E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA photographer taking pictures of a BP refinery in Texas was detained by a BP security official, local police and a man who said he was from the Department of Homeland Security, according to ProPublica, a non-profit news organization in the U.S.
The photographer, Lance Rosenfield, said he was confronted by the officials shortly after arriving in Texas City, Texas, to work on a story that is part of an ongoing collaboration between PBS and ProPublica.
Rosenfield was released after officials looked through the pictures he had taken and took down his date of birth, Social Security number and other personal information, the photographer said. The information was turned over to the BP security guard who said this was standard procedure, ProPublica quoted Rosenfield as saying.
Rosenfield, a Texas-based freelance photographer, said he was followed by a BP employee after taking a picture on a public road near the refinery, and then cornered by two police cars at a gas station. The officials told Rosenfield they had the right to look at the pictures taken near the refinery and if he did not comply he would be "taken in," the photographer said according to ProPublica.
BP gave ProPublica the following statement after the incident:
"BP Security followed the industry practice that is required by federal law. The photographer was released with his photographs after those photos were viewed by a representative of the Joint Terrorism Task Force who determined that the photographer's actions did not pose a threat to public safety."
In response to BP, ProPublica's editor-in-chief Paul Steiger said:
"We certainly appreciate the need to secure the nation's refineries. But we're deeply troubled by BP's conduct here, especially when they knew we were working on deadline on critical stories about this very facility. And we see no reason why, if law enforcement needed to review the unpublished photographs, that should have included sharing them with a representative of a private company."
When msnbc.com contacted BP, spokeswoman Sheila Williams said there was nothing the firm wanted to add to its earlier comment.
ProPublica filed two recent reports about BP. One deals with the similartities between the 2005 explosion at the Texas City refinery and the blast at Deepwater Horizon, and another is about thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals that were release by the refinery earlier this year.
Leave a Comment:
What have they got to hide? Since BP decided to do alqaeda's work for them, Osama's disciples must be laughing all their way to wherever it is they want to go.
Nothing was hiden. The photographer was released and none of his pictures were suppressed. This is just another attempt by the media to demonize BP. They are no saints, but making a big deal out of people following standard procedure is yellow journalism. I seem to recall stories after 9/11 where the media lamented the lack of security around refineries. They complained how people could just go right up to them without any sign of security. Also note that Homeland Security was involved, which make the Obama Administration a party in this affair. What really bothers me is the fact that tax dollars fund this propaganda machine called PBS. They are nothing but a propaganda machine for the progressive movement in this country.
I see many comments about the collusion between large corporations and the federal government. How about the collusion of GE and the Obama administration as to what stories NBC and MSNBC cover. Morning phone conferences with Rahm ... Goebbels would be so proud. GE stands to make millions from Healthcare software and systems , and billions from the green energy scam. So... you people who complain about government/corporate coziness....take a look in your own yard, then tell us about who are the facists today.
First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico as spill cover-up goes Orwellian
Seeded on Sun Jul 4, 2010 10:27 AM EDT (Natural News)
(NaturalNews) As CNN is now reporting, the U.S. government has issued a new rule that would make it a felony crime for any journalist, reporter, blogger or photographer to approach any oil cleanup operation, equipment or vessel in the Gulf of Mexico.
I think this should be challenged in court. I'm all for questioning people taking pictures of potential terrorist targets, but this doesnt hold water when it comes to homeland security. Do you know the section of code where this could be found. I would assume it's been published in the FR or can be found in the Code of Federal regulations. I don't recall any mention of Congress passing anything like this. Perhaps its an executive order? It would be nice if news stories included the location of the rule in the register or CFR.
CatDaddy - I seem to remember that after 9/11 they also complained about , train stations, reservoirs, national monuments, power stations and many others. I guess we should detain citizens at these places as well.
You really want to go down this slippery slope?
To all the people trying to turn the Gulf Oil Disaster into a partisan political issue...Why? This isn't about politics, its about an oil / energy desperate nation cutting corners left and right in its pathetic qwest to cling to primitive 20th century fossil fuel technology...and making a costly mess in the process. For those of you who attempt to politisize this (current) disaster, your arguments are poorly reasoned, indefenable and childish...Please grow up or go back to school and educate yourself.
Additionally, why don't we put an end to corporate welfare. All these pathetic companies with their hands held out like pan-handling drunks downtown...how pathetic. How un-American and unpatriotic can you get. Corporate welfare = weak nation of beggars who can't compete in a global economy.
Or is it patriotic to support welfare corporations and thier white collar administrative criminals?
Catdaddy,
Many good points you make.
The media is always looking for someway to smear large corporations but never takes a look at the corruption within its own ranks.
After 911 we saw report after report about "Lax" security at refineries, post offices and public restrooms, now they complain that they can't get close enough to get info to produce their slanted news bites.
Thank God for the internet and alternative medias like talk radio and blogs!
PBS provides free broadcasting for Barney at taxpayers' expense while the producers of the show make millions selling DVD's and related Barney items.
Remember in November, Disarm Obama.
Actually, this is part of a pattern of events in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida right now. Anyone who looks like a photographer is being stopped and their pictures reviewed. This even includes tourists who are taking pictures of tar balls on the sand at Gulf Shores (I know a couple who were stopped and had their tar ball pictures deleted by the police.) The police are usually accompanied by BP representatives who appear to be calling the shots. Any pictures showing oil, tar, or dead or oil-soaked wildlife are being deleted. Many areas that are full of dead wildlife are being closed to the public by Louisiana Fish and Game people accompanied by BP people. NBC, ABC and CNN (and possibly others that I have not seen) have all broadcast videos of their photographers being harassed by police and fish & game personnel accompanied by BP personnel.
