BB reader: "Two FBI agents just showed up at my door for taking photos in the Port of Los Angeles"
Hal says:
LinkI thought this would be in the vein of a lot of the "photography is terrorism" posts that have been on Boing Boing lately.
I'm a professional stock photographer, and just this morning, I was greeted by two FBI antiterrorism agents who wanted to question me regarding shooting in the Port of Los Angeles two weeks ago. When I was down there, a private security guard in a pickup truck chased me out of the area and onto the freeway. After he stopped following me, apparently he filed a report with the FBI.
The agents that showed up at my door were at first intimidating, but after they realized I wasn't a threat, we had an interesting conversation about the balance between me doing my job, and them being required to follow up on leads in their job.
I shot an email to Thomas Hawk earlier, he just made a blog post here.
the latest
latest episodes
Well, at least they behaved like humans after the initial bit of doing their jobs. :)
Ironically, the FBI agents sound like the only participants in this story who used some common sense.
Honestly, if the security guard guard "had" to chase him out and onto the freeway, it implies the scenario went something like...
1) Guard sees person, approaches to ask questions
2) Person jumps in car and takes off
3) Guard goes "Hey wait!" (or whatever)
4) Person just takes off for the highway and doesn't stop
Suspicious behavior? HELL YES! The guard might have been zealous or foaming at the mouth, but photographer basically acted guilty about something (he ran FFS).
It was the FBI who once realized the issue were pretty human about it.
Ok, so what, it sounds like they're doing their jobs?
That's how it usually goes; private individuals who think they're Protecting The World from Terrorism are always scarier than the actual FBI agents, who are usually pretty reasonable.
I was just thinking about my old German prof before I read this, his parents were first-generation German Americans who owned a German restaurant that they lived above, and the FBI was always getting calls that there were *gasp* lights on after hours over the Schnitzelbank!
And the FBI agents were always reasonable, it was just nosy folks who sooo wanted to find a Nazi in their own backyard.
@Holtt:
I'm the photographer that sent in the link, and it wasn't like that at all. I acknowledge that the agents were just doing their jobs, but the original circumstances don't warrant that. Read my post and then come to your conclusions.
This is funny...I love that istock is now leading FBI agents to our doors. Makes me feel better (I guess) about living in the US... I'm pretty sure there is nobody in North Korea, Iran, or the Gaza strip checking on photos and tracking down the photographer.
"after they realized I wasn't a threat"
i.e.: white, affluent and judeo/christian.
I've noticed over many years that the higher you go, the nicer and more reasonable people are. The bottom is where the stupid assholes live.
whilst this stuff is all very important , i really miss the boing boing that was a 'collection of wonderful things' can there not be a new category f boing boing civil liberties like there is a gadgets section.
especially since this is usually just some plastic policeman / rent-a-cop with an ego it really wears down the impact.
this really isn't a wonderful thing. has boing boing dropped that? I notice it's not in the headline any more.
are things that bad? and will ignoring the wonderfil help?
@9,
Despite agreeing with all the pro-liberty posts on boingboing, I must agree they're getting old. But they're still interesting, and perhaps a little bit of woe makes the wonderful seem moreso ;)
In before "sounds like someone needs to organize a flash mob of photographers and ..."
Point of disclosure: I do work with the Port of LA as a curator for an arts festival they sponsor.
I live right next to the Port, and I'm surprised. I work with artists who photograph and video the port, both in partnership and anonymously, all the time, and I've never heard of anyone being given a hard time before. Sometimes folks are asked questions by whatever authority is around, but no one has ever been given any BS that I know of. I have two associates who routinely go into the harbor in small boats and photograph ships, including hull closeups. Neither of them has ever had a problem.
The Port of LA has its own police force, and in my experience they're really helpful folks who will go out of their way to help folks who's projects bring them onto or adjacent to Port property. I know they've even helped people arrange ride alongs some of the security vessels that patrol the harbor.
It's worth noting that the original poster encountered problems shooting the Valero refinery, not the Port itself. In the experience of numerous South Bay photographers, oil refineries are ground zero for security harassment. Be warned.
Whoa! The two pics that appear here are pics I did on a standard google image search for industrial silhouette pictures a few months ago!
