Secret Buildings you may not Photograph

Wethphotography · 07-17-2007, 02:28 PM

Here is an excerpt from a news item by journalist Marc Fischer on the Washington Post webpage: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/?hpid=news-col-blogs

"Posted at 07:25 AM ET, 07/17/2007
Secret Buildings You May Not Photograph, Part 643
If you happen by 3701 N. Fairfax Drive in Arlington and decide you have a sudden craving for a photograph of a generic suburban office building, and you point your camera at said structure, you will rather quickly be greeted by uniformed security folks who will demand that you delete the image and require that you give up various personal information.

When Keith McCammon unwittingly took a picture of that building, he was launched on an odyssey that has so far involved an Arlington police officer, the chief of police and the defense of the United States of America.

McCammon could not have been expected to know when he wandered by the building that it houses the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a low-profile wing of the Defense Department that conducts all manner of high-tech research that evolves into weapons systems and high-order strategery.

DARPA's presence at 3701 N. Fairfax is hardly a government secret--Google finds nearly 10,000 pages listing the agency's use of the building. But there's no big fat sign on the building, so how was McCammon to know that this was a building he dared not photograph? And why would the government care if anyone took a picture of the exterior of an office building? This is as silly and hypersensitive as the now-common harassment of people who innocently take pictures of random federal buildings in the District.

McCammon decided to fight back. He demanded to know why he had been stopped, why the government needed his personal information, and why any record of the incident should be kept in government records. He got quick, polite responses from Arlington officials.

"I hope that you would agree that the security of any such building is of great importance and every law enforcement officer is duty bound to investigate all suspicious activity," wrote Arlington Acting Police Chief Daniel Murray. "I am certainly not implying that a person taking photographs is inherently 'suspicious,' but when the appearance is that the subject of a photograph is a government installation, officers have a duty to ensure the safety of the occupants of this structure."

Hmmm. Any government installation? This overly broad approach to security is why we end up with ridiculous horror stories about innocent tourists getting hassled for taking photos of the Lincoln Memorial or the Department of the Interior. The good news here is that Arlington police didn't take a report or create a file on McCammon. The bad news is that they did pass his information along to "the internal security agency for this installation." Which means that somewhere in the vast security apparatus that we have constructed since 9/11--utterly ignoring the fact that the Soviet empire collapsed under the weight of its own paranoid security apparatus--there is now a report on Keith McCammon, photographer.

The bottom line is that McCammon was caught in a classic logical trap. If he had only known the building was off-limits to photographers, he would have avoided it. But he was not allowed to know that fact. "Reasonable, law-abiding people tend to avoid these types of things when it can be helped," McCammon wrote. "Thus, my request for a list of locations within Arlington County that are unmarked, but at which photography is either prohibited or discouraged according to some (public or private) policy. Of course, such a list does not exist. Catch-22."

The only antidote to this security mania is sunshine. Only when more and more Americans do as McCammon has done and take the time and effort to chronicle these excesses and insist on answers from authorities will we stand a chance of restoring balance and sanity to the blend of liberty and security that we are madly remixing in these confused times."

Arpe · 07-17-2007, 05:47 PM

Please do not photograph our buildings.
Okay - which buildings are they?
Not telling.

Stupid.

Denis · 07-17-2007, 05:51 PM

I wonder if they will arrest / question anyone with an open cell phone to see if they took a picture of this building and emailed it across the world in the past 30 seconds!

Mike Cash · 07-18-2007, 04:56 AM

MRRiley · 07-18-2007, 07:41 AM

Interesting that the IAD says they have no "documents that would be responsive to this request" when he asked for a list. Uhhhh, if they don't have a list how do they know which facilties to watch?

Wethphotography · 07-18-2007, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Wethphotography

If he had only known the building was off-limits to photographers, he would have avoided it.

