Put Down the Dark Chamber, Terrorist! - War on Photography

[Superfly]

For your last birthday, you received a decent SLR camera, kinda looks like this:



So, the next day, you decide to try it out.  You're fond of the architecture and layout of the downtown area, so you head there on a brisk day (not many people are out), and you start taking photos of buildings, trees, other people, the nearby bridge, and the iconic capitol building.

You've been there a good 20 minutes, and have taken quite a few shots, excited about the prospect of going home to review them on your computer.  As you begin heading back, you are stopped by a police officer who asks you for your camera license.  Oh no, you don't have one!  You tell the officer that you don't have a camera license, and the officer says that you will either have to forfeit your camera for inspection or delete all of your photographs while the officer watches, lest you be cited for taking pictures of official buildings without a camera license, and possibly arrested upon suspicion of terrorist activities.

What do you do?

1.  Delete your photographs while the officer watches.

2.  Hand over your camera.

3.  Run away.

4.  Insist that you have the right to take photographs in public places, and refuse to hand over your camera or delete your photos.

5.  Something else.


Follow-up questions.

A.  Based on your choice, what do you think would happen next?

B.  What do you think would happen as a result of the choices you didn't make?

C.  Is there such thing as a camera license in your country? 

D.  Do you think I just came up with this scenario off the top of my head, or do you think it has any basis in reality?

E.  Is it an effective terrorist deterrent to treat all people who take pictures in public places as a potential terrorist?

F.  Have you ever been told that you cannot take photographs somewhere?  Where was it?  Do you think you did have the right to take photos there?  Did you take photos anyway, or did you comply?  If you took photos anyway, what happened?  If you complied, what do you think would have happened if you had taken photos?

G.  Have you ever taken photos covertly, in public -- with the intent that others won't see you taking them?  Are you allowed to do so, as far as you know?

H.  Would you report to the police an unaccompanied adult male apparently taking photographs of children in a playground?  Why or why not?

I.  What, in your mind, is a good example of the kind of suspicious activity that should be reported to the police?  What's the bare minimum?

J.  Have you ever reported suspicious activity?  Do you think there are people more prone to do so?  Why? 

K.  Do you think it's appropriate for the government to install and use video cameras on its buildings, roads, etc.? 

L.  What do you think about a national identification card? 

M.  If you were running the government, would you make use of video surveillance of public places?  Would you implement a national identification card?  Would you require citizens to have camera licenses to take pictures of government buildings?

[Kimberly]

Well I know nothing about the laws of taking pictures like that so I would delete the pictures in front of him. (I may come back once he is gone if I have time.)


A.  Based on your choice, what do you think would happen next?

He'd leave me alone once I was done.

B.  What do you think would happen as a result of the choices you didn't make?

I'd lose my pics.

C.  Is there such thing as a camera license in your country?

no clue

D.  Do you think I just came up with this scenario off the top of my head, or do you think it has any basis in reality?

mmm knowing you something real happened to spark your interest. I could be wrong.

E.  Is it an effective terrorist deterrent to treat all people who take pictures in public places as a potential terrorist?

No, lots of people take pictures like that. I see no harm. If they see harm they should run a quick back ground check on you or something.

F.  Have you ever been told that you cannot take photographs somewhere?  Where was it?  Do you think you did have the right to take photos there?  Did you take photos anyway, or did you comply?  If you took photos anyway, what happened?  If you complied, what do you think would have happened if you had taken photos?

Yes. Certain museums or stores that sale art. Also some concerts. I took the pictures any way. Nothing happened to me.

G.  Have you ever taken photos covertly, in public -- with the intent that others won't see you taking them?  Are you allowed to do so, as far as you know?

Not of someone who didn't know me. I like taking pictures of my friends and family when they don't know so that I can capture a certain "feel" . I don't think they would mind. Never have.

H.  Would you report to the police an unaccompanied adult male apparently taking photographs of children in a playground?  Why or why not?

No, IDK if he is paid to take those pics by a parent he is taking pics of, or if he is the parent.

I.  What, in your mind, is a good example of the kind of suspicious activity that should be reported to the police?  What's the bare minimum?

Someone you do not recognize peeking in your neighbors windows in the middle of the night. Someone who is obviously trying to hide their identity, like with masks. You also gotta take in to account the who what when where and whys. Are they were a mask because they are mowing their lawn, or walking into a bank?

J.  Have you ever reported suspicious activity?  Do you think there are people more prone to do so?  Why?

No. I saw someone taking pictures of my house once. I told my mom, that's as far as I went. Freaked me out, the person left when they saw me watching but how am I gonna call the cops, "Uhh there WAS someone outside taking pictures, they are gone now, and I can't identify them."

I'd say it is hard to report most suspicious activity because you just don't know or don't have enough details to help.

K.  Do you think it's appropriate for the government to install and use video cameras on its buildings, roads, etc.?

Not any where public. I think it is ridiculous. I think DTE has a thread about the traffic cameras. (sorry if it was someone else.)

L.  What do you think about a national identification card?

What is that? Different from your state ID?

M.  If you were running the government, would you make use of video surveillance of public places?  Would you implement a national identification card?  Would you require citizens to have camera licenses to take pictures of government buildings?

No to all. But I'm not in the Gov't maybe they have more info on the Whys then I do.

[Superfly]

L.  What do you think about a national identification card?

What is that? Different from your state ID?

Kinda like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act

Which might end up looking like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_document

[Quotidan Torture]

What do you do?
4.  Insist that you have the right to take photographs in public places, and refuse to hand over your camera or delete your photos.

A.  Based on your choice, what do you think would happen next?

Beats me.

B.  What do you think would happen as a result of the choices you didn't make?

I'd lose my pictures, and possible some civil rights.

C.  Is there such thing as a camera license in your country?

Not here in the US or any other free country.

D.  Do you think I just came up with this scenario off the top of my head, or do you think it has any basis in reality?

Based in reality.

E.  Is it an effective terrorist deterrent to treat all people who take pictures in public places as a potential terrorist?

No. You'll just end up either frightening or pissing off the citizens of your country.

F.  Have you ever been told that you cannot take photographs somewhere?  Where was it?  Do you think you did have the right to take photos there?  Did you take photos anyway, or did you comply?  If you took photos anyway, what happened?  If you complied, what do you think would have happened if you had taken photos?

Yes.
A military base.
No, it's not public property.
I didn't even have a camera, but I was warned anyway.

G.  Have you ever taken photos covertly, in public -- with the intent that others won't see you taking them?  Are you allowed to do so, as far as you know?

No.
As far as I know, that's allowed.

H.  Would you report to the police an unaccompanied adult male apparently taking photographs of children in a playground?  Why or why not?

No, I'd ask him what, exactly, he was doing first. If his answer seemed suspicious, I would notify the parents or supervisors of the children (presumably they're around) and let them handle it.

I.  What, in your mind, is a good example of the kind of suspicious activity that should be reported to the police?  What's the bare minimum?



^Not that.

J.  Have you ever reported suspicious activity?  Do you think there are people more prone to do so?  Why?

No, but I've never actually seen anything I consider "suspicious". I'd certainly say people are more prone to do so (see above).

K.  Do you think it's appropriate for the government to install and use video cameras on its buildings, roads, etc.?

Buildings? Sure, companies can do the same, for security purposes. Heck, I can do the same if I want.

Roads? I don't really think that's appropriate or feasible.

L.  What do you think about a national identification card?

As long as it doesn't have an RFID chip in it, it might not be a bad idea.

M.  If you were running the government, would you make use of video surveillance of public places?  Would you implement a national identification card?  Would you require citizens to have camera licenses to take pictures of government buildings?

Yes.
No.
No.

[disenchantedidealist]

"sorry officer, excuse me while i call my lawyer. because that sounds like a load of fucking bullshit."

i have a lawyer in my cell phone - speed dial 59. id suggest everyone has one on speed dial as well.

[Kimberly]

Wow Pyro I had to google that.. All that fuss over this http://www.zebbler.com/friends/ATHF/Ignignokt_and_Err_Boston.html ????

IDK how I missed that one as an Aqua Teen Fan... Oh well non the less people are getting stupider. +1 for the find.

[alexkidd]

I scoff at your Nikon... (Canon owner)

I'd continue taking pictures.  I'd also pull out my cell phone and record the conversation as evidence of my civil rights being trampled.

There are no camera license requirements where I live (California), and I think such a requirement would have a time passing in any locale.  There are prohibitions against filming the police without their consent at my last home (Champaign, IL), which terrifies me.  Thank god I'm outta there.

As far as government cameras and national IDs - absolutely not.  Total invasion of privacy.

[Superfly]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004394642_fbi06m.html

Two ferry riders sought by FBI last summer were just tourists

By Sara Jean Green

Seattle Times staff reporter

The ferry captain photographed these men after they took pictures on a ferry last year. The FBI said they no longer consider the men's actions suspicious.

They were software consultants in town for a weeklong business conference — not terrorists planning an attack to cripple the country's largest ferry system.

Last summer, the FBI launched an international search for two men after crew members and riders on a Washington State Ferry reported their unusual behavior — namely that they were taking pictures below deck, in areas that don't hold much interest for most tourists.

