10 ms·

An FBI Counterterrorism Agent Tracked Me Down Because I Took a Picture of This

382 points by jonphillips06 12y ago

obilgic 12y ago
He hasn't told the reason behind the business card left at his front door...
- chatmasta 12y ago
  Uh, which is...?
- ZoF 12y ago
  What do you mean? He said that when he called the agent, he was asked if he had been to Boston recently; you can therefore infer that the reason the card was left was so that he would be able to contact said agent(an agent who was looking into him due to the 'photography incident' in Boston)... It's basically the entire point of the article; although I guess you're right, that aspect is technically implied, not stated explicity. It's a clear implication though in my opinion.
ejr 12y ago
There's a great disconnect between actual security needs and the security theatre demanded of those who must engage in guard duties. Those in charge must view the empowerment of security guards to determine actual threats as somehow inviting disaster when in fact, it may reduce the significant bureaucracy and paperwork these "centralised evaluation" procedures may impose.
- llamataboot 12y ago
  I'm afraid to say that I'm worried that the more power you give guards to determine threats, the more they will harass folks. There is a bit of a ratcheting effect, no one will get in trouble for being too strict, but you're likely to get in trouble if you miss something, but there's also the human love of power in there. Give people power over a limited domain, and they just love to wield it.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
  Right around the time we built that foundation in the bedrock of human trafficking and slavery?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
learc83 12y ago
Do terrorists actually take pictures of potential targets? I know that's what happens in the movies, but have there been documented accounts of terrorists taking photos before an attack--is it common? If it is common, is the false positive rate low enough to justify classifying this kind of photography as suspicious behavior? Pictures of most likely targets are readily available online, and they can get those without exposing themselves to countersurveillance. Why would they stand around taking pictures?
- ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
  I saw it in the movie Pearl Harbor and if anything was a terrorist act it was that movie.
- grugq 12y ago
  Yes they do. The competent ones will have surveillance teams that are different from the operational teams. (A team can be a single person, obviously). Look for a copy of the "terrorist recognition manual", the 2nd ed. has leaked in PDF, and the 3rd edition is on amazon. It goes into quite a lot of detail regarding the terrorist attack cycle. Surveillance is a significant part of planning a successful terrorist attack. If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting surveillance. It usually the best time to capture them, since they haven't conducted an attack that kills anyone yet :)
  - jpmattia 12y ago
    > If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting surveillance. It usually the best time to capture them, since they haven't conducted an attack that kills anyone yet I have to ask: If they have not conducted an attack, how was it determined that they were a terrorist? Edit: A link to an example might be helpful.
    - grecy 12y ago
      Thoughtcrime, citizen.
    - 12y ago
gordjw 12y ago
Why is the article tagged "Anti-muslim bias"?
- obilgic 12y ago
  Anti-muslim bias: https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/anti-muslim-bias https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/anti-muslim-bias
- ejr 12y ago
  He has a Muslim background, I think, and he wasn't the only one to be part of this complaint. Wired has a write up about this as well http://www.wired.com/2014/07/five-sue-gov-over-targeting/ http://www.wired.com/2014/07/five-sue-gov-over-targeting/
  - gordjw 12y ago
    Thanks, that's a much more comprehensive article.
  - vacri 12y ago
    It's a pretty thin story of harassment. As far as I can tell, the security guards erred in that they said he couldn't take photos from a public place. From there, they took down his registration and submitted a report. The FBI gets this report and talks to him to sort things out. There's no mention of further contact after this. It really doesn't matter how many companies he's been a senior VP of - and in fact, it's kind've unsettling that this is prominent in these stories, painting him as some sort of de facto nobility who should get treatment better than an anonymous person. Guards fucked up, pinged him for taking a photo when they shouldn't have. FBI checks the story out, and doesn't seem to have progressed after that one contact, ten years ago. 'Suspicion' is just that. It's not harassment unless it's ongoing.
csandreasen 12y ago
So he gets into a minor argument with some security guards, guards call the cops, cops leave their business card on his front door and when he calls them he's asked if he's been to Boston recently... what am I supposed to be outraged about?
- virtue3 12y ago
  not cops. FBI.
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    The FBI are cops - federal instead of local. Still, what's your point? No arrests, bullying, massive surveillance... They obviously didn't take think he was a threat, or else he wouldn't have showed up and left his business card. The agent was just following up on a routine report. Is it a violation of civil liberties for a cop to ask questions?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
