Taken into custody.

[lankforddl]

I just got busted taking photos near an oil refinery. They surrounded me with three or four vehicles and read me some kind of rights (not the Miranda Rights) and required me to delete my photos or I would be investigated by the FBI. Seriously? This place is on the highway (50 feet away) and I wasn't on their property. It really made me feel like I was in George Orwell's 1984. Anyone else experience anything like this?

Taken into custody (figure of speech)

[yogestee]

The world has gone mad!!

[Skrim17]

'they' meaning police or security for the refinery?

[lankforddl]

'they' meaning police or security for the refinery?

Security of the refinery. Some in marked cars/clothing and a couple in unmarked. It was crazy how fast the converged on me and on a public street.

[john-in-japan]

Not enough information to consider.
Busted = Arrested?
They = Police?
Did you delete?
You really need to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...OK?
John

[deadpass]

If they were security and you were on public property then the most they can do is ask you to delete. They'll make it sound more official but they're not LEOs. I would've told them to get bent or I'll call the actual police.

[JeffreyG]

If you did delete the pictures, you can recover them pretty easily (just don't reshoot on the same card).

The jack-booted thugs never seem to understand that 'delete' does not equal 'gone forever'.

[jchargu3]

I think its BS of them to do so, but, Considering how gas prices are affected by anything going wrong at a refinery and you can seriously light a neverending fire if you were a terribleist (yes I know, terrorist) then they are just doing what they are told to do.

The general rule is, or as I've always followed, if you can see it, you can shoot it, as long as you are on public property, but sometimes its NOT worth the fight.

[lankforddl]

If you did delete the pictures, you can recover them pretty easily (just don't reshoot on the same card).


The jack-booted thugs never seem to understand that 'delete' does not equal 'gone forever'.

How do you recommend recovering them? I haven't taken any photos since I deleted.

[Skrim17]

So...you weren't taken into custody or even addressed by the police. they asked and you acquiesced, a smart move I'm sure, tho off of their property they have no legal foot on which to stand.

[deadpass]

How do you recommend recovering them? I haven't taken any photos since I deleted.

There are numerous data recovery programs out there, most work quite well when the data hasn't been lost due to corruption.

[rijndael]

How do you recommend recovering them? I haven't taken any photos since I deleted.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=670801

[themadman]

Thats a load of crap. Private security tried to exercise authority on public property? Glad you got away with any problems. Hope you recover your pictures.

[yogestee]

If you did delete the pictures, you can recover them pretty easily (just don't reshoot on the same card).

The jack-booted thugs never seem to understand that 'delete' does not equal 'gone forever'.

Shhhhhhhhh ;)

I love living in a country where I can photograph almost anything and anyone..

[MJPhotos24]

Why did you delete? TELL them to call the police, you'll wait, because only a judge can make you delete them and only if you obtained them illegally, which it seems you have not done. Don't be a jackass to them but know your rights people.

There's plenty of videos of this crap happening all over the place, it's a disgrace.

[gorgon2k]

"It is also an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only a photograph as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful."

[asysin2leads]

LAWYER! Your civil rights were violated and violated in a big way. There is nothing illegal about taking photos of an oil refinery. If you were on public roadway, then they have absolutely NO jurisdiction.

[asysin2leads]

"It is also an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only a photograph as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful."

Man, did that give me a headache. They would be hard-pressed to prove there was anything terroristic about taking a photo of an oil refinery.

[Karl Johnston]

With all the stuff in the news lately I can understand the hysteria but at the same time ^ I agree with Kevin, there's still no excuse. Isn't the point of protecting freedom jeopardized when we start jeopardizing each other's rights to that freedom? Within reason of course, there isn't very much info on where this refinery is...if its gov't or private, then they can probably stop you from photographing on their property without permission but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know

[FlyingPhotog]

<SNIP>

A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful."

Which I take to mean the burden of proof is squarely on the Prosecution which must prove intent.

I really wouldn't wish it on anyone but just once, I'd like to see them jack up someone with great gear, tons of cash and plenty of time just to run this through the courts once to prove how rediculous it really is.

[NeutronBoy]

Sure, it's all ridiculous until something gets blown up ... don't you watch the news? These things are real, people are out there trying to get back at us. We ARE in a war status now and the enemy is in our country. Smell the coffee.

[Karl Johnston]

Sure, it's all ridiculous until something gets blown up ... don't you watch the news? These things are real, people are out there trying to get back at us. We ARE in a war status now and the enemy is in our country. Smell the coffee.
Irony is George Orwell's book 1984 talks a lot about the influence of media and government and propaganda.

Not trying to insinuate anything but it's an interesting perspective to remember. Without going into politics we need to take care of our liberties, imo, and continue to live in respect to each other as we always did ..otherwise isn't that giving our enemies an (albeit small) victory?

[S30L28]

I would have walked away and if they tried to do anything, I would have called the 'actual' cops.

EDIT: Recover your photos and post. :D

[breal101]

Sure, it's all ridiculous until something gets blown up ... don't you watch the news? These things are real, people are out there trying to get back at us. We ARE in a war status now and the enemy is in our country. Smell the coffee.

Are they, just who is the enemy? Is it OK to take away freedom to protect it?:rolleyes:


In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act: George Orwell

[MT Stringer]

It sounds ridiculous to me when Google probably has better detailed photos available to anyone on earth.

[Karl Johnston]

I can see and make out the make of my car in the driveway using google maps....

[FlyingPhotog]

Under the heading of "Don't Agonize, Organize!"

Is there any advocacy group doing anything to educate and inform the public (and security-related organizations) on the advantages of having a watchful and active press (and by extension, group of photographers?)

In the Aviation World, we have both AOPA and EAA working hand in hand in an effort to make people see the light as it relates to aviation in general and General Aviation in particular and how important it is to the American way of life. Contrary to what USA Today would have you belive, flying is not exclusively the domain of the uber rich. In a similar vein, photography is not the domain of only the uber sneaky or malicious but I guess no one thinks photography is of suitable importance to "push back" on some of these security-related falicies...

[asysin2leads]

Sure, it's all ridiculous until something gets blown up ... don't you watch the news? These things are real, people are out there trying to get back at us. We ARE in a war status now and the enemy is in our country. Smell the coffee.

Really? You're going with that? Just how much recon do you think the 9-11 terrorists did? They blended in. They were trying to stay under the radar, which they did. Have you seen Google Earth lately? I can see the CIA HQ at Langley clear as a bell. I can see roads in and out of the facility. They could stop all 227,208 members of POTN and still couldn't make a case for terrorism.

[JeffreyG]

Sure, it's all ridiculous until something gets blown up ... don't you watch the news? These things are real, people are out there trying to get back at us. We ARE in a war status now and the enemy is in our country. Smell the coffee.

Smell the coffee yourself. Where has there ever been a case of terrorists wandering around with great big dSLR cameras looking as obvious as possible?

Doesn't it seem like they would just use Google Earth? Or a cell phone pressed inconsipicuously to one ear?

This whole thing reminds me of that time when the airline ticket agent had to ask you 'Did you pack your own bag?" Guess what? If you packed a bomb into your own bag the answer is still 'yes'!

So much of what passes for 'security' in our reaction to terrorism is simply mindless authoritarianism. We could not profile a Nigerian on a watch list who had been to Yemen several times, paid cash and was traveling with no bags.

But we can hassle a guy standing outside a refinery with a great big camera.

Smart.

[john-in-japan]

Are we not getting ahead of ourselves?
He was NOT arrested - They were NOT the police.
He was asked to delete the photos - he had a choice to make - comply with request or not comply.
No indication of rudeness on anyone's part. If taken from public property, no foul. Where is the beef?
OP had the option to comply or not comply with a request. Over reaction on the part of security - perhaps - perhaps not? OP gives minimal information on what was said, so really can't tell if these were security folks simply trying to do their job or worse. Getting "busted" was not true. Lets get the full story. What was said and what was done?
John

[FlyingPhotog]

We could not profile a Nigerian on a watch list who had been to Yemen several times, paid cash and was traveling with no bags.