A ferry captain snapped their photo, which was passed along to the FBI.

Turns out the men, both citizens of a European Union nation, were captivated by the car-carrying capacity of local ferries.

"Where these gentlemen live, they don't have vehicle ferries. They were fascinated that a ferry could hold that many cars and wanted to show folks back home," FBI Special Agent Robbie Burroughs said Monday.

The FBI's decision to release the photograph to the media last summer was controversial because the men — who were described as Middle Eastern-looking — were not suspected of committing a crime. While law-enforcement officials say they focus on behavior, not ethnicity, local activists say members of the Arab-American community often complain of racial profiling and many are afraid to ride ferries or board planes because of it.

Two weeks ago, the men appeared at a U.S. Embassy and identified themselves as the men in the photo released to the media in August, a couple of weeks after they took a ferry from Seattle to Vashon Island during a business trip, Burroughs said.

They came forward because they worried they'd be arrested if they traveled to the U.S. and so provided proof of their identities, employment and the reason for their July trip to Seattle, according to the FBI. The bureau was able to verify that information but declined to identify the men or the city where the embassy is located, citing privacy concerns.

One of the men recognized himself in the photo sometime in the fall but didn't know what to do, said David Gomez, the FBI's assistant special agent in charge of national-security programs in Seattle. He contacted his friend and they consulted family members involved in law enforcement in their home country. Then they went to the U.S. Embassy, Gomez said.

"We want to put the issue to rest," he said, noting that all along, the FBI only wanted to talk to the men. They aren't in trouble, nor do their names appear on a government watch list or no-fly list, he said.

For someone who rides the ferry every day, taking photos of the car deck is pretty unusual — but not so for "a guy who rides it one time in his life," Gomez said. "Their story makes sense; their story has validity ... . It was perfectly normal once we learned what was going on."

Gomez defended the decision to release the photo to the public after agents became "somewhat stymied" in their investigation into the men's identities.

The Seattle Times initially refrained from publishing the photos in print or online to allow time for additional reporting on the circumstances surrounding the FBI investigation and the photographs. After more reporting, The Times did publish the photos with a story that also covered the controversy.

But Rita Zawaideh criticized the FBI's decision to release the photo — then and now. At the time, Zawaideh, chairwoman of the Seattle-based Arab American Community Coalition, questioned why officials didn't first consult community members, who might have been able to identify the men.

"Everyone yelled at me for telling the FBI off," she said. "We're lucky it came out the way it did."

Had the men been terrorists, the publicity could have forced them to change tactics and targets, creating a risk for another city, she said. Or the men could have been innocent victims had someone spotted them and "decided to take the law into their own hands," she said.

Zawaideh says relationships between the local Arab community and law-enforcement agencies have since improved. Still, at least 30 calls to the coalition's 24-hour hotline are logged each month with complaints of racial profiling, said Zawaideh, who suspects the problem is underreported. The majority involve the treatment of "anyone who looks dark-skinned and foreign" when they ride ferries, board airplanes or cross the U.S.-Canada border, she said.

Aziz Junejo, who hosts a weekly public-access television program and writes a column on Islam for The Seattle Times, said he's heard stories about and even experienced more scrutiny on local ferries, particularly when he's with Muslim women who wear traditional head scarves.

"We kind of get the walk-by a little slower and a little more noticeable than any others on the boat," he said. "It perpetuates fear, especially in Muslim children who are Americans, first and foremost."

A ferries spokeswoman could not be reached for comment Monday.

Coast Guard Cpt. Steve Metruck said none of the agencies that meet monthly to discuss the ferry system's vulnerability to a terrorist attack — including the FBI, Washington State Ferries and the Washington State Patrol — engage in "any profiling of that sort." Threats to the ferry system — which carries 24 million people and 11 million vehicles on 10 routes each year — are constantly monitored, he said.

"We're constantly changing our [security] practices so they can't be predicted," he said. "This work is never done — it's always continuous."

[Superfly]

http://www.andycarvin.com/archives/2008/05/almost_arrested_for_taking_photos_at_uni.html

Almost Arrested for Taking Photos at Union Station

As some of you may know, I've been testing out a Gigapan panorama photo system over the last week, after I received a loaner of their robotic camera mount from Carnegie Mellon's robotics lab. I brought it in to NPR to demonstrate it to colleagues and go on a photo safari to photograph the architecture at Union Station. Apparently, as far as Union Station's security operations are concerned, that's a criminal offense, since we nearly got arrested.

Here's a low-res version of the photo. Click the image to see the extreme high-res, half-a-gigapixel Gigapan version. (Don't worry, it loads dynamically, so don't worry about the size of the pic.)
The Panorama That Almost Got Me Arrested


Earlier in the day, I did a brief demo of the Gigapan on the NPR roof. My NPR colleague Wright Bryan expressed interest in watching it in action elsewhere, so I offered to join him for a trip to Union Station, since it has some of the most beautiful architecture in the city. (Our photo editor was going to join us as well, but changed her mind at the last minute.)

We arrived at Union Station just before 4:30pm, where we set up the tripod and the camera at the western end of the main hall. I set the Gigapan to take a 180-degree sweep facing east, which took about 15 minutes to complete. We stood around chatting with passers-by, and were eventually joined by a journalist colleague of Wright's, who was visiting DC for a few days.

About halfway into the panorama, a security guard approached us and asked if we were taking pictures. We said yes, we were, to which she responded "okay" and left. She expressed no concern about our activities and didn't communicate anything with us otherwise.

After the panorama was complete, we relocated to the center of the main hall and proceeded to start the process of taking a 360-degree panorama. Since this would involve around 200 separate photos, it meant we got to stand around for at least 20 minutes. Wright's friend took a few pictures of us posing with the Gigapan, as commuters went about their business, a few giving us quizzical smiles.

Then the security guard returned. She informed us that we would have to cease taking pictures immediately and leave. I asked what the problem was, and she said that this is a private space, and we didn't have permission from management to take pictures. I told her that we were testing equipment for potential use by NPR, showed them our press passes, and noted there were plenty of other people walking around with cameras. She seemed sympathetic to our position, but said she was relaying orders she'd received from someone higher up. I asked if we could speak with them, then twittered it:

    Just got told by security to leave. Asked to speak with a supervisor to explain why we can't take pictures at union station.

Soon a second security guard arrived; he said he wasn't a supervisor. He reiterated that we had to stop taking pictures and leave, or we would face arrest. I said we wanted to speak with a supervisor before we would comply. Again, I twittered.

    Being asked to leave union station. Still asking to see supervisor.

By now a third security guard arrived. He noticed that the camera was still taking pictures. Not only did he ask us to stop immediately, he told us to erase the pictures, particularly any photos that might include images of them. The first guard repeated his demand we erase the pictures. We refused. The twittering
continued.

    Union Station security official saying we'll be arrested if we don't comply. Also told to erase pics of security guards.

Throughout the conversation, which I should point out was conducted in a cordial, but firm tone, we received mixed messages from the security guards. One told us the problem was that we were using a tripod, while another insisted it was because we had "that thing" on top of our tripod. They then changed the story again, and said that journalists couldn't take pictures without permission from management, and that Union Station is a private space run by a private company, not a public space. They never gave us an answer as to why we were first allowed to take photos in the first location, but could not do the same here.

    Contradictory messages. First they say tripod is problem, then the gigapan. Either way, cease or be arrested.

I debated them, telling them the story of the security guards who tried to prevent someone from photographing downtown Silver Spring by arguing it was a private space controlled by a private corporation, but was eventually overruled by local officials after much public lambasting. Their reaction was that they were just following orders. I said I wouldn't leave the premise until someone would go on record as to why we were being stopped, and would supply their name as well.

Meanwhile, the Gigapan continued to take photos. They'd ruined the panorama, of course; the first guard got in front of the camera at one point and obstructed the view. They reiterated that we were going to be arrested, so I finally tried to shut off the camera. But the damn thing wouldn't stop taking pictures. It never occurred to me that I'd have to learn how to abort a panorama under pain of arrest, so I fumbled for about a minute as it kept shooting pictures. (I think I heard Wright laughing at this point.)

I managed to shut the camera, and started to disassemble the Gigapan from the tripod as a fourth security person arrived. He was dressed differently than the other three people, and had a former-marine-turned-middle-management air about him. I twittered as he spoke:

    Official saying Union Station is a private space, no right to photograph without approval.

I asked for his business card and he handed it to me: Robert H. Mangiante, Assistant Director, IPC International Corporation. He then summed up the situation: pack up your gear and leave now, or we'll arrest you. It's our choice. Our gear was already packed up at this point, and Wright and his friend had an event at the National Press Club anyway, so that was that. The Gigapan went into my backpack, I folded the tripod and we went our separate ways.

I'm still trying to sort out the incident. While I have no doubt that Union Station is managed by a private company, I think it's hard for them to argue it's a private space, and that journalists cannot take photographs there without permission. Granted, it's not a public street like the Silver Spring incident, but the situation is otherwise similar. I also question their right to demand that we erase photos, and am puzzled by the capriciousness of their overall position, given how they first allowed us to take photos but then changed their minds, offering mixed messages as to why.

