
An FBI Counterterrorism Agent Tracked Me Down Because I Took a Picture of This - jonphillips06
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/fbi-counterterrorism-agent-tracked-me-down-because-i-took-picture
======
virtue3
I think his quote is absolutely spot on about how this stuff works:

"I lived through the McCarthy era, so I know how false accusations,
surveillance, and keeping files on innocent people can destroy their careers
and lives."

I'm actually rather amazed at the number of "so what?" comments I'm seeing
here. I thought we were all much more conscious of how these types of programs
start to spin out of control.

I've read about this happening to a guy that photographs underground missile
silo's/bunkers already. That was admittedly pretty soon after 9/11, however.

~~~
jonnybgood
> I thought we were all much more conscious of how these types of programs
> start to spin out of control.

The FBI followed up to get the story straight. The FBI didn't know what the
guy was doing or why he wasn't doing it, therefore they went to go find out.
_They sought out the truth._ So please enlighten me as to how this can "spin
out of control".

~~~
Centigonal
To get the story about what straight? The man was taking a picture of a
natural gas tank with some art on it. What about that elicits involvement from
the FBI?

Sure, you could argue the guards were concerned he (some 86 year old guy with
a camera) was part of a terrorist plot to blow up the natural gas tank. If you
draw the line for suspicious activity there, though, then that time I searched
Google Maps for local dairies should be equally concerning, since I could be
planning to poison the food supply (I'm not. I am, however, looking for a good
source of fresh milk for cheesemaking).

~~~
jonnybgood
> To get the story about what straight?

If the security guard suspicion was justified. The FBI found out that is
wasn't. Case closed. They did everything by the book. And are you telling me
that they shouldn't?

~~~
waterlesscloud
I'm telling you they shouldn't.

They should exercise some judgment, realize some bored-ass security guards
(think about how dull it must be to guard a site like that) made a report just
to feel important, and then toss it right in the trash can.

It was a guy taking pictures of a structure in public. No, the FBI should not
be tracking him down.

~~~
jonnybgood
So you want the FBI to risk establishing cognitive biases instead of going out
and finding the truth?

~~~
serf
Yes, except I want them to establish cognitive biases. Let's leave off that
'risk' part, as the risk is already inherent when you bark up wrong trees
throughout the investigation. (time loss is the result of the risk posed by
uncertain guesswork)

Let's get rid of that 'instead' you used, too. Sneaky! There's no reason for
'establish cognitive bias' and 'find the truth' to be exclusive from one
another, is there?

So here's the new cleaned up version I think I can get behind :

"I would like the FBI to establish cognitive biases as a tool towards the goal
of finding the truth."

Much better!

------
dm2
We don't know what the security guard told the FBI.

I'd be willing to bet that if a security guard bothers to report a 72 year old
with a high-quality camera for taking pictures of obvious artwork to the FBI
that the guard exaggerated the encounter.

I've heard of several of these FBI followups in the past ~10 years but the
person being interviewed always said nothing but positive things about how
professional and calm the FBI agents were. They didn't send a 30 person SWAT
team like the DEA would or multiple agents to your door with exposed guns
threatening you. Yes, I've personally seen multiple instances of the DEA
raiding homes while I was in college, good peoples lives were ruined because
"someone smelled marijuana at a party".

It's the FBI's job to follow up on these types of instances. They were heavily
criticized after 9/11 that they received tips but didn't properly follow up,
now they follow up and everyone complains that they shouldn't bother anyone.

Does anyone think the FBI would simply leave a card asking for a phone call if
they really believed that person was any real threat?

I'm just offering another possible perspective to the story that doesn't fit
the mainstream "all law enforcement are bad" group-think going around. Think
before jumping on the bandwagon guys.

The security guard who over-reacted is the issue here, not the FBI. Yes, the
Patriot Act needs to be revisited or even thrown out and the NSA needs to go
back to having very strict limitations on sharing with other agencies and
allied nations, but that's a different conversation.

~~~
uptown
"It's the FBI's job to follow up on these types of instances."

What kind of instances? Taking a photo? The author's exact point is that
society should recalibrate itself such that anybody photographing a public
piece of artwork shouldn't raise suspicions or trigger an FBI follow-up. It's
the physical equivalent to the NSA's "collect-it-all" mentality. Targeted
intelligence gathering is the appropriate approach in my opinion. And
sometimes that means accepting that a 72 year old photographing a made-to-be-
photographed statue isn't leading a sleeper cell.