Mike, I wonder if such a list would be 'unconstitutional?'
Does anyone know if any of these laws against photographing buildings et al. has been challenged by photographers in court? I find it incredulous that these prohibitions can be 'constitutional'. I suppose in this case, since the photographer was not arrested or charged with a crime, there is no way to challenge this in court, unless he found a lawyer willing to bring a harrassment charge.
IMO, if my government does not want me to photograph something, they should put a big fence/wall around it with no trespassing signs. Of course I would still want the right to photograph the wall/fence.

President Roosevelt's words from his innaugarel address in 1933 still say it best, "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."

MRRiley · 07-18-2007, 09:14 AM

I think the other thing that bugs me about this is the fact that, if they are trying to keep these facilities low-key and unobtrusive, then the worst thing they can do is swarm an innocent photographer when he accidently snaps a pic of it. What surer way is there to confirm to someone "casing the joint" that the target has value.

I think, constitutionally, they can say "no photography" but I object to ending up with an FBI file because I was taking a photo of a 64 Corvette that happened to be in front of building X. There is legal precedent for prohibiting the photography of places like this building but it strikes me as futile. If someone wants a pic of building X all they have to do is go to the archives of the local newspaper or to the library or even to maps.google.com )there is a particularly good shot of the particular address in question on there). If they can't get what they need there they can always take personal photos surreptitiously or from a great distance using a 600mm lens.

Peter Zack · 07-18-2007, 10:12 AM

So far in Canada we have been lucky and these issues have not shown up much. We have a similar act as the Patriot Act but there are many more limits and our Supreme Court has struck down many parts of the bill. This agency (HS) is creeping into many areas. I wanted to buy a lens from a USA Ebay seller that after selling several 100 lenses and gear over the years had stopped shipping internationally. He said he had been interviewed twice by the FBI because they thought he may be selling high end surveillance equipment to foreign undesirables. I'm not sure I believe him but if it was true and I would assume this is an exception but it shows that what your doing 'south of the border' is being watched. Canada Post tells me that almost every package shipped into the US is being checked and monitored from the source to the destination and that most if not all are being opened. I agree that they have to be much more vigilant but not at the expense of the average persons freedom. Now I hear that many US cities are installing thousands of cameras (like Londin UK) to keep an eye on what we are doing. Seems George Orwell was only wrong about the date.

jnorth · 07-20-2007, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Arpe

Please do not photograph our buildings.
Okay - which buildings are they?
Not telling.

Stupid.

I don't think they are actually using 'please' in their unwritten and it seems unspoken command, that one finds out about after the fact.

Avantphoto · 08-21-2007, 12:19 PM

Guess we just need to get about 2000 photographers out there at the same time snaping away. Sorry, I'm not a fan of over zealous governments.

Chako · 08-21-2007, 03:04 PM

I had something like this happen to me, but it was here in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario.

I was setting up to take some photos of a few ducks in the local marina that is city owned, when I was approached by marina security guard.

He asked me to kindly not take photos of the boats. I asked him why? He told me that there was a complaint of someone taking photos of registry numbers on boats. The story gets better though. Apparently this other photographer was hiding in a tree!

I asked him why I was not allowed to take photos of boat registry numbers and he could not answer me. I told him that they are on the boats for all to see..simply because they are public. I also told him that he came to me because I had a big camera on a big lens, all sitting atop a shiny aluminum tripod. He agreed, and told me his boss told him to be on the lookout for pro looking photographers.

I told him that if I wanted to take photos of public registration numbers on boats in a public location for nefarious purposes, I could have used one of those small super zoom cameras, and he would be non the wiser. His face fell when I also told him that if I really wanted to, I could bring a pair of binoculars, stay in my vehicle, and record allt he numbers I wanted. He would never notice this either.

I did pack my bags and leave though. All the pleasure of taking photos of wildlife at that location on that day, left me.

So, there are weird things happening to us photographers all over the place..not just in the US.

jnorth · 08-22-2007, 10:31 AM

I used to always think about the saying - there's a sucker born every minute

Now it seems that I'm thinking about something like there's another 10 big brothers and or rampaging lunatics born every minute.

