By Carlos Miller
A group of west coast photographers got together over the weekend to demonstrate strength in numbers against ignorant security guards.
First they gathered at the Port of Long Beach, which has proven to be unfriendly grounds for photographers, and were confronted by a civil but ignorant security guard who first told them it was “illegal” to take photos of the refinery.
Then when she was informed that it was not illegal, she said, “I don’t care about the law … I care about me doing my job working for that refinery.”
Then the photographers drove down to the U.S. Bank in downtown Los Angeles where they have also had problems before.
This time, however, they were greeted by a friendly security guard who handed them the following card.
Read more here.
Popularity: 1% [?]
27 responses so far ↓
1 Vidiot // Jun 8, 2009 at 10:52 PM
The “courtesy card” is actually a pretty good idea. Let’s hope the security company doesn’t see all photography as “suspicious”, and that the cops understand the law.
2 jones // Jun 8, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Carlos – Then when she was informed that it was not illegal, she said, “I don’t care about the law … I care about me doing my job working for that refinery.”
I watched the video and that is not what she said when he told her it wasn’t illegal. If your going to misreport things you shouldn’t post a video.
He asked her if they could talk about the law and she told him she doesn’t care about the law she cares about doing her job. Her job is to ask people not to take pictures, she asked them to stop, they refused and she left. Why do you have to twist it around to try to make it an issue, you lose credibility when you do that.
3 Carlos Miller // Jun 8, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Jones,
I condensed all that what you said into what was really said.
She said it was illegal to photograph the refineries.
He told her that it was not illegal to take photographs of the refinery. He asked her if she was aware of any laws that confirm her statement.
She said “I don’t care about the law”.
It’s as simple as that.
4 jones // Jun 8, 2009 at 11:25 PM
At 11 seconds he says it’s not illegal, at 1:01 she says I don’t care about the law. You make it sound like he tells her it’s not illegal and she immediately replies I don’t care.
Do you think that is reporting things accurately? You can’t see how your being biased?
5 Carlos Miller // Jun 8, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Jones,
I provide the video. I provide a short synopsis.
And I provide an open comments section to allow people to voice their own opinion.
There is no withholding of the truth here.
6 Duane Kerzic // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Jones,
Thanks for beating that horse for us. She still doesn’t care about the law and will continue lying about the law to others..
The courtesy card is kind of funny. Ok so report my taking photographs to local law enforcement at their request. Do I care? No. Heck have local law enforcement come out and check out that I’m taking photos. Do I care? No. This is just another milder form of intimidation.
7 mike // Jun 9, 2009 at 1:13 AM
I read your blog over breakfast most days and enjoy hearing about the first amendment issues that you write about. However, I think ‘jones’ really hit the nail on the head. You occasionally take quotes and events a little out of context or put them in a different light then they occurred in. Even though there is a legitimate wrongdoing by people in authority, it becomes somewhat obscured by how you report it. You are a good writer and always have something pertinent to say about important issues, please don’t let a bias detract from that.
8 Bud // Jun 9, 2009 at 7:43 AM
you lose credibility when you do that
He lost credibility long ago.
9 NYCPhotorights // Jun 9, 2009 at 8:10 AM
As far as I am concerned “just doing my job” is not an justification for lying about the law. If her job is to prevent photographers from exercising their rights to photograph from public property then she needs to be blinted* on the net. I have no sympathy for security guards who lie to photographers and/or try to stop them from engaging in legal activity.
*google “Simon Blint” and see what happened to his reputation after hassling a photographer.
10 Fired // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:32 AM
fired
11 xdamousex // Jun 9, 2009 at 11:01 AM
@Bud: Be gone, troll.
12 MacK // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Actually when she came out lying about it being illegal to take photos is when she confirmed she did not care about the law.
She did not need to say her beliefs they were evident by her lies.
13 jones // Jun 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Why does anybody even care if she doesn’t care about the law? She is a security guard, she is not sworn to uphold the law.
