As I mentioned in my last post, Cory Doctorow1 has been bringing my attention to this “War on Photography” that has plagued many an innocent photographer recently. I decided to create a poll on the Atheist Think Tank forum asking how people would handle a situation similar to that of many photographers who get ambushed by “security” in public. Here’s the poll, and some follow-up questions. How would you answer?
For your last birthday, you received a decent, professional-looking SLR camera2 that kinda looks like this:3
The next morning, you try it out. Being fond of the architecture and layout of the downtown area, you head there (not many people are out yet), and you start taking photos of buildings, trees, other people, the nearby bridge, and the iconic capitol building.
You’ve been there a good 20 minutes, and have taken quite a few shots, excited about the prospect of going home to review them on your computer. As you begin heading back, you are stopped by a police officer who asks you for your camera license. Oh no, you don’t have one! You tell the officer that you don’t have a camera license, and the officer says that you will either have to forfeit your camera for inspection or delete all of your photographs while the officer watches, lest you be cited for taking pictures of official buildings without a camera license, and possibly arrested upon suspicion of terrorist activities.
What do you do?
1. Delete your photographs while the officer watches.
2. Hand over your camera.
3. Run away.
4. Insist that you have the right to take photographs in public places, and refuse to hand over your camera or delete your photos.
5. Something else.
Follow-up questions. (with hints and answers from ATT in the footnotes, if you’d like ‘em)
A. Based on your choice, what do you think would happen next?4
B. What do you think would happen as a result of the choices you didn’t make?5
C. Is there such thing as a camera license in your country?6
D. Do you think I just came up with this scenario off the top of my head, or do you think it has any basis in reality?7
E. Is it an effective terrorist deterrent to treat all people who take pictures in public places as a potential terrorist?8
F. Have you ever been told that you cannot take photographs somewhere? Where was it? Do you think you did have the right to take photos there? Did you take photos anyway, or did you comply? If you took photos anyway, what happened? If you complied, what do you think would have happened if you had taken photos?
G. Have you ever taken photos covertly, in public — with the intent that others won’t see you taking them? Are you allowed to do so, as far as you know?
H. Would you report to the police an unaccompanied adult male apparently taking photographs of children in a playground? Why or why not?9
I. What, in your mind, is a good example of the kind of suspicious activity that should be reported to the police? What’s the bare minimum?
J. Have you ever reported suspicious activity? Do you think there are people more prone to do so? Why?
K. Do you think it’s appropriate for the government to install and use video cameras on its buildings, roads, etc.?
L. If you were running the government, would you make use of video surveillance of public places? Would you implement a national identification card? Would you require citizens to have camera licenses to take pictures of government buildings?10
Here’s some follow-up reading you might enjoy (or that might scare the wits out of you):
Latest from Boing Boing: Writer who photographed HP Lovecraft’s headstone ordered to delete her photo, heaped with abuse
Two ferry riders sought by FBI last summer were just tourists
Almost Arrested for Taking Photos at Union Station
Our Transportation Facilities Are Being Watched
Two FBI agents just showed up at my door… (I think I’m being investigated)
Orwellian Los Angeles
Taking picture of pylon lands man in police cell
At MARC, a Snapshot of Post-9/11 Excess
The War on Photography
Legal Rights Card for Photographers
Man Arrested For Unlawful Photography
Father-of-three branded a ‘pervert’ – for photographing his own children in public park
Photographing thugs ‘is assault’, police tell householder snapping proof of anti-social behaviour
My pool picture ban over paedophile fears
Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the SF MOMA, Yeah You Jerk, Photography is Not a Crime
[Much thanks to Cory Doctorow for citing many of these on Boing Boing]
- If you haven’t already, you should read Cory’s book “Little Brother,” which is right on-point with regard to the super-surveillance topic. You can even download it for free at: http://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/ [<]
- If you haven’t figured out why the title of this piece is “Dark Chambers,” it’s because the translation of the Latin ‘camera obscura,’ the foundation of what we call today a “camera.” Check out the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura [<]
- n.b., I actually have a D200 [<]
- About 76% of those I polled on ATT answered that they’d invoke their rights (choice #4). The remainder chose to delete their photographs (choice #1). Answers to the follow-up question varied — some thought they might be detained if they didn’t comply with the officer; others thought the officer would leave them alone if they deleted the photos. [<]
- Answers varied here, of course, depending on the initial choice. The main worry among those polled was losing their photographs and possibly some civil rights. One even suggested that refusing to comply might end up with the photographer arrested, but it would be worth it, because the photographer was in the right. [<]
- The most common answer to this question: “I don’t know.” As far as I’ve been able to tell, the U.K. and the U.S. do not have camera licenses. I think there are press and photography badges/IDs that one can acquire to gain access to otherwise private events or secure locations, but if you want to go take your camera on a tripod and take a picture of a prominent bridge in your town (while you stood in a public place), there shouldn’t be any legal restrictions for doing so. [<]