You said the "P" word...

Until we stop worrying about offending and start worrying about defending .. not much is gonna change. :(

[S30L28]

Are we not getting ahead of ourselves?
He was NOT arrested - They were NOT the police.
He was asked to delete the photos - he had a choice to make - comply with request or not comply.
No indication of rudeness on anyone's part. If taken from public property, no foul. Where is the beef?
OP had the option to comply or not comply with a request. Over reaction on the part of security - perhaps - perhaps not? OP gives minimal information on what was said, so really can't tell if these were security folks simply trying to do their job or worse. Getting "busted" was not true. Lets get the full story. What was said and what was done?
John

+1

I also feel that some information is being withheld from OP's post as well.

[JeffreyG]

You said the "P" word...

Until we stop worrying about offending and start worrying about defending .. not much is gonna change. :(

Nothing wrong with profiling people based on where they have visited (Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc), How they pay (cash), what they bring (no bags) and what list they are on (a terrorist watch list).

The Sikhs who work for me would be grateful if TSA would learn that turbans are not really associated with Islam.

[FlyingPhotog]

Nothing wrong with profiling people based on where they have visited (Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc), How they pay (cash), what they bring (no bags) and what list they are on (a terrorist watch list).

The Sikhs who work for me would be grateful if TSA would learn that turbans are not really associated with Islam.

Agree all the way around...

[MT Stringer]

I can see and make out the make of my car in the driveway using google maps....

It didn't take but about 30 seconds to check out the chemical plant I worked in for 33 years. I see the new combined control room is in place (two years old). They also have the north fan shut down on the big cooling tower (used to help control water temps). And my buddy is still asleep in the office with his feet on the desk! Ha! Just kidding!

[blackhawk]

Security of the refinery. Some in marked cars/clothing and a couple in unmarked. It was crazy how fast the converged on me and on a public street.

They can't take your equipment, or images, and they can ask for the moon...

That's not being busted... and you should have know better then to play around 911 hot spots.
Yes, the FBI still makes house calls, no joke.

Next time ask either the refinery, or contact your local FBI office, and tell them where and when you intend to shoot.
As long as your on public property, your within your rights.
Try not to make others nervous though, as it serves you no purpose.

[mpeters]

If you were truly restrained on a public street by a private security force then when are you planning on filing your unlawful restraint complaint? Even if you did not want to cause a confrontation with them on site - why didn't you call the police after you left?

[Gedanken]

If it happened the way the OP described it, I'd agree that it's over the top. That said, I don't disagree with them actually stopping the OP from taking photographs. All things being equal there nothing to say that the OP was not casing the joint for an attak, and an oil refinery can make a pretty spectacular mess.

As for the 9/11 terrorists blending in, nobody followed up on a bunch of guys who went to a flight school and showed no interest in landing a plane, and everybody ended up feeling pretty stupid after that. Taken from the security guys' point of view, would you want to look dumb for not following up on some guy walking round the refinery with a big camera if an attack did happen?

[dispatchermike21]

We sure live in exciting times.

[john-in-japan]

To the OP - Your thread title was "Taken into custody." True or False?
For Blackhawk - +1
John

[blackhawk]

Are we not getting ahead of ourselves?
He was NOT arrested - They were NOT the police.
He was asked to delete the photos - he had a choice to make - comply with request or not comply.
No indication of rudeness on anyone's part. If taken from public property, no foul. Where is the beef?
OP had the option to comply or not comply with a request. Over reaction on the part of security - perhaps - perhaps not? OP gives minimal information on what was said, so really can't tell if these were security folks simply trying to do their job or worse. Getting "busted" was not true. Lets get the full story. What was said and what was done?
John

Actually they were being polite as they could have just as easily observed covertly, taped his activities and vehicle + tag, then let 2 FBI field agents drop by a week or so later unannounced for a chat and to look at pictures... which is much more unnerving.

[kgoings]

To the OP - Your thread title was "Taken into custody." True or False?
For Blackhawk - +1
John

exactly...drumming up some drama

[tkbslc]

Sure, it's all ridiculous until something gets blown up ... don't you watch the news? These things are real, people are out there trying to get back at us. We ARE in a war status now and the enemy is in our country. Smell the coffee.

Wow, really? So can we search your house just to make sure we are safe from you.

[lankforddl]

So wow, this sparked a heated conversation. Here's the info that some posts seem to want to know. I'm a student at the University of Minnesota. I was out on public roads photographing the winter scenery: farm fields, old tractors, and the refinery, etc... While driving down a very public frontage road near highway 52 in Rosemont, MN three security guards on foot flagged me down and surrounded my vehicle with their vehicles. Somewhere between 5-8 security personnel surrounded me and began the questioning. They were just doing what they're told to do, but I did feel very intimidated by their overwhelming presence. I was just happy to get out of there with my several K worth of gear. I was afraid that they were going to confiscate my camera equipment.

do a flickr search on "koch refinery" and there are tons of photos of this place.

[kgoings]

three security guards on foot flagged me down and surrounded my vehicle with their vehicles.

So which is it? On foot or in vehicles? Were you "Taken into custody" as you claimed?

[asysin2leads]

So which is it? On foot or in vehicles? Were you

Technically, it could be both. They could have surrounded his vehicle w/ their's in order to prevent him from getting back in his car and leaving. Although, at that particular time, he was walking on the street.

[kgoings]

Technically, it could be both. They could have surrounded his vehicle w/ their's in order to prevent him from getting back in his car and leaving. Although, at that particular time, he was walking on the street.

three security guards on foot flagged me down and surrounded my vehicle with their vehicles

[lankforddl]

So which is it? On foot or in vehicles? Were you "Taken into custody" as you claimed?

Both. people on foot and in vehicle. Now I'm being questioned by you? lol. And the "taken into custody" is ambigious statement. I guess I could have ripped out of there and ran from them.?!

[kgoings]

Both. people on foot and in vehicle. Now I'm being questioned by you? lol. And the "taken into custody" is ambigious statement. I guess I could have ripped out of there and ran from them.?!

Run next time! lol Or call the cops. Never been in that situation but remember your rights, I am sure you were spooked

[lankforddl]

Run next time! lol Or call the cops. Never been in that situation but remember your rights, I am sure you were spooked

It's easy to say what you'd do but when you're faced with that situation, you can't remember how many or what "exactly", your heart is racing, and the fight or flight response kicks in.

Moral of the story: Big Corp and Gov't runs the show and we're just the proletariat's.

[blackhawk]

Time to bump it up a notch. Field trip to the Idaho National Laboratory‎.
Pics or it never happened.

[john-in-japan]

Greetings!
Often these threads get a life of their own, particularly when 'ambiguous'. You were NOT busted, NOT taken into custody. Starting off by saying this happened is very misleading. Actually, you had nothing to worry about and had two choices. Comply with their request or not comply and wait for competent authority to arrive. You made your choice and it is over with. If competent authority arrived and verified you were on public property, you would be on your way, albeit somewhat delayed.
In short, you were in control, not 'Big Corp or Gov't'. You took the easy way out - no problem. I am glad it was not escalated like many of these encounters have been reported.
Cheers,
John

[Marshal.F]

It really made me feel like I was in George Orwell's 1984. Anyone else experience anything like this?

It has, In my school every teacher is miced the students are almost required to answer into mics, and the teachers basically only teach on theses projectors. The school can see and hear exactly what the teacher is saying. There is far more crazy surveillance stuff out there, like cameras that can ID you based on how you walk., its nuts.