It appears that BP is telling the local police departments that any photographs of oil damage will hurt their local economy more than it will BP and the police are buying it. The question is why BP personnel are being allowed to accompany the police and give them orders.
The current theory is that by limiting the pictures of dead critters and oiled beaches and wetlands, that juries will not be shown huge numbers of such pictures. This will allow BP to portray the damage as isolated and infrequent, rather than widespread and frequent. This was something that Exxon did with Prince William Sound. Photographers were largely banned and very few pictures of the damage exist. Most of the PWS damage pictures are recent (Exxon just walked away from the cleanup, so it is still a "dead zone".)
DHS Works Hand in Hand with BP Security and Local Police
Respecting the Press and Public Access During the BP Oil Spill
First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico as spill cover-up goes Orwellian
Ah...just another person who thinks that police-state tactics are OK.
It would seem that BP's PR workers are on these message boards big time, trying to make BP the victim here to hide the fact that BP has a record of being a serial polluter all over the world, whose corner cutting and apparant lax safety and maintenance have caused the death etc of their own employees and destruction of the lives of others from the look and sound of things, like the refinery blasts, the spill in Alaska and now the gusher in the Gulf.
BP's record or cost cutting and corner cutting etc due to their greed, callousness and lack of regard for anyone except their bottom line and a healthy profit has been made known in a big way by the disaster in the Gulf.
BP is the aggressor and screwup, environmentally negligent, wildlife killing, marshland and wetland destroying probably for the next 100 years, unwilling or unable to contain the Gusher in the Gulf which is ruining/destroying the lives and livelihood of thousands if not millions of people in this country all because they probably thought they could get away with it, because there are some folks including state etc officials in the Gulf area, that sometimes act like that area is a third or fourth world country and not a State or States of a first world country.
For those of you are BP employees, BP talking heads, BP apollogists, BP PR people, BP paid regurgers, spinner, and spewers, it would not be in your best interest to blame the USA for your screwup/shoddy work, as you are a repeat offender from the look of things, and not only in the USA either.
Trying to make out that the fault lies with this countries leaders etc is not going to make you look innocent or more endearing to the citizens of this country or the world. Trying to muscle people out of the way by the use of force whether by your security guards or off duty cops, to try to do a cover up is not going to work in the long term imo.
The only people who can or have a right to criticize our leaders or our eccentric relations in the southern states are US ie the other citizens of the USA, because they are our relatives and fellow citizens. So trying to put the blame for the gusher in the Gulf and the mess that is there on our people alone, in an attempt to coverup your (BP et al) disasterous behaviour is not going to work.
BP et al kindly note, there are still many of us in this country who are not on your payroll, cannot be bought, and we love our country, oil free marshlands, wetlands, wildlife and beaches etc, eccentric relatives, neighbors even the gun toting ones, loquicious polititians and all....... just saying......
PS..... love... our polititians may be a bit strong....more like we are tolerant of them....sort of... in an odd way..... what the hay...they are ours and all that ..... just clearing what may be misunderstood.......LOL
Tim, I agree. Let's not only get rid of welfare corporations, but welfare citizens as well. What's the difference? If you can't be profitable and held responsible as a company, seems the same as not being able to be fiscally responsible as an individual. Spending more than you can afford, not planning on short-falls or emergencies, etc.
I'm all for cutting back all the social hand-out programs to bare minimum's. Basic unemployment, as long as you've paid for it already by having an actual job for awhile, and health/social services for the mentally handicapped and victimized children. The rest of the lazy louts can go get a job, stop drinking alcohol, smoking 3 packs a day and doing drugs.
1.1 - No. First Amendment protection - freedom of the press - the search and seizure was unlawful - no probable cause - what did the reporter do that was unlawful?
Are you a proponent of not adhering to Constitutional principles?
Wow. Taking pictures on a public road. Taking pictures of a private industry while off their property. And you get detained by goverment employees who then turn over copies of your work to that private industry.
This is no longer a free nation.
Just another bunch of glory hunters looking to grab a headline. No, it's not a free nation. If you think it is go anywhere near the President or make even a remote threat and you'll find out how free it is. Go to any rock concert or show of anytype and you'll get searched for contraband popcorn or a candy bar in your sock. HOMELAND SECURITY friend----how do we know this guy wasn't going to blow the refinery up? Protocol---you notify BP who you are and what you're doing and they'll probably tell you to fly a kite, but then how can they stop you? Look at 11, 12, 13, and 14, and maybe a whole lot more. SOP----standard operating procedure.
Oil refineries are big terrorist targets. Having worked security for a high-interest location, I can tell you that we routinely detained people who were taking pictures or just standing around near the area. For those who did take pictures, we reviewed what they had and often confiscated the pictures. If those pictures are shared or put on the internet, vital security information would be given into the hands of those who shouldn't have it.
This article is sensational because the public doesn't understand how our security forces work. There was nothing wrong or unusual about what happened here. Terrorism forces us to do what we would not normally do.
Just another flag waver that's never read the constitution or read a history book
Wow, Stan. You really know your stuff!
NOT!
Do you know why you might be searched at a rock concert? Not to confiscate the candy bar or popcorn you might have, but to see if you have illegal drugs, booze, recording equipment or maybe a weapon. It's against the law to record audio or video of any copyrighted material (the material at the concert almost certainly is copyrighted), then reuse that recording for any purpose and/or without the copyright holder's permission. And usually some form of compensation is requested in exchange for permission being granted.
Oh, and it's obvious that you didn't read the article, as it clearly states that British Petroleum had been informed that a news story was being prepared. In other words, British Petroleum knew of the story, and knew that a photographer would be taking pictures.
