Originally posted by: jpeyton
It targets photographers acting within their rights on public property.
Other professional photographers are already up in arms;
Text &
Text
I think it's important for photographers to know their rights, and not easily submit when someone tries to infringe on them. More often than not, it will be a person of authority (like a police officer or security guard) who will tell you to stop taking photos, even though they can't lawfully make you stop.
I think the US has the advantage here. By law, the UK gives the cops more discretionary power to enforce things, whether it's a legitimate concern or not. We all know the upsides and downsides to this. But SO FAR, this wouldn't hold up here.
Now we all saw the internet sob story of the FBI raiding a photographer's home, computer, camera, etc. That does happen, and was it totally unneeded. However, it could have been avoided if the photographer presented himself as a photographer. The guy snooped around a gas refinery plant in the middle of the night.
When I first started (or attempted) industrial photography, I always checked in with the security guard if one was about. If I could, I called during the day. 9 times out of 10 they were actually helpful, not just accommodating (actually escorting me to places where I couldn't get in from the outside). Others gave me the run around, and thanked me for calling.
street photography is a whole 'nother ballgame. People love there privacy in public places.
Security cameras (in plain view) makes people feel secure. Some guy with a SLR can make someone feel threatened long before 9-11 and the "war on terror".
The 'awareness' this is trying to promote seems disconcerting. IT can be an honest concern, but all we need is another idiot carbombing something in the west, and we photogs are hiding are gear for a few days. People get vigilante on us for the wrong reasons.
I had sort of a dilema myself when a friend described a post 9-11 story. She worked as a waitress across the street from John Wayne KSNA airport. A man with a middle eastern decent came into the restaurant just a few days after 9-11. Airplanes were grounded, and not much was going around the airport. He ordered his food, walked out with his camera and started taking pictures. Okay, could be normal. But nothing scenic or artsy was in view (but that is subjective). I later asked her to point out where he was standing, and what he was pointed at. It ended being where the new checkpoints were setup for inspection of incoming cars. He also went around the airport and took more pictures.
I forgot the whole story. But it did raise my eyebrows. Were his intentions harmful? Who knows. He could have been a security consultant, maybe even one hired by the airport.
As of right now, one could try to position him/her self in the middle, and any view could look extreme. This is a tricky subject.
I think in the US, the biggest threat to street photogs looking for candids is the "think of the children factor". I saw some post on FM where some guy was taking pictures of his own family's kids, and some other wacko parents called the cops talking about a perv with a camera taking pictures of kids splashing in the sprinklers.
And that is a planned event. "hey, we are going to the park, have your friend bring that fancy camera so I can decent pictures of my kids for my photo album".
That's not even the discreet photographer capturing candid, yet 'that human emotional element' thingy that every street photog wants to capture.
I think if we don't get in a flame war, this is a relevant thread.
