Should Photography Be Illegal? 

Your Responses


Opinion

As BOTH a photographer and a cop, I can tell you that most cops are reasonable and try to do their job courteously and reasonably, but there are also a few officers that revel in the power of the badge, just as there are photographers that are jerks. Most states have laws against "resisting, obstructing or delaying" an officer, so take the authors advice and don't argue if you come across one of the very few cops out there who are badge heavy. Be polite and save the debate for later. And remember, if you are breaking a law, even the best cops probably won't give you a break if you are being difficult.


Opinion

Good advice for dealing with the police. Taking photos in DC, I have twice been approached by police - on both occasions the issue was where I could use a tripod. In all cases they were polite and so was I and we clarified the places I could use a tripod.

On the other hand you could have been a bit tougher on defending our rights to take photos. This war with Al Quaeda is about defending our rights. If we give them away, even in the name of self defense, we loose.

I have lived in a number of overseas dictatorships - Marcos, Said Bahr, and Suharto. In all cases the ultimate excuse for ignoring human/civil rights was "defense" of the nation from either external or internal enemies. National defense is the ultimate rational of the dicator. Thus, if we truly believe in freedom; if we truly believe that a free society is a strong society, we will protect those freedoms even if, in the short term, they increase some risks. If we back of that and take the position that freedoms are luxuries only in times of peace, then we have started down the road to loosing those freedoms permenantly.

So, I agree, be polite with the police, but report any abuse of authority. And maybe in a future article, we could discuss what is a reasonable approach to public photography from the side of both the photographer and law enforcement.


Opinion

In May this year, a three-alarm fire broke out in an abondoned tire factory just a few blocks away from me. I eventually went to get some pictures, and it was already dark by the time I took my first pic. I didn't have time to grab a tripod, so it was just my camera, a bag, and me. One police officer saw I wanted some particular shots, and he told me, "Look, I know you're just doing you're job and trying to make some money, so go ahead down to the end of the corner here and take some shots." He allowed me past the police tape to do so. His supervisor was across the street and didn't know this. When HE saw me composing a particular shot, he ordered me down the street away from the "action." I didn't argue or fuss or rant about "the other officer." I merely said, "OK, not a problem." Then he called after me as I walked away. He told me that he was looking at the fire from where I was standing, and saw that it was a nice photo, to go ahead a take a few shots, but then to go ahead down the avenue with others. I did so, and he even wished me luck with my photography. With those photos, I published two articles on the fire itself, and used other photos for an article on shooting at night even without a tripod! I have had other encounters with officers, and for the most part a quiet, humble response merited their respect in return. Knock on wood!


Opinion

Living in Manhattan these days has become a challange. With terrorists, blackouts, and who knows what to come, I can understand the need for extra security. I am a five-foot-two, female, blonde haired, blue eyed, amateur photographer who enjoys documenting the ever-changing marquees of Broadway. While standing on the South side of 44th St. with my Canon Elan 7E and 300mm lens poised precariously at the lighted marquee of the soon-to-be-closed NEVER GONNA DANCE, I was approached by an officer who asked the infamous quiestion, "What are you doing?" Now I don't claim to be a rocket scientist, but WHAT DID IT LOOK LIKE I WAS DOING? I had framed the marquee, focused on it, metered it and was just shy of releasing the shutter when he brushed up against me and fired off questions like that. There are criminals blanketing that city and I get picked out? Please. What are you doing? Why? Where are you from? What are you going to do with the photos? Are you a professional? Maybe I have no right to be insulted in this day and age...but I was. Go get the bad guys there Officer Tuffy Pants...I just want to capture Broadway history.


Opinion

As a retired police officer and photographer I can tell you law enforcement's job has gotten harder since 911.

I truely believe that law enforcement is acting in a professional manor when contacting photographers in sensitive areas. They are just trying to do their job and keep us safe.

This is a new area of policing. I don't think anyone would have questioned a photographer prior to 911.

If you feel you have been treated unfairly contact the agency the officer works for. Make them aware of what happend. They should have procedures in place to deal with your complaint.

I commend your article. It adresses both sides and gives good "common sense" suggestions if your contacted.


Opinion

As long as We, as photographers, use common sense and courtesy, there should be no need to regulate photography. People tend to forget that law enforcement officers have a job to do and that job is often dangerous and thankless. The guidelines you listed in your article will go a long way to helping photographers avoid trouble if they are followed. I have been fortunate and have never been approached by a law enforcement officer. But I ,for one, will give that officer the respect and courtesy of answering his questions and following his request to stop.


Opinion

It seems like the current situation is being taken as “license to behave badly” by far too many people.

On side “A” we have the examples of the “power tripping” security guard, the “nosy neighbor”, and the “ego driven” police officer, all of whom are taking shameless advantage of an authority they never had before.

On side “B” are the “authority baiting” and/or “rights crusader” photographers and videographers, who are (in my opinion) just as guilty of taking what should be a minor situation and blowing it all out of proportion.

I believe that both sets of “bad apples” are in the minority, but it is terribly important that the rest of us do not get sucked into this downward spiral. Each time the game gets played by the “bad apple’s” rules we all loose.


Opinion

The framers of our Constitution had a deep respect for the potential of authority to abuse its powers. That is why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (The Constitution Center in Philadelphia is a great place for everyone to visit and learn more about these documents). We must remain vigilant that our country does not slide down the slippery slope that leads to abrogation of our rights. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two made sense to some people at the time (Earl Warren administered the program), but we all now know how that program was an unnecessary violation of some citizens' rights. The Justice Department arrested Jose Padilla for allegedly plotting to set off a "dirty bomb". Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in Chicago, and was placed in solitary confinement in a windowless cell for two years. He wasn't charged, and initially wasn't allowed to talk to an attorney. Attorney General John Ashcroft has argued that Padilla was a terrorist, hence a war criminal, and therefore had no rights. This case went before the U.S. Supreme Court recently, and the Court ruled that Mr. Padilla's case should be brought before a judge. Mr. Ashcroft might, in his own mind, be doing the right thing in protecting the country. But if a U.S. citizen can be arrested by federal agents without being charged, and not be allowed to speak to an attorney, and be held indefinitely, then we have lost an important and fundamental right. If this should be allowed to happen, then all of us run the risk of being imprisoned at the whim of authority. Those situations where law enforcement officials have been bullies is just a whiff of what can happen.


Opinion

As a semi pro photographer living in NYC i have heard the stories many times about colleagues being questioned by the police, especially on the Brooklyn waterfront, but have yet to know anyone that was "harrassed", but i'm sure there have been a few. The biggest problem as I understand it seems to be with out of towners using tripods. In New York, you can't set up a tripod on public property without getting a permit first, which are free. The problem as I see it though is that the police who are stationed in these areas (around bridges, on the waterfront, around possible targets) have too much time on their hands, and are bored. This of course is a good thing. Let me clarify: The fact that there hasn't been another attack means they're doing a great job. But with (the arguement could be made) too many cops deployed to certain areas, I think maybe they need to find other things to do to occupy the time. I have only been questioned once, and that was by an officer who wanted to know what effect the filter I was using would have. I hope this wasn't too long winded. I think that as long we deal with the individual on the street in a professional manner, and the police on the street know the laws, then there is no infringment of rights. What we have to watch out for is the politicians who, playing the scare tactic, try to create laws that prevent people from enjoying the art of photography. You know Al Qaida doesn't need me or anyone else to take a picture of the empire state building for them to be able to attack it. Vigilance is key, but common sense should rule the day.


Opinion

This is what you get when you have a president like Bush.


Opinion

Gary, Last year I took photos of the Golden Gate Bridge. I was on the overlook (by myself-scary) on the Marin side from 4AM till about 9AM. Police drove by routinely, stopped, looked (one parked for awhile) and moved on. I expected some questioning but got none. I would have understood had I been approached and questioned (I think I should have been given the subject). To date, I have not been approached by any authority while photographing. I'm sure some have been unjustly harassed by a bozo who doesn't understand the concept of "serving" or "protecting"-but that is not the tenor of where we are as a nation/world under seige. John Ward


Opinion

A very well balanced article. I recently was photographing the US Capitol building in the late evening, using a tripod. I wisely wore my government ID, and did my work in full view of a group of capitol police officers. After shooting for about an hour, as I was packing up to leave, two of them came over and politely told me that tripods were not allowed. We chatted a bit, and parted amicably. However, a member of my photo club had a very different experience. He is of Indian descent, and was testing out his new camera outside of his workplace. He had taken some shots of a flower bed, but apparently, included a federal building in the background, and was observed. The next day, federal agents met him in his office, and questioned him about the event. Call me cynical, but if he had been white, I doubt anyone would have taken notice.


Opinion

This question is for Stan Petersen, why do cops questioning people who shoot w/ SLR, but not w/ P&S? In a way, it's kind of prejudged. If a terrorist want to take a picture of such. It would have been easier w/ P&S camera, get the picture in a second and walk away rather than spending 10 minutes setting up a shot. Also, I don't see the point of having a fully detailed(oh, I see that partially broken glass on the right windows on the 4th floor and a rusted water pipe on the side of the building) building versus a pictures w/ less detail from 5MP-8MP P&S camera(yeah, it's just another 5 story building). PS: That remind me to take my work ID w/ me. I'm not working w/ press, but w/ TelCo, so cops might go easy on me.


Opinion

Good article and good comments and I appreciate the difficult job that law enforcement officers are trying to do. However there are some out there that are badge heavy and many that are poorly trained so that the climate has become very uncomfortable for "suspicious" looking persons (I happen to be a member of the Sikh religion in which the men wear turbans and have full beards). As someone who is interested in urban street photography it has become almost impossible looking as I do. I find it interesting that in the discussion of the Pakistani man who was arrested there was apparent agreement by the author that the man was guilty. I don't know enough about the true facts to make such an assumption, but I do know that if I or others I know who like to photograph anything other than prescribed "Kodak moment" shots were to be arrested, our work could be postioned to be very suspicious. Couple that with a foreign-sounding name or a strange appearance and there are very few who are willing to stand up and ask what the true facts are. If you read "Mr Singh a bearded, turbanned member of an Indian religous sect that was known to engage in terrorist separatist activities in the 1980's was arrested photographing a water tower near Washington DC. A search of his laptop found pictures of the White House, the Washington Monument, and bridges in the DC area." All true (except the arrest) and completely innocent, but how many of you might have even paused while reading it and thought that an overzealous government was abusing its power against an ordinary citizen instead of breathing a sigh of relief that a potential threat had been taken off the streets.


