Coast Guard Also Believes Photography Is "Suspicious Activity"
Earlier this week, we reported that the Spokane County Sheriff's Office was encouraging citizens to report people taking pictures in public as suspicious activity.
Now we've learned that the U.S. Coast Guard is doing the same.
On a website called America's Waterway Watch, described as a "combined effort of the Coast Guard and its Reserve and Auxiliary components," citizens are given several scenarios that describe "suspicious activity," including a few that involve people taking pictures of the shoreline or of bridges.
Citizens are informed that while this may have been acceptable behavior prior to September 11, 2001, it is now considered suspicious.
The Coast Guard is taking the same stance that various other agencies have done in the past, including the Transportation Security Administration and the Chicago Transit Authority, assuming that terrorists would photograph their targets beforehand.
But that's nonsense, according to security expert Bruce Schneier
Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.
Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
The Fujifilm Finepix X10, A Review
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Tips for Textures
Butterflies in Motion
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk Inkjet Paper — Audiocast











Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Taking your Portraiture Higher
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?



























Comments
The Coast Guard was preventing photographers from photographing oil spills, now the entire coastline?!
CONTACT US DIRECTLY
LCDR James Rocco
Program Coordinator
US Coast Guard Headquarters
Commandant (CG-5441)
2100 2nd Street, SW
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Email: aww@uscg.mil
In fairness, if you read the full text of the page linked, you'll find that the article does NOT simply state that photography is suspicious, or even photography of certain objects or places is suspicious.
If you read the examples given, you'll see that, when mentioned, photography is part of a total picture, that when taken all together may be considered "unusual activity". They also include other indications, such as the taking of notes or suspicious questions.
The page doesn't even encourage ALL activity to be immediately reported, stating:
"And, though some suspicious activity can only be identified either by observation over a period of time and/or through logically considering the "totality of conduct," sometimes immediate action is called for. If, for example, a person is seen entering a potential terrorist target through a hole in a security fence, and placing a package inside the facility, you should rightfully call law enforcement authorities on 911, or the Coast Guard on Marine Channel 16."
Lastly, the quote in the fourth paragraph has been taken entirely out of context, leading you to believe that "[...] people taking pictures of the shoreline or of bridges. [...]is now considered suspicious.". That's NOT what is stated on the Coast Guard web page.
Here is the complete first paragraph from the web site, including the out-of-context sentence:
" "Am I witnessing a threat or a crime?" Most of us have found ourselves wondering this at some time or other. However, because we are not really sure, we tend to ignore what we have just seen and, hoping it wasn't so, we continue about our business. Prior to September 11, 2001 this would have been an acceptable reaction. But times have changed, and we no longer have that luxury."
As you can see the "this" referred to on the web site isn't photography at all, it's about how we just "continue about our business".
While I do believe we have to continue to be watchful of our photographic rights and CERTAINLY believe that preventing the photography of the oil spills was unwarranted, I don't believe that this report has accurately reported the actual facts in this case.
"If you read the examples given, you'll see that, when mentioned, photography is part of a total picture, that when taken all together may be considered "unusual activity". They also include other indications, such as the taking of notes or suspicious questions."
Note Taking by photographers is normal activity. Fine Art Photographers and Photojournalists make copious notes about the photos they are taking. Lots of people ask questions to learn about all kinds of things.
""And, though some suspicious activity can only be identified either by observation over a period of time and/or through logically considering the "totality of conduct," sometimes immediate action is called for. If, for example, a person is seen entering a potential terrorist target through a hole in a security fence, and placing a package inside the facility, you should rightfully call law enforcement authorities on 911, or the Coast Guard on Marine Channel 16.""
No photography involved in this. Yes if someone is placing a package next to a bridge pin that's something that's suspicious and that should be reported. Also someone dumping garbage should be reported. Again that's not about photography at all.
"Here is the complete first paragraph from the web site, including the out-of-context sentence:
I don't believe you read the part above that paragraph where they definitely state that taking photographs is suspicious.
This is another scare website that paints photography in and of itself as something to look out for. Every one of the 'situations' they discuss on that web page are normal everyday behaviour by non-snapshot photographers. From note taking to repeatedly take a photograph or video of the same thing. Also trying to take a photo of a commuter train and freight train that pass each other on a bridge at a particular time every day is something that a rail fan would do.
"In fairness, if you read the full text of the page linked, you'll find that the article does NOT simply state that photography is suspicious, or even photography of certain objects or places is suspicious."
Then explain this.
"This effort is in the wake of a recently increased security posture taken nationwide and expands on the Department of Homeland Security’s existing “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign to increase awareness and reporting of terrorism and violent crime.
A release from the Coast Guard asks local mariners and anyone who lives, works or engages in recreational activities around local waterways, to report to local law enforcement agencies if any suspicious activities are observed, including but not limited to:
*Suspicious waterfront loitering or forcible access.
*Persons photographing, taping or sketching.
*Boaters seeming to be forcibly controlled.
*Liquids being poured into reservoirs.
*Apparently dangerous loads and/or cargoes.
*Items that appear to be weapons or explosives.
*Diving operations near critical infrastructure or protection zones.
America’s Waterway Watch (AWW) is a public outreach program that encourages participants to report suspicious activity to the Coast Guard and/or other law enforcement agencies."
http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic...
The paragraph I quoted is the first paragraph of the Coast Guard site.
What I'm saying is that the PINAC web site (in this case) mis-states what the Coast Guard site actually says. By removing the first sentence of the Coast Guard site, and inserting a new preceding paragraph, the meaning of the quote is totally changed, because the word "this" now assumes a totally different meaning. The original Coast Guard articles does NOT imply that photography is no longer acceptable.
Try reading the 3rd and 4th paragraphs in the PINAC article above, and then read the entire first paragraph from the Coast Guard web page. The implication is totally different.
I have seen many blatant abuses exposed on the PINAC site in the last 2 years, and I'm happy about how the attention that PINAC placed on my local Spokane County Sheriff's site has gotten the page changed so that photography is no longer mentioned at all, much less as a suspicious activity. But that doesn't mean that we should overstate or mis-quote another site in a way that mis-states what they say.
How most people will read the Coast Guard site, these are direct quotes; and how it's designed to be read is:
"What is "Suspicious Activity?"
"Am I witnessing a threat or a crime?"
"UNUSUAL OPERATION OF A SMALL BOAT, ACCOMPANIED BY VIDEO TAPING OR STILL PHOTOGRAPHY"
"PEOPLE TAKING STILL PHOTOGRAPHS OR VIDEO TAPING FROM THE SHORE"
"PERSON ENGAGED IN SURVEILLANCE"
That's all most people are going to come away from that site with. The time an average person spends on a website is between 30 seconds and 1 minute.
All of the behaviour cited on that website that involves photography in any way has a much more logical explanation then someone that's engaged in terrorism.
I'm guessing that you have never been questioned, harassed, detained or arrested just because you happen to have a camera in your hand or on a tripod and you are photographing some infrastructure that someone has decided needs to be protected from you capturing it's reflection just becuase we can't be too careful with 911 and all.
a delicate line between protecting and taking away freedoms
Sigh, I wish it was the Navy instead of the Coast guard, there are puns involving the Village People, Rear Admirals, and Seamen that I could have put to good use...
This is what the AWW site says:
"People photographing or video taping potential terrorist targets are engaged in activities that should be considered suspicious."
http://aww.aww-sp.com/what_is.htm
Post new comment