What do you think? Were we within our rights or not? -andy

Most interesting comment to that post:

For the past 10 years I have been a private security guard at an Ohio oil refinery. We patrol the area surrounding the refinery, including city streets. I have had many instances where I had to deal with photographers, both on and off the refinery's property. Lots of local college students like to take pictures of the refinery at night (lots of pretty lights and cool 30ft. flames coming off the smoke-stacks). It is company policy that no photographs are permitted to be taken of the facility, for both safety/security reasons, and for corporate privacy reasons. However, it is perfectly legal to take photographs of the facility if you are not on the refinery's property at the time. All the guards know this, but we have to try to stop them anyway. It's part of our procedure. Just like it is legal for you to take the pictures, it is legal for us to tell you that it is not (there is no law that says I can't lie to you about it). I can make any demand that I wish, including asking for ID, that you relinquish your film, or erase your pictures, even though you do not legally have to obey any of these. If you don't know that, that's your problem. If you do happen to be on company property, I can call the police and have you arrested for trespassing, otherwise, it is my job to try to harass you and convince you to stop taking pictures. Our best weapon in this fight is the taking down of your license plate number and informing you that the information will be forwarded to the FBI and the DHS (which it will). That usually scares people enough to want to get out of the area ASAP.

My point is that these guards may know that what they are demanding of you is outside of their authority, but they have to try to bully you into compliance anyway, because that's their company's policy. And of course company policy does not equal law, but they'll try to convince you that it does.
Marx S. | 05.14.08 - 3:09 am | #

[mumbles]

Follow-up questions.

A.  Based on your choice, what do you think would happen next?

I would probably be detained, if the camera license thing was actually real, of course.

B.  What do you think would happen as a result of the choices you didn't make?

I'd lose my pics, and feel like my rights were being stomped.

C.  Is there such thing as a camera license in your country? 

Not in public, not that I've ever heard of.  I've seen countless people taking countless pictures of many national monuments.

D.  Do you think I just came up with this scenario off the top of my head, or do you think it has any basis in reality?

Considering you practice law, you probably didn't pull this outta your ass.

E.  Is it an effective terrorist deterrent to treat all people who take pictures in public places as a potential terrorist?

Effective?  No.  The lists of these people would be ridiculously long.

F.  Have you ever been told that you cannot take photographs somewhere?  Where was it?  Do you think you did have the right to take photos there?  Did you take photos anyway, or did you comply?  If you took photos anyway, what happened?  If you complied, what do you think would have happened if you had taken photos?

2 places.  Once at the strip club, I complied.  I respected the strippers enough to understand the reason for this rule.  The other time was in England where they display the crown jewels.  There were like 5 signs on the way in that no pictures are to be taken at all.  I saw lots of people taking pictures anyway, and they weren't even being discrete.  I never saw any of them stopped by security, though.

G.  Have you ever taken photos covertly, in public -- with the intent that others won't see you taking them?  Are you allowed to do so, as far as you know?

Probably...though I can't remember any specific times.  I don't generally go in a lot of places where taking photos is prohibited.   

H.  Would you report to the police an unaccompanied adult male apparently taking photographs of children in a playground?  Why or why not?

I probably wouldn't, unless he looked like a total pederast.

I.  What, in your mind, is a good example of the kind of suspicious activity that should be reported to the police?  What's the bare minimum?

People leaving suitcases/bags or whatever in public areas.  I'd probably report people wearing masks if the weather didn't warrant them.  Short of that, I can't really think of anything.

J.  Have you ever reported suspicious activity?  Do you think there are people more prone to do so?  Why? 

I've never reported it but there are plenty of uptight and/or more observant people out there.  Some people are very distrusting and very scared about this sort of thing.  Some people watch too much Fox News...

K.  Do you think it's appropriate for the government to install and use video cameras on its buildings, roads, etc.? 

If we're talking about putting cameras on governmental buildings, then yes.  The road leading to Ft. Knox?  Yes.  EVERY street?  No.

L.  What do you think about a national identification card? 

I'm not sure how I feel.  My gut reaction is that it's okay.  I don't think I'd be giving up any rights by having one.

M.  If you were running the government, would you make use of video surveillance of public places?  Would you implement a national identification card?  Would you require citizens to have camera licenses to take pictures of government buildings?

How public?  If we're talking about the eventual aim of having surveillance everywhere, then no.

Yes.  (If it could be shown to be helpful in some way, I need to research the pros and cons of this.)

I suppose I simply wouldn't let anyone into the places where pictures would severely compromise nat'l security.  Everything else is fair game.

[mumbles]

Thanks for posting this Superfly, especially the comment from that guy.  It's good to know what my rights actually are, though I'd hate to be on any kind of governmental list.

[disenchantedidealist]

man the story from superfly is the scariest shit ever. they know that the people taking pictures are not doing anything illegal, but they still try and abuse the veil of authority to make it sound legal. that is some fucked up shit.

people like that are just as bad as the common criminal.

[Dr. McFisticuffs]

I've always wanted to have a sound recorder on my person, running 24/7. One that I could format after every 24 hours or when ever it ran out of space, and could copy onto my computer if anything interesting/bad happens on a given day. I could have put several people in jail by now. I gotta get on that.

[Superfly]

http://srtctransportation.blogspot.com/2008/05/our-transportation-facilities-are-being.html

Our Transportation Facilities Are Being Watched

I don't know if this will make you feel better or scare the hell out of you. I'm on the fence about it.

I was out taking pictures this morning of sites of transportation projects to be completed over the next twenty years. One of those projects is to move of the weigh station near Stateline further east along I-90. I stopped at the pretty much deserted weigh station and took a couple pictures, then drove off. About 10 minutes later I received a call on my cell phone from Washington State Patrol asking why I had been taking pictures of the weigh station!

It took just minutes for them to run my license plate and track down my cell phone number! Everything was fine after I explained why I was taking pictures and I guess it makes me feel a little better to know that someone is watching the people who are watching our infrastructure. On the other hand, it kind of scares me that they could track me down that fast.

AND

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=69800&page=1

Two FBI agents just showed up at my door... (I think I'm being investigated)

A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine and I drove down to the Port of Los Angeles on a photo mission. It was pretty laid-back, and all-around a fun time.

At one point in the day, I noticed a security guard looking into the windows of my parked car while I was out shooting. I walked back, and politely introduced myself. He informed me that I was parked on private property (a big empty dirt lot, but whatever), and so I offered to move my car. When he asked what I was doing in the port complex, I replied that I was taking photos. I declined to elaborate. He informed me that he didn't care what I was taking photos of, but that I couldn't take photos of the Valero plant. I had my rights card on me, but I was planning on leaving the area anyway and didn't want to start an altercation, so I politely said "okay" and went on my way.

So, we drove around for a few more hours, shot in some junkyards, train yards, truck yards, all the fun industrial places. Around sunset, we decided to return to the oil refinery area to shoot the cooling towers silhouetted by the sun. We parked in a different place and I tried to frame a good shot. Most of my shots were encumbered by powerlines or high fences, so I decided to try to find another location. Just as we were leaving, I noticed a pickup truck heading towards us. As I drove past him, I noticed him make a U-turn in my rear-view mirror. After a couple of turns, it became apparent that he was following us. I drove completely legally, even used my turn signals, but after I got on the freeway and he followed us there, I began to get annoyed. I got off, pulled into a parking lot to wait for him to pull over, but he kept going. I don't know if he wasn't anticipating my turn or if he legally couldn't go on somebody else's "private property" or whatever, but after a minute I took the opportunity to head off in the other direction. We did a bit more shooting, but after that point we'd lost most of the amazing light and just went home to download our photos.

So, fast forward to this morning. I just had my morning coffee, so I'm in the can, when I hear this really intimidatingly loud knock on my screen door. I live near the beach, so my front door is perpetually open, and when people knock on the screen door it makes this really scary rattling sound, so usually when somebody knocks on it I immediately assume they're angry bill collectors or repo men, even though there is no reason either should be coming to my door, and it's always my upstairs neighbor asking me to turn my music down. Anyway, so my roommate answers it, tells them to wait, and then whispers to me through the bathroom door that there are "two men with badges here to see me". This really set the tone.

So, I go to talk to them. The first one informs me he needs to ask me some questions about what I was doing in the port complex two weeks ago. The other one demands to see my driver's license. I politely decline, and he informs me that he already has all the information on it (I look, and sure enough, there is a photo of me on his clipboard along with god knows what else). He makes a crack about "wow, you're younger than you look in this photo" when he comments on my birthdate (gee, thanks). I decide to give him my ID.

We exchange cards. I give him my business card that says "Photographer" as well as my iStock card (for legitimacy), and he gives me his card that says "Detective, FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force". Yikes.

From that point on, the conversation was much more polite and much less confrontational. They inform me that a security guard had asked me to leave, and that when I came back later that day, decided I was suspicious and filed a report. They have to follow up on all the reports. That's why they're at my door.