      "Is it a violation of civil liberties for a cop to ask questions?" If it's questions about your life and the cop doesn't make it clear that you can refuse to answer without any consequences, then yes, it very much is. Part of civil liberties is that you don't have to explain to anyone how you live your life unless there is some good reason to believe you did something illegal.
- Crito 12y ago
  I've been in my fair share of minor arguments with security guards. Never has it resulted in a discussion with the FBI. This situation was not normal, and is not acceptable.
ctdonath 12y ago
I got interrogated by Federal Marshals for videotaping out a hotel lounge window while bored in NYC.
- gcb0 12y ago
  freedom.
virtue3 12y ago
I think his quote is absolutely spot on about how this stuff works: "I lived through the McCarthy era, so I know how false accusations, surveillance, and keeping files on innocent people can destroy their careers and lives." I'm actually rather amazed at the number of "so what?" comments I'm seeing here. I thought we were all much more conscious of how these types of programs start to spin out of control. I've read about this happening to a guy that photographs underground missile silo's/bunkers already. That was admittedly pretty soon after 9/11, however.
- jonnybgood 12y ago
  > I thought we were all much more conscious of how these types of programs start to spin out of control. The FBI followed up to get the story straight. The FBI didn't know what the guy was doing or why he wasn't doing it, therefore they went to go find out. They sought out the truth. So please enlighten me as to how this can "spin out of control".
  - Centigonal 12y ago
    To get the story about what straight? The man was taking a picture of a natural gas tank with some art on it. What about that elicits involvement from the FBI? Sure, you could argue the guards were concerned he (some 86 year old guy with a camera) was part of a terrorist plot to blow up the natural gas tank. If you draw the line for suspicious activity there, though, then that time I searched Google Maps for local dairies should be equally concerning, since I could be planning to poison the food supply (I'm not. I am, however, looking for a good source of fresh milk for cheesemaking).
    - wfunction 12y ago
      I think if some terrorist actually did try to poison the food supply like that, it could very well make you become a suspect for that too. Except I don't recall anything famous like that actually having happened in the recent past (correct me if I'm wrong).
      - 12y ago
phaus 12y ago
Having a number to report suspicious activity is a great idea. There isn't a single thing Orwellian or unpatriotic about it. Unfortunately too many people don't really have any experience identifying suspicious behavior, so they end up reporting all kinds of benign activity. Its really just a sad case of human nature making a good idea impractical to use in the real world. In spite of the popular belief in this thread, terrorists do take photographs of their targets quite frequently. Unfortunately, they look just like innocent people taking photographs, so the practice of harassing everyone that takes a photographs isn't going to catch us very many terrorists. However, there are many different types of suspicious behavior, and some of them will have a much lower false-positive rate than photography.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  I used to think that way about a lot of things until I realized it makes a lot more sense to redefine "good idea" to exclude things that assume all humans will act ideally and rationally.
- colordrops 12y ago
  So in other words it's a bad idea.
  - phaus 12y ago
    In other words, if humanity lived up to even a small fraction of its potential, it would be a good idea in both theory and practice. Unfortunately, most people can't be bothered. So, yeah, its a bad idea in practice.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  > In spite of the popular belief in this thread, terrorists do take photographs of their targets quite frequently. My bullshometer pegs every time assertions are made about what terrorists frequently do. How does one acquire a visceral sense for terrorist picture-taking habits? And I mean everyone, right up to the consultants selling snake oil anti-terrorist training to companies renting out minwage security guards. How does that happen?
for_i_in_range 12y ago
Not sure what's more perplexing. The FBI stalking an 86 year-old man or why anyone considers that paint blob thing art.
zachrose 12y ago
Just as an aside: Corita Kent was a nun who got really into screen printing and making beautiful Catholic pop art: https://www.google.com/search?q=corita+kent&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=corita+kent&tbm=isch
dm2 12y ago
We don't know what the security guard told the FBI. I'd be willing to bet that if a security guard bothers to report a 72 year old with a high-quality camera for taking pictures of obvious artwork to the FBI that the guard exaggerated the encounter. I've heard of several of these FBI followups in the past ~10 years but the person being interviewed always said nothing but positive things about how professional and calm the FBI agents were. They didn't send a 30 person SWAT team like the DEA would or multiple agents to your door with exposed guns threatening you. Yes, I've personally seen multiple instances of the DEA raiding homes while I was in college, good peoples lives were ruined because "someone smelled marijuana at a party". It's the FBI's job to follow up on these types of instances. They were heavily criticized after 9/11 that they received tips but didn't properly follow up, now they follow up and everyone complains that they shouldn't bother anyone. Does anyone think the FBI would simply leave a card asking for a phone call if they really believed that person was any real threat? I'm just offering another possible perspective to the story that doesn't fit the mainstream "all law enforcement are bad" group-think going around. Think before jumping on the bandwagon guys. The security guard who over-reacted is the issue here, not the FBI. Yes, the Patriot Act needs to be revisited or even thrown out and the NSA needs to go back to having very strict limitations on sharing with other agencies and allied nations, but that's a different conversation.
