Something I actually have to worry about. Working in road and rail infrastructure, we often go wandering about public places taking photos (e.g. on train platforms, freeway interchanges, etc) when we're looking at a job someone has asked us to cost. Mostly I don't worry about it because the climate is not quite as insane here, and I have long experience of the "look like you know what you're doing and be friendly and confident and you can walk in just about anywhere" pose. But there are times when I will arrange for the duty stationmaster or similar to show me around just in case.

On holidays I will take photos of industrial plants, power stations, etc. You never stop being an engineer.

Police stopping you from taking photos in public and confiscating your film used to be a staple of the USSR and other police states - so I thought...

On the other hand, security in a lot of places is appalling. I used to go to chemical plants, oil and gas, and so on - some of them only once a year! - and often if you drop a name or two and assure them you know where you're going they'll let you wander right in. With a heavy, unsearched bag over your shoulder.

The problem is that doing security right is a pain in the ass. You have to make people wait, get them escorted and supervised, all that stuff.

The answer is for the operators of the plant to take responsibility for it though. Not to get the police to hassle random passers-by. When they do it right - in my experience, prisons and strangely food prep do it best - I never complained. Partly because I approved, and partly because I was getting paid by the hour :)

SAR's have been required for decades in commerce. If the transaction involves (or is structured to involve) more than $10,000 in cash. This is to identify possible tax evasion or money laundering. Since 9-11 the emphasis has been on terrorist activities.

There is far too much law right now -- far too many "special ordinances -- and it means that innocent people can be caught in the trap. We do need to find terrorists. We don't need to cast so broad a net that we pick up photographers.

People don't seem to understand...they think if they're innocent of a real crime they won't be arrested. Untrue -- when there are so many fake crimes you can be arrested for when the thing you're doing that's bothering some police officer/authority figure isn't a criminal act.

So, if I go to a city I've never seen before, and photograph buildings that look interesting to me, but the locals see every day, I can be accosted by a policeman. And exercising my usual policy -- "I understand you're just doing your job, but I have nothing to say to you." -- is apt to get me in trouble.

I've often taken photos of buildings **I** find interesting from various angles. Or photos of things others might find mundane. The photos may not have aesthetic value to anyone but me.

This is just more quasi-legal bullshit to promote a sense of 'safety' and 'security' by harassing people. Keep the Fatherland safe!

Keep in mind that some people in high places in the US believe that being a member of the Tea Party makes you a terrorist, but being a member of Hamas makes you a freedom fighter.

Carry a copy of this in your camera bag at all times:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

If our government wanted to inculcate a complete distrust in law and order, what would they do differently?

So, how about following CDC advice on having enough supplies for a couple of weeks or months (food, wather, etc.) and then having the FBI say that buying such supplies (or doing something wonky like paying cash for said items) is suspicious behavior that needs to be reported?

Brian, I downloaded that the first time you posted it, when, last year? And I used to work for a marketing consulting group, I was their graphics person, and I used to have to go, like, everyfrigginwhere to take pictures. Not just of buildings, but inside buildings, to demonstrate product placement and such-like. Most of the time, nobody bothered me, but when someone did try to hassle me, I usually had a letter from one company or another that we worked for, saying I had their permission to take pictures of their product on shelves. I was never invasive and made sure not to take the picture if there were people in the way, but a lot of the time, most people found it interesting, not intrusive. I guess I can be glad that's not what I do for a living now, eh?

Police stopping you from taking photos in public and confiscating your film used to be a staple of the USSR and other police states - so I thought

Right? Didn't the United States participate in TWO world wars in order to stop this very thing from happening in foreign/communist countries? And now we're letting it happen HERE?? ANyone see the irony in this?

So, if I go to a city I've never seen before, and photograph buildings that look interesting to me, but the locals see every day, I can be accosted by a policeman.

Happens a lot in DC, actually, if you try to photograph a government building (good luck trying to take a photo that DOESN'T have a govt building in it in DC!). Even if said building is visible on Google Street view. Even if you're taking a photo from the sidewalk.

Here's a Flickr page that includes a bunch of photos that DC photographers were hassled for taking:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/dcphotorights/

@brian that's a great guide. I've been looking for a handy pocket guide a/b public photography for a while! Printing it now. Thanks!