So I inform them that I was under the impression that everything I was doing was legal. Security guards can't chase you off of public streets, and that I'm free to shoot whatever I want in public view. I inform them that my rationalization was that anything you can see from a public street isn't private (if they're trying to protect some secret, they shouldn't put it there), and if I really wanted to canvas the place, Google Maps' satellite view is a much better place to start. They confirm that yes, what I was doing was completely legal, but they're just doing their jobs, that it doesn't make sense, and that the "heightened security alert"... "will change soon". They informed me that most of their job lately has been following up with photographers who take photos in the port complex. They also informed me that they try their best to inform private security guards how to deal with confrontations with photographers, and that most of the guards have a bit of a skewed view on what's legal (oh my god this is true), and they're trying to correct that. They have had to correct guards who have insisted that photos be erased, or worse, have confiscated equipment in the name of homeland security. This doesn't help anybody, and makes their jobs harder.

So, after what turned into a polite conversation, they determined that I was harmless and went their way. In the future, I'm told I can email the Port of Los Angeles police to obtain a permit. Permits are free, and just let the police know that I'll be photographing in the area, so if a nervous security guard calls them to make a report, they can call and confirm that we're harmless instead of chasing me onto the freeway.

There are more photos from my day on flickr here. Most of these aren't iStock-worthy for various reasons, so they won't appear here.

Has anybody else had a confrontation like this? I've definitely had other confrontations with private security, but this is the first time FBI antiterrorism agents have come to my door.

I hope this doesn't delay my passport application...

AND

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=71473815&blogID=394235689

Orwellian Los Angeles
Current mood: bullied
Category: Blogging

I haven't updated my blog lately... as most of you know, I communicate with you all through commenting. I should blog more. Well, I am adding the following today because people should "know what is going on in this country" AND Cory Doctorow over at www.boingboing.net is linking here...Cory is a fantastic writer and author of a new book entitled "Little Brother" which tells the story of young people who use homebrew technology to restore their civil liberties after a police crackdown on terrorism...(that's the official logline from boingboing.net...great site, and also check out Cory's site, www.craphound.com). I emailed him earlier today and he wanted to link to the story about what happened to me on the Redline the other night...some of my friends have already heard the story:


Well last week here in Los Angeles, I was waiting to board the redline (subway) and snapped a picture with my cell phone camera. Not the best picture in the world, but I was just putzing around, waiting for the train, holding a quizno's to-go bag. Almost immediately, a vest wearing man with METRO emblazoned on his back who had been mopping the area nearby rushed up to me and the exchange went something like this:
Him: Hey! It's against the 9-11 Law to take pictures down hear man!
Me: You mean the Patriot Act?
Him: No pictures.
Me: Could you explain? What law do you mean?
Him: You are lawyer?
Me: No.
Him: No pictures. You could be a terrorist. Very strict!
Me: How about I take a picture of you?
Him: F**k you...(I couldn't believe it either)
He then proceeded to huddle in the corner and speak into his radio. Next thing I knew, a booming female voice very loudly announced over the loudspeaker "Attention to the gentleman in the plaid shirt: You are not allowed to take photographs in the Subway. You will be arrested if you continue to take photos and harrass the metro worker."
I was incensed/surprised/embarrassed/horrified/bewildered. People started staring.
Then the voice continued: "The gentleman in the plaid shirt: You must approach the callbox near the escalators and speak to the sheriff." I didn't budge. So she said it again, this time louder...
"Okay" I thought, I'll play along...I went up to the callbox and pushed the button. A new voice this time, this one male, boomed out and said, "Why are you taking photographs sir?"
Me: "What law am I breaking?"
Voice: "You can't take pictures sir, we don't know why you are taking pictures."
Me: "Well what about the commercials I've seen filming down here?"
Voice:" They have permits sir"
Me: "Well maybe I should get a permit, but I really don't think I need one for taking a cell phone picture..."
Voice (now mockingly): Well maybe you should go and get a permit sir."
Me: "What law am I breaking, why can't you tell me? It's is NOT illegal to take a picture down here."
Voice: "It is in this station." Then silence. He hung up.

Once I got home I called the metro security number that I saw on a "We're watching, are you?" poster (shiver) inside the train and asked what the law was. The operator said she'd never heard of one, then said she didn't know for sure, then apologized for the guy cursing at me, and gave me the sheriff station...I called and spoke with a Deputy and told him what had happened and he stated that "there is no such law."

I'm wondering if any of your Los Angeles readers have had similar experiences? Being suspected of something no matter what you are doing is a real annoyance. And it's scary. What's even more annoying and scary is that the people who control the cameras and the spaces we find ourselves in on a daily basis are uniformed zealots, ready to cite laws they no nothing about and do so without check. I complained to the Metro's "Complaint Department" and didn't even hear back. The only apology I got was from the lady I spoke with that answered the security line, and she was aologizing for the fella who cursed me out...

Is this still America? Does taking pictures of the subway tunnels with a cell phone and holding a quizno's to go bag automatically place you in a suspicious category?! Am I going to be tracked everytime I get on the train from now on?! Will I get put on a "no-train list?" Give me a break!

(P.S.) The offending picture is in "mypics"

[Superfly]

This is utterly hilarious:

http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/Home//Detail?contentId=6664418&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

[PeterMac]

When I read the title of this thread, I thought someone had been arrested for a book they were reading.  There was an incident down in Cornwall where a guy was surrounded by armed police and arrested under the Terrorism Act while he was taking picture of an electricity pylon.  The guy's a structural engineer from Kent who designs pylons, and was on holiday at the time.

A STRUCTURAL engineer from Kent claims he was held in a police cell for 18 hours after being mistaken for a terrorist.

David Neale, who lives in Rainham, says he was driving through Cornwall when he stopped with a friend to take a picture of a pylon and suddenly found himself surrounded by armed police.

Mr Neale says he was arrested under the Terrorism Act, but, after 90 minutes sitting in a police car, the charge was dropped to conspiracy to commit criminal damage.

Police have denied his arrest had any link to the act.

The 32-year old was arrested with housemate Jay Curtis and taken to Newquay Police Station where they were questioned and left in the cells overnight before being released without charge.

Mr Neale suffers from a rare form of epilepsy and says he suffered a fit during the night.

He also says he returned home the following day to find police had raided his home and seized his computer.

The engineer had been enjoying a holiday in Cornwall with Mr Curtis when he spotted the pylons and stopped with his camera.

Mr Neale said: “I design and analyse pylons for a living so have a genuine interest in them. That’s why I stopped, but the next thing I knew six cars had pulled up and police were brandishing guns.

“They just didn’t believe it when I told them what I was doing. They were convinced I was trying to blow them up.

“I was standing in a bright red fleece and Jay was sat in the car so it wasn’t as if we were trying to be secretive. We weren’t doing anything wrong.

“There are lots of people out there interested in trains and airports. Does that mean they’ll be arrested for taking an innocent photograph?”

A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police confirmed David Neale was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit criminal damage on April 4, at 3.50pm.

I'm disgusted with what's happening in the UK, and how spineless and paranoid people seem to have become.  We got through the blitz and the IRA bombings just fine, but the current Labour government is sending us down the same authoritarian path that the US has taken.  Fortunately Labour got shredded in the recent local elections, and there may be somewhat of a return to sanity if they get the boot at the next general election. 

Things seem to be better up here in Scotland; we had a couple of guys drive a car loaded with petrol and gas cylinders into the doors of Glasgow airport, but it was pretty laughable and one of the terrorists got beaten up by a baggage handler.

Smeaton was a general bystander when he first witnessed the incident. He later recalled his first thoughts on being confronted by the two desperate suspects in a burning car as he smoked a cigarette during his break: "What's the score? I've got to get this sorted."

He added "I thought, 'That's not right,' and ran over to assist. All that was going through my mind was I've got to help the policeman, I'm not letting these guys get away with this."[5]

It was reported that Smeaton shouted "fucking come on, then" and aimed a kick at Kafeel Ahmed, who later died from his 90% burns following the attack.[2][6]

One of my sisters was supposed to be flying up from London to Glasgow airport that morning, but the attack occurred before her flight had departed, and she was delayed as a result.

[PeterMac]

I've always wanted to have a sound recorder on my person, running 24/7. One that I could format after every 24 hours or when ever it ran out of space, and could copy onto my computer if anything interesting/bad happens on a given day. I could have put several people in jail by now. I gotta get on that.

I've experimented with that, but I've not been able to come up with a workable system with the gear I have.  I've got a flash-based dictaphone, but it can only take a couple of hours of audio, and if I put it in a pocket and leave it to record, the sounds I want it to pick up are nearly inaudible over the sounds of it rubbing against the fabric of my clothes, and there's no way to lock the buttons, so they tend to get pressed and stop the recording.  I've got an iPAQ too, which can record for much longer since it takes removable mini-SD flash cards instead of using built-in flash, but it also has the issues of buttons that can't be locked while it's recording and the sound being drowned out by friction noises.  Same issues with my camera too, which can record audio but tends to shut off from the buttons being pressed when it's put in a pocket.

There's been times when having a recording would have been nice, like a while ago when me and my mum got a visit from a couple of police officers at 11pm one night.  They claimed that someone had reported that we were growing cannabis, apparently on the basis of the colour of the lights in my room, which are a combination of blue LED fairy lights, daylight compact fluorescents and 8000K 'skywhite' fluorescents to keep SAD at bay during the really dark, overcast, rainy winters we get, which makes the glow from my windows noticeably blue and quite bright compared to the dull yellow light coming from all the neighbour's windows.  The police officers claimed that the person who reported us thought we were using UV lights for cannabis cultivation.

