Taken into custody.

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.

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

a521 wrote in post #9332241
Now, THERE'S some SOLID advice!! I love internet forums!!

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

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9330004
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.

I would gladly take that up, if they screwed with me and had the capital.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #9332031
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.

john-in-japan wrote in post #9332526
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.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9332860
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.

yogestee wrote in post #9332175
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.

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.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #9333100
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?

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."

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.

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.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9333551
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.

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

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #9333899
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...

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...!

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.