Folks, just reading the most recent postings on this topic remind me of a phrase I just read Sunday on another forum; Welcome to the United States of Insanity.
Let's be careful with the political content here, as that will usually quickly spiral down into nastiness. And perhaps we should also treat the legalities with caution. I know that leaves us with a great story without a beginning, a middle and an end. I tend to take a longer-range view of these issues, as my title was strategic planner for many years (I'm really just a writer). And I do some professional photography. So I've followed these issues for 40 years now. In 1969, I was covering student protests against Vietnam. The students were petrified that I was going to turn a copy of my films over to the FBI. There was a lot of vitriol toward the news media because of this fear. I was pushed, blocked, spat on (by both protestors and counter-protestors), and generally screamed at. To this day I don't know of one news producer who turned films over to the FBI, and I doubt the FBI would have been interested. I dealt with the FBI a number of times because my stories were controversial. Sure they wanted information, but not sources nor films. Sometimes they wanted to know what they could do, or should do. They knew exactly where the line was, and never stepped over it. I went to some length above because I feel we are sometimes paranoid about these issues. We should be vigilant, not paranoid. Sometimes vigilance means research instead of opinions. I've followed the "confiscation-of-film" issue for 40 years, and really haven't found that it has happened unlawfully more than a few times in the US, if that. I've heard many unsubstantiated tales, many a repeat of the few cases I've really found. When I've looked at the tales, I haven't found much. Of course, I'd need court cases and decisions to really research this. I'm on the road this week; perhaps next week.
Seriously.. If we are worried about critical photographs or infastructure.. Why do we have satellite imagery like Google maps? I'd be more worried about any wrong doers getting ahold of stuff like that then people that take pictures of trains. Oh and there is a certain *ahem* "news network" that really needs to lay off the "terrorist" stuff. I think most of us can figure which cable "news" networks seems to hit on that subject more than anything.
That's a great point! Google maps also has "Street View"--not the highest quality images, but a great way to rule out many things. I still feel this issue has been over-hyped. I just can't track down court cases above metro courts.
As promised, I've down a little research on this in the United States. I turned up exactly two incidents. One was in Ohio, in a prison facility, where photography is restricted. The film was returned. The other was in a student newspaper, where a private security guard demanded film because he was an undercover agent and did not want to be exposed. He didn't act right in that case; the film was returned. In the first case, the court decided in favor of the photographer; in the second, everything seems to have worked out without the courts. Now, abroad there have been many, many incidents, but I think we're addressing the US here. I've been searching tonight for a few hours. There are many, many cases where someone took forbidden photos while on US bases or other places where photography is explicitly forbidden by Federal law. There are no cases where someone's film was confiscated because classified or even sensitive facilities were photoed from public land. The fact is you can't take a classified photo from public land. Now, you can get really obnoxious and bait a public official into an unlawful response; the courts have dealt with that in favor of the obnoxious one. I'll keep looking, but I haven't really found a documented example of film, cameras or, these days, chips being confiscated since about 2002. I'm beginning to think this is all an urban myth. I just can't find a court case about it above the metro court level.
I believe what is happening is that people are indeed worried about their freedoms being compromised. There is a great sensitivity these days. Speaking out doesn't hurt. It lets the bureaucracy know they're being watched, we're not taking our rights lightly and to not bother even starting to meddle.... Boxcab E50
Ken, I agree with that sentiment completely: it's what we Americans do best. Still, I'm a skeptic about confiscation tales. They were rampant in the 1970s when I was covering student protests. It never happened to me, nor to anyone I knew, and the union was pretty small. And I can't find anything above the metro court level and, even there, not much. Even the metro courts have upheld the First Amendment in every case, and usually very quickly, within a few days. I reported an incident on this forum from Thanksgiving 2008 when a worker for the Martha's Vineyard Ferry sidled up to me as I was taking photos, and whispered that I shouldn't be doing that. So I moved a few yards away and kept taking pictures--from a better vantage point, I might add.I could have gone all ballistic on this man, who was only interpreting what he was told, and caused a case. I ask, Why bother? When people think they are doing their job, just give them a nod, move off a few feet, and continue doing what you were doing. I think that's common sense. The stories of confiscated film or cameras that I read were clear violations of Federal law, where recording devices were strictly prohibited, and the photographer used them anyway. I don't buy First Amendment rights in these cases, which have been numerous. If you enter premises where photos are not permitted, whether government or private sites, and take photos, you are in the wrong and in some case subject to some severe penalties. The "What-Ifs" are endless. What if I'm standing on public property and take a photo of something that is classified? It shouldn't happen, but I think it has. What if I publish a photo that was classified, then unclassified when I published it, and then was classified again? That happens all the time; I've been in the middle more than once. Today I can't even describe the photos without severe risk of jail and huge fines: the subject is classified! Yet you can find those photos with a simple Google search. That doesn't matter: it's classified! It all gets very silly. In the end, though, it all gets worked out. We need more common sense applied to these matters.
