Since Bruce Schneier published his June 5 Guardian essay asking the
question, "Are
photographers really a threat?", this weary topic is being revisited. Amidst
the paranoia-fest that has moved in since 9/11, taking a
photograph has become suspect activity. Many shutterbugs I know have been
questioned and harassed by police officers and over-zealous security guards
who believe they are protecting the country from some elaborate evil plan that evidently cannot engage without some glossy 8x10s.

Trouble is, as Bruce points out, photography has rarely - if ever - played a
role in a terrorist plot:

"The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London
transport bombers, the Madrid 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."

Other than too much movie watching in our security ranks, one wonders what exactly
is behind this? Could it be that pesky Patriot Act? Thankfully, blogger GW of GW-Images
looked into this for the rest of us too lazy to do so and found zilch.

Indeed, GW patiently conducted a thorough digital search of the 342-page document
and found no mention of the word "photo." Furthermore, the words
"photograph", "photography" and "photographer"
were also not to be found. Same goes for "picture",
"tripod", "shutter" or even "shutterbug" - not a huge surprise.

In fact, the word "camera" does appear four times but ends up being part of a legal term rather
than referring to actual cameras. (In legalese, the phrase "in camera" means "in chamber" as in a judge's chamber.) Still, GW wonders:

"I am not a lawyer, don't pretend to be, but if this is the law of the
land as written by the legislative body of the U S Government, why are
private citizens being harassed?"

Good question.

One might look to a memo circulated by the Department of Homeland Security back in August 2004. Entitled "Suspicious Activity Reporting Criteria for Infrastructure Owners and Operators", it was directed at Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs), State Homeland Security
Advisors, Government First Responders, Security Managers, and Facility Operators.

About half-way through the memo, under "Surveillance/Probing Activity" (yeesh!), it reads:

"Report any persons showing uncommong interest in critical infrastructure/key resource facilities, networks, or systems (e.g. photographing or videotaping assets)."

So, there ya go. It's the Duct Tape Brigade, determined to save us all from ourselves.

Meanwhile, in case you are feeling a little too serene and looking for reasons to rage, check out the War on Photography blog, which is chock full of numerous stories of photographer harassment across the country and beyond. It's quite unbelievable what law enforcement can enforce without, y'know, an actual law.

I'm especially fond of the example that features the Fox camera crew in DC doing a story on the inexplicable harassment of photographers at Union Station. The crew - with an Amtrak spokesperson standing by - actually harassed the crew mid-story, with no explanation, of course. The crew could not have been more pleased to have a live illustration of their point. Watch the story unfold here - amazing.

These shenanigans go on daily, even though there are NO LAWS against photography... yet. Know your rights and stand your ground. Arrive with a battery charger and pure, sweet knowledge. Don't let anything sneak up behind you besides that yummy golden dusk lighting.

Heather Clisby

Contributing Editor, Photography & Animal Concerns

Proprietor, ClizBiz