- tnorthcutt 12y ago
  From the guidelines[0]: Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - dm2 12y ago
    Reworded that sentence, thanks, I didn't know that was a possible issue, was a little ticked off after typing a long thoughtful response only to see it instantly down-voted before anyone could have possibly had a chance to read it.
- uptown 12y ago
  "It's the FBI's job to follow up on these types of instances." What kind of instances? Taking a photo? The author's exact point is that society should recalibrate itself such that anybody photographing a public piece of artwork shouldn't raise suspicions or trigger an FBI follow-up. It's the physical equivalent to the NSA's "collect-it-all" mentality. Targeted intelligence gathering is the appropriate approach in my opinion. And sometimes that means accepting that a 72 year old photographing a made-to-be-photographed statue isn't leading a sleeper cell.
dobbsbob 12y ago
Old man, sign ze papers! They are merely a statement that you have not been mistreated while you have been here.
wfunction 12y ago
Not sure if I agree or disagree here, but if I was a security guard and saw someone photographing a natural gas tank, the thought would at least cross my mind that maybe he's planning to do something not so nice with that picture. (If you don't get what I'm saying, it could very well have been that he was taking a picture to figure out the best places to detonate bombs at.) It's a valid cause for concern, and it's not like I'd go ahead and check Wikipedia on the spot. And of course if I report it to the police, it's their job to follow up (but nicely). Maybe I shouldn't report it in the first place, but then that's my fault, not law enforcement's.
- DougWebb 12y ago
  If you were a security guard for the largest piece of copyrighted art work in the world, and you saw someone trying to take a picture of it, you'd think he's maybe a terrorist? Context is very important when making judgements.
  - wfunction 12y ago
    You think the guard knew it was the largest piece of copyrighted art work? You think he even considered it artwork, and that's what he was paid to guard? I think he probably thought of it as what it was: a large gas tank.
jrockway 12y ago
The underlying issue probably requires a reformulation of the Constitution to resolve. The problem is that the police can investigate anyone for any reason. Arresting them is harder, but not that hard. You have no redress for this; investigations and arrests that don't lead to a conviction (or indictment) can waste an infinite amount of your time. The Constitutional protections (however weak these days) only prevent you from being punished without a trial. If no charges are filed, you can effectively be punished without the Constitution mattering. I'm not sure what the solution is -- I'm not a lawyer or political scientist or whatever -- but something seems not right. (I've been investigated before; it really wasn't as bad as people say. I thought the agents were extremely competent and professional, which is not quite what you hear from the average Reddit commenter. Some things need to be looked at in detail before being dropped on the floor; asking the person suspected can be a good way to decide whether or not to continue the investigation. I think I've posted the details to HN before, but I'm not sure how to filter that out from my many other comments :)
- dm2 12y ago
  More transparency and punishment for abuse of power would go a long way. Law enforcement releasing details about investigation statistics would do much more good for the country than keeping it secret in effort to prevent criminals from learning how to avoid law enforcement.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Search does it: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=by%3Ajrockway+fbi#!/comment/forever/prefix/0/by%3Ajrockway%20secret%20service https://hn.algolia.com/?q=by%3Ajrockway+fbi#!/comment/foreve...
gergles 12y ago
The solution to this is really simple. Photography is never illegal. It literally infuriates me every time I enter the midtown tunnel in NYC to see the "PHOTOGRAPHY PROHIBITED" signs at the entrance[0]. No, it fucking isn't. Don't put it in public if you don't want people taking pictures of it. We use that argument for Street View, for aerial photographs, for countless other things. There should never be reason to harass people for photography, regardless of what Tom Clancy told you in his latest novel. [0]: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.745975,-73.974759,3a,75y,86.12h,82.22t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKB5LP6iO_xE4GmfuKtUfmQ!2e0 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.745975,-73.974759,3a,75y,86.... (The irony of being able to link to a publicly-accessible image of the "STRICTLY ENFORCED" no photography sign is not lost on me.)
- ThrustVectoring 12y ago
  >Photography is never illegal. Photography in public is never illegal. Private or otherwise restricted-access locations can ban photography on the premises.
