1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Homeland Security Killing Photography?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anthony747, Sep 17, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hi All, I’m not a terrorist, I love my country I was even born here in the beautiful USA but this is the second time in a few months I was asked not to use my camera here. The first occurrence I kind of understand; I was at Sandy Hook, NJ shooting an osprey fishing for food in the bay not realizing that a few miles on the other side of the bay is Earl Navy Base so a park ranger driving by stop me with lights flashing ask for my ID and ran a check on me, then proceed to inform me not to shoot the navy base, I expand to him that I was merely shooting an osprey fishing not the navy base.

    This afternoon in Atlantic Highlands, NJ I was walking to this crabbing dock where I shot the two photos below a police office pulled up to me in his truck and informed me that I’m not permitted to photograph in the harbor, I asked why and nicely responded Homeland Security I said oh and headed back to my car. In both cases the offices were very nice and professional, the Sandy Hook incident I can understand but the crabbing dock baffled me. Has anybody else asked not to shoot here?

    Below are two I guess illegal photographs I shot around 6:30 am from a crabbing dock on two separate days last week.


  2. Hi!

    I work for the Department of Homeland Security, specifically the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and have, since 1992. Before that I was a pilot in the U.S. Navy. Your topic title and the note cause me a bit of consternation. The Border Patrol and Customs inspectors are part of DHS. The local Police and Sherriffs aren't, nor are any Department of Defense guards or U.S. Park Police.

    The images are beautiful but the comment in your post is not really why we're here.

    The husband of my wife's best friend was incinerated by jet fuel in the pentagon on 9/11. I passed that burned out building every day while it was being repaired. It's a different world we live in today. If a member of the police, be it here or in London or Madrid or wherever acts cautiously, they are criticized for impinging on someone's rights just for doing their job; when some one slips past them they are castigated for being incompetent.

    Please, lets move on. There's always the open forum of you know where for political discussion.

  3. Well at least they were polite and professional. I do worry about how far we will go in the name of security. While I understand the need for increased watchfulness we all need to remember that freedom comes at a price for all of us. More freedom can equal less security and the opposite is also true. Myself I would prefer that we boldly enjoy our freedoms at the possible risk of having a less secure society. I don't want to rant so I will leave it at that.

    P.S. I just read Rich Gibsons post and want you to know that I do not mean my post to deride those who protect us in any way. I was commenting on a trend that I see in our nation.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 17, 2005
  4. Hi Rich, I appreciate the work you guys are doing at DHS protecting us and I totally understand your reply. I also didn’t intend this post to be a political discussion; I’m just disappointed that I can’t return to the spot where I shot those photos without breaking the law.

  5. "I’m just disappointed that I can’t return to the spot where I shot those photos without breaking the law."

    This hasn't been established with anyone other than that particular law enforcement official that doing what you wanted to do it is against the law. But your original statement and the one above (and especially the provocative original message title) casts suspicion on a large segment of our population (DHS is comprised of over 100,000 people) who are doing their best to prevent another 9/11.

    Let's all just walk away from this thread please.

  6. cknight


    May 2, 2005
    Madison, AL
    I tend to agree with you Anthony. LE/Homeland Security is a tough and complicated job. As Rich said, they are too strict or heavy handed, then they are accused of infringing on people's rights. If something gets by, then they didn't do their job, and it won't matter how many incidents they did prevent.
    However, I stongly beleive that we should not be asked to sacrifice our freedoms for safety. I can live with some inconvienence, and I have no problem with someone asking me a few questions or even running my driver's license through the computer, but my freedoms I treasure.

    However, on a more positive note - when shooting at the dam this morning, on of the TVA police waved me over. He asked me what Frank and I were taking pictures of. I said the birds/wildlife. He said no problem, they just didn't like people taking pictures of the dam. The officer was very polite and friendly.
  7. JordanLFW

    JordanLFW Guest

    Interesting, but this isn't the only case of this hapening I've heard of.

    Its not a question of politics so much as what is legal and isn't. What makes it illegal, and if it isn't illegal how can they stop you?
  8. Please Jordan, do not link to political web sites. This is not the open forum on DPReview.

  9. I have decided to close this thread. I do not want to offend anyone but the tenor of the comments is not helping us to further photography. I hope we can all move on to other subjects. Thanks for your understanding.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.