- Take a look at the links following the questions to see that this isn’t just some hypothetical, and it could very well happen to anyone at any time, any place. [<]
- How many of the 9/11 hijackers or co-conspirators stood outside the WTC with cameras, taking pictures of the buildings? [<]
- A few of the links above refer to situations just like this. [<]
- What’s a National ID Card? A potentially future result of the REAL ID Act of 2005. Read about it, and, if you like, protest about it, at http://epic.org/privacy/id-cards/ [<]
Tags: abuse, answers, architect, archives, atheist, ban, birth, birthday, BoingBoing, brother, Bush, camera, Capitol, children, citizen, Civil Rights, Cory, cory doctorow, delete, Doctorow, FBI, foundation, Government, Law, legal, Little Brother, Los Angeles, Love, Lovecraft, metro, Orwell, photo, photograph, photography, police, police state, proof, rights, surveillance state, theist, UK, war, Washington
I would ask a series of questions: since when did they instate a law affecting free speech rights, since when was a camera license required to take pictures, why they aren’t doing anything about the gazillion of other people around with cameras in their mobile phones. Most likely they’ll give up somewhere before the last question. But if I’m in a place with oppressive laws, most probably I’ll just be given a warning after deleting the photos. And if not, most probably they’ll just go away mumbling about citizens not respecting authority, although I hope I’ll be able to raise holy hell if they actually bother to arrest me.
And of course it actually is the sort of thing that happens, and something like that happened to me, too. Although it was in a semi-public private establishment and I respected their wishes (but I would have raised a ruckus if they wanted me to delete my photos).
By the way, my current country of residence, South Korea, actually has a national ID card for everyone, which even includes foreign residents. And everyone, from the government to corporations, seem to think nothing of always asking for a national ID number whenever someone tries to register something. Can you imagine someone in the US being happy about providing their social security number in order to comment on this blog? It’s comparable to that.
Yoo wrote, “Can you imagine someone in the US being happy about providing their social security number in order to comment on this blog? It’s comparable to that.”
Owch! Well, I suppose the impact that something like that would have depends on whether we felt we could trust that the government would protect our interests, and that having and disseminating our personal information (thus making it public information) would be beneficial to all involved. I haven’t seen evidence of any government in history that was trustworthy enough to pull that off. Why? They’ve all been run by humans, and, as we know, humans often succumb to temptation.
If you don’t mind my asking, Yoo, where (what type of place) was the semi-public private establishment where your incident occurred? I ask because here, in D.C., there have been a number of incidents at Union Station, which, although privately owned, is a major transportation hub as well as a tourist attraction. The security guards don’t bother with cell phone cameras or other small cameras, but they get agitated when someone with a camera that looks professional decides to take photos there. It’s even worse when the photographer has a tripod.
Follow-up question to that, Yoo, is, do you think that the same thing that happened in your situation would have happened to an obvious tourist? There’s obviously some profiling going on at some level, but I just wonder how these security guards and over-zealous police officers would react to a happy-looking foreign (but perhaps not middle-eastern) family (dad, mom, and the kids), dressed in Hawaiian t-shirts and shorts, if ‘dad’ had the camera pictured above, and started taking lots of shots of the ‘fam’ in various “sensitive” areas. I honestly think these anti-photography zealots target the solo “serious” looking photographer types.
Anyway, thanks for your comments, Yoo!
Most South Koreans are pretty much desensitized about giving out their national ID numbers since pretty much everything asks for one (I think there’s even a law requiring web sites to do so). It’s one of the big reasons why I don’t frequent many Korean web sites (another being that many sites are exclusively intended to be used with Internet Explorer). I don’t need the government to know everything I’m doing, and the danger of identity theft is just another reason not to give my number out.
The incident wasn’t really that much of a deal. It was at an department store in China, where an employee asked not to take pictures. I meekly complied, especially since I had already taken the photos I wanted of my colleagues shopping.
I’ve been fortunate that I have yet to encounter a security guard or police officer trying to stop me from taking pictures, although I have heard plenty of stories about it happening. And I have no idea if the same thing would have happened if I had a smaller point and shoot camera. (Presumably the prohibition in stores is more due to competition or public relations rather than security, so I guess it wouldn’t have been different, although the larger camera would certainly have made it more noticeable.)
I have received some odd looks from security guards, though. ^_^;;
[...] Yesterday, I asked a hypothetical question about how you would react to a police officer demanding that you delete your photos or hand over your camera after you’ve taken pictures of public buildings while standing in a public place.1 I also linked to a number of articles that provide ample evidence that photographers are being targeted by overzealous police and security personnel “for reasons of national security” and otherwise. [...]
[...] Dark Chambers: The Escalating War on Photography [...]