I actually painted my own crappy interpretation of the pretty orange one on a shirt for art class!
Talk about 6 degrees!
@#2
If you had bothered to RTFA you would have seen this:
Wow, it's like the last 48 hours of boingboing has been an advertisement for Cory's new book.
Not that I mind that--after all, like most 'mainstream Internet users' I'm 'hugely aware of the fact that the fundamental economic model on the Internet is advertising.' (Although I'm not a Charter subscriber.)
But the tone and the attitude of the rent-a-cops and transit workers is so close to what's in Little Brother: either the future is now, Cory has clever plants taking photos in DC and LA, or life is imitating fiction.
holtt @ 2: Honestly, if the security guard guard "had" to chase him out and onto the freeway, it implies the scenario went something like...
1) Guard sees person, approaches to ask questions
2) Person jumps in car and takes off
3) Guard goes "Hey wait!" (or whatever)
4) Person just takes off for the highway and doesn't stop
It implies, does it? Maybe if you had clicked through to the story, instead of opining based on the excerpt that Mark posted, you would have read this:
Suspicious behavior? HELL YES! The guard might have been zealous or foaming at the mouth, but photographer basically acted guilty about something (he ran FFS).You are making this up. FFS indeed.
> Despite agreeing with all the pro-liberty posts on boingboing, I must agree they're getting old.
Well, at least it's a change from "Look! Another goatse!"
Seems like this went pretty normally, actually. A security truck followed you, but didn't do anything to in any way impede your actions. A couple FBI guys stopped by, said "hi", and didn't threaten you in any way.
It's good to see that sometimes the system works just fine.
Hmmm. If I see someone tailing me like that while driving around the next place I stop at will be a police station.
Must've lucked out and gotten Scully and Mulder.
I hope that at sometime in the race for the Presidency someone asks the candidates what their opinion is on the rights of photographers and what they are going to do with the no-fly list. These issues warrant as much discussion as the flag pin crap that has been going on.
BB
@21 - yeah, if we still had journalists, the media might actually ask about issues. Instead, we just have gossip columnists -- but hey, it sells fish wrappers.
@22
I did an essay on that general topic this year; on 'muckraking' journalists and how this one lady considered it an honor to be called one. I agreed with the idea of it being an honor, said muckrakers support democracy by exposing error and giving government not the chance to save face by tucking it under the rug but to cover it by acting appropriately, only through exposure can the public act etc etc etc.
I was absolutely dumbfounded by how many people argued against, saying that it was slander etc and inappropriate etc. What the hell is journalism FOR if it's not for informing the public?
I don't know how far out on a limb this is, but the whole "no photos" situation seems to me almost like a territorial thing for surveillance states. Kind of like a monopoly on death, but instead it's a monopoly of spectacle. When the major threat to power is ideas, the symbolic mechanism of ideology becomes a concern of the state. I guess you don't necessarily have to be a surveillance state for that, but it just kind of struck me, reading these posts.
Drinking buddies,
Thanks to #9, you have to take a shot now.
the single malt right after this beer
I would have to assume that the agents were just doing their jobs. The agents I know go where they are told and don't enjoy having to waste their time talking to people about stupid stuff like taking pictures. But, we want good intelligence so we can feel safer. Or so the rumor goes. Because you know when the next nut blows something up we're going to blame the Feds for not doing their job.
It doesn't sound like these are actually FBI agents. They are JTTF detectives, probably local law enforcement who work in conjunction with the FBI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTTF
Similarly, the "FBI background check" people are not agents, but contractors who work for the FBI. I am happy we are not sending our trained FBI agents on such crap assignments. They are one of the good agencies who generally follow the letter of the law. We should be spending more on them (FBI) than on throwing away money to agencies like TSA, etc...
It is sad, though, that we have to send out detectives to check up on photos, wasting their time, especially when they sound like reasonable people.
Very good article, though. It shows both sides without breaking into hyperbole.
Incidentally, his post had an interesting link to a downloadable photographers' rights card for the US, which in turn has a link to the equivalent card for the UK.
Worth keeping that stuff in mind during discussions of further photographer harassment.
@#15 There have been a lot of these stories on BB over the last year or more. It's just been one of Cory's interests, and he obviously turned that into a book.