[lankforddl]

Greetings!
Often these threads get a life of their own, particularly when 'ambiguous'. You were NOT busted, NOT taken into custody. Starting off by saying this happened is very misleading. Actually, you had nothing to worry about and had two choices. Comply with their request or not comply and wait for competent authority to arrive. You made your choice and it is over with. If competent authority arrived and verified you were on public property, you would be on your way, albeit somewhat delayed.
In short, you were in control, not 'Big Corp or Gov't'. You took the easy way out - no problem. I am glad it was not escalated like many of these encounters have been reported.
Cheers,
John

Hey John. I must admit I did use a risky title for this post on purpose. The point was to stir the pot about a photography experience that some photographers will experience at some point in their lives.

[CalPiker]

Both. people on foot and in vehicle. Now I'm being questioned by you? lol. And the "taken into custody" is ambigious statement. I guess I could have ripped out of there and ran from them.?!

"Unlawfully detained" would have been the correct term to use if they surrounded your car on a public road and wouldn't let you leave.

[Todd Lambert]

I encountered a very similar scenario awhile back. I was shooting off the main (public) road, but my car and my tripod were probably on Chevron property. I was outside of the fence, but it was still probably their property.

Anyways, within 1.5 min of setting up my tripod, a truck drove up and I was detained by security. After a few questions about who I was, with me answering them pretty vaguely, and a few calls on the radio to his superior, I was allowed to leave. They did not try and have me remove the images though, which I wouldn't have done anyways.

I have shot several refinery locations and never had anyone bat an eyelash, except for this time.

http://lambertphotography.com/admin/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/CRW_6726-615x408.jpg

[mpeters]

So, rather than spew the "big Gov't/big Business" line, why don't you pick up the phone and file an unlawful restraint complaint with the local law enforcement office? Then, walk down to the local circuit court and draw up your civil complaint.

[ssim]

Are we not getting ahead of ourselves?
He was NOT arrested - They were NOT the police.
He was asked to delete the photos - he had a choice to make - comply with request or not comply.
No indication of rudeness on anyone's part. If taken from public property, no foul. Where is the beef?
OP had the option to comply or not comply with a request. Over reaction on the part of security - perhaps - perhaps not? OP gives minimal information on what was said, so really can't tell if these were security folks simply trying to do their job or worse. Getting "busted" was not true. Lets get the full story. What was said and what was done?
John
This is one of the more common sense posts I have seen in this thread. By the OP's own admission earlier in this thread he was trying to "stir the pot" which, imo, we don't need. If someone is trying to muster the ranks to help them by writing to legal or elected officials we need facts not innuendo and commentary.

The world we live in is changing on a frequent basis but some refuse to change with it. If I was going to stop and shoot a refinery I would first seek permission or at the very least advise them of my intention. One has to stop and think that if they are taking photographs of a venue that could be classified as a viable terrorist target. No one wants to take any responsibility but in this day and age a little preplanning and thought will save some headaches down the road.

I am sure that the OP felt intimidated but it sounds like the security people were not over bearing or rude to him. I am hoping that someone can correct me on this, it is my understanding that there are some places that can have security that have virtually the same powers as the police, in that they can pack heat and hold you in temporary custody until the regional police force arrives. You do not have to actually be on their property but be in interaction with their property or people. I got this from a friend that is a retired cop in San Diego and I assume that he knows what he is talking about.

In any event, I see this thread for exactly what it is, pot stirring on a story line that is fairly thin.

[yogestee]

Reading this thread reminded me of what happened to me back in the mid 1980s.. I was working as a photographer for a large iron and steel plant in Australia.. I was assigned to photograph a new plant installation at night for PR purposes.. I chose to shoot this plant from a public bridge over looking the plant.. I was shooting for around 30 minutes when a police car and security car stopped and I was questioned what I was doing.. I didn't have any ID on me proving I worked for this organisation and was asked to hand over my exposed films.. Not wanting to argue I did just that,, I could have argued my point and stood my ground.. The next morning the Superintendent of Security came to see me telling me films were confiscated from a member of the public and could I process them for him.. I thanked him for returning my films to me,,red faces all round..

The point of my post is that what happened to the OP isn't new.. Remember this happened well before 911.. Industrial plant owners just don't like the public photographing their plants for many reasons.. Industrial espionage is one reason.. Cameras are banned from visitors..

[mpeters]

Industrial plant owners just don't like the public photographing their plants for many reasons.

Then they shouldn't leave them visible to the public.

[blackhawk]

This is one of the more common sense posts I have seen in this thread. By the OP's own admission earlier in this thread he was trying to "stir the pot" which, imo, we don't need. If someone is trying to muster the ranks to help them by writing to legal or elected officials we need facts not innuendo and commentary.

The world we live in is changing on a frequent basis but some refuse to change with it. If I was going to stop and shoot a refinery I would first seek permission or at the very least advise them of my intention. One has to stop and think that if they are taking photographs of a venue that could be classified as a viable terrorist target. No one wants to take any responsibility but in this day and age a little preplanning and thought will save some headaches down the road.

I am sure that the OP felt intimidated but it sounds like the security people were not over bearing or rude to him. I am hoping that someone can correct me on this, it is my understanding that there are some places that can have security that have virtually the same powers as the police, in that they can pack heat and hold you in temporary custody until the regional police force arrives. You do not have to actually be on their property but be in interaction with their property or people. I got this from a friend that is a retired cop in San Diego and I assume that he knows what he is talking about.

In any event, I see this thread for exactly what it is, pot stirring on a story line that is fairly thin.

If you stir a flaming kettle, your gonna get burned...

Irritating people needlessly while capturing images is foolish as well as short sighted. If you get ICE, DHS, NSA, etc leaning on you, you won't be happy. It can get into a very long, very $$$$, drawn out nightmare.
A retainer fee for a fed court attorney will run $4-6G minimum, and even a simple case will cross $10G mark before you can blink. The agents know that, yet it's amazing how many will give them lip and bs for no good reason.

Beyond that, a basic ground rule for me is don't humiliate your subject, and be up front with people in general. Be respectful without compromising your goals. Karma.
If your shooting, don't try to hide, especially when street shooting; what you see is what you get.
If your shooting 911 hot spots without asking, don't be surprise if it comes back to bite you.

[lankforddl]

If you stir a flaming kettle, your gonna get burned...

Irritating people needlessly while capturing images is foolish as well as short sighted. If you get ICE, DHS, NSA, etc leaning on you, you won't be happy. It can get into a very long, very $$$$, drawn out nightmare.
A retainer fee for a fed court attorney will run $4-6G minimum, and even a simple case will cross $10G mark before you can blink. The agents know that, yet it's amazing how many will give them lip and bs for no good reason.

Beyond that, a basic ground rule for me is don't humiliate your subject, and be up front with people in general. Be respectful without compromising your goals. Karma.
If your shooting, don't try to hide, especially when street shooting; what you see is what you get.
If your shooting 911 hot spots without asking, don't be surprise if it comes back to bite you.

I think you missed the point blackhawk. Stirring the pot was a reference to the conversation here on forum. NOT stirring the pot with the security guards. That would just be childish and pointless.

[birdfromboat]

those guards probably don't get to actually confront anyone very often. Just think of it as doing your civic duty by keeping them in a state of readiness and not atrophied to the point of immobility. Even small dogs need to bark once in a while.

[m3n00b]

Which refinery is it?

[FlyingPhotog]

Which refinery is it?

If he tells you, they'll have to kill you...

[jeyaganesh]

When I was trying to take photos inside a shopping mall in Oxford. One of the staff asked me not to take photos there. Nowadays if I want to take photos inside any building like restaurants, I used to ask the people permission to take photos. I also avoid using camera inside some places like shopping malls.

