Comments on: FBI questions man for taking a photo of a cloud

By: Michael Crumpton

Michael Crumpton — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:04:00 +0000

So they have FBI agents guarding refineries, watching for photographers? I feel so much safer.

By: Lemoutan

Lemoutan — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:31:00 +0000

All I’m saying is that if you need to blow an oil-refinery then the regularity with which oil companies do the job isn’t enough. Sure, they can do it, but they don’t do it very well. They’re a tad erratic and unpredictable. In short, unreliable. Even if they were effective, it’d be to their schedule and hidden agenda, not yours.

By: Martijn

Martijn — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:53:00 +0000

How many have been blown up by terrorists? It seems to me the oil companies are far more effective at blowing them than Al Qaeda is.

By: CLamb

CLamb — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:24:00 +0000

Wow! First they sent men in black. Then came the black helicopters. Now they are sending black clouds. The apocalypse is near.

By: Singe

Singe — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:21:00 +0000

This was the SF Bay Area, incidentally. The bay wetlands on the lower peninsula are great for birdwatching.

By: Singe

Singe — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:19:00 +0000

A couple years back my dad got hassled by some cops for bird-watching. It happened to be close to a sewage treatment plant in the marshlands. (Though he was on public land far from the plant, his telescope was pointing in its general direction). SO SUSPICIOUS.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 06:40:00 +0000

Or husband?

By: yadayada

yadayada — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 06:00:00 +0000

FBI Agent David Pileggi

Is that Mitch Pileggi’s son?

By: John Tobe

John Tobe — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 03:26:00 +0000

So Grandpa Simpson works for the FBI now? http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/7400000/Old-Man-Yells-At-Cloud-the-simpsons-7414384-265-199.gif

By: teapot

teapot — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 02:32:00 +0000

If the intention was to photograph the cloud then everything else is incidental. You can’t re frame someone’s intention as is convenient for your argument.

Why go out of your way to take a picture of them?
Who could possibly think of a reason why the National Weather Service might want to photograph clouds? It’s a real conundrum!

By: Cally Powers

Cally Powers — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 02:28:00 +0000

No. The main idea here is: Stay the heck out of Texas if you can help it!

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 02:13:00 +0000

Funnily enough, he didn’t say that. Security should be titrated to threat level. Taking a photo of an oil refinery should get zero response.

By: foljs

foljs — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 02:08:00 +0000

So, the main idea is: because security is not 100% effective, it should be abolished altogether, even if it’s 60% or 70% effective?

By: foljs

foljs — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 02:07:00 +0000

“”"Who cares if he took a picture of an oil refinery”"”

The oil refinery guys that called the police? I mean, duh!

My point is, you might considering someone taking pictures of an oil refinery as a priori OK and not worth checking out. That’s a perfectly fine approach.

But if an oil-refinery is involved, don’t go title your post “police questions man for taking photo of a cloud”, because that’s just link-bait.

By: foljs

foljs — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 02:04:00 +0000

Well, using the same logic you used here, a cloud can be considered even *more* incidental.

An oil refinery is something valuable, and a potential target (maybe not in the US as of now, but *lots* of refineries have been attacked abroad).

Compared to that a cloud is far more “incidental”.

Even if you’re photographing just for the fun of it, if next to you is an oil refinery, it’s far more possible to take a picture it and/or the surrounding place, than of just the clouds above it. Especially if the refinery is in a relatively remote area. Clouds, you can find everywhere. Why go out of your way to take a picture of them?

By: teapot

teapot — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 01:35:00 +0000

DISagree. When you take pictures of your friends at a party do you consider those as pictures of your friends or pictures of the drinks they’re holding? If your friends weren’t standing there it would be unlikely that you’d ever take a photo of just their drinks (unless you’re at a wanky art student party) and as the same goes for this guy who would not have taken the picture *at all* if a cloud was not there. He took a picture of a cloud and the oil refinery was incidental.