Wow! How things have changed in such a short period of time. In 1995, I was working on a video game that was set in DC. I spent 2 days taking pictures of the Capital, the House and Senate office buildings (including pix of the floor plans posted near the elevators) the tunnels, etc. I took over 500 pictures and was NEVER questioned by any security personnel. It is very sad that we have allowed this to happen.

I’m a fine art photography student that lives in Long Beach and my first series is a collection of urban landscapes of Long Beach. I was once escorted off the beach for taking pictures at night. The police officer even went as far to tell me that they never heard of anyone taking pictures at night. I explained to him I was with a local gallery and that the series was on Long Beach City to create home pride. He just listed a few things he could take me in on from disturbing the peace to loitering. I was scared so I just left.

@Al I'm guessing 9/11 is being used as a justification. For the most part, it seems to be security guards who are poorly trained.

A journalism student at my school was filming man-on-the-street interviews on a sidewalk near the FBI building. She had her camera and notes confiscated. The school was FURIOUS and managed to get a written apology.

This is an odd news story, ranging from Long Beach Police but then switching to LAPD rules.

If you can find a meaningful organizational chart of the LAPD (very hard to do) you will discover that our local boys in blue have created an "Anti-Terrorism Division" Yes! And you thought they were here to fight local crime.

But you see, the FBI, CIA, NSA and the vast $200-billion-a-year Homeland Security empire need help from the LAPD!

I get a little proud when I think of our own LAPD holding the line against terrorism. Sure, they can't put more than 400 officers on patrol at any time out of a force of 10,000, but they are fighting terrorism.

And you there--asking when this bar closes and taking pictures with your cell phone--what was the purpose of that? Can I see you ID?

Speaking of "security," I can remember catching a train at the Glendale Amtrak station (near L.A.). On the siding was a large train tanker car, marked "Danger! Chlorine Gas Under High Pressure."

Oh! But let's occupy Afghanistan for a few more decades.

The real scary part about this is not that innocent photographers are being caught up in the mix, although that is an outrage in and of itself, yes. The real scary part is that in many cases, photographing and/or recording an outrage is going to be the only defense an individual has in a court of law, especially against a big corporation or a government employee. Like that guy who had his cell phone confiscated by the TSA and recovered the movie after it got deleted, or the guy who got shoved off his bike by a policeman, or the man who got beaten to death by the cops while screaming for his dad. Strip away the easy access to recording hard, cold evidence, and you leave people at the mercy of whose lawyer can talk the prettiest.

There are problems with having so many cameras around, yes. Like the videos that go viral and 10 million people see an embarrassing pratfall. But in today's world where information is a weapon, asking people to put their cameras down is like asking them to give up the right to bear arms.

I've probably said this before, but in states that are going bankrupt (CA, NY), look for more petty crime crackdowns as revenue grabs, while more serious crimes get ignored.

It is dangerous going after serious crime. It is dangerous stopping riots or property damaging flash mobs. Always safer going after law abiding citizens.

True, Dave. But it makes me think, what are cops afraid of in Cali? Hell you can shoot an unarmed man on a BART platform in public and get what, six months?

It seems to me that the larger picture is that they do not want any photographic documentation of anything in public. They are slowly taking away our every right. To what end? That is the question. We need to stand up for our rights NOW, before it is too late.

We need to stand up for our rights NOW, before it is too late.

I hate to piss in your Post Toasties, but it is already too late.

At this point, the best we can hope for in the individual liberties arena is stasis. We need to flush our nation of Progressives and their bullshit ideology before we can seriously begin to have a chance of rolling back the infringements.

At this point, our representatives actually BELIEVE that we want our rights taken away. That won't change until we remove them and replace them with ones that respect individual moral agency.

This will not end well.

I was in Long Beach about five years ago and I took a whole bunch of photos, particularly night ones. I extensively photographed the area around the civic center and the race course. I guess I need to go turn myself in.

Offtopic: Fuckin' bureaucrats, Man...

If the police have time for this, time to fire some police--they are not busy enough due to overstaffing.

> time to fire some police--they are not
> busy enough due to overstaffing.

Those are perhaps the most dangerous imaginable words to speak aloud in Los Angeles County.

I know you don't know better. Still....

Yeah ... the following post won't be popular here.