My mum invited them in so that they could see my lights (something she was unwise to do, but I couldn't do much about it at the time), and they had a look, remarked on how cool the lights were and left.  It's irritating that people around here apparently can't mind their own business and that we can get visits from the police for lights that are 'too blue'.

[Superfly]

I've always wanted to have a sound recorder on my person, running 24/7. One that I could format after every 24 hours or when ever it ran out of space, and could copy onto my computer if anything interesting/bad happens on a given day. I could have put several people in jail by now. I gotta get on that.

I've experimented with that, but I've not been able to come up with a workable system with the gear I have.  I've got a flash-based dictaphone, but it can only take a couple of hours of audio, and if I put it in a pocket and leave it to record, the sounds I want it to pick up are nearly inaudible over the sounds of it rubbing against the fabric of my clothes, and there's no way to lock the buttons, so they tend to get pressed and stop the recording.  I've got an iPAQ too, which can record for much longer since it takes removable mini-SD flash cards instead of using built-in flash, but it also has the issues of buttons that can't be locked while it's recording and the sound being drowned out by friction noises.  Same issues with my camera too, which can record audio but tends to shut off from the buttons being pressed when it's put in a pocket.

There's been times when having a recording would have been nice, like a while ago when me and my mum got a visit from a couple of police officers at 11pm one night.  They claimed that someone had reported that we were growing cannabis, apparently on the basis of the colour of the lights in my room, which are a combination of blue LED fairy lights, daylight compact fluorescents and 8000K 'skywhite' fluorescents to keep SAD at bay during the really dark, overcast, rainy winters we get, which makes the glow from my windows noticeably blue and quite bright compared to the dull yellow light coming from all the neighbour's windows.  The police officers claimed that the person who reported us thought we were using UV lights for cannabis cultivation.

My mum invited them in so that they could see my lights (something she was unwise to do, but I couldn't do much about it at the time), and they had a look, remarked on how cool the lights were and left.  It's irritating that people around here apparently can't mind their own business and that we can get visits from the police for lights that are 'too blue'.

I'm getting one of these http://us.creative.com/products/product.asp?category=&subcategory=&product=17761&nav=0

For father's day, and I plan on carrying with me 24/7. 

The new flip ones coming out are nice, too, and can do the same.  If you can't get it in a position to record video, at least you might get some audio.

http://www.theflip.com/products_flip_ultra.shtml

[PeterMac]

I've always wanted to have a sound recorder on my person, running 24/7. One that I could format after every 24 hours or when ever it ran out of space, and could copy onto my computer if anything interesting/bad happens on a given day. I could have put several people in jail by now. I gotta get on that.

I've experimented with that, but I've not been able to come up with a workable system with the gear I have.  I've got a flash-based dictaphone, but it can only take a couple of hours of audio, and if I put it in a pocket and leave it to record, the sounds I want it to pick up are nearly inaudible over the sounds of it rubbing against the fabric of my clothes, and there's no way to lock the buttons, so they tend to get pressed and stop the recording.  I've got an iPAQ too, which can record for much longer since it takes removable mini-SD flash cards instead of using built-in flash, but it also has the issues of buttons that can't be locked while it's recording and the sound being drowned out by friction noises.  Same issues with my camera too, which can record audio but tends to shut off from the buttons being pressed when it's put in a pocket.

There's been times when having a recording would have been nice, like a while ago when me and my mum got a visit from a couple of police officers at 11pm one night.  They claimed that someone had reported that we were growing cannabis, apparently on the basis of the colour of the lights in my room, which are a combination of blue LED fairy lights, daylight compact fluorescents and 8000K 'skywhite' fluorescents to keep SAD at bay during the really dark, overcast, rainy winters we get, which makes the glow from my windows noticeably blue and quite bright compared to the dull yellow light coming from all the neighbour's windows.  The police officers claimed that the person who reported us thought we were using UV lights for cannabis cultivation.

My mum invited them in so that they could see my lights (something she was unwise to do, but I couldn't do much about it at the time), and they had a look, remarked on how cool the lights were and left.  It's irritating that people around here apparently can't mind their own business and that we can get visits from the police for lights that are 'too blue'.

I'm getting one of these http://us.creative.com/products/product.asp?category=&subcategory=&product=17761&nav=0

For father's day, and I plan on carrying with me 24/7. 

The new flip ones coming out are nice, too, and can do the same.  If you can't get it in a position to record video, at least you might get some audio.

http://www.theflip.com/products_flip_ultra.shtml

I've been looking at bluetooth headsets since I wrote that post.  A review for this one says that it picks up a lot of background noise; usually a bad thing for phone conversations, but good for recording what's going on around me, and it won't fill up the sound files with the noise of the mic rubbing against the inside of my pocket.  I also found a freeware sound recording app for my iPAQ which lets me put the keylock on while it's recording, which hopefully will solve the problem of the buttons getting pressed when it's in my pocket.

[El Bromo Hojo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/25/AR2006022501641.html

Gadhoke, 32, is taking the "Joy of Photography" course at the Smithsonian Resident Associate Program. One morning this month, after her teacher, Falls Church photographer Olive Rosen, assigned students to document a day in their lives, Gadhoke took her Nikon F10 to the Odenton MARC station near her home in Anne Arundel County. She took pictures of the starkly beautiful curved iron lampposts along the platform.

Ten minutes into her exercise, a police officer approached Gadhoke and asked what she was doing. She explained her assignment. The officer replied that three commuters and a train conductor had reported her for "suspicious activity." No one had said a word to Gadhoke.

The officer asked Gadhoke for identification and her roll of film. She complied. He took her driver's license and the film and had her stand in the parking lot for 40 minutes. While he ran a check on her, Gadhoke's commuter train rolled past, passersby stared at her and the station agent came outside to ask what was going on.

...

"Because of 9/11 and the London bombing, you have to make a request to take pictures," he said. "We normally don't let people take a lot of pictures of the trains and tracks. If you have a valid reason, a tourist taking a casual picture on the platform, that's okay. But if you want to look underneath the train, no."

...

As reasonable as DeLeaver sounds, the fact is that the patchwork of security rules imposed on Americans since Sept. 11 is utterly inconsistent and often represents more hysteria than rational strategy.

...

MARC enforces one standard for photographers. Metro has another: It does not restrict photography at trains or stations. "Law enforcement officers nationwide do contact people who are taking photos to determine if this is a suspicious activity," Richard White, Metro's then-chief, said in an online chat with riders last year. "Bottom line is that visitors/tourists who want to take some snapshots in our system are welcome to do so."

...

 :banana

[Superfly]

I modified the subject heading to add "War on Photography."  That's essentially what this thread is all about, and, as a photographer, this is of special interest to me.  I'll be adding to the thread any news or articles regarding this theme.  Feel free to add your own, respond to the OP, or just comment.  Thanks.


http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/the_war_on_phot.html

June 05, 2008
The War on Photography

What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all terrorists, or does everyone just think they are?

Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harrassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.

Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.

Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?

Because it's a movie-plot threat.

A movie-plot threat is a specific threat, vivid in our minds like the plot of a movie. You remember them from the months after the 9/11 attacks: anthrax spread from crop dusters, a contaminated milk supply, terrorist scuba divers armed with almanacs. Our imaginations run wild with detailed and specific threats, from the news, and from actual movies and television shows. These movie plots resonate in our minds and in the minds of others we talk to. And many of us get scared.

Terrorists taking pictures is a quintessential detail in any good movie. Of course it makes sense that terrorists will take pictures of their targets. They have to do reconnaissance, don't they? We need 45 minutes of television action before the actual terrorist attack -- 90 minutes if it's a movie -- and a photography scene is just perfect. It's our movie-plot terrorists that are photographers, even if the real-world ones are not.

The problem with movie-plot security is it only works if we guess the plot correctly. If we spend a zillion dollars defending Wimbledon and terrorists blow up a different sporting event, that's money wasted. If we post guards all over the Underground and terrorists bomb a crowded shopping area, that's also a waste. If we teach everyone to be alert for photographers, and terrorists don't take photographs, we've wasted money and effort, and taught people to fear something they shouldn't.

And even if terrorists did photograph their targets, the math doesn't make sense. Billions of photographs are taken by honest people every year, 50 billion by amateurs alone in the US And the national monuments you imagine terrorists taking photographs of are the same ones tourists like to take pictures of. If you see someone taking one of those photographs, the odds are infinitesimal that he's a terrorist.

Of course, it's far easier to explain the problem than it is to fix it. Because we're a species of storytellers, we find movie-plot threats uniquely compelling. A single vivid scenario will do more to convince people that photographers might be terrorists than all the data I can muster to demonstrate that they're not.

Fear aside, there aren't many legal restrictions on what you can photograph from a public place that's already in public view. If you're harassed, it's almost certainly a law enforcement official, public or private, acting way beyond his authority. There's nothing in any post-9/11 law that restricts your right to photograph.

