unphotographable

**tim atherton** · 4-Jan-2006, 13:36

www.unphotographable.com

(keep going back from todays entry)

**Eric Biggerstaff** · 4-Jan-2006, 13:47

Tim-

This could be one of the best unphotographic sites I have ever seen, well it is the only one I have ever seen.

I couldn't read all the entries but there are some good ones!

Thanks,

**Donald Brewster** · 4-Jan-2006, 14:02

Wow. Given where he isn't photographing, I imagine the gentleman is still taking some risk with the web site.

**tim atherton** · 4-Jan-2006, 14:30

you mean this one...

http://www.unphotographable.com/archives/2005/03/are_you_a_terro.shtml

**David R Munson** · 4-Jan-2006, 15:10

Fantastic! Into the blog bookmark folder it goes...

**Donald Qualls** · 4-Jan-2006, 19:29

"Much of the country is officially Unphotographable." (from the entry about Myanmar).

Scary part is, the same is true of the United States.

Vermont has a law (of which I've seen the text, and have no reason to believe other states are very different) prohibiting most photography of "infrastructure" -- things like power plants, train stations, and so on -- when the United States is "at war or threatened by war."

There hasn't been a day in more than 50 years when someone couldn't, quite reasonably, argue that we were in those conditions.

These laws aren't enforced often, but they're on the books, and never mind that an actual terrorist or spy wouldn't be out there with a heavy duty tripod, field camera, big bag of film holders, light meter and framing aid around his neck, and his head under a dark cloth; to paraphrase Volta, "The law, in its magnanimity, forbids the artist equally as the terrorist from photographing public buildings and works."

If you think you live in The Land of the Free, take a close look at the Bill of Rights and count how many of those rights are still intact and operational. Hint: it's the ones Congress needs, plus one nobody really cares about.

**Walt Calahan** · 4-Jan-2006, 19:55

What the law makers don't understand is any terrorist armed with a cell phone camera can take any and all the photos he or she wants without anyone knowing.

Meanwhile anyone very obviously making a photograph is trapped in these crazy, unconstitutional (well it's constitutional until a court says it isn't) laws.

I'm dumping LF, MF, SF and hitting the streets with my Motorola. HA!

**Monty_6219** · 4-Jan-2006, 20:19

Here's more detail on that Vermont law...

http://rherald.com/News/2001/1213/Editorial/e02.html

**Jeff Conrad** · 4-Jan-2006, 22:43

I'm pretty skeptical about alleged laws of this type unless someone
actually can cite them, but it looks like Vermont actually does have such a
law:

[Vermont Statutes]
[TITLE 13 Crimes and Criminal Procedure]
[PART 1 Crimes]
[CHAPTER 75. TREASON AND OTHER OFFENSES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT]
[Subchapter 3. Other Offenses]

§ 3481. Obtaining maps and plans.

A person who, without permission of lawful authority, while the United
States is at war or threatened with war, makes or attempts to make, or has
in his possession or attempts to obtain, or aids another to obtain, any
map, drawing, plan, model, description, or picture of any military camp,
fort, armory, arsenal or building in which munitions of war are stored, or
of any bridge, road, canal, dockyard, telephone or telegraph line or
equipment, wireless station or equipment, railway or property of any
corporation subject to the supervision of the public service board, or of
any municipality or part thereof, shall be imprisoned not more than ten
years.

Amended 1959, No. 329 (Adj. Sess.), 39, eff. March 1, 1961; 1971, No. 199
(Adj. Sess.), § 15.

I wonder if anyone ever has been convicted? Or even charged?

I don't think this is typical (we don't have anything like it in
California), though I haven't done a similar search of other state laws.

I guess fall foliage still is OK if the picture doesn't include any of the
aforementioned items ...