By Carlos Miller
Jamie MacDonald describes himself as a “guy who loves life, and adores his wife and kids.” A cursory glance at his blog reveals that the Michigan man has a passion for snowboarding, science fiction and traveling.
Just your average American guy who stays out of trouble, right?
Well, he also has another, more controversial passion; a hobby that makes people suspect him of being a possible terrorist or maybe even a child molester. A hobby that might one day get him arrested.
That passion is photography.
Here is how MacDonald describes the first incident where he was deemed suspicious:
My buddy and I were headed out west to do some snowboarding and I decided to snap a few shots of the commuter jet we’d take during the first leg of our trip. A passing airport employee saw me shooting and proceeded to ask me what I thought I was doing. I knew what I was doing, but she then informed me that I was not allowed to photograph the planes and that I needed to immediately erase the pictures. Why? There are (nor was there) any TSA rules stating that. Did my camera secretly house a rocket launcher with which I was going to blow up the jet? No. So why the paranoia?
And here he describes his second incident.
Cut to yesterday ( August 17, 2008). I was grocery shopping with my family at the local Meijer. I decided to bring along my camera to snap photos of the kids, and of course of all the nice and neat little rows of products. We were at the end of our shopping and my sons spied the cake display case. So I snuck up and snapped a few pictures of them peering into the display case (priceless). The woman in the bakery saw me doing this and asked If there was a reason I was taking pictures. I replied that, “no, there isn’t one particular”. After this “encounter” I observed her walking to the back of her department and picking up the phone. Within 2 minutes the store manager was in my face asking me what I had my camera in the store for. I told her that I was a photographer, and that I always have my camera with me. She then demanded…yes…demanded that I tell her what I was taking pictures of. I told me that I was taking pictures of my children and some general still life shots of the aisles.
The reason I even posted MacDonald’s story’s is that he comes across on his blog like such a level-headed family man who truly enjoys life. He even strikes me as someone who would rather not rock the boat, unlike some of us who frequent this blog, myself included.
But he also strikes me as a very observant man.
In this new era of “eminent terrorist attacks” I have seen a shift in the acceptance of photography in the public eye. There are numerous stories floating around online about photographer being harassed in public locations for taking pictures. Some of these incidents are being called security concerns due to their location i.e. shipping ports, train stations , and airports. Others aren’t necessarily al Qaeda influenced, such as the photographer who was told he couldn’t photograph a duck pond in a public park because there were often children playing in the park, and he could be a potential pedophile for all the authorities knew
All I can say is, people are beginning to take notice of this “War on Photographers” that seems to have kicked in after 9/11.
.
Popularity: 10% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a
8 responses so far ↓
1 pdxSean // Aug 19, 2008 at 2:11 am
One of the great things about the internet is, people like this are getting their story told. And people are actually reading them. Maybe there will actually be some sort of change.
Activism is important, because it draws more eyes to the plight so many of us face. So thank you for sharing this story. Like MacDonald, I am agreeable and ready to cooperate, but everyone should have a place where the line is drawn.
The experiences of yourself and those you’ve shared here, they help me know how to react when a security guard tries to make me leave a sidewalk, or someone calls the cops on me for taking pictures in the park. It’s happened before, it’ll happen again, and the better educated I am the better I’ll be able to stand up for my rights.
So thanks for raising awareness!
2 Gary // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:07 am
While I agree to your basic premise I don’t think this is a great example. He was not in public places in these cases. While the airport is a debatable situation the store isn’t, it is someones business and for a lot of reasons I can see why they need to be on guard for photography in their store.
Not only are they responsible for the safety (or perceived safety) of their guests so if someone felt uncomfortable with someone shooting pictures in the store they have to deal with it. In addition grocery is a super competitive business, using a camera could possibly enable competitors to do their store surveys easier (I know a weak reason but still something they have to think about)
But like any business I think they have the right to control what happens in their store, if however he had been on the sidewalk in front of the store shooting his children I think his argument would be reasonable.
3 FerfeLaBat // Aug 20, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Have you seen this one?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407005,00.html
4 Carlos Miller // Aug 20, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Thanks, Ferfe.
5 torgeaux // Aug 21, 2008 at 10:51 am
Gary:
His argument isn’t that the store has no right to control him, but rather the store’s actions were an inappropriate way to deal with the situation. And he’s right. Sure, they could have told him they had to be sensitive to those issues, and had to check, but they can do so politely and professionally.
As for the airport, again, there COULD be a restriction on photographing planes, but there ISN’T. So, TSA again assumed the worst for no reason.
6 Gary // Aug 21, 2008 at 8:03 pm
torgeaux:
I completely understand actually, now having lived with someone who was in the habit of getting into arguments for 10 years I do know that there are 3 sides to each story. When reading the description of the store incident what I see is that a young clerk not knowing the policy after inquiring why he took the pictures called her manager to check on it. When he heard now in manager mode he came out to question what was going on.
He is adamant on demanded, but if I come up to you and ask what your shooting I might just be doing my job but you might construe it as demanding.
Also unknown is if the store has had run ins with observers from other stores, if that manager had dealt with stalkers on the job or in their personal life. Outside of asking what the pictures were of it seems she was polite and just asked that he refrain from doing it any further. On private property if the policy is no photographs and they ask you to comply after informing you I don’t think that is incredibly rude. Debating their policy is for another time and another venue usually.
My issue with putting too much stock in a story like this is that we have only about 1/4 of the full story.
From a bigger point I am a total believer he should be able to shoot pictures of his kids at the bakery, but life isn’t always simple so we have to adapt.
7 Tony Bessey // Sep 2, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I had my first negative experience with a passer by last weekend. It was really sobering. I wrote about it in this link: http://www.ordinarymaine.com/2008/08/8292008-maine-street-rotary-westbrook.html
8 Rob // Dec 15, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Well My story
I was on a photo shoot for a high school photography assignment, The Subject was Product photography,
So I head to my local supermarket bring my camera in and I go to the Store manager and ask for permission, he said “Yes”
I head back to the produce department keeping my lens back far enough to keep it form touching the food, and avoid getting in the way of the shoppers, the store was slow that day.
Turing around to spot my next subject I see a women talking to the produce manager pointing at me.
Since that is the only store I shop at, everyone knows me. So it was no big deal that I was there and taking pictures, most everyone got a big kick out of it. Both me talking pictures and the strange women.
Talking to the manager again I was told I can come in anytime and take photographs.
How interesting is it that photography is seen as a crime!!
I can not find any information suggesting that the 9\11 hijackers took pictures prior to 9/11, Oklahoma city bombing, or any of the other attacks.
How is it that there is a Camera on every city street corner UK and US, and in every building.
How Can taking a picture of an air plan can hlep anyone.
Go to your search bar and type in Boeing 747 or McDonald Douglass, you will find all the pictures you want. And don’t people think the terrorist know that?
All I can say is get a life people!!!
Leave a Comment