Is photography a crime? Are we Criminals?

[kkat69]

People complain their government didn't do enough if a terrorist attack hits and people get killed. People complain their government is going overboard when they are trying to prevent a terrorist attack. There is no win-win...

I think this sums it up pretty clearly. We can complain about it all day, but the moment something happens we complain that not enough was done to prevent it.

A lot of good points made in this thread. We can't take it personally if we get stopped. If we do, we should be polite as possible, being rude will only raise suspiscion and we'll get harrassed even more which we don't want.

We should just ask ourselves, "what would Brian Boitano do?"

 

[kylos]

Sadly, because of idiot people who want to kill strangers by the numbers we cannot be too careful. Don't blame the people for trying to be careful and safeguard their country. Blame the idiots who want to kill people for no good reason.

People complain their government didn't do enough if a terrorist attack hits and people get killed. People complain their government is going overboard when they are trying to prevent a terrorist attack. There is no win-win...

Well, actually, instead of harassing harmless citizens who common sense would indicate are not threats, officers might focus on those whose behavior and appearance are suspicious. Unfortunately, this technique known as profiling immediately brings to mind notions of racial profiling, and government bureaucrats want nothing to do with that.

Now profiling is the process of analyzing a series of facts about a situation or individual and determining the likelihood that something is atypical and deserves further investigation. Racial profiling is targeting primarily based on race, with little or no supporting factors upon which to base the suspicion.

I can't think of really any scenario where race or skin tone should be a key factor in assessing threat; it may, however, be a correlative factor, that is, someone whose behavior is suspicious may match racial patterns. I don't see a correlative factor being actionable without other overwhelming factors.

Common sense profiling of someone's behavior, what they are wearing, what they are carrying, what they are doing etc., can work if it takes more than just a few factors into account. When you target just one factor, you end up harassing many more innocent people than troublemakers. Targeting someone for simply taking pictures in a public area or because of their ethnicity won't catch many with ill motives; it'll just irritate innocent civilians. Now someone who is surreptitiously photographing key facilities and infrastructures should attract attention.

 

[Hankster]

Well, actually, instead of harassing harmless citizens who common sense would indicate are not threats, officers might focus on those whose behavior and appearance are suspicious. Unfortunately, this technique known as profiling immediately brings to mind notions of racial profiling, and government bureaucrats want nothing to do with that.

Now profiling is the process of analyzing a series of facts about a situation or individual and determining the likelihood that something is atypical and deserves further investigation. Racial profiling is targeting primarily based on race, with little or no supporting factors upon which to base the suspicion.

I can't think of really any scenario where race or skin tone should be a key factor in assessing threat; it may, however, be a correlative factor, that is, someone whose behavior is suspicious may match racial patterns. I don't see a correlative factor being actionable without other overwhelming factors.

Common sense profiling of someone's behavior, what they are wearing, what they are carrying, what they are doing etc., can work if it takes more than just a few factors into account. When you target just one factor, you end up harassing many more innocent people than troublemakers. Targeting someone for simply taking pictures in a public area or because of their ethnicity won't catch many with ill motives; it'll just irritate innocent civilians. Now someone who is surreptitiously photographing key facilities and infrastructures should attract attention.

Have you heard of spies? They don't stand out. They blend in. They look like normal everyday people. They behave like "normal, innocent" people. Don't make it into a race issue because it's not. I can't believe in this day in age people are crying over governments trying to be a little proactive about protecting their own freak'in country. What's the problem if an officer comes out and questions you? Does it really hurt you? No. Be nice. Understand life isn't about you. And explain and answer whatever the officers are asking. They are simply doing their job.

Those comments you feel so strongly about, would NEVER come out of the mouth of someone who's loved one who was murdered from a terrorist.

Life isn't about one person and their personal right anymore. It's a sad statement but true.

 

[saltyzoo]

a - How does the advert / poster above make you feel?

It doesn't create any "feelings" at all. If you don't apply "what might happen?" to it, it seems quite reasonable. I'd rather be "checked out" than have authorities ignore a possible threat. Seems a fair trade. That being said, obviously I strongly believe in my right to photograph from a public area and John Q. has no right to prevent me from doing it just because they feel like it. I don't see that poster encouraging such behaviour.

b - Have you ever been stopped or approached when out photographing? Stories are welcomed.

