Now the Military Police are harrassing photographers

MRRiley · 07-04-2011, 05:11 PM

Around the middle of June a DC area wedding photographer was harrassed by military police officers while shooting near the Marine Corps War Memorial in Rosslyn, VA. The officers claimed there was a "military checkpoint in the vicinity" and then threatened to confiscate his cameras if he continued shooting.

Military Police Threaten To Confiscate Cameras From Wedding Photographer (Carlos Miller)

This is disturbing on several layers but the most serious is the MP's presumption that they can restrict photography of or near military property from public property. While it is true that in certain cases, photography of "certain military installations" can be restricted by the installation's commanding officer ,exercise of this restriction is very rare and makes absolutely no sense at all in the vicinity of one of the most photographed monuments in the DC region, The Marine Corps War Memorial (aka the Iwo Jima Memorial).

There is very little available on this story other than what was cited by Carlos Miller on his "Photography is not a Crime" website and on the photographer who was harrassed website but it bears reporting here as well.
Mike

Last edited by MRRiley; 07-04-2011 at 05:29 PM.

**boriscleto** · 07-04-2011, 05:16 PM

Your papers, please!

adr1an · 07-04-2011, 05:30 PM

It sounds like in this instance, some MP's did indeed get very overzealous...

But - Just as a point, In Australia and its Territories, It is illegal to Draw, Photograph, Sketch, Model, note or otherwise reproduce images of ANY Defense Installation/Base. This includes drawing maps from memory. 'Lawful Authority' refers to official permission - not "I was standing on public property when I took it..."

"(a) a person makes a sketch, drawing, photograph, picture or painting of any defence installation in Australia or of any part of one; and

(b) the person has no lawful authority to do so; then:
(c) the person is guilty of an offence; and
(d) all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures, and paintings, and all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing or painting found in his or her possession are forfeited and may be destroyed, sold, or otherwise disposed of, as the Governor-General directs

Note: Seizure may take place without a warrant."

The Crimes Act (1914) reference, relating to 'materiel';
CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 79 Official secrets
And the Defense Act (1903) - S82;
DEFENCE ACT 1903 - SECT 82 Sketching etc. of fortifications prohibited

This also encompasses memorials 'on base' etc.. and the entrances to bases etc etc.

The UK has *similiar* laws - however, they state that the 'intent' must be taken into account - no such provisions exist in the Australian reg's...

Similar to the Carnival thread - Not all 'public areas' are 'public areas'. In the UK, there is restrictions on commercial photography (including wedding shots) in Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square in London and in the Royal Parks.

In Australia, under the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Act 1998 (NSW) prohibits use in a public area of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore of any "camera (whether photographic, cinematic or video), for a commercial purpose" except as authorised by the Foreshore Authority.

That last one, basically declares *all* of the foreshore a 'non-commercial' area... which if you know Sydney Harbour - is a *massive* chunk of land...

So a lot of whether you get harassed or not comes down to how 'commercial' you look... and obviously, a wedding shoot, is going to be deemed 'commercial'....

Blue · 07-04-2011, 05:43 PM

One of my graduate students was stopped last summer while driving by Eglin airforce base. He took a picture of the base gate from a U.S. Highway while driving by. He was pulled over a few miles down the road by the Air Police (AF Military Police) and the looked at his pics and deleted them. He is an international student and didn't want any hassle.

imtheguy · 07-04-2011, 10:18 PM

We all agree it sucks and we have no effective recourse other than to squeal. Thanks a lot Homeland Security for educating the public on the dangers of DSLRs.

Lex Madera · 07-04-2011, 11:01 PM

This is just absurd. As I recall, this is near the back gate to Ft. Myer and Arlington cemetary. How is photographing a monument any different there from photographing something on the Mall? Neither the MC monument/Iwo Jima Monument nor the Netherlands Carillon is on military property. This is just ridiculous. And there is absolutely nothing of national security concern on Ft. Myer. MPs have no authority off the reservation. I put up with their s*** for 20 years, I'll be damned if I'll put up with it any more. You can't spell WIMP without MP!

HawaiianOnline · 07-05-2011, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Your papers, please!

You mean, "Ihre papiere, bitte. Alles in ordnung?"

magkelly · 07-05-2011, 01:22 AM

MP's not allowing people to photograph a well known war memorial is definitely a bit overkill, and I don't get why they even bothered given how many people visit that site each day probably to do just that remember people and take pics of themselves in front of it, but not being able to photograph a military installation is not the same thing at all. We are at war folks. That means that the military has the final word in terms of base security. I honestly don't think you should be taking pics of military installations at all right now.

