i.e.: white, affluent and judeo/christian.

especially since this is usually just some plastic policeman / rent-a-cop with an ego it really wears down the impact.

this really isn’t a wonderful thing. has boing boing dropped that? I notice it’s not in the headline any more.

are things that bad? and will ignoring the wonderfil help?

Despite agreeing with all the pro-liberty posts on boingboing, I must agree they’re getting old. But they’re still interesting, and perhaps a little bit of woe makes the wonderful seem moreso ;)

“According to Bergman, he and a buddy were taking photos at the Port of Los Angeles when they were confronted by a security guard who told them that they could not take photographs of a Valero plant even from the public street.”

Note: as far as I know, it’s legal to take photos of stuff that’s in direct line of sight from a public street.

“You can see some of the shots that they got that day on Flickr here.

“Bergman didn’t push the issue at the time and left his shoot. After leaving his shoot he was followed by a man in a pick up truck for a while.

“Fast forward to this morning when Bergman says two men with badges show up at his door…”

An apology to the photographer wouldn’t be inappropriate.

Inboulder @3: So what? So stick around and find out.

Kyle @8, in some cases, it’s why they’re down there. In other cases, they’re stuck having to follow policies that explicitly forbid them to depart from the script. I have a lot of sympathy for first-order flak catchers, but I still assume I won’t get normal human problem-solving strategies until I’m three levels up.

Mr Alistair @9, there’s still plenty of wonderful. No one will blame you if you skip the civil liberties entries.

Cutthroat @18: It’s not the system working just fine. It’s another instance of some Chicken Little wasting the FBI’s time.

BuggyBrains @21, please don’t do .sig lines. We can see your username just fine.

Michael @22: It’s selling fewer and fewer fishwrappers. If you want a sign of the times, The Guardian has started a US online edition.

Tenn @23: I don’t know where they’re getting it, but I’ll bet it’s the same place they’re getting the idea that it’s treasonous to openly disagree with a president when the country’s at war. Mr. Alistair may think all these civil liberties stories are superfluous, but I have to disagree. They’re badly needed.

Jeff @27: I subscribe to Jim Macdonald’s theory: if it doesn’t get used as an establishing shot in major motion pictures, overseas terrorists are not going to target it. They want to hit something their countrymen will recognize instantly as an American icon.

Kieran @29: Thank you. That’s very useful.

Dr. Pickles @32, 35: The photographer didn’t know he was on private property, if indeed he was. Note also that the security guard claimed the photographer couldn’t take pictures from a public road, which is not correct. And do you love authority so much that you would forbid US citizens to speak flippantly to or about anyone in a uniform? The law doesn’t say that. Previous generations of Americans would stare at you in disbelief for claiming that it does.

I suggest you rent and watch a bunch of old hardboiled detective movies. The police in some of them may be crooked and brutal; but if they object to being given lip by the citizenry, they do it on their own authority, not the state’s.

I find it funny how many people here are quick to jump to his defense when the photographer in question was clearly breaking the law…

The photographer was not clearly breaking the law. You do not find it funny. And I’m really starting to think you like authority for its own sake.

Jupiter @36, the photographer was showing normal common sense, and he knew more about the law than the security guard did. He also knows more about the law than you do. A person who’s innocently going about his own business in his own home doesn’t have to show ID, he’s not obliged to talk to anyone, and he doesn’t have to let officers enter if they don’t have a warrant.

…

A general observation:

Every time we discuss one of these stories, we have readers popping up to defend the right of security guards to maintain public order by any means necessary, and the right of owners to do whatever they want on private property.

But do these same guys ever show up to defend me when someone’s having a screaming snit-fit over being moderated? Do they defend the Boingers’ right to order things as they see fit on their own weblog? They do not.

In fact, judging from past events on this site, the pro-authority types are the ones that kick and scream the loudest when their comments are disemvowelled, and who flout the rules by instantly coming back as sockpuppets when they’re handed a temporary suspension.

It makes me wonder how serious they are about their professed beliefs.

I’m the photographer you’re discussing. I thought I should clarify a few points.

First, yes, I had parked my car in a large, empty dirt lot with no fence and no signs, and then walked off to take photos about half a block away. As I was shooting, I noticed a private security guard inspecting my car, so I walked back and introduced myself. He informed me that I could not park there as it was private property, and so I offered to move my car. It was COMPLETELY within his right to ask me to move my car off of private property, and I didn’t argue. I was done shooting in that area anyway. When he asked me what I was doing, I told him that I was taking photos for stock, and he asked me not to take photos of the Valero plant. I’d already taken a number of photos of it, but I didn’t want to start an argument, and didn’t feel like saying “well, I was shooting it from public property, etc, etc” or even starting any argument at all, so I packed up and left. That was probably… oh, I’d say 2pm. My friend and I did a LOT of shooting, and returned to that general area much, much later, probably around 7pm to shoot other photos. I did not park in that same lot, and where I did park was probably about a half mile or so away. We shot for awhile, and then as I was LEAVING, I noticed a security guard following me. (I think it was the same guy). The guard followed me onto the freeway, and when I pulled over to talk to him at the first place I could (there aren’t a lot of safe places to pull over and stop your car in San Pedro), he kept driving, so I took off in the other direction.