This is not a new thing -- at all. As a military member, I've been told for many years before 9/11 that if you see someone that is nosing around a military base and taking pictures of its defenses, you should say something. That doesn't mean the guy's going to get arrested or interrogated. It just means that someone should see if there is anything more suspicious to worry about. There is nothing un-Constitutional about saying, "Hey, what's up? Why are you taking pictures?" It's just normal, run of the mill, I-don't-want-to-be-killed behavior.

I recently had two Dutch buddies of mine come to visit me here in Korea. We were driving near the base on our way to go sight-seeing and I thought I would take the opportunity to check my mail. It is a pain in the ass to sign non-Americans onto the base, so I figured I'd drop them on the curb in front of the base to wait for five minutes while I checked my mail. I know -- kind of a douche-bag thing to do to house guests, but I hadn't checked my mail in like two weeks and we were right there.

In retrospect, they looked a bit out of place. They clearly weren't Korean and clearly weren't American military. Somebody called it in and the military police casually asked them a few questions about what they were doing there, etc. It took about two seconds for them to explain that they were here visiting their American friend who was checking on his mail. No big deal. Story over.

I'm not arguing for one minute that there aren't stupid people that take this to extremes and misunderstand the spirit of a pretty common sense, self-preservation, mindset.

However, the idea that, "If you see something, say something" is akin to a Stalinist policy of neighbor monitoring is a a little paranoid.

Don't think for a minute that I didn't take advantage of the opportunity to joke with my friends that, "You ain't getting back to Holland now, mother fucker! You're on the no-fly list, Beyatch!"

What do they do about the Google Street View car? Or aerial photography?

Ah, wait - it's about power again. Dang.

Melody.
Brian beat me to it.
It is already too late.
As a country, both Left & Right have been so focused, on intercine warfare that we have let the Statist Bureaucrats take over.
The Question is not, when does the Country Fall?
It is now, How hard and How far do we fall.
The London Riots are a Best Case Scenario, now.
It is just a matter of time until they arrive here.
Do you think that the Flash Mobs of Detroit, Philly, and Atlanta,
have not been watching and taking notes?
If the first riot in the US, that is comparable to the London Riots,
is not met with Overwhelming (i.e. Deadly) Force, we'll get many more ourselves.
Time to get connected to the neighbors, and stay prepared for trouble.

However, the idea that, "If you see something, say something" is akin to a Stalinist policy of neighbor monitoring is a a little paranoid.

I don't think anyone here is saying that. I agree with you. If someone looks suspicious, ask what they're doing.

The problem I have is when law enforcement or security demand that people stop taking pictures in public. Or confiscate the camera. Or cite non-existent laws. Sure, wander over and ask, all you want. I'll be thrilled to tell you what I'm working on if I'm taking pictures. But tell me to put my camera away when I'm standing on the sidewalk or, worse, tell me to hand it over, and things will not be pretty.

sofar,

Agreed. I would have a very big problem with that as well.

--"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery," says McDonnell, "it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual."--

This seems like common sense policing to me. I don't know, but I could easily imagine this policeman describing what you and I are talking about and just being a little ham handed about it. And yeah, depending on if the answer to the policeman's question is, "All the infidels must pay", then perhaps further questioning might be in order. The article just seems a little slanted to me.

I could be wrong. Maybe this particular police force is crossing a line, but it's not entirely clear from the article.

I just like to point out when something is unnecessarily alarmist when I can. For Christ's sake, Thomas up there is stocking up his bomb shelter for the zombie invasion! All over what is, more likely than not, typical community policing. Having a policeman strike up a conversation with you isn't a violation of anyone's rights. Hell, they should be out on foot getting to know as many people on their beat as they can.

"Hell, they should be out on foot getting to know as many people on their beat as they can."

Providing they don't have a quota for patdowns or street arrests. I suggest the reverse is better: go out of your way to say Hello to your local cops.

"On the siding was a large train tanker car, marked 'Danger! Chlorine Gas Under High Pressure.'"

Ah, at last someone else notices that WMD are scattered all over the landscape of industrialized nations - like, ahem, Iraq.

You can see right here what we ship everywhere: chemicals that would level your neighborhood. But we go nuts at the littlest thing. Want to make a terrorist threat? Throw a bag of baking powder on your courthouse steps!