Well Brad, Stan, Disgruntled American man, I have a "history degree", I've read the constitution, and served our country as a marine w/an above top secret clearance- what you are talking about here is just intimidation. Of course Eisenhower warned about this in his outgoing address- and him a Republican AND a general. An even better source might be the two time winner of the Medal of Honor, marine Smedley Butler, who wrote "War is a Racket," a book which detailed the many wars he had been in, all at the behest of corporations. The point has already been raised: it is industry and government working against the private citizen- just as it is a foreign company taking a National Security resource out of our ground, and then selling it back to us.
This is not the country and freedoms that millions fought and died for from Bunker Hill to Iwo Jima.
No it is not a free nation. That term is and always has been subjective. When we see teenage (18) year od soldiers in our airports with machine guns strapped to their shoulders, and TSA attendants putting plastic gloves on for a thorough cavity search, we can understand how subjective it is. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Republican idiots that have turned this country into a paranoid nation are all probably share hoders of that great terrorist organization "BP". BP Has done more to harm earth than any other terrorist group on earth.
Someone at Propublica and PBS must have earwax. Some of the facilities have a detonator for clearing mine fields that could take out many, many city blocks not necessarily BP but possibly another oil company. Shouldn't we be cautious at all times. Look if we let our guard down again another 911 occasion is imminent. In my eyes the foolish ones are the photographer and those who had him out there unannounced to begin with and I think they know it and now to cover their majorly exposed behind they claim some incident of civil rights violation. Suppose the headline of this article was: "Intruder blows up BP facility investigation as to why he wasn't stopped and interrogated is ongoing". PBS get your head on straight.
Because it's private property. The property management can set the criteria for admission. By wishing to enter, you are consenting to the search. You may opt out of the search by not entering. Technically they could search for pretty much anything they wish to keep out.
WOW...standing in a public area with no expectation of privacy...but the corporations expect and get privacy courtesy of the powers-that-be. Wonder what would happen if I were standing in the same spot looking at the company property AND going to the bathroom at the same time? Could they charge me under the "Patriot Act"...sex offender laws and under EPA regs about discharge of possible contamination of a public area? Would I be able to pick the charges or would they allow me the courtesy of being charged on all of them?
Someone at Propublica or PBS or both must have an earwax problem. After all the concern nationally about the safety of our refineries this is done unannounced. How do you spell stupid: P.....B....S..... I think they owe the public an apology. Our refineries don't just have fuels but have some very potent and highly secure chemicals some of which are used for mine clearing which if not secured safely could destroy city blocks. Yes I think PBS and Propublica has to get their head on straight and doing the right thing would be apologizing to the nation and BP for their tasteless greed in following up what they feel to be newsworthy. You have to have sense in journalism not everyone admires the antics of a Lois Lane on Crack.
I can understand why he was stopped. I can understand why his pictures were reviewed to ensure that the photographer had not breeched the facility and taken pictures relating to security measures. I cannot understand why his private information including his social security number was shared with a private company or why the pictures were shared with BP after officials determined that the man was safe enough to release.
Placing those pics on the internet cannot create a security issue, as one commenter mentioned, because the pics were taken from a public road therefore are accessible to everyone anyway.
DAM and Tim C are correct. This has not been a free country since September 11, 2001.
Baaaaad idea.
They're working the BP angle here as nasty people and we also have posters declaring loss of freedoms. I understand the former and I won't debate.
But the latter? Understand this; In the Post 9-11 era, you DO NOT go to an oil refinery unannounced and start snapping pictures.
Personally, I will give up a freedom like this (which if the photographer had any common sense would have know this would happen) in order to ensure a Nation safer from terrorism.
Imagine the posts if the story read "Photographer Snaps Pictures of Refinery; Law Enforcement Sits Back and Does Nothing".
To be honest, this has never been a "free country". I recall a conversation I had with my dad over 40 years ago about the same thing. Laws are put in place to assure the security of everyone as a whole, even when they disconvenience some. Sometimes this makes it seem like a loss to our "freedom", but, as the saying goes, "Freedom isn't Free".
Try to look at it this way: if a string of refineries were blown up in six months by an outside group, wouldn't you be asking the question, "Why weren't they keeping a closer watch on what goes on around these refineries?"
Norm Barnes-1958755, I hope this is sarcasm.
Anybody arguing that the guard or police had the right to stop and search is full of it. The man was on a public road. No law broken there! He then took pictures of everything he could see. No law broken there either! Since no laws were broken it was a completely illegal search and they had no right to even stop him. If he wanted to put the pictures on the internet there would be no law to stop that either. A concert venue however is obviously not a public road. If they want to hide something on their private property from public view then they need to do exactly that. It's called a fence. If the government agrees and doesn't want the public to view it then close the damn road.
Sadly, this does not surprise me. 4 years go my husband, who is also a photographer, had stopped in Wyoming on a public road to take a picture of an oil refinery. It was cool, the colours in the sky were gorgeous, it caught his eye. As he had his equipment set up a cop pulled up and started questioning him and said that he thought my husband was a terrorist, why else would he be taking pictures. I read this article to him and we both found it all to familiar.
The key is "We [ProPublica] certainly appreciate the need to secure the nation's refineries. But we're deeply troubled by BP's conduct here, especially when they knew we were working on deadline on critical stories about this very facility. . . ." It certainly looks like somebody in BP -- regardless of how low-level but probably still following company protocol to be as secretive as possible -- called in outside forces when it could not stop the photographer on its own. BP obviously has not learned that candor and openness will do them more good in the long run than all its Nixon-style coverups. Those who do not study the effects of history are doomed to experience its mistakes over and over and over again.
So...what criteria are police supposed to use regarding who they question in the name of Homeland Security around refineries and other potential targets? They can't just question muslim looking photograhers...that would be racial profiling and we all know we can't have that! So, in the name of political correctness...everyone gets questioned.
Ben Franklin said it best
Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
— Benjamin Franklin
No one say's freedom is without risk, but if I were to choose beteen an illusory sense of security and freedom ,I will take freedom every time.