Some people behave like celebrity and think every person with camera trying to take them photo.:D

[FlyingPhotog]

When I was trying to take photos inside a shopping mall in Oxford. One of the staff asked me not to take photos there. Nowadays if I want to take photos inside any building like restaurants, I used to ask the people permission to take photos. I also avoid using camera inside some places like shopping malls.

Some people behave like celebrity and think every person with camera trying to take them photo.:D

No, a shopping mall is private property and they can freely prohibit whatever they want to prohibit.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. The OP was on a public thoroughfare, you weren't.

[nphsbuckeye]

"It is also an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only a photograph as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful."
It's unconstitutional and "wordy" enough that a really good lawyer can argue it's too vague to be valid.

I'm waiting for Big Brother to mess with someone rich enough to take it to the US Supreme Court to be struck down as unconstitutional.

[FlyingPhotog]

It's unconstitutional and "wordy" enough that a really good lawyer can argue it's too vague to be valid.

The problem though is that "better" lawyers wrote it. (By "better" I mean those lawyers who realised that being in Congress is better than working for a living.)

I'm waiting for Big Brother to mess with someone rich enough to take it to the US Supreme Court to be struck down as unconstitutional.

^^^ That! ^^^

[blackhawk]

I think you missed the point blackhawk. Stirring the pot was a reference to the conversation here on forum. NOT stirring the pot with the security guards. That would just be childish and pointless.

Well you posting it is stirring the kettle in more ways than one. I would have resolved it with those involved, not in a public forum that can be spidered.

I had a prison guard once repeatedly remind me not to photograph the prison (I wasn't), then got more intimidating when I return the next day.
So I went to his boss.
I talked with the warden, who was nice, and said to contact him first if I wanted to capture any images with his facility in the background.

There are rouge elements who are too stupid to know how to effectively recon without compromising themselves. I don't want to teach help them how to avoid detection, and no one here should either.
911 hot spot says it all.

[gh patriot]

So much of what passes for 'security' in our reaction to terrorism is simply mindless authoritarianism. We could not profile a Nigerian on a watch list who had been to Yemen several times, paid cash and was traveling with no bags.

But we can hassle a guy standing outside a refinery with a great big camera.

Smart.



You took the words out of my mouth.

[MJPhotos24]

The idea that terrorists are getting there information on how to go through security or not be detected based on what happens with photographers who are doing things legally, and there posting of it online, is plain out stupid and naive. Bunch of pathetic fear mongering thoughts is all it is.

[yogestee]

Then they shouldn't leave them visible to the public.

Where would you build a plant that could cover many of acres of real estate??

[ShotByTom]

Run next time! lol Or call the cops. Never been in that situation but remember your rights, I am sure you were spooked

Now, THERE'S some SOLID advice!! I love internet forums!!:rolleyes:

[john-in-japan]

For Jeffrey G - Was there any indication that he was 'hassled'? Spooked he said. We keep making things up here. And a "great big camera" - was it the 50D? Did he have the big white lens on it? I think if he used his cell phone camera the same think might have happened - who know?. We don't even have any quotes from the OP on exactly what was said. "Just the facts m'am"...please.
John

[TooManyShots]

What I have problems with this situation, like anyone else, is that a private security force (let's called them mercenaries) enforcing law and order on a citizen. Legalized mafia???? :) Your rights and freedom were infringed by a private security force. Thugs.

[john-in-japan]

Jeeeze! Getting a bit out of control are we not? Did they enforce any law? Not that we know of. Did they order anything? Not according to the OP. We don't even know what was said. Op admits stirring the pot and you seem caught up in it. Not arrested, not taken into custody and simply spooked. Now they are thugs and mercenaries? Big leap here methinks. What right was infringed? None that we know of. Did they really surround him and retain him? Not that we know of. We really just have to stop making things up. OP is not helpful at all with full disclosure and lied on at least two occasions - not "busted" and not "taken into custody". Jeeeeze!
John

[kgoings]

Now, THERE'S some SOLID advice!! I love internet forums!!:rolleyes:

I love internet forums too!! Especially the ones with dolt posters who can't recognize sarcasm!! :rolleyes:

[nphsbuckeye]

The problem though is that "better" lawyers wrote it. (By "better" I mean those lawyers who realised that being in Congress is better than working for a living.)
Yeah, those weasels are pretty good at construing anything. Fortunately, the Founders were much, much smarter than Congress.
^^^ That! ^^^
I would gladly take that up, if they screwed with me and had the capital.

[nphsbuckeye]

The idea that terrorists are getting there information on how to go through security or not be detected based on what happens with photographers who are doing things legally, and there posting of it online, is plain out stupid and naive. Bunch of pathetic fear mongering thoughts is all it is.
False sense of security.

[lankforddl]

Jeeeze! Getting a bit out of control are we not? Did they enforce any law? Not that we know of. Did they order anything? Not according to the OP. We don't even know what was said. Op admits stirring the pot and you seem caught up in it. Not arrested, not taken into custody and simply spooked. Now they are thugs and mercenaries? Big leap here methinks. What right was infringed? None that we know of. Did they really surround him and retain him? Not that we know of. We really just have to stop making things up. OP is not helpful at all with full disclosure and lied on at least two occasions - not "busted" and not "taken into custody". Jeeeeze!
John

Dear john-in-japan, Could you please refrain from calling the OP a liar on this thread? It's a forum discussion that's become heated and well I think words are misread, misinterpreted, and misquoted.

For the record: I served in the marine corps and I know what it means to hold an individual without officially "taking them into custody". As a marine I'm fully aware of these security officers' tactics and we had a candid/friendly discussion after they requested/insisted that I delete the photos. All was fine in the end. They did their job and I complied. Even though it pissed me off I understand their position.

Thanks again for playing nice in the forum. :-)

[MJPhotos24]

False sense of security.
It's called common sense! Information is available everywhere and Google maps offers more than any photographer could with shots from the highway. Name one case where a photographer helped aide a terrorist act by taking photos legally from the side of the road...or how when posted online it aided them. It's idiotic to think that way because it's simply not true. Hell, two bloggers just posted the new Christmas TSA Security Directive and got harassed a bit by them but were found to of done nothing wrong and that would be a lot more helpful than a photo from the side of the road.

We don't live in a police state, we have civil rights, are protected by the first amendment, period! Does it mean we won't get attacked again, hell no. Does stopping someone from taking a photo make us safer, hell no. We live in a screwed up world but living in complete fear because Faux News told us to isn't going to help.

[mpeters]

Where would you build a plant that could cover many of acres of real estate??

Well, if I didn't want to people to look at it - I'd build it somewhere they couldn't see it.

When one conspicuously displays themselves in public they have no right to expect privacy.

[bric-a-brac]

This might have been more serious than thugs overstepping their authority; I was in a similar situation a few years ago when I was photographing a propane distribution company's tanks (there was a lot of colorful piping, I couldn't resist). I had a nervous business owner approach me and explain that his and certain other industries were monitored closely by homeland security and they are required to make reports of any activity to include "surveillance," which could be construed as "photography."

I'm not saying it's not preposterous, but I imagine the original threat of investigation that the OP mentioned is plausible.

[FlyingPhotog]

We live in a screwed up world but living in complete fear because Faux News told us to isn't going to help.

All the major news outlets are guilty of this, not just FOX.

They all want to be the first to broadcast some major issue related to Homeland Security and they all play up the "Bad Guys" angle whenever possible.

The truth lies somewhere between:

"Those that would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - And - "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

IOW, do we let stuff go BOOM anytme anywhere or do we want Uzis on every street corner like Israel?

[DDCSD]

"It is also an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only a photograph as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful."



Please, if you're going to post a law, at least mention what country's law it is.

This law is from the UK, not the US. There was really no reason to post it in this thread. All that does is cause a bunch of confusion.

