Homeland Security did its best impression of the Party from 1984 this week after taking to Twitter to claim that photography can be a sign of terrorism.
It's no secret that photographers regularly have to cite their rights when being told they are not allowed to photograph certain places or buildings, even when they are perched safely on public land. Time and time again we have posted videos and court cases of everything from overzealous security guards trying to usher away a photographer from the building they have been ordered to man, through to the seizure of camera equipment for the crime of only appearing suspicious. It's a dangerous precedent and the Department of Homeland Security for the United States has now made steps to formalize that notion.
While awareness of suspicious behavior is undoubtedly important, the net cast here by DHS is so wide it's likely to return to the boat with far more than just fish. Frank LoMonte of University of Florida's Brechner Center for Freedom of Information gave the Columbia Journalism Review a tongue-in-cheek but powerful summary: “When you look at what DHS identifies as the signs [and objects] of suspicious photography—‘personnel, facilities, security features, or infrastructure’—it basically leaves squirrels as the only thing that’s safe to photograph ... That's a pretty breathtakingly broad inventory.”
It's an exaggeration to say that this sentiment is similar to that of a totalitarian state, but only a little one. Christopher Hitchens on a talk about the Axis of Evil and Saddam Hussein's regime pointed out a culture of fear whenever you mention their leader's name, as if anything could happen next. In more contemporary comparisons, we are watching live as Dong Yaoqiong — or "Ink Girl" — has gone missing after throwing ink over Xi Jinping's face in images of him in public, in China. Feeling fearful of having your camera out or taking pictures of or near government buildings is just a stone's throw away. Whether directly intentional or not, this tweet is aiming to dissuade photographers from taking photos in certain public areas. I needn't unpack the conflict this causes with the U.S's First Amendment and constitutional rights and its patent infringement.
What are your thoughts on the DHS's message here? Do you think it's a fair and reasonable measure to combat terrorism, or is it Orwellian and invasive?
Thank you to Kat Moore for bringing this to our attention.
Despite how it sounds, us regular photographers have nothing to worry about. With the existence of Google Street view, a terrorist usually has all the pictures they could possibly want for a location. Having worked in a federal building, we were briefed on this. A person taking pictures is fine, but when they are circling the building and focusing only on the building, that's when there's cause for alarm. We had armed federal police that patrolled the perimeter, so it was less inviting. But there are locations that don't have that exact luxury which could still be at risk of an attack.
Most federal and local police know the law. They know it's legal for the public to take photos from public property. Security guards and citizens are the ones that don't. They are more likely to draw attention to you. Once the attention is drawn, the cops will get involved. As long as you AREN'T doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about! The best option is always to seek permission first.
This isn't true at all, to say "us regular photographers have nothing to worry about" The tweet literally says "Did you know photography and surveillance could be a sign of terrorism-related suspicious activity" and then says to call the authorities if you see this.
There is no reality in which this is a responsible tweet that will end with anything other than negative results.
As a matter of debate, this is completely true. It's up to an individual as to how to interpret certain actions. If you're in the city taking pictures of cars, trees, people, would a person consider that potential terrorism? Absolutely not. They would consider it tourism. If someone was walking around taking pictures of a bank, security cameras, and entrances, THAT would be suspicious. My point remains the same in the end, if you AREN"T doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, regardless if law enforcement becomes involved or not. Personally, I'd rather have police involved as they can recite the law to whomever grew suspicious of my activities. In the case of this tweet, "photography and surveillance" goes hand in hand. It's not "photography OR surveillance" Hence, photographers have nothing to really worry about. The main reason I say we have nothing to worry about is because this has been a thing for over a decade. Just because it finally hit twitter, doesn't mean it hasn't been brought to attention before. For example, Area 51. Signs blatantly say not to photograph the area. People still do it tho! So is it terrorism or tourism? I'd vote the latter. As I already mentioned, I worked in a federal building before. We were specifically briefed on this topic and what to look for.
Nonetheless, I absolutely understand where you're coming from and the point you're trying to make. It's really just a matter of how the general public interprets it tho. For us, the best option will always be to obtain permission if we are going to photograph near a sensitive area. I just hope this doesn't hit mainstream news. Then everyone and their mother, brother, and sister will think they're DHS agents :/
My recommendation to you, stop taking pics of government buildings! Then you can stop worrying :P
What you're saying is reasonable, though in my opinion just taking pictures of banks or buildings like city hall or something is not suspicious. Unless you're like staked out for three hours doing it. Furthermore, I personally would prefer that the police NOT get involved - given how many tragic events have occurred to innocent civilians once the police did get involved.
The problem though, with saying "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about it" is, well.... just ask all the people (usually black people) who were shot or killed for doing absolutely nothing wrong, or even doing anything suspicious.