I don't think it's going the other way around. Reality, specifically the bit that Cory's been posting to BB, has influenced the book, not vice versa.
I also don't see how discussing restrictive security, etc, in any way advertises the book. It just doesn't make the connection for potential customers. You wouldn't even know there was a link if you hadn't read (or at least known about) Little Brother already.
@24 Marcus I think that's one of the most interesting reflections on the war on photography that we've seen growing in the last few years.
My only interpretation so far was that it was a reaction to the expansion of the security state and the propaganda that 'everyone has a role to play' in keeping the world safe from the world. You've got a neat perspective on it that gives me something to think about.
I'm being lazy just asking, but is there an equivalent rights card for Canada?
@16, LEXICA
While I'm aware of how much abuse Photographers get, the fella in question was trespassing on private property without a permit, which is absolutely against the law.
"He informed me that I was parked on private property (a big empty dirt lot, but whatever)..."
Not only was he breaking the law, he was flippant about it.
What's really funny about this is that if he had actually pulled out his Photographer's Rights card and read it he would have discovered that he was the one in the wrong.
Doctor Pickles @ 32:
When did I say that the photographer wasn't trespassing? I didn't say anything about that either way.
What I said was that holtt's assertions about what had happened were completely unsupported by the evidence on hand.
And the last I checked, "being flippant to someone in a uniform" was not a citeable offense. (If the person in the uniform is a cop, being flippant falls under "that's not prudent, and a wise person would avoid doing so unless they were trying to make a point", but that doesn't mean it's illegal.)
#32: Correct me if I'm wrong, but he wasn't breaking the law. He was asked to leave and he left. Prior to that, he was not informed that he was on private property, and a port or parking lot without a fence around it normally open to the public.
LEXICA,
Fair enough. My point is just that I find it funny how many people here are quick to jump to his defense when the photographer in question was clearly breaking the law, and the security guard and agents were doing their job.
And, of course, that he ought to actually read what his rights are before whipping his Photographer's Rights card out whenever he's approached by an authority figure.
The photographer should have used some common sense here. He didn't have a permit, didn't explain to the rent-a-cop that he was a stock photographer and that the photos were part of his job rather than a terrorist plot and he was on private property. It's true that he left the area when asked to do so...but then he returned. What did he think would happen? Reasonably explaining the situation to the security guard from the onset may have saved him a headache and us some tax dollars. Also, why was he being jerky with the FBI guys by refusing to show ID? I agree that the FBI guys seemed to be the only level-headed ones in this story.
Sure-- the FBI agents were doing their jobs, but at what cost? If EVERY time someone snapped a pic in a public area it was reported to the FBI, they would have no time for anything else. I suppose you can say "the Port was a legitimate target for terrorists", but so are shopping malls, and churches, and skyscrapers, and bridges, and ANY government building (Federal or local). . . etc.
I can imagine some folks being "grateful that these fine agents were doing their jobs", but would you feel the same way when they show up at your door because you took a picture of mom in front of the Statue of Liberty?
Holtt @2, that may be the only scenario you can imagine, but that doesn't mean that's what happened. If you'd checked out the link to Thomas Hawke's version, here's what you would have found:
Note: as far as I know, it's legal to take photos of stuff that's in direct line of sight from a public street.An apology to the photographer wouldn't be inappropriate.Inboulder @3: So what? So stick around and find out.
Kyle @8, in some cases, it's why they're down there. In other cases, they're stuck having to follow policies that explicitly forbid them to depart from the script. I have a lot of sympathy for first-order flak catchers, but I still assume I won't get normal human problem-solving strategies until I'm three levels up.
Mr Alistair @9, there's still plenty of wonderful. No one will blame you if you skip the civil liberties entries.
Cutthroat @18: It's not the system working just fine. It's another instance of some Chicken Little wasting the FBI's time.
BuggyBrains @21, please don't do .sig lines. We can see your username just fine.
Michael @22: It's selling fewer and fewer fishwrappers. If you want a sign of the times, The Guardian has started a US online edition.
Tenn @23: I don't know where they're getting it, but I'll bet it's the same place they're getting the idea that it's treasonous to openly disagree with a president when the country's at war. Mr. Alistair may think all these civil liberties stories are superfluous, but I have to disagree. They're badly needed.