Disgruntaled American Man:
Please get over yourself. If I wanted to surreptitiously photograph your refinery you would never see me. I get a real hoot out of security people. They are security's worst enemy. Trashing one corner of one refinery would do nothing to terrorize. Anyone that might take an interest in refineries are more likely focused on immigration, workers safety issues. or environmental issues. Refineries have a lot to hide.
Gee, maybe the story is about the worst refinery explosion in recent times. There was also a lot of coziness between BP, the Bush/Cheney administration, and the right-wing activist Texas courts in this one. Here is a good starting place if you want to see why PBS might want to do a story on the BP Texas City Refinery at this time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Refinery_explosion
The Homeland Security thing is pretty bogus. After all, if Homeland Security was doing its usual job, they would have stolen everything out of the photographer's luggage.
You have to remember that it was a Nova show on PBS that exposed the cover-up of the most serious nuclear incident in the U.S. --- the Incident at Brown's Ferry. (That was a joint PBS/BBC series.)
BigEarlXXX-1958406
Wow. Taking pictures on a public road. Taking pictures of a private industry while off their property. And you get detained by goverment employees who then turn over copies of your work to that private industry.
This is no longer a free nation.
Your right BigEarl, it isn't a free country. Hasn't been for a long time. It's unchecked Capitalism. Whoever has the most money has the power.
We are screwed folks, you're either controlled by the government or your controlled by big business and the wealthy. Pick your poison
MIKE IN B-MORE, If I could get closer to you I would. According to you, I was going to record the James Taylor/Carole King concert that I just went to with the bottle of Pepsi that I had to throw out. OR try this, maybe they don't want you to bring your own refreshments into the place so they can sell you a $7.00 cup of beer and a $3.50 bottle of water? Betcha I'm right. Don't you remotely think that people can take all kinds of concert pictures with their cell phones and recorders are the same size. They would have to physically search your person to discover those things. Tell me what else you know??? Don't you think attorneys, celebrities, politicians, and judges go to these shows and if it was unconstitutional or illegal they'd be all over it? 2.10 told you the way it is. It's their venue. The pocketbooks get opened up, the diaper bags, and whatever OR you don't get in. Secondly, a police officer can stop you anywhere, anytime, IF he has probable cause. What's that? You crossed over a little bit. You're weaving a little bit, just want to tell you your tire's a little low on air. He can seize and take anything in plain wiew---no warrant needed. It's done thousands of times everyday. A police officer can detain you long enough to ascertain the facts. Y'all can fight it all you want to----it's just the way it is.
Not true. Viewable from a public road with your eyes is one thing, viewable through a zoom lens is completely different. With the camera it is possible to see things you couldn't otherwise make out from publicly accessible areas.
You also cannot people take close ups of people without permission. Even as a journalist/ reporter you can't do this unless the news story is specifically about them.
Mike- Anybody who stands in a grocery line knows that is just not true. There are certain instances where you could get sued for publishing a photo that suggests someone subscribes to a particular idea, product or service or a potentially embarrassing photo if a person is in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy such as a gym locker room. The laws vary from state to state but generally follow the above guidelines. Remember Arnie's paparazzi law that didn't quite work out? Zoom lens from public property into a celebrities private yard. Even then the photo has to be offensive to a reasonable person. Personal property doesn't have any rights. Your zoom lenses theory would seem to make it illegal to even point binoculars towards private property. It's called the First Amendment. Sure would love to see your code or case cite.
Also if I might add the police would need a court order to even look at the pictures because it is a civil not a criminal matter.
In some cases that is illegal. Stare through your neighbors windows with a pair of binoculars long enough and even from a public sidewalk you will be asked questions. Many places its also illegal to shine a flashlight into buildings windows. Also, certain places like military bases and power plants are off limits to photography, even from publicly viewable areas. I don't know if oil refineries are included.
The police need a court order to DEMAND to look at your photos. not to REQUEST. It appears in this case the photograoher willingly complied, they found nothing, and released him.
The courts have held that if you are in a public place, especially with celebs, you can expect that you might get your picture taken. IF you're in your back yard, and some guys up a tree 500 yards out with a Zoom lenses, that's a little bit different. Several days ago, my wife and I were hiking a well known trail at a well known lake. As we came around a bend, a photographer was set up with his camera on a tripod and 2 young ladies standing beside him. As we passed, he asked " You don't mind being in that video, do you"? I said "No sir, make me a star". On the way back, I told him I'd give him a profile if he wanted? That disturbed him some. I assumed that the clipboards the girls were holding were releases? We really don't know what it was for, who he was, etc. etc. We assumed it was for sometype of brochure? Who knows---I may become a hiker porn star??
Granted a peeping Tom is violating someone's right to privacy. Commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific areas when they deem it necessary to protect national security. The U.S. Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated nuclear facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are usually not designated as such. Here is the link to a lawyer specializing in photography. He has a PDF file that clearly out lines the law:
Click here
According to Rosenfield they did demand to see the pictures and also handed the camera over to the private security guard so he could view the unpublished photographs:
BIG EAR. You got that right. Not to many people seem to notice but we are running out of rights. Hope people wake up pretty soon or we won't have have any rights left. AND REMEMBER, Big Brother is watching you.
Is this the USA?
This is normal security for a high risk area
Not the slippery slope to communism
Talk about sensationalism this is a non story
A "non story"? Seriously? I can understand the police needing to see the photographs. THAT part makes sense. They want to make sure the man isn't some kind of crazed terrorist. That said however, there is NO reason they should be sharing those photographs with a private company!
When THAT happens then it's more like the police are working FOR that same company. ... Or perhaps you're working for that company too?
cop doesn't know what he's looking at.
company official does know what he's looking at.
'nuf said.
