Taken into custody.

lankforddl wrote in post #9325708
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.

lankforddl wrote in post #9333070
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".

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?

Gedanken wrote in post #9334968
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.

NeutronBoy wrote in post #9325017
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.

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

DDCSD wrote in post #9335397
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

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

blackhawk wrote in post #9335763
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

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

neil_r wrote in post #9335822
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.

DDCSD wrote in post #9333771
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.

blackhawk wrote in post #9335915
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.

Gedanken wrote in post #9334968
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.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #9333100
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.

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.

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.)

Agreed.

neil_r wrote in post #9336027
LOL I think you missed my point.

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

a521 wrote in post #9336351
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?