All the time. It's very annoying. Most of my photography is done underwater, and I typically go to locations that are not typically popular with recreational divers. I'd say 50% of my shoots some authority or other stops by to "see how I'm doing". Usually their suspicion is that I'm poaching, once they see the camera they relax. So, this story isn't really relevant except for me to say that despite it being annoying, it is their job, so I deal with it. It's part of being a photographer. Now if they went beyond checking me out, then it would be a different story.

 

[kylos]

Have you heard of spies? They don't stand out. They blend in. They look like normal everyday people. They behave like "normal, innocent" people. Don't make it into a race issue because it's not. I can't believe in this day in age people are crying over governments trying to be a little proactive about protecting their own freak'in country. What's the problem if an officer comes out and questions you? Does it really hurt you? No. Be nice. Understand life isn't about you. And explain and answer whatever the officers are asking. They are simply doing their job.

Those comments you feel so strongly about, would NEVER come out of the mouth of someone who's loved one who was murdered from a terrorist.

Life isn't about one person and their personal right anymore. It's a sad statement but true.

So if they blend in, then what good is it to bother anybody? The truth is, the behavior of terrorists can be detected. They don't have professional training, nor access to spy equipment; in general they act as isolated cells without a lot of experience. Terrorists (often suicide bombers) are expendable; you don't want to waste years of experience by blowing up a trained spy.

My comments were not about race; they were about the futility of broad-brush profiling, whether it be racial or someone with a camera. I would rather officers look for real suspicious activity rather than target all photographers.

If I'm in a public place and an officer wants to come over and check out what I'm doing, I have no problem with that. I'll say thanks for doing your job, and won't even mind showing him what I've been doing, but if I'm told I'm not allowed to take pictures there or he requests I delete my pictures, I'll respectfully tell him he's overstepping his bounds. Fear of nebulous threats does not infringe my rights.

It's the little details that turn a photographer into a surveillance photographer. Even if you don't believe in individual rights, you should be able to appreciate that wasting time questioning everyone with a camera or of a particular ethnicity does little to find real troublemakers.

 

[kkat69]

Have you heard of spies? They don't stand out. They blend in. They look like normal everyday people. They behave like "normal, innocent" people. Don't make it into a race issue because it's not.

I got the same impression about the mentioned post. Not so much race but stereotyping. Anyone remember the Oklahoma bombing? That guy didn't technically look out of the ordinary. If he was just taking pictures he wouldn't stand out. I'd rather them check than not check. Sure it's annoying, frustrating and we may or may not get angry but that's how things are now. I agree, I blame the people that forced us to be this way.

Piggy backing on that and beating the dead horse.

White Male/Female, Kaki shorts, nice shirt, expensive camera, nice car, etc can easily be a terrorist as a white male, bandana, grungy clothes, point and shoot, can easily be a terrorist as a .... the list goes on.

Looks, Race, Behavior, it doesn't matter. Better safe than sorry. Same reason of sobriety check points. They stop everyone to make sure we're not drunk, do we get offended they asked or looked at us? Not really, we just say "Nope, had nothing to drink tonight" and go about our way. again, better safe than sorry.

 

[OldCorpse]

I think this sums it up pretty clearly. We can complain about it all day, but the moment something happens we complain that not enough was done to prevent it.

A lot of good points made in this thread. We can't take it personally if we get stopped. If we do, we should be polite as possible, being rude will only raise suspiscion and we'll get harrassed even more which we don't want.

We should just ask ourselves, "what would Brian Boitano do?"

There's a lot wrong with this - it's 100% idiocy.

1) You are not catching or discouraging a single terrorist by harassing photographers. Why not stop random people in the street asking them "what are you doing, where are you going, are you a terrorist?" Equally effective - in other words ZERO. The correlation of photographers to terrorists is essentially equal to random person to terrorist.

2) By harassing photographers you are using valuable manpower on a useless endeavor - see point above. This represents a misallocation of precious resources. Instead, you could've been using that manpower to actually pursue terrorists or just ordinary crime. How would you feel if instead of keeping the streets safe, cops were required to randomly dig around in the ground "because they might find a buried body somewhere"? Exactly. You are taking AWAY from fighting real crime. My response to a cop would be "don't you have some actual criminals to pursue, instead of wasting my tax dollars - which pay your salary - on harassing law-abiding citizens?"

3)Harassing photographers is an actual negative also in that it often targets tourists - and so undermines the tourist industry. Net negative.

4)Harassing law-abiding citizens degrades the quality of life - this is exactly why we have laws against random searches and the like. Otherwise, your argument could be applied to a cop randomly invading your house or INTERFERING WITH ANY ACTIVITY in public by saying "what, do you have anything to hide?".