[The Hard Way]

I was approached by a single Dept. of Homeland Security officer while shooting a refinery in Long Beach from public property. I showed her my ID, business card, and the photos I'd taken. She went back to her vehicle, got on the radio for a few minutes and returned to where I was standing and asked if I needed any more shots. I told her that I'd like to shoot for a few more minutes so she returned to her vehicle while I finished, about 5 minutes or so, I can't remember. I wrapped up and drove away.

[MJPhotos24]

All the major news outlets are guilty of this, not just FOX.

They all want to be the first to broadcast some major issue related to Homeland Security and they all play up the "Bad Guys" angle whenever possible.

The truth lies somewhere between:

"Those that would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - And - "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

IOW, do we let stuff go BOOM anytme anywhere or do we want Uzis on every street corner like Israel?

You're right in that they're all guilty and want to get the news out first instead of get it right - but some are more guilty than others. Fox is by far the worst most blatant lying fear mongers out there. News programs here are not good, they all have their sides - guess that's why a comedian was voted most trustworthy news anchor last year.

There's a big difference between doing your job and being on the lookout keeping good security to make sure nothing bad happens and harassing someone for taking photos which is very common nowadays. You don't be a jerk to the security going on about your rights but you sure don't just say yes sir and do what you shouldn't have to being pushed around. There is a medium in there, you just have to know what you're doing and be diplomatic about it.

[john-in-japan]

Semper Fi Lankforddl -
Forgive my poor choice of words with my apology. You purposely said you were 'busted' and "taken into custody" when that was absolutely not true, so I'll play nice and let others draw their conclusions regarding your truthfulness. I spent thirteen months in Vietnam '66-'67 as a medic with the 3rd Marine Division, mostly with 1/26 and understand your comments. Let me just say if you had been more forthcoming, less intentionally misleading, and had not intended to stir the pot, this would have been a less heated and more educational and informative thread. I am glad everything worked out for you and we now know you had a friendly discussion with these 'thugs' (smiling).
Cheers,
John

[FlyingPhotog]

You're right in that they're all guilty and want to get the news out first instead of get it right - but some are more guilty than others. Fox is by far the worst most blatant lying fear mongers out there. News programs here are not good, they all have their sides - guess that's why a comedian was voted most trustworthy news anchor last year.

See, now I think CNN is by far the worst. Keerist, they invented an entire segment (The Situation Room) just for Wolf Blitzer so he can pander to everyone's darkest fears.

The hard truth is (and this is honestly difficult for some to accept) there are people out there who want you and me dead. Period. No grey area whatsoever. Not just our uniformed military but our mothers, our fathers, our children and our grand children. Dead. And they are actively seeking ways to carry out this wish on our (USofA) soil. To most folks, this is an entirely different kettle of fish than say, WWII or even Viet Nam where the fighting was on TV and not at their airport or train station.

Unfortunately, we live in a world ruled by lowest common denominators. The finer points of who are our friends in the world and who are our enemies are as interesting to most people as yesterday's garbage. And whatever fine awareness exsists at the highest levels of government is filtered down to nothing on the homefront.

I think that in an effort to drill any sort of awareness into a population who cares more about American Idol than they do 'Homeland Security" the powers that be are forced to paint with a very broad brush.

"Ray The Red Baiter" from the 1950's has become "Tom The Terrorist Hunter" now and has a misguided sense of public duty to blow the whistle on someone with a camera. Joe Public doesnt' know or care what the discreet differences are between a snapshot, a photograph and intelligence gathering so the lowest common denominator is: CAMERA. Camera = Bad. And by extension...Person Carrying Camera = Bad.

It is to weep...

There's a big difference between doing your job and being on the lookout keeping good security to make sure nothing bad happens and harassing someone for taking photos which is very common nowadays.

Like I said, you are expecting some maybe not so sharp knives to cut very fine lines that frankly they may not be able to cut. And really, is it fair to ask someone with a GED or a couple years at JUCO working his second job as a night watchman to be able to make the call that you're a harmless photographer while someone else isn't? A refinery guard hears over coffee and Krispy Kremes that his plant is blah, blah, blah, related to "national security" and suddenly, in his mind, it's Fort Knox. Our energy grid has always been considered something of national importance but now marry that to the babble coming out of TVs and Radios and there are bound to be mininterpretations and puffed out chests. The over riding mindset is "Not on my watch...!

You don't be a jerk to the security going on about your rights but you sure don't just say yes sir and do what you shouldn't have to being pushed around. There is a medium in there, you just have to know what you're doing and be diplomatic about it.

I would mostly agree. Life is all about picking your battles. Some are worthwhile and some are not. Your average hobbyist probably doesn't need to take on the establishment. On the other hand, a legitimately-credentialed photojournalist on assignment with a deadline to meet and from that a family to feed should probably take great great umberage, scream bloody murder and push it to the wall.

The bottom line is, this is no longer the world of our Grandparents or our Parents and it likely never ever will be again. Our best defense is to live meaningful, productive lives and don't let the bastards (both external and internal) win.

[fly my pretties]

So wow, this sparked a heated conversation. Here's the info that some posts seem to want to know. I'm a student at the University of Minnesota. I was out on public roads photographing the winter scenery: farm fields, old tractors, and the refinery, etc... While driving down a very public frontage road near highway 52 in Rosemont, MN three security guards on foot flagged me down and surrounded my vehicle with their vehicles. Somewhere between 5-8 security personnel surrounded me and began the questioning. They were just doing what they're told to do, but I did feel very intimidated by their overwhelming presence. I was just happy to get out of there with my several K worth of gear. I was afraid that they were going to confiscate my camera equipment.

do a flickr search on "koch refinery" and there are tons of photos of this place.

So you weren't "taken into custody", you were merely questioned by a someone and agreed to delete all of your photos when you had no legal obligation to do so.

[fly my pretties]

Dear john-in-japan, Could you please refrain from calling the OP a liar on this thread? It's a forum discussion that's become heated and well I think words are misread, misinterpreted, and misquoted.

For the record: I served in the marine corps and I know what it means to hold an individual without officially "taking them into custody". As a marine I'm fully aware of these security officers' tactics and we had a candid/friendly discussion after they requested/insisted that I delete the photos. All was fine in the end. They did their job and I complied. Even though it pissed me off I understand their position.

Thanks again for playing nice in the forum. :-)

This is a completely different picture that was painted in your original post. Using semantics based on your own experience doesn't change the fact that to 99% of people, "taken into custody" doesn't mean "stood and had a friendly chat".

[Gedanken]

Sorry, I just gotta ask. What was the OP taking those photos for, and more to the point, was it worth all the angst that this thread has brought out?

[DDCSD]

Sorry, I just gotta ask. What was the OP taking those photos for, and more to the point, was it worth all the angst that this thread has brought out?


I'm guessing that its because refineries are very cool looking.

[hollis_f]

Sure, it's all ridiculous until something gets blown up ... don't you watch the news? These things are real, people are out there trying to get back at us. We ARE in a war status now and the enemy is in our country. Smell the coffee.

"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Hermann Goering knew how to do it 80 years ago. It still works today.

[neil_r]

Loads of cheap cameras on e-bay from the middle east countries. Apparently Osama's nephew has turned him onto Google Earth

[blackhawk]

I'm guessing that its because refineries are very cool looking.

They can make great subjects, and older ones have some wild colors/contrasts from fading paint.

There's one I want to shoot, but need inside access to get the angles I want. Regardless, I would not shoot it without the owners permission. I would show them the images then as well, and delay using them if they wished.

It's a no brainer that the inept Jihad terrorists need pictures to do anything... and even then they usually fail :p

People need to try to understand and respect their subjects. Working with them will almost always will yield better images.

[neil_r]

They can make great subjects, and older ones have some wild colors/contrasts from fading paint.

There's one I want to shoot, but need inside access to get the angles I want. Regardless, I would not shoot it without the owners permission. I would show them the images then as well, and delay using them if they wished.

