Storm photo engenders visit from FBI

[Dave Gallaher]

http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-man-fbi-galindo-949/

 

[Todd Renshaw]

On the one hand, it's ridiculous that the FBI had to hassle the guy over this, especially if they really told him, "just be careful next time," but ... I can understand that they had to do their investigation. I imagine they got a vague tip about someone taking pictures of the refinery and a license plate number without any real context on how much of a threat it really was. They had to at least check it out.

It sounds like capturing the refinery was only incidental, but it's been a dark decade for any amateur that likes to take industrial photos.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

While living in Socorro, I unknowingly got too close to EMRTC (a bomb testing area) while trying to photograph lightning. A police officer stopped by while I was photographing, and informed me to delete my photos. I wouldn't be surprised if I unknowingly ended up on some 'watch list' that night.

 

[Andy Wehrle]

Last I checked, they didn't take photos for 9/11. They went to flight school. Get over it, people.

 

[Lee Smith-Whaley]

Yeah, it's usually a bad idea to stop by military bases. Heck, I got lost, and stopped to check my GPS one day while driving past one, and had military police come up, and question me.

Last I checked, they didn't take photos for 9/11. They went to flight school. Get over it, people.

It was my understanding they they did a number of dry runs, and took photo/video while doing so. Not to mention that a common tactic is for "planners" to take photos to study targets.

 

[rdale]

If you had any idea how many suspicious people are photographing critical infrastructure and doing dry runs still today, you wouldn't make 9/11 jokes.

 

[Skip Talbot]

So all the terrorists have to do is put an anemometer on the roof of their car, wait for some dark clouds to come by before they photograph their targets, and then claim they are "chasing" to get away with it? I think the TSA should install VIPR checkpoints on I-40 for all motor vehicle traffic coming into and out of OKC and Amarillo. Security first folks, then freedom.

 

[rdale]

Good idea! Hopefully they didn't pass the chaser essay to make it here and see that

 

[Jesse Risley]

While I understand the concerns about scrutiny over what we know is just innocent photography endeavors on our own part, I also respect the other side of the coin. As near as I can tell from the article, the photographer in question was not detained for an unreasonable period of time or otherwise arrested or subject to illegal scrutiny by the local or federal constabulary.

Granted, I am a civil libertarian, so I share some of the same concerns as many when people are unnecessarily detained or arrested in certain cases, but I can't see where any rights were violated here. Quite a few people probably have an FBI file. This seems like routine investigative work where otherwise proper procedures were followed and no abuse of power actually occurred. If we want more vigilance from the authorities in regards to potential terrorist threats, it may mean that previously innocuous activities warrant a brief, non-intrusive investigation should someone believe that something is out of place. Unless someone is unnecessarily detained or otherwise arrested, I don't see grave cause for concern over a follow-up investigation.

 

[David Wolfson]

Yet another example of security agencies making a show to demonstrate "they're doing security". As discussed in a very old thread, my wife and I were subjected to rather extensive interviews by a county deputy in 2002 on the Oklahoma Panhandle. We were taking pictures from the roadside of a decrepit industrial facility with the then-famous tipping Enron sign (gas pumping plant, I guess). As, also, a civil libertarian I didn't have much of a problem with it. The deputy was altogether courteous and professional, and I think both of us thought it was a PITA and a bit silly.

What bothers me is that this sort of thing is false security and it represents the general chilling public attitude toward photography in public spaces. The obvious reality is that criminals don't need to stop and set up a tripod to get all the useful photos they could ever want of a restricted facility from the public right-of-way. The real bad guys, of course, know that unless they are the dullest knives in the drawer (which, fortunately, a lot of them seem to be!)

 

[rdale]

What bothers me is that this sort of thing is false security

Oh, nothing "false" about that at all. In my state alone I see several reports per month where people with suspicious motives are caught photographing critical infrastructure. Their photos get destroyed and their name gets added to a "special" list...

 

[Dan Robinson]

They have to tread a fine line. Yes, there have been examples of photography employed as a part of larger plots. But photography is still not a crime in the USA, cannot be used as probable cause for arrest or detention, and even in cases where the activity appears suspicious, there is no authority to have images deleted or confiscated. It's still done by over-reaching authorities to people who don't know their rights. Every once in a while, someone does know their rights and ends up with a nice settlement.

 

[Jesse Risley]

Oh, nothing "false" about that at all. In my state alone I see several reports per month where people with suspicious motives are caught photographing critical infrastructure. Their photos get destroyed and their name gets added to a "special" list...

I can completely understand common "stop and check" procedures for suspicious activity. I'll even give LE the benefit of the doubt and argue that it is possible, though probably more unlikely than not, that a legitimate criminal activity or terrorist plot could be thwarted by checking on a random individual or group of individuals who happen to arouse the suspicion of authorities while otherwise engaging in lawful photography endeavors, sort of the like the major criminal who is nabbed by happenstance on a minor traffic stop (i.e., of all of the individuals checked on an annual basis who are out photographing and appear suspicious, I'm certain it's a very low percentage that actually ends up being someone with truly nefarious criminal motives). However, I don't see what legal right the authorities have to confiscate or destroy photographs or videos if someone is merely photographing or filming "critical infrastructure" from a lawful public venue, save for the rare case where someone is actually arrested for a bona fide crime and the normal property used to commit the crime is confiscated.

 

[Joshua Nall]

It's not a good idea to stop near water towers with a camera sticking out the window. On this particular occasion I believe there were three police cars, and several questions, "let me see your license" and they were gone with it for quite a while. I've been questioned numerous times but its generally just one curious officer, for example one time I was too close to an out of the way hunting lodge. One time I had an officer come back and ask to see my license a second time. Do they keep track of these incidents? I have a couple of flashing lights now so I look less suspicious, haha.

 

[Seth Price]

I stopped near a coal fired power plant in NE Oklahoma one time and took some photos of the plant at sunset. The security guard came out and chatted with me, but was completely friendly and professional.

As for EMRTC, I have also been out there taking photos of lightning. The campo (as we called the campus police) was also friendly and professional.

I typically offer to show them the photos I've taken (I'm proud of some of them, anyway), and that does a lot to ease any misunderstandings.