I do like the idea of finding a 'can't shoot' building and having a couple thousand people with cameras descend on the place.

Chako · 08-22-2007, 11:01 AM

Just take photos of any Bell building. Ever notice how the top floor never seems to have any windows? I am sure they would get antsy if they spot you taking photos of their building.

song_hm · 08-22-2007, 12:13 PM

It is not just the government, these are places with prohibition I've encountered:

1) At a Chicago building right beside Millenium Park, on their terrace between the building and the sidewalk. Security claims it is their private property.
2) At WholeFoods grocery chain, I tried to take a picture of a neatly arrange basket full of garlic cloves. Clerk says I need to get permission.
3) At Carnegie Library, I tried taking a picture of an ornate lamp in a stair well. Administrator claim violation of copyright material.

Bob Blakely · 08-22-2007, 04:05 PM

RE: #s 1 & 2. It's their private property, and as such they may control it any way they want. You may take all the photographs you want from public property such as a public sidewalk though. You have the same control at your home and it's basically the same thing.

RE: #3. Again if the Carnegie Library is private property, they may control it any way they want. The design of some buildings, even some public ones, are under copyright. The NYSE is such a building, for example. You may photograph it, but you can't use the photo for commercial (even non-profit) without permission. Within any building, even government buildings, administrators can restrict many activities which they believe may be contrary to the atmosphere or purpose of the building. Try taking a photo inside a court house. These places (here in California) will even confiscate cellphones that have cameras.

07-17-2007, 02:28 PM	#1
Wethphotography Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Washington, D.C., USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 417	Secret Buildings you may not Photograph Here is an excerpt from a news item by journalist Marc Fischer on the Washington Post webpage: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/?hpid=news-col-blogs "Posted at 07:25 AM ET, 07/17/2007 Secret Buildings You May Not Photograph, Part 643 If you happen by 3701 N. Fairfax Drive in Arlington and decide you have a sudden craving for a photograph of a generic suburban office building, and you point your camera at said structure, you will rather quickly be greeted by uniformed security folks who will demand that you delete the image and require that you give up various personal information. When Keith McCammon unwittingly took a picture of that building, he was launched on an odyssey that has so far involved an Arlington police officer, the chief of police and the defense of the United States of America. McCammon could not have been expected to know when he wandered by the building that it houses the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a low-profile wing of the Defense Department that conducts all manner of high-tech research that evolves into weapons systems and high-order strategery. DARPA's presence at 3701 N. Fairfax is hardly a government secret--Google finds nearly 10,000 pages listing the agency's use of the building. But there's no big fat sign on the building, so how was McCammon to know that this was a building he dared not photograph? And why would the government care if anyone took a picture of the exterior of an office building? This is as silly and hypersensitive as the now-common harassment of people who innocently take pictures of random federal buildings in the District. McCammon decided to fight back. He demanded to know why he had been stopped, why the government needed his personal information, and why any record of the incident should be kept in government records. He got quick, polite responses from Arlington officials. "I hope that you would agree that the security of any such building is of great importance and every law enforcement officer is duty bound to investigate all suspicious activity," wrote Arlington Acting Police Chief Daniel Murray. "I am certainly not implying that a person taking photographs is inherently 'suspicious,' but when the appearance is that the subject of a photograph is a government installation, officers have a duty to ensure the safety of the occupants of this structure." Hmmm. Any government installation? This overly broad approach to security is why we end up with ridiculous horror stories about innocent tourists getting hassled for taking photos of the Lincoln Memorial or the Department of the Interior. The good news here is that Arlington police didn't take a report or create a file on McCammon. The bad news is that they did pass his information along to "the internal security agency for this installation." Which means that somewhere in the vast security apparatus that we have constructed since 9/11--utterly ignoring the fact that the Soviet empire collapsed under the weight of its own paranoid security apparatus--there is now a report on Keith McCammon, photographer. The bottom line is that McCammon was caught in a classic logical trap. If he had only known the building was off-limits to photographers, he would have avoided it. But he was not allowed to know that fact. "Reasonable, law-abiding people tend to avoid these types of things when it can be helped," McCammon wrote. "Thus, my request for a list of locations within Arlington County that are unmarked, but at which photography is either prohibited or discouraged according to some (public or private) policy. Of course, such a list does not exist. Catch-22." The only antidote to this security mania is sunshine. Only when more and more Americans do as McCammon has done and take the time and effort to chronicle these excesses and insist on answers from authorities will we stand a chance of restoring balance and sanity to the blend of liberty and security that we are madly remixing in these confused times."