When her boss tells her to get rid of the people taking pictures do you want her to say no they are not breaking the law. She didn’t do anything wrong, stop trying to make something out of nothing. This isn’t newsworthy, not even for a blog.
14 NYCPhotorights // Jun 9, 2009 at 6:38 PM
@ jones
So does that mean I can tell people who park at the curb in front of my house that it is illegal and order them to move their cars even though they are legally parked?
15 jones // Jun 9, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Yes you can do that NYC. If you don’t want people parking there and you tell them it’s against the law and they believe you then more power to you. If they park there anyways I guess you just have to deal with it. By telling them they can’t park there you are not breaking any laws. Just like this security guard didn’t break any laws.
PS if you decide to do that I certainly won’t cry about it.
16 diomedesxx // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:56 PM
The point isn’t the lack of breaking laws, Jones. The point is being an honest human being. From what you’ve said, it’s pretty clear you think misleading people is A-OK, especially when it comes to the law. Which begs the question, why are you so worried about Carlos “misinterpreting” what happened. As you are probably aware Jones, everyone has a bias, and it tints the way you look at things – it’s called experience.
I think my view on the video leans a bit closer to what you had said, Jones, in that she was completely flustered and wasn’t engaging her brain before the words tumbled out. It may very well be that she doesn’t care about the law, but I can’t tell for sure, the video isn’t quite conclusive enough me to draw that conclusion. As I’ve said previously, others may – and probably will – draw a different conclusion based on their experiences.
That said, it is rather noteworthy that her security company didn’t hire someone with enough of a brain to politely inquire about what the photographers were doing and try to persuade them to leave. After all, doing your job is one thing (I have to do the same thing at work – any device with a camera is banned), but outright lying about it to serve your purpose is another entirely.
17 Kol. Klink // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Maybe jones is a method actor just trying to be as persistent, illogical, and misinformed as the guard.
18 ines // Jun 9, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Hi Carlos,
Sorry to get off subject here but it was so great to meet you tonight at the SMCSF meetup – refreshing to put a face to your stuff and look forward to a lot more. Your sense of humor is priceless!!
19 mike // Jun 10, 2009 at 5:17 AM
@diomedesxx
you don’t see any difference between bias in a security guard and a journalist?
20 Carlos Miller // Jun 10, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Ines,
It was nice meeting you too. Now whenever I think of Mojitos, I think of you.
Check out Edwin’s post on the event last night.
http://therealedwin.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/june-09-social-media-club-of-south-florida-smcsf/
21 Carlos Miller // Jun 10, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Ines,
And here is the Miami Herald’s take on it.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/poked/2009/06/local-social-media-club-talks-about-being-authentic-online.html
22 ines // Jun 10, 2009 at 3:03 PM
love what “poked” is doing bringing fresh ideas from the Miami blogosphere and SMC (btw, having people think of me when they think of a mojito is my goal)
23 diomedesxx // Jun 10, 2009 at 9:12 PM
@mike on #19
I’m rather confused on where you’re coming from; your question has an accusatory tone in it (that I “don’t see any difference between bias in a security guard and a journalist”) though I made no assertion that sounded even remotely to that effect (of course, reading and logic don’t work well under sever sleep deprivation, for that matter).
I did say that everyone has a bias, but I did not mean for that to sound like I think all are the same.
To answer your question though, it is quite unlikely.