  - estebank 12y ago
    The problem is that at least in the US there is a prevalence of "public access" places that are technically "private property" and enforce bans on photography as such, including public transport stations in some cities.
    - webmaven 12y ago
      And malls.
  - stef25 12y ago
    Indeed! I got dragged to the police station once by a guy cause I took a picture of his front door. He even tried to force me in to his car. Instead I walked to the cops with the guy driving next to me. He explained the problem and the cops told him to leave me alone.
- abritishguy 12y ago
wfunction 12y ago
There's part of the story missing: how did he jump from "Have you been to Boston?" to the security guards reporting him? No reason not to believe him per se, but if he's trying to be persuasive he needs to paint a fuller picture and explain what let him make the connection, not suddenly jump to conclusions like that.
bumbledraven 12y ago
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/ http://photographyisnotacrime.com/ is a superb blog dealing with these issues.
jqm 12y ago
I wonder how my boss would feel if I spent a bunch of time on a ridiculous task, say, maybe two days hand typing a list of project files in alphabetical order with three space indention into a text file and then printing it out, then spent a day reviewing it, and then ran 12 copies for everyone in the office....just in case the project git got messed up at some point, so we would know what our file names were. I wonder if explaining to him that "one can never be to careful" would fly? Or would he consider this to be unreasonable, wasteful, counterproductive and that I should be doing something meaningful instead? Probably he would. Which would obviously mean that he isn't a real patriot and that he hates America. Just as I suspected! I don't know which is worse. The undue suspicion or the waste of time and resources which are needed to fight actual crime. I suspect we all do unnecessary things from time to time at work. Sounds like law enforcement maybe does more this more than it's fair share however. I guess this is what happens when you don't have a ship date.
vph 12y ago
I don't get the overreaction. If some stranger is walking around the neighborhood, doing something legal but suspicious or out-of-the-ordinary, a cop should have the right to stop him and ask questions. Cops should have the power to stop and ask questions when someone is doing something that is not normally done. Sure, he has the right to do things that are legal. But at the same time, cops should have the right to investigate. They weren't saying he did anything illegal. [I am assuming there is not racial or religious profiling going on].
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  Photographing a famous public piece of artwork is "suspicious"? That's what a lot of us are reacting to. Yes, I know the painting is on a natural gas tank. They should still let people photograph it; photographs can already be found on the Web, so the horse is pretty much out of the barn, as they say.
  - vph 12y ago
    It's suspicious if it is not done frequently, and it is a sensitive location (e.g. a huge gas tank). Cops aren't stopping you if you take pictures of the Washington monument or the Statue of Liberty. But if something that doesn't happen normally happens, it's natural the the cops want to look into it. Sure, the picture of the painted gas tank might be on the web, but a guy with a camera might be taking pictures of other sensitive things that are at the location, not just the painted gas tank.
- rimantas 12y ago
  Imagine, that every time you say "Hi" to some girl you get visited by her father and brother carrying baseball bats. Nothing illegal, they are just making sure your intentions are nice. Would you like that?
liquidcool 12y ago
It wasn't until after reading the article did it register that the event took place less than 3 years after 9/11. I think that's important context. Don't get me wrong, I felt for the guy. It seems silly to investigate 76 year old man photographing public art. Today I would have argued my rights to photograph while on public property. But back then, I distinctly remember calling the police when I saw someone with an SLR and a humongous zoom lens taking photos of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Center. Better safe than sorry was my thinking. That's very different from public art, but it was also public art on a 140' tall gas tank. It's not unreasonable to view that as a terrorist target, esp. 2.5 years after 9/11, and in a major city (that fairly recently suffered a terrorist attack). Again, just trying to provide some context.
Aloha 12y ago
We as a culture should be very afraid of our future if as a culture we treat anything out of the ordinary as a potential threat. It will mean the end of a creative vibrant society if this is left unchecked - we simply cannot walk thru life as if there /may/ be a boogyman around every corner. People need to be taught what reasonable risks are, and be better themselves at making good choices - moreover, we should all learn or be taught the difference between fear, and actual risk. The problem here isn't the government, it's just the canary in the mine for a far larger societal problem - the abject fear of anything and everything - in short, this never should have been reported in the first place, much less investigated.
stef25 12y ago
Reminds me of the time plane spotters ended up in jail in Greece for taking pictures at an airport. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1697862.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1697862.stm