~~~
nemothekid
Thats a tough issue, what if he was a threat. What harm is in the FBI just
following up? When a 6 year old calls 911 to chat with an officer, police
still follow up to make sure that it was just a 6 year old and not a distress
signal.

If the officers were polite what harm is there in them following up and making
sure?

~~~
pyre
It's a start down the 'report your neighbors for subversive ideas, comrade'
path. What disincentive is there for security guards to not just "report
everything, just in case?" How many people will decide not to photograph said
art-piece because they might get a visit from the FBI?

Is the answer to all this just some hand-wavy 'everything changed after 9/11?'

~~~
csandreasen
> What disincentive is there for security guards to not just "report
> everything, just in case?"

Perhaps too many false positives and you get canned for not being able to do
your job competently, then subsequently replaced by someone who can adequately
assess threats?

Reporting suspicious activity and subsequently investigating it isn't a waste
of time - analogously, if it were a waste of time we wouldn't keep security
logs on any of our computers. The issue is adequately assessing what is a
credible threat and what isn't, which the FBI is likely in a better position
to do than the average security guard. That's likely the reason he just
dropped off his business card instead of bringing along the SWAT team - based
on whatever was tipped to the agent, this guy was probably not an actual
threat.

~~~
pyre
Several problems here:

\- If there is such a "too many false-positives, you get canned" policy, I
feel like the threshold is probably set too high... just in case.

\- "Better safe than sorry, just report it because the FBI is in a better
position to determine X" isn't the bar that you want to use for reporting
things.

\- The bar for 'suspicious' could just be 'argued with me (security guard)
about my ability to prevent him (photographer) from photographing private
property from public property.' Or maybe 'he knew his rights' / 'argued about
his rights' / 'mentioned the ACLU.' Or just plain old 'he was Muslim and
photographing things, I better report him!' I think that these 'filters' are
not doing an adequate job of assessing threats, but probably fall well below
any thresholds that would get said security guard in trouble for too many
false-positives.

\- From the FBI side of things, you could equally have 'better safe than
sorry' group-think that says no one should be punished for making reports,
because we don't want someone to see something that could prevent the 'next
9/11' and then not report it for fear of getting in trouble for if being a
false-positive.

> Reporting suspicious activity and subsequently investigating it isn't a
> waste of time

The problem here is that everyone has different ideas on what is suspicious,
and they bring their own prejudices to the table. Law-and-order / authority
figures tend to view people that question them (and don't just fall in line)
as acting subversively, and therefore suspicious. Just arguing with a guard
about their inability to prevent you from photographing private property that
is in plain-view from public property (without trespassing) could be enough to
make you 'suspicious' just because most people are non-confrontational, and
unwilling to push back against what the security guard says. As the Japanese
saying goes, "The nail that sticks up its head, gets hammered."

------
gergles
The solution to this is really simple. Photography is never illegal. It
literally infuriates me every time I enter the midtown tunnel in NYC to see
the "PHOTOGRAPHY PROHIBITED" signs at the entrance[0]. No, it fucking isn't.

Don't put it in public if you don't want people taking pictures of it. We use
that argument for Street View, for aerial photographs, for countless other
things. There should never be reason to harass people for photography,
regardless of what Tom Clancy told you in his latest novel.

[0]:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@40.745975,-73.974759,3a,75y,86....](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.745975,-73.974759,3a,75y,86.12h,82.22t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKB5LP6iO_xE4GmfuKtUfmQ!2e0)

(The irony of being able to link to a publicly-accessible image of the
"STRICTLY ENFORCED" no photography sign is not lost on me.)

~~~
ThrustVectoring
>Photography is never illegal.

Photography in public is never illegal. Private or otherwise restricted-access
locations can ban photography on the premises.

~~~
estebank
The problem is that at least in the US there is a prevalence of "public
access" places that are technically "private property" and enforce bans on
photography as such, including public transport stations in some cities.