Jeff @27: I subscribe to Jim Macdonald's theory: if it doesn't get used as an establishing shot in major motion pictures, overseas terrorists are not going to target it. They want to hit something their countrymen will recognize instantly as an American icon.
Kieran @29: Thank you. That's very useful.
Dr. Pickles @32, 35: The photographer didn't know he was on private property, if indeed he was. Note also that the security guard claimed the photographer couldn't take pictures from a public road, which is not correct. And do you love authority so much that you would forbid US citizens to speak flippantly to or about anyone in a uniform? The law doesn't say that. Previous generations of Americans would stare at you in disbelief for claiming that it does.
I suggest you rent and watch a bunch of old hardboiled detective movies. The police in some of them may be crooked and brutal; but if they object to being given lip by the citizenry, they do it on their own authority, not the state's.
The photographer was not clearly breaking the law. You do not find it funny. And I'm really starting to think you like authority for its own sake.Jupiter @36, the photographer was showing normal common sense, and he knew more about the law than the security guard did. He also knows more about the law than you do. A person who's innocently going about his own business in his own home doesn't have to show ID, he's not obliged to talk to anyone, and he doesn't have to let officers enter if they don't have a warrant.
...
A general observation:
Every time we discuss one of these stories, we have readers popping up to defend the right of security guards to maintain public order by any means necessary, and the right of owners to do whatever they want on private property.
But do these same guys ever show up to defend me when someone's having a screaming snit-fit over being moderated? Do they defend the Boingers' right to order things as they see fit on their own weblog? They do not.
In fact, judging from past events on this site, the pro-authority types are the ones that kick and scream the loudest when their comments are disemvowelled, and who flout the rules by instantly coming back as sockpuppets when they're handed a temporary suspension.
It makes me wonder how serious they are about their professed beliefs.
@Doctor Pickles,
I'm the photographer you're discussing. I thought I should clarify a few points.
First, yes, I had parked my car in a large, empty dirt lot with no fence and no signs, and then walked off to take photos about half a block away. As I was shooting, I noticed a private security guard inspecting my car, so I walked back and introduced myself. He informed me that I could not park there as it was private property, and so I offered to move my car. It was COMPLETELY within his right to ask me to move my car off of private property, and I didn't argue. I was done shooting in that area anyway. When he asked me what I was doing, I told him that I was taking photos for stock, and he asked me not to take photos of the Valero plant. I'd already taken a number of photos of it, but I didn't want to start an argument, and didn't feel like saying "well, I was shooting it from public property, etc, etc" or even starting any argument at all, so I packed up and left. That was probably... oh, I'd say 2pm. My friend and I did a LOT of shooting, and returned to that general area much, much later, probably around 7pm to shoot other photos. I did not park in that same lot, and where I did park was probably about a half mile or so away. We shot for awhile, and then as I was LEAVING, I noticed a security guard following me. (I think it was the same guy). The guard followed me onto the freeway, and when I pulled over to talk to him at the first place I could (there aren't a lot of safe places to pull over and stop your car in San Pedro), he kept driving, so I took off in the other direction.
At NO point did I even need to assert my rights. I figured it was a non-issue. The guard following me in his truck was a bit scary, but at no point did I ever talk to him.
My first conversation with the guard was very polite and professional, and yes, after I was informed that my car was on private property, I left. Had I not, it would have been trespassing. If you don't enter an area that says "no trespassing" and nobody has previously asked you to leave, it isn't trespassing. Furthermore, my taking photographs from public property is completely legal, but it would have been pointless to start an argument with him, so I didn't.
Yes, I know what's on the rights card like the back of my hand. And I rarely ever have to take it out.
Pyrokinetic, I posted earlier that you should have provided an explanation to the security guard that you were shooting stock photography as part of your job. I didn't get that info from your original blog, but from what you just posted it's clear that you did that. I stand corrected and extend an apology. I'm glad that things worked out for you in the end.
But do these same guys ever show up to defend me when someone's having a screaming snit-fit over being moderated?
Of course not. For one thing, BoingBoing isn't the government.
For another, you're female, and it is therefore much more difficult for them to imagine that by supporting your efforts, they are compensating for their own failure to live up to their version of the masculine ideal.
Your snark grows stronger, young Jedi.