People going around taking pics of military bases right now is bound to make the military nervous. You never know these days where your next threat is coming from and I'm not just talking about terrorists. Think about what happened at Ft Hood in Texas and that guy who went off the deep end there. If they can't trust an Army shrink not to get violent who can they trust? Do you all really wonder that they're all a bit too jumpy about security these days? Between terrorist threats and one of their own personnel even losing it I'm not really too surprised that they're being so anal about it all the time.

Thesorus · 07-05-2011, 04:26 AM

There are military check-points in the USA ?!?!?!? and I'm not talking about check-points when entering a military base...

I found this on wikikpedia :

"MPs may enforce certain limited powers, such as traffic stops, on access roads and other federal property not necessarily within the boundaries of their military base or installation."

Maybe the war monument is a federal property ... and they were just being over-zelous.

I'd ask their commanding officer (or any public relation person) about that, and if you do not get answers, contact your policital representative, and if that does not work, get the media and the ACLU on it.

Max.

MRRiley · 07-05-2011, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by magkelly

but not being able to photograph a military installation is not the same thing at all. We are at war folks. That means that the military has the final word in terms of base security. I honestly don't think you should be taking pics of military installations at all right now.

Kelly, "We are at war folks" was the justification that they used to round up and incarcerate 110000 Americans during WWII who just happened to be of Japanese descent. "We are at war folks" is the same kind of reasoning that led to the communist witch trials led by Senator Joseph McCarthy.

The photographer in question was not taking photos of a "installation." He was taking photos in the vicinity of a checkpoint (presumably a gate/entrance to Ft Myer which abuts Arlington National Cemetery). Even if that checkpoint and installation were defined as a "vital military and naval installation" under the terms of 18 USC 795 - Sec. 795 and Executive Order 10104 (cited on USC page provided) the photographer was not in violation. The only provision of the applicable USC and EO that would make the MP's actions valid would be if the President declared the entire "Military District or Washington (MDW)" as "restricted" or higher. Since the MDW encompasses almost everything within the Capital Beltway (including private property) and many areas outside of the Beltway they would be able to restrict photography or almost any other activity within the whole of DC and significant portions of Virginia and Maryland. This would be an extraordinary measure and would be the extent of declaring the MDW under "martial law" or a "state of emergency." I have heard of neither of those being declared.

Originally posted by magkelly

People going around taking pics of military bases right now is bound to make the military nervous. You never know these days where your next threat is coming from and I'm not just talking about terrorists. Think about what happened at Ft Hood in Texas and that guy who went off the deep end there. If they can't trust an Army shrink not to get violent who can they trust? Do you all really wonder that they're all a bit too jumpy about security these days? Between terrorist threats and one of their own personnel even losing it I'm not really too surprised that they're being so anal about it all the time.

The people the military needs to be nervous about are the people who are surreptitiously and habitually photographing operations, like guard post changes or soft points in perimeter defenses... not wedding photographers working with a 12-15 person wedding party, much less the average tourist who just wants to record his visit to a particular public site. The military, by the way does allow photographs of and at the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial though they ask you not to take photos of the Pentagon itself. The only time I have seen them bother anyone even then was one guy who was using a telephoto lens and seemed to be shooting photos of several windows. Fair call to check him out and they did, but he also walked off without further incident.

Frankly the shootings at Ft Hood probably have little if anything to do with the incident in question or even the increase in security in or around bases. Ft. Hood was a failure of leadership and of the military mental health system not of "security" per se. And as an insider he was not perceived as a threat, And especially as an officer, no MP would have even looked at Nadal twice had they seen him walking into the deployment center with a bag large enough to conceal a couple of weapons.

Mike

MRRiley · 07-05-2011, 06:26 AM

Just to provide a little "spatial awareness of where this incident occurred...

Name: FtMyerGate.jpg
Views: 810
Size: 129.5 KB

Note, that from the front courtyard of the civilian apartment building the gate itself is not even visible, being obscured by large mature trees.

These MPs were clearly "off the reservation."

