FBI Harasses Photographer At His Home

FBI and local law enforcement harassing a photographer for taking photographs of wildlife, when a LEO started harassing him for taking pics
The FBI and LEO then showed up at his home to question him about what and why he was taking photos.
Apparently, he's also used a parrot AP type drone to take overhead pics as well...

Are you serious, next thing you know photography is going to be a terrorist act.

The agent says that terrorists may have photographed the twin towers and that is why photographers arouse suspicion. So what about every Pre-911 movie which features the towers, I suppose they couldn't have contributed to the intel.

So it's NOT ok to take photographs of buildings, but it is ok to film them and broadcast that image into a hundred million living rooms free of charge.

The next step in the Orwellian evolution will be photographers needing licenses to use a camera which does not have GPS. And those licenses will only be issued after thorough back ground checks.

Railfans are the targets of this kind of harassment too. In some places you can't stand on a road next to a railroad track and take pictures of a train.

It's getting really ridiculous. The terrorist Muslims won.

Between Google Earth and Google Street View these days? They ask average people why they're taking photographs of things they have been since cameras were invented??

Go pester the guys at Google Headquarters, in my opinion. I can just about count deck hatches in some photos of US Warships (and Subs!) in detailed views no enemy should have quite that easily, by just loading Google Earth. Even what was once blurred in Washington (and for what I thought were pretty good reasons, actually) is largely now as clear as anywhere else. ....and they have nothing better to do than intimidate amateur photographers??

For shame! The internet already gives anyone "intelligence" at a level nations went and fought full wars without and only would have dreamed possible within the last 30 years. .....These agencies need a little 'Haircut' to their budgets if their people have all this free time.

I don't know. I don't really feel like he is being harassed. Questioned? Yes, but not harassed. The FBI agent came with legitimate concerns. And I'm thinking based on how the camera guy is being somewhat evasive here he was probably doing the exact same thing with the original LEO. I'm an avid photographer and have been questioned more than once by police because I was in 'unusual' places (cemeteries) at odd hours. Sure, I probably looked suspicious, but I didn't adopt an attitude. I was polite and answered their questions and went about my business.

Before anyone tries to label me as a conformist, you couldn't be further from wrong. I just don't see a need to inflame a situation when diffusing it is the best option. Pick your battles. Maybe the cop did originally come off as being a little cocky, but I would have worked towards diffusing the situation. Then I'd elevate my mannerism if he didn't start backing down. And I'm sure the LEO involved the FBI just to be a jerk.

there are two sides to see here.

1. a guy is simply taking pictures, using a drone at times, and law enforcement is harrassing him for doing this.

I get it, he's doing nothing wrong and being bothered for it bit...

2. law enforcement's job is to protect the public and one of those functions is to make sure nobody blows up a train or other public area and they see, or are alerted to, an individual taking pictures of buildings, trains, public areas, etc. They can ignore the guy, or the alert, and go on their merry way or they can inquire as to what he is doing. when the decision needs to be made, they weigh the two outcomes. is it worse to have to apologize for bothering the man, when all he was doing was taking pictures, or would it be worse if word got out that someone alerted local law enforcement to a man taking pictures, nothing was done about it, and then he blew up a building, or train, etc?

Honestly, I'm fine with them inquiring. A few years back someone spotted a man taking pictures of buildings here in NYC. The police investigated and, it turns out, they worked for the Iranian embassy and they were expelled as they were not taking tourist photos. Had the police ignored the tip, who knows what might have happened.

Both sides have outcomes that suck. The question is, which sucks less. In this case, bothering a guy using a drone to take pictures is less trouble than explaining how some terror attack wasn't stopped when the government is basically watching our every move.

reply to post by ratcals


People are tired of being treated like terrorists. We are citizens not criminals.

Originally posted by suz62
reply to post by ratcals

 

People are tired of being treated like terrorists. We are citizens not criminals.

Oh I agree. I agree 100%. However, based on how he is behaving now I have a feeling the photographer was probably being belligerent during the first encounter with the police. I wasn’t there so I can’t know. The FBI agent does not appear to be harassing him. He’s only asking questions and these have to be purely based on the input he got from the original LEO. I imagine the LEO had nothing to go on so he elevated it. Case in point this just happened to my neighbor recently. He was involved an ‘incident’ where LEOs were called out. He was arrested and they had nothing to pin on him and let him go. However, after trying for a couple weeks to get a case together, and failed, they elevated it the DHS. They paid him a visit, questioned him, and basically left and apologized for wasting his time.

reply to post by Crakeur


I agree with what you're saying, but only to a point. After the Oklahoma City bombing, someone thought I looked like Unsub # 2. In fact, I bore a striking resemblance to one sketch, although almost nothing like the others. That was, of course, the largest act of violence of it's kind to date and they were as hot to hunt as any time in our nation's history, I'd say.

