Federal Officials Finally Admit That Photographing Federal Buildings Is Not A Crime
from the took-'em-long-enough dept
There is nothing against the law about photographing federal buildings from public property. And yet, there have been plenty of stories about security guards and law enforcement trying to block photographers from taking those shots. There have been stories of seized cameras, demands to delete photos, etc., and the usual defense is that they're just "protecting against terrorism." However, after a settlement in a lawsuit concerning a guy who was arrested for videotaping outside the Federal courthouse in NY, Homeland Security has issued a notice to federal employees not to disrupt the photographing of federal buildings. An excerpt from the now released document (which is fully embedded below):For properties under the protective jurisdiction of FPS, there are currently no general security regulations prohibiting exterior photography of any federally owned or leased building, absent a written local rule or regulation established by a Court Security Committee or Facility Security Committee. Furthermore, it is important to understand that this regulation does not prohibit photography by individuals of the exterior of federally owned or leased facilities from publicly accessible spaces such as streets, sidewalks, parks and plazas.... Absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, law enforcement and security personnel and (sic) must allow individuals to photograph the exterior of federally owned or leased facilities from publicly accessible space.The report does say they can go speak to the photographer to determine the purpose of the photography if they believe it's warranted. However, unless they establish a higher bar of suspicion, they need to allow the photography to continue. They also are not allowed to seize cameras and cannot demand that a photographer delete the contents of the camera.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: federal buildings, photography
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No such thing as a deleted photo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No such thing as a deleted photo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No such thing as a deleted photo
It is much less risky to delete the photos, then take the card off the camera (very important! if you do more photos with the card, it can overwrite the deleted photos), and later in the safety of your hotel room, use PhotoRec to recover everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I still won't roll the dice taking pictures of Federal buildings (some of which are rather nice examples of architecture). The damage has been done. The chilling has already happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When I go wandering around London with my DSLR I always have a copy of a similar bulletin in the UK from the head of the Metropolitan police. It lives comfortably in my camera case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So at the end of the day, they can still bully you, and they can still be the judge and jury of whether you have a valid purpose for taking pictures. Because taking pictures in itself has no valid role, evidently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's true that there's still room for abuse here - but there always will be. It's a step in the right direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, as long as it doesn't go too far. When it becomes obvious that's there's no more information that the subject can give you, you should stop the beating, excuse me, I mean "investigation".
It's true that there's still room for abuse here - but there always will be. It's a step in the right direction.
That's why they invented water-boarding. It's the kinder, gentler way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The terrorists win if you live in fear.
One good punch and then a decade of head fakes have you wimpering in the corner. I think the terrorists have pretty much kicked your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, because photos of the outside of a building are pivotal to a successful terrorist attack. I mean it's not like they can simply look at the building and remember what it looks like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Loitering around an area jotting down notes and sketches is going to arouse a lot more suspicion than taking a few quick snaps on an SLR.
Let's just hope law enforcement continue foil would be terrorists, regardless of this silly notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If someone were doing photo reconnaisance he could unobtrusively use a camera phone or small inexpensive point-and-shoot and get perfectly usable photos.
At this time, I've yet to see evidence of photography actually being used to plot terrorist attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep. They just weakened a nation today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Coward
http://www.kcci.com/news/officer-points-gun-at-boy-scout-at-canadian-border/27078396#!bkye 8o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually have been hassled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
won't stop the police..
No sane person argues with an armed police officer on the street. Arguing is a good way to get yourself in serious trouble. Just shut up and kiss his ass if he tells you to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No sane person argues with an armed police officer on the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No sane person argues with an armed police officer on the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: won't stop the police..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: won't stop the police..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
capital building
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
for now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in plain view now
To think that an 'anyone' w/a camera is or may be doing something nefarious is flat out absurd. This whole issue is one to keep us diverted on the minute details of issues versus the wholesale slaughter of our privacy that is and was being done now and w/in the last decade and a half.
This is a non-issue imho.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
customized playing card
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
customized playing card
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, here comes the story. I am having a conference in Baton Rouge, LA. during this week. This afternoon my friend and I were free, so we visited Louisiana Old state Capitol (a lovely building) and I bought a postcard for my wife at gift shop where I learned that there is a post office nearby. I took a lot of photos on our way to post office which I want to show to my wife when I reach home. I can still remember the moment we reached post office building when I just pointing my iphone to the building across the street, two person shouting at me at exact same time (you can find the location on Google with 30.44941,-91.182902). One person standing in front me with no uniform on said something like it's not good or not allowed to take a picture of federal owned building to me. I thought this is so strange cause early this year and last year when I was in DC, You can hardly find a visitor not "taking a picture of federal owned building", I thought this person may just want to create disturbances, so I replied "Sorry, I don't know about that" while entering post office. After I finished my postcard, three person stopped me at the gate. One of them asked me to show my photos to them on my iphone, and forced me to delete the photos of the building across the street, "that's the law after 9-11" he said. So I replied "I am sorry I don't know that" and "if that's the law I will delete it". After the photos were deleted that person kept asking questions like why was I there, what do I do. They didn't let me go before they learned the detail of my research project. BTW, I checked Google street view and photos immediately after I returned to hotel. I feel so sorry for those three person, cause I mentioned Google street view and photos to them. They may have heart attack seeing their beloved building on line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chilling: Border Guard points Gun at Boy Scout
http://www.kcci.com/news/officer-points-gun-at-boy-scout-at-canadian-border/27078396#!bkye 8o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think there is nothing wrong in photocopying the building. Now all USPS employees can make use of liteblue portal to get all the benifits. You can login it from https://liteblueloginhelp.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]