382 points by jonphillips06 12y ago

obilgic 12y ago

He hasn't told the reason behind the business card left at his front door...

chatmasta 12y ago
Uh, which is...?
ZoF 12y ago
What do you mean? He said that when he called the agent, he was asked if he had been to Boston recently; you can therefore infer that the reason the card was left was so that he would be able to contact said agent(an agent who was looking into him due to the 'photography incident' in Boston)... It's basically the entire point of the article; although I guess you're right, that aspect is technically implied, not stated explicity. It's a clear implication though in my opinion.

ejr 12y ago

There's a great disconnect between actual security needs and the security theatre demanded of those who must engage in guard duties. Those in charge must view the empowerment of security guards to determine actual threats as somehow inviting disaster when in fact, it may reduce the significant bureaucracy and paperwork these "centralised evaluation" procedures may impose.

llamataboot 12y ago
I'm afraid to say that I'm worried that the more power you give guards to determine threats, the more they will harass folks. There is a bit of a ratcheting effect, no one will get in trouble for being too strict, but you're likely to get in trouble if you miss something, but there's also the human love of power in there. Give people power over a limited domain, and they just love to wield it.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
Right around the time we built that foundation in the bedrock of human trafficking and slavery?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

learc83 12y ago

Do terrorists actually take pictures of potential targets? I know that's what happens in the movies, but have there been documented accounts of terrorists taking photos before an attack--is it common? If it is common, is the false positive rate low enough to justify classifying this kind of photography as suspicious behavior? Pictures of most likely targets are readily available online, and they can get those without exposing themselves to countersurveillance. Why would they stand around taking pictures?

ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
I saw it in the movie Pearl Harbor and if anything was a terrorist act it was that movie.
grugq 12y ago
Yes they do. The competent ones will have surveillance teams that are different from the operational teams. (A team can be a single person, obviously). Look for a copy of the "terrorist recognition manual", the 2nd ed. has leaked in PDF, and the 3rd edition is on amazon. It goes into quite a lot of detail regarding the terrorist attack cycle. Surveillance is a significant part of planning a successful terrorist attack. If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting surveillance. It usually the best time to capture them, since they haven't conducted an attack that kills anyone yet :)
- jpmattia 12y ago
  > If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting surveillance. It usually the best time to capture them, since they haven't conducted an attack that kills anyone yet I have to ask: If they have not conducted an attack, how was it determined that they were a terrorist? Edit: A link to an example might be helpful.
  - grecy 12y ago
    Thoughtcrime, citizen.
  - 12y ago

gordjw 12y ago

Why is the article tagged "Anti-muslim bias"?

obilgic 12y ago
Anti-muslim bias: https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/anti-muslim-bias https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/anti-muslim-bias
ejr 12y ago
He has a Muslim background, I think, and he wasn't the only one to be part of this complaint. Wired has a write up about this as well http://www.wired.com/2014/07/five-sue-gov-over-targeting/ http://www.wired.com/2014/07/five-sue-gov-over-targeting/
- gordjw 12y ago
  Thanks, that's a much more comprehensive article.
- vacri 12y ago
  It's a pretty thin story of harassment. As far as I can tell, the security guards erred in that they said he couldn't take photos from a public place. From there, they took down his registration and submitted a report. The FBI gets this report and talks to him to sort things out. There's no mention of further contact after this. It really doesn't matter how many companies he's been a senior VP of - and in fact, it's kind've unsettling that this is prominent in these stories, painting him as some sort of de facto nobility who should get treatment better than an anonymous person. Guards fucked up, pinged him for taking a photo when they shouldn't have. FBI checks the story out, and doesn't seem to have progressed after that one contact, ten years ago. 'Suspicion' is just that. It's not harassment unless it's ongoing.

csandreasen 12y ago

So he gets into a minor argument with some security guards, guards call the cops, cops leave their business card on his front door and when he calls them he's asked if he's been to Boston recently... what am I supposed to be outraged about?

virtue3 12y ago
not cops. FBI.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  The FBI are cops - federal instead of local. Still, what's your point? No arrests, bullying, massive surveillance... They obviously didn't take think he was a threat, or else he wouldn't have showed up and left his business card. The agent was just following up on a routine report. Is it a violation of civil liberties for a cop to ask questions?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    "Is it a violation of civil liberties for a cop to ask questions?" If it's questions about your life and the cop doesn't make it clear that you can refuse to answer without any consequences, then yes, it very much is. Part of civil liberties is that you don't have to explain to anyone how you live your life unless there is some good reason to believe you did something illegal.
Crito 12y ago
I've been in my fair share of minor arguments with security guards. Never has it resulted in a discussion with the FBI. This situation was not normal, and is not acceptable.

