New campaign to "report odd photographers" to the police

[tim atherton]

The Metropolitan Police (London, UK) has launched a new counter terrorism campaign with posters and ads going up to encourage people to report "odd" photographers (as well as people acting suspiciously in their homes and suspicious people using cellphones...hmm):


THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS EVERY DAY. WHAT IF ONE OF THEM SEEMS ODD

Terrorists use surveillance to help plan attacks, taking photos and making notes about security measures like the location of CCTV cameras. If you see someone doing that we need to know. Let experienced Officers decide what action to take.

I think "odd" probably covers about 98% of this list... :-)

more here (if the neo-cons get too wild and off topic, we can move this to the lounge, but this is of importance to anyone working in or travelling to the UK for photography...)

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2008/03/has-met-been-taking-lessons-from.html

[cotdt]

big brother will take care of you

[domenico Foschi]

Ignorance and fear are a dangerous combination for freedom.
ALL photographers will look ODD because they will be looking for angles and point the camera right in your face,or doing it very covertly not to distract the scene.
I sure hope this won't spill over here in the US as well.
Mhmm.. I am actually surprised that it didn't start here first.

[Charles Carstensen]

But ossifer, I only had two shots.

[ic-racer]

Ignorance and fear are a dangerous combination for freedom.
ALL photographers will look ODD because they will be looking for angles and point the camera right in your face,or doing it very covertly not to distract the scene.
I sure hope this won't spill over here in the US as well.
Mhmm.. I am actually surprised that it didn't start here first.

When I went to get auto plates in the Midwest USA, there was a poster in the bureau depicting suspicious activities that need to be reported. One suspicious activity depicted was that of a person taking a picture of a public structure.

[davidb]

I was questioned by the FBI and local PD last week for taking a picture of the local bus station.

Read about it here... (http://davidbram.blogspot.com/2008/02/questioned-by-fbi-and-police.html)

It wasn't fun but it did seem rather harmless.

[Jeff Conrad]

Domenico, we actually may have been first.

The following sign has been in the Union Square parking garage in San Francisco for several years (and was still there six months or so ago):

NOTICE

DUE TO THE LEVEL OF ALERT THROUGHOUT OUR NATION REGARDING TERRORIST
ACTIVITY, PICTURE TAKING IS PROHIBITED IN ALL AREAS OF THIS PARKING
FACILITY. IF AT ANY TIME YOU SHOULD SEE A PERSON OR PERSONS TAKING
PICTURES PLEASE REPORT THIS IMMEDIATELY TO THE SECURITY OR MANAGEMENT
PERSONNEL. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER.

THE MANAGEMENT
UNION SQUARE GARAGE

THANK YOU, UNION SQUARE MANAGEMENT

It's always refreshing to find signage that's unencumbered by principles of typography or English composition. Conspicuously absent, however, is a citation of the authority to prohibit photography. I wonder why ...

I've never had an overpowering desire to photograph the Union Square Garage (although, given a choice, I'd just as soon photograph Level 3 of the parking structure as I would the square itself. One person's opinion ...)

[John Kasaian]

When Baden-Powell was sketching enemy fortifications he posed as a naturalist drawing butterflies in the field, with the intelligence obscured in the elaborate details of the drawings.

With so many camera cell phones around which cannot only capture images but transmit them to other locations at speed, the sketch pad and the minox (much less something along the lines of an 8x10 'dorff) are hardly the front line tools of intelligence gatherers any more---at least the ones who are playing for keeps. The time it takes to unload a camera and soup the film compromises the timeliness of the product and the possession of the film is incriminating evidence for any operative.

The warnings and the hassles like those mentioned here are social constructs and IMHO have little to do with fighting terrorists.

[cyrus]

Hate to break it to you davidb but your name is now in a database, along with mine and god knows who else, and god knows what use is made of this list or how it could be used in the future since you don't have the right to know any of this.

''This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." -Plato, 565 BC

[Maretzo]

Basic rule: avoid being suspiciously hidden under a dark cloth: use a transparent one.

[Colin Robertson]

Divide. Demonise. Conquer. Even new politicians like old tricks.

