Photography Scarier After 911?

[sapearl]

Are you ever challenged by police or security guards when you photograph buildings, bridges or other objects in the urban landscape?

I seem to be running into this more often as I explore additional areas of the city - Cleveland in this case. I'm reasonably careful about "No Tresspassing", but I've discovered that security guards around Federal buildings are not wild about photographers, nor are guards around port warehouses. The implied attitude is that you are "casing" the place for some potential activity.

Has anybody else encountered similar issues?

[Mike-DT6]

I'm over here in the UK, but from reading the various night photography sites in the US, quite a few of them have run into problems with the authorities since the September 11th attacks.

By the way, I've got a friend over in your city - Cleveland 44109.

Mike

[greg20d]

I shoot houses for a real estate apraisel company and get confronted everyday mostly by homeowners that think a house has a right to privacy
I printed a copy of photographers rights and keep in my folder I carry
I also have a picture ID in plain site

[FlyingPhotog]

There's no doubt that security apparatus at all levels (federal, state, local and private) are being more vigilant these days.

The problems stem from that extra vigilance begetting overly aggressive responses. IMO, there's nothing wrong with being observant and noticing what people are doing near the thing you are charged with protecting. That's what security people get paid for.

But in and of itself, a camera is not a destructive device so being hyper-concerned that photos of the outside of something (government building, ship, airplane, airport, etc...) can somehow determine a way to destroy it from the inside is, IMO, rediculous.

I could stand and shoot near an airport fence all day long but that won't tell me how to gain access to the ramp, hangars, terminal building, etc. Same with you and buildings in Cleveland. What, a photo of the outside of some government building is going to instantly give you insight into the floorplan? Or where the air ducts go? Where the secret papers are kept? Puhleeeeze...

[FlyingPhotog]

Originally Posted by greg20d

I shoot houses for a real estate apraisel company and get confronted everyday mostly by homeowners that think a house has a right to privacy
I printed a copy of photographers rights and keep in my folder I carry
I also have a picture ID in plain site

You can shoot my house from the sidewalk all day long...just don't try and set foot on my property...

[greg20d]

I dont step beyond the street ,,,once in awhile I get to the sidewalk ..never step on private property

[vwjoe76]

Yea, recently I was shooting inside this small, newly-renovated train depot. One of the window ticket sellers came over to me after about 5 minutes and asked me what I was doing. He was very polite, but told me I needed special permission to photograph inside or outside of the depot. My one thought was that if I was "casing" the place, I think I'd be a little more inconspicuous rather than carrying around a rather larger camera and taking light meter readings. I understand the safety concerns though, I just get nervous sometimes when shooting in some of these areas. Kind of stinks. --joe

[twisted pixels]

Originally Posted by FlyingPhotog

There's no doubt that security apparatus at all levels (federal, state, local and private) are being more vigilant these days.

The problems stem from that extra vigilance begetting overly aggressive responses. IMO, there's nothing wrong with being observant and noticing what people are doing near the thing you are charged with protecting. That's what security people get paid for.

But in and of itself, a camera is not a destructive device so being hyper-concerned that photos of the outside of something (government building, ship, airplane, airport, etc...) can somehow determine a way to destroy it from the inside is, IMO, rediculous.

I could stand and shoot near an airport fence all day long but that won't tell me how to gain access to the ramp, hangars, terminal building, etc. Same with you and buildings in Cleveland. What, a photo of the outside of some government building is going to instantly give you insight into the floorplan? Or where the air ducts go? Where the secret papers are kept? Puhleeeeze...

Agree with you 100%.
The agressive approach and paranoia (in some cases) is way over the top!

[FlyingPhotog]

Originally Posted by twisted pixels

Agree with you 100%.
The agressive approach and paranoia (in some cases) is way over the top!

We came to a similar point in a discussion about airport security.

I don't think it's as much paranoia as it is a rampant case of "Not On My Watch." Meaning that no security entity (government or private) ever wants to be the next Boston Logan or Newark Liberty when something "bad" really happens. I guess to a certain point, it's understandable but it's a really nasty Catch 22.

At the point where the powers that be relax and people can enjoy their photography without being suspected of doing something evil is (probably) the exact same point where we (and I mean the USA) again become vulnerable. There are lots of places around the world where you'll at least get a passing challenge for hanging out with a camera so the current atmosphere in the USA is not necessarilly unique.

My own opinion is that we had become too soft and too easy to violate (the whole border issue and the mess that immigration had become [and still is]) and we let the Genie out of the bottle so badly that it's probably impossible to ever go back to how things were pre 9/11. So did the 9/11 hijackers win or are we now winning because we've "battened down the hatches" and become like most of the rest of the world in the effort to not let it happen again? Hard to say, really.