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Secret Cove	Tina Michael	Monthly Photo Contests	0	09-14-2010 08:55 PM
so whats the secret........?	janstew	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	11	03-30-2010 05:06 PM
People Secret	nate_b	Post Your Photos!	7	12-15-2009 04:29 PM
Abstract Still Secret	skid2964	Photo Critique	1	12-13-2009 01:13 PM
Secret Agents	leponiemi	Post Your Photos!	3	05-21-2009 07:34 AM

07-17-2007, 05:47 PM	#2
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	Please do not photograph our buildings. Okay - which buildings are they? Not telling. Stupid.

07-17-2007, 05:51 PM	#3
Denis Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: St-Albert, Alberta, Canada Posts: 330	I wonder if they will arrest / question anyone with an open cell phone to see if they took a picture of this building and emailed it across the world in the past 30 seconds!

07-18-2007, 04:56 AM	#4
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950

07-18-2007, 07:41 AM	#5
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Interesting that the IAD says they have no "documents that would be responsive to this request" when he asked for a list. Uhhhh, if they don't have a list how do they know which facilties to watch?

07-18-2007, 08:43 AM	#6
Wethphotography Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Washington, D.C., USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 417 Original Poster	Originally posted by Wethphotography If he had only known the building was off-limits to photographers, he would have avoided it. Mike, I wonder if such a list would be 'unconstitutional?' Does anyone know if any of these laws against photographing buildings et al. has been challenged by photographers in court? I find it incredulous that these prohibitions can be 'constitutional'. I suppose in this case, since the photographer was not arrested or charged with a crime, there is no way to challenge this in court, unless he found a lawyer willing to bring a harrassment charge. IMO, if my government does not want me to photograph something, they should put a big fence/wall around it with no trespassing signs. Of course I would still want the right to photograph the wall/fence. President Roosevelt's words from his innaugarel address in 1933 still say it best, "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."

07-18-2007, 09:14 AM	#7
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	I think the other thing that bugs me about this is the fact that, if they are trying to keep these facilities low-key and unobtrusive, then the worst thing they can do is swarm an innocent photographer when he accidently snaps a pic of it. What surer way is there to confirm to someone "casing the joint" that the target has value. I think, constitutionally, they can say "no photography" but I object to ending up with an FBI file because I was taking a photo of a 64 Corvette that happened to be in front of building X. There is legal precedent for prohibiting the photography of places like this building but it strikes me as futile. If someone wants a pic of building X all they have to do is go to the archives of the local newspaper or to the library or even to maps.google.com )there is a particularly good shot of the particular address in question on there). If they can't get what they need there they can always take personal photos surreptitiously or from a great distance using a 600mm lens.

07-18-2007, 10:12 AM	#8
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	So far in Canada we have been lucky and these issues have not shown up much. We have a similar act as the Patriot Act but there are many more limits and our Supreme Court has struck down many parts of the bill. This agency (HS) is creeping into many areas. I wanted to buy a lens from a USA Ebay seller that after selling several 100 lenses and gear over the years had stopped shipping internationally. He said he had been interviewed twice by the FBI because they thought he may be selling high end surveillance equipment to foreign undesirables. I'm not sure I believe him but if it was true and I would assume this is an exception but it shows that what your doing 'south of the border' is being watched. Canada Post tells me that almost every package shipped into the US is being checked and monitored from the source to the destination and that most if not all are being opened. I agree that they have to be much more vigilant but not at the expense of the average persons freedom. Now I hear that many US cities are installing thousands of cameras (like Londin UK) to keep an eye on what we are doing. Seems George Orwell was only wrong about the date.