By: teapot

teapot — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 01:34:00 +0000

In university a friend asked me to be in their film. We went to this Sydney bridge to shoot it. While sitting alongside the camera on the bridge’s main deck capturing a long shot for the purposes of time lapse a anti-terror security dude came along and told us we couldn’t be there shooting stuff as it was a security risk. I wanted to (but didn’t) tell him he’s hopeless at doing his job because the day before we had jumped a fence to access the main supporting pylon. In a pile of old boats I found a 20m ladder which I had used to climb onto the base of the bridge’s supporting pylon. No one asked any questions. No one found us there. We were there for hours. All this security bs is merely theatre to scare people into behaving exactly as our masters want.

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/133/422930040_6bf3328e79_b.jpg

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 01:00:00 +0000

no harm, force or coercion.

Every interaction between law enforcement and civilians is intrinsically coercive, regardless of content or benevolence of intent. It’s basically the same principle that says that an 11 year-old can’t give consent. The power imbalance precludes it being an act of free will.

By: Lemoutan

Lemoutan — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:31:00 +0000

Regular, yes. But rather unreliable.

By: Lemoutan

Lemoutan — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:27:00 +0000

If you’re wrong, and hospiceman turns out to be a threat after all, can we sue you?

By: t3kna2007

t3kna2007 — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:58:00 +0000

> Today I’d probably be cuffed and writhing on the ground from
> a taser shot while waiting for the police wagon.

Same here. I’d have been OK if the post-photography encounter had ended at “You’re not a threat and you are doing a public service”, but when it got to being careful next time and its implied judgment of wrong-doing, I’d be like wait, what do mean, be careful of what? And so on, and then the tasers and the screaming.

Like DewiMorgan said, it’s those parting shots that get you.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:29:00 +0000

So? Who cares if he took a picture of an oil refinery. The oil companies manage to blow the things up themselves rather regularly. Scarcely any need for terrorists to bother.

By: foljs

foljs — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:18:00 +0000

Well, I’m against the police as the next guy, but the article is BS.

That “For taking photo of a cloud” title? Why, when the article itself contains the true story: “who took a photo of a thundercloud over an oil refinery near Houston, TX.”.

It doesn’t sound that far-fetched to question a guy taking pictures next to an oil refinery. How should they know in advance he was taking pictures of the clouds or whatever? Because his camera was sometimes pointing upwards? They would have to be close enough to see this, and they would have to also know that those where the times that he pressed the shutter.

By: humanresource

humanresource — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:56:00 +0000

You can’t see a problem when the great engine of state power is hauled out to intimidate people who photograph clouds?
Forget the polite agent doing his job, and think about the political pathologies that made his job what it is.

By: Zadaz

Zadaz — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:25:00 +0000

That’s no joke. Thunderclouds can kill with immunity. They’re the honey badgers of the sky.

By: Selena60

Selena60 — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:46:00 +0000

One night walking home from my friend’s house, I was stopped by a police officer on Main Street. (The central road in the small town). He asked me if I had any business there. I answered “Yes, and I’m minding it”. He got quite pissy and suggested I could be arrested for ”obstruction of justice”, I responded that the police department could be sued for false arrest and he could be fired for stupidity.

We agreed to disagree and went on our separate ways.

This was 30 years ago. Today I’d probably be cuffed and writhing on the ground from a taser shot while waiting for the police wagon.

My, how times change.

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:36:00 +0000

Hello, police, there is an islamic terror communist outside taking photos of a fence. I have a gun, should I shoot him right away or wait for you guys?

By: DewiMorgan

DewiMorgan — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:09:00 +0000

I was walking home one night. Police stopped and questioned who I was, where I was going, and then left, saying “OK, but don’t do it again.”

It’s those parting shots that get you.

By: NelC

NelC — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:08:00 +0000

No, but the other agent was chain-smoking.

By: lafave

lafave — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 20:41:00 +0000

I’m not answering any questions. Please leave my property.