Incident on Federal Street: Fed-up photographer vs. a bank security guard
By adamg - 2/23/10 - 10:15 pm
Rich Beaubien (whose work I've featured here), reports on an incident outside the Bank of America building at 100 Federal St. the other day, involving a security guard who demanded he stop taking photos of the building:
... Now I know I should have just walked away but instead I headed straight for his station. As he opened the door I said, "Call the police. You have no right to tell me what I cannot take photos of." ...
He follows up with a report on his meeting with a security supervisor at the bank today.
Comments
Hrm...were you too busy to take photos of the T?
This is getting absolutely silly. Let me tell you something, if this guy took my photo, I'd take his camera. Hey, if my photo is on it, it must belong to me! LIKENESS RIGHTS! LIKENESS RIGHTS!
Seriously, sell all that high end photo equipment, pay your overdue mortgage and get a real job...or go back to taking baby photos at Sears. You obviously have too much time on your hands to not only take photos that anyone with common sense won't take, but to blog and whine about it at length.
You know what the security guard has that you don't? A job.
Move along please.
the security guard had a job
Until this photographer probably got him fired.
He'll only get fired if he
He'll only get fired if he was clueless about his job, or the rules and regulations. Whats the problem?
Stupid or ignorant isn't a defense son.
Likeness Rights?
what an odd response...
Thank you, Rich, for standing up for my right to photograph whatever I want from a public sidewalk. This guy clearly doesn't get it, but I appreciate it.
Wonderful satire of a crazy
Wonderful satire of a crazy anon. Good show sir.
So Sad
I think the whole Brown hubblub brought over a few teabag trolls.
Anyways, I know quite a few Photographers who make a damn good living taking photographs. Anon must be disgruntled he’s making minimum wage while others are making 1000's doing what they love; between portraits, weddings, and freelance work on top of their hobby.
So Sad.
a job
>> You know what the security guard has that you don't? A job.
Clearly, anonymous poster, if you have the time to spew your nonsense, then you must not have a job either.
Move along please.
Tempted to say the bank
Tempted to say the bank failed ... at least, to train its guards in law and public relations. Nice shots and good response.
There seems to be a lot of this going around. Just read a story the other day about an amateur photographer in England who filmed his own arrest for "anti-social behavior" before Christmas -- he was taking photos of a parade when the first of three police officers demanded his identification. Ridiculous.
Here's the link, including his video, if anyone's interested. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest
Wanna know what is really dumb about this?
I work in a building that has a great view of 100 Federal, aka "the pregnant building".
I can just go to my window and take lots of high resolution pictures of just about anything on the facade and can see quite well into the lobby. So can anyone of the other several thousand people who work in my 30+ story building.
And Mr. Important Security Guard and Mr. Building Manager wouldn't even know ... or be able to stop me.
-
It's pretty clear from the account of the conversation that the security manager's sole intent was to win the argument. By taking the position that the photog must have been on private property he blatantly took a seemingly strong stance. Photog should have said, I was on the sidewalk, let's see the surveillance video - BAM I'm right, you're wrong.
Just because you can, doesn't
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Let me look at the bill of rights and see if Canon Elphs are mentioned.
Oh wait, no.
It is funny, the same people who cry foul on this, are the same folks who don't want public video cameras in public places because it is an invasion of your privacy. I'll make you a deal mister latte drinking photog - you bring forth a freedom of speech change that will make it so you can photograph anything in public and I will even help campaign as long as it means we can have public video cameras everywhere to prevent crime, 24 hours a day, and that video can be viewed and accessed at any time by law enforcement.
Start the liberal whining you hippie!!
oh god
What same people? Who? Name one. So funny, har har.
SNORE
You're already over your head, now you're a con law expert. DOUBLE SNORE
More big government. Will you pay more taxes to pay for the cameras, or just "campaign" anonymously on message boards. No doubt you would probably whine about taxes and how cops are hacks. CCTV doesn't prevent crime, see the London attacks.
TRIPLE SNORE. YOU ARE THE ONE WHINING! I D I O T
Commie
What a peculiar comment. Here we have an anon who:
1) Wants to limit constitutional rights
2) Wants the government to spend huge amounts of money on new programs
3) Wants to increase government power over the individual
and he imagines this makes him a conservative and his interlocutor a liberal.
Well, that's not what conservative means, comrade.
I remember a place with stringent rules about not taking photographs, ubiquitous surveillance, and endless police powers. It was Soviet East Germany. This anon isn't a conservative. He's a commie, pining for the DDR.
One of these, eh?
http://www.ddrfreak.com/
capturing images in Boston
It is very tough to capture images in downtown Boston certain buildings are worse than others...some buildings own all the way out to the sidewalk
and the security guards can legally brush you back to the street. Of course you can't stand in the middle of Congress St. and take pictures so you are done.
They ramped up their security after 9 11 and used that as an excuse to tighten up.
Private land
Not to rain on anyone’s parade, but 100 Fed is weird in that much of the sidewalk there is actually private land due to the building’s design. There’s markers in the sidewalk showing you just where the property lines are.