This is worth fighting. Search "photographer rights" on Google and download one of the several wallet documents that can help you if you get harassed; I found one for the UK, US, and Australia. Don't cede your right to photograph in public. Don't propagate the terrorist photographer story. Remind them that prohibiting photography was something we used to ridicule about the USSR. Eventually sanity will be restored, but it may take a while.

[Superfly]

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

A legal rights card for photographers.

[Superfly]

Who said cops were smart?

Perhaps we'll ban cameras next.



http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/man_arrested_for_unlawful_photography/11576/

Man Arrested For Unlawful Photography


By Darius Radzius
Reporter / WJHL
Published: July 11, 2008

Nearly everyone carries a cell phone and it’s hard to find one without that camera feature.  It’s convenient when you want to take that impromptu photo, but a Tri-Cities area man ended up behind bars after snapping a shot of a Johnson County sheriff’s deputy during a traffic stop.

The cell phone photographer says the arrest was intimidation, but the deputy says he feared for his life.

“Here’s a guy who takes me out of the car and arrests me in front of my kids.  For what?  To take a picture of a police officer?” said Scott Conover.

A Johnson County sheriff’s deputy arrested Scott Conover for unlawful photography.

“He says you took a picture of me.  It’s illegal to take a picture of a law enforcement officer,” said Conover.

Conover took a picture of a sheriff’s deputy on the side of the road on a traffic stop.  Conover was stunned by the charge.

“This is a public highway,” said Conover.

And it was not a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy as Tennessee code states.  The deputy also asked Conover to delete the picture three times.

“He said if you don’t give it to me, you’re going to jail,” said Conover.

Under the advice of the Johnson County attorney, the sheriff would not comment and the arresting deputy said he didn’t want to incriminate himself by talking to us.

In an affidavit, the deputy said he saw something black with a red light which he thought was a threat.  Conover was also arrested for pointing a laser at a law enforcement officer.

“At no time did I have a laser.  I had an iPhone,” said Conover.

When you take a picture in the dark with Conover’s Apple iPhone, there is no flash or any light that comes from the phone that could be mistaken for a laser.

In a witness statement by a Mountain City officer, is says the deputy asked about the picture rather than looking for a laser.

“If you arrested me, wouldn’t you take the laser?  If you arrested me, wouldn’t you take the camera?” said Conover.

He expects these charges to be dismissed.

“This guy maliciously arrested me, charging me with phony charges that he don’t even understand himself,” Conover said.

The American Civil Liberties Union would not comment on Conover’s case without fully reviewing the allegations, but told us there is no law that prohibits anyone from taking photographs in public areas, even of police.  Taking photos is protected by the First Amendment.  Conover is ordered to appear in a Johnson County court on August 6th.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT

GENERAL SESSIONS COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY TENNESSEE
State of Tennessee vs. JOHN SCOTT CONOVER
Johnson County Case # 08-0816 70120 70121 70122
Court Date 07-09-2008
Address TRADE, TN 37691
State, Deft. to at 9:00A.M.
Sex M
Race W
Ht 511
W 248
Hair GREY
Eyes Blue

AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT

I, the affiant named below, after being sworn, state under oath that on or about 06-08-2008 in MOUNTAIN CITY Johnson County, Tennessee, JOHN SCOTT CONOVER committed the offense(s) of violation(s) of T.C.A § 39-16-515 POINTING A LASER AT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 39-13-605 UNLAWFUL PHOTOGRAPHING IN VIOLATION OF PRIVACY 39-17-305 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.  I further state under oath that the essential facts constituting the offense(s), the sources of my information and the reasons why this information is believable and reliable are as follows:

ON THIS DATE THIS OFFICER WAS ON A TRAFFIC STOP ON HIGHWAY 421 NORTH ABOUT .1 TENTH OF A MILE FROM JOHSON HOLLOW.  THE INITIAL STOP OF A MULTI-COLORED MUSTANG WAS THAT THE DRIVER WENT ACROSS THE CENTER OF THE ROAD THREE TIME FROM COLD SPRINGS TO JOHNSON HOLLOW.  UPON INVESTIGATION OF THE DRIVER THIS OFFICER NOTICED MR. JEFFERY DUNN IN THE BACK SEAT.  RAN MR. DUNN LOCAL WARRANTS CHECK HE AHD CHILD SUPPORT SUMMONS.  WHILE WAITING FOR THE PAPER WORK A HUMMER CAME BY WENT 30 TO 40 YARDS PAST US AND TURNED AROUND.  THE HUMMER CAME TO A DEAD STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD ROLLED DOWN THE WINDOW AND POINTED SOMETHING BLACK WITH A RED LIGHT, THIS OFFICER TURNED TO THE OTHER OFFICER TO PROTECT HIM AND SAID [expletive] KEN.  I THOUGHT HE WAS GOINT TO SHOOT US, THEN THE MAN SAID TO SMILE AS HE TOOK A PICTURE WITH OUT OUR CONSENT.  THEN THE HUMMER WENT DOWN THE ROAD 30 TO 40 YARDS AND CAME BACK TOWARD US.  PATROLMAN KEN LANE AND MYSELF STOP THE VEHICLE TO CHECK.  THIS OFFICER ASKED THE MALE SUBJECT TO HAND OVER THE CAMERA OR TO DELETE THE PICTURE.  THE MALE SUBJECT STATED THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING AND GOT IRATE.  THIS OFFICER ASKED FOR THE MALE SUBJECTS NAME HE STATE IT WAS JOHN SCOTT CONOVER.  THIS OFFICER ASKED MR. CONOVER TO DELETE THE PICTURE TWO MORE TIMES, HIS WIFE EVEN TO HIM TO JUST DELETE THE PICTURE AND QUIT MAKING IT WORSE.  THIS OFFICER CHARGED MR. CONOVER WITH THE ABOVE CHARGES AND WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY JAIL FOR BOOKING BY PATROLMAN KEN LANE.

Affiant’s Signature:  [signed - Deputy Starling R. McCloud]
Name (Printed):  DEPUTY STARLING R. MCCLOUD
Address (Printed):  999 HONEYSUCKLE STREET, MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683
Phone Number:  423-727-7761

Sworn to and subscrived before me on 6-7, 2008
Judge/Clerk, Judicial Commissioner

PROBABLY CAUSE DETERMINATION

Bassed on the affidavit of complaint, I find there is probably cause to believe that on the date set forth above in County, Tennessee the defendant committed the offense(s) of violation(s) of T.C.A § 39-16-515 POINTING A LASER AT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 39-13-605 UNLAWFUL PHOTOGRAPHING IN VIOLATION OF PRIVACY 39-17-305 DISORDERLY CONDUCT

(X) Defendant given citation or arrested without warrant
( ) Arrest warrant shall issue
( ) Criminal Summons shall issue

Date 6-7-08 [signed] Judge/Clerk/Judicial Commission

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS STATEMENT—Statement from Mountain City police officer on scene assisting Johnson County Sheriff’s Deputy.

On this date 06-08-08 this officer was on patrol, near McDonald’s.  I heard Deputy McCloud by radio go 10-81 Hwy 421 North right acros from Ralph Stout Park.  Then I heard checking three Driver License.  I then headed his way.  Upon my arrival I seen Deputy McCloud sitting in his vehicle with his emergency lights on.  I pulled in behind him and turned my lights on.  I went towards Deputy McClouds vehicle and asked him if everything was O.K.  I told dispatch Center where I was.  Deputy McCloud asked dispatch Center to get the other city Officer to retrieve the Criminal Summons on the subject in the vehicle.  As we waited a Hummer was traveling South on Hwy 421.  The driver drove by real slow.  I watched the Hummer turn around and come back to Deputy McClouds traffic stop.  The driver then stopped where we were.  I seen a red light come on through the drivers side window, then this subject stated, “Smile, I’m going to take your picture.  He then drove off traveling North on Hwy 421.  I watched this same vehicle turn back around and Deputy McCloud asked me to stop this vehicle for him.  I stopped the Hummer and Deputy McCloud asked the driver Why did you take our picture?  Deputy McCloud then asked the driver to delete the picture and told him he could leave.  The driver was Mr. Conover.  this man became very irrate and started cursing.  Deputy McCloud asked Mr. Conover just to delete the picture and he refused.  this Officer heard the woman in the passenger seat say “Just Delete It.” Two children were sitting in the back seat as well.  Deputy McCloud then placed Mr. Conover under arrest For Disorderly Conduct, Unlawful Photographing and Pointing a Laser at Law Enforcement Officers.  Deputy McCloud asked Patrolman Ben May for his handcuffs.  Two sets were used on this subject.  Deputy McCloud then asked this officer if I would transport this man to the Johnson County Jail.

Officer Kenneth Lane
[signed - Kenneth Lane]
06-12-08

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS STATEMENT—Statement from Mountain City police officer who arrived on scene while officers were questioning driver of Hummer.