Mike

p.s. Here is an interesting read on a forum called Real Police about how much power (NONE) a military policeman has "off post." What power does a MP have?

magkelly · 07-05-2011, 09:01 AM

Like I said, the wedding incident, overkill, but I stand by the no photographing on military bases bit, sorry. These days with every pic out there inevitably landing on Facebook we don't need pics of our military installations or our military personnel in places that might make them vulnerable. What's seemingly innocent to us could be used against us, and no I'm not talking about a photo of a few bridesmaids.

One of the things I really worry about in times like this is the fact that we are waging war literally on video camera at times. Every move our military makes practically is projected by the news and analyzed to death after the fact by the cable news channels et all.

Naming names all the time can lead to someone being made into a target. Look at the team that shot Bin Laden, at the rampant speculation as to who actually pulled the trigger the first few days after it was done. The cable news did practically everything but pull a pic of every member of that unit, label them and put them up for display with targets on their faces! I'm betting that it wouldn't take much for Bin Laden's crew to find out who all those men are, to take retribution on them, their families etc because of all the interest in said subject and that scares me because it shouldn't be that way.

I know that sometimes someone being photographed can mean catching them in doing something that they shouldn't be doing, but I think the idea that everyone has the "right" to photograph anyone in charge while doing their job, period is a bit much. Goodness forbid we should have another Mai Lai Massacre, but at the same time having cameras constantly in their faces does put military personnel at risk. The more photographs, the more video they take the higher visibility they have and the more visibility they have the more of a target our military force becomes.

You know the camera can lie. Viewpoint, personal perception, location, even when something is photographed those things can alter how something is seen. It's not that simple, this situation. It's not just a question of people being overzealous all the time. In this situation, yes, they were, but not all the time.

MRRiley · 07-05-2011, 10:18 AM

Kelly,

I never said anything about being able to photograph willy nilly on a military installation, even though it is routinely done by military members themselves, their dependents and the media at large. Just in case you missed it (perhaps because I have not mentioned it previously in this thread) I am a retired Air Force Master Sergeant, so have quite a bit of experience shooting both on and around bases. It used to be that the only thing anyone ever objected to you shooting were the various secure facilities, and these were always fairly obvious, with dual layers of barbed wire fencing around them with big signs that included the phrase "No Photography Allowed!" Anything else was pretty much fair game even during the "Cold War" which was a much more complicated and risk laden "espionage" environment that today's situation.

The question here, as I've said of other similar situations is one of threat and risk management. Even when/if they are authorized to react to an off-post "threat" the MPs need to accurately evaluate the threat and the risk. Is that photographer, towing around a gaggle of a bridal party a realistic threat and is there a reasonable risk? Probably not, though if the same photographer shows up with the same party on a different day then something fishy might be going on. Antennas should go up. In another example, the MPs see a guy sitting in a non-descript car a discrete distance away that appears to loiter or appears on a regular or irregular schedule and the driver is observed pointing a high powered telephoto lens at the guard post on a regular basis. Time to call in the FBI or other law enforcement entity authorized to and capable of properly handling the situation. The guy might just be a "military junkie" or he could be scouting a target. The MPs are not capable of determining this and if they approach the guy prematurely could make things even worse. Of course if they see him pointing a high powered rifle at them rather than a camera, all bets are off and they are withing their rights and responsibilities to defend both themselves and the facility.

The problems you mention regarding making our military's moves public and prominent are indeed an issue and in the military is generally handled by a concept called OPSEC. In a nutshell, OPSEC, or "Operations Security," involves concealing mission critical planning, indicators or operations from the enemy. This naturally involves managing information obtained by the media or the public at large since the enemy can glean "intelligence data" from public sources. This however is one of the problems that are endemic in a "free society" such as ours. The military faces and accepts a certain amount of risk due to public exposure of operations or capabilities as part of their job of "securing our freedom." The military is not entirely unarmed in this situation though. Frankly, almost everyone in the military knows that if you don't want the public, or the enemy, to know something, for gods sake do not do it where it can be seen. And, if you must do it where it can be seen anyway, then you need to either mask it, disguise it or make it look innocuous. What you don't want to do is visibly call attention to it by sudden and overwhelmingly obvious additional security. This just indicates to a determined adversary that there is something going on worth mucking with. You can also vary your visible defensive procedures on a random basis to deny "predictability" to your adversary.