It depends where the photographer was actually standing as to whether the security guard had any right in asking him to move along. Still, he could have walked closer to the curb which is out of the guards hands. Furthermore, these policies are just stupid.
What’s to stop someone from covertly using a cell phone cam? Taking a picture from across or down the street with a telephoto lens? Looking up images on Google? Or even sketching a ;picture for a dubious purpose.
It’s security theater, and it’s a waste of time and money so dittoheads feel safe. Key word feel.
What Could a "Bad Guy" Do with an Exterior Photo
I truly and honestly do not understand why a photographer is such a huge threat to public safety. Someone standing in plain sight, with an obvious camera - what the hell kind of threat are they? They would be LESS of a threat than any random person with a backpack.
When did photographers become public enemy number one?
When did photographers become
When security guards want to make sure they look busy so they don't get sacked.
The mentality is that, for
The mentality is that, for example, someone is taking photos to plan a robbery, or bomb the building. I know some of you find this hard to believe, but..some people actually rob banks, or fly planes into Federal buildings. Oh boo hoo, someone poor photographer can't take a photo of the T, or the pretty building, boo hoo!
I am amazed all you anti-government types are so excited over taking photos of buildings. Maybe he should take photos of homeless people and do an exhibit on ways to help the homeless. With all the energy expended and visits to the building, how many times did he step over the homeless folks in that area to get his shots?
Most of you are children, weeping about nothing. Artistic integrity my ass, get a real job.
So, brave Anon
Tell me why I would do this in plain sight with heavy duty equipment when I can just turn around, where I sit now, and get the full layout of all the guard desk locations and entry points on the main-entry side of this same building? Without anybody seeing me because the windows are filmed over?
I have a better solution.
I have a better solution. Let's just permanently close all these banks that people might rob, or buildings that people might attack. If no one's inside them, no one will get hurt. Pretty simple, huh?
This solution makes about just as much sense as yours does, implying that photography is a suspicious activity and always has some criminal intent. Why don't we ban eyeglasses too? Glasses help people see better, and that makes it easier to plan an attack. And let's ban all pens and paper, because someone might jot down an evil thought after seeing these buildings, or even wore, might make a drawing of the structures.
Why don't you think next time before typing more of your thoughts behind your anonymous front.
Sissypants
That wet spot on your trousers just water?
omg stfu
Some people do "those things" and never take a photo, so nice try.
i am amazed at you, an anti-freedom type, so excited about ripping straw men. With all the energy you expended on that comment you could have made a sandwich for a bum. How many times did you trip over yourself trying to be a wise guy? Because you suck at it.
You are a clown, whining about nothing. Where do you work? I want to see what a "real job" looks like.
I would tell you where I
I would tell you where I work, but someone might try to take a photo of me and erode my liberty!
I like how we go from 'don't take photos of banks' to 'lets ban eyeglasses!' - typical reactionary nonsense. Hey, lets ban guys! Lets ban the internet so you can stop spreading hate of security guards. ;)
Laws and rules don't always make sense. I know that is hard for some of you to realize. Blogging has become the soapbox of the self entitled; freedoom is something people claim is being taken away from them, because they haven't done anything to earn it. Did you move from the back of the bus? Does your lilly white face help you get better jobs? Do you enjoy the fruits of the country that many have died for, so that you can mock them openly?
I say again - Boo Hoo.
*snaps some photos of rando people and runs* "I stole your soooooouuuuulllllllllllll!"
Liberalism is the new fascism, just with better clothes.
what have you done to earn your freedom?
besides getting merked ALL DAY? HA HAAAAAA!
We don't know all the facts
Neither you nor I were there. It's not entirely impossible that while Beaubien was taking photos, he also had a GIANT TICKING TIME BOMB strapped to his chest. His accounts of the incident curiously neglect to mention his attire. And isn't it suspicious that even though he was standing within arm's length of his camera, he's not IN any of his photos?
I'm just saying these things happen.
Three thumbs up.
The biggest weapon used by security-theatre types isn't the threat of arrest - it's the threat of taking up YOUR TIME. And we usually let them win, because even if we're aware that they've overstepped their bounds, we'll give in so we can get on with our day. Individually, that's always a rational decision; collectively, it erodes our liberty.
Kudos to Rich Beaubien for actively taking time out of his day to politely but firmly explain the issue to building security.
Globe photographer stopped six times shooting LNG tanker
Essdras Suarez explains (scroll down past the Southern California thing).
Cool photo blog
Great find, Adam; thanks.
When "security" concerns
When "security" concerns aren't valid, you have to wonder why there's a systemic reaction against someone documenting a public space that seems so defensive- almost shameful. Keep the shutter clicking.
This gives me a reason to go
This gives me a reason to go down there and take a bunch of photos and post them to the internet for all to see. Every time this happens i think the response should be 10x as many people taking photos and posting them on the internet.
Cause and effect should eventually teach people. it might take a little while, but they will eventually learn.