Comments on: Punk’d by the Feds (or: God Bless America and George W. Bush)

By: Mack Reed

Mack Reed — Fri, 09 May 2008 05:59:34 +0000

My blood just chilled reading this post. No, really: chilled. We have got to get that evil fuck out of the White House and start restoring some sanity to the way we manage security in this country. I don’t think it’s hysterical hyperbole to say that we’re not too far off from the day when TSA agents decide they need to start frisking babies at LAX.

By: RumorsDaily

RumorsDaily — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:51:25 +0000

PS – go back and take more pictures and this time say no when they ask you to delete them. See what happens.

By: RumorsDaily

RumorsDaily — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:50:01 +0000

Regardless of how jerky this whole incident clearly was, the fact that they have look at a picture of George Bush in order to capture your face on film is pretty amusing. It’s like they found the most literal way to make sure you knew that George Bush was keeping an eye on YOU, possible insurgent photographer.

By: Travis Koplow

Travis Koplow — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:27:51 +0000

Thanks for the link Will.

By: AArtVark

AArtVark — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:15:29 +0000

To make things even more irritating for me, when I had a “no photo” issue come up, I thought – what the hell, I’ll call up LAPD and see if there’s some sort of ordinance or something. I try to stay on the right side of the law in all matters. I called and the desk sergeant I talked to acted like I was some punk trying to argue with him about whether graffiti was art or not. The really disturbing thing he said is that to make things easier one should always obey orders from people that seem to have “authority” whether it be a rent-a-cop or a guy in a suit. To me, that blind obedience is inconsistent with a free society. I wasn’t expecting the LAPD to be good at interacting with the citizenry, but I was surprised by the sergeant’s comments.

I know that things are different when one is dealing with the Feds – I went to Area 51 years ago and got followed very closely by their security – including seeing a guy with night vision goggles watching me when I took a leak in the middle of the night. It’s just that when things slowly degrade to anyone with a uniform telling people what to do no matter how absurd and expecting them to obey, we gotta wonder what things are coming to.

By: WILL•I•AM CAMPBELL

WILL•I•AM CAMPBELL — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:01:49 +0000

I can very much understand your anxiety, Mike. Sounds like you handled yourself much better than I would’ve. There’s a spooky irony in them taking your picture without consent because they first prevented you from taking a picture of their building without theirs.

By: Mike Winder

Mike Winder — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:55:57 +0000

You know, Will, you’re absolutely right. It is disconcerting, but I think them making sure I was on camera took it to another level. Deleting my photographs became the less of those two concerns. Now I’m upset on both counts. Thanks for that link — more people should see it.

By: WILL•I•AM CAMPBELL

WILL•I•AM CAMPBELL — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:44:29 +0000

Mike, if you were on public property I would hope you would have issue with someone of questionable authority detaining you and forcing you to destroy your images. Fry’s has a “no photo” policy. So does Pinkberry. So do innumerable establishments that have a right to control what goes on on their private properties.

Travis, whether one wants to think logically or just lay down and let the Patriot Act be run over you by the overzealous and mal-informed, the fact is it is unequivocably still true. There is no legal basis for preventing me from standing on public property and taking photographs of anything or anyone. And in reference to your “roving surveillance” assertion, the fact is anyone can photograph anyone on public property with neither consent nor authorization. One doesn’t have to be a “Fed” to do so, just a human being with a camera.

Supporting the ACLU and voting conscientiously are two excellent suggestions, but I would take it one step further and say if you’re concerned or unclear: educate.

Here’s a great link to do so: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

By: Travis Koplow

Travis Koplow — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:41:53 +0000

I’m not certain what your/our “rights” actually are. I mean, we can all think logically we ought to be able to take photographs from the sidewalk of whatever we want, but is that still true? I’m not sure. The Patriot Act changes a lot of what used to be “logical” ideas about rights. I do think that “roving surveillance” is now allowed and the Feds can photograph you wherever they want. I also know even before 9/11 they always took pictures in DC at major protests of the protesters. In any case, I wouldn’t worry on a personal level too much about it. It’s my experience as a pink diaper baby that the feds are fond of collecting data and unless you wear a hijab the chances of them using it against you are minimal. But anybody who is concerned about such things ought to 1.make a donation to the ACLU and 2.think carefully about who to vote for in the upcoming elections.

By: Mike Winder

Mike Winder — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:21:49 +0000

Yes, unfortunately I was on the grounds of the building. I guess if I had just crossed the street, I would’ve been able to get the same exact shot without a problem. But I don’t really have an issue with them making me get rid of the photos. Hell, even Fry’s Electronics has a “no photos” policy. I’m more concerned about them making sure my face was visible on their cameras. Maybe it’s just a precaution on their part, but you hear these horror stories of cases of mistaken identity, and it’s just scary. (Oh, and Aartvark, in the interest of full disclosure, I fixed the links on your comments and deleted the multiple entries.)