And yes, it bothers me to be harassed by asshat cops - sometimes I'm doing time-sensitive photography and don't want to stop what I'm doing, so I can explain to a mouth-breathing uniformed thug, that I have the right to do exactly what I'm doing.

What is wrong with these "give up your rights for security" arguments, is that accepting harassment from cops DOES NOT increase your security ONE WHIT. Not a single terrorist attack has been documented as being prevented by a cop stopping a photographer. There is plenty harm done (see points above), and no increase in security. That's what's wrong with the "security" argument - it's based on a falsehood.

 

[saltyzoo]

There's a lot wrong with this - it's 100% idiocy.

In your opinion.

1) You are not catching or discouraging a single terrorist by harassing photographers. Why not stop random people in the street asking them "what are you doing, where are you going, are you a terrorist?" Equally effective - in other words ZERO. The correlation of photographers to terrorists is essentially equal to random person to terrorist.

You obviously feel passionately that you are correct. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean you are correct. In fact, this whole point is flawed from the beginning. Nobody is suggesting harassing random photographers is a good idea, therefore the rest of your point is moot.

2) By harassing photographers you are using valuable manpower on a useless endeavor - see point above. This represents a misallocation of precious resources. Instead, you could've been using that manpower to actually pursue terrorists or just ordinary crime. How would you feel if instead of keeping the streets safe, cops were required to randomly dig around in the ground "because they might find a buried body somewhere"? Exactly. You are taking AWAY from fighting real crime. My response to a cop would be "don't you have some actual criminals to pursue, instead of wasting my tax dollars - which pay your salary - on harassing law-abiding citizens?"

Again, nobody is suggesting harassing random photographers is a good idea.

3)Harassing photographers is an actual negative also in that it often targets tourists - and so undermines the tourist industry. Net negative.

Again, everyone agrees that pointless harassment of random photographers is not a good idea. The point is that if someone is taking SUSPICIOUS photographs, perhaps stopping by and chatting with them would be wise.

4)Harassing law-abiding citizens degrades the quality of life - this is exactly why we have laws against random searches and the like. Otherwise, your argument could be applied to a cop randomly invading your house or INTERFERING WITH ANY ACTIVITY in public by saying "what, do you have anything to hide?".

So you believe than any time you are stopped and asked a question your rights have been violated? As in drunk driving blockades, or when the customs official asks you if you're bringing any fruit into the country?

And yes, it bothers me to be harassed by asshat cops - sometimes I'm doing time-sensitive photography and don't want to stop what I'm doing, so I can explain to a mouth-breathing uniformed thug, that I have the right to do exactly what I'm doing.

Seems like your issue has nothing to do with this issue. Just my opinion.

What is wrong with these "give up your rights for security" arguments, is that accepting harassment from cops DOES NOT increase your security ONE WHIT. Not a single terrorist attack has been documented as being prevented by a cop stopping a photographer. There is plenty harm done (see points above), and no increase in security. That's what's wrong with the "security" argument - it's based on a falsehood.

Yeah, I agree. Pointless harassment is a bad thing. Reasonable concern about someone taking quick snapshots of the local nuclear plant is another thing entirely.

 

[IscariotJ]

I find I'm quite offending by this poster.

These posters will accomplish nothing, except to alienate photographers. Who is next? Ice cream vans, perhaps? After all they do drive around a lot, and stop in lots of different places. Are they scoping out areas? Or, postal workers?

The UK is fast becoming a police state, and it won't make the general populace any safer. It didn't prevent the London bombings on 7/7, nor the attack on Glasgow airport.

At the end of the day, it won't be the walk-about plods that prevent terrorism, it will be the "intelligence" services....

 

[jrichie]

Photography in New York

I have just got back from a big trip to New York where I took loads of pictures of buildings, bridges [and their undersides] and everything else.

Sometimes these were done right in front of policemen - e.g the underside of Brooklyn Bridge, together with structure, door ways etc.

I never once got stopped!! I was actually waiting for it, and nothing happened.

These pictures were done with a Leica M8 rather than a big DSLR......... do you think this has anything to do with it? Obviously, the results are super clear and very detailed!

I am not sure why I never got asked anything, and maybe things are getting blown out of proportion?

However, I am English and have no real desire to live in the UK again, considering what is happening to that place. It has changed a lot over the last 5 years.

