Law enforcement continues to crack down on photographers despite the law

[Carol]

Bill, I think you're taking this in a different direction than was intended.

I don't quite get why some of the people who've taken my picture wanted a picture. I'm just a guy doing my job.

Here's another guy just doing his job.


The Plow Guy by Sikaranista, on Flickr

Is it interesting? I dunno....but to me, this is one of the most beautiful sites in the world

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I spent 2 hours today photographing toy tanks that were positioned on a nude model's body. You don't have to understand why I did it. No matter what you may think was the reason, you're probably off. No one, other than the photographer needs to know why they shoot what they shoot. I've spent hours shooting the gravel patterns in my driveway, or grass on my lawn. It's art. And, just as some folks shoot air planes and pilots, or firefighters and trucks, some do like shooting cops n their cars. Me, I like shooting WWII planes and tanks.
But. There's a right way, and a wrong way. Me, I try to do it right.

But, there's enough fear out there that makes me cautious. Case in point, while at a local park I saw a US Border Patrol SUV parked there. Was right by a tree, guy had the binoculars out and was scanning something. Would have made a great shot, a beautiful shot. But, I like my camera, I like my teeth, and I like my shoulders not being dislocated. So I didn't take the shot. Yes, I could have asked for permission, but I don't need it. Yes I could have seen about posing the shot, but it was the moment and mood, and you can't pose that sometimes. A while later I was glad I had walked away as I saw a second BP agent and 2 Erie County deputies playing 20 questions with another photographer who had made the mistake of thinking that the lighthouse was ok to photograph. Which light house? This one.
Congrats, if you looked according to the part of conversation I caught, you're now guilty of terrorist activities, agents of Al Kayeda, and probably beat your kids. Yes, that's a vital national defense installation or something, top top secret. How secret?
Google "buffalo lighthouse" and see.

The guys who are responsible for determining if I can reenter my own country, or just arbitrarily stop and demand my papers within 100 miles of the border, haven't got a clue on photographer rights, or how Google works. Wonder why I get worried sometimes?

 

[Archangel M]

Thing is...it seems like many of these videographers/photographers are not interested in "justice" or some other higher cause as much as they are getting as many hits as they can on Youtube.

Personally, I could care less if someone is taking my picture, although gang members doing counter-surveillance of undercover officers so that they can expose them to danger seems like a situation I would like to do something about.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Oh, as to Walmart.... I've seen a few greeters that were cute. But then again, there are more interesting things to shoot at Waliworld.
At least, "People of Walmart" think so.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Thing is...it seems like many of these videographers/photographers are not interested in "justice" or some other higher cause as much as they are getting as many hits as they can on Youtube.

Personally, I could care less if someone is taking my picture, although gang members doing counter-surveillance of undercover officers so that they can expose them to danger seems like a situation I would like to do something about.

I think that might fall under the 'interfering' rules, or espionage maybe?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Thing is...it seems like many of these videographers/photographers are not interested in "justice" or some other higher cause as much as they are getting as many hits as they can on Youtube.

Personally, I could care less if someone is taking my picture, although gang members doing counter-surveillance of undercover officers so that they can expose them to danger seems like a situation I would like to do something about.

Thing is, arrest me. Please. I need the money. So far, photographers have collected quite a bit of money from cities and counties on account of being illegally detained, having their photographs and camera equipment confiscated, and so on. It's like winning the lottery. So please, if you see me taking a photo of a police officer, arrest me.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...usands_in_deleted_images_row_news_305659.html

Police pay photographer thousands in deleted images row

Wednesday 16th February 2011

Chris Cheesman


A man has won $40,000 in damages after police in the United States confiscated his camera phone and deleted images he had taken of them in a public place.

Marlon Kautz from Atlanta had been filming officers as they arrested someone last April when he was told he had no right to record them.

Kautz belongs to a group that films police activity using cameras and mobile phones.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Is it not true that public servants are accountable to their employer?

I am not employed by citizens. I am employed by the city. It is to the publicly elected figures that I am accountable. Even more then that, I am accountable to the laws of the state and the Constitution of the United States.

As an extreme example, if it is as you say, then I couldn't arrest them, because I am "accountable" to them for my actions. Although my job is to provide them with a service, they are in no way my "employer".

Doesn't mean that I disagree with your larger premise, but I've always found this line of reasoning weird. There are reasons to be responsive to them, just like a salesman who chooses to ignore his customers wishes may be fired. But I still find the train of thought weird.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am not employed by citizens. I am employed by the city. It is to the publicly elected figures that I am accountable. Even more then that, I am accountable to the laws of the state and the Constitution of the United States.

As an extreme example, if it is as you say, then I couldn't arrest them, because I am "accountable" to them for my actions. Although my job is to provide them with a service, they are in no way my "employer".

Doesn't mean that I disagree with your larger premise, but I've always found this line of reasoning weird. There are reasons to be responsive to them, just like a salesman who chooses to ignore his customers wishes may be fired. But I still find the train of thought weird.