Dean if there were a "Sherrif of Nottingham" today, you would be one of his stooges. At least a lackey...'nuf said. I thought of that and already discounted it.
Rock
The fact that you chose to discount what is fact a true statement does not change the fact that it is true. The cops don'y know what they are looking at and BP does. Besides what difference does it make if BP sees photos that are being taken to include in a published article? They didn't take them away, the photgrapher still can use them.....
since when can someone on a public roadway not take photos. it could just as easily have been some child being inquisitive and interested in the structure. when do we have to stop taking pictures in our capitol when sight seeing, or maybe the grand canyon . what is next witth BIG BROTHER. sort of reminds me of the ols USSR.
Since the patriot act was passed to limit terrorist access to targets. If you don't like it then get politically active to work towards it's repeal. In the meantime it is the law and as such allows this type of review of pictures being taken of possible targets.
I just want to apologize to BP for the inconvenience of a free press. What a shakedown. No private corporation should have to endure this type of treatment.
This is the best post here
Agreed
Agreed, it seems that the oil industry is a national security issue, "it's all about the money baby", that's the biggest national security secret. Hope they dont question me for that
@Gregory P. Hooper , Alecto. Gentlemen, you do realize that gensmahaut was using satire, don't you?
"I just want to apologize to BP for the inconvenience of a free press. What a shakedown. No private corporation should have to endure this type of treatment." by gensmahaut
And quite well too. Particularly in light of the infamaous Appology by Republican Congressman Joe Barton.
While your at it apologize for all those articles which site negligence. Anybody can make a mistake. How are we to know that along with their belts they carried the knowledge to fly an airplane and had other cowardly incredible decimating ideas on their mind. Don't think for a minute that that photographer hadn't thought this might happen and just what he would do to cover his butt. Again how do you spell stupid P.........B..............S..........
Norm -
Are you one of those paid bloggers, or merely an incredibly stupid apologist?
whatever...
I think it should be spelled n.......o........r.......m .....b..........a........r.......n............e..........s
danwill
Tell me your slant on 911. Is it just one of those holocausts that couldn't be prevented? What does security mean to you? We have Escaped from Freedom in the not to distant past by our foolishness and naivette. If there are threats to domestic tranquility you take action to preserve it. Its the inconvenience of the few for the protection of the many. Incidentally is your press pass up to date. Check out the Ben Franklin quote in Wikipedia the key word omitted in its reference here is "Essential" -- Was it essential for him to get a photo of the BP plant to get his point across. Stupid is as stupid does -- Stupid.
Fear not the external forces you feel threaten our security but the internal forces that control our daily lives.
Yeah, that is pretty messed up. What could he have possibly taken a picture of, from his vantage point on the public road, that would have come into question? I mean, why would they need to look at his pictures or even have any right whatsoever to see them?
Unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a corporation is an individual and that conveys the rights accorded a person. Recall the Citizens United ruling earlier this year in which the court ruled that corporations and union can contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns.
This country is dangerously close to facism and our own court is facilitating the slide in that direction.
For the first time in my life I've considered moving to another country; one where people want to live in community rather than, I've got mine, you're on your own.
Pat Tibbs undoubtedly you considered moving to another country that was still protected by the USA???
BTW, BP SUCKS BIGTIME
Australia isn't protected by the U.S. & it's a great place esp. for personal freedoms.
they don't have a "free" press do they/ must not all articles be approved before publishing
Australia isn't protected by the U.S. & it's a great place esp. for personal freedoms
Better read up a little more on Australia. I know people that live there who would strongly disagree with that. It's a beautiful place with some very nice people but it's not the haven of personal freedom that you say it is.
paperburn & BigG-n-TN:
Sorry guys, but you are ALL wet on this one.
I too, know people living there, like my FAMILY. Both sides-Mum & Dad's. In point of fact, my cousin is a Federal Judge in Queensland. And no, they don't have to "clear" what they write with some entity. Ever been there? Try it; you might like it. At least you won't go bankrupt getting essential health care. We plan on going back in a couple of yrs.
So, Big G., what are the complaints you are hearing from "people who live there?" Keep in mind we don't have the freedoms we once had. This article is one of them.
Need I say anything? You kind of said it yourself.
bigG
sounds like you have been getting north korean style propaganda that always claims "it's so much worse in other places"
The photographs, after being reviewed by government security officials, should NOT have been given access to ANYONE at BP. The reason for the security is apparent in today's world. The need for BP to look at those photos or to have access to them is wrong.
The reason BP was shown the photos was because they were pictures of their site and while the police and Homeland Security would not know what would be sensitive, BP would know. BP does need to take a "CHILL PILL" because there are going to be lots of pictures taken of their installations in the future. They are not so fortunate in this country as in Britain to have the right to their privacy. They are the foriegn company in this case and have only limited rights in this country and the rights they have in Britain do not "Trump" the freedoms we have in this country.
If they don't like that they can take their marbles and go home. I will get my Black and Decker drill and go down there and drill a well for the oil this country needs. We need to start getting back to doing our own work and making the things we need and use in this country anyway. We are at the point now where about the only thing we still make in this country is babies and we are so broke from paying other foriegn companies and countries to do our work for us that we can't afford to even educate the dam babies we make.
I one can see something "sesensitive" from the road, then it's NOT sesensitive. Put up a fence! Duh!
Not everything sensitive can be hidden from view. It's not like some guy was snapping low res pics with a cellphone camera. Sensitive information could be anything from alarm/ security equipment, security camera's to the security guards themselves.
Oh Mike. Now I understand-kinda like my sister in Brisbane, Australia mowing her grass picture from Google Earth.
This is an oil refinery NOT a top secret military/government installation. BTW, want to give ME your birth date AND S.S. #? I thought not.
