Camera Stops Traffic for 2 Hours

Better be careful where you point that camera! I was stopped in traffic for two hours because Police thought a photographer with a camera and telephoto lens was a sniper.

I posted article here if you want details;
http://forums.dpreview​.com …orum=1019&messa​ge=8059756

This is unreal... what total paranoia!

wow that does suck

Once while driving, I saw a lovely young woman scrunched down at the side of a road with a camera and telephoto lens aimed at a subject in a field that I couldn’t see. I wanted to stop and see what she was shooting. Also, I wanted to tell her that she could be easily mistaken for a sniper. I thought of taking a shot of her taking a shot. Alas, I didn’t get my shot. Perhaps she got hers. Not knowing why or what she chose to shoot that day, I remained intrigued by the memory. Maybe it’s my curiosity, not paranoia.

Soon US officials will order that all camera lenses have to be verified as optical equipment and covered with visible white-blue-red striped indentification cloth which is to be sealed in its place on nearest police station. Also photogaphers must wear similar official indentification wardrobe (red shorts, blue shirt and white stetson) to avoid unneccessary false reports from public.

If similar incidents you reported go further (remember how many Americans carry a gun) above will not be a joke any more.

Is it just me or should the officer have known it was a lens? After all his name was Sgt. Wayne Ziese (now that aint a million miles away from Zeiss is it)
http://www.napanews.co​m …68-4C47-A6EA-B9006186F6AC

pip pip
N

There must be something suspicious about camera equipment to law enforcement. The first time I went to Europe, airport security required me to take both lens caps off of all my lenses so they could see through them. No problem, but it takes time.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

Well I do know that many law types are now very wary of people photographing "installations" (e.g. bridges, large freeway interchanges, airports, large public buildings etc.).

I'm guessing this is because terrorists would do the same thing, i.e. collecting intelligence if they were going to target those structures.

Now I'm not sure if that is paranoia, but my parents were very upset to find almost everywhere they went in New York and Washington D.C., they kept being told "No cameras" after they had saved for over a year for a trip from England to the USA.

I mean, my dad's camera is only a P&S and it isn't even a Canon.

Cheers

Ian

Okay let me see how many post 9-11 rules I have violated.
- I have taken pictures ON a military installation (of ducks, but still it was on an USAF base)
- I have taken pictures of Navy Carriers (big nuclear things) while they were sitting in Norfolk
- I have taken pictures of a shipyard that builds said CVNS (this includes walking down to the entrance and shooting from there.
- I have taken pictures of both the James River Bridge and Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel
- I have taken pictures of Federal buildings
- I have flown frequently on airlines with my camera gear as carry on (to include my 550EX "stun gun"
- I don't have a vest that says "press" (or a card for that matter)
- I have the 100-400L and 70-200/2.8L IS, which are not small lenses

All of the above has occurred since I bought my D60 in July 2002.
I have been politely questioned twice by officials and had no problems once I told them I was taking pictures of the bridge, because it makes a great test target for my new lenses (or the second time because it was my favorite spot to catch the sunset).

Other then the AF base, which I later discovered that although I had asked for permission, the person who gave it did not have permission to let me take pictures. All of the above has been entirely legal and within my constitutional rights under FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. Something I really hope we never lose.

Given that I have served 20 years in the USAF I will defend my constituional right to take pictures anywhere it is public property. what I don't necessarily have the right to do is use the pictures in any manner I feel, but I do have the right to take them.

Just my opinion, don't take as challenge; I may just have been lucky, but they are going to have to show me the law in print to get me to give up my camera (unless I am on a government installation itself, like said AF base where I work daily and don't take pictures anymore with out public affairs permission).

Pekka,
That is rather amusing! Truth be told, I haven't had a problem yet, touch wood, but the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 lens one of my friends calls the howitzer. It takes 105mm filters and that's where that came from. What is even more amusing was the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L lens I took with me to Ireland 15th March 04-26th Mar 04 and well stuck on a 10D a lot of people gave me some really odd looks. I had to tell them that the 24-70 was a very small lens. I guess for some Canon L lenses being the great white isn't good enough. What is the US coming to? Has it changed that much in the 2 1/2 years since I left? It must have!

The states that allow concealed carry have a lower crime rate that ones that don't.

To Longwatcher: Remember the lyrics to the song, "They're Coming to Take Me Away"? If not, better learn them!


To Penguin_101_1: Very true, but no one will believe you!

Look here:

From here: http://www.moccw.org/g​unmyths.html

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Oh......facts! Like they ever listen to those!