07-20-2007, 11:02 AM	#9
jnorth Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Posts: 230	Originally posted by Arpe Please do not photograph our buildings. Okay - which buildings are they? Not telling. Stupid. I don't think they are actually using 'please' in their unwritten and it seems unspoken command, that one finds out about after the fact.

08-21-2007, 12:19 PM	#10
Avantphoto Forum Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Chicago Area Posts: 84	Guess we just need to get about 2000 photographers out there at the same time snaping away. Sorry, I'm not a fan of over zealous governments.

08-21-2007, 03:04 PM	#11
Chako Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont, Canada. Posts: 563	I had something like this happen to me, but it was here in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario. I was setting up to take some photos of a few ducks in the local marina that is city owned, when I was approached by marina security guard. He asked me to kindly not take photos of the boats. I asked him why? He told me that there was a complaint of someone taking photos of registry numbers on boats. The story gets better though. Apparently this other photographer was hiding in a tree! I asked him why I was not allowed to take photos of boat registry numbers and he could not answer me. I told him that they are on the boats for all to see..simply because they are public. I also told him that he came to me because I had a big camera on a big lens, all sitting atop a shiny aluminum tripod. He agreed, and told me his boss told him to be on the lookout for pro looking photographers. I told him that if I wanted to take photos of public registration numbers on boats in a public location for nefarious purposes, I could have used one of those small super zoom cameras, and he would be non the wiser. His face fell when I also told him that if I really wanted to, I could bring a pair of binoculars, stay in my vehicle, and record allt he numbers I wanted. He would never notice this either. I did pack my bags and leave though. All the pleasure of taking photos of wildlife at that location on that day, left me. So, there are weird things happening to us photographers all over the place..not just in the US.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-22-2007, 10:31 AM	#12
jnorth Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Posts: 230	I used to always think about the saying - there's a sucker born every minute Now it seems that I'm thinking about something like there's another 10 big brothers and or rampaging lunatics born every minute. I do like the idea of finding a 'can't shoot' building and having a couple thousand people with cameras descend on the place.

08-22-2007, 11:01 AM	#13
Chako Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont, Canada. Posts: 563	Just take photos of any Bell building. Ever notice how the top floor never seems to have any windows? I am sure they would get antsy if they spot you taking photos of their building.

08-22-2007, 12:13 PM	#14
song_hm Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 797	It is not just the government, these are places with prohibition I've encountered: 1) At a Chicago building right beside Millenium Park, on their terrace between the building and the sidewalk. Security claims it is their private property. 2) At WholeFoods grocery chain, I tried to take a picture of a neatly arrange basket full of garlic cloves. Clerk says I need to get permission. 3) At Carnegie Library, I tried taking a picture of an ornate lamp in a stair well. Administrator claim violation of copyright material.

08-22-2007, 04:05 PM	#15
Bob Blakely Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Anaheim, CA Posts: 5	RE: #s 1 & 2. It's their private property, and as such they may control it any way they want. You may take all the photographs you want from public property such as a public sidewalk though. You have the same control at your home and it's basically the same thing. RE: #3. Again if the Carnegie Library is private property, they may control it any way they want. The design of some buildings, even some public ones, are under copyright. The NYSE is such a building, for example. You may photograph it, but you can't use the photo for commercial (even non-profit) without permission. Within any building, even government buildings, administrators can restrict many activities which they believe may be contrary to the atmosphere or purpose of the building. Try taking a photo inside a court house. These places (here in California) will even confiscate cellphones that have cameras.