It is more than apparent, after determining who the photographer was, that he AND his photos were not a threat BEFORE the photos were given to BP. If BP doesn't wish to have their sites photographed I would suggest to them that they really should clean their act up and basically, quit killing their workers; endangering the Gulf of Mexico and possibly the entire Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. with their horrific, corporate decision making policies. At that point I wouldn't think anyone would want to photograph their sites. The world's eyes are on the oil giant. They brought this scrutiny on themselves.
THe USA is simply another USSR when good citizens stand by and do nothing.
Corporate control. BP Security detaining someone that was apprehended on public property?? Yea something wrong with this picture!!!
I agree that it looks like we are losing more and more of our freedoms. Thank the Patriot act for what's going on today in regard to the apparent heavy handed policies being enforced by your government and strategic businesses. And of course thank Osama Bin Laden and his buddies. As citizens we must remain vigilant about our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms so that our "protectors" aren't allowed the power to coerce the citizens of this country.
The freedoms and rights were loosing every day started long before Obama was even born. Wan't to blame someone try the Extreme Right (Religious Right) And the Right Wing of our own Government that caters to the Right Wing Extremists.
BP and all involved should be criminally prosecuted. Some ask for the corporations to be given free rein to operate at will and this is what we get. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!
There's a comment after my own heart! With the Billions of dollars these corporations are worth and the Legions of Corporate Lawyers on the payroll, the thought of "Criminal Prosecution" is well beyond any possibility in their minds. They do not fear a Criminal Prosecution, on the contrary, they feel insulated from prosecution.........They very well should be prosecuted and it should start at the very top. If our government had any balls our Justice Department would be gathering evidence as we speak. The specials I've seen already, indicate criminal malfeasance. Oil rig workers who were on that platform that night and the wives of the missing 11 good men, have spoken out about their loved one's fears recently. Blood for money, basically. If the Big Shots start going to jail for this crap it will send a message to the rest of the industry. "Your free wheeling days are over." Do it right. Obey the laws, and Safety First, not last. BP did a Hell of a Job making themselves look just like the incompetent Idiots they are........."Book 'em Danno!"
The $ controls all.
Therefore, the Prople must have and use guns to curtail.
There is no other solution.
Back to the Wild Wild West.
Indubitably !!!
If you study history you will understand why Teddy Roosevelt fought so hard to bust the trusts and limit corporate power. He feared that a trust of corporations would amass more wealth than the Federal Gov. and would have more power than the Feds. And the pure fact of life is that money equals power. Always has, always will.
If you study history you will understand why Teddy Roosevelt fought so hard to bust the trusts and limit corporate power. He feared that a trust of corporations would amass more wealth than the Federal Gov. and would have more power than the Feds. And the pure fact of life is that money equals power. Always has, always will.
it won't be that easy to wipe off the changes of Bush era
This is actually common practice at all oil and gas producing plants. It would have happened at any other plant also. It just happened to be BP. This is for the protection of the plant. The security forces are just making sure the plant wasn't being reconned for possible attack. There are several stories of this happening previously that I personnally know of at a couple different plants south of New Orleans. This is just getting attention because it is BP. It is not censurship in any way. Just security doing their jobs.
Cort.....I am glad someone, like you has a clear head on his shoulders....I agree with you 100%, it could of been a recon mission.....if security hadn't done their job, and something happened, then the rest of these do gooders, would of been crying, 'where's the security"?........
I'm glad to see some one with the common sense to see the reality behind the BP security, local police and Homeland Security DOING THEIR JOBS ! Yes AMERICA, we've enjoyed the luxury of our Freedoms for generations. Pearl Harbor and 911 were wake up calls, but for many, they are history and to increase security to protect us from further attacks and loss of innocent lives, is only infringing on our freedoms. In today's world those freedoms include the freedom to bomb and maim, the freedom to take over aircraft and crash them and passengers in to buildings. The freedom to disperse poisonous chemicals in subways and public places. Then there is the freedom to launch jihad in the US because your religion dictates it is for your god and your religious beliefs are guaranteed by our US Constitution........
If you have a problem understanding what freedom is and means, take a trip to visit the thousands of American military graves spread across Europe, or the thousands of military graves at Arlington or any of the state veterans cemetaries. As you look over any of those sacred grounds, call out to those spirits and ask them, WHY ARE YOU HERE? If you don't get a response, don't ask why........
God Bless America, In God We Trust..............don't ever question those words, don't ever strike them from our currency or from our public buildings..........people died for them.
Viet Vet....... RIGHT ON......
"God Bless America, In God We Trust..............don't ever question those words, don't ever strike them from our currency or from our public buildings..........people died for them"
Uh, when people DIE for God, it is called JIHAD. Just saying, you have turned into your enemy.
That crap should NEVER have been put on our money, or in our pledge. God is NOT what this country is about.
You guys are hilarious. You go and turn this into some kind of twisted "I'm more patriotic than you are!" argument. It's absurd.
If you actually READ the article you will see that the photographer and the people he worked for had NO problem showing the POLICE the photos. What's in question here is the right of PRIVATE COMPANIES to stop people on PUBLIC LAND and search them. Civil police I COMPLETELY respect, a bunch of overblown Rent A Cops? No.
Your whole "good men died for our freedoms" argument does NOT apply here. As a matter of fact, I believe that those same men you speak of would feel sorrow for the fact that you obviously DON'T GET IT. When a private company has the right to do search and detainment of people on PUBLIC LAND then we are LOSING the very freedoms they fought and died for.
Get a clue.
Viet Vet (#11.2) -
There are no words so sacrosanct that they are above being questioned. IMO, the right to question is what legitimate military casualties died for. The rest is hogwash in which egomaniacal old men suck on cigars and send countless people to their deaths.