 

[OldCorpse]

You obviously feel passionately that you are correct. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean you are correct. In fact, this whole point is flawed from the beginning. Nobody is suggesting harassing random photographers is a good idea, therefore the rest of your point is moot.

But harassment of random photographers is exactly what's happening! Just read the numerous accounts of perfectly ordinary photographers, tourists and photography students who are hounded by power-tripping renta-cops or assorted "security" thugs who accost them in blatant ignorance of the relevant laws. Meanwhile somehow there are no reports of terrorists being arrested because they were caught photographing "X".

Yeah, I agree. Pointless harassment is a bad thing. Reasonable concern about someone taking quick snapshots of the local nuclear plant is another thing entirely.

There is NO "reasonable concern" - there is only reasonable suspicion of a law being violated. If the photographer is taking "quick snapshots" or "slow snapshots" or "medium speed snapshots" of a nuclear plant, the only question is whether he's violating a law or not. If the area is restricted, or photography is forbidden - no question, yes, confront/arrest the photog. However, if he/she not violating any law, then no, the police have NO right to question, stop or otherwise interfere with the photographer. The exact reason why we have laws restricting the powers of the police is because of that - you CANNOT simply stop someone, unless you can demonstrate a REASONABLE suspicion that a crime is being committed (and a judge will have to vet the "reasonableness" of that should it come to that, and you'll have to present evidence of it, not mere "suspicion"). You cannot stop a photog merely because the snapshots he took of the nuclear plant were "kinda quick" or whatever rubbish... taking pictures - fast or slow - of a nuclear plant is not a crime (if it doesn't happen in restricted areas, of course). Only suspicion of crime counts.

To the other poster who mentioned road blocks - this is utterly irrelevant, for multiple reasons. First, being in a vehicle, you voluntarily give up a measure of privacy and agree to be stopped by relevant authorities. Merely being in public space that doesn't have restricted use provisions (which roadways and cars do), you are NOT giving up privacy to any random cop. Second, and most importantly, you can show a direct empirical relationship between drinking and driving and accidents. That makes it a public interest issue in THAT respect - note, by the way, that when a cop stops you in a blockade, he can only ascertain your sobriety status (and driving right - license), it doesn't give him the right to ask for anything else not related to the roadblock. In the case of a photography and terrorism we have ZERO documented evidence of a photographer link to terrorism (unlike the richly documented link between drunk driving and accidents). Thus you cannot make it a public interest issue which allows a measure like roadblocks (in this case "questioning a photographer"). Again, this is pure idiocy. There is no comparison.

 

[Everythingisnt]

There is NO "reasonable concern" - there is only reasonable suspicion of a law being violated. If the photographer is taking "quick snapshots" or "slow snapshots" or "medium speed snapshots" of a nuclear plant, the only question is whether he's violating a law or not. If the area is restricted, or photography is forbidden - no question, yes, confront/arrest the photog. However, if he/she not violating any law, then no, the police have NO right to question, stop or otherwise interfere with the photographer.

Exactly.

 

[saltyzoo]

I'm sorry, but having someone ask you a question is not harassment or against your "rights". You don't have the right to never be questioned on what you are doing.

Do you understand the concept of deterrence? If a terrorist knows that there is a chance they might be noticed when photographing it makes it harder to be a good terrorist. That's a good thing.

The fact is, that taking pictures of certain things is now "suspicious". That is not "idiocy", it's a fact of life.

It's interesting that you willingly allow your rights to be limited while driving a car (something that is almost impossible to avoid), yet you refuse to allow your rights to be limited while taking photographs (something that isn't nearly as "necessary to modern life" as driving).

As to your point that "we have ZERO documented evidence of a photographer link to terrorism". We have zero documented evidence that somebody wants to put a bullet in your brain. But I would guess that you probably don't want to wait until after it happens to have someone try to prevent it. We had zero documented evidence that someone would fly planes into buildings. Yet, somehow they did it anyway. The fact is that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that close study via the use of photography will be a tool of terrorists, just as a car is a tool of people who drunkenly kill innocent people. The comparison is very fair. Both are an invasion of our "rights". Neither are "idiocy".

 

[chriscl]

For those of us (like me) in the UK, this is a very controversial topic.

As a amateur photographer in the UK, you have to know that there are some areas where, if you try and take photographs, you will be stopped by the Police, or what we now call PCSO's (they used to be called "Special Constables" - basically,volunteers with an amount of Police training).