ctdonath 12y ago

I got interrogated by Federal Marshals for videotaping out a hotel lounge window while bored in NYC.

gcb0 12y ago
freedom.

virtue3 12y ago

I think his quote is absolutely spot on about how this stuff works: "I lived through the McCarthy era, so I know how false accusations, surveillance, and keeping files on innocent people can destroy their careers and lives." I'm actually rather amazed at the number of "so what?" comments I'm seeing here. I thought we were all much more conscious of how these types of programs start to spin out of control. I've read about this happening to a guy that photographs underground missile silo's/bunkers already. That was admittedly pretty soon after 9/11, however.

jonnybgood 12y ago
> I thought we were all much more conscious of how these types of programs start to spin out of control. The FBI followed up to get the story straight. The FBI didn't know what the guy was doing or why he wasn't doing it, therefore they went to go find out. They sought out the truth. So please enlighten me as to how this can "spin out of control".
- Centigonal 12y ago
  To get the story about what straight? The man was taking a picture of a natural gas tank with some art on it. What about that elicits involvement from the FBI? Sure, you could argue the guards were concerned he (some 86 year old guy with a camera) was part of a terrorist plot to blow up the natural gas tank. If you draw the line for suspicious activity there, though, then that time I searched Google Maps for local dairies should be equally concerning, since I could be planning to poison the food supply (I'm not. I am, however, looking for a good source of fresh milk for cheesemaking).
  - wfunction 12y ago
    I think if some terrorist actually did try to poison the food supply like that, it could very well make you become a suspect for that too. Except I don't recall anything famous like that actually having happened in the recent past (correct me if I'm wrong).
    - 12y ago

phaus 12y ago

Having a number to report suspicious activity is a great idea. There isn't a single thing Orwellian or unpatriotic about it. Unfortunately too many people don't really have any experience identifying suspicious behavior, so they end up reporting all kinds of benign activity. Its really just a sad case of human nature making a good idea impractical to use in the real world. In spite of the popular belief in this thread, terrorists do take photographs of their targets quite frequently. Unfortunately, they look just like innocent people taking photographs, so the practice of harassing everyone that takes a photographs isn't going to catch us very many terrorists. However, there are many different types of suspicious behavior, and some of them will have a much lower false-positive rate than photography.

wutbrodo 12y ago
I used to think that way about a lot of things until I realized it makes a lot more sense to redefine "good idea" to exclude things that assume all humans will act ideally and rationally.
colordrops 12y ago
So in other words it's a bad idea.
- phaus 12y ago
  In other words, if humanity lived up to even a small fraction of its potential, it would be a good idea in both theory and practice. Unfortunately, most people can't be bothered. So, yeah, its a bad idea in practice.
Zigurd 12y ago
> In spite of the popular belief in this thread, terrorists do take photographs of their targets quite frequently. My bullshometer pegs every time assertions are made about what terrorists frequently do. How does one acquire a visceral sense for terrorist picture-taking habits? And I mean everyone, right up to the consultants selling snake oil anti-terrorist training to companies renting out minwage security guards. How does that happen?

for_i_in_range 12y ago

Not sure what's more perplexing. The FBI stalking an 86 year-old man or why anyone considers that paint blob thing art.

zachrose 12y ago

Just as an aside: Corita Kent was a nun who got really into screen printing and making beautiful Catholic pop art: https://www.google.com/search?q=corita+kent&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=corita+kent&tbm=isch

dm2 12y ago

We don't know what the security guard told the FBI. I'd be willing to bet that if a security guard bothers to report a 72 year old with a high-quality camera for taking pictures of obvious artwork to the FBI that the guard exaggerated the encounter. I've heard of several of these FBI followups in the past ~10 years but the person being interviewed always said nothing but positive things about how professional and calm the FBI agents were. They didn't send a 30 person SWAT team like the DEA would or multiple agents to your door with exposed guns threatening you. Yes, I've personally seen multiple instances of the DEA raiding homes while I was in college, good peoples lives were ruined because "someone smelled marijuana at a party". It's the FBI's job to follow up on these types of instances. They were heavily criticized after 9/11 that they received tips but didn't properly follow up, now they follow up and everyone complains that they shouldn't bother anyone. Does anyone think the FBI would simply leave a card asking for a phone call if they really believed that person was any real threat? I'm just offering another possible perspective to the story that doesn't fit the mainstream "all law enforcement are bad" group-think going around. Think before jumping on the bandwagon guys. The security guard who over-reacted is the issue here, not the FBI. Yes, the Patriot Act needs to be revisited or even thrown out and the NSA needs to go back to having very strict limitations on sharing with other agencies and allied nations, but that's a different conversation.

