What we have here is a Failure to Understand the 1st Amendment

[Feuer Frei!]

The Police Chief of Long Beach has confirmed that his department's policy is to detain photographers who do nothing more than take pictures in public places, and that he neither has, nor plans to implement, any guidelines for these detentions. He classes photography with other "suspicious activity" such as "attempts to acquire illegal or illicit biological agent (anthrax, ricin, Eboli, smallpox, etc.)" and "In possession, or utilizes, explosives (for illegal purposes)."

"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery," says McDonnell, "it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual." McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters. "

SOURCE

And here's an example of a Police Officer being a Clown, assaulting a Camera Man for filming him:


Some bad Precedents on access to the Government's own footage:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3557.asp

Rare cases when Credentials don't help, even if you are from a Television News Station:

[Lord_magerius]

[Feuer Frei!]

So you agree or disagree?

[Oberon]

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Communication science teaches that it is impossible not to communicate.



On the issue, photographing a factory where biological weapons are produced, raises suspicion, and healthy reasons demands to investigate the photographer. It is not the same than to pohotograph a famous coffee shop at a tourist-attracting public place. Also, it is healthy reason to point out that it is hard to line out a set of blueprints that should define all possible situation when who should investigate whom on the basis of what formal factors, when a weapons plant gets photographed. As the polcie chief said, it depends on a number of situational variables, and the officer in place has to make assessments of the situation.

Let's do not turn this into an issue. There is no issue at all.

[Feuer Frei!]

So there is no issue then? Riiight, ok. No problems, we will just let the cops deal with things the way they want to then. Like the clowns in the videos. Did we even bother to watch the videos? Or are we just spamming stupid pictures in a thread again? Sorry for the bluntness but wehn someone posts pics in my thread and I ask that person or rather invite discussion, an ignore is forthcoming.
Lord Magerius, it goes to you. Post a pic and back it up with some meaningful discussion rather than troll lol lol.

[Dowly]

I kinda agree with Skybird. To the point where police officer should question
a person who is taking photographs of buildings such Skybird listed in his post.

And by questioning, I don't mean detain, just go and ask a few questions and
see how the person reacts to it. Entirely reasonable to me.

[Osmium Steele]

I am utterly flabbergasted!!

I am agreeing with Skybird?

BRB, gotta check the temperature in hell...

[Oberon]

Eeh, we've had this problem in the UK at railway stations for a while, most photographers now who have had problems at stations in the past now take a printed copy of the law which states they are within their rights to. Even that doesn't deter some officious busy-bodies.

As I've said before, it's not down to the law it's how individual officers interpret it, just like the whole hoo-ha with the lemonade stand saga. There will always be idiots who are jobsworths or who prosecute the law no matter how retarded it is, and there will always be those who use their judgment rather than blindly following a law which was not designed to cover all situations. The only thing that has changed over the past thirty years is that we now have the internet which can document these happenings and they get more attention than they did before hand.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Communication science teaches that it is impossible not to communicate.



On the issue, photographing a factory where biological weapons are produced, raises suspicion, and healthy reasons demands to investigate the photographer. It is not the same than to pohotograph a famous coffee shop at a tourist-attracting public place. Also, it is healthy reason to point out that it is hard to line out a set of blueprints that should define all possible situation when who should investigate whom on the basis of what formal factors, when a weapons plant gets photographed. As the polcie chief said, it depends on a number of situational variables, and the officer in place has to make assessments of the situation.

Let's do not turn this into an issue. There is no issue at all.

How this "biological weapons factory" came into this discussion? Photographer was taking picture from refinery. It maybe suspicious in someone's mind but even if so I don't see on which grounds police officer detained person. I read the full article (which is available via link inside Freuer Frei!'s link) and I didn't notice any explanation on what grounds officer made detention decision and police chief have denied to discuss them.

Link to full article.

[Skybird]

Star Trek IV, set in the era of the cold war. Chekov in 80s San Francisco asks with strong Russian accent where the American nuclear warships are located.

With some good will you can see why I consider this non-debate closed.

Oh, and Octobre: refineries are wonderful targets for terror strikes. I live close to a channel with a small earth gas storage site, and the pipes and tanks are located within stone-throw's reach from a simpel wire fence I could get over within seconds. 52°01'08N/7°40'00E See the treeline south-east of the perimeter? That is a public way for pedestrians. A low wirefence there, and plenty of pipes and valves three meters behidn the wire. Almost no cameras. Never saw any security guards. No security measures worth the name. I would just need to ride there with a bike, throw a phosphor grenade, and ride on, with the whole place going ablaze. Or a Panzerfaust with an high incendiary warhead. The main gate - is just a wooden bar and a small cabin nearby. You need no car to get through. Ther eis no barrier worth the name. And thousands of gas cylinders stored right behind the gate, not even a wall or a roof, and then the big round tanks you see in the background.

Whenever I pass there, I am stunned by the lack of security there. It is not just an invitation - it is a desperate call for terrorists: "strike here, please".

Evben if the refinbery would see some secureity, photographing the perimeter certainly is a potentially criitcla security breach. Like photographing a chemical plant as well. Or a Fertilizer factory. Or whatever. You know what? Go to your local bank and start shooting opictures there, and inside. You will be surprised how fast security will approach you.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Star Trek IV, set in the era of the cold war. Chekov in 80s San Francisco asks with strong Russian accent where the American nuclear warships are located.

With some good will you can see why I consider this non-debate closed.

Oh, and Octobre: refineries are wonderful targets for terror strikes. I live close to a channel with a small earth gas storage site, and the pipes and tanks are located within stone-throw's reach from a simpel wire fence I could get over within seconds. 52°01'08N/7°40'00E See the treeline south-east of the perimeter? That is a public way for pedestrians. A low wirefence there, and plenty of pipes and valves three meters behidn the wire. Almost no cameras. Never saw any security guards. No security measures worth the name. I would just need to ride there with a bike, throw a phosphor grenade, and ride on, with the whole place going ablaze. Or a Panzerfaust with an high incendiary warhead. The main gate - is just a wooden bar and a small cabin nearby. You need no car to get through. Ther eis no barrier worth the name. And thousands of gas cylinders stored right behind the gate, not even a wall or a roof, and then the big round tanks you see in the background.

Whenever I pass there, I am stunned by the lack of security there. It is not just an invitation - it is a desperate call for terrorists: "strike here, please".

Evben if the refinbery would see some secureity, photographing the perimeter certainly is a potentially criitcla security breach. Like photographing a chemical plant as well. Or a Fertilizer factory. Or whatever. You know what? Go to your local bank and start shooting opictures there, and inside. You will be surprised how fast security will approach you.

Thanks Sky! Got your point now.

[Oberon]

I love that film.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery," says McDonnell, "it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual." McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters. "

Sounds reasonable.
You probably will find lots of examples of people being abused when stopped for regular alcohol check.
It does not mean that policemen should not do it.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I love that film.

I'm in no way a fan of ST (quite contrary, I think it's overrated POS), but even
I was stunned by that movie. No, not in a good way.