[flumpki]

Since I've only been doing photography on even an amateur level for a couple years now, I can't fully appreciate whether or not photography is scarier post-911. I can say, though, that there does seem to be a bit of undue paranoia when photographing buildings at night.

There is a building a couple blocks away from my house in Gilbert, AZ that I had been wanting to photograph for a while. One night, a few months ago, on my way home I decided to stop and actually take some photos. So, I parked on a public street (legally) and set up my tripod to take some shots. Within a few minutes of shooting, I was really wishing I had just called it a night and gone home.

The next thing I knew, I had four police squad cars blocking off the exit of the cul-de-sac where I had parked, a bright flood light shining in my face and an officer instructing me to stop where I was and put my hands in the air. After setting my tripod down and taking several steps away from it with my hands in the air, I was approached by several officers with weapons drawn and instructed to turn around. I gotta say, it's not a pleasant feeling being approached by armed men while you're staring into a blinding light and then being instructed to turn around.

In the end though, after a little rough handling and a mild interrogation, they let me go. I must admit though, it was kinda hard to resist answering with a little sarcasm when then they asked me what I was doing. I mean, there really aren't too many things I can think to do at night in the middle of the street with a tripod and a camera pointed at a building. But I figured a quick lip probably wasn't going to do much for me in that situation. Nonetheless, the whole ordeal really taught me to be a bit more careful about my night photography in the future because even if the criminal element doesn't catch up to you, you've still got to be mindful of overzealous law enforcement.

[IMARLOW]

Here in London, there are many areas where photogrpahy is frowned upon.
Soem of our best landmarks and photogenic sites are for all intents and purposes no go areas.
It isn't just becuase of security concners though.
The London Eye has retrictions on where it can phortogrpahed from, for commercial reasons.
Canary Wharf with its almost paramilitary in house securtity force is another no go area.
The Royal Parks, have restrictions on place, anything looking like a serious camera can and has been challenged by police.
It is a sad sate of affairs when licenses and permissions are required to go about our hobby just because an organisation has seen a commercial angle on thier property.
Sadly iu cant see the situation getting any better soon, throw in security concerns to the pot and you very quickly shut down oppertunities and avenues that were taken for granted for many years.

[flumpki]

By the way, here is the shot I wound up with when it was all said and done. (Color version as well as a B&W conversion)

[Piltnik]

In that perspective Tallinn must be the promised land of photographers. I have never experienced or heard from others about such problems. I even had no problems "shooting" guards of Presidential Palace. So, all urban photographers of the world, welcome!
Only street, where it's not allowed to take photos is.. where the US embassy stands.

[greg20d]

Originally Posted by flumpki

Since I've only been doing photography on even an amateur level for a couple years now, I can't fully appreciate whether or not photography is scarier post-911. I can say, though, that there does seem to be a bit of undue paranoia when photographing buildings at night.

There is a building a couple blocks away from my house in Gilbert, AZ that I had been wanting to photograph for a while. One night, a few months ago, on my way home I decided to stop and actually take some photos. So, I parked on a public street (legally) and set up my tripod to take some shots. Within a few minutes of shooting, I was really wishing I had just called it a night and gone home.

The next thing I knew, I had four police squad cars blocking off the exit of the cul-de-sac where I had parked, a bright flood light shining in my face and an officer instructing me to stop where I was and put my hands in the air. After setting my tripod down and taking several steps away from it with my hands in the air, I was approached by several officers with weapons drawn and instructed to turn around. I gotta say, it's not a pleasant feeling being approached by armed men while you're staring into a blinding light and then being instructed to turn around.

In the end though, after a little rough handling and a mild interrogation, they let me go. I must admit though, it was kinda hard to resist answering with a little sarcasm when then they asked me what I was doing. I mean, there really aren't too many things I can think to do at night in the middle of the street with a tripod and a camera pointed at a building. But I figured a quick lip probably wasn't going to do much for me in that situation. Nonetheless, the whole ordeal really taught me to be a bit more careful about my night photography in the future because even if the criminal element doesn't catch up to you, you've still got to be mindful of overzealous law enforcement.

the only one breaking the law is the police ...tell them heres your sign

[Lars Finkelstein]

Originally Posted by Piltnik

In that perspective Tallinn must be the promised land of photographers. I have never experienced or heard from others about such problems. I even had no problems "shooting" guards of Presidential Palace. So, all urban photographers of the world, welcome!
Only street, where it's not allowed to take photos is.. where the US embassy stands.

reminds me of austria