PhotoDude.com

I encountered a form of this last year, when I was here in downtown LA attempting to photograph the First Interstate building at night (if you’re familiar with the LA skyline, it’s the tallest building). A security officer who works there came up to me and told me that photographing it was now illegal, due to some security/anti-terrorism measure. I wanted to toss off all sorts of rejoinders (you’d better tell that to the countless movies and TV shows I’ve seen that’ve filmed it to death; I seriously doubt a terrorist is going to be dumb enough to take photos with a camera as conspicuous as mine, even if a simple external shot of the thing would be of any use to them; etc), but I held my tongue.

Yeah, Osama may still be on the loose, but by god, at least we’ve kept our cities safe from the likes of Noah Grey…

Illegal to take a picture of the tallest building in town? How exactly does one enforce that? My favorite spot to shoot my favorite 50 story building in Atlanta (2nd tallest in town) is about 1.5 miles away from it.

But here’s what really gets me. I have a large waist pack that I use to carry my D60 and a few lenses. I wear it everywhere. Everywhere. It’s big enough to hold an Uzi, a 9mm pistol, and a few hand grenades. From the outside, there’s no way to tell what I might be carrying, except that it is quite sizable.

I have never ever had anyone ask to search it. Not at a bank. Not at a city Traffic Court. And not on the subway.

When I was in London last may, I was wating at the tube station nearest Big Ben to go back to the hotel. I took a couple of pictures, wide shots pointing at the ends of the station, and security approached and told me I couln’t take pictures due to security reasons. Since I couldn’t be delayed, I didn’t protest.
I sometimes wonder if the folks who make the rules like this really think through the logic of this.

That’s nonsense! Wal-Mart forbids photography in their stores without special permission. I wanted to shoot some shopping cart people photos at Christmas for my newspaper, and they wouldn’t let me. Next time, I’ll remember that it is easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission. One night I was driving my old International Harvester truck, that does not lock. I had the camera with me, so I through it over the shoulder onto my back, and went in Wally World to pick up a gallon of milk. Two managers are waiting for me after I check out to gurantee I didn’t take any photos. I held my tongue, but was wondering why they would be concerned if I took any photos of a milk jug in a refridgerator.

Aren’t there already Homeland Security restrictions on taking pictures of “transportation infrastructure” during certain alert levels (orange?) I suppose taking a picture on the subway would be taking a picture of transportation infrastructure pretty much by definition.

Jarret, I’m a bit more understanding of private businesses that ban photography. It’s their right to ban whatever they want, though with the revolution of cell phone cameras, that’s going to become near impossible to enforce. In fact, consumers may use it in ways that benefit the store. A guy’s wife sends him to the store for an item, but he gets there and is faced with a choice … so he takes a picture with his cell phone, sends it to his wife, and says, “which one?” How is the store harmed by that? Nonetheless, it is their right to say “no photos” (just as it would be your right to say the same thing in your home).

And, Matt, you bring up an interesting point. I couldn’t find anything about it on the Homeland Security site. But you can find this recommendation on some city sites: “Report suspicious persons taking photographs of critical facilities, asking detailed questions about physical security or dressed inappropriately for weather conditions (such as a suicide bomber).”

In Cleveland, that’s listed under Orange Alert. In Salt Lake City, it’s only under the Red Alert. Consistency in policy is apparently too much to ask, or, perhaps the threat of photography is greater in Cleveland than in Salt Lake.

But Jarret is right, sometimes the only condition required is the visible possession of a camera. And you don’t have to go all the way to the grocery store to see it. My pet peeve on this issue is right here at home. As you’ve seen over time from the pictures I take, we have a small lake here at our condo complex. Three times I’ve been rather harshly questioned … because I was taking pictures of ducks. Last time, I wasn’t very nice..

(in an accusing tone) “Hey, can I help you?”

“No, I’ve been doing this a long time. I don’t need any help.”

“What are you doing?”

“Um, I’m taking pictures of the ducks in the lake of the condo complex where I live. Is that a problem?”

“Oh, I didn’t recognize you.”

“And I don’t recognize you, either, but I didn’t run across the parking lot assuming the worst, did I?”

“Well, I didn’t know what you were taking pictures of.”

“And I didn’t know this was some kind of security zone. I thought it was my home. Listen, take a good look at my face, because I’m a photographer, and you’ll be seeing me with this camera a lot.”

Maybe he spread the word, because I haven’t been harassed since.

Maybe they should just make it illegal for terrorists to take the subway. They’ve already made it impossible for them to legally drive in New Jersey.

Dang, folks – this is a tough one.

As relates to the commercial bans, such as at Walmart, I can understand it, in a “laugh at the manager” sort of way. I remember the day when you couldn’t walk into the Microcenter computer store with a cell-phone, since they were worried about price moles. Stupid restriction, since they blanket the world with multipage newspaper inserts, but such is the curse of the small-minded.

The real problem appears when one tries to find a way, any way, to provide a touchstone for security. Touchstones, by their nature, involve a good bit of superstition, and are thus rather worthless. Being concerned about taking photos in sensitive areas is not unreasonable, but they’re not trained, and, I fear, not allowed to use a bit of judgment in deciding who’s actually suspicious. That’s the crime here, in my humble opinion – too politically correct.

The answer? Tough call. It might be to simply allow life to go on, and to brace for the certainty of another catastrophe. I tend to favor this approach, with a reason and a caveat. The reason? That catastrophe isn’t going to be avoided by small minded people doing small minded bureaucratic Gestapo impressions, and is not entirely avoidable, no matter what.

The caveat? When (not if – when) such a thing occurs, the wrath of God needs to come down on whomever the culprits are, without concern for the US’ image as an enlightened liberal democracy. The gloves will have to come off. Like my reason above, I fear that this, too, seems inevitable.

If you are using a digital device to sample the visual spectrum, are you any longer a “photographer?” Ignore no opportunity for creative redefinition of your brand Photodude.

You guys are lucky. The worst that will happen is a few questions from the police. If, however, someone with the wrong ethnicity took a photograph of the Catskills, they could have their whole life investigated and could be detained on some technical violation. Like Ansar Mahmood.