MOUNTAIN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT STATEMENT FORM

ON JUNE SIXTH 2008, DEPUTY STARLING MCCLOUD, WITH THE JOHNSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND OFFICER KEN LANE WITH THE MOUNTAIN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, WERE ON A TRAFFIC STOP ON HIGHWAY 421.  ONE OF THE SUBJECTS IN THE VEHICLE HAD A CRIMINAL SUMMONS TO BE SERVED.  DEPUTY MCCLOUD REQUESTED THAT I, OFFICER BEN MAY WITH THE MOUNTAIN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, GO THE THE JOHNSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND PICK UP THE CRIMINAL SUMMONS THAT WAS TO BE SERVED.  WHILE EN ROUTE TO THE TRAFFIC STOP, OFFICER LANE REQUESTED THAT I UPGRADE TO EMERGENCY TRAFFIC.  UPON MY ARRIVAL I OBSERVED A WHITE, AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE A GOLD, COLORED FORD MUSTANG, SETTING ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. DEPUTY MCCLOUD’S PATROL CAR WAS SETTING BEHIND THE MUSTANG.  ALONG WITH OFFICER LANE’S PATROL CAR BEHIND DEPUTY MCCLOUD’S PATROL CAR.  I ALSO OBSERVED A COPPER COLORED HUMMER SETTING IN THE SOUTH BOUND LANE ON HIGHWAY 421.  OFFICER LANE AND DEPUTY MCCLOUD WERE SPEAKING WITH A MALE SUBJECT BESIDE THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HUMMER.  THE MALE SUBJECT WAS OUT OF THE VEHICLE, WAVING HIS ARM’S AND APPEARED TO BE DISORDERLY.  I APPROACHED THE MALE SUBJECT AND THE ABOVE NAMED OFFICERS.  WHEN I GOT TO THE VEHICLE, DEPUTY MCCLOUD REQUESTED THAT THE SUBJECT SHOW HIM A PICTURE THAT HE HAD APPARENTLY TAKEN BEFORE MY ARRIVAL.  THE MALE SUBJECT REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH DEPUTY MCCLOUD.  DEPUTY MCCLOUD THEN PLACED THE SUBJECT UNDER ARREST FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT.  DEPUTY MCCLOUD WAS PLACING THE SUBJECT IN HAND RESTRAINTS.  WHILE DEPUTY MCCLOUD WAS PLACING THE SUBJECT IN HAND RESTRAINTS, THE SUBJECT DEMANDED THAT HIS DAUGHTER TAKE ANOTHER PICTURE.  I THEN SEEN A YOUNG GIRL TAKE A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT, DEPUTY MCCLOUD, AND MYSELF.  DEPUTY MCCLOUD PLACED THE SUBJECT IN THE BACK OF OFFICER LANE’S PTROL CAR. DEPUTY MCCLOUD THEN FINISHED THE TRAFFIC STOP WITH THE FORD MUSTANG AND SERVED THE CRIMINAL SUMMONS.  AFTER THE SUBJECT FOR DEPUTY MCCLOUD FINISHED THE TRAFFIC STOP, OFFICER LANE TRANSPORTED THE SUBJECT FOR DEPUTY MCCLOUD TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT.  I WA NOT INVOLVED ANY FURTHER.

I SEAR THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS TURE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

[signed - Patrolman Ben May]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TENNESSEE CODE

39-13-605. Unlawful photographing in violation of privacy. —

(a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly photograph, or cause to be photographed an individual, when the individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without the prior effective consent of the individual, or in the case of a minor, without the prior effective consent of the minor’s parent or guardian, if the photograph:

(1) Would offend or embarrass an ordinary person if such person appeared in the photograph; and

(2) Was taken for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant.

(b) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, “photograph” means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission of any individual so that the individual is readily identifiable.

(c) All photographs taken in violation of this section shall be confiscated and, after their use as evidence, destroyed.

(d) (1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(2) If the defendant disseminates or permits the dissemination of the photograph to any other person, a violation of this section is a Class E felony.
[Acts 1994, ch. 970, § 2; 1997, ch. 469, §§ 1, 2; 2000, ch. 667, § 2.]

39-16-515. Pointing a laser at a law enforcement officer. —

(a) It is an offense to knowingly activate and point a laser pointer or other device utilizing a laser beam at a person known to be a law enforcement officer while the officer is in the performance of the officer’s official duties with the intent to place the officer in fear of serious bodily injury or death.

(b) In order for subsection (a) to apply:

(1) The law enforcement officer must actually be placed in fear of serious bodily injury or death;

(2) The fear must be real or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(3) Based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s conduct, the fear must be founded upon reasonable grounds.

(c) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
[Acts 1999, ch. 146, § 1.]

39-17-305. Disorderly conduct. —

(a) A person commits an offense who, in a public place and with intent to cause public annoyance or alarm:

(1) Engages in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior;

(2) Refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard or other emergency; or

(3) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) A person also violates this section who makes unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on lawful activities.

(c) A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.]

[Superfly]

And if that weren't enough...  Don't take pics of your kids, you PEDO!

Father-of-three branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park

By David Wilkes
Last updated at 7:26 PM on 15th July 2008

When Gary Crutchley started taking pictures of his children playing on an inflatable slide he thought they would be happy reminders of a family day out.

But the innocent snaps of seven-year-old Cory, and Miles, five, led to him being called a ‘pervert’.

The woman running the slide at Wolverhampton Show asked him what he was doing and other families waiting in the queue demanded that he stop.



Picture of innocence: The photograph Gary Crutchley took of his sons Cory and Miles

One even accused him of photographing youngsters to put the pictures on the internet.

Mr Crutchley, 39, who had taken pictures only of his own children, was so enraged that he found two policemen who confirmed he had done nothing wrong.

Yesterday he said: ‘What is the world coming to when anybody seen with a camera is assumed to be doing things that they should not?

‘This parental paranoia is getting completely out of hand. I was so shocked. One of the police officers told me that it was just the way society-is these days. He agreed with me that it was madness.’

Father- of-three Mr Crutchley, a consultant for a rubber manufacturer from Walsall, West Midlands, was with his wife Tracey and their sons when the pleasant Sunday afternoon out turned sour.

He said: ‘The children wanted to go on an inflatable slide and I started taking photos of them having a good time. Moments later the woman running the slide told me to stop.

‘When I asked why, she told me I could not take pictures of other people’s children. I explained I was only interested in taking photos of my own children and pointed out that this was taking place in a public park.

‘I showed her the photos I had taken to prove my point. Then another woman joined in and said her child was also on the slide and did not want me taking pictures of the youngster.
Gary and Tracey Crutchley with Cory, left, and Miles

All together now, smile: Gary and Tracey with Cory, left, and Miles

‘I repeated that the only people being being photographed were my own children. She said I could be taking pictures of just any child to put on the internet and called me a pervert. We immediately left the show.’

Mrs Crutchley, 37, a teaching support assistant and qualified nursery nurse, said: ‘I was shocked by the reaction of those women.

'It is very sad when every man with a camera enjoying a Sunday afternoon out in the park with his children is automatically assumed to be a pervert.’

The slide was run by Tracey Dukes, 35, whose father Malcolm Gwinnett has an inflatables hire company.

Mr Gwinnett, 58, a LibDem councillor in Wolverhampton, said: ‘Our policy is to ask people taking photos whether they have children on the slide. If they do, then that is fine.

‘But on this occasion another customer took exception to what the man was doing and an argument developed between those two people that continued without any further involvement from staff on the slide.’

[Agnos]

Who said cops were smart?

Perhaps we'll ban cameras next.



http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/man_arrested_for_unlawful_photography/11576/

typical - coppers treating their own taxpayers like shit

this one should get himself a swastika emblazoned on his uniform
hopefully the next time someone points something at him it won't be a cellphone

And if that weren't enough...  Don't take pics of your kids, you PEDO!

Father-of-three branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park

hey comrade, those are times where you can get raided by armed stormtroopers for clicking on a link



and of course if the father had been a police officer himself he wouldn't even have had to explain himself - only brandish his police badge and his accusers would've shut up...

two sets of laws, two mentalities depending on the caste of the "culprit"

heck over there even if you're a real pedo you're relatively safe if you've got this magic talisman (da badge)

[MommaSquid]

  What do you do?

4.  Insist that you have the right to take photographs in public places, and refuse to hand over your camera or delete your photos.

  A.  Based on your choice, what do you think would happen next?

The cop would either go away or dig his heels in.  Maybe I’d be hauled off for questioning.  Maybe not.

  B.  What do you think would happen as a result of the choices you didn't make?

 
Maybe I’d spend a few hours in a police station answering or declining to answer questions.  And I’d probably get the mother of all headaches.  But I'd be right.  (I love being right!)

  C.  Is there such thing as a camera license in your country? 

 
No.

  D.  Do you think I just came up with this scenario off the top of my head, or do you think it has any basis in reality?

 
Superfly, you are firmly planted in reality.

  E.  Is it an effective terrorist deterrent to treat all people who take pictures in public places as a potential terrorist?

 
No.

  F.  Have you ever been told that you cannot take photographs somewhere?  Where was it?  Do you think you did have the right to take photos there? 

Photo restrictions exist on private property (concert venues, museums, etc.)  These restrictions are lawful.

  Did you take photos anyway, or did you comply?  If you took photos anyway, what happened?  If you complied, what do you think would have happened if you had taken photos?