[evan clarke]

Next we will be wearing yellow stars, pink stars and the kids will be wearing cute tan uniforms...EC

[Brian K]

Great so from now on the terrorists will have to capture their surveillance photos surreptitiously instead of blatantly, just a minor inconvenience for them given how small digital video and still cameras have become. And for the rest of us, we can expect to be interrogated by the police every time some chickenshit civilian sees a boogey man.

Does anyone fully realize that it is not the actions of 9/11 that have given the terrorists a victory, but our own eagerness to toss out the very liberties that so many were willing to die to protect? All for the illusion of safety. How different is our life becoming than the life faced by the average citizen ( not talking about those subject to the holocaust here) of a nazi occupied country? No habeas corpus, warrantless search and seizures, imprisonment without charge or due process, interrogation for even the most innocuous of actions and let us not forget government sanctioned torture. Here in the US, 1 out of every 100 adults is in prison. The only thing lacking from the nazi playbook is the ability to just have someone taken out and shot. But we're working on that too. Since 9/11, 200,000 people in the US have died as a result of guns.

They hijack a couple of planes and take down a couple of buildings, and the American way of life is thrown under the bus. Is that all it takes after more than 200 years to circumvent the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? Was this the way of life that the men who stormed up Omaha beach were dying for?

[Geert]

We should all start wearing a bright yellow t-shirt with the text "terrorists use digital cameras" to avoid the hassle.

G

[BarryS]

The sadness in this idiocy is the fundamental inability or unwillingness to apply simple logic or reason the perceived problem. Should people watch for suspicious behavior? Maybe, but singling out photography makes no more sense than singling out any other behavior common to huge numbers of people.

terrorists use laptops
terrorists work out at the gym
terrorists eat fast food
terrorists sketch in notebooks
terrorists buy wire
terrorists use cellphones
terrorists surf the internet
terrorists wear backpacks
terrorists are quiet neighbors

[Greg Lockrey]

I think "odd" probably covers about 98% of this list... :-)



No truer words were ever written. :D

[Scott Knowles]

What perplexes me is authorities who don't understand terrorists aren't going to be obvious as photographers, but as either tourist or ordinary people depending on the situation and circumstances, and no terrorist is going to walk around with a $3-5K+ worth of camera equipment. If anything they'll use cellphone or p&s cameras to download and transmit the images. They're not going to be stupid enough to have the evidence on a CF card, and if they do, they're as stupid as photographers.

And what also perplexes me is that when something happens, the first call is often to the public for any images from the cellphones and/or cameras. It's not illegal for you to take photos and we'll arrest you if we want to but we really want the photos because it would help us do our job. So what don't they understand that more photographers are better? If they have all those surveillence cameras what's so bad or wrong about still photographers being there too?

Sometimes I think the police are missing the flash card of getting the picture.

[Scott Knowles]

The following sign has been in the Union Square parking garage in San Francisco for several years (and was still there six months or so ago) - snipped sign quote.


The Washington State Ferry system does the same thing in their tourist brochure, asking folks to report suspicious photographers, except it's not only legal to take photos on ferries and around ferry terminals (same here, there are no sign prohibiting it or explaining the laws), and "It's not against the rules to take pictures on a ferry. What is against the rules is to get into nonpublic areas and take pictures," said Susan Harris, customer information services manager for Washington State Ferries.

Except they've invited TV, newspaper and magazine film crews and photographers into those non-public areas on ferries for public education and news releases. They clearly want it both ways and push the limit of people's rights in name of fighting terrorists, which by the way the FBI still haven't identified, let alone found, the two "middle-eastern looking young men" who rode four ferries in two days last August.

[Ron Bose]

Maybe the next step is licensing and registration. With a license we've been screened, had security clearance and our photographs be open to audit ...

Yeah, that'll work ...

[mrladewig]

I'm gonna go hide under a rock now. Its too scary out there.

Stupid BS.

Except for the fact that I don't want to deal with the hassles, I'm tempted to go out and do a project on places you can't take pictures.

[Steve Kefford]

Basic rule: avoid being suspiciously hidden under a dark cloth: use a transparent one.