Despite all that, I didn't get visited. They actually called me on my Mom's phone, who I was staying with at the time after having just graduated a trucking school. (Sitting at that school on the tragic day is what proved I wasn't who they were looking for). Despite the frenzy they were in, they let the fact they called me make the statement it needed to, as they invited me down to chat the next morning at the local FBI office. I'll never know if they were in the area that night or not ...and I'm sure they knew that's exactly the impact the message would have as I picture them smirking about it. lol...

I think there are ways to get the job accomplished which leave a light footprint and then ways that focus on the intimidation value. This seems to have leaned pretty hard on the latter, I'd think.

FBI door to door question sessions.
Welcome to the new America.

Wow this is disturbing.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I agree that there are methods that could be utilized to make this as painless and easy as possible but we're talking about law enforcement and municipality/government thinking.

Think bull in a china shop.

the sad truth is that we now live in a world where people, foreign and domestic, want to do harm. It is an issue here, and abroad, and there are only so many ways that it can be dealt with. The way I see it, it could be far, far worse.

Originally posted by grey580
FBI door to door question sessions.
Welcome to the new America.

Wow this is disturbing.

Look I am by no means a fan of the government or the way things are progressing more towards a police state. But how did you jump to the idea of this being ‘door to door question sessions’? This was one man being questioned. I personally feel the FBI agent was very professional and respectful. I can’t also help but feel he left there thinking he wasted both his time and the photographer’s. I still don’t see any evidence of harassment.

Definition of HARASS

1a : exhaust, fatigue b (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct

2: to worry and impede by repeated raids

reply to post by Crakeur


The thing is, we've lived in this world a lot longer without the digital age than we have with it. And ever since the digital age, we just seem to have more and more regulation, leading to more problems than I care to list off at the moment. As I understand a need to inquire is present, a need to be a American 1st and a Government Official 2nd is also important when not tracking down a terrorist, when going door to door in America, the government is WE THE PEOPLE's guest, we elected them there, we pay their salaries, we agree to work with one another on a respectable basis and be treated we fairness and equality.

Since entering this digital world, we have seen much of those concepts go out the window and a new what I can only describe as a ever increasing us verses them mentality in regards to American government and American people, when they are supposed to be one in the same, cannot make the American government without the American people.

It seems that before the digital age, it was much easier to fool a public and get away with obvious acts of crime and corruption, but that with the ushering in of news before it's news and facts and lack thereof, seems the wool is finding itself harder and harder to fit over our eyes and now other things are to be injected to keep us distracted to what's still happening and destroying our once rich and beautiful country.

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined


the increase in crime goes hand in hand with the increase in technology but, for the most part, the increase in secruity and the tightening of our freedoms, are a result of the crimes. Prior to the late 70's, anyone could waltz onto a plane with a gun, a bomb or both, and hijack the craft. It took almost a decade for any real security measures to be put in place. bag searches, x-rays, etc were all a direct result of the rash of skyjackings.

like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the questioning of this man, or anyone else, for taking pictures, I do understand the reasoning.

I wrote a piece a while back about people taking pictures in Central Park. The basic rundown is that there are a fairly large number of people in central park who are there to take pictures of other people's kids. not friends mind you, strangers, usually with some unsavory plans, snapping away at unsuspecting kids. I witnessed this one afternoon and wound up chasing many of these people away. Their argument was always that it was a free country (oddly enough they were usually foreigners) and they could photograph anyone's kids, if they wanted to. My point in mentioning this is that I, and a few other parents, stood around the perimeter of our kids (school outing), chasing people away. Anyone with a camera pointed at our children was questioned about their intentions. We did what the cops are doing and, yes, if I had home addresses for these people, I'd have turned them in to the cops. Were they all looking to do bad things with pictures of our kids? I don't know but if I knew one perv might be off the street as a result of my turning them in, I'd have done it.

the bigger picture, sometimes, needs to be looked at. The cops didn't hurt this guy. They didn't destroy his work. they questioned him. not a big deal, really. A hassle. It's like going thru security in the airport. sure it's a drag waiting to put your bag and shoes on that conveyer belt but there's a reason you do it so you suck it up and move along.

If they were confiscating this guy's work or destroying his equipment, then it's a travesty. Now, it's just a hassle.

Oh here we go again with the terrorist/pedo hysteria. Never mind the laws at all. Let your imagination run wild and go with that.

Originally posted by Crakeur
I wrote a piece a while back about people taking pictures in Central Park. The basic rundown is that there are a fairly large number of people in central park who are there to take pictures of other people's kids.