The whole military/media relationship is complicated. The public expects a certain amount of transparency these days when it comes to the conduct and operations of our military endeavors. When the military gives the media access, guys end up getting killed because the media gave away an OPSEC issue that they should have withheld. When the military clamps down on access the media goes all "4th estate" on them and writes lots of "the military is hiding stuff" stories which just tend to degrade the public's trust in the military. So it's a delicate dance. In the case you cite about the SEAL's photos being made public, that is a failure by the media (IMHO) to show proper regard for the SEALs safety or for overall national security. Unfortunately there is little that the military can do to prevent such stupidity other than not being so careless as to make the personal information of the teams become public. Personal information like this is NOT releasable under FOIA by the way... How the media got the photos is unknown to me. Do you know?

Mike

p.s. Ever been to an air show on a military base? Cameras galore!!! and they don't seem to mind then!

Blue · 07-05-2011, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

Kelly,

. . .
Mike

p.s. Ever been to an air show on a military base? Cameras galore!!! and they don't seem to mind then!

Just don't take a pic of the front gate going down a U.S. Highway.

Or you may get pulled over a few miles down the road.

TomK · 07-05-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

These days with every pic out there inevitably landing on Facebook we don't need pics of our military installations or our military personnel in places that might make them vulnerable. What's seemingly innocent to us could be used against us,

Then the proper action is to go through the legislative process and create new laws dealing with this. Alternatively an Executive Order could be issued. These would then be highly publicized so innocent civilians are aware of the new infractions. There should also be large signs posted at the affected areas that clearly state "No Photography" and cite the appropriate statutes.
"We are at war" is not the end product. It is one of the reasons one may set forth to enact new laws.
I still do not see how restricting casual photography of clearly visible military or civilian sites, bridges, etc, will make us or our military safer.
Of course, as Mike has pointed out, if the activity is otherwise suspicious then it should be investigated further, such as if the same photographer showed up with the same wedding party at various bases or various times or whatever.
And remember your friend and the enemy's friend - Google Earth.

07-04-2011, 05:11 PM	#1
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Now the Military Police are harrassing photographers Around the middle of June a DC area wedding photographer was harrassed by military police officers while shooting near the Marine Corps War Memorial in Rosslyn, VA. The officers claimed there was a "military checkpoint in the vicinity" and then threatened to confiscate his cameras if he continued shooting. Military Police Threaten To Confiscate Cameras From Wedding Photographer (Carlos Miller) This is disturbing on several layers but the most serious is the MP's presumption that they can restrict photography of or near military property from public property. While it is true that in certain cases, photography of "certain military installations" can be restricted by the installation's commanding officer ,exercise of this restriction is very rare and makes absolutely no sense at all in the vicinity of one of the most photographed monuments in the DC region, The Marine Corps War Memorial (aka the Iwo Jima Memorial). There is very little available on this story other than what was cited by Carlos Miller on his "Photography is not a Crime" website and on the photographer who was harrassed website but it bears reporting here as well. Mike Last edited by MRRiley; 07-04-2011 at 05:29 PM.

07-04-2011, 05:30 PM	#3
adr1an Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Canberra Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 739	It sounds like in this instance, some MP's did indeed get very overzealous... But - Just as a point, In Australia and its Territories, It is illegal to Draw, Photograph, Sketch, Model, note or otherwise reproduce images of ANY Defense Installation/Base. This includes drawing maps from memory. 'Lawful Authority' refers to official permission - not "I was standing on public property when I took it..." "(a) a person makes a sketch, drawing, photograph, picture or painting of any defence installation in Australia or of any part of one; and (b) the person has no lawful authority to do so; then: (c) the person is guilty of an offence; and (d) all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures, and paintings, and all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing or painting found in his or her possession are forfeited and may be destroyed, sold, or otherwise disposed of, as the Governor-General directs Note: Seizure may take place without a warrant." The Crimes Act (1914) reference, relating to 'materiel'; CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 79 Official secrets And the Defense Act (1903) - S82; DEFENCE ACT 1903 - SECT 82 Sketching etc. of fortifications prohibited This also encompasses memorials 'on base' etc.. and the entrances to bases etc etc. The UK has similiar laws - however, they state that the 'intent' must be taken into account - no such provisions exist in the Australian reg's... Similar to the Carnival thread - Not all 'public areas' are 'public areas'. In the UK, there is restrictions on commercial photography (including wedding shots) in Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square in London and in the Royal Parks. In Australia, under the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Act 1998 (NSW) prohibits use in a public area of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore of any "camera (whether photographic, cinematic or video), for a commercial purpose" except as authorised by the Foreshore Authority. That last one, basically declares all of the foreshore a 'non-commercial' area... which if you know Sydney Harbour - is a massive chunk of land... So a lot of whether you get harassed or not comes down to how 'commercial' you look... and obviously, a wedding shoot, is going to be deemed 'commercial'....