I complied with the photo restrictions.  Since I paid to get in I weighed the risk involved;  if caught, I would have been escorted off the premises.  Not worth the risk. 

  G.  Have you ever taken photos covertly, in public -- with the intent that others won't see you taking them?  Are you allowed to do so, as far as you know?

I have limited ninja skills.  In public places, picture taking is allowed.  One has no expectation of privacy in a public place.

  H.  Would you report to the police an unaccompanied adult male apparently taking photographs of children in a playground?  Why or why not?

I am not psychic and therefore do not know who belongs with whom on a playground.  If my gut was telling me something was wrong, I would need to get more information.  For example, maybe I’d ask the kids if they knew the man with the camera.  If none of them said ‘yes’, maybe I’d talk to the man or another adult.  My first instinct isn't to call the cops. 

  I.  What, in your mind, is a good example of the kind of suspicious activity that should be reported to the police?  What's the bare minimum?

Suspicious activity is very subjective.  It could be something as simple as a new car parking on my street.

  J.  Have you ever reported suspicious activity?  Do you think there are people more prone to do so?  Why? 

I have reported illegal activity, but not suspicious activity.  I’m the kind of person who gathers information before bothering an already busy police force with something that could be nothing.  Things that seem suspicious at first glance often become clear in short order.

  K.  Do you think it's appropriate for the government to install and use video cameras on its buildings, roads, etc.? 

I would rather have a competent (and larger) police force than a bunch of cameras being manned by untrained security personnel.

  L.  What do you think about a national identification card? 

Papieren, bitte! 

  M.  If you were running the government, would you make use of video surveillance of public places?  Would you implement a national identification card?  Would you require citizens to have camera licenses to take pictures of government buildings?

No, no and no.

[rickymooston]

1.  Delete your photographs while the officer watches.

I would do this. Afterwards i might inquire of the authorities about that but typically when authorties ask me do this, I comply.  This ACTUALLY happened to me!!!

On my way back from Vietnam in the Airport in Vancouver, I took a picture of my friend's parents in a baggage cart. A security guy asked to see my camera because I was in the secure area. I showed him the pictures. He saw they were harmless and told me not to take any more in that area.

...

Follow-up questions.
A.  Based on your choice, what do you think would happen next?

I assume I'd get a warning etc.

B.  What do you think would happen as a result of the choices you didn't make?

Well losing my camera would suck. As for the other options, ... I'm not sure. I understand WHY authorties are occasionally paranoid about pictures being taken. I might not like it but well

C.  Is there such thing as a camera license in your country? 

In general no but sometimes journalists get special priveledges.

D.  Do you think I just came up with this scenario off the top of my head, or do you think it has any basis in reality?

It has basis in reality. Its always been illegal to take pictures of bridges in communist countries and here in Canada, on occasion, people have been watched or questioned taking pictures of subways and other strategic potential terrorirst/military targets.

E.  Is it an effective terrorist deterrent to treat all people who take pictures in public places as a potential terrorist?

I think some thought has to be made about that. In general tourists like taking pictures but making clearer rules might be a good idea. To date, we've not caught a terrorist in this way. typically we capture terrorists by spying on "suspicious" and co-operation from people such as muslims civilians.

F.  Have you ever been told that you cannot take photographs somewhere?  Where was it?  Do you think you did have the right to take photos there?  Did you take photos anyway, or did you comply?  If you took photos anyway, what happened?  If you complied, what do you think would have happened if you had taken photos?

Yes, i was told and after being told I complied. Once for security reasons, several times for public relations reasons. (tried take pic of hockey dispkay in wall,art)

G.  Have you ever taken photos covertly, in public -- with the intent that others won't see you taking them?  Are you allowed to do so, as far as you know?

Yes but not with anything that I perceive as being a potential military target. Just in stores and hockey stadiums.

H.  Would you report to the police an unaccompanied adult male apparently taking photographs of children in a playground?  Why or why not?

I probably would not notice. Realistically speaking, I probably should report them. I would not really like too. Trade off between fearing the person is stalker pervert and thinking it is just somebody taking pictures.

I.  What, in your mind, is a good example of the kind of suspicious activity that should be reported to the police?  What's the bare minimum?

Its a tough call. Better if there are public guidelines. Its annoying to me tho because moose is unoffical journalist. .

J.  Have you ever reported suspicious activity?  Do you think there are people more prone to do so?  Why? 

No. But i've never really seen suspicious activity.

K.  Do you think it's appropriate for the government to install and use video cameras on its buildings, roads, etc.? 

Sadly, yes. We have cases where people get assaulted when there is no surveilance around. Potential terrorists who are stupid would indeed target these places too.

L.  What do you think about a national identification card? 

I think it actually makes sense. I mean we have driving licenses used as one. I don't drive, I'd prefer everybody identified and on file. This could prevent IDENTITY theft. ^^.

M.  If you were running the government, would you make use of video surveillance of public places?  Would you implement a national identification card?  Would you require citizens to have camera licenses to take pictures of government buildings?

1. video surveilance? Where its useful YES. However, warning signs would be there.
2. Yes, a national ID card with finger prints and photographs etc, could be useful to protect people from fraud. I don't think it would be much value against terrorism because terrorists could still be DOMESTiC citizens. In fact, smart terrorists would cross their t's and dot their i's.
3. No, in general, I would allow people to take pictures of public buildings but if I had places considered high risk, i might consider making appropriate rules and make sure its known. For example, bridges. military bases etc.

[Superfly]

Sigh... When will it end?

Photographing thugs 'is assault', police tell householder snapping proof of anti-social behaviour

By Neil Sears
Last updated at 9:44 AM on 21st July 2008

A householder who took photographs of hooded teenagers as evidence of their anti-social behaviour says he was told he was breaking the law after they called the police.

David Green, 64, and his neighbours had been plagued by the youths from a nearby comprehensive school for months, and was advised by their headmaster to identify them so action could be taken.

Picture of yobs taken by David Green

One of Mr Green's pictures shows two hooded teenagers, one making an obscene gesture towards the camera

But when Mr Green left his £1million London flat to take photographs of the gang, who were aged around 17, he said one threatened to kill him while another called the police on his mobile.

And he claimed that a Police Community Support Officer sent to the scene promptly issued a warning that taking pictures of youths without permission was illegal, and could lead to a charge of assault.

Last night Mr Green, a television cameraman, said he was appalled that the legal system's first priority seemed not to be stopping frightening anti-social behaviour by aggressive youths, but protecting them from being photographed by the concerned public.

Mr Green, a father-of-two, lives with his programme-maker wife Judy in a penthouse flat close to Waterloo station.

He said: 'We've had problems with this group shouting abuse and throwing stones for months, and were asked to identify them.

'When I went to take photographs of eight of them throwing cans of Coke around, six of them ran away, one threatened to kill me, and another one started phoning the police.

'A couple of hours later, a Police Community Support Officer told me I had been accused of assault, though no such thing occurred, and told me I was not allowed to take photographs of teenagers on the street.

'I think it's wrong that when teenagers are running riot and the police are called, it's about me, and I'm treated like a criminal.

'In South London we all know how many stabbings there have been, and I think the police should be busy catching the real bad people.'

Mr Green said he handed his pictures to a deputy headmaster at the nearby Nautical School, and was promised the matter would be investigated.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the force had no record of the incident.

Last week, the Daily Mail reported that a father was told by a play equipment supervisor he was not allowed to take pictures of his own children on a slide.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036728/Photographing-thugs-assault-police-tell-householder-snapping-proof-anti-social-behaviour.html

[rickymooston]

Sigh... When will it end?

Photographing thugs 'is assault', police tell householder snapping proof of anti-social behaviour

By Neil Sears
Last updated at 9:44 AM on 21st July 2008

A householder who took photographs of hooded teenagers as evidence of their anti-social behaviour says he was told he was breaking the law after they called the police.

David Green, 64, and his neighbours had been plagued by the youths from a nearby comprehensive school for months, and was advised by their headmaster to identify them so action could be taken.

Picture of yobs taken by David Green

One of Mr Green's pictures shows two hooded teenagers, one making an obscene gesture towards the camera

But when Mr Green left his £1million London flat to take photographs of the gang, who were aged around 17, he said one threatened to kill him while another called the police on his mobile.

And he claimed that a Police Community Support Officer sent to the scene promptly issued a warning that taking pictures of youths without permission was illegal, and could lead to a charge of assault.
...

That is plain silly. 

[Superfly]

Yep, it's never going to end...


http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=232145&in_page_id=34

My pool picture ban over paedophile fears
Wednesday, July 23, 2008



Betty Robinson banned from taking photos in playground

An amateur photographer was told she could not take snaps of an empty paddling pool because she might be a paedophile.

Betty Robinson was ordered to put away her camera by a council worker when she began snapping the outdoor pool.

'It's absolutely ridiculous – it's bureaucracy gone mad,' said the 82-year-old widow from Southampton.

She was with friend Brenda Bennett as she took pictures of the city's common – where the pool is situated.

'We're a couple of old ladies. We're certainly not paedophiles,' she added.

Southampton City Council apologised but said: 'It is appropriate that our staff are aware of who is taking photos.'