At NO point did I even need to assert my rights. I figured it was a non-issue. The guard following me in his truck was a bit scary, but at no point did I ever talk to him.

My first conversation with the guard was very polite and professional, and yes, after I was informed that my car was on private property, I left. Had I not, it would have been trespassing. If you don’t enter an area that says “no trespassing” and nobody has previously asked you to leave, it isn’t trespassing. Furthermore, my taking photographs from public property is completely legal, but it would have been pointless to start an argument with him, so I didn’t.

Yes, I know what’s on the rights card like the back of my hand. And I rarely ever have to take it out.

I live right next to the Port, and I’m surprised. I work with artists who photograph and video the port, both in partnership and anonymously, all the time, and I’ve never heard of anyone being given a hard time before. Sometimes folks are asked questions by whatever authority is around, but no one has ever been given any BS that I know of. I have two associates who routinely go into the harbor in small boats and photograph ships, including hull closeups. Neither of them has ever had a problem.

The Port of LA has its own police force, and in my experience they’re really helpful folks who will go out of their way to help folks who’s projects bring them onto or adjacent to Port property. I know they’ve even helped people arrange ride alongs some of the security vessels that patrol the harbor.

It’s worth noting that the original poster encountered problems shooting the Valero refinery, not the Port itself. In the experience of numerous South Bay photographers, oil refineries are ground zero for security harassment. Be warned.

I actually painted my own crappy interpretation of the pretty orange one on a shirt for art class!

Talk about 6 degrees!

If you had bothered to RTFA you would have seen this:

Just as we were leaving, I noticed a pickup truck heading towards us. As I drove past him, I noticed him make a U-turn in my rear-view mirror. After a couple of turns, it became apparent that he was following us. I drove completely legally, even used my turn signals, but after I got on the freeway and he followed us there, I began to get annoyed. I got off, pulled into a parking lot to wait for him to pull over, but he kept going.

Not that I mind that–after all, like most ‘mainstream Internet users’ I’m ‘hugely aware of the fact that the fundamental economic model on the Internet is advertising.’ (Although I’m not a Charter subscriber.)

But the tone and the attitude of the rent-a-cops and transit workers is so close to what’s in Little Brother: either the future is now, Cory has clever plants taking photos in DC and LA, or life is imitating fiction.

1) Guard sees person, approaches to ask questions
2) Person jumps in car and takes off
3) Guard goes “Hey wait!” (or whatever)
4) Person just takes off for the highway and doesn’t stop

It implies, does it? Maybe if you had clicked through to the story, instead of opining based on the excerpt that Mark posted, you would have read this:

At one point in the day, I noticed a security guard looking into the windows of my parked car while I was out shooting. I walked back, and politely introduced myself. He informed me that I was parked on private property (a big empty dirt lot, but whatever), and so I offered to move my car. When he asked what I was doing in the port complex, I replied that I was taking photos. I declined to elaborate. He informed me that he didn’t care what I was taking photos of, but that I couldn’t take photos of the Valero plant. I had my rights card on me, but I was planning on leaving the area anyway and didn’t want to start an altercation, so I politely said “okay” and went on my way.

Suspicious behavior? HELL YES! The guard might have been zealous or foaming at the mouth, but photographer basically acted guilty about something (he ran FFS).

You are making this up. FFS indeed.

While I’m aware of how much abuse Photographers get, the fella in question was trespassing on private property without a permit, which is absolutely against the law.

“He informed me that I was parked on private property (a big empty dirt lot, but whatever)…”

Not only was he breaking the law, he was flippant about it.
What’s really funny about this is that if he had actually pulled out his Photographer’s Rights card and read it he would have discovered that he was the one in the wrong.

When did I say that the photographer wasn’t trespassing? I didn’t say anything about that either way.

What I said was that holtt’s assertions about what had happened were completely unsupported by the evidence on hand.

And the last I checked, “being flippant to someone in a uniform” was not a citeable offense. (If the person in the uniform is a cop, being flippant falls under “that’s not prudent, and a wise person would avoid doing so unless they were trying to make a point”, but that doesn’t mean it’s illegal.)

Well, at least it’s a change from “Look! Another goatse!”

Fair enough. My point is just that I find it funny how many people here are quick to jump to his defense when the photographer in question was clearly breaking the law, and the security guard and agents were doing their job.

And, of course, that he ought to actually read what his rights are before whipping his Photographer’s Rights card out whenever he’s approached by an authority figure.

It’s good to see that sometimes the system works just fine.

Of course not. For one thing, BoingBoing isn’t the government.

For another, you’re female, and it is therefore much more difficult for them to imagine that by supporting your efforts, they are compensating for their own failure to live up to their version of the masculine ideal.

I can imagine some folks being “grateful that these fine agents were doing their jobs”, but would you feel the same way when they show up at your door because you took a picture of mom in front of the Statue of Liberty?

It is sad, though, that we have to send out detectives to check up on photos, wasting their time, especially when they sound like reasonable people.
Very good article, though. It shows both sides without breaking into hyperbole.

BB

I was absolutely dumbfounded by how many people argued against, saying that it was slander etc and inappropriate etc. What the hell is journalism FOR if it’s not for informing the public?