I live in Nottingham (in the 'middle' of the UK) and although there has never been any form of terrorist attack there, the local Police take their responsibilities very seriously indeed.

If, for example, you were to use a dSLR in Nottingham's Market Square, and a passing Policeman noticed you, it would be likely that they would ask you what you were doing, who you were, and move you along. Also, anyone who's ever taken photographs near buildings with 'private' Security guards will be well used to them coming over and challenging you.

In addition to the advertising poster quoted earlier in this thread, here in the UK there are others, and there's also encouragement for members of the public to phone the local Police and report anyone they perceive to be behaving strangely (personal opinion on that of course would vary wildly!)

Some opinion in the UK says we have 'suddenly' found ourselves in a surveillance society - apparently the UK now has more CCTV cameras than anywhere else, in addition to encouragement of the public to report anything they deem as suspicious.

Is this an infringement of "civil liberties"? Absolutely. But that has to be balanced, I guess, by the common, greater, good.

For photographers in the UK (and elsewhere, of course) by all means know your rights, and - politely - stick to them. But don't be surprised if you're asked to stop taking pictures and move on. I know I have been, several times, even when I know that - to the letter of the law - I'm in the right.

Like many, I might not agree with this, and it can be - sometimes - overly heavy-handed.

But, whilst we might not agree with these laws, they are there for our mutual protection, and there's really nothing "we", as photographers, can argue against that.

 

[saltyzoo]

If they are forcing you to "move along" and not allowing you to continue with your photography, then I agree, that is harassment. I think the problem is that the governments have been intentionally vague on where the line should be drawn, and THAT is a serious issue. "checking" someone out and not allowing them to photograph are two very different things.

 

[Attonine]

Here's something that happened at my apartment building several months ago.

I live in a 4 story apartment block in a small northern town in Saudi Arabia. We have 24/7 police presence in the lobby (usually sleeping or watching the TV) and a police 4x4 parked outside (unnecessary in my opinion, but I work for the government and it is their regulation). One night someone pulled upto the building and started taking photos of it. The police approached him, had a short conversation, started up their 4x4 and moved it so it's lights lit up the building better, and the photographer carried on. A few moments later one of my colleagues entered the building and was concerned that someone was taking photos of it. He approached the photographer and asked for his ID and made moves to call our employer and generally start a fuss. The photographer jumped in his car and zoomed off pretty quickly.

I just thought this was topical, however somewhat about face, with the police actually helping the photographer, baring in mind they are supposed to be there to protect us, and one would assume taking photos of a very non-descript building which only houses foreigners would be enough to get you in trouble, especilly here of all places.

Anyway, the building still stands.

 

[doug in albq]

.....the threat of terrorism is simply a ruse to set up the ever-emerging Police state...



that's how I see it.

 

[termina3]

.....the threat of terrorism is simply a ruse to set up the ever-emerging Police state...

that's how I see it.

And the moon landing was filmed in Hollywood.

 

[Everythingisnt]

As to your point that "we have ZERO documented evidence of a photographer link to terrorism". We have zero documented evidence that somebody wants to put a bullet in your brain. We had zero documented evidence that someone would fly planes into buildings. Yet, somehow they did it anyway.

Totally ridiculous comparisons. And as for your 9/11 example, I'd just like to point out that plane hi-jacking had in fact been going on before 9/11 and things like in-flight security was already in effect. Saying that because we don't know what a terrorist is planning we should be able to try and stop them at "any stage" of the game is utterly ridiculous, because it destroys the basis of the criminal code at every level.. In other words, you persecute people for breaking laws, not for doing something which you think they will follow up with illegal activities.

 

[saltyzoo]

Totally ridiculous comparisons. And as for your 9/11 example, I'd just like to point out that plane hi-jacking had in fact been going on before 9/11 and things like in-flight security was already in effect. Saying that because we don't know what a terrorist is planning we should be able to try and stop them at "any stage" of the game is utterly ridiculous, because it destroys the basis of the criminal code at every level.. In other words, you persecute people for breaking laws, not for doing something which you think they will follow up with illegal activities.

Right. plane hi-jackings go on all the time, but terrorists NEVER do surveillance on a target first.

I agree that there is a line. I don't think asking someone what they are doing crosses it, and it most certainly is a deterrent and makes it more difficult for someone that actually is a terrorist.