~~~
webmaven
And malls.

------
jrockway
The underlying issue probably requires a reformulation of the Constitution to
resolve.

The problem is that the police can investigate anyone for any reason.
Arresting them is harder, but not that hard. You have no redress for this;
investigations and arrests that don't lead to a conviction (or indictment) can
waste an infinite amount of your time. The Constitutional protections (however
weak these days) only prevent you from being punished without a trial. If no
charges are filed, you can effectively be punished without the Constitution
mattering.

I'm not sure what the solution is -- I'm not a lawyer or political scientist
or whatever -- but something seems not right.

(I've been investigated before; it really wasn't as bad as people say. I
thought the agents were extremely competent and professional, which is not
quite what you hear from the average Reddit commenter. Some things need to be
looked at in detail before being dropped on the floor; asking the person
suspected can be a good way to decide whether or not to continue the
investigation.

I think I've posted the details to HN before, but I'm not sure how to filter
that out from my many other comments :)

~~~
dm2
More transparency and punishment for abuse of power would go a long way.

Law enforcement releasing details about investigation statistics would do much
more good for the country than keeping it secret in effort to prevent
criminals from learning how to avoid law enforcement.

------
learc83
Do terrorists actually take pictures of potential targets? I know that's what
happens in the movies, but have there been documented accounts of terrorists
taking photos before an attack--is it common? If it is common, is the false
positive rate low enough to justify classifying this kind of photography as
suspicious behavior?

Pictures of most likely targets are readily available online, and they can get
those without exposing themselves to countersurveillance. Why would they stand
around taking pictures?

~~~
grugq
Yes they do. The competent ones will have surveillance teams that are
different from the operational teams. (A team can be a single person,
obviously).

Look for a copy of the "terrorist recognition manual", the 2nd ed. has leaked
in PDF, and the 3rd edition is on amazon. It goes into quite a lot of detail
regarding the terrorist attack cycle. Surveillance is a significant part of
planning a successful terrorist attack.

If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting
surveillance. It usually the best time to capture them, since they haven't
conducted an attack that kills anyone yet :)

~~~
jpmattia
> _If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting
> surveillance. It usually the best time to capture them, since they haven 't
> conducted an attack that kills anyone yet_

I have to ask: If they have not conducted an attack, how was it determined
that they were a terrorist?

Edit: A link to an example might be helpful.

~~~
seanflyon
Because they were recruited by an FBI agent posing as a terrorist recruiter.

~~~
thret
[http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-fbi-hatched-some-
crazy...](http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-fbi-hatched-some-crazy-terror-
plots-2013-3)

It is difficult to determine the efficacy of this strategy although of course
it results in successful terrorist arrests.

------
jqm
I wonder how my boss would feel if I spent a bunch of time on a ridiculous
task, say, maybe two days hand typing a list of project files in alphabetical
order with three space indention into a text file and then printing it out,
then spent a day reviewing it, and then ran 12 copies for everyone in the
office....just in case the project git got messed up at some point, so we
would know what our file names were. I wonder if explaining to him that "one
can never be to careful" would fly? Or would he consider this to be
unreasonable, wasteful, counterproductive and that I should be doing something
meaningful instead? Probably he would. Which would obviously mean that he
isn't a real patriot and that he hates America. Just as I suspected!

I don't know which is worse. The undue suspicion or the waste of time and
resources which are needed to fight actual crime.

I suspect we all do unnecessary things from time to time at work. Sounds like
law enforcement maybe does more this more than it's fair share however. I
guess this is what happens when you don't have a ship date.

------
ctdonath
I got interrogated by Federal Marshals for videotaping out a hotel lounge
window while bored in NYC.

~~~
gcb0
freedom.

------
wfunction
There's part of the story missing: how did he jump from "Have you been to
Boston?" to the security guards reporting him?

No reason not to believe him per se, but if he's trying to be persuasive he
needs to paint a fuller picture and explain what let him make the connection,
not suddenly jump to conclusions like that.