It's a no brainer that the inept Jihad terrorists need pictures to do anything... and even then they usually fail :p

People need to try to understand and respect their subjects. Working with them will almost always will yield better images.

And other terrorists wouldn't ???

[blackhawk]

And other terrorists wouldn't ???

No. most likely not. They don't want to advertise until afterwords...

If you have nothing to hide, don't hide.

[neil_r]

Please, if you're going to post a law, at least mention what country's law it is.

This law is from the UK, not the US. There was really no reason to post it in this thread. All that does is cause a bunch of confusion.

That is not specific to this post, this thread, this forum. The WWW is the source of confusion whereby a bunch of unqualified and possibly misinformed people can anonymously post any old bollox with all the self-righteous authority they can muster.

[neil_r]

No. most likely not. They don't want to advertise until afterwords...

If you have nothing to hide, don't hide.

LOL I think you missed my point.

[ShotByTom]

Sorry, I just gotta ask. What was the OP taking those photos for, and more to the point, was it worth all the angst that this thread has brought out?

These types of threads always blow up, people love to spout off about things they know nothing about.

[nphsbuckeye]

It's called common sense! Information is available everywhere and Google maps offers more than any photographer could with shots from the highway.
No doubt. However, the government loves bragging about doing something - anything - no matter how trivial, to one up the other bureaucracies. And if it's taking down photographers that have fewer terrorist connections than the actual police force, than so be it.
Name one case where a photographer helped aide a terrorist act by taking photos legally from the side of the road...or how when posted online it aided them. It's idiotic to think that way because it's simply not true. Hell, two bloggers just posted the new Christmas TSA Security Directive and got harassed a bit by them but were found to of done nothing wrong and that would be a lot more helpful than a photo from the side of the road.
As we've said, there is no reason to take any photographer down because of the internet. Until the government can regulate online (please to whomever created us, don't let that happen!), taking away civil liberties will be in vein, and again, will only exacerbate the Lautenschleger Paradigm of Government Bureaucracies Doing Things Only to Seem Like They Really Are Doing Something, But Really Aren't, And Are Only Pissing Off People Not Associated With The Neoconservative/Big Brother Movement.
We don't live in a police state, we have civil rights, are protected by the first amendment, period!
But as Jay and I said earlier, slimy people, lawyers in Washington, have cleaverly wrote bills to take away those freedoms, and one will need an all-star cast of lawyers to beat it; possibly, but very expensive, as it's a Constitutional issue that can go to the US Supreme Court. And you can bet that the government will pull out all of the stops to prevent it from being overturned, because of it is, it questions many, many bills recently written. (However, that said, just because they're overruled, doesn't mean the Executive Branch of the government will enforce it.)
Does it mean we won't get attacked again, hell no. Does stopping someone from taking a photo make us safer, hell no. We live in a screwed up world but living in complete fear because Faux News told us to isn't going to help.
Agreed.

[blackhawk]

LOL I think you missed my point.

Yeah, guess I did. There are plenty of terrorists in the US, although that's nothing new.

[breal101]

These types of threads always blow up, people love to spout off about things they know nothing about.


Sooo, this makes you the worlds authority? If you know that they don't know what they're talking about then you must have a clear understanding of everything related, no?

[neil_r]

These types of threads always blow up, people love to spout off about things they know nothing about.

Someone must have taken a picture of it in the planning stages then :-)

[nphsbuckeye]

These types of threads always blow up, people love to spout off about things they know nothing about.
A) The latter isn't necessarily true, and B) as long as people act like adults, I don't see the problem with these types of threads. Although they are political, you then cannot talk about our eroding rights as photographers.

[FlyingPhotog]

I do have to chuckle a little though everytime someone posts "But that info is all over the Internet..."

Um, for the record, right, wrong or indifferent, we photographers help put it there. ;)

Just sayin'

[MJPhotos24]

See, now I think CNN is by far the worst. Keerist, they invented an entire segment (The Situation Room) just for Wolf Blitzer so he can pander to everyone's darkest fears.

CNN is probably my least watched - but they don't use old footage to make things seem bigger than they are like Fox has done at least 4-5 times last year and got caught. CNN wasn't reporting that the plane crash into the river and lives saved by Sully as a possible act of terrorism after the press conference of what actually happened. Over an hour after it was released what happened (birds) Fox still was reporting it as possible terrorism. Fox is the only network I've seen that uses the Kevin Bacon six degrees as a way of reporting news trying to connect anyone together for purpose of a political party. They go WAY out of the way to do this. CNN hasn't been caught with a producer trying to rile up the crowd and create the news rather than report it. NO network is innocent completely of not having a slant but no network is as bad as Fox as the blatant hypocritical contradiction bunch of liars they are.

The hard truth is (and this is honestly difficult for some to accept) there are people out there who want you and me dead. Period. No grey area whatsoever. Not just our uniformed military but our mothers, our fathers, our children and our grand children. Dead. And they are actively seeking ways to carry out this wish on our (USofA) soil. To most folks, this is an entirely different kettle of fish than say, WWII or even Viet Nam where the fighting was on TV and not at their airport or train station.

The truth is this is nothing new and I think you're right, Americans are sheltered. Look up an list of terrorist attacks and it didn't start on 9/11 like some people think. It was the largest, it was a failure in our government. We get checked more at a football game than at an airport at times which is outright stupid. People have no problem getting patted down to see an NFL game but don't like it at the airport. I hope they put these new scanners in at every airport, I went through one and it's fine. We're not the only target but most don't want to pay attention when it happens elsewhere which is a closed minded elitest though process.

Unfortunately, we live in a world ruled by lowest common denominators. The finer points of who are our friends in the world and who are our enemies are as interesting to most people as yesterday's garbage. And whatever fine awareness exsists at the highest levels of government is filtered down to nothing on the homefront.

I think that in an effort to drill any sort of awareness into a population who cares more about American Idol than they do 'Homeland Security" the powers that be are forced to paint with a very broad brush.

There's a difference between painting with a broad brush and outright lies. There's some that want everyone living in fear and only fear, like those at Fox. Know what's going on around you, be alert for what is happening, but living in fear is pointless and exactly what the enemy wants.

"Ray The Red Baiter" from the 1950's has become "Tom The Terrorist Hunter" now and has a misguided sense of public duty to blow the whistle on someone with a camera. Joe Public doesnt' know or care what the discreet differences are between a snapshot, a photograph and intelligence gathering so the lowest common denominator is: CAMERA. Camera = Bad. And by extension...Person Carrying Camera = Bad.

Unfortunately it's true - but these people are not the general public that are harassing photographers. Sure the public is turning them in as "suspicious" but it's the trained employees causing the problems. It's been mentioned in this thread already about how a security guard approached someone taking photos at a refinery, asked nicely what they were doing, and left them alone after finding out. That's the way to go about it and someone that knows the persons right - not detaining them, harassing them, making up things based on terrorism like so many of the videos of photographers being targeted show.

It is to weep...

Like I said, you are expecting some maybe not so sharp knives to cut very fine lines that frankly they may not be able to cut. And really, is it fair to ask someone with a GED or a couple years at JUCO working his second job as a night watchman to be able to make the call that you're a harmless photographer while someone else isn't? A refinery guard hears over coffee and Krispy Kremes that his plant is blah, blah, blah, related to "national security" and suddenly, in his mind, it's Fort Knox. Our energy grid has always been considered something of national importance but now marry that to the babble coming out of TVs and Radios and there are bound to be mininterpretations and puffed out chests. The over riding mindset is "Not on my watch...!
YES! It's there job to know how to identify who is harmless or not and if they can't do that they're in the wrong job! The employer screwed up and hired the wrong person or the person lied to get the job and should be fired if they can't ID who's a threat and who isn't, or the employer did a horrible job of educating how they want the job done. It could land on the employer to and they might pump out that persons chest as well. None of how it happens makes it right for them to do that and it should be corrected. When something isn't right you don't sit there and take it automatically - you judge the situation and use common sense to think of a solution.