In this cultural era where police violence (mostly against POC) is out of control, and where we have "blue lives matter" folk (aka racist people) reporting anything they can possibly construe as suspicious when it comes to black people, it is very irresponsible to say that photography is a sign of potential terrorism. Because the best case here is: resources are totally wasted and people get harassed for no reason, worst case is that someone ends up dead.
Also, this empowers people to take things into their own hands. Whether that is what it says to do or not, it's what people will do.
The other issue is, this whole thing doesn't even reference sensitive government areas. It just says "infrastructure" and "facilities". Who can even say how people will interpret that. No one can possibly (nor should they have to) get permission before photographing every building.
Also: "photography AND surveillance" does not mean both of those things. If I said, "Did you know cocaine and heroin are illegal", that doesn't mean that only cocaine is illegal if it's hand in hand with heroin. In fact, "and" rarely means indicates a bond between the two subjects.
It seems that at the very core, it will just be a matter of interpretation. Unfortunately for us, the tweet was made. I guess the only real thing we can do is sit back and let time take it's course and see how it evolves.
I think their latest tweet basically says no one is safe from this debacle.
"Whether you are traveling down the road or across the country this summer, pay attention to your surroundings and report suspicious activity to local law enforcement. If You See Something, Say Something"
Should I report that bear I just passed? What about that deer? They looked pretty suspicious to me.....
By the way, "blue lives matter" became a thing due to cops getting killed after people took "black lives matters" a bit too far. It, in itself, has nothing to do with racism nor does it mean the supporters are "racist people". On the contrary, neither group is actually racist. They are protest groups. "Blue lives matter" could be considered even less racist as police are white, black, hispanic, and asian. I think you may want to research a bit more into it. You'll be surprised at what you find! Regardless, I get what you mean and completely agree with you that this will just use up resources that can be used elsewhere! But the government is pretty good at spending our taxes on useless things(we really don't need a wall)
I believe the question for all of us becomes "What can we do?" How can we still enjoy what we love without looking over our shoulders, or doing it with fear?
No research needed.... I know everything about both movements. I've even attended quite a few BLM rallies. FYI, BLM rallies are NOT only about black lives. People of all races, gender, and sexual orientation attend, and they talk about equality for everyone.
The *problem* with Blue Lives Matter is that it is a RESPONSE. Think about it: you never ever hear someone say Blue Lives Matter unless it is a retort to Black Lives Matter. That, inherently, makes it an attempt to undercut and devalue BLM. I haven't heard anyone say Blue Lives Matter in months. But as soon as something happens and Black Lives Matter becomes popular in the media, THEN you hear about the blue lives.
The other problem is that "blue lives matter" insinuates (and this is what many people believe) that somehow "black lives matter" really means "only black lives matter." Maybe it should have been called Black Lives Also Matter (BLAM) to appease the idiots.
Blue Lives Matter is a *countermovement* by definition. Black Lives Matter is a movement. And since it is a countermovement (i.e. created in response to another movement), it is racist.
Lastly, to equate "blue lives" with "black lives" is at best a lapse in logic, and at worst, racist. Policemen are policemen because of their job. Because they wear a uniform. No one would even know they're policemen outside of the duties of their job. Being black isn't a uniform; it is a race of people (a race that has a long history of abuse in this country). No one looks at a cop and assumes they're a thief, or criminal, or up to something shady. In fact, they are in a position of authority and respect. And the only stigma they even remotely face is a creation of their own doing.
Seriously, this goes to show how vastly different things are between our states, despite us being fairly close to each other. Every time an officer dies around here, blue lives matters get brought up. That may be because we have more officers that die than your area, but I can't say that for definite.
As we are highly off the topic, would you mind if we took this to PM? I'm enjoying your views on all of this and would like to talk about it more without clogging up the comment section here!
If anyone sees me with my camera, I'm merely documenting the country's slide into despotism.
This isn't a political article nor have the comments, up until yours, been political. :-/
Damn, people are already pre-disposed to thinking I'm a terrorist (just ask the TSA on almost every trip I ever take) and now, this.
Really? So they're targeting people who look Irish? ;-)
What???
It was a joke. You can tell from the winking smiley face. ;-) <- see?
ah my bad haha
We must be very close to Orwell's 1984. In Europe GDPR, in the US homeland security finding reasons to kill the freedom to make pictures wherever you want. We look back in the past, to buildings, people, the social context, to what was important and less important in history. But in the today's wave of governments - basically wanting to get control over everything in everyone's life - we are killing more and more the ability to document our society for the next generations. ENG companies are avoiding - at least in Europe - to take individuals in the viewfinder, due to the fact that any legal claim can kill you in an instance when there is no release note in place. Is this really what the people in street are wanting and considering to be 'freedom'? Contrary to that, the government seems to have the unlimited right to film you on every corner of the street and deploy speed radars in the most ridiculous sense - nobody every asked me to sign a 'release note' for that practice.