------
zachrose
Just as an aside: Corita Kent was a nun who got really into screen printing
and making beautiful Catholic pop art:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=corita+kent&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=corita+kent&tbm=isch)

------
bumbledraven
[http://photographyisnotacrime.com/](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/) is a
superb blog dealing with these issues.

------
liquidcool
It wasn't until after reading the article did it register that the event took
place less than 3 years after 9/11\. I think that's important context.

Don't get me wrong, I felt for the guy. It seems silly to investigate 76 year
old man photographing public art. Today I would have argued my rights to
photograph while on public property.

But back then, I distinctly remember calling the police when I saw someone
with an SLR and a humongous zoom lens taking photos of the Seal Beach Naval
Weapons Center. Better safe than sorry was my thinking.

That's very different from public art, but it was also public art on a _140 '
tall gas tank._ It's not unreasonable to view that as a terrorist target, esp.
2.5 years after 9/11, and in a major city (that fairly recently suffered a
terrorist attack). Again, just trying to provide some context.

------
wfunction
Not sure if I agree or disagree here, but if I was a security guard and saw
someone photographing a natural gas tank, the thought would at least cross my
mind that maybe he's planning to do something not so nice with that picture.
(If you don't get what I'm saying, it could very well have been that he was
taking a picture to figure out the best places to detonate bombs at.) It's a
valid cause for concern, and it's not like I'd go ahead and check Wikipedia on
the spot. And of course if I report it to the police, it's their _job_ to
follow up (but nicely). Maybe I shouldn't report it in the first place, but
then that's my fault, not law enforcement's.

~~~
DougWebb
If you were a security guard _for the largest piece of copyrighted art work in
the world_ , and you saw someone trying to take a picture of it, you'd think
he's maybe a terrorist?

Context is very important when making judgements.

~~~
wfunction
You think the guard knew it was the largest piece of copyrighted art work? You
think he even considered it artwork, and that's what he was paid to guard? I
think he probably thought of it as what it was: a large gas tank.

------
Aloha
We as a culture should be very afraid of our future if as a culture we treat
anything out of the ordinary as a potential threat. It will mean the end of a
creative vibrant society if this is left unchecked - we simply cannot walk
thru life as if there /may/ be a boogyman around every corner.

People need to be taught what reasonable risks are, and be better themselves
at making good choices - moreover, we should all learn or be taught the
difference between fear, and actual risk.

The problem here isn't the government, it's just the canary in the mine for a
far larger societal problem - the abject fear of anything and everything - in
short, this never should have been reported in the first place, much less
investigated.

------
vph
I don't get the overreaction. If some stranger is walking around the
neighborhood, doing something legal but suspicious or out-of-the-ordinary, a
cop should have the right to stop him and ask questions. Cops should have the
power to stop and ask questions when someone is doing something that is not
normally done. Sure, he has the right to do things that are legal. But at the
same time, cops should have the right to investigate. They weren't saying he
did anything illegal.

[I am assuming there is not racial or religious profiling going on].

~~~
ScottBurson
Photographing a famous public piece of artwork is "suspicious"? That's what a
lot of us are reacting to.

Yes, I know the painting is on a natural gas tank. They should still let
people photograph it; photographs can already be found on the Web, so the
horse is pretty much out of the barn, as they say.

~~~
vph
It's suspicious if it is not done frequently, and it is a sensitive location
(e.g. a huge gas tank). Cops aren't stopping you if you take pictures of the
Washington monument or the Statue of Liberty. But if something that doesn't
happen normally happens, it's natural the the cops want to look into it.

Sure, the picture of the painted gas tank might be on the web, but a guy with
a camera might be taking pictures of other sensitive things that are at the
location, not just the painted gas tank.

------
gordjw
Why is the article tagged "Anti-muslim bias"?

~~~
ejr
He has a Muslim background, I think, and he wasn't the only one to be part of
this complaint. Wired has a write up about this as well
[http://www.wired.com/2014/07/five-sue-gov-over-
targeting/](http://www.wired.com/2014/07/five-sue-gov-over-targeting/)

~~~
vacri
It's a pretty thin story of harassment. As far as I can tell, the security
guards erred in that they said he couldn't take photos from a public place.
From there, they took down his registration and submitted a report. The FBI
gets this report and talks to him to sort things out. There's no mention of
further contact after this.