Opinion

I seem to find myself between law enforcement and my photography on an almost weekly basis. I do a lot of star photography, and night photography. A lot of times they think I'm up to no good out there in the dark. Like the author said, if you are polite (even if the law enforcement officer isn't), you can usually continue what you were doing. Just take it easy, and if they ask you to do something, just do it.


Opinion

It's hard for us to admit our society doesn't do a very good job of screening out the wrong kinds of individuals who are often attracted to police work. Let's face it, it's a great job for real bullies because it provides a veneer of legitimacy to their abusive natures. And to think we willingly ARM those creeps, to boot!

So many people were shocked by what happened in that Iraqi prison. Why? It happens all the time in our own prisons in this country, and most of us really don't give a damn.

What's happening out there has nothing to do with photography and photographers, per se. It's just that "the bullies with a badge" have one more ostensibly justifiable basis for their abberrant behavior.

What's worse, to read some threads on this subject in other sites, is to realize there are a heck of lot of photographers who just don't care.


Opinion

Being mostly a night photographer, I have found that asking for permission, providing a schedule in advance and then meeting in person with the police officers (local, state or federal depending on where I am photographing) solves 99.9 percent of these types of problems. I am often out between 10:00 pm and 4:00 am photographing and as long as I have arranged things in advance, I have not had any problems with any locations, specifically including sensative areas like bridges and subways. In most cases, the police will, with prior arrangement, give me much better access than I could get just walking into an area.

While, four or five years ago, I did not have to do any of this, it is a lot easier to do a little planning and scheduling and then not have any problems with the police.


Opinion

Personally, as a photographer and a citizen, I think the law enforcement agencies and officers are doing a very good job. (Not that they need a random person in particular to tell them this.) It is also a job which is understandably difficult to do under normal circumstances made more difficult in the current day.

I've recently come back from abroad(Japan) on a vacation trip where I spent a good deal of time photographing a variety of buildings and architecture. Not once was I approached by an officer of the law.

Neither before, nor after the trip, have I been approached by officers for photograping things like power line towers, bridges, buildings, etc. Perhaps it is something which is changing, or perhaps it has to do with where one lives. How important is the topic of security and terrorists and how pressing is the need for defence in that area?

It is a difficult balance between safety and freedom. I do not envy the officers for having to make the judgement calls and decisions they have to make. From a photographer's point of view, it is a potential disruption of one's photography. But from the officer's point of view, they are investigating someone who is a potential terrorist, someone who might be armed or is carrying explosives. It cannot be an easy decision to make to check someone out. It is difficult for people on both sides of the fence, I think.


Opinion

I have been eading a lot of things about photogs being harassed by police and I concur with most of what is being said about this issue.

Public land is just that, public. Public means that your tax money has paid for these things, and in a way you own them.

Public roads are an example, see, you cannot legally be prevented from using a public road as it is an unalienable right to do so. I owuld recommend looking up the word public and unailenable, it is interesting.

That said, you are one of fifteen billion people that own that bridge. All fifteen bilion have the right to photograph it and to walk across it.

The police are charged with protecting your interest in the bridge. They are paid from your money each payday to go and keep that bridge safe... yes, even from you. They have a really hard job to do and most do it well.

I have met quite a few different types of police officers in my time, from the most courteous to the most closed minded and hostile. One notable example was an officer giving my son a warning ticket for a license that was to expire the following day, then the police refusing to even allow me to file a complaint against the officer, stating that they don't take complaints.

what to do, what to do...

You can try this to make things better but it may vary accoding to state so be careful.

Say; Officer, I feel that my rights are being violated. I will comply with you fully and peacefully but I respectfully request that this (stop, interrogation, questioning) be stopped and I be allowed to have a state police officer brought in as a stand-by. Officer, if you refuse, then I will provide you with my name, address, and positive identification but will make no further statements until I speak with a lawyer.

From what I am led to believe, this is a valid and enforcable request that you have the right to make of a police officer and it ties his hands and forces him to "bring it into the light" where he will be questioned over his actions. It could infuriate him (irritating cops is bad idea) and it could get you into the mouth of a dragon (never irritate a dragon, for you are crunchy and taste good with catchup) so caution is warranted.... let me be a little more clear... You could do this if you are being harassed by Dudly DoRight who thinks that his badge is protection for whatever he wants to do, but if the cop is just doing his job and checking out a potentially dangerous activity.. Id, smile, explination should do just fine.

Cowards that give up essential freedom for a small measure of temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

ON THE OTHER HAND.... LOL, taking a picture of a custom harley davidson motorcycle that has been really tweaked out without the owners permission could get you far worse of a black eye.

Oh, one last note... Terorists try to work to take away the freedoms of people by attacking innocent people and forcing the government to take away freedoms in the name of protection, it is what they do.


Opinion

Am I the last child of the 60's who remembers the term "Civil Disobedience"?

There was a war then and we were told protest was anti-American. Today we're being told questioning anything the police and the FBI do is anti-American.

Who can believe that my taking a picture of a bridge, like the one in this article, is a threat to this nation?

Unfortunately the author of this article has tried too hard to see both sides of the issue. This nation was not founded by men who saw both sides of the issue. It was founded by men who saw only their ideals and put them before all else.

The only issue is that we maintain our freedoms. It is easy to sacrifice a small freedom. But once it is gone we will never get it back. Then, after a period of time, we will realize that we have far less freedom than we once had, and it will be a treasure lost.

I am a New Yorker. The city survived 9-11 as it has survived disasters, riots, and bombings in the past. We forget the Anarchist movement which was the terrorist movement at the begining of the last century. I'm leaving work early today to go take some bridge photos. And I'll do it to remember the three friends I lost on 9-11. God help Barney Fife if he tries to stop me.


Opinion

Want to fix the problem? Vote for John Kerry


Opinion

While taking photo of the fall foliage on the ground of the Federal Medical Center forPrisoners in Springfield Missouri I was approached by a janitor who told me I could not take pics. I was 1/4-1/3 miles away from the facility itself. An unidentified prison guard confiscated my film over my objectuions. After a nasty letter from the ACLU they promised to return my film. Three months later I called the warden as asked him if he were just personally incompetent or only hired incompetent goons to work for him. I got my film back by Fed X th nextr day.


Opinion

While taking photos of the fall foliage on the grounds of the Federal Medical Center for Prisoners in Springfield Missouri I was approached by a janitor who told me I could not take pics. I was 1/4-1/3 miles away from the facility itself. An unidentified prison guard confiscated my film over my objections. After a nasty letter from the ACLU they promised to return my film. Three months later I called the warden as asked him if he were just personally incompetent or only hired incompetent goons to work for him. I got my film back by Fed X th next day.


Opinion

I do agree that NOT all cops are jerks. Some are. I was caught taking pictures of the Bay Bridge in San Francisco. I am talking about that I did walked pass the NO PEDESTRIAN area. They stopped me; checked my ID; checked out the equipement just to make sure that I did not plan anything illegal; asked a few question and let me go. They said if I was caught again in the proximity then I would be in trouble because of the high security level at and around the bridge.


Opinion

I do agree that NOT all cops are jerks. Some are. Most of them are NICE people. I was caught taking pictures of the Bay Bridge in San Francisco. I am talking about that I did walk pass the NO PEDESTRIAN area. They stopped me; checked my ID; checked out the equipement just to make sure that I did not plan anything illegal; asked a few question and let me go. They said if I was caught again in the proximity then I would be in trouble because of the high security level at and around the bridge.


Opinion

hi i kind think a person should can take pic of thing when ever they are out and thing or in place as long as they are take pic for there own use.but at time other folk not think way some do.same like ever since 9-11 here they try right us what we can take pic of and what we not can take pic of.same like any more we not can win or lose.


Opinion

Your Rights and Remedies When Stopped or Confronted for Photography.

Most of you might have seen this sheet created by Bert Krages, a lawyer. He has updated this sheet this past July and those that don't know about it might want to review it.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf


Opinion

Here's a story I relate still: on a stormy Sunday morning in October 1979, I stopped to photograph the Golden Eagle on top of the American Emabassy in Grosvenor Square (London) as a shaft of sunlight lit it spectacularly... a policeman crossed the road toward me and said; 'Morning Mr Tilney, we were expecting you'. '...errr no you weren't. I didn't know I was going to be here until one minute ago'. Its alright Mr Tilney, we just keep an eye on who's interested in this building!' They had checked the car plate the moment I had stopped and no doubt enjoyed the confused and complexed expression they got from me!


Opinion

Thanks for that insightful and informative article, Jim. Benjamin Franklin said that if we sacrifice liberty for security we shall have neither and I fear that too many have forgotten that. You have expressed that sentiment very well along with some wonderful suggestions on how to walk that fine line between the two.

John


Opinion

Very informative article and a subject that affects all of us who shoot, pro or not.

However, comments such as the ones from Robert Ellis & Ashley are completely useless and prove ignorance!

Anyone who blames President Bush OR thinks that John Kerry can fix the issues is not in touch with reality... Please, if you are going to make a comment at least spend a few minutes reflecting on what you are going to say!

Oh, and Joel, hopefully Barney Fife will kick your butt! It is idiots like you who make it difficult for the rest of us to enjoy our photography!

Please put your brain in gear before you start talking!


Opinion

My only comment is - if you are stopped several times and you do give your name, won't you end up in some database that can be checked later when you are traveling or driving your car. All of a sudden that makes you a suspect and someone that "will have to be checked out" even further. I'm as concerned about our national security as anyone else, but I keep thing about "job security" for all those police officers and security people, and let's not forget about budgets that have to be justified. I don't want to sound paranoid, but are we heading into a time when we have to carry ALL our "papers" no matter where we go. I thing this whole issue revolves around common sense for everyone from the police officer to the photographer. Unfortunately, common sense cannot be taught in a classroom.


Opinion

My first reaction is to point out that if immigration laws were followed, citizens would be a lot less vulnerable to such attacks. Our weakness is not in enforcing security laws against citizens, it lies in not protecting citizens from those who come here from other countries to do us harm.

That said, and realizing that the proverbial barn door has been left open, we as a nation have to sacrifice protected liberties for physical protection.

I guess we as a nation will have to do what is necessary until we reach a point that the costs in liberties outweigh the benefits of protection.


