the next step is to ask me why I've been sitting on that bench looking at that building for the past 15 minutes. And then, pehaps, just randomly asking me for my papers.

 

[jks9199]

Why do I have to provide a 'resonable', or any, explanation to an authority to be allowed to do something that I'm allowed to do?

Standing in a public place, taking a picture of a public place, I should not have to explain myself to anybody. Because the next step is to ask me why I've been sitting on that bench looking at that building for the past 15 minutes. And then, pehaps, just randomly asking me for my papers.

"Reasonable explanation" means something like "I'm taking pictures for a contest" or "Isn't the light neat how it reflects there..." It may be more depending on what you're taking pictures of. Taking pictures of the underside of a bridge, or the gate guards at a power plant? Yeah, you might need to say more.

I also put the burden of being reasonable on both sides of the equation, which several people seem to be missing. The cop/security officer/whoever needs to listen and be sensible, too. They need to know what's allowed and what's not -- and how to stay within the bounds. The cop can't demand more of an explanation than the circumstances demand.

Let me run a few situations here. Last week, I was on patrol, and I saw someone taking pictures of a house I knew to be vacant. I made contact, and they explained that they were a realtor. They had business cards, etc. OK, have a nice day.

Another day, I saw someone on the main street, taking pictures of street lamps and other things. Didn't say a word to them; we have an annual calendar photo contest, and I could tell by the things they were taking pictures of what they were up to.

But... the guy taking video of several buildings, including banks, in town? We had a chat. Turned out he was making a video for his fiance before she moved into the area...

I've had a few others along the way that took more action, for various reasons. Like the guy who decided to video the vehicles and tactics we were using as we did a gang-related search warrant. He got some special attention, but when he ducked into his own home -- we stopped. It was purely fortuitous synchronicity when he got busted soon after, with that video in his possession, and we got to hit his house with it's own search warrant...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am in agreement that intentionally being an *** to the cop when answering questions is a bad idea. And I'm also fully understanding of the fact that if someone lodges a complain, the cop typically doesn't have any choice, he or she has to 'investigate' the claim or report. I get that.

However...

If I am asked "Why are you taking a photo of the underside of that bridge?" and the police officer is not pleased with my answer, then what? So instead of answering "None of your business, officer, it's my right, I can do what I want to, etc, etc," I say "Well, officer, I like the cables and the way they cross at the diagonal with the struts, so I thought I'd take a photo of it" and he replies "No, that's not something to take a photo of, move along..." Now what?

In fact, in the video I posted, one of the 'building managers' of a building they objected to having pictures taken of asked the photographer what it was he was trying to do. The photographer explained and the building manager, now having taken on the role of artistic director, said "Why don't you come inside and we'll give you some better ideas of things to take photographs of?" Yeah, helpful. If I need your goons to break my cameras and beat me up out of sight of the public, I'll do that, m'kay? I was born at night; but not last night.

See, being 'reasonable' implies that I'm going to compromise. Don't take a picture of the underside of the bridge if it gives someone fits, go take a picture of something else instead, something no one objects to, like that flower over there. But although I want very much to be pleasant and polite and not ruin anyone's day (including mine), I am not going to compromise if I am legally permitted to be where I am, and to take the photograph I want to take.

"Be reasonable" generally means "do what I tell you to do." Uh, no. I'm going to do what I want to do, so long as I am breaking no law. I'll be polite, I'll be kind, I'll be cooperative and not belligerent, rude, obscene, or threatening. That's how I will be reasonable. Stop doing what I'm (presumably legally) doing because someone doesn't care for it? Sorry, no.

"Be reasonable" means "I know what you are doing is your legal right, but you should choose not to do it because someone has taken an objection to it." If that is what being reasonable means, then no, I am not reasonable. However, that does not also mean I am going to be an a-hole about it. Unless by refusing to stop taking photographs that automatically makes me one; in that case, yes, I'm an a-hole and too bad.

 

[granfire]

"Be reasonable" generally means "do what I tell you to do." Uh, no. I'm going to do what I want to do, so long as I am breaking no law. I'll be polite, I'll be kind, I'll be cooperative and not belligerent, rude, obscene, or threatening. That's how I will be reasonable. Stop doing what I'm (presumably legally) doing because someone doesn't care for it? Sorry, no.

"Be reasonable" means "I know what you are doing is your legal right, but you should choose not to do it because someone has taken an objection to it." If that is what being reasonable means, then no, I am not reasonable. However, that does not also mean I am going to be an a-hole about it. Unless by refusing to stop taking photographs that automatically makes me one; in that case, yes, I'm an a-hole and too bad.

Oh man, does that bring back memories...
"Be reasonable" generally means "do what I tell you to do."
That is about word for word something my mom brought up, oh, 30 years ago....