It really doesn't matter how many companies he's been a senior VP of - and in
fact, it's kind've unsettling that this is prominent in these stories,
painting him as some sort of de facto nobility who should get treatment better
than an anonymous person. Guards fucked up, pinged him for taking a photo when
they shouldn't have. FBI checks the story out, and doesn't seem to have
progressed after that one contact, ten years ago.

'Suspicion' is just that. It's not harassment unless it's ongoing.

------
ejr
There's a great disconnect between actual security needs and the security
theatre demanded of those who must engage in guard duties. Those in charge
must view the empowerment of security guards to determine actual threats as
somehow inviting disaster when in fact, it may reduce the significant
bureaucracy and paperwork these "centralised evaluation" procedures may
impose.

~~~
llamataboot
I'm afraid to say that I'm worried that the more power you give guards to
determine threats, the more they will harass folks. There is a bit of a
ratcheting effect, no one will get in trouble for being too strict, but you're
likely to get in trouble if you miss something, but there's also the human
love of power in there. Give people power over a limited domain, and they just
love to wield it.

------
stef25
Reminds me of the time plane spotters ended up in jail in Greece for taking
pictures at an airport.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1697862.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1697862.stm)

------
dobbsbob
Old man, sign ze papers! They are merely a statement that you have not been
mistreated while you have been here.

------
obilgic
He hasn't told the reason behind the business card left at his front door...

~~~
ZoF
What do you mean?

He said that when he called the agent, he was asked if he had been to Boston
recently; you can therefore infer that the reason the card was left was so
that he would be able to contact said agent(an agent who was looking into him
due to the 'photography incident' in Boston)...

It's basically the entire point of the article; although I guess you're right,
that aspect is technically implied, not stated explicity. It's a clear
implication though in my opinion.

------
for_i_in_range
Not sure what's more perplexing. The FBI stalking an 86 year-old man or why
anyone considers that paint blob thing art.

------
phaus
Having a number to report suspicious activity is a great idea. There isn't a
single thing Orwellian or unpatriotic about it. Unfortunately too many people
don't really have any experience identifying suspicious behavior, so they end
up reporting all kinds of benign activity.

Its really just a sad case of human nature making a good idea impractical to
use in the real world.

In spite of the popular belief in this thread, terrorists do take photographs
of their targets quite frequently. Unfortunately, they look just like innocent
people taking photographs, so the practice of harassing everyone that takes a
photographs isn't going to catch us very many terrorists.

However, there are many different types of suspicious behavior, and some of
them will have a much lower false-positive rate than photography.

~~~
Zigurd
> In spite of the popular belief in this thread, _terrorists do take
> photographs of their targets quite frequently._

My bullshometer pegs every time assertions are made about what terrorists
frequently do. How does one acquire a visceral sense for terrorist picture-
taking habits? And I mean everyone, right up to the consultants selling snake
oil anti-terrorist training to companies renting out minwage security guards.
How does that happen?

~~~
phaus
Well, I wasn't in a terrorist cell, so maybe I was just in the military like
hundreds of thousands of other people are at any given moment.

------
csandreasen
So he gets into a minor argument with some security guards, guards call the
cops, cops leave their business card on his front door and when he calls them
he's asked if he's been to Boston recently... what am I supposed to be
outraged about?

~~~
virtue3
not cops. FBI.

~~~
csandreasen
The FBI are cops - federal instead of local. Still, what's your point? No
arrests, bullying, massive surveillance... They obviously didn't take think he
was a threat, or else he wouldn't have showed up and left his business card.
The agent was just following up on a routine report. Is it a violation of
civil liberties for a cop to ask questions?

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
"Is it a violation of civil liberties for a cop to ask questions?"

If it's questions about your life and the cop doesn't make it clear that you
can refuse to answer without any consequences, then yes, it very much is. Part
of civil liberties is that you don't have to explain to anyone how you live
your life unless there is some good reason to believe you did something
illegal.

