The Creeping Sovietization of America

[VMI77]

More Old Soviet Union or North Korea than the America I was born into, where we were taught in school that photo restrictions like these were a signature element of totalitarian regimes. Not much I can add to this, we're headed into the darkness.

http://www.lbpost.com/life/greggory/12188

"Police Chief Jim McDonnell has confirmed that detaining photographers for taking pictures "with no apparent esthetic value" is within Long Beach Police Department policy."

"Among the non-criminal behaviors "which shall be reported on a SAR" are the usage of binoculars and cameras (presumably when observing a building, although this is not specified), asking about an establishment's hours of operation, taking pictures or video footage "with no apparent esthetic value," and taking notes."

[gigag04]

Not a big deal really.

[mamabearCali]

What in this world? I remember being in 6th grade (about 1991) and being told that one of the signature pieces of an oppressive totalitarian regime is that you may not take photographs without the express permission of the gov't. Did the United States suddenly go into the twillight zone? We have citizens being strip searched without warrants at airports, photographers being detained for taking pictures, and the insanity keeps on mounting. What is happening here?

[mamabearCali]

Not a big deal really.

Yes it is a big deal if it is a policy of the police to detain (arrest) people taking photographs with no other cause.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I agree with gig. If you read the article it clearly states that the officers will make contact first and from the information obtained during the contact will make a judgement call to detain or not and this will come if the officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. There is nothing wrong with this. If someone is conducting themselves in a suspicious manner or partaking in suspicious activities they should be approached by law enforcement. There is absolutely nothing communist about this. If the person is not doing anything wrong then they should have no problem explaining what it is that they are doing. The officers are not detaining people for simply taking pictures or even approaching everyone taking pictures. They are approaching people who are acting suspiciously at certain areas.

Furthermore, the incident that has provoked this is nothing to get your panties in a twist over. The police were called about the photographer taking pictures of the oil refinery. The subject stated that the officer's demeanor was friendly during their conversation. When asked for his ID the subject asked questions. The officer ran his ID and came back and informed him that everything was ok and he could stay and take pictures.

Bottom line is someone reported suspicious activity and the police followed up on it. Last I checked that was part of their job. They are not arresting anyone. They are not taking them to the station for questioning. They are simply doing their job.

[Dave2]

I think VMI77 was talking about listing photography as a suspicious activity.

[psijac]

Having a camera near a school means you are now guilty of breaking the law until proven innocent

[The Annoyed Man]

Not a big deal really.

Photography is a hobby of mine. One of my website design clients has a website with an oil refinery in the header graphic. That image was purchased completely legally from a website that sells stock photography. How on earth does a police officer know that I have no probable cause to exercise either my hobby or my profession? Or for that matter, how does a police officer know that the professional photographer who took that oil refinery image has a probably cause to take the picture? That's absurd.

[Medic624]

Aw man... Just bought a new Canon EOS Rebel T2i ... What the heck am I gonna do now?!?...lol

[Oldgringo]

What in this world? I remember being in 6th grade (about 1991) and being told that one of the signature pieces of an oppressive totalitarian regime is that you may not take photographs without the express permission of the gov't. Did the United States suddenly go into the twillight zone? We have citizens being strip searched without warrants at airports, photographers being detained for taking pictures, and the insanity keeps on mounting. What is happening here?

Does the name Joseph McCarthy ring any bells? You should have been aroumd in the late 40's and early 50's.

[Y2bad4u]

Its because of the Dept of Homeland Security. If you are out taking pictures of a refinery or another type of plant you are gonna get questioned to make sure you are legit. We can't take pictures inside the plant either.

[Heartland Patriot]

What in this world? I remember being in 6th grade (about 1991) and being told that one of the signature pieces of an oppressive totalitarian regime is that you may not take photographs without the express permission of the gov't. Did the United States suddenly go into the twillight zone? We have citizens being strip searched without warrants at airports, photographers being detained for taking pictures, and the insanity keeps on mounting. What is happening here?

Its weird, and even though I went through school a few years before you, I distinctly remember that same thing about photographs. I'm sorry, but some of these folks have lost their minds...I keep saying it, but I'm sure I'm right on this one, that things just can't keep going like they are...

[XDgal]

It is a big deal. Ya'll remember a little thing called the First amendment? You know the one just before the second amendment. Photography is covered under the first one. If you are on public property, you can take pictures of anything and anyone. If you are a photographer, I recomend you download "The Photographer's Rights" and keep a copy with your camera gear. You can get it here, http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, or google The Photographer's rights. I'm also a railfan and this has, and continues to be, a burr under our saddle since 9/11/01. After all, only a terrorist would take pictures of trains! Of course, several millon train fans who have been taking pictures of trains since the 1880s might disagree. All of the bill of rights are important, and we have to be dilligent in protecting them all.

[74novaman]

I saw a documentary one time where police got very concerned about what a guy was taking pictures of. They even threatened to deport him for taking pictures in a public area of a statue.

Just gotta think for a minute...where was that...

Ah! It was a documentary on North Korea. We definitely want our police to emulate theirs, right?

[G26ster]

Once again I find my self a bit befuddled. With all the talk on several threads running about "Spidey Sense," Gut Feelings," Smell Tests," etc. I'm surprised that anyone would be upset if the DHS, the local LEOs, or a concerned citizen would want someone questioned for taking pictures of a refinery or other building that seemed out of place. What's the difference between someone taking pictures with "no apparent esthetic value" and the guy asking for a ride at the gas station because his truck was broke down? Or, the guy that got within 50' of a members car in Houston late one night. It was most members opinion that the posters was/would be correct in calling 911, and to let the law sort it out. So what's the difference between letting the law question the photographer taking pictures with "no apparent esthetic value" if they (the law), or a concerned citizen, feel that photography doesn't meet their personal smell test, or they have a spidey sense about it, or they don't like their gut feeling? Personally, I see no difference, because in none of the cases mentioned did anyone break the law . If you want the law to investigate your suspicions, I guess they have the right to investigate theirs, or the suspicions of others. After all, if you calling the law might save someone else a "bad day," the law investigating the refinery photographer might save hundreds a bad day. I don't think we can have it both ways in our society.