In the USA, authority flows from the citizenry to the government, not the other way around. As you stated, you are not directly employed by the citizens of your jurisdiction, but your bosses are, and the laws you serve were written by legislators elected by the voters to do their will, or by plebiscite in a more direct fashion. This is unlike a private corporation which is beholden to customers, yes, but not employed by them. A private company can choose to ignore the wishes of its customers, but it may lose their business. In the USA, a government must obey the dictates of the electorate with regard to who is in office and who is not, what laws are passed and what laws are overturned, with the exception that all laws must pass Constitutional muster.

In any case, we are getting a tad off track. The point of the O/P, I believe, and certainly the point I got from it as well as other recent news stories, is that the law states people can take photographs in public, including of public officials like police officers, in most jurisdictions. Police continue to harass and arrest photographers who do so. The courts continue to slap the police down and even to order them in some cases, to knock it off, and the police continue to ignore these laws and judge's orders. I find that reprehensible and without justification. Stating that you (not you personally) don't like to be followed around and photographed by people hoping to trip you up isn't important. I'm sorry you don't like it. It is what it is. I don't get to arrest people who take photos of me in public - not that they do - but in any case, if I'm in public, I have to deal with the fact that I may be photographed. So do the police.

But go right ahead and arrest me - as I said, I can use the money.

 

[Carol]

Go ahead, arrest Bill...and leave me alone :lol2:

(Sorry Bill, couldn't resist )

 

[Bob Hubbard]

In any case, we are getting a tad off track. The point of the O/P, I believe, and certainly the point I got from it as well as other recent news stories, is that the law states people can take photographs in public, including of public officials like police officers, in most jurisdictions. Police continue to harass and arrest photographers who do so. The courts continue to slap the police down and even to order them in some cases, to knock it off, and the police continue to ignore these laws and judge's orders. I find that reprehensible and without justification. Stating that you (not you personally) don't like to be followed around and photographed by people hoping to trip you up isn't important. I'm sorry you don't like it. It is what it is. I don't get to arrest people who take photos of me in public - not that they do - but in any case, if I'm in public, I have to deal with the fact that I may be photographed. So do the police.

But go right ahead and arrest me - as I said, I can use the money.

That was my point.

If I'm out walking about and happen to see something to photograph, I shouldn't have to worry about cops being the ones to bully me, intimidate me, steal (i mean "confiscate") my camera, delete my photos (you know, "destroying evidence"), and possibly feel the need to rough me up ("injured while resisting arrest") to teach me a lesson ("ie cops are bullies and to be feared not respected").
All because I thought it interesting that day to walk down a major street and shoot anything that caught my eye, that was in plain public view.

There are no laws on the books, outside of a few abused wiretapping laws, that prohibit photographing police, fire, rescue, medical, political, etc. None.
The US Government even reiterated that with it's recent edicts that shooting Federal property was legal...though the SS didn't get the memo...or the Constitution...

If anyone can find such a law, I'd like the full code #, etc and preferably a link to read the whole law.

The LEO's here...get it. We might disagree on a few minor points, but we're all on the same page. You all I'm not worried about. It's that rookie who doesn't know...or that grumpy vet having a bad day not caring what the law allows wanting to throw some weight around. My insurance doesn't cover having my camera removed from my *** if it was put there by a cop...irate model maybe, but not a cop. It's a specific clause..."proctologist not covered"

Please keep in mind, my point concerns -legal- photography. Not the type where the shooter gets in your face, in your way, interferes with your or their safety, etc. There's a difference when there is an expectation of privacy, or you put lives at risk, or trespass, etc.

 

[jks9199]

Go ahead, arrest Bill...and leave me alone :lol2:

(Sorry Bill, couldn't resist )

But, Carol, you're so much more fun to put handcuffs on! :EG:

Returning to the topic... As I said, I know that there are some cops out there who simply assume they can do anything they want. You've got others who simply try their best to solve a problem -- and overstep the bounds in an sincere attempt to do the right thing.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Let me ask a sincere question here to the LEO's reading.

Scenario: You are out driving your beat. You get a call to respond to your local airport. A TSA agent has detained a civilian within the airport who is taking photographs. The TSA agent insists that this is a crime. The civilian insists it is not. The civilian proceeds to hand you a print out that claims to be official TSA policy allowing for the photographing of anything in the airports, except the screens themselves. The TSA agent tells you the civilian is wrong.

What do you do?












btw, section 2.7 of the TSA's Screening Management SOP document (that was leaked and is now all over various photography forums) says it is ok for the public, passengers and press to photograph, videotape and film at screening locations, as long as they do not interfere with the screeners ability to perform their duties, or as long as the screens and images on scanners is not shown. Confiscation and destruction of photographic equipment is not allowed. I'd post the exact text, however that's classified. Top Top secret in fact as the TSA doesn't even tell their own people this.

 

[Archangel M]

ID the photographer, ask him some questions to see exactly what he is up to..we do have the responsibility to determine if this guy is some sort of probe or terrorist scouting the location..or LE response.

Tell the TSA that I have nothing to arrest for. Ask them if they want to issue a trespass warning which, if they have the authority to issue one and the photog refuses to leave, THEN I would have something to arrest for.

Otherwise I try to sweet talk the photog into leaving for the time being or I tell the screeners to live with it.