Opinion

In the UK the respected weekly Amateur Photographer has just run an article on this very issue. It arises from one photographer taking shots in London's Trafalgar Square being arrested and having his home searched because he was taking photographs where children were visible. The police line was that he might be a paedophile. Other photographers have reported being told by police and schoolteachers that taking photographs of children is not legal, although that is not true. One recent case was schoolchildren performing in a major city hall. There were no photos at all allowed, not even by parents, because the local council ruled it required a waiver signed by all the parents of children present before anyone at all could take photographs. OK, paedophiles and terrorists are real threats, but this is taking the whole thing too far. Photographers will soon need a permit to do anything at all, at leats in the city.


Opinion


Opinion

The reply of Robert Ellis (This is what you get when you have a President like Bush) was particularly inane and short-sighted. As a photographer who has a license to carry a handgun for protection when shooting film in wilderness areas, I could write volumes about the Democratic attempts to strip the Constitution of the Second Amendment. We should respect all freedoms and rights guaranteed to us, not just those we happen to enjoy. As for the loss of human rights under Democrats, consider the Elian Gonzalez case, where a boy was kidnapped from a loving family in the middle of the night. Nothing remotely like this has happened under Bush.


Opinion

I read every one of the comments (to date) and despair for the total lack of thought in too many of them.

You, Jim, tried mostly successfully to walk an impossible line between retaining individual rights versus the necessity of protecting citizens' safety, now that we are, literally, at war. Alas, though, there was a huge amount of political drivel (on both sides of the argument) when a bit of level headed thought should have been used. Again, alas, that is how our country is put together, I guess.

To my way of thinking, and I realize the people at whom my above comments are directed will disagree, the police must put security at the top of their agenda. Our country's government -- no not just the Republicans nor the Democrats -- horribly fell down on our trust on that one. Now, it is up to our security force to make it right. The unfortunate thing is that we don't have a valid "security force". The police is a fractured "unit", but just happens to be out there on the point as the first line of the "security force", whether we like it or not.

All too often "the police" is, as many people commented, made up to a certain extent of bullies in uniform. However, they are thankfully outnumbered by dedicated men and women who are just trying to do an impossible job. And, yes, our giving up freedom for security is very, VERY dangerous. But our friends in al Queda and other retrograde Muslim and pseudo-muslim terrorist groups have forced our hand on that question. The police didn't.

What we have to realize as photographers is that there is hardly a shot we take that is SO IMPORTANT that we can't forego it, if a policeman or policewoman tells us not to take it. That one reasonable or unreasonable request or order, no matter how much we dislike it, is not at the level of freedom that we can risk the chance of security inherent in the police request. The police request comes from what has been forced on us by the terrorists who have vowed to crush our way of life -- or, rather, have vowed to crush our very lives. It is they who have already taken away the "freedom of our security".

Our anger is misdirected at the police, even when they make a misguided or bullying request -- and they sometimes do. It is not the police who created this atmosphere. No matter how much a bullying policeman or policewoman may be wrong, that wrong or that taking of a freedom cannot even approach what the terrorists have ALREADY taken from us. In return the few bad apples in the police force, taking the few shots away from us, are insignificant in the overall picture of attempting to protect us from the real threat.

I know that my way of thinking will not sit well with those who I criticized at the start of my comments, but that's what makes a horse race. Those are my feelings.


Opinion

In July 2004 I was on a United Airline Flight from Orlando to Dulles Airport. A Pakastani man was videotaping the air craft. The stewardess was obnoxious about it. She yelled at him to put the camera down. He did. But that wasn't enough for her. She called security and three huge air Marshalls came on board and removed the man from the flight. He was travelling with two small children who were well behaved and as quiet as a church mouse. They left the air craft peacefully. Never said a word.....The authorities, who were so suspicious never bothered to clear the plane of passengers. Instead, they just checked his seating area. Never giving it any thought that he might have planted something away from where he was sitting. Or beneath the plane in his luggage. They never checked further than his front teeth, and off the plane went. Safely I might add. But on a wing and a prayer, if u ask me. I personally think that if it were me, taking video tapes of the air craft, there wouldn't have been a big to do over it. I am american....I was also taking photos of the air craft, the air field, whatever I could shoot. I was harmless. And apparently so was he. I think there's a lot of profiling going on. That is not to say that there aren't American Photographers being questioned. I am sure they are, but this man was not American, and he was removed from the plane. No one said Boo to me.....Whats wrong with that picture? I think that its a shame that we have to live in a Post 9-11 world, but that is just now a fact of life. We are all going to have to adapt to it. And respect the law. Being bullied is unacceptable. But the street isn't the place to fight that war. The Court Room is however, and if ever I am approached, you can best believe that I will seek out a Judges determination on the issue....Cops can be brutal, a Judge atleast knows the laws, and thats who I will trust if ever faced with that situation. Trudy


Opinion

As an amateur photographer, I enjoy "shooting" aircraft in flight, on the ground, etc. I have even been allowed out on the airfield to conduct photography. One very BIG step that I take before shooting would be to consult the proper authorities before I ever take my camera out of the bag. You might be amazed how quickly "Dirty Harry" settles down when he is informed of PRIOR permission sought and granted! Five minutes out of my life before I ever frame my shot goes a long way to preventing a shake down by law enforcement! It may not be the way I would want it, but I am rarely refused permission when I seek it before I shoot.


Opinion

Can anyone provide one speck of evidence suggesting that photography contributed to 9-11? No? Such evidence must be floating in outer space with the "check in the mail" or the "weapons of mass destruction" and is just another excuse to erode the freedoms we hold so dear in the USA. Let’s get these creeps outta here. Vote for Kerry!


Opinion

I live near Port Huron Michigan where we have 2 bridges crossing the St. Clair river at the south end of Lake Huron. There is a lot of large ship traffic and I had an idea for a photo of the water breaking at the very leading edge of the ships passing by. Now, I am reluctant to set up at the side of the river with tripod and long lens for fear I will look like some shady character. I still want to take the photo but am reluctant to do so. This is a real loss of rights and freedoms.


Opinion

If you aren't breaking any laws, you have nothing to fear. In this day, special attention to certain details will ensure our freedom as citizens of the freeest nation on earth. The current administration, as any responsible administration would and should do, has acted properly and we have nothing to fear with the Patriot Act. We should be thankful we have such protection from terrorists. Remember,in the case of bad cops, well, they existed long before the Patriot Act came along.


Opinion

Jim McGee, Are you the same Jim McGee that is a frequent writer on NewsScanDaily.com? Just a yes or no. If yes, we have crossed paths before.

photo@leongoodman.com


Opinion

I am a Police Officer in the middle of the United States. I get notices frequently of "suspicous" activities on a regular basis.....someone of "arab descent" was taking photos of the state supreme court building...or an "obviously arabic person" was filming the State Police Headquarters...yes. the Police are nervous. You would be too. I think it's perfectly acceptable for a Police Officer to ask someone with a camera who they are and what they are doing. I do NOT think they can ban someone or harass someone taking pics unless they have articuable reasons for doing so. They (we) need to be more aware, but not paranoid!


Opinion

I live on the adjacent to 9-Mile Nuclear Reactors which is guarded by Reservists and the National Guard. While taking photographs of a flower, with my back turned to the Nuke Plant on my own property, I was questioned by a couple soldiers in an unmarked car. I was told they were armed and they had every right to bring me in for questioning if they so desired. Yes, I was insulted. I looked at them, and politely informed them that since they saw the camera pointed at a flower with my back to the Nuke Plant on my own property, they had no right to harass me. I provided identification, offered to let them review the shots on my digital, and they let me go without looking at my camera. Since then, I have been stopped 2 more times, but by polite soldiers. I was not insulted the second and third time.

I understand the necessity of these actions, and I guess we'll all just have to live with it. They have a tough job to do, and I agree with the author. Be polite, offer to let them see what you've been shooting, and provide identification. If we argue, get defensive, they'll think we have something to hide, and we'll be brought in for questioning. Why not avoid the hassle in the first place.


Opinion

Thank you for discussing this subject.. Imagine if you are a Saudi Arabian photographer and felt like photographing that bridge or beautiful building, I think the UN will have an urgent meeting for that.

It's very stupid to restict photography, if you visit some satellite imagery web sites, you can buy a grea detailed map and images for very cheap prices and even for free sometimes.

Photographers are suffering and humilated by some police men all over the world, someone should do something.. :)

Good Luck....


Opinion

Having served almost 40 years in the law enforcement profession I have always respected anyone wanting to take pictures either for personnal use or professional sale. Sometimes I ran into the rude person with the camera that wanted to cross police tapes without permission, trespass on private property, etc. but these were very rare. How do our children get pictures in their school book on history if someone does not take the picture. How do we document even the everyday life if each our families without the freedom do capture the moment to enjoy in the late years of our life when many time the subject of the picture has passed away. My officers were always trained to help anyone that wanted to capture the moment get the best shot available. Some moments pass to quick and are lost for ever. Yes, some officer can be less the professional but so can some photographers, with or without, that famous press pass. We need to respect and help each other. That is when we all win the moment. Thaanks for a very good article. See you in the picture.


Opinion

I do not think it should be aginst the law ...BUT I see the media showing us the people that like to take advantage of our freedom and then tell us how they hate Americans .... People that publicly advertise they don't like America should not be allowed in America .... to take advantage of our freedom .... and screw it up for everyone else !!!


Opinion

This is exactly the kind of story that we want to hear about!

At http://www.freedomtophotograph.com/ we want to know when you've been singled out by the police for taking pictures.


Opinion

I believe that photography is infact becoming more limited. It is a horrible fact, but everywhere you go these days terrorism is a huge fear of ours. I think that taking photo should be legal as long as you are not harming anything. That goes with anything, if there is no harm, then it should be fine. I have been removed from several places while photographing. Airports, federal buildings, etc. Security stopped me at the federal building, and after they realize I am only in high school, he left. So, I thought everything was fine, and I didn't photograph their building any longer. Then minutes later the police showed up, saying that the building's security had called on us. I thought it was rather rediculous, but that is what the world is coming to I guess. Everything worked out in the end though.