God doesn't live in America, and lots of people have died for empty slogans. Ten-to-one no soldier ever died thinking about God-and-Country. No doubt they die wanting their momma or wife or their children.
Censorship can only be attributed to government, not a private company, and the government (police) clearly have a right to protect such installations. A private company (BP in this case), however, has no right to monitor, edit, or prohibit, the activities of the press. Permitting corporations such access & control is not healthy and should be stopped. If BP is concerned about what photographers can see through their fences they should pay someone to shoot photos from the same location and review their own photographs.
People are rightly concerned that our country is slipping toward facism. The corporation has been granted inordinate powers/rights (think Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court ruling)
Viet Vet-1958485 & Joseph-1958465
"A mind once expanded never regains its former dimensions." Einstein I recall
LOOSE CHANGE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598#
ZEITGEIST MOVIE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197#
My work is done here.
So let me get this straight: A private business can have someone "detained" for snapping pictures of it on a PUBLIC ROAD even when it is a properly credentialized journalist & can back that position up?
you have much to learn and I would suggest starting with the patriot act 1 and 2 et al.
ooooh and then there are aspects of the .gov with NO oversight who do what they want the world over made possible mainly with $ earned via the massive drug trade.
2001 AFGHAN heroin production (pre U.S. invasion) = 200 metric tons
2009 AFGHAN heroin production (after 8 years of U.S. occupation) = 6900 metric tons valued at approx. 600 - 1 trillion dollars of which the farmer, processor and runner may receive 1-2%.
Who you think makes that $ and what do you think they do with it? :D
First of all, private security have every right to 'ask' someone to stop as much as you have the right to 'ask' anyone to stop. But, no, they cannot 'require' anyone to stop, when off their property. That said though, you need to re-read the article. The guard FOLLOWED the man, who was stopped by POLICE.
You wouldn't necessarily know someone is a journalist until detained. BP may have know that a photographer would be there, that doesn't necessarily mean that the guard was informed or that the photographer made any indication as to who he was. He was a free lance photographer so I'm sure he wasn't running around in a marked newsvan.
I used to go into refineries as a vender and YES MOST DEFINATELY security is high even in the 80's. These are dangerous areas. Photography was alway denied as a precaution to prevent terrorist threats, and work design. Refineries are nothing to take lightly. Oh yes if you have a camera within view of any public road shooting at a refinery you were always investigate. I grew up in refinery area and I worked in a business that supplied photo equiptment. I was background checked to be able to go into refineries and had top clearance.
It's apparent that you didn't read the article, and/or are letting your TEA BAG propaganda blind you to the facts of the situation.
Ok, I can see photography being denied "on the premises", but nobody, not a private company, or even the police can legally stop someone from taking pictures from PUBLIC property. BP security had no authority to detain anyone outside of their property, and the policy erred in not immediately releasing the photographer. If BP has something they don't want photographed, don't make it observable from public property.
RJMc: You obviously have never actually seen a refinery. There are lots of things that are impossible to make unobservable.
Norma is totally correct. I cannot believe everyone thinks it is ok to steal somebody's designs that they worked so hard for. Chemical Engineers were hired by a client (ExxonMobil, Shell, Aramco, Koch, Valero, CITGO, in this case BP) to design a refinery to do X with Y and make it under Z amount of dollars. The clients of these chemical engineer consultants paid out their noses for those designs. It's not like building a house or a building. The designs were specific and could be a better design than the competitor down the road. The designs are called INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Their are actually lawyers who specialize in this type of law.
This is what I emailed to Mr. Rosenfield:
I saw the segment on your story with BP's Texas City refinery and their plant security personnel and wanted to share with you some facts regarding to why you were pursued.
Before I go into that I will reveal my experience with refineries. I am (a) recent chemical engineer graduate, worked as an intern at a very large refinery, worked as a turnaround craft professional in several refineries for over 5 years.
From what my professors and bosses have told me is that nobody is allowed to take pictures of the refinery unless it is approved by the plant manager. This is rarely granted and if photographs are granted they must first be approved by a plant manager prior to publication. This rule is enforced in any refinery, petrochemical, or chemical plant. The reason behind this is because the machinery and equipment was designed by an engineer and is intellectual property. If plant personnel witness somebody taking pictures of the refinery without consent, they consider that breaking the law and stealing intellectual property of the engineer who designed it. I am unsure of what extent the penalties are but from what I understand they are usually hefty fines. Even people who work there cannot take pictures of the refinery without consent. No camera phones are allowed on the premises either.
About the security being irate and unprofessional, I have no explanation. I would understand your frustration with that. If in the future you are hired to take photographs of a refinery (or chemical plant) be sure to ask the plant manager before doing so. By the way, I know of several refineries and petrochemical plants will grant a tour if you choose to. Tours will be granted ahead of time by asking plant personnel.
I hope this clears everything up with your situation at BP's refinery. I am NOT an advocate of BP or have ever worked with BP or any of its affiliates. I just do not like any journalist who make assumptions and portray them as truth to the public on national television.
The distinction in this case is public versus private property. The plant manager or any other person associated with the private property may set any kind of policy they desire in regards to photography ON THEIR premises. However, the photographer was on public property, and in his case, the 1st amendment right of freedom of expression is in full play since the facility is neither a military base or a nuclear plant; specifically a photographer (amateur, professional, journalist, etc...) may take any photograph of anything they please from a public place (with the exceptions of military bases and nuclear plants). Period. How they then use the photograph, well a little more complicated. /[rant]
Now, what would everyone have been saying if this refinery was attacked by terrorists, and the story came out that someone was taking photographs and was NOT asked questions??
I think there is a double standard here for corporations and police.
It's apparent that you didn't read the article, and/or are letting your TEA BAG propaganda blind you to the facts of the situation.
