Taken into custody.

ssim wrote in post #9326726
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.

blackhawk wrote in post #9328034
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.

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.

Which refinery is it?

m3n00b wrote in post #9329005
Which refinery is it?

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

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.

jeyaganesh wrote in post #9329680
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.

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.

gorgon2k wrote in post #9324927
"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.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9329777
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.)

^^^ That! ^^^

lankforddl wrote in post #9328226
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.

JeffreyG wrote in post #9325306
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.

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.

mpeters wrote in post #9327480
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??

kgoings wrote in post #9325806
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!!

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