Opinion

These debates are being posted all over the internet, not only in the US but also in the UK where I live. They all take the same attitude, and voice the same idea: infringing civil liberties, inappropriate policing etc etc. I'm an enthusiastic photographer who enjoys street work, but I have a slightly different take on this. I can't see the point in any confrontational How Dare You Suspect Me attitude....its not the cops' fault, it is the fault of SOCIETY and of POLITICS. They're doing a job, that's all: looking after security, and also - on a related issue - protecting children from inappropriate interest. The latter is more of a hot topic in the UK than the US. Of course there are occasional fools who enjoy their power, but really, for the majority of cops do you think they get a kick out of harassing photographers? I dont think they do - we dont have a record for bad attitude and misbehaviour, there aren't any social and political issues as athere are for example with ethnic people.

I think the subject has to be acknowledged with a high level of maturity and social responsibility, rather than knee jerk civil rights protest. I've been stopped and questioned by cops, I understood the job they were doing, and although it was very unpleasant their passing words were that it was "sad" they had to do this to me...not because they got a kick out of it, but because society is f***** up.

Basically, you have to look at the CAUSE of this situation and not just complain about the effects, and the job that the cops have to do.


Opinion

Problems everywhere and not just buildings and such.....try the beach and crowed areas.....police stopped me and ran my ID, saying I was taking photos of girls and people on the beach.....all legal....though I did try to show them my shots...digital..they refused to look as I did not have any shots of girls on my camera.....but I went along with them..they ran my ID and asked me to leave....I call the station later and asked why.....no explanation...so there are good police forces and bad....


Opinion

Great article Jim, deals with a lot of intresting points for all Photographers (Pro. & Amateur). Here in Toronto, Canada we do have some restrictions on what you can and can not photograph. For example "you are not permitted to photograph any where on the Toronto Transit Property without expressed permission from the Toronto Transit Commission". This by-law has been in effect before the 9-11 incident in New York, but has recently been enforced due to world wide terrorism by Special Transit Constables. I hope one day we are able to get back to a normal society, where freedom of expresion by way of our pictures will no longer be a question as to why we are taking pictures of certain places or thing that we as photographers believe is true art in the eyes of the beholder.


Opinion

If you are approached by an officer, you must identify yourself. My qualifications to make such a proclaimation are a law degree, 3 years as a public defender and over 6 years in private practice with an emphasis on civil rights cases representing police officers.

In the recently decided case of Hiibel v. 6th Judicial District, the Supreme Court held that where an officer has "reasonable articulable suspicion" (RAS) that there might be criminal activity afoot, he/she can ask for identification as part of an investigatory stop. If the refusal to provide ID or obstructing or delaying an officer is a violation of state law, and it is in most states, you can be arrested without any violation of your 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

But wait a minute you say, I'm just taking photos of this bridge or building ect., that can't be reasonable articulable suspicion right? In the post 9/11 world, you are most assuredly be wrong. RAS is a very low standard. It merely requires that the officer be able to articulate the reason he/she thinks something fishy is going on to justify stopping you and investigating what you are doing. Nothing more is required. Photographing a bridge or building which could possibly be potential terrorist or crime targets will satisfy the standard.

So what can you do? When an officer comes up and says "what are you doing?" don't be a jerk and respond with the old "what does it look like I am doing" junk. Politely tell him what you are doing and why.

If you run into a situation where you believe the officer acted inappropriately, cooperate and take it like a man/woman, note his/her name and after the encounter go and make a complaint to the police department. When you make the complaint do not behave like a self rightous jerk rudely spouting about your "rights". The truth of the matter is that most people do not even come close to understanding the complex contours of their "rights", they only think they do. Be polite and make your complaint. This will only be to your benefit as you will not be viewed as another nut job who thinks he/she knows ther law better than anyone else and believe me when I tell you police see alot of those folks.

A police officer approaching you and making an inquiry that includes a request for identification is not a violation of your civil rights so get over it. If it is more than that, you have a remedy to pursure by way of making a complaint and/or bringing a lawsuit.


Opinion

i agree that you being polite goes along way when being confronted by a law enforcement officer but as a middle aged african american who has had to fight for my civil rights i do have a problem with giving up some of my rights temporaryly and to the federal government where most things aren't temporary i have a problem with that once that snow ball starts down that hill it's hard to stop after all we're only humans.


Opinion

America is not a free country.

Of all the Western countries America has the most limitations on photography, speech, pot smoking, etc.


Opinion

<h1><center>Reader Forum Post</center></h1>


Opinion

.....and on the matter of how to actually deal with a cop who is challenging and questioning you: its obvious. There is no point at all in getting frisky and irate, how dare you etc etc. They have all the power in that situation, you have none. If they want to, they can decide you are resisting them or causing some kind of trouble, and suddenly a low-key exchange becomes a situation where you can be arrested. Do you want that? OK, so don't make it happen. As other people have said, be polite, be co-operative, be cool. Its all pretty obvious really. If you get into a heated confrontation you will lose...end of story. So don't do it. End of story.

This is what I did when i was stopped and questioned....all very unpleasant, and I was not sure they were entitled to see my digital images but I ASSUMED they were because they'd asked to see them! My guess is, it was an extension of stop and search powers, and the cops can do this if they think they have reason to do so. So I co-operated. I understood and accepted THEIR point of view. End of story...a nasty little encounter, and as I walked away I could have resumed my photography because I had done nothing wrong. But of course I didn't, because I was feeling so upset. Was that the cops fault? No, it wasn't.


Opinion

I think your article is very straightforward and I agree with you. If you're doing nothing wrong just show your ID and be polite. There are reasons they are checking out people. We don't want to lose all out freedoms because of paranoia.


Opinion

I think your article is very straightforward and I agree with you. If you're doing nothing wrong just show your ID and be polite. There are reasons they are checking our people. We don't want to lose all out freedoms because of paranoia.


Opinion

That was a home run. Thanks for insightful and well researched story. As a press photographer in Washington D.C. I had a Capitol Hill Police Officer tell me while on assignment that not only could I not photograph an ATM machine in the Senate Office Buildings but that it was illegal to walk around in public with out a drivers license! I had my U.S. Senate Press Pass but no drivers license. I played it cool and when it was all said and done he was the one in trouble for as you say "making up laws." I always stay cool with cops and do as they say, you can't make photos from the back seat of a patrol car.


Opinion

I'm deeply disturbed by how many people posting here are willing to just roll over on this issue. And I'm disappointed that Jim McGee tried so hard to see "difficulties" faced by the police. How hard their job is is not my concern. My concern is that we are losing our basic civil rights in this country. The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.


Opinion

I have done night photography for many years, and i get stopped and questioned by police on a regular basis. Anybody lurking in the shadows at 2:00am is going to attract police attention, and i have found that simply explaining what it is that I am doing, along with carrying a small portfolio to show what iy I'm doing is enough to relieve any suspicion the police might have. I used to bug me when i got stopped, but then i realized that they are keeping me safe from those types who would like to mug me and take my cameras. The police are doing their jobs, and as long as we realize that and don't give them a hard time, they are much less likely to give us a hard time in return.


Opinion

I think that these muslums have won and have successfully taken our freedoms from us, they attained their goals of scaring us so much that we will hand over our freedoms for the sake of safety. being free does not mean being safe, there is expected to be a lack there of, thats the price of freedom and I am willing to assume that risk. These laws im my view are unaccptable.


Opinion

It is neither logical nor rational to speak of "civil rights" and "freedoms" in this context. That is an over-generalised and emotive attitude to take when these issues are, in a wider social and political context, not such a big deal.

So you get stopped and questioned? Well, boo hoo. It happened to me, and it sucked. But its a big, bad, nasty world and I understand and accept the reasons WHY it happened. So a cop insists you can't photograph that nice bridge or building? Well, boo hoo....so co-operate, and then maybe report it to his seniors, explaining that public photograhy is not illegal. So he got it wrong....are YOU always correct in your job? With your wife/husband/son/daughter/pet dog? And when your wife/husband/son/daughter complains, what do you do? You explain your point of view. The cops also have a point of view. And of course there are bad ones, but fundamentally the police force exists to prevent anarchy and protect decent folk from criminals and bullies. Sheesh, its not surprising some of them occasioanlly get pissy...there they are risking their lives and trying to prevent terrorist scum from doing what they do, and people get mad at them!

I think this has to be addressed more rationally, less subjectively, and less personally.


Opinion

This is by far the best article that i have read on this subject. It is full of "good & clear common sense". "Hooray the author", it was a pleasure to read.

UK Photographer - Pete Clark


Opinion

I am unclear over whether police officers are being instructed to ask photographers for ID and information that they are not legally obligated to provide, or whether this is done at the initiative of overzealous officers. It makes a big difference as to whether these photographer-cop interactions are the result of policy -- in which case our elected reps should be contacted -- or stupid bullying. Why stupid? Terrorists brush their teeth and take photographs; so do non-terrorists. We don't expect police to ask purchasers of toothbrushes to show ID and explain what they are doing. Why should we do so for amateur photographers.


Opinion

Great article. I've been also approached 4 times while doing night shots in DC area. Every time police officers were polite with me, checked my ID, explained why they are talking and asking me, and I had no problems after showing images from camera's LCD screen. However I think everyone should think twice before publishing images at websites or somewere else if images are showing details of critical building structures, or where security system of particular object is clearly visible.


Opinion

Ever since 1964 when I was a Junior in high school. I have shot pictures of public buildings. I am sure that there are people who are taking pictures of buildings and other structures to do harm to us. However, all they need to do is go to a a newspapers on-line public archives and get pictures of most any structure from most any angle they need. This is a free society,a beautiful country and prohibiting the taking of pictures is an infringment on our personal freedom.


Opinion

I am a photographer and a police officer. One thing I've learned is there are two sides to every story. Your printing one half of the story is irresponsible. Do you expect me or anyone else with half a brain to believe that the poor Texas guy was just walking around making innocent use of his new video camera and the big bad police came up to him, "accosted him and sprayed him with pepper" for no reason. Every one arrested by police are innocent, just ask them. Within this increasingly violent and ever changing world we live in, police have been forced to be more vigilant than ever. YOUR welfare is at stake. These men and women are out there 24 hours a day putting it all on the line to serve and protect the public. Their thanks is unfair, onesided, and downright unbelievable garbage like we see here.


