I’ve had Bert Krages’, The Photographer’s Right for some time. I also have his book, Legal Handbook for Photographers which I purchased to gain insight into privacy and consent issues.

I also have the National Press Photographers Association memo on Photographers’ Rights To Take Pictures In Public Places prepared for the Association by attorneys Kurt Wimmer and John Blevins of the Washington office of the Covington & Burling.

I too have had my share of problems when returning from trips, but never with TSA. My problems have been with CBP, however, in the last year, I’ve not had a problem with them. Lately both TSA and CBP seem much more professional than in the past. I think they’ve worked hard to improve. Unfortunately, I believe the random confiscation program run by CBP has not been ended by the Obama administration to date, so I still take extensive precautions to not loose my photos and data, nor have private information revealed when I return from being out of the country.

I always have a backup of all photos, and use my laptop internationally, only as a dumb terminal. I never have email, personal or business data on my laptop, so if it’s randomly confiscated nothing is lost.

Thanks for your comment.

I agree that “signage, building design and physical barriers, i.e. fencing, bollards, etc., may also distinguish a public area from a restricted area.”

As it turns out I was accosted by the security person at the station while on the train platform. When threatened with arrest, there were more than 50 other people within 50 feet on the same platform. They weren’t taking photos. I was not threatened with arrest for trespass, only taking photos of rolling stock.

This security person was either exercising her ego, or didn’t know Amtrak policy on photography, or both. While on the same platform other Amtrak security earlier had ignored me.

Thanks again for your comment.

She lied. There is no federal law restricting photography of Amtrak trains

I would get her name, badge number (if she has one), and have her fired.
She has no buisness doing security at a petting zoo, let alone at Amtrak.
Frankly, as an American citizen, you had a duty to report her and complain.
This type of treatment (and outright lies) by security personnel should not, and cannot be tolerated. Outrageous doesn’t begin to cover it. I would ask you to follow-up with Amtrak, and post your response here. Disgusting.

It might help to, in the future when on photo assignments, to bookmark the page “The Photographer’s Rights” http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf , print out a copy, laminate it, and stick it in your camera bag. It is invaluable information as well as very good reading on its own.

Unfortunately for them (but fortunately for everyone else), terrorists in the United States are rather few and far between. So those people in uniform who have an understandable desire to Make A Difference in the War have focused their enforcement efforts on photographers. The ostensible justification is that terrorists will likely be reconnoitering their targets to help plan their attacks . So in their minds, it’s very useful to assume that anyone using a camera in their territory is a terrorist (specifically, those who use a “real” camera rather than a ubiquitous cellphone camera). It lets them feel like they’re doing something to fight the War, and lets them claim “success” at protecting their turf. Photographers also make good targets because they are an actual threat of sorts– they might document something embarrassing.

Police and security guards may be lying about “federal law.” But they may honestly believe that federal law gives them the authority to hassle photographers. After 9/11, John Ashcroft bullied Congress into passing an an “anti-terrorism” law aptly named the USA-PATRIOT Act with almost no debate. It’s a voluminous compendium of law enforcement wish lists, but it’s rather vague and mysterious. Although many people have heard of it, nobody (with the possible exception of John Ashcroft) knows what its 500-odd pages actually contain. So it’s entirely possible that police and security guards truly believe that the USA-PATRIOT Act bans photography of whatever they’re protecting. Since this law banned all sorts of terrorist activities and gave law enforcement agencies all sorts of powers to stop terrorism, there obviously must be something in there about photographers.

The fact that neither the USA-PATRIOT act nor the equally-voluminous “National Security Act” even mention photography doesn’t matter at all. It’s a very powerful tool for intimidating people who refuse to delete the “illegal” pictures, or who otherwise don’t immediately submit to their Authority. And even when policies explicitly permit photography (as with Amtrak), the “War” and the Fear mean that the security guards will continue to hassle photographers on the theory of “better safe than sorry.”

Other than insisting on training police and security guards about what the law actually is, and making photographers aware of their rights, there isn’t much we can do about people in uniform continuing to valiantly fight the War On Terror by protecting their territory from the threat of photographers. When you’re under threat of arrest, your rights, the law, or the truth don’t matter. Change will only happen when someone becomes the sacrificial test case that wins large damages after an egregious abuse and establishes a precedent that gets noticed.

… Signage, building design and physical barriers, i.e. fencing, bollards, etc., may also distinguish a public area from a restricted area. Earlier this month I traveled to Amtrak’s auto-train station at Sanford, Florida, … ……