 

[termina3]

Totally ridiculous comparisons. And as for your 9/11 example, I'd just like to point out that plane hi-jacking had in fact been going on before 9/11 and things like in-flight security was already in effect. Saying that because we don't know what a terrorist is planning we should be able to try and stop them at "any stage" of the game is utterly ridiculous, because it destroys the basis of the criminal code at every level.. In other words, you persecute people for breaking laws, not for doing something which you think they will follow up with illegal activities.

The real danger to our society? Over-hyphenation.

 

[eddx]

I agree that there is a line. I don't think asking someone what they are doing crosses it, and it most certainly is a deterrent and makes it more difficult for someone that actually is a terrorist.

I'm not sure if other photographers will agree with me on this but I have NO PROBLEM with anyone asking what I am doing, who I am, why I'm taking photographs - you know, the basic everyday questions.

I think the line is crossed when a very very very small percentage of the general public (terrorists) in still so much terror that the police can justify it totally expectable to stop me from what I am doing, search me, humiliate me, embarrass me and then tell me what I am doing is illegal - clearly the law states that if in a public place I can take photographs.

To me these "terrorists" have won when I can do my job properly. It's as simple as that.

 

[kylos]

I think this story about a Secret Service agent asking or instructing a citizen to delete photos is pertinent to this discussion.

Basically, a Secret Service agent asked (or directed) a baseball fan at the opening game of the Washington Nationals to delete photos that included a security checkpoint. President Bush was throwing the opening pitch and the Secret Service had set up a checkpoint.

Now as I understand the law, the fan had every right to take the picture, as he was in a public area, and the Secret Service agent would not have the authority to make him delete the pictures. However, the article quotes a Secret Service spokesman stating that they have the authority to ask you to delete pictures.

To me, that indicates that they understand that they cannot force you to delete the picture, but they can ask you to delete it, probably in an intimidating manner that would make you feel that you had no choice in the matter (and the ACLU lawyer quoted in the article draws the same conclusion). That sort of technically legal interaction I feel crosses the line of acceptable behavior that becomes excusable when a security threat is claimed. I would have no problem if an officer approached me and asked me what I was doing, but if he tried to use legal but bullying phrasing, I would feel he's overstepping his bounds and infringing on my rights, trying to coerce me to cede my rights.

 

[compuwar]

I think this story about a Secret Service agent asking or instructing a citizen to delete photos is pertinent to this discussion.

Basically, a Secret Service agent asked (or directed) a baseball fan at the opening game of the Washington Nationals to delete photos that included a security checkpoint. President Bush was throwing the opening pitch and the Secret Service had set up a checkpoint.

Actually, the uniform division folks are just officers, not agents, they have most of the same authority as other federal uniformed police services in the District of Columbia, as well as the duties placed on them by law as officers of the USSS.

Now as I understand the law, the fan had every right to take the picture, as he was in a public area, and the Secret Service agent would not have the authority to make him delete the pictures. However, the article quotes a Secret Service spokesman stating that they have the authority to ask you to delete pictures.

To me, that indicates that they understand that they cannot force you to delete the picture, but they can ask you to delete it, probably in an intimidating manner that would make you feel that you had no choice in the matter (and the ACLU lawyer quoted in the article draws the same conclusion). That sort of technically legal interaction I feel crosses the line of acceptable behavior that becomes excusable when a security threat is claimed. I would have no problem if an officer approached me and asked me what I was doing, but if he tried to use legal but bullying phrasing, I would feel he's overstepping his bounds and infringing on my rights, trying to coerce me to cede my rights.

While they may not wish to draw much attention to it in terms of their powers, you'll find that the USSS gets a fair amount of leeway that other law enforcement agencies don't get in terms of the ability to hold, question and direct things around a protectee and his or her security arrangements. Public law simply states the USSS is authorized to "protect" the POTUS, not what that protection entails, so it's really a question for the courts as to what is in and out of bounds, but given

Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs, resists, or interferes with a Federal law enforcement agent engaged in the performance of the protective functions authorized by this section or by section 1752 of this title shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

I'd probably err on the side of caution (and I've been photographed, printed and entered into the USSS's systems as a good guy since the mid-80's.)

 

[eddx]

.....the threat of terrorism is simply a ruse to set up the ever-emerging Police state...

that's how I see it.

I agree with this statement in a lot of ways. I do not want to live in a Police state.

At the same time, I don't see a problem with Police monitoring us through CCTV or asking us what we are doing or who we are.

The problem here is photographers are being labelled by the government as terrorists and as a result we are being stopped from doing what we either enjoy doing as a hobby or in some cases are paid to do professional. That is wrong. No?