Considering the intellectual capabilities of the cops that have stopped me in the UK in the last few years, being conspicuous makes no difference. Waving at the boys buzzing us in the helicopters did not prevent being stopped and detained by heavily armed officers for a considerable amount of time.

Seriously, if the cops want to start taking this issue seriously, then it is about time that they learnt that photography CAN (and does) involve more thann taking holiday snapshots of drunken friends on holiday. This would then enable them to have a chance of determining if someone is acting strangley.

After all, odd is only defined by one's own terms of reference.

Steve

[Deane Johnson]

When you see how confused law enforcement becomes with ordinary citizens making photographs in an obvious manner, maybe even using a tripod, it makes you wonder how they ever figure out who a terrorist might be.

[Kirk Gittings]

I would like to report a number of photographers on this forum who clearly are pretty odd. Where do I go?

[Steve Kefford]

Maybe the next step is licensing and registration. With a license we've been screened, had security clearance.....

Now thats a new way to earn some money. Anybody know of any terrorists looking to comission some work?

Steve

[Michael Graves]

Terrorists use surveillance to help plan attacks, taking photos and making notes about security measures like the location of CCTV cameras. If you see someone doing that we need to know. Let experienced Officers decide what action to take.

The above sentence is the key to the notice.....not reporting "odd photographers". If neo-libs would learn to read in context there would be fewer knee-jerk reactions kicking up the mud.

[Brian K]

The above sentence is the key to the notice.....not reporting "odd photographers". If neo-libs would learn to read in context there would be fewer knee-jerk reactions kicking up the mud.

Neo-liberals? I would think that wanting to ensure that the Constitution and Bill of rights are held intact would not be a liberal or conservative issue but an American one. Maybe you haven't heard about the loss of rights we've endured so far since 9/11. Habeas corpus, protections against warrantless search and seizure, protections from surveillance and the right to privacy, the implementation of government sanctioned torture, right to trial and due process if you are arrested, right to legal representation if you are arrested. All of these rights are now at the discretion of the government and are not guaranteed.

Maybe this situation would have been permissible in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, but for an American to feel that these rights are unimportant goes against everything that this country has stood for. The rights in those nations didn't disappear all at once. The loss of rights is done in small increments, so as not to draw protest. And then one day, they're all gone.

[cyrus]

I think I want to start a portfolio consisting of photos of CCTV cameras...does that make me a terrorist or just odd? Heck, if photos of driveways and powerlines can be displayed in the Metropolitan...

[roteague]

I would think that wanting to ensure that the Constitution and Bill of rights are held intact would not be a liberal or conservative issue but an American one. Maybe you haven't heard about the loss of rights we've endured so far since 9/11. Habeas corpus, protections against warrantless search and seizure, protections from surveillance and the right to privacy, the implementation of government sanctioned torture, right to trial and due process if you are arrested, right to legal representation if you are arrested. All of these rights are now at the discretion of the government and are not guaranteed.

Exactly what is happening in our country today. So much for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[tim atherton]

The above sentence is the key to the notice.....not reporting "odd photographers". If neo-libs would learn to read in context there would be fewer knee-jerk reactions kicking up the mud.

ever tried taking a photo in any town in the UK which doesn't show the location of CCTV cameras? (there are about 4.5 million).

and here's the radio ad transcript:


Female Voice over:
How d’you tell the difference between someone just video-ing crowded place and someone who’s checking it out for a terrorist attack?

How can you tell if someone’s buying unusual quantities of stuff for a good reason or if they’re planning to make a bomb?

What’s the difference between someone just hanging around and someone behaving suspiciously?

How can you tell if they’re a normal everyday person, or a terrorist?

Male voice over:
The answer is, you don’t have to.

If you call the confidential Anti-Terrorist Hotline on 0800 789 321, the specialist officers you speak to will analyse the information. They’ll decide if and how to follow it up.

You don’t have to be sure. If you suspect it, report it.

Call the Anti-Terrorist Hotline on 0800 789 321 in confidence.

in other words, just report anyone you don't like the look of or who deosn't fit in....

[Henry Ambrose]

Get thee to the Lounge!

What uninformed blather.

How many times do we have to be put through this on the Large Format photography forum?