tnorthcutt 12y ago
From the guidelines[0]: Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dm2 12y ago
  Reworded that sentence, thanks, I didn't know that was a possible issue, was a little ticked off after typing a long thoughtful response only to see it instantly down-voted before anyone could have possibly had a chance to read it.
uptown 12y ago
"It's the FBI's job to follow up on these types of instances." What kind of instances? Taking a photo? The author's exact point is that society should recalibrate itself such that anybody photographing a public piece of artwork shouldn't raise suspicions or trigger an FBI follow-up. It's the physical equivalent to the NSA's "collect-it-all" mentality. Targeted intelligence gathering is the appropriate approach in my opinion. And sometimes that means accepting that a 72 year old photographing a made-to-be-photographed statue isn't leading a sleeper cell.

dobbsbob 12y ago

Old man, sign ze papers! They are merely a statement that you have not been mistreated while you have been here.

wfunction 12y ago

Not sure if I agree or disagree here, but if I was a security guard and saw someone photographing a natural gas tank, the thought would at least cross my mind that maybe he's planning to do something not so nice with that picture. (If you don't get what I'm saying, it could very well have been that he was taking a picture to figure out the best places to detonate bombs at.) It's a valid cause for concern, and it's not like I'd go ahead and check Wikipedia on the spot. And of course if I report it to the police, it's their job to follow up (but nicely). Maybe I shouldn't report it in the first place, but then that's my fault, not law enforcement's.

DougWebb 12y ago
If you were a security guard for the largest piece of copyrighted art work in the world, and you saw someone trying to take a picture of it, you'd think he's maybe a terrorist? Context is very important when making judgements.
- wfunction 12y ago
  You think the guard knew it was the largest piece of copyrighted art work? You think he even considered it artwork, and that's what he was paid to guard? I think he probably thought of it as what it was: a large gas tank.

jrockway 12y ago

The underlying issue probably requires a reformulation of the Constitution to resolve. The problem is that the police can investigate anyone for any reason. Arresting them is harder, but not that hard. You have no redress for this; investigations and arrests that don't lead to a conviction (or indictment) can waste an infinite amount of your time. The Constitutional protections (however weak these days) only prevent you from being punished without a trial. If no charges are filed, you can effectively be punished without the Constitution mattering. I'm not sure what the solution is -- I'm not a lawyer or political scientist or whatever -- but something seems not right. (I've been investigated before; it really wasn't as bad as people say. I thought the agents were extremely competent and professional, which is not quite what you hear from the average Reddit commenter. Some things need to be looked at in detail before being dropped on the floor; asking the person suspected can be a good way to decide whether or not to continue the investigation. I think I've posted the details to HN before, but I'm not sure how to filter that out from my many other comments :)

dm2 12y ago
More transparency and punishment for abuse of power would go a long way. Law enforcement releasing details about investigation statistics would do much more good for the country than keeping it secret in effort to prevent criminals from learning how to avoid law enforcement.
maxerickson 12y ago
Search does it: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=by%3Ajrockway+fbi#!/comment/forever/prefix/0/by%3Ajrockway%20secret%20service https://hn.algolia.com/?q=by%3Ajrockway+fbi#!/comment/foreve...

gergles 12y ago

The solution to this is really simple. Photography is never illegal. It literally infuriates me every time I enter the midtown tunnel in NYC to see the "PHOTOGRAPHY PROHIBITED" signs at the entrance[0]. No, it fucking isn't. Don't put it in public if you don't want people taking pictures of it. We use that argument for Street View, for aerial photographs, for countless other things. There should never be reason to harass people for photography, regardless of what Tom Clancy told you in his latest novel. [0]: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.745975,-73.974759,3a,75y,86.12h,82.22t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKB5LP6iO_xE4GmfuKtUfmQ!2e0 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.745975,-73.974759,3a,75y,86.... (The irony of being able to link to a publicly-accessible image of the "STRICTLY ENFORCED" no photography sign is not lost on me.)