Most major metropolitan police offices indicate unusual or covert photography as a behavior to be on the look out for and report.
Here’s the Washington DC guide: https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/citizens-guide-suspicious-activity : (e.g. “Someone pays unusual attention to facilities or buildings beyond a casual or professional interest. . . concealing the use of a camera or video camera . . .”)
I think that’s something to consider before singling out DHS regarding “unusual or covert” photography as a possible warning sign.
Law enforcement cannot/should not look to protected characteristics (race, religion, gender, nation of origin) and so appropriately looks to behavioral indicators for prevention, in both internal and external guidance. If we, as a community, say this is impermissible, then I'm concerned we invite the return of the former on an unspoken basis.
If you’re entire style of photography is based around covert photography in populated areas, that’s fine and I support your freedom to do so, but it seems myopic to forbid folks from saying this is suspicious behavior.
The Hotels in Las Vegas when I worked for them used to constantly ask us to be on the lookout for people taking pictures of or showing interest in structural elements of the buildings, tripods were also exclusively banned on property unless cleared prior with security, with the appropriate press pass for media events. Post 9/11 has caused us to be overly cautious and to always question the intentions of everyone around us. The government and powers that be can constantly surveil us but god forbid we hang out too long in an area to capture the right moment, I guess people will just have to start proving their intent through the pictures they take, when paranoid people start reporting them.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Remember, remember the 5th of November..
Go to youtube and watch videos from news now Houston and the battousai. The battousai is Philip Turner. He had to fight his wrongful arrest and torture at the hands of police for the crime of public photography all the way to the 5th. circuit court. He won. So, you can also google Turner v. Driver. That's the 5th. Circuit court ruling officially saying public photography is not a crime.
literally, every single person in USA has a camera in their pocket these days. Are you going to flag everyone taking a photo as a terrorist?
But you know, who cares
What a total bunch of Bullshit. Did you know every single person has a camera in their phone? Don't you think a bad guy doing surveillance isn't going to look prominent with a giant DSLR and lens combo?
stupid and waste of time article , so i'm guessing if i take pictures of the capital building in sacramento with a model in front of it , that means im planning on attacking it Right , Right , RIGHT , 🤣😃😎😀😁🤪 THIS ARTICLE MAKES ME 🤢🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
I’m a news photographer in NYC and always display a press credential issued by the police department. However, I get harassed by police more often than not. Sometimes I’m prevented from shooting in public places for “security” reasons. Sometimes you ask police why you cannot shoot and they will simply say “because I say so”. In a police state you do not have constitutional rights. Americans have not woken up to that realization yet.
Watch this guy's videos if you want to learn to stand up for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC39jLNl2UpxDeYVYCToA56A/videos?flow=gri...
Yes, do those stunts in NYC. I will try to visit you in jail and give you some crackers....
There's a guy that does it in NYC. You have to not be afraid to be detained or arrested. He's won several law suits for false arrests. There's a thick folder on him and when the cops realize who he is, they just leave him alone. These are federal laws, not local laws.
Let me know the next time he goes to jail. I’ll send him some crackers too...
Well, if surveilence is a sign of terrorism-related activity then US government must be the biggest terrorist organization in the world and Homeland Security is the brain of this operation.
Congrats to DHS on spreading paranoia and fear. With government agency like this soon all real terrorists will be out of job. Hey, maybe that's the strategy, huh?
Trumps Russia
hahaha the GOV just hates that citizens are now documenting all their BS
also, please be aware of anyone entering a truck! they could be planning to run you over. And eating donuts... when frozen, they become a lethal weapon. Also kids playing in the water, they might be plotting and training on how to drown people.
this world is just getting more and more ridiculous.
Remember too that terrorists would use big (the bigger the better) cameras and video equipment to surveil government buildings and personnel. They're not smart enough to walk by with a quality cell phone camera or to fly a small drone.
This is just more s**t from the idiocracy to make us more suspicious of each other. Divide. Conquer.
I like street photography, I get photographing a structurally unique building, I don't get wanting to photograph a government building... they usually are boring. So enlighten me as to why the need....
The problem is. This homeland security message isn't just referencing government buildings. It scares me because, there are always people on edge. Someone here mentioned that someone literally walked up to them and asked "are you a terrorist?" while taking photos.
I live in the NYC area and shoot landscape photos with my free time. I definitely now worry more that someone might even take matters into their own hands at some point if they see me for a "prolong" period of time framing a photo. Last year, a photographer was shot because the cop thought the photographers tripod was a gun.
I understand the worry, I do. As long as you know what your about and are doing honest work....go about your thing. We can't live our lives in fear.
To answer your original question. Some people might be doing a personal project or blog on different government buildings around the country.