Take it up with your respective governments or find a forum titled "the-mans-keeping-me-down.com"

[lenser]

Even though I totally agree with the negative opinions about how our constitution has been ignored and damaged by our own government and how our rights as human beings are in jeopardy because of it, I have taken a practical approach to this particular problem for over twenty years.

When I have an architectural or other location assignment, I make sure that I have a dated letter with me at all times on the letterhead of the architect, contractor, designer or supplier (with all of their contact information) requesting those specific photographs. I have also contacted the managers of the building, not only to secure their permission, but also to give them time to be sure that landscaping is at it's prime before shooting.

As someone who also shoots buildings for fun, I would also take the pro-active approach if I am in an area that I thought would be even slightly sensitive. Just call the authorities ahead of time to let them know you are going to be shooting in that general area. The times that I've done this have always been met with appreciation. It may be a nuiscence to do, but it also makes friends instead of adversaries.

One of my old bosses had a favorite phrase that he used to spout, "It's easier to say I'm sorry than it is to ask permission.". I thought he was an idiot the first time I heard it, and he's proven it over and over. In the current paranoid climate, it seems to me it's only smart to at least be communicative instead of saying I'm sorry after you've been hassled to death by some security guy who also doesn't need the hassle.

Yes, there are times when you just stumble onto a photograph and have to react then and there. Just do your best and go with the flow if you are challenged. Remember that they have the power, so don't give them even more by being a pain.

Finally, your own web site may be your best defense if you get approached by a policeman or sheriff's deputy. Almost all police type vehicles have lap tops that are on line. Even though they usually can't get off of their dispatch connection to access the web, it is possible. Lacking that, they can certainly call in to their headquarters and have someone there get online to check your site. Once there, it should be relatively easy for them to accept your legitimacy and let you go about your business.

It's a lousy situation, but until we can change it, we can work with it by being friendly instead of pissing somebody off. I know it sounds a bit naive, but being polite and trying to turn an adversary into a friend, does seem to work more times than not.

[Doug Dolde]

Edward Abbey would likely be branded a terrorist.

Some quotes: http://home.att.net/~hugh2you/abbey.html

[Brian K]

Lenser, you make some good points but the fact is that very few law enforcement officers know the actual laws regarding photography and forget about the degree of ignorance of the laws that the rent a cops have. Simple fact is that you may find yourself arrested for doing something perfectly legal. Granted after you sign waivers stating that you won't press charges for false arrest you'll be released, nevertheless who needs that type of hassle?

In your case while working on assignment you can easily get permission in advance from your client or the people with authority over the area that you are trying to work in. However for someone like me, who is traveling around looking for images that may suddenly appear, there is little possibility of me getting advance consent, and in the case of being on public land and photographing a scene visible from public land, I am not legally required to give advance notice.

Does anyone really think the 9/11 terrorists needed to do much surveillance of the WTC? Did McVeigh need detailed intelligence info for Oklahoma City? These guys are not trying to surgically knock down a building. All they need do is use the brute force approach. Almost no containers entering the US are searched for possible weapons or explosives so it's pretty easy for low tech terrorists to get very powerful expolsives.

[lenser]

Brian,

I completely agree that my approach is selective and that it can't apply to the found situation. I also agree that many if not most law enforcement (hate that phrase, my granddad was a 'peace officer') personnel do not know the law regarding what we do.

My take on it is simply that we do what we can to prepare and then not be confrontational if and when we are approached. As much as I despise the fact that we have become the Nazi Germany of 1934, I don't care to waste my time having to deal with getting out of jail on a trumped up charge. There are simply more important things than proving that you are "right" in the face of Barney Fyffe. You can't win by pissing someone off!

In this day of most people having cell phones, I would try to call the local authorities (they're open 24/7) and ask if there are any limitations on taking pictures at a certain location and even telling them that you would be fine with having an officer drop by to see what you are up to. That way, if they get a call from John Q. Paranoid Citizen, they know you are there and for legitimate reasons, and they can hopefully assure the caller that they know all about it..

Until we can get control of a runaway government that sees conspiracy under every fallen leaf, we've got to control each individual situation as wisely as we can.

