Scenic / nature photographers in national forests - big brother may be watching you!

CannedHeat wrote in post #9983838
Just for the fun of it, and to keep it in the context of a photography forum, I went back to the archives and pulled up a few pics.

Pictured below are shots of an assortment of explosives which were found in parks which were used for display in one of the classes (diffused, of course), and the other shot is of the two class instructors (State Bureau of Investigation Bomb Squad officers) demonstrating a booby trap trip wire tied between two trees (you can see the mechanism on the tree to the right).

As I said, there is a side to national and state parks that are totally unknown to most people.

They do less involved things too, like sticking double sided razor blades were you brush into them. swell.

The cure for this is not what many law enforcement agents want to hear. The losers are the tax payers.

(AP) Not far from Yosemite's waterfalls and in the middle of California's redwood forests, Mexican drug gangs are quietly commandeering U.S. public land to grow millions of marijuana plants and using smuggled immigrants to cultivate them.

Pot has been grown on public lands for decades, but Mexican traffickers have taken it to a whole new level: using armed guards and trip wires to safeguard sprawling plots that in some cases contain tens of thousands of plants offering a potential yield of more than 30 tons of pot a year.

"Just like the Mexicans took over the methamphetamine trade, they've gone to mega, monster gardens," said Brent Wood, a supervisor for the California Department of Justice's Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. He said Mexican traffickers have "supersized" the marijuana trade.

Interviews conducted by The Associated Press with law enforcement officials across the country showed that Mexican gangs are largely responsible for a spike in large-scale marijuana farms over the last several years.

Local, state and federal agents found about a million more pot plants each year between 2004 and 2008, and authorities say an estimated 75 percent to 90 percent of the new marijuana farms can be linked to Mexican gangs.
http://www.cbsnews.com …ational/main625​5189.shtml

We have these in some forests here in Australia too. Normally they're not located around camping grounds. From my understanding they've been used to catch people illegally obtaining firewood (without permits), illegal hunting, and so forth.

If you come across a nice spring during summer - think twice about a skinny dip these days.

My guess would be that the Ranger service would only expend the resources to use a camera, associated monitoring equipment and personnel if there was a reasonalbe cause for doing so.

I can't see them doing it just for the fun of it or for the rare chance of catching someone skinny dipping!

blackhawk wrote in post #9981634
That's creepy.
You should have a reasonably right to privacy in the middle of nowhere...
at least you used too.

Misuse of public funds... swell.

The only legal place you have for a right to privacy is in your own home. But if they can see in your home from a public location, that is still good to go. If want or need complete privacy, the stay in your house with the windows covered.

Mark

Ironic...we hear screams of protests from photographers on POTN who encounter individuals who object to their being included in the photograph, yet we are now hearing screams of protests from the very same photographers who do not like the fact that another camera is there?!?!?!

Is the first an invasion of privacy while the second one is not?! Is the second one an invasion of privacy while the first one is not?!

Wilt wrote in post #9986713
Ironic...we hear screams of protests from photographers on POTN who encounter individuals who object to their being included in the photograph, yet we are now hearing screams of protests from the very same photographers who do not like the fact that another camera is there?!?!?!

Is the first an invasion of privacy while the second one is not?! Is the second one an invasion of privacy while the first one is not?!

Plus one other ironic fact: in essence, the security in the parks and forests helps keep photographers safe.

Wilt wrote in post #9986713
Ironic...we hear screams of protests from photographers on POTN who encounter individuals who object to their being included in the photograph, yet we are now hearing screams of protests from the very same photographers who do not like the fact that another camera is there?!?!?!

Is the first an invasion of privacy while the second one is not?! Is the second one an invasion of privacy while the first one is not?!

I think the difference is that the cameras are hidden, and that people have an expectation of privacy at a camp site.

Simply posting a sign to say that you may be photographed would be a good idea IMHO, then you could decide on that basis if you wanted to camp there or not. Posting signs would likely also act as crime deterent.

hawkeye60 wrote in post #9986841
I think the difference is that the cameras are hidden, and that people have an expectation of privacy at a camp site.

Simply posting a sign to say that you may be photographed would be a good idea IMHO, then you could decide on that basis if you wanted to camp there or not. Posting signs would likely also act as crime deterent.

Exactly!

hawkeye60 wrote in post #9986841
I think the difference is that the cameras are hidden, and that people have an expectation of privacy at a camp site.

Simply posting a sign to say that you may be photographed would be a good idea IMHO, then you could decide on that basis if you wanted to camp there or not. Posting signs would likely also act as crime deterent.

The problem is that posting a sign that says " removing mineral deposits or valuable relics or rare plants or fossils from this area is illegal and may be recorded on hidden video cameras" will also say:"congratulations, you have found the place we wish you didn't know about. Find the cameras first, then look for the gold, petroglyphs,fossils etc. with little fear of prosecution because the few officers that protect these items are all busy looking for marijuana growers".

Josepi wrote in post #9973225
People have been using federal/state parks as grounds to grow marijuana for some time now.

This is what came to my mind as well. You can never escape BB...

hawkeye60 wrote in post #9986841
I think the difference is that the cameras are hidden, and that people have an expectation of privacy at a camp site.

How can you possibly have an expectation of privacy?

We're talking about a national park, here. An open campsite in an open national park! There could be a person lurking behind a tree. There could be 25 people lurking behind trees or bushes watching people at the campsite.

How can anybody expect "privacy" in such an inherently open and public environment?

CannedHeat wrote in post #9987220
How can you possibly have an expectation of privacy?

We're talking about a national park, here. An open campsite in an open national park! There could be a person lurking behind a tree. There could be 25 people lurking behind trees or bushes watching people at the campsite.

How can anybody expect "privacy" is such an inherently open and public environment?

Actually, from what I have heard from a source that probably can't or won't tell me all they know, devices of all kinds are in use on public lands of all types.
You just have to go out and try to chase down a few rumors or try to locate a few places noted on older maps that aren't mentioned on newer maps and you will soon realise that there is alot of stuff out there that needs and deserves protection.
with the limited funds available, I am personally alright with using the less expensive listening device or camera to do the job that we can't seem to spare an officer from the drug war for.

CannedHeat wrote in post #9987220
How can you possibly have an expectation of privacy?

We're talking about a national park, here. An open campsite in an open national park! There could be a person lurking behind a tree. There could be 25 people lurking behind trees or bushes watching people at the campsite.

How can anybody expect "privacy" is such an inherently open and public environment?

It's called a reasonable expectation. It would be reasonable to have an expectation of privacy when you enter a hotel room regardless of the fact there could be a illegal hidden camera in the room, or someone could be lurking outside the window, or hiding in the closet.

hawkeye60 wrote in post #9987385
It's called a reasonable expectation. It would be reasonable to have an expectation of privacy when you enter a hotel room regardless of the fact there could be a illegal hidden camera in the room, or someone could be lurking outside the window, or hiding in the closet.

Sorry, disagree. Apples and oranges. Not even close. Comparing hidden cameras in a hotel room to a campsite in the wide open is like comparing, well, canons to nikons.

To illustrate, an example: if you had an open campsite in a public park, and a person stood in the road watching you, not in your campsite, but with open view of your campsite, would that be an illegal act?

If you understand that example, you understand that the person can stand there and watch you if they wanted to. He might be a creep, yes. You might want to pop him in the nose, yes. But it would not be illegal for somebody who has the same access to the same park as you to stand there and watch you. You cannot expect any privacy in an open campsite in an open public park.