07-05-2011, 06:26 AM	#11
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275 Original Poster	The "military checkpoint in the vicinity" Just to provide a little "spatial awareness of where this incident occurred... Note, that from the front courtyard of the civilian apartment building the gate itself is not even visible, being obscured by large mature trees. These MPs were clearly "off the reservation." Mike p.s. Here is an interesting read on a forum called Real Police about how much power (NONE) a military policeman has "off post." What power does a MP have? Last edited by MRRiley; 07-05-2011 at 06:58 AM. Reason: added link to Real Police article

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People Military thru the Ages	cdurfor	Post Your Photos!	9	03-30-2011 01:16 PM
DC Police - Illegal to take photos of people or police in public	MRRiley	Photographic Technique	109	08-06-2010 10:46 AM
Gays In the Military?	Rupert	General Talk	105	06-01-2010 05:24 AM
Police and Photographers in America	mithrandir	General Talk	2	03-20-2010 08:56 AM
Misc Military paraphernalia	Ash	Post Your Photos!	56	01-24-2010 02:34 PM

07-04-2011, 05:16 PM	#2
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Your papers, please!

07-04-2011, 05:43 PM	#4
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	One of my graduate students was stopped last summer while driving by Eglin airforce base. He took a picture of the base gate from a U.S. Highway while driving by. He was pulled over a few miles down the road by the Air Police (AF Military Police) and the looked at his pics and deleted them. He is an international student and didn't want any hassle.

07-04-2011, 10:18 PM	#5
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	We all agree it sucks and we have no effective recourse other than to squeal. Thanks a lot Homeland Security for educating the public on the dangers of DSLRs.

07-04-2011, 11:01 PM	#6
Lex Madera Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Virginia, Austria, Ukraine Photos: Gallery Posts: 188	This is just absurd. As I recall, this is near the back gate to Ft. Myer and Arlington cemetary. How is photographing a monument any different there from photographing something on the Mall? Neither the MC monument/Iwo Jima Monument nor the Netherlands Carillon is on military property. This is just ridiculous. And there is absolutely nothing of national security concern on Ft. Myer. MPs have no authority off the reservation. I put up with their s*** for 20 years, I'll be damned if I'll put up with it any more. You can't spell WIMP without MP!

07-05-2011, 12:53 AM	#7
HawaiianOnline Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Hawaii Posts: 613	Originally posted by boriscleto Your papers, please! You mean, "Ihre papiere, bitte. Alles in ordnung?"

07-05-2011, 01:22 AM	#8
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	MP's not allowing people to photograph a well known war memorial is definitely a bit overkill, and I don't get why they even bothered given how many people visit that site each day probably to do just that remember people and take pics of themselves in front of it, but not being able to photograph a military installation is not the same thing at all. We are at war folks. That means that the military has the final word in terms of base security. I honestly don't think you should be taking pics of military installations at all right now. People going around taking pics of military bases right now is bound to make the military nervous. You never know these days where your next threat is coming from and I'm not just talking about terrorists. Think about what happened at Ft Hood in Texas and that guy who went off the deep end there. If they can't trust an Army shrink not to get violent who can they trust? Do you all really wonder that they're all a bit too jumpy about security these days? Between terrorist threats and one of their own personnel even losing it I'm not really too surprised that they're being so anal about it all the time.

07-05-2011, 04:26 AM	#9
Thesorus Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Montreal (Canada) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 200	There are military check-points in the USA ?!?!?!? and I'm not talking about check-points when entering a military base... I found this on wikikpedia : "MPs may enforce certain limited powers, such as traffic stops, on access roads and other federal property not necessarily within the boundaries of their military base or installation." Maybe the war monument is a federal property ... and they were just being over-zelous. I'd ask their commanding officer (or any public relation person) about that, and if you do not get answers, contact your policital representative, and if that does not work, get the media and the ACLU on it. Max.