Opinion

This is something that America has bought upon itself. If they didn’t insist on sticking their nose into every other countries business then there would be no foreign threat. Your nabour Canada dos not have this problem. As they don’t run around propping up dictator’s, and rebellions against “undesirable causes” then drop the support like a hot potato when they see fit. Almost every American I’ve met is so proud of their freedom and rights that they must force them on others. Now you are starting to lose these rights due to your own insistence that the rest of the world must be like America. “the Land of the free and home of the criminally INSANE”


Opinion

i dont think photos ever hurt anyone. the reason they dont want photos is cuz the terrorists find weak spots and bomb them. first off, bombs ar illegal too, you honestly think people with bombs will stop at taking pictures simply because theres a law against it? second off, its a great hinderence towards photographic artists like myself. i really enjoy taking pictures of great architectual figures, and i wanna keep doing it without someone harassing me, and attacking my rights.


Opinion

Ken: I agree that this 'amateur photographer outrage' subject is one-sided. I said the same thing myself, and a few other points. Like you say - and I said - there are two sides to this. Personally I'm just really sick of a world where people take up sides all the time and shout at the opposition, and no one stops and takes the time to THINK. No one tries to find the balance in the middle, which is why the world is such a troubled place. Photographers: yes, whats happening is problematic. It might affect you, even upset you - it upset me. But really, do you think drawing up these lines and shoutnig across them to the opposition - the police - will do any good? Think United Nations. Think Mohatma Gandhi. Think of the big picture, not your personal rant amplified into a great big protest.


Opinion

Working in Uk and Europe is obviously quite differnet. For a start we had the Northern Ireland thing for many years - such that Aberdeen was and still is the most secure airport anywhere. It is OK but just be prepared to take everything to bits and explain it. Try an Alpa Rotocamera.... We are rather sad to see that everything seems to be becoming totalitarian in the US, just as it is here with the introduction soon of ID cards that will have your life story accessible to whoever. Thing is we also have MPs who will stand up for human rights too. Personally if I were acosted by a cop telling me not to take pix of his city I would desist. However the report would soon reach the Independant and it would likely say " US cities no longer welcome Brits on holiday", well we do ahve a few other countries that we can visit you know. Actually I would much more expect to be able to ask a polite officer if it is OK that I take a shot from here that might be in a UK travel article. In the end his job depends on it. Where will all you fine folks in the US be if none of us come? We love to visit so instead of putting us off do the opposite. By the way the way to defeat the terrorists is to engage the public, have 50 million eyes as in UK, but you have whole lot more. Not snoopers, just keep your eyes and ears alert.


Opinion

Jim McGee I lost all respect for you after printing this onesided misleading attempt at sensationalism. Even the title "Should Photography Be Illegal?" How dare you insult our intelligence like that. Is anyone out there dumb enough to believe any of this crap?


Opinion

well, i guess the situation is much better in Singapore. However in my point of view, i feel that these policemen are getting abit cranky ? Taking photographs is nothing wrong. But if the person takes the photographs for acts of harm, then it is considered a threat, however the policemen here are over-reacting.. there should be someone out there, whom they can stand up for photography and thus clear this misunderstanding. I feel that the photographer's right have to be respected in any way. but the point will be to be made clear. You cannot single out a photographer and suspect him for something he didnt do ? So if i were to be standing outside a grocery store and pick and apple, a policeman walks by, will i be caught for suspected thief or wad attempted robbery ? I guess the law enforcement authority needs to do some self-reflection.


Opinion

This Sucks! I will cancel my trip to New york in Jan, that´s for sure! I was told that America is a free country, is it? Your story sounds very much alike other stories ivé heard from China, i have friends that was followed every day during their stay in this Communist nation, is America going there? Your story made me really pissed of! / Jim


Opinion

Paranoia is too active these days. Grandmothers with nail clippers are deemed threats to commercial aircraft. Photographers MUST be doing something wrong when they do their jobs! Our nation, in spots, needs a good laxative!!


Opinion

There are some law enforcement officers that I think are only in the job for some kind of power trip (an ex-brother-in-law comes to mind). But on the other hand, these guys are trained to look for anything out of the ordinary, and sometimes put themselves in danger when they find it. That type of stress day after day has got to affect the mood and personality of the most optomistic patrolman. Remember, these guys (at least some of them) have taken a lot of heat because they haven't questioned seemingly innocent persons in the past, and bad things happened. I also cross the Canadian border several times a year. In the past the crossing has been pretty easy. No one likes to be harrassed, but I have also wondered, "Would I want them to give a terrorist such an easy pass through?" Lately the crossing has involved a little more vigorous inspection. While an inconvenience, it is also somewhat comforting. Perhaps we need to learn a new set of people skills to deal with the situation. You photograph difficult people, why not use the same pleasant attitude with these officers? One more option. In my state you can plop down less than $100 and have and FBI background check done to get a concealed weapons permit. It shouldn't be necessary or a requirement, but I would be willing to put down the same money for an ID that would allow me "legitimacy". I know this will open a whole new can of worms about needing "papers" or permits to engage in a legal act. I'm not saying it needs to be a requirement, I'm just saying I would pay for an ID that says, "this guy has been checked out and he's not a terrorist". Of course, I need a security clearance for my job, so I'm used to the realization that the FBI already has a file on me. But I also wouldn't want to jeopardize my job with any reports of suspicious activitiy. Such an ID shouldn't be required, and ex-felons or anyone else should still be able to take photographs anywhere it is legal. In the mean time, if you can mention it without sounding like you are blowing smoke, let these guys know you appreciate their work.


Opinion

I am a photojournalist and live in Seattle. In 2001 the City of Seattle paid me a cash settlement of $25,000 for a lawsuit I had filed for being assaulted by the Seattle Police Department with a chemical weapon (pepper-spray)while I photographed them assaulting unarmed non-violent WTO protesters with pepper-spray in 1999. At the time I was displaying Seattle Police department issued media credentials and had identified myself to the police as media. Since then I have been repeatedly harassed and on one occasion physically assaulted by SPD officers as I photograph street protests-my photographic specialty of several years. I have never been arrested. I continue to display SPD issued media credentials. My opinion is that SPD offiecers routinely trample on my rights as a photographer. An anecdote: I was photographing some Animal Rights Activists protesting the sale of fur in front of Nordstroms' flagship store in downtown Seattle. A uniformed Seattle police officer approached them and I photograhed him as he was speaking to them. He got in my face, and I mean three inches away from my nose, and demanded to see my ID. I repeatedly asked him if I was under arrest. He eventually responded that I was not under arrest. I refused to show him my ID. He told me I had to show him my ID. I told him he had to arrest me if he wanted to see it. He walked away warning me not to take his photograph again. Seattle has a law that allows citizens to photograph police at any time as long as the photographer does not physically interfere in whatever the officer is doing. This officer was likely aware of that law and in my opinion was not acting as a law enforcement officer but a bully. Another anecdote: I was walking by a downtown building that I know houses the FBI offices. There is no outside sign to that effect that I have noticed. A security guard came out on to the sidewalk and demanded ID from a tourist with a videocamera who was with his wife and a kid in a stroller. I told the wife she didn't have to give the officer her ID. She was happy to do it as her part for homeland security. I have no doubt that their names are now in a database somewhere. My opinion: when you cooperate with this type of anti-democratic bahavior you make a small contribution to America becoming a fascist state. If you don't stand up for your rights you will lose them. The ACLU has handout cards that spell out your rights when you have an encounter with the police.


Opinion

america would not have had to be this paranoid if only they had not voted for Bush in the first place.... terrible foreign policies make americans afraid even in their own neighbourhood....


Opinion

It's stupid. You can easily take photographs of such "targets" without being seen, there are hundreds of such pics. That doesn't means hundreds of planes striking them. You americans, are sooo scared, I can believe it!. Come on, use some common sense! It's just a photograph! Patricio


Opinion

I do not think photograher's right are being trampled. Jim McGee's article explains very well that if we use a good dose of common sense, we should not suffer any abuse by any law enforcement agency. "Being friendly" definitely goes a long way. We all must be aware of the current danger of terrorist acitivity and to be sensitive to restrictions and guidelines on where and how we photograph objects. We should always question our own motives and act accordingly. We should not make law enforcement more difficult by flaunting our rights to photograph beyond reason. If we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear. We live in the freeest nation on earth so enjoy your photographic experience.


Opinion

I wholeheartedly agree with Jim McGee's standpoint and advice.


Opinion

All these reminds me what I was acustom for 30 years of my life in Russia. Police, restrictions to shoot here and there, permanent requiremt to carry your ID, etc. People, don't you undertand that terrorists will get information they want anyway, and no cop will stop them. They two steps ahead of any police in the world. Seriously, why to photograph bridge, if for minimum amount of money they can get bluprints or just hack into computer where they are kept? You must be crazy terrorirst to go out in open and photograph the White House. But what terrorist will do it? Why risk thier operation by doing so? Information available. Normal people like me and you don't know how to get it because we don't need it. But terrorists know how. So from all this restrictions and police doing their work are just hitting us, lowfull sitizen. And by the way, all of these things in the past did not really helped Russia. Did it?


Opinion

I found the article helpful and imformative! I believed things were not as bad in the UK, until about a month ago. It was while i was out in the docks in liverpool! There is a new part of the docks (open to the public), which i was taking photos of, for a record, and to see the buildings going up over time, but also to take some nice shots of the new buildings around the area for generic architecture shots (i sell images for brochures,ect) . After about 45 minutes i was confronted by a policeman (a very nice man- who was polite and good natured)who requested that he see my digital photos (i'm not sure what would have happened if i had been photographed in slide film). i showed him the photos, and he mentioned that one of the buildings was a government building-i did not know this (no warning signs, ect) and no images were allowed to be taken. He then wanted my name and address, and demanded to know what i was doing!(also he wanted to look at + delete images of the building-which i later realised, he could not do without a warrant). i explained what i was doing, and why and gave him my business card. he was impressed, and seemed to become more relaxed. He then mentioned that i had been monitored on cctv camera, and that they had become very concerned about who i was and what i was doing (on his walkie talkie, a man was telling him to demand who i was,ect) .He then requested that i move on, to which i did. The reason why i have written this bit, is the uk has tightened up alot now, in the face of world events (as i have taken shots around here 2 and 6 months ago with no one warning me,ect). I heard that leaflets were handed out at Manchester airport, informing that plane spotters,photographers could be their eyes and ears, and could help them in the fight towards helping the police. I think this is the way ahead- shouldn't the police be using us as a valuable resource, to help them v's terrorism- if it means i have to register with the police station for an ID pass/or similar, so be it! I need to go back to this area soon, but will have to go to the police hq first, because i don't want to go through this every time i want to take some photos.