I would mostly agree. Life is all about picking your battles. Some are worthwhile and some are not. Your average hobbyist probably doesn't need to take on the establishment. On the other hand, a legitimately-credentialed photojournalist on assignment with a deadline to meet and from that a family to feed should probably take great great umberage, scream bloody murder and push it to the wall.

There's just being educated and knowing your rights. Hobbyist or pro there's a middle ground in there and I never said as a photographer if confronted you puff out your chest, just handle the situation. If the guys a pinhead then you say "if you must, please call the police, I can wait". Let someone else with authority that should know the law handle it (though yes, there's some puffed out chests there to).

The bottom line is, this is no longer the world of our Grandparents or our Parents and it likely never ever will be again. Our best defense is to live meaningful, productive lives and don't let the bastards (both external and internal) win.

See, I watched a segment last night about our grandparents or parents and how great the times were as Beck tried to sell on his show. Problem is where were these great times with no worries? They don't exist! Nuclear war was a threat during the cold war for how long, gas shortages in the 70's, Vietnam, WWII, WWI. There's always been threats, even against US soil, they used to teach kids to get under their desk in case of a nuclear attack - anyone remember that? I'm not that old but remember being taught that when first entering school. There's always been a threat, with the exception of a few years here and there (late 90's sure was nice).

EDIT: Wow, just realized how long that is

[lankforddl]

A) The latter isn't necessarily true, and B) as long as people act like adults, I don't see the problem with these types of threads. Although they are political, you then cannot talk about our eroding rights as photographers.

I agree, this is a key strength with an internet forum. Understanding the difference between subjectivity and objectivity is imperative for intelligible conversation. We have opinion and facts of which can be true, false, or a little of both. The reader must take and process information with a grain of salt, but a key variable is mutual respect.

[MJPhotos24]

No doubt. However, the government loves bragging about doing something - anything - no matter how trivial, to one up the other bureaucracies. And if it's taking down photographers that have fewer terrorist connections than the actual police force, than so be it.
In the UK there's a photography law - in the U.S. there is not. You're right though, they'd rather have a win, any win, doesn't matter if it's significant.

As we've said, there is no reason to take any photographer down because of the internet. Until the government can regulate online (please to whomever created us, don't let that happen!), taking away civil liberties will be in vein, and again, will only exacerbate the Lautenschleger Paradigm of Government Bureaucracies Doing Things Only to Seem Like They Really Are Doing Something, But Really Aren't, And Are Only Pissing Off People Not Associated With The Neoconservative/Big Brother Movement.

Now only if they would do something - we always seem to have the intelligence and then not use it, strange.

But as Jay and I said earlier, slimy people, lawyers in Washington, have cleaverly wrote bills to take away those freedoms, and one will need an all-star cast of lawyers to beat it; possibly, but very expensive, as it's a Constitutional issue that can go to the US Supreme Court. And you can bet that the government will pull out all of the stops to prevent it from being overturned, because of it is, it questions many, many bills recently written. (However, that said, just because they're overruled, doesn't mean the Executive Branch of the government will enforce it.)

Well, that law was not a US law that was referenced, it was the UK which is different. Unfortunately politicians are more worried about winning elections than actually speaking for the people...one side more than the other. The brainless wanker in Ohio is the prime example of that ;)

[Jon]

This thread is getting altogether too far away from the original (over-hyped) issue. If you don't drop the political discussions, it will get a lot shorter and you'll lose any ability to add to it. The actions of the OP and of the security staff who stopped him (not took him into custody, as he chose to present it) are all that are appropriate topics for discussion here.

[lankforddl]

This thread is getting altogether too far away from the original (over-hyped) issue. If you don't drop the political discussions, it will get a lot shorter and you'll lose any ability to add to it. The actions of the OP and of the security staff who stopped him (not took him into custody, as he chose to present it) are all that are appropriate topics for discussion here.

Hey "slayer of trolls", What's your definition of taken into custody. When three security vehicles surround your vehicle is that not some form of custody. My vehicle could not be moved as it was blocked by the security vehicles and guards on foot on a public frontage road. The MAIN POINT was to express my displeasure with being (held, taken into custody, temporarily not allowed to move my person, etc... call it what you want I couldn't leave) when taking photographs that are not illegal! I've called the refinery as of today and it's not illegal to take photos of the refinery from public land according to the law.

Here is another story of one of many where the exact same thing happened. This is one of the largest refineries in the country.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blogumentary/343781733/

[blackhawk]

Hey "slayer of trolls", What's your definition of taken into custody. When three security vehicles surround your vehicle is that not some form of custody. My vehicle could not be moved as it was blocked by the security vehicles and guards on foot on a public frontage road. The MAIN POINT was to express my displeasure with being (held, taken into custody, temporarily not allowed to move my person, etc... call it what you want I couldn't leave) when taking photographs that are not illegal! I've called the refinery as of today and it's not illegal to take photos of the refinery from public land according to the law.

Here is another story of one of many where the exact same thing happened. This is one of the largest refineries in the country.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blogumentary/343781733/

Can you show us (Google) exactly where you were when shooting and stopped? You sure you weren't on private land or a street?

Otherwise what your describing sounds like an illegal act(s) on the gaurds part.

[mpeters]

Yep, Super duper secret site..............

http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Rich+Valley+Blvd,+Dakota,+Minnesota&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=28.334641,58.359375&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FTFkqwIdd-pz-g&split=0&hq=&hnear=Rich+Valley+Blvd,+Dakota,+Minnesota&ll=44.767814,-93.034228&spn=0,359.820614&t=h&z=13&layer=c&cbll=44.767826,-93.034731&panoid=1C6ZYxxI_NcwC9CLEUlZww&cbp=12,278.92,,0,4.05

In fact, so secret - they publish their own photos of the joint...........

http://www.fhr.com/upload/PB_7741_large.jpg

[lankforddl]

Can you show us (Google) exactly where you were when shooting and stopped? You sure you weren't on private land or a street?

Otherwise what your describing sounds like an illegal act(s) on the gaurds part.

Not sure if this google link will work but try this.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=44.766115,-93.045015&spn=0.045277,0.097933&t=h&z=14&msid=117373804032574295121.00047c88c4619c51b01c4

[Naturalist]

Don't be afraid to stand for your rights and be sure they know that you will sue their asses, too.

[nphsbuckeye]

Don't be afraid to stand for your rights and be sure they know that you will sue their asses, too.
The best way to win money is a settlement. This isn't that big of a deal considering this is the oil industry which has extremely deep pockets to pay lawyers.

[john-in-japan]

I'm outta here, with a last thought that if this thread in its entirety is used as evidence (in the absence of an impartial witness), OP will have a hard time proving restraint. As Paul Harvey and the refinery lawyers might say, "...now for the rest of the story." I'll check back in a month to see what happens.
Cheers all -
John

[Gedanken]

Hey "slayer of trolls", What's your definition of taken into custody. When three security vehicles surround your vehicle is that not some form of custody.
Now I don't know what Jon's definition is, but let's just stop the goalposts from shifting for a bit. Getting away from both legal gobbledygook and made-up interpretations, let's look at definitions from good old honest-to-goodness general dictionaries instead.

The Oxford Dictionary says it's "imprisonment" (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/custody?view=uk).

Macmillan says it's "a situation in which someone is kept in prison until they go to court for trial" (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/custody).

Dictionary.com says it's " imprisonment; legal restraint".

The Cambridge dictionary defines custody as "the state of being kept in prison, especially while waiting to go to court for trial" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=custody&x=0&y=0).