07-05-2011, 05:02 AM	#10
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275 Original Poster	Originally posted by magkelly but not being able to photograph a military installation is not the same thing at all. We are at war folks. That means that the military has the final word in terms of base security. I honestly don't think you should be taking pics of military installations at all right now. Kelly, "We are at war folks" was the justification that they used to round up and incarcerate 110000 Americans during WWII who just happened to be of Japanese descent. "We are at war folks" is the same kind of reasoning that led to the communist witch trials led by Senator Joseph McCarthy. The photographer in question was not taking photos of a "installation." He was taking photos in the vicinity of a checkpoint (presumably a gate/entrance to Ft Myer which abuts Arlington National Cemetery). Even if that checkpoint and installation were defined as a "vital military and naval installation" under the terms of 18 USC 795 - Sec. 795 and Executive Order 10104 (cited on USC page provided) the photographer was not in violation. The only provision of the applicable USC and EO that would make the MP's actions valid would be if the President declared the entire "Military District or Washington (MDW)" as "restricted" or higher. Since the MDW encompasses almost everything within the Capital Beltway (including private property) and many areas outside of the Beltway they would be able to restrict photography or almost any other activity within the whole of DC and significant portions of Virginia and Maryland. This would be an extraordinary measure and would be the extent of declaring the MDW under "martial law" or a "state of emergency." I have heard of neither of those being declared. Originally posted by magkelly People going around taking pics of military bases right now is bound to make the military nervous. You never know these days where your next threat is coming from and I'm not just talking about terrorists. Think about what happened at Ft Hood in Texas and that guy who went off the deep end there. If they can't trust an Army shrink not to get violent who can they trust? Do you all really wonder that they're all a bit too jumpy about security these days? Between terrorist threats and one of their own personnel even losing it I'm not really too surprised that they're being so anal about it all the time. The people the military needs to be nervous about are the people who are surreptitiously and habitually photographing operations, like guard post changes or soft points in perimeter defenses... not wedding photographers working with a 12-15 person wedding party, much less the average tourist who just wants to record his visit to a particular public site. The military, by the way does allow photographs of and at the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial though they ask you not to take photos of the Pentagon itself. The only time I have seen them bother anyone even then was one guy who was using a telephoto lens and seemed to be shooting photos of several windows. Fair call to check him out and they did, but he also walked off without further incident. Frankly the shootings at Ft Hood probably have little if anything to do with the incident in question or even the increase in security in or around bases. Ft. Hood was a failure of leadership and of the military mental health system not of "security" per se. And as an insider he was not perceived as a threat, And especially as an officer, no MP would have even looked at Nadal twice had they seen him walking into the deployment center with a bag large enough to conceal a couple of weapons. Mike

07-05-2011, 09:01 AM	#12
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	Like I said, the wedding incident, overkill, but I stand by the no photographing on military bases bit, sorry. These days with every pic out there inevitably landing on Facebook we don't need pics of our military installations or our military personnel in places that might make them vulnerable. What's seemingly innocent to us could be used against us, and no I'm not talking about a photo of a few bridesmaids. One of the things I really worry about in times like this is the fact that we are waging war literally on video camera at times. Every move our military makes practically is projected by the news and analyzed to death after the fact by the cable news channels et all. Naming names all the time can lead to someone being made into a target. Look at the team that shot Bin Laden, at the rampant speculation as to who actually pulled the trigger the first few days after it was done. The cable news did practically everything but pull a pic of every member of that unit, label them and put them up for display with targets on their faces! I'm betting that it wouldn't take much for Bin Laden's crew to find out who all those men are, to take retribution on them, their families etc because of all the interest in said subject and that scares me because it shouldn't be that way. I know that sometimes someone being photographed can mean catching them in doing something that they shouldn't be doing, but I think the idea that everyone has the "right" to photograph anyone in charge while doing their job, period is a bit much. Goodness forbid we should have another Mai Lai Massacre, but at the same time having cameras constantly in their faces does put military personnel at risk. The more photographs, the more video they take the higher visibility they have and the more visibility they have the more of a target our military force becomes. You know the camera can lie. Viewpoint, personal perception, location, even when something is photographed those things can alter how something is seen. It's not that simple, this situation. It's not just a question of people being overzealous all the time. In this situation, yes, they were, but not all the time.