24 RINZINGRAND // Aug 2, 2009 at 10:54 PM
THE REAL VILLAINS ARE NOT THE PIT-BULL GUARDS TRYING TO EARN MONEY ON A DESPARATELY NEEDED INCOME..BUT THE CORPORATE SLOTHS WHO PIT THEM AGAINST THE PUBLIC OVER SITES THAT ARE DESIGNATED BY HOMELAND SECURITY AS EXTRA SENSITIVE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS. THE LOSER IS ALWAYS THE GUARD…AND I DON’T MUCH CARE WHETHER THIS LADY IS A RACIST; BECAUSE THIS ABUSE ENCOMPASSES JUST AS MANY GUARDS WHO COULD DATE GLENDA-THE-GOOD-WITCH-OF-THE-SOUTH ALSO.OUTSOURCING PITS LOWER FACTIONS AGAINST EACH OTHER..AND AS A RESULT, NO ONE IS THE MORE SECURE FOR THE FEW BUCKS A CORPORATE CLIENT SAVES! IT IS GREED..PURE AND SIMPLE…AND THESE CORPORATIONS HAVE GOBBLED UP AMERICAN WORK ETHIC AND PRIDE UNTIL NOBODY CAN HAVE ANYTHING THAT IS PLEASING. THINK I’M WHISTLING DIXIE IN THE DARK…JUST WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT HALF OF THE YEAR FINDS 20-25 PERCENT UNEMPLOYMENT IN AMERICA..IT ISN’T GETTING BETTER. PLEASE STOP VICTIMIZING GUARDS AND AGREEING WITH MANAGEMENT THAT HANDS OUT LITTLE APOLOGY CARDS..THEY MAKE ME PUKE! WE ARE ALL BEING CAGED, ABUSED, GASLIGHTED, AND SANDBAGGED BY THE SECURITY GUARD COMPANIES, AND THE SNOOKERING CLIENTS. SECURITY AS A CONCEPT…NOWHERE TO BE FOUND!
25 RINZINGRAND // Aug 2, 2009 at 11:07 PM
I AM REMINDED OF THE CASE IN MIAMI SPRINGS, FLORIDA..AT A BANK BRANCH THAT HIRED AN OLD GUARD FOR ARMED DUTY. THE CLIENT RAN HIM CRAZY-ASS, PROBABLY INTIMIDATING HIM DAIL, ABOUT KEEPING A COUPLE OF PRIORITY SPACES FOR PARKING CLEAR. DON’T KNOW, BUT I MIGHT SURMISE THAT THESE WERE VIP SPACES FOR BANK MANAGEMENT STAFF. ANYWAY, A CHICKEN VENDOR PARKS IN ONE OF”THE SACRED SPACES”, AND THE GUARD TELLS THE VENDOR TO MOVE..THE VENDOR GIVES THE GUARD A DIATRIBE OF ABUSE, AND THE GUARD GOES OFF BALLISTIC AND SHOOTS THE VENDOR DEAD. NOT AS UNCOMMON AS ONE MIGHT THINK. PART OF THE BLAME IS GOING TO THE DUMB-ASS CLIENT WHO JACK-BALLS THE GUARDS’ JOB WITH THE VEILED THREAT OF JOB TERMINATION EVERY DAY..SUCH STRESS OVER A DAMNED INSIGNIFICANT PARKING SPACE! it does represent a sublime form of abuse..and if the guards are whittled-on like this day-in-and-day-out for so little pay and disrespected..WHAT-THE-HELL DO YOU EXPECT IS GOING TO BE THE REACTION OF AN ABUSED INDIVIDUAL.?I KNOW..JUST “ANOTHER CRAZY GUARD GONE BESERKO..EHH?!MAYBE YOU FOLKS OUGHT TO LOOK IN A MIRROR AND FIND THE UGLY TRUTH ONCE IN AWHILE! THE ECONOMY IS SCREWED UP BEYOND ALL REPAIR, AND THE COUNTRY’S MORAL VALUES ARE SINKING DOWN THE TOILET..BUT YOU DON’T CARE, DO YA? GONNA OUTSOURCE THOSE MORAL VALUES ALSO….?
26 Movie Soundtracks On CD // May 26, 2010 at 3:14 AM
A large number of for writing about this. There’s significant vastly tech info on the internet. You have received number that info the following on net. I’m impressed – I use a to at all times a couple experience somewhat present, but it’s a battle at times. You’ve done a solid occupation with this one. How do are required it?
27 Rusty Carr // May 26, 2010 at 10:16 AM
HO-CHEE-MAMA!!
Leave a Comment