Any way you cut it, these general dictionaries, being the reference point for ordinary everyday language, all state that being taken into custody involves imprisonment. As many times as I've read your story I don't recall any mention of you seeing the inside of a jail cell, so you were never taken into custody by any stretch of the imagination.

It looks like you're trying to defend the indefensible here. Why not stop at admitting that you were stirring the pot and cut your losses?

[yogestee]

Don't be afraid to stand for your rights and be sure they know that you will sue their asses, too.

I won't comment on this for the fear of sounding too political:D

[lankforddl]

Now I don't know what Jon's definition is, but let's just stop the goalposts from shifting for a bit. Getting away from both legal gobbledygook and made-up interpretations, let's look at definitions from good old honest-to-goodness general dictionaries instead.

The Oxford Dictionary says it's "imprisonment" (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/custody?view=uk).

Macmillan says it's "a situation in which someone is kept in prison until they go to court for trial" (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/custody).

Dictionary.com says it's " imprisonment; legal restraint".

The Cambridge dictionary defines custody as "the state of being kept in prison, especially while waiting to go to court for trial" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=custody&x=0&y=0).

Any way you cut it, these general dictionaries, being the reference point for ordinary everyday language, all state that being taken into custody involves imprisonment. As many times as I've read your story I don't recall any mention of you seeing the inside of a jail cell, so you were never taken into custody by any stretch of the imagination.

It looks like you're trying to defend the indefensible here. Why not stop at admitting that you were stirring the pot and cut your losses?

What losses?

[blackshadow]

So when are you going to arrange a group of about 20 photographers wearing "I'm a photographer not a Terrorist" tee shirts to line up on the roadway and take photos of the refinery? (Maybe five different groups of four togs - just to make life more interesting for the security guards).

Then if/when the security kick up a stink ask them to call the cops. Refuse to delete anything and keep taking photos of the security guards.

EDIT

And make sure you address them as Mr Rent a Cop.

[Gedanken]

What losses?
You know, being called a liar which seems to offend you but which you're just begging people to do with this "surrounded by cars = taken into custody" line?

Never mind - it's pretty obvious I'm wasting my time talking to someone whose only objective is to argue, or in your own words, stir the pot.

Later.

[nphsbuckeye]

So when are you going to arrange a group of about 20 photographers wearing "I'm a photographer not a Terrorist" tee shirts to line up on the roadway and take photos of the refinery? (Maybe five different groups of four togs - just to make life more interesting for the security guards).

Then if/when the security kick up a stink ask them to call the cops. Refuse to delete anything and keep taking photos of the security guards.

EDIT

And make sure you address them as Mr Rent a Cop.
Sounds like a plan. In the event we twenty people are taken into custody, that'll definitely create a media storm. Thus, giving the power-hungry rent-a-cops bad PR.

[DDCSD]

I wish I were a little closer to Rosemont, I'd be in.

[MJPhotos24]

I travel a lot - I'll bring a tripod and all.

[blackhawk]

Not sure if this google link will work but try this.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=44.766115,-93.045015&spn=0.045277,0.097933&t=h&z=14&msid=117373804032574295121.00047c88c4619c51b01c4


Works great.
Don't know the laws in your state, but it looks let they were way out of line. They should have turned it over to the DHS or the police.
The can't say they were making a citizen's arrest if not crime was committed. Interesting.

[pwm2]

So which is it? On foot or in vehicles? Were you "Taken into custody" as you claimed?
Security guards are normally big and strong. They where on foot but carrying vehicles on their broad shoulders ;)

[neil_r]

LoL Every thread that broaches the subject of either real or imagined attacks on either real or imagined civil liberties generates a huge number of replies. I think these topics should have their own forum, then if the POTN marketing gurus could develop a demand for righteous indignation we would have gallons of it to sell.

[hollis_f]

Otherwise what your describing sounds like an illegal act(s) on the gaurds part.

If they'd actually taken him into custody then, yes, that would be illegal. But I'm pretty sure there is no law against walking up to somebody in a public place, asking them what they're doing, then asking them to delete the images they've just taken. And I'm sure that's exactly how the security guards would describe the situation.

Of course, you're totally within your right to say 'Good day Mr Security Guard. I'm afraid it's my business what I'm doing and I don't think I'll be deleting anything. And I'll be going on my way now. If you would like to call the police, please tell them I'll be taking more photos about 1/4 of a mile up the road.'

[Jon]

Hey "slayer of trolls", What's your definition of taken into custody. When three security vehicles surround your vehicle is that not some form of custody. My vehicle could not be moved as it was blocked by the security vehicles and guards on foot on a public frontage road. The MAIN POINT was to express my displeasure with being (held, taken into custody, temporarily not allowed to move my person, etc... call it what you want I couldn't leave) when taking photographs that are not illegal! I've called the refinery as of today and it's not illegal to take photos of the refinery from public land according to the law.

Here is another story of one of many where the exact same thing happened. This is one of the largest refineries in the country.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blogumentary/343781733/You were not removed (voluntarily or involuntarily) by the guards from the location where they stopped you. At no time did you indicate that they forcibly stopped you from moving, leaving or anything else, and you did not indicate that you asked them to get out of your way so you could leave the scene, nor did they take you to their office or any other location for further questioning. "Taken into custody" has a specific legal meaning; what you experienced falls far short of meeting it.

Now I don't know what Jon's definition is, but let's just stop the goalposts from shifting for a bit. Getting away from both legal gobbledygook and made-up interpretations, let's look at definitions from good old honest-to-goodness general dictionaries instead.

The Oxford Dictionary says it's "imprisonment" (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/custody?view=uk).

Macmillan says it's "a situation in which someone is kept in prison until they go to court for trial" (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/custody).

Dictionary.com says it's " imprisonment; legal restraint".

The Cambridge dictionary defines custody as "the state of being kept in prison, especially while waiting to go to court for trial" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=custody&x=0&y=0).

Any way you cut it, these general dictionaries, being the reference point for ordinary everyday language, all state that being taken into custody involves imprisonment. As many times as I've read your story I don't recall any mention of you seeing the inside of a jail cell, so you were never taken into custody by any stretch of the imagination.

It looks like you're trying to defend the indefensible here. Why not stop at admitting that you were stirring the pot and cut your losses?That's exactly the point that's been raised a few times here. OP chose loaded, and inaccurate, words (opening sentence "I just got busted taking photos . . . " - not by any definition of "busted" I've ever heard, since he wasn't arrested, or even given a civil citation.) to in his own words, "stir the pot" (emphasis added):
Hey John. I must admit I did use a risky title for this post on purpose. The point was to stir the pot about a photography experience that some photographers will experience at some point in their lives.
"Pot stirring" may have its place; POTN isn't it.

[NeutronBoy]

I have been watching this thread with some interest as I have seen people get themselves arrested for doing these kinds of things. I decided to research the issue a bit and came up with this:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Upon further reflection, the arrests were made more from beligerence than on subject matter.

I still stand by my original statement that we should all be aware of the sensitivities of the subject and our international situation and be a bit smarter, and not invoke the "steal This Book' attitudes that many have. It will get you nowhere except in trouble. And as right or wrong as you may be, it will be a PITFA and costly.

[lankforddl]

I have been watching this thread with some interest as I have seen people get themselves arrested for doing these kinds of things. I decided to research the issue a bit and came up with this:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Upon further reflection, the arrests were made more from beligerence than on subject matter.

I still stand by my original statement that we should all be aware of the sensitivities of the subject and our international situation and be a bit smarter, and not invoke the "steal This Book' attitudes that many have. It will get you nowhere except in trouble. And as right or wrong as you may be, it will be a PITFA and costly.

Thank you so much. This information is something I think all photographers should know and keep with them in their bag. I'm new to photography and after reading this I better understand my rights. I handed over my ID and deleted my photos for them. Ugh.