How do you recon they were there for that reason? Did they reveal their plans to you?

not friends mind you, strangers, usually with some unsavory plans, snapping away at unsuspecting kids.

Here we go with the imagination part.

I witnessed this one afternoon and wound up chasing many of these people away.

Do you claim ownership of the park or is it still a public area?

Their argument was always that it was a free country (oddly enough they were usually foreigners) and they could photograph anyone's kids, if they wanted to.

Hardly an "argument" when it's the truth. Also how do you recon they were foreigners? Did you gain access to their passports?

My point in mentioning this is that I, and a few other parents, stood around the perimeter of our kids (school outing), chasing people away. Anyone with a camera pointed at our children was questioned about their intentions.

As if other peoples intentions are your business when they are not braking any laws. You might as well go randomly questioning people on the street. Better yet, considering that what is it about 90% of molesters are family members how come you dont question their intentions?

We did what the cops are doing and, yes, if I had home addresses for these people, I'd have turned them in to the cops.

And you might as well turn in your own family members. You'd have much higher change of finding that pesky perv.

Were they all looking to do bad things with pictures of our kids? I don't know but if I knew one perv might be off the street as a result of my turning them in, I'd have done it.

Bad things with pics? This is just pure superstition. Even if a perv gets your childs pic it's still just a picture. It's a binary file with an extension that makes for graphics. What kind of bad thing you suppose they could do to it? It feels no pain, no shame and you cant hurt it or kill it.

the bigger picture, sometimes, needs to be looked at. The cops didn't hurt this guy. They didn't destroy his work. they questioned him. not a big deal, really. A hassle.

You wouldn't mind getting randomly being questioned for the off change you might've thought of doing something bad?

Originally posted by ratcals

Originally posted by grey580
FBI door to door question sessions.
Welcome to the new America.

Wow this is disturbing.

Look I am by no means a fan of the government or the way things are progressing more towards a police state. But how did you jump to the idea of this being ‘door to door question sessions’? This was one man being questioned. I personally feel the FBI agent was very professional and respectful. I can’t also help but feel he left there thinking he wasted both his time and the photographer’s. I still don’t see any evidence of harassment.

Definition of HARASS

1a : exhaust, fatigue b (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct

2: to worry and impede by repeated raids

I tend to agree. Sounds like the photographer had some issues with the locals and the locals called the FBI and made it sound more than the squabble it was. FBI guy was polite and professional and I agree, it seems like he realized that this was a big time waster while he was talking and he even referred to the local LEO in a slightly annoyed way. I wonder if the FBI agent called the LEO a dumbass afterwards for the snipe hunt.

Originally posted by Crakeur

the increase in crime goes hand in hand with the increase in technology but, for the most part, the increase in secruity and the tightening of our freedoms, are a result of the crimes. [color=gold] Prior to the late 70's, anyone could waltz onto a plane with a gun, a bomb or both, and hijack the craft. It took almost a decade for any real security measures to be put in place. bag searches, x-rays, etc were all a direct result of the rash of skyjackings.

Prior to the late 70's anyone could waltz onto a plane with a gun?
That's right,
and we were better off for it.

It wasn't until we were media-guilted into stopping
that our planes became easy pickings for nutcakes with a grudge.


Wasn't a problem before they turned us into toothless sheep.








I say put the cowboys back on the planes,
and dump the fedralies on garbage island.




No, I mean seriously.
WTF is wrong with the feds,
and the FBI in particular!? They
couldn't just e-mail the guy and ask
what he was doing flying drones around?

Digital surveillance against us,
and physical intimidation used by them.

Because they suspect,
they think,
that maybe,
he could be ... y o u ... know
surveilling them.

How much freaking gas did that trip burn up,
how many man hours wasted.

Riddle me this.
Has the FBI ever done a goddamn thing FOR you?
They couldn't even help with Lindbergh baby,
and have been failing at missing kids ever since.

But they sure the flip know how to intimidate people in person,
with their passive aggressive jurisdiction games.


Mike

reply to post by PsykoOps


when a random individual sets up a tripod and starts taking pictures of your kid, you ask why and, unless you don't care about your kids safety, you don't want complete strangers owning pictures of your kid but that's not what the thread is about so there's no need for you to defend what is a known problem in NYC.

Correction, a know problem in your imagination. Strangers having pictures of your child doesn't pose any danger in reality. Not to mention that there is 0 laws against that.

reply to post by PsykoOps


tell that to the parents who discovered that pictures of their children were being used by pedophiles. It's a known problem in NYC but, again, your desire to protect pedophiles' rights is not the subject here.