• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Government's War on Cameras!

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
some more info for those of us who use cameras and audio gear......

www.Reason.TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY0MUARqisM

Who will watch the watchers? In a world of ubiquitous, hand-held digital cameras, that's not an abstract philosophical question. Police everywhere are cracking down on citizens using cameras to capture breaking news and law enforcement in action.

In 2009, police arrested blogger and freelance photographer Antonio Musumeci on the steps of a New York federal courthouse. His alleged crime? Unauthorized photography on federal property.

Police cuffed and arrested Musumeci, ultimately issuing him a citation. With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, he forced a settlement in which the federal government agreed to issue a memo acknowledging that it is totally legal to film or photograph on federal property.
 

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
This was also resolved with a big fine in Seattle when SPD officers roughed up a "cameraman".

"Resolved"? Using somebody else's money? I doubt it. How did the SPD suffer in a way that they don't want to suffer again?

We need a law stating that it is a crime to interfere with the recording of police activities in public (though the publication of such recordings may be delayed up to 24 hours to prevent things like aiding a hostage-taker by filming the SWAT positions outside his house).
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
We need a law stating that it is a crime to interfere with the recording of police activities in public

We do not need a law. Photography/video is a right granted by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
 
Last edited:

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
How did the SPD suffer in a way that they don't want to suffer again?

Their illegal activity was exposed to the entire public. They certainly don't like that happening. As for what happens inside the department, you might be surprised. Management doesn't like to be publicly embarrassed. They usually make those who do so pay in ways you and I might never know. Some officers might even be reassigned to city park dog crap patrol or loose their assignments to the 'elite" units.

I agree on the money part. Violation fines should come directly from the department's budget. Enough fines and they might find themselves driving older and older cars that smell worse and worse.
 

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
Photography/video is a right granted by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

How can that be? They didn't have cameras back then?

{sarcasm off}
 
Last edited:

Squeak

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
827
Location
Port Orchard,
I have seen signs on federal property prohibitingthe use of photography back in the 60's. I don't know
what is being done now with the camera/cell phone,
but just having one while on fed. property COULD get
you arrested. And this was before the internet.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
I have seen signs on federal property prohibitingthe use of photography back in the 60's. I don't know
what is being done now with the camera/cell phone,
but just having one while on fed. property COULD get
you arrested. And this was before the internet.

A lot of those prohibitions had to do with security.

Here's a note on Videoing or Photographing TSA operations at airports:

TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down. We do ask you to not film or take pictures of the monitors. While the TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances might.

Taking photographs may also prompt airport police or a TSA official to ask what your purpose is. It is recommended that you use the Talk To TSA program on tsa.gov to contact the Customer Support Manager at the airport to determine its specific policy. Or, if you are a member of the press, you should contact the TSA Office of Public Affairs.
 
Last edited:

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
I have seen signs on federal property prohibitingthe use of photography back in the 60's. I don't know
what is being done now with the camera/cell phone,
but just having one while on fed. property COULD get
you arrested. And this was before the internet.

While engaging in your 1A right around Federal property you most likely will be illegally detained or even arrested. Even though it is legal as the Federal Gov was forced to point out in a memo.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...fVVaXt&sig=AHIEtbSGvogR1CNCihPeUufb9rkUqd01yQ
Taking photographs may also prompt airport police or a TSA official to ask what your purpose is.

Although engaged in a lawful activity protected by the Constitution you WILL be detained, identified, and most likely arrested.

Photography is not a crime.
 
Last edited:

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
The "Bulletin" specifically cautioned "officials" against doing exactly what you suggest.

Yah, and yet that memo did nothing to curtail the illegal activity of Federal officers.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?91446-Take-Back-Independence-Day/page2

Post #44 shows a video from a week or so ago of a photographer being illegally detained for taking pictures outside a Federal Building with his father. This is just one example from hundreds that happen every single week.
 
Last edited:

fire suppressor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
870
Location
Kitsap County
Dose this no cameras on federal property thing apply to all federal property? We are talking a lot of different types of buildings how many of us have ever had a cell phone with vedio capabilities on us while in a post office
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
I remember many years ago when I was still in teh US Army, I was supposed to take a lot of pictures for a government project. Government film, government High dollar camera, of some very specific things, and at the same time, I was supposed to take a lot of other "personal" pictures so it did not look like I was targeting these specific installations, but only to act like I was a simple tourist . When the assignment was over, and the film developed, I was supposed to get my "personal" pictures back... not...I guess they liked them all.
 
Top