ThrustVectoring 12y ago
>Photography is never illegal. Photography in public is never illegal. Private or otherwise restricted-access locations can ban photography on the premises.
- estebank 12y ago
  The problem is that at least in the US there is a prevalence of "public access" places that are technically "private property" and enforce bans on photography as such, including public transport stations in some cities.
  - webmaven 12y ago
    And malls.
- stef25 12y ago
  Indeed! I got dragged to the police station once by a guy cause I took a picture of his front door. He even tried to force me in to his car. Instead I walked to the cops with the guy driving next to me. He explained the problem and the cops told him to leave me alone.
abritishguy 12y ago

wfunction 12y ago

There's part of the story missing: how did he jump from "Have you been to Boston?" to the security guards reporting him? No reason not to believe him per se, but if he's trying to be persuasive he needs to paint a fuller picture and explain what let him make the connection, not suddenly jump to conclusions like that.

bumbledraven 12y ago

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/ http://photographyisnotacrime.com/ is a superb blog dealing with these issues.

jqm 12y ago

I wonder how my boss would feel if I spent a bunch of time on a ridiculous task, say, maybe two days hand typing a list of project files in alphabetical order with three space indention into a text file and then printing it out, then spent a day reviewing it, and then ran 12 copies for everyone in the office....just in case the project git got messed up at some point, so we would know what our file names were. I wonder if explaining to him that "one can never be to careful" would fly? Or would he consider this to be unreasonable, wasteful, counterproductive and that I should be doing something meaningful instead? Probably he would. Which would obviously mean that he isn't a real patriot and that he hates America. Just as I suspected! I don't know which is worse. The undue suspicion or the waste of time and resources which are needed to fight actual crime. I suspect we all do unnecessary things from time to time at work. Sounds like law enforcement maybe does more this more than it's fair share however. I guess this is what happens when you don't have a ship date.

vph 12y ago

I don't get the overreaction. If some stranger is walking around the neighborhood, doing something legal but suspicious or out-of-the-ordinary, a cop should have the right to stop him and ask questions. Cops should have the power to stop and ask questions when someone is doing something that is not normally done. Sure, he has the right to do things that are legal. But at the same time, cops should have the right to investigate. They weren't saying he did anything illegal. [I am assuming there is not racial or religious profiling going on].

ScottBurson 12y ago
Photographing a famous public piece of artwork is "suspicious"? That's what a lot of us are reacting to. Yes, I know the painting is on a natural gas tank. They should still let people photograph it; photographs can already be found on the Web, so the horse is pretty much out of the barn, as they say.
- vph 12y ago
  It's suspicious if it is not done frequently, and it is a sensitive location (e.g. a huge gas tank). Cops aren't stopping you if you take pictures of the Washington monument or the Statue of Liberty. But if something that doesn't happen normally happens, it's natural the the cops want to look into it. Sure, the picture of the painted gas tank might be on the web, but a guy with a camera might be taking pictures of other sensitive things that are at the location, not just the painted gas tank.
rimantas 12y ago
Imagine, that every time you say "Hi" to some girl you get visited by her father and brother carrying baseball bats. Nothing illegal, they are just making sure your intentions are nice. Would you like that?

liquidcool 12y ago

It wasn't until after reading the article did it register that the event took place less than 3 years after 9/11. I think that's important context. Don't get me wrong, I felt for the guy. It seems silly to investigate 76 year old man photographing public art. Today I would have argued my rights to photograph while on public property. But back then, I distinctly remember calling the police when I saw someone with an SLR and a humongous zoom lens taking photos of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Center. Better safe than sorry was my thinking. That's very different from public art, but it was also public art on a 140' tall gas tank. It's not unreasonable to view that as a terrorist target, esp. 2.5 years after 9/11, and in a major city (that fairly recently suffered a terrorist attack). Again, just trying to provide some context.

Aloha 12y ago

We as a culture should be very afraid of our future if as a culture we treat anything out of the ordinary as a potential threat. It will mean the end of a creative vibrant society if this is left unchecked - we simply cannot walk thru life as if there /may/ be a boogyman around every corner. People need to be taught what reasonable risks are, and be better themselves at making good choices - moreover, we should all learn or be taught the difference between fear, and actual risk. The problem here isn't the government, it's just the canary in the mine for a far larger societal problem - the abject fear of anything and everything - in short, this never should have been reported in the first place, much less investigated.

stef25 12y ago

Reminds me of the time plane spotters ended up in jail in Greece for taking pictures at an airport. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1697862.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1697862.stm