Another photographer detained

Discussion in 'General Shop Talk' started by KmH, Jul 4, 2010.

  1. KmH

    KmH Helping photographers learn to fish Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    38,213
    Likes Received:
    5,001
    Location:
    Iowa
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
  2. DennyCrane

    DennyCrane No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    The arctic North Coast
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I dunno, but Spidey Senses are saying there's some piece of the puzzle missing here.
     
  3. Formatted

    Formatted TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,390
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    You can't have your cake and eat it.
     
  4. skieur

    skieur TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,076
    Likes Received:
    202
    Location:
    Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Simply put, the police had no legal right to detain the photographer or view his photos. The excuse of terrorism is no excuse for abusing civil rights.

    skieur
     
  5. freeze3kgt

    freeze3kgt TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis Area
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I don't really see what the major concern is. The let the Photographer go and keeps his images. I'm sure it was extremely inconvenient for the photog but for security purposes I think that what they did was reasonable.

    If you just look at it from BP's point of view if that was a "terrorist" taking pictures of whatever is important, then security did nothing and god forbid something was to happen, the public would be in an uproar about how the security seen the photographer and did nothing to check what he was taking pictures, and how all of this could have been avoided if anything had been done.

    unlikely yes, and the guy was known as a free lance photographer in Texas, but better safe then sorry.


    JUST MY OPINIONS feel free to argue
     
  6. DennyCrane

    DennyCrane No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    The arctic North Coast
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    BP had no concerns about terrorism. They had concerns for a PR mess spiraling out of control. AFAIK, only nuclear power facilities have no photography signs, and it's only when on their property. This dude was on public property. If this report is accurate, he was unlawfully detained. Neither the police nor BP had any right to view his pictures. Only a court order can force that. Camera equipment cannot be taken unless you're arrested and then it's taken into evidence. None of these things happened. Again, IF the report is accurate.

    Ben Franklin is generally attributed to saying "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
     
  7. jakedoza

    jakedoza TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    As long as he was not on private property he was doing nothing wrong. I would have taken photos of the security guards and then called the local authority.
     
  8. DennyCrane

    DennyCrane No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    The arctic North Coast
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    The local authorities were the ones who detained him.
     
  9. epp_b

    epp_b No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,135
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    True North Cold and Freezing
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    BP wanting to suppress all possible information gathered about them? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you...

    I couldn't help but laugh at this. Exactly what sort of photograph could "pose a threat to public safety"? Is he going to create a large print and give people big paper cuts with it? :lol:

    This is:

    Police and people in positions of authority are making up "laws" on-the-spot, purely to suit their own vested interests. People ignorant and oblivious of the law oblige, simply because they are unwitting. Eventually, this will become widely accepted as law, even though it's not, and we'll be in police state before we know it. Frog-in-boiling-water situation.

    Even that hardly means anything anymore:

    Cop: "I need to see your pictures"
    Photographer: "I'm in public, I have a right to freedom of expression and under no requirement to show anyone my pictures"
    C: "You're near a high-security area, I need to see your pictures"
    P: "Near, not on. I'm in public, I am fully within my rights and the law to be photographing here"
    C: "You must comply, or you'll be charged under the anti-terrorism / patriot / [make-up-your-own-catch-all-law-here-for-people-the-government-wants-to-disappear] act"
    P: "I'm not doing anything illegal here, I'm fully within my rights"
    C: "Now you're resisting arrest!"
    P: "Arrest for what?"
    C: "Resisting arrest!"
    P: "Arrest for what?"
    C: "Resisting arrest!"

    ad nauseum...
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2010

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

nuclear photographer arrested

,

photographer detained terrorism