Opinion

You're right Jim about winning an argument with a cop on the street. There have been a LOT of problems over the past few months -- not that there weren't problems before 9/11, but it has certainly been used as an excuse -- and the tension leading up to the recent elections has been a factor as well. For actively-current information and forums on these sorts of issues, readers may want to visit <a href="http://www.photopermit.org">www.photopermit.org</a>


Opinion

I think john La Niece's idea is excellent: not only am I not a terrorist, but I have a passionate loathing of anyone who is. And my wandering around Liverpool docks, Manchester, London or wherever might indeed be useful to the police if I ever saw anything suspicious. John's suggestion emphasises the fact that everyone's on the same side: anti-terrorism. So in principle: what a great idea! In practice though - do I really want to register at a police station? Do I have sufficient trust, that my information would be respected? Do I trust what the nice police officer is actually thinking; am I just *uncomfortable* with that situation, because its underpinned by a power relationship rather than equal dialogue. Probably. Maybe there is an answer to this, or some constructive suggestions, but unfortunately I dont know if this is it.


Opinion

I think john La Niece's idea is excellent: not only am I not a terrorist, but I have a passionate loathing of anyone who is. And my wandering around Liverpool docks, Manchester, London or wherever might indeed be useful to the police if I ever saw anything suspicious. John's suggestion emphasises the fact that everyone's on the same side: anti-terrorism. So in principle: what a great idea! In practice though - do I really want to register at a police station? Do I have sufficient trust, that my information would be respected? Do I trust what the nice police officer is actually thinking; am I just *uncomfortable* with that situation, because its underpinned by a power relationship rather than equal dialogue. Probably. Maybe there is an answer to this, or some constructive suggestions, but unfortunately I dont know if this is it.


Opinion

I think john La Niece's idea is excellent: not only am I not a terrorist, but I have a passionate loathing of anyone who is. And my wandering around Liverpool docks, Manchester, London or wherever might indeed be useful to the police if I ever saw anything suspicious. John's suggestion emphasises the fact that everyone's on the same side: anti-terrorism. So in principle: what a great idea! In practice though - do I really want to register at a police station? Do I have sufficient trust, that my information would be respected? Do I trust what the nice police officer is actually thinking; am I just *uncomfortable* with that situation, because its underpinned by a power relationship rather than equal dialogue. Probably. Maybe there is an answer to this, or some constructive suggestions, but unfortunately I dont know if this is it.


Opinion

You are probably right James! But i do think there is an answer which can be made through co-operation ...... but at the moment we seem to have nowhere to turn for information, although i'll be writing to the Bureau of Freelance Photographers (based in London) for help with this!


Opinion

Dialogue and communication would be a good start: with the police taking off their helmets, guns, radios and handcuffs. One person talking to another person, that kind of thing. They get pissy because they ARE risking their life, dealing with scumbags every day, and if they confront a photographer somewhere in their mind are probably thinking 'is this guy a terrorist with a gun, or a knife?' Photographers get pissy - you can see this here - because all they are doing is having some innocent fun and they don't want to be harrassed. Fine. We understand that. Its a crazy f***** up world. So what can be done about it? Well, I'm not sure. But taking up sides and throwing stones at the opposition is NOT the solution.


Opinion

It used to be a free country. I feel the terrorists have won :-(


Opinion

A Lady went all the way home and got her video camera and filmed me getting in my car after having dinner with a young man. She, no doubt was having an affair with my husband at the time. Is this legal or not. I don't think so. I think the chick is crazy.


Opinion

Steve P. wrote the following: "As long as We, as photographers, use common sense and courtesy, there should be no need to regulate photography." With all due respect, the conjured "need" to regulate photography is in no part dependent upon the courtesy or common sense (short of breaking laws) of the photographers. There is no need. What supposed need there is stems from the atmosphere of collective paranoia following the terrorist attacks, where, if it is suggested that terrorists MAY be doing "x", "x" is suddenly almost impossible for normal citizens to do without going through unnecessary Government interference. And, since that paranoia is not going to be cured by any particular dose of rationality, the best thing for photographers to do is to continue to practice what it is that they enjoy. The public, and law enforcement, have relatively short attention spans, and, short of photography being outlawed, or becoming a permit-required activity, the attention will shift somewhere else, sooner or later.


Opinion

My cop encounters have all been professional and brief (I shoot at night, questioning is a given). Maybe I'm lucky, maybe San Diego trains their police well. They do know to ask leading questions about professional intent hoping to be able to invoke film permit laws. Rent-a-cops are a completely different story. They'll enthusiastically make up laws, try very hard to be intimidating, and repeatedly threaten to call the real cops on you when they have no intention of actually doing so. They're usually sufficiently bored to revel in extended jerk-around sessions. The good news is that if you're not on their property you can mostly ignore them.


Opinion

I am so glad I found this article, because I can tell you a number of stories where police have abused and misused the badge in violating my rights to photograph places and things. What law enforcement has done in their efforts to protect and serve is a travesty of justice and an utter exploitation of power, and my life has been made a living hell due to some of the actions of these people. The most recent photography project that I had completed was on public property. I was taking photos of a scenic farm landscape along a bike path, when a police officer drove his vehicle on the path and approached me. They had two FBI agents as well. I was basically taking photos of some farmland and scenery, and these officers began interrogating me about why I was doing this, what purpose the photos were for, and other things, just so they could "do their job." They checked my ID (driver's license) and investigated the contents of my digital camera and camera bags, to find out what images I had stored on my memory card or if I was carrying any "contraband." Contraband? After what seemed like forever and a day, they handed me back my camera equipment and my ID and told me to "hit the road." That is, leave the premises and never come back, otherwise I would be arrested and charged with defiant trespass. I am absolutely outraged and appalled at the conduct of police officers and law enforcement performing these unnecessary (and in many cases, ILLEGAL) actions on innocent civilians such as myself. I have no faith in government anymore to protect my rights and responsibilities as a United States citizen, considering that Gestapo-like activity on an innocuous hobby such as photography exists in this day and age. If I am robbed at gunpoint or ave my vehicle carjacked, I have to fend for my life now instead of relying on law enforcement because they're interrogating the college student who took a photo of the Brooklyn Bridge. There are stories abound of police corruption, and the United States of America has the worst police corruption in the entire world because of situations such as this. For law enforcement to conduct themselves in the manner that they did based on my situation demonstrates a complete lack of respect toward ordinary law-abiding citizens, because they think they know better than us when they don't know better. What we need right now is legislation that protects our rights to photograph not just on public property, but anywhere where we feel it is appropriate to photograph. There is no reason why we should have our rights to photograph taken away by a group of overzealous individuals who believe they have every right to punish us for doing something that we enjoy. We are all ambassadors in what we do, to capture those special moments that mean something significant in our lives. Photographers are not terrorists, and if you are a police officer who has that type of mentality, up yours and go screw yourself. I should also point out that in addition to photography, I play video games such as "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" on my Sony PlayStation 2. The content in that video game is very tame compared to what happens here in the United States of America, and sometimes I wish I was living in San Andreas instead of this country. At least there is one thing in San Andreas that the United States of America does not have: F-R-E-E-D-O-M.


Opinion

I haven't had confrontations with law enforcement but on the Sunday before Labor Day 2004, I was visiting my home town in East Tennessee for the annual family reunion. Church Hill is a one stoplight little town on 11-W which has been bypassed by the new "four lane" south of town. There was an old one-lane concrete underpass under the railroad which had been replaced by a new and efficient steel structure. On the way out of town at about 10:00 a.m. I stopped to take some photos of the new railroad bridge. A local business owner came out of his store at the bottom of the hill, got in his truck, drove the block up the hill and parked between me and the bridge. In an intimidating manner he got out and demanded what my "interest" was in photographing the bridge. Taking note of the shotgun in the back window of his truck I quickly explained and told him where my parents lived and that I grew up there. Almost grudgingly he returned to his vehicle and immmediately called someone on his cell phone. I tossed my camera in the Highlander and got out of town.


Opinion

Photography is a form of free speech and should never be denied by the law. It has helped countless people in situations such as child labor, concentration camps and 3rd world countries.


Opinion

It's worse when they take your gear no matter how polite you are. A friend of mine here in Seattle was recently approached while taking pictures of a bus station. They took $300.00 worth of flash cards and his entire day's shots.


Opinion

Common sense and good judgement, as well as being within the law, is the way to go. If one isnt breaking any laws or doing anything illegal, o he/she shouldn't be afraid when approached by any law enforcement personel.


Opinion

It is becoming more difficult than ever for photographers to capture the shots they want, because places that used to be considered okay for shooting photography are now off limits. And there is one town that I know of where in January 2005 the city council passed an ordinance banning all photography of buildings, public parks, bridges, etc. (you're exempt from the ordinance if you're a member of the press and have proper identification; everyone else, no digital cameras or any type of cameras allowed. Thus, if there's a festival in town and you bring a camera, the cops will just come out of nowhere and snatch your camera away). The best advice for anyone who wants to do any photography without tolerating law enforcement or others who are conservative fundamentalist jerks is to choose locations that you believe are locations where law enforcement is unlikely to capture you. This may include a forest or woods sponsored by the state park commission. If you want to capture a photo of a statue or bridge, make sure nobody else is around seeing what you're doing (and that especially includes police). After all, in today's America, if you have a camera, you are considered an individual contributing to terrorist attacks.


Opinion

In this city (Albuquerque) the city has a website with complete high resolution aerial photos online for all to see and download. You don't NEED to take pictures to scout a target. They even have accompanied maps showing utility lines and who owns all the parcels. Now, the city cops harass photographers while all along they provide better intel for terrorists on the city's website: www.cabq.gov/gis The photography harassment predates 9/11 by decades. I got busted in high school. In fact, it was the cops who persuaded me to quit photography years ago. I just started my landscape work again recently. I now live outside the city limits and usually only take photos out here. Still, I am only 1/4 mile from the city limits and they are known to come out here. The cops fly helicopters over my house and could harass me since I live on the railroad tracks. I frequently take sunset photos in my backyard which faces the tracks. My take on all this is the cops are protecting the rich business owners, who are afraid of photographers. The cops have told me they serve those who pay their salaries. That would be the businesses since the city cops get all their pay from sales taxes paid by businesses. Homeowners taxes don't go for police inside the city (they do out here in the county so that might be why we aren't harassed). In short, government exists for one purpose and one purpose only: TO PROTECT THE STATUS QUO. That means the 2% who control over 50% of all wealth in the USA, not the rest of us suckers.