This, as with so many other situations in our modern life, can be laid firmly at the feet of too many lawyers not knowing what to do in their spare time. Congress could still be an effective body if it weren't for the huge unelected government behind the scenes, that is, their staff of advisers who constantly look for evil in absolutely everything and churn out law after law that destroy what America really is and was.

Many if not most of those staff people have law degrees. Most senators and congressman never see more than a carefully edited synopsis of what they are trying to pass. And then, we don't have the line item veto to weed out the horrible crap that riddles otherwise sound legislation.

Were all in trouble with all those problems.

I fully agree that only the Marx Brother's version of terrorists would advertise their presence by blatantly using large format cameras or that they need more intelligence than looking up the address of government buildings on line or in the local phone book or on Google earth for God's sake. The problem is that our laws are designed around the Marx Brother's sense of slapstick. But, until we can convince a few courageous congressmen to back repeals of lousy legislation, we've got to work with them.

Enough of my rant. It's still a great country, just a poorly advised and managed government.

[paulr]

terrorists use laptops
terrorists work out at the gym
terrorists eat fast food
terrorists sketch in notebooks
terrorists buy wire
terrorists use cellphones
terrorists surf the internet
terrorists wear backpacks
terrorists are quiet neighbors

Barry, I'm glad you brought these suspicious behaviors to our attention. I had no idea! To make up for my years of unpatriotic passivity, I'm heading out right now to make a slew of citizens' arrests (one of my coworkers is wearing a backpack right now. The motherf****er's going down!)

[Walter Calahan]

All photographers are odd. HA!

These morons don't understand that the real threat comes from people they don't ever suspect.

[cyrus]

All photographers are odd. HA!

These morons don't understand that the real threat comes from people they don't ever suspect.

No, these people are the real threat.

[copake_ham]

With regard to the OP, my main complaint with the London powers-that-be is that they have failed to consider that EVEN photographers may also pose a threat!

It is best to hope that the ODD photographers are EQUALLY canceled out by the EVEN photographers - thereby keeping the the globe on an EVEN (or is it ODD) keel as we traverse the universe!

[John Kasaian]

I find this this thread interesting in a peculiar sort of way. While I've been hasseled on occassion by local government, private security and once even in a National Park, I've yet to be denied access to photograph on active military installations even after 9-11, after contacting the proper authority in command and explaining clearly who I am, what I wanted to photograph and why. In fact the military personnel I've dealt with have been quite hospitable. Of course, this is in the US and not the UK.

[walter23]

Every once in awhile I get this paranoid sense that these short term detainments or interrogations by police that we, as normal people, hear about, is only the surface manifestation of much worse things.

I guess this is partially compounded by reports of near-drowning water torture in secret prison camps and trials where the accused is not allowed to hear all of the evidence against him, nor necessarily even given a trial at all.


Hm. Nah, I'm just paranoid. It's all very reasonable, I mean the alternative is another burning of the reic-- erhm, I mean 9-11.

Detained by police and interrogated:
http://www.abqarts.com/blog/2007/06/opart-committing-photography.html

Questioned by FBI:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum50/47643-questioned-fbi-local-police.html

etc.

[walter23]

Oh, cool: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XdqKGUPIdp0&feature=related

I'm guilty of at least half of that. I solicit information about buildings ("What's that neat building?"). I use vision enhancing devices ("spotmeter") and conduct surveillance ("photographs"). I test the security response times of law enforcement agents by ignoring "keep out" signs whenever they seem spurious (okay, some of you will jump on me for that one, but I'm not a bloody terrorist). I'm a "suspicious person who doesn't belong" in some respects, when I'm walking around looking at stuff to photograph with a big bulky backpack and a weird interest in my surroundings while businessmen in suits hurry past. I make unusual statements from time to time.

[Joanna Carter]

Well, here's yet another daft story :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7522016.stm

[jetcode]

I think this issue has to be difficult to navigate because technology is available for next to nothing and who can easily identify what a terrorist looks like?

If the authorities do nothing and something bad happens they are accused of doing nothing, if they become more aggressive to protect the people they are accused of turning the country into a police state.

Where do you draw the line in rooting out potential terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of others? Yet another Paradox to negotiate.

[Charles Carstensen]

Shoot the picture first. Let someone ask questions later.