 

[ballen0351]

I asked our county states atty today about this topic. She said in this county as of right now we are following the belief that you can not audio record police in public. You can take pictures and visually record but no audio. If anyone is recording you and your not actively arresting someone and they are not making a scene about it ie. Yelling "I got you on tape cop" or "were going to have your job" and they are keeping there distance from you then we should leave them alone. If we are making an active arrest then we are to get the camera mans information and they will subpoena his recordings as evidence. If the camera person is too close where hes getting in the way, causing a disturbance or if in a crowd and the crowd seems to be getting agitated by him recording us ie. becoming disorderly so they can get on tape being arrested, of "showing off" for the cameras then we will ask them to leave. If they refuse then they are arrested.
If later on something gets posted on the internet then they will go after the person. I asked her about the trooper case she said as of right now that ruling only applies to Harford County not ours' Until either the state appeals court makes a ruling if its appealed, state legislature passes new rules or we try a case in this county and a judge here decides on it, that's what we are doing.

 

[ballen0351]

Let me ask a sincere question here to the LEO's reading.

Scenario: You are out driving your beat. You get a call to respond to your local airport. A TSA agent has detained a civilian within the airport who is taking photographs. The TSA agent insists that this is a crime. The civilian insists it is not. The civilian proceeds to hand you a print out that claims to be official TSA policy allowing for the photographing of anything in the airports, except the screens themselves. The TSA agent tells you the civilian is wrong.

What do you do?












btw, section 2.7 of the TSA's Screening Management SOP document (that was leaked and is now all over various photography forums) says it is ok for the public, passengers and press to photograph, videotape and film at screening locations, as long as they do not interfere with the screeners ability to perform their duties, or as long as the screens and images on scanners is not shown. Confiscation and destruction of photographic equipment is not allowed. I'd post the exact text, however that's classified. Top Top secret in fact as the TSA doesn't even tell their own people this.

I call the Transportation Authority Police Department since all air ports are there jurisdiction and then run away as fast as I can.

However Id be careful trying to use super secret double probation internet SOP's that even the TSA officers cant see as my guide.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The Mouth of Sauron, errr I mean "Blogger Bob" at the TSA validates the "forbidden document"'s information.
http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/03/can-i-take-photos-at-checkpoint-and.html

There's a follow up at FlyerTalk (not affiliated with us) where one of their members hit up something like 50 airports for confirmation. 18 replied, with confusing answers.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trav...ert-can-i-take-photos-checkpoint-airport.html

 

[ballen0351]

The Mouth of Sauron, errr I mean "Blogger Bob" at the TSA validates the "forbidden document"'s information.
http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/03/can-i-take-photos-at-checkpoint-and.html

There's a follow up at FlyerTalk (not affiliated with us) where one of their members hit up something like 50 airports for confirmation. 18 replied, with confusing answers.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trav...ert-can-i-take-photos-checkpoint-airport.html

Gotta love how well the Govt keeps secrets

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The document in question was 'leaked' a few months back. It was released by someone with the TSA who had 'secured' it by layering black bars over the text, something easily removed by anyone who had a copy of Adobe Acrobat. Little knowledge was required I heard. The fact that the people responsible for ensure the safety and security of air travel are incapable of securing a document (hint: simple text substitution would have worked 100%) isn't a good thing, ya know?

A redacted version of the document was intentionally posted on a government Web site as an Adobe PDF file. Unfortunately, the individual who created the file merely placed black boxes over the sections to be redacted. The hidden text was left within the document. To view the text, individuals needed only copy the text around and under the boxes and paste it into another word processor.

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it...d-for-adequate-softwaresecurity-training/1317

 

[ballen0351]

The document in question was 'leaked' a few months back. It was released by someone with the TSA who had 'secured' it by layering black bars over the text, something easily removed by anyone who had a copy of Adobe Acrobat. Little knowledge was required I heard. The fact that the people responsible for ensure the safety and security of air travel are incapable of securing a document (hint: simple text substitution would have worked 100%) isn't a good thing, ya know?


http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it...d-for-adequate-softwaresecurity-training/1317

Im not sure I understand the point of posting a redacted version of an SOP if you don't want people to read it then why post it? And if your knowingly posting something your not supposed to then why redact it at all your already in trouble. Seems strange to me.

 

[jks9199]

Bob -- here's the problem.

I don't know the veracity of that photographer's document. The TSA agent is supposedly a reliable source of information about their policies. Who am I to assume is right? The guy "just doing his job" or the guy trying to justify what he's doing?

Let me put a little different spin on it. Change it to a purely private situation: a mall. Mall security rent-a-cop says that the policies prohibit unauthorized photography. It's even posted at the door. Guy trying to take pictures says he's within his rights, and pulls out an article that says malls are public areas. Who seems to be more likely to be right?

In the scenario you describe, I'd have to assess the information being provided. I'd probably turn it over to the local airport cops -- but I know that's a bit of a cop out here. So -- what would I do? Make the best call I can. Probably ask the photographer to do the sensible thing, and stop pissing off the TSA goons. Ask the TSA agent to let the guy leave... and tell him he can get a warrant if he's so sure there's a violation of law.