Opinion

Wow! I am stunned! I've recently returned from two trips to NYC, took over 1,100 pictures in Manhattan and the surrounding area, and was never stopped, questioned, or noticed as far as I know. I took shots of everything you can imagine -- from buildings to subways to people to parks and museums. I also was recently in San Francisco and shot about another 1,500 shots in the city -- again, never encountered a single problem, cop, or issue. I shot bridges, buildings, financial diesticts, you name it! While I definitely believe that this is covered by Free Speach, I think that we must protect ourselves from terrorist activity. However, we cannot have our citizens accosted by 'Dirty Harry' wannabes as they are taking vacation photos. In your article, you touch on the obvious solution. Mutual respect for both parties. The shutter bug must respect that the officer is doing his part to question who you are and what you are doing, and you should also repectively answer his questions. If they blow smoke with phoney 'laws,' your JOB as a citizen is to question authority in a respectful manner -- but not get locked up for it! Bottom line, we must realize that 9/11 DID in fact change the way our law enforcement agencies view certain actions across this great nation. Unfortunately, photography is one of those things.


Opinion

I would urge you to read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. Also check out his web site freedomforceinternational.org


Opinion

Thank you for this article. I belong to a photography Website and we have addressed this issue and have been talking about it.


Opinion

Pictures are free speech.. and as far as I know, we haven't really gotten to the Orwelian age yet. It's not quite yet a militaristic state. But yes, the article is pointing to some aspects which sure resemble that outlook. Yes, I can see the frustration and I don't sympathize with any of the actions, but the cop may ask you to move here or there for whatever reason. Of course he\she should not you from completely taking those pictures - that sounds like modern day east europe, where they can still detain you for no reason for a few days. But in the States, people have more rights than other countries. Therefore, police need to be more courteous to oblige these laws, and not act like a testosterone driven bully who acts without consequence. And police need to realize - the public grants them these rights - they are not automatically give to them. They are also paid by the public's hard work. You know, this is really understoond by a well paid security guard, who is a thousand times more coureous than a policeman, because the check doesn't have to go through so many hands. Btw, did you know many cops moonlight as security guards because they get paid so little? Anyway, the cop probably was having a bad day, and who is going to tell him to shutup?


Opinion

photography should not be illegal because if it was alot of people would be veery mad


Opinion

I think that is such a stupid law that such a beautiful place and lots of good landscape and scenery wasted when you cannot take such lovely pictures to show off your native landscape. anyway the government in usa dont own the bloody land its the people that live there own the land unless the owner has refused, if so he's a greedy so and so. rita


Opinion

I think that is such a stupid law that such a beautiful place and lots of good landscape and scenery wasted when you cannot take such lovely pictures to show off your native landscape. anyway the government in usa dont own the bloody land its the people that live there own the land unless the owner has refused, if so he's a greedy so and so. rita


Opinion

I think that is such a stupid law that such a beautiful place and lots of good landscape and scenery wasted when you cannot take such lovely pictures to show off your native landscape. anyway the government in usa dont own the bloody land its the people that live there own the land unless the owner has refused, if so he's a greedy so and so. rita here from (Ireland)


Opinion

It's history and nonsence. Nowadays enimies use satelites to make pictures of bridges. Private photos are not an argument any more. Dump cops, dump politicans!


Opinion

I am Australian and went to college in california in the 70s. I have travelled to the US several times since and correspond with many of your countrymen. Watching from afar and hearing and seeing the rest of the world's reaction to the actions of the current US regime I think you have already lost the essential freedom that was once your trademark. G Singh illustrates it very clearly. More is the pity is that it has happened due to the actions of your leaders and big corps in media rather than Al queda (911 was despicable - no question, as was the attack in Bali) There is a LOT of money to be made and power to be consolidated by keeping people in fear of the unknown or an exagerated enemy. This fear now pervades America and as a result no-one thinks twice when rights and freedoms taken for granted only 5 years ago are trampled upon. It's not the cops fault and I am sure they are trying their best in new and uncertain areas with vague rules and no real guidlines to follow- just propoganda. If you think this is all rubbish then do the experiment and put on a little fake tan and a beard and try to take a shot of the Statue of Liberty. Even if you produce ID the irony of the shot will not be lost. The following quote should ring a bell or two. Cheers... "Why, of course the people don't want war ... but, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship ... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -Herman Goering, Nuremberg 1946


Opinion

A great deal of my photography has been of small airplanes at airports. I have never been stopped or questioned once. I also do a fair amount of aerial photography. There the only restrictions I have run into are based on keeping me out of the way of passenger jets. I am thankful for that, as I have no desire to end up as a bug on a windshield. In fact, I have never had any trouble taking aerial photos of restricted areas. Authorities generally want 24 hours notice before flying into there, but that is about it. Granted, I have not tried to photograph Area 51 or the White House, which would probably entail considerably more resistance. Now, maybe police just don't want to take on a retired businessman who has the resources to hire decent attornies. While I sympathize with the problem police face in protecting the citizens, I consider my rights worth protecting as well. I would not hesitate to press charges of false arrest, false reporting of a crime, dereliction of duty, conspiracy to deprive me of my civil rights, assault, or any other crime that I thought was being committed against me. I will also defend myself against defamation and damage to myself, my possessions, and my reputation. I will even fight police officers or government agencies guilty of racketeering, which basically is engaging in a pattern of crime. I agree that the place to do that is probably not at the scene -- one cannot defend one's rights if one is dead -- but problem officers and citizens must be legally confronted in a way that makes it explicit that such misbehavior cannot be tolerated in a free society. It may well be that an officer may feel secure in trammeling the rights of photographers because he knows that the city will pay any judgments against him. This is false security. The city will not pay personal judgments, nor will it serve his prison time. It will not allow him to keep his job or continue this misbehavior.


Opinion

I love photography. I am also a Detective with the NYPD. On the many issues involving photographers and law enforcement all photographers must remember one thing. Police Officers are not mind readers. They have a difficult job and are only trying to do it the best they can. At times they are not well informed and it's a big department. Don't get upset if confronted by an officer as stated by the author of this writing, Jim Mcgee. Answer their questions and be polite it goes a long way. I recall working on a double homicide and there were several photographers taking pictures. That's fine but at one point I wanted to take a witness out of a building and asked the photographers to put their camera's down for a moment. Immediately I was confronted by one of the photographers and he went on and on about his rights and he had no problems shooting in other countries. I told him nicely that I was going to bring a witness out and he would put the person in danger if he were to photograph the person. Now if you impede in an investigation or put someones safety in danger then you can be stopped from photographing that particular instance. I try to explain, and told him I was a photographer also. He continued talking , so, I made the crime scene 1 block longer and that solved the problem. By law he could have been arrested but I'm a professional with 19 years experience and I'm also a photographer. The best advise I can give Photographers or any civilian is that you ultimately dictate how the chain of events will unfold by the first words that come out of your mouth.


Opinion

I somehow missed the "no photos" sign on the Social Security building when my husband went to apply for his benefits. It seemed an occasion worth capturing for our family album. The guard who approached me was gruff and accused me of being "sarcastic" and got his supervisor, who made me delete from my digital camera a picture of my husband sitting in a chair in the waiting room which showed ONLY HIM, and a closeup of the return address on the envelope from the SSA. Is there in fact a total ban on photography inside government buildings? Is it the Patriot Act? I would really like to take a photo of the cool WPA mural in my post office. What are my chances of being allowed to do so?


Opinion

But what about taking a pic of a child and without the permission of an adult!?


Opinion

I agree with your article as it applies to the photgraphing of potential terrorist targets. It would be best for both sides to be as accomodating as possible. Our problem is that police officers have questioned and stopped photographers from taking pictures of people posing for the picture. This is absurd behaviour by these officers. The photographs are not taken in any area near any structure that could be considered a target. This is obvious abuse of authority and should be stopped.


Opinion

Yes I think law enforcement officials infringe on the rights of photographers. Photographers might want to take a video guy downtown and let the video guy tape a confrontation with a cop, then get it on all the cable networks for a valid discussion. We citizens need to take charge and not let Arab-Muslim terrorists ruin our photographic shooting world, through the arm of the law.


Opinion

hey guys is it illegal to take pictures of someone without there permissions?? because some dude toke a picture of me and my friend at the back of the portable without lettin us know and he reported to the principle saying we were smoking and now we got after school detention when we both dont deserves it


Opinion

I was taking a photo of the Chicago River when a security guard from a building located next to the river came out and asked if I was taking pictures of the building. I replied "No, I took a picture of the river. Our discussion wasn't a problem. He was actually embarassed and apologetic, saying his bosses required him to ask. He actually agreed with me that the constitution has been shredded, and laughed when I told him his bosses should hire a helicopter and lower a paper bag over the building so no one could see it. The whole situation is just wrong. It's the hypocrisy that gets me the most. 49 year old guys of polish-german descent taking pictures are a problem, while thousands of shipping trailers are taken off ships and driven off uninspected out onto the US Highway system. The original signers of the Constitution would shake their heads in disgust at what has happened to their country.


Opinion

Jessica asks "But what about taking a picture of a child without the permission of an adult?" I think the precedent for this issue was set when Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton where photographed many times by photographers who did not obtain prior permission to do so. Given that the children of US Presidents are not covered by any such requirement, there's little argument to be made that any other child should be so covered.


Opinion

Wow!! Live in the 16th largest city. Louisville,KY. May have a story after this weekend. I do Videography and Photography. We will be or want to film the local court house just for a back drop. Will keep in mind the advice given. Would it be better to ask permission even though I may have the right to it. Might save on some hassel?


Opinion

I think that taking a photo of certain subjects are not illegal. It just there are certain things a cop shouldn't do. Like a train, If a person is shooting of a train coming on or off a bridge, that gives them no reason to overexceed their boundaries. It's like McCarthyism all over again. We didn't have that problem during the Cold War. Back in the 1490's and 50's, photographers didn't get blacklisted for certain things. It just that certain things that can be classified for , "In the interest of National Security" or certain things that can be left alone.