07-05-2011, 10:18 AM	#13
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275 Original Poster	Kelly, I never said anything about being able to photograph willy nilly on a military installation, even though it is routinely done by military members themselves, their dependents and the media at large. Just in case you missed it (perhaps because I have not mentioned it previously in this thread) I am a retired Air Force Master Sergeant, so have quite a bit of experience shooting both on and around bases. It used to be that the only thing anyone ever objected to you shooting were the various secure facilities, and these were always fairly obvious, with dual layers of barbed wire fencing around them with big signs that included the phrase "No Photography Allowed!" Anything else was pretty much fair game even during the "Cold War" which was a much more complicated and risk laden "espionage" environment that today's situation. The question here, as I've said of other similar situations is one of threat and risk management. Even when/if they are authorized to react to an off-post "threat" the MPs need to accurately evaluate the threat and the risk. Is that photographer, towing around a gaggle of a bridal party a realistic threat and is there a reasonable risk? Probably not, though if the same photographer shows up with the same party on a different day then something fishy might be going on. Antennas should go up. In another example, the MPs see a guy sitting in a non-descript car a discrete distance away that appears to loiter or appears on a regular or irregular schedule and the driver is observed pointing a high powered telephoto lens at the guard post on a regular basis. Time to call in the FBI or other law enforcement entity authorized to and capable of properly handling the situation. The guy might just be a "military junkie" or he could be scouting a target. The MPs are not capable of determining this and if they approach the guy prematurely could make things even worse. Of course if they see him pointing a high powered rifle at them rather than a camera, all bets are off and they are withing their rights and responsibilities to defend both themselves and the facility. The problems you mention regarding making our military's moves public and prominent are indeed an issue and in the military is generally handled by a concept called OPSEC. In a nutshell, OPSEC, or "Operations Security," involves concealing mission critical planning, indicators or operations from the enemy. This naturally involves managing information obtained by the media or the public at large since the enemy can glean "intelligence data" from public sources. This however is one of the problems that are endemic in a "free society" such as ours. The military faces and accepts a certain amount of risk due to public exposure of operations or capabilities as part of their job of "securing our freedom." The military is not entirely unarmed in this situation though. Frankly, almost everyone in the military knows that if you don't want the public, or the enemy, to know something, for gods sake do not do it where it can be seen. And, if you must do it where it can be seen anyway, then you need to either mask it, disguise it or make it look innocuous. What you don't want to do is visibly call attention to it by sudden and overwhelmingly obvious additional security. This just indicates to a determined adversary that there is something going on worth mucking with. You can also vary your visible defensive procedures on a random basis to deny "predictability" to your adversary. The whole military/media relationship is complicated. The public expects a certain amount of transparency these days when it comes to the conduct and operations of our military endeavors. When the military gives the media access, guys end up getting killed because the media gave away an OPSEC issue that they should have withheld. When the military clamps down on access the media goes all "4th estate" on them and writes lots of "the military is hiding stuff" stories which just tend to degrade the public's trust in the military. So it's a delicate dance. In the case you cite about the SEAL's photos being made public, that is a failure by the media (IMHO) to show proper regard for the SEALs safety or for overall national security. Unfortunately there is little that the military can do to prevent such stupidity other than not being so careless as to make the personal information of the teams become public. Personal information like this is NOT releasable under FOIA by the way... How the media got the photos is unknown to me. Do you know? Mike p.s. Ever been to an air show on a military base? Cameras galore!!! and they don't seem to mind then!

07-05-2011, 10:46 AM	#14
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by MRRiley Kelly, . . . Mike p.s. Ever been to an air show on a military base? Cameras galore!!! and they don't seem to mind then! Just don't take a pic of the front gate going down a U.S. Highway. Or you may get pulled over a few miles down the road.

07-05-2011, 03:21 PM	#15
TomK Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: NJ USA Posts: 281	Quote: These days with every pic out there inevitably landing on Facebook we don't need pics of our military installations or our military personnel in places that might make them vulnerable. What's seemingly innocent to us could be used against us, Then the proper action is to go through the legislative process and create new laws dealing with this. Alternatively an Executive Order could be issued. These would then be highly publicized so innocent civilians are aware of the new infractions. There should also be large signs posted at the affected areas that clearly state "No Photography" and cite the appropriate statutes. "We are at war" is not the end product. It is one of the reasons one may set forth to enact new laws. I still do not see how restricting casual photography of clearly visible military or civilian sites, bridges, etc, will make us or our military safer. Of course, as Mike has pointed out, if the activity is otherwise suspicious then it should be investigated further, such as if the same photographer showed up with the same wedding party at various bases or various times or whatever. And remember your friend and the enemy's friend - Google Earth.