From the Long Beach Post there is a disturbing report that the Long Beach (California) Police Department has a policy which allows its law enforcement officers to detain photographers which they suspect may be taking photographs "with no apparent esthetic value."
Yes, you read that correctly.
In Police Chief Confirms Detaining Photographers Within Departmental Policy, Greggory Moore states,
This policy apparently falls under the rubric of compiling Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) as outlined in the Los Angeles Police Department's Special Order No. 11, a March 2008 statement of the LAPD's "policy … to make every effort to accurately and appropriately gather, record and analyze information, of a criminal or non-criminal nature, that could indicate activity or intentions related to either foreign or domestic terrorism."
Among the non-criminal behaviors "which shall be reported on a SAR" are the usage of binoculars and cameras (presumably when observing a building, although this is not specified), asking about an establishment's hours of operation, taking pictures or video footage "with no apparent esthetic value," and taking notes.
Evidently, a photographer from the Long Beach Post was detained on June 30 after being observed taking photographs near a Long Beach refinery (follow the link to the Post story for an example of one of the photographs).
While some may consider such actions by law enforcement to be within the jurisdiction of keeping us safe from potential terrorist attacks, I think that it falls within the realm of ignorance in motion. On a purely logistics level, consider the lunacy of someone attempting to gather photographic information about a refinery by blatantly standing out in the open shooting away with their DSLR camera. Given the parameters of acts of terrorism, it would seem to me that PUBLICALLY ACCESSIBLE data from Google Maps would be of more benefit to a group intent on harming Americans.
The refinery image above was lifted straight off of Google Maps, at maximum zoom settings. While most of the general public, and most artists, would not be the least bit interested in this image, anyone intent on doing damage to a refinery would. For those in-the-know the image shows various components of a refinery, including their positions relative to each other. People familiar with refinery operations can identify the types of equipment shown, including which are of critical importance for the safe operation of the refinery. If you don't think this is useful information, think again. I know of some refinery engineers who will use this type of data for "quick and dirty" calculations.
Google Street View (as shown in the image above) gives yet another information-rich image for those with evil intent.
So then, as with TSA pat-downs of 5 year-old girls, of what benefit is it to detain a photographer blatantly taking photos near a high potential target? Is such an action truly providing us with a more secure country or is this simply a relinquishing of some of our liberties and - by default - an indication that the terrorists have won?
Recently I was on a PhotoWalk at Downtown Disney, with a group of photographers from a local church. Part way into the walk I notice that uniformed Disney Security guards were following us. After just a cursory look around I spotted one of their undercover personnel also monitoring our activity. Finally, after about 20 minutes, one of the uniformed personnel came over to me to ask if we were a photography class. He said that we had been observed taking photographs of their security cameras, the monorail, and one of the beams of the monorail track. After a courteous and professional discussion he, obviously being a rational individual, was able to see that we posed no threat. But, seriously? They felt that a group of photographers, which included a 10 year-old kid and two elderly ladies in motorized wheelchairs, posed a serious enough threat to send 4 to 5 of their security personnel into the situation?
As one in our group said later, "if we wanted to take photos of those things, we could've done it without being obvious." Exactly.
This issue goes beyond "artistic" street photography, but now extends to photos in public which authorities may deem as out of the ordinary or, as in the UK as "anti-social" in nature. Witness this report (and video) of a photographer being arrested in the UK for taking street photographs at a Christmas celebration. I suppose that the photographer should have put his camera away, and then proceed to ransack, loot, and destroy downtown shops - then the UK police would have left him alone!
Another UK photographer was not permitted to take photos of her son's baptism, which was being held in a public pool, because it was "against child protection laws."
Cameras in the hands of the common-man. An act of subversion? Or a liberty?
- image via http://www.not-a-crime.com/
Also see I'm a Photographer Not a Terrorist, and their Facebook page.
Recent Comments