Opinion

It's not the cops that I have trouble and problems with. A lot of them that I have met are also camera nuts and we have a lot to talk about. It's the security guards and the rent-a-cops that aont have any idea of what their job is and think that their badge makes them superman. Thank God that most of these morons are unarmed. I did have a gurad come up to me once and demand my film. I laughed in his face. Once at the county fair, I was carying a camera when one of the midway guys came up to me and told me i had to leave. He told me he was going to take my camera and throw me out of the fair grounds. My friend that was with me was an off duty cop out of uniform and when that midway guy grabed my camera, my friend quickly put him under arest. A couple of times, (I like to still use 35mm)a few cops have come up to me and asked about my cameras and is you can still get them. I also wear a baseball cap with my first name and call sign on it(I am a ham radio operator) That allways helps break the ice when out. A lot of cops are also hams. That gets me invited to lunch a lot.


Opinion

bedroom furniture <a href= http://bedroomfurniture0.idoo.com >bedroom furniture</a> <a href=http://bedroomfurniture0.idoo.com/affordable-bedroom-furniture.html>affordable bedroom furniture</a> <a href=http://bedroomfurniture0.idoo.com/pulaski-bedroom-furniture.html>pulaski bedroom furniture</a> <a href=http://bedroomfurniture0.idoo.com/used-bedroom-furniture.html>used bedroom furniture</a> <a href=http://bedroomfurniture0.idoo.com/bedroom-furniture-manufacturer.html>bedroom furniture manufacture</a> <a href=http://bedroomfurniture0.idoo.com/>bedroom furniture</a> <a href=http://bedroomfurniture0.idoo.com/italian-bedroom-furniture.html>italian bedroom furniture</a> <a href=http://bedroomfurniture0.idoo.com/black-bedroom-furniture.html>black bedroom furniture</a> <a href=http://bedroomfurniture0.idoo.com/discount-bedroom-furniture-online.html>discount bedroom furniture online</a> <a href=http://bedroomfurniture0.idoo.com/wicker-bedroom-furniture.html>wicker bedroom furniture</a>


Opinion

i agree. but the problem isnt just police its paid security men aswell. i have been accosted by many security people in my time for photographing public buildings in public places. with the police you can reason with, but not these people that have nothing to do.


Opinion

i agree. but the problem isnt just police its paid security men aswell. i have been accosted by many security people in my time for photographing public buildings in public places. with the police you can reason with, but not these people that have nothing to do.


Opinion

The funny thing here, after reading ALL of the comments that follow is that not one individual mentioned doing what has always seemed obvious to me; say hello first; THEN TAKE PICTURES!! Instead of inciting some police brutality, why not make a new friend? There was one shooter that mentioned cops are a great source of local knowledge and it's true, Cops are people too. Even if Barney Pfife is having a bad day, if you just say hello first in a friendly way, you will be in like Flint Goober!


Opinion

The funny thing here, after reading ALL of the comments that follow is that not one individual mentioned doing what has always seemed obvious to me; say hello first; THEN TAKE PICTURES!! Instead of inciting some police brutality, why not make a new friend? There was one shooter that mentioned cops are a great source of local knowledge and it's true, Cops are people too. Even if Barney Pfife is having a bad day, if you just say hello first in a friendly way, you will be in like Flint Goober!


Opinion

Working assignment at Downtonw OC's city of Santa Ana, Ca I was approached by an overzealous sec guard and told that is not legal since Sept 11 to take pictures of federal, buidings. Is that so? I believe is no true by now but it doesn't stop them to make us very uncomfortable from making us photographers of doing our jobs in following art and pursuit of the beauty to be recorded in a picture.


Opinion

This was a very interesting article that helped me understand a bit of what's happening in the USA. I'm in Canada and have never run into any of these kinds of restrictions while photographing things. I'm not sure if it's because we haven't experienced a terrorist attack here and that things would be similar if we had. You're suggestions seem intuitively correct and point out the advice we got from our grandma's that "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar". A kind word and a smile go a long way toward avoiding conflict.


Opinion


Opinion

my opinion matter.....wat im the prince of all saiyans okay i think that imbisuls who do things like that should be foreced too fight me


Opinion

JwLoo3 <a href="http://oackkvndnprj.com/">oackkvndnprj</a>, [url=http://wshwkexebjtu.com/]wshwkexebjtu[/url [link=http://ljorfgeuzkmb.com/]ljorfgeuzkmb[/link http://nxtiwsomzgyc.com/


Opinion

The terrorists not only want to destroy our buildings and kill people, they want to have the government take away our freedoms out of fear, and deny the liberties so many have died defending. They want to ruin our way of life. By arresting and harassing innocent photographers, the police are aiding the terrorists' goals, plain and simple. In my hometown last summer I was photographing the St Lawrence River and a large power dam where my mother had worked. I was approached by a NY State Park Police officer. He politely asked what I was doing, I rambled on for a minute or two, then proceeded to resume photographing. He left without incident. A homeland security officer was at a local ship lock, and gave me a look when I walked in with a large DSLR and lens, but nothing was ever said. These were LEO's who were vigilante and professional. If the government thinks photography is a real threat, then they better go after everyone with a camera in their cell phone, since they can more easily and covertly take close-up photos of subjects of interest. Don't just go after the big obvious cameras. While they're at it, outlaw MapQuest, Google Earth, and civilian GPS units. And why not outlaw cameras in cell phones, binoculars, make everyone with a camera register it like a handgun, and require people to produce a valid photo ID to purchase cell phone, especially the prepaid ones.


Opinion

hGjB6M <a href="http://xbqsgxcqxnlo.com/">xbqsgxcqxnlo</a>, [url=http://etqehcdrfqkk.com/]etqehcdrfqkk[/url [link=http://uhmdqwwmmaom.com/]uhmdqwwmmaom[/link http://vkxetfebnkni.com/


Opinion

lHTFnL <a href="http://bjxgkfazbnkq.com/">bjxgkfazbnkq</a>, [url=http://iabwiwmegzbm.com/]iabwiwmegzbm[/url [link=http://tuljbccduooj.com/]tuljbccduooj[/link http://iliepytwnuvg.com/


Opinion

lHTFnL <a href="http://bjxgkfazbnkq.com/">bjxgkfazbnkq</a>, [url=http://iabwiwmegzbm.com/]iabwiwmegzbm[/url [link=http://tuljbccduooj.com/]tuljbccduooj[/link http://iliepytwnuvg.com/


Opinion

FUqF6T <a href="http://bwevpqleuqlf.com/">bwevpqleuqlf</a>, [url=http://umltajripenc.com/]umltajripenc[/url [link=http://yessjipezvcw.com/]yessjipezvcw[/link http://ktvwggdugwad.com/


Opinion

what a wonderful website <a href=http://www.viddler.com/explore/HelenMemex>buy viagra online</a> <a href=http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?showuser=131864>buy viagra online</a> <a href=http://www.youtube.com/user/helenmemex>buy viagra online</a> <a href=http://blogs.blackmarble.co.uk/members/sildenafil.aspx>buy viagra online</a> <a href=http://bbs.conqueronline.com/member.php?u=154200>buy viagra online</a> <a href=http://jiggmin.com/forum/member.php?u=5511&tab=aboutme&simple=1>buy viagra online</a> <a href=http://www.viddler.com/explore/HelenMemex>viagra cheap</a> <a href=http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?showuser=131864>viagra cheap</a> <a href=http://www.youtube.com/user/helenmemex>viagra cheap</a> <a href=http://blogs.blackmarble.co.uk/members/sildenafil.aspx>viagra cheap</a> <a href=http://bbs.conqueronline.com/member.php?u=154200>viagra cheap</a> <a href=http://jiggmin.com/forum/member.php?u=5511&tab=aboutme&simple=1>viagra cheap</a> <a href=http://www.viddler.com/explore/HelenMemex>viagra pharmacy</a> <a href=http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?showuser=131864>viagra pharmacy</a> <a href=http://www.youtube.com/user/helenmemex>viagra pharmacy</a> <a href=http://blogs.blackmarble.co.uk/members/sildenafil.aspx>viagra pharmacy</a> <a href=http://bbs.conqueronline.com/member.php?u=154200>viagra pharmacy</a> <a href=http://jiggmin.com/forum/member.php?u=5511&tab=aboutme&simple=1>viagra pharmacy</a> <a href=http://www.viddler.com/explore/HelenMemex>sildenafil citrate</a> <a href=http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?showuser=131864>sildenafil citrate</a> <a href=http://www.youtube.com/user/helenmemex>sildenafil citrate</a> <a href=http://blogs.blackmarble.co.uk/members/sildenafil.aspx>sildenafil citrate</a> <a href=http://bbs.conqueronline.com/member.php?u=154200>sildenafil citrate</a> <a href=http://jiggmin.com/forum/member.php?u=5511&tab=aboutme&simple=1>sildenafil citrate</a> <a href=http://www.viddler.com/explore/HelenMemex>buy viagra</a> <a href=http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?showuser=131864>buy viagra</a> <a href=http://www.youtube.com/user/helenmemex>buy viagra</a> <a href=http://blogs.blackmarble.co.uk/members/sildenafil.aspx>buy viagra</a> <a href=http://bbs.conqueronline.com/member.php?u=154200>buy viagra</a> <a href=http://jiggmin.com/forum/member.php?u=5511&tab=aboutme&simple=1>buy viagra</a> <a href=http://www.viddler.com/explore/HelenMemex>viagra online</a> <a href=http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?showuser=131864>viagra online</a> <a href=http://www.youtube.com/user/helenmemex>viagra online</a> <a href=http://blogs.blackmarble.co.uk/members/sildenafil.aspx>viagra online</a> <a href=http://bbs.conqueronline.com/member.php?u=154200>viagra online</a> <a href=http://jiggmin.com/forum/member.php?u=5511&tab=aboutme&simple=1>viagra online</a>


Opinion

yxmdEa <a href="http://nzjzmrllymuq.com/">nzjzmrllymuq</a>, [url=http://fbgyoeqrjvnh.com/]fbgyoeqrjvnh[/url [link=http://gykxblbigykj.com/]gykxblbigykj[/link http://yskrdextlemy.com/


Opinion

WsuE5P <a href="http://dhirrehyqyjf.com/">dhirrehyqyjf</a>, [url=http://igmsoqtznsjr.com/]igmsoqtznsjr[/url [link=http://ykermfaolpqw.com/]ykermfaolpqw[/link http://dcbavfsotbif.com/


Opinion

9xBBzP <a href="http://gwlczlargwjn.com/">gwlczlargwjn</a>, [url=http://xjpbsyawqyfl.com/]xjpbsyawqyfl[/url [link=http://fiktlyiacwiv.com/]fiktlyiacwiv[/link http://tazuletopddv.com/