There are laws that allow authorities the right to check if someone might be preparing an attack on a vital facility whether it be an oil refinery, nuclear power plant or other facility. It could just as easily been a terrorist.
Authorities, yes. Properly constituted civil authorities that can be controlled by the government.
BP, though, is a private concern, and thus is NOT controlled by the government.
It's apparent that you didn't read the article, and/or are letting your TEA BAG propaganda blind you to the facts of the situation.
Yes Mike yet it is also painfully apparent that the government is bought and paid for by corporations and that neither are concerned with the best interests of the people.
I see far beyond red and blue and I hope you can as well.
Your post #12.12: "................You have much to learn." Here? From you? And your credentials are?
"VERITAS ODIUM PARIT."
VERY Interesting article. Make sure you follow th elink " similarities between the 2005 explosion at the Texas City refinery and the blast at Deepwater Horizon". No wonder the other oil companies are steering clear of any association with BP. It is becoming more and more obvious that the entire industry - including the much derided Haliburton - was very much aware of BP's shoddy practices and safety problems.
We've heard from the employees, some of the managers, even their gas stations - and they all have one resounding common complaint that BP is all about profit above all else. Telling - or even implying - employees to 'shut their mouth' to safety concerns is a slam dunk indictment of their complete disregard for employees and contractors.
Add to this the recent action by the EPA to void the Texas issued "flexible pollution permits" to numerous companies in Texas - and it is clear that BP better prepare itself for a smackdown. Texas Gov Rick Perry tried his best to insult the EPA and protect the companies - all the while knowing the companies all had histories of major violations. I suppose it is moot point to note that Perry receives substantial political donations from same!
When the gulf leak first started - I, too, thought 'hey - accidents happen'. But since then, and in light of the numerous independent reports of sub-standard equipment and procedures - I think BP better close it's doors on American operations and get on back across the pond.
Â
I am able to imagine that little to any of it is accidental.
I mean, you are suggesting it was an accident based upon practices that are a direct result of greed yet what I am suggesting is that MOST "accidents" are not the accident of the type you are suggesting but a more nefarious type.
We have only two choices = Let it happen & Made it happen
I side with MADE IT HAPPEN yet I agree that those who come to this understanding/belief will also have to grapple with the WHY.
Once you begin to wonder truly WHY... why would they do such a thing? ... well... that is sometimes referred to as the ABYSS and it is said that those who stare into the ABYSS often times never return, return to what many refer to as "normal" anyways :D
LOOSE CHANGE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598#
ZEITGEIST MOVIE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197#
Why is a privateering... er opps... private company entitled to anyone's SS# unless they are seeking employment? Police may be one thing but BP insecurity... er opps... security? Never!
Had the police arrested the BP guard, they would not be a party to the forthcoming suit. The unwarranted arrest, search, and seizure should be worth $10,000 from the municipality and at least that much more from BP. That's the only way to stop the egothugs.
Why in the hell should the scumbag media reps have free access to everything? Do you think no photographs are taken when ragheads are planning attacks? What a bunch of fools we are!
What a vile statement I bet you kicked puppies in your youth, didn't you? you're the fool - not I.
I believe the issue is the photo's were shown to BP as well as Homeland Security and BP knew of the story. I'm not thrilled with the photog being detained by the police, but I see the point of it. The point of releasing the pics to BP, I don't know. They should have had to wait until the story broke.
No one is saying the media should have access to everything. However, when you give a corporation that kind of control over a citizen on PUBLIC LAND it's a dangerous step.
Do any of you honestly believe that this corporation, or any other for that matter, actually cares about you? They only care about their bottom line and making their investors happy.
The police were totally right in doing their job... however, there is NO reason for BP to have seen the photos. Once the police or Homeland Security decide that the pictures are safe or unsafe to be seen by the general public, that should be it. Our public law enforcement officers shouldn't be turning a citizens photos over to a corporation like they're working for that company.
As for the BP security, their job should have ended at the phone call to 911 informing the real policemen that there was a security risk there.
Florida: The reason? I think it is the 1st. Ammendent to our Constitution-at least on public property. Can't B/P afford a fence?
Try to build a fence that will prevent photos from being taken of any building..... you will never get zoning approval from any city for something like that.....
Get real folks... this is not the issue it is being made into...
So, Mas, you're saying that zoning approval takes precedence over Homeland Security? Somehow I doubt that. I'm guessing practicality plays a bigger role here as far as fence construction goes -- even our military makes use of chain-link and razor wire around parts of their bases. And it's probably difficult to build a fence so high that it blocks the view of refinery towers in this case. Makes me wonder if the perimeter of the facility allows visibility from the road (and vice-versa) for a reason.
The only reason this isn't a bigger issue is because they let the photog go.
Cort-1958434,
"SECURITY" does NOT include commandeering someone on a public road by the corporate GESTAPO. The police, the HOMELAND security SCHMUCK, and the BP dork should ALL be arrested. If I am on a public road I can take a picture. Simple. If they want to block their property from picture takers, then block it, but do not think your right to privacy comes at restricting my public actions, no matter the "RATIONALE." home land security needs to be disbanded, the (unconstitutional) Patriot act needs to be repealed. Â HOW the hell can they determine whether the pictures are useful or not towards an "Act of terrorism." What a TOTALLY LAME-ASS, BUSH ERA, excuse. How do they know, not-know, what OTHER pictures the person may have that complement and create the vista the "terrorist" needs.
And Cort, corporate "Security forces" jurisdiction ends at the gate. No more, no less.
Only the Supreme Court has the right in america to declare a law unconstitutional. Until they do the patriot act is the law, and the right to do all the things you think you can do are limited by the law. Like it or not... I hated the 55 MPH speed limit, and loved when it was changed... but for a while it was the law.....
Also corporate security is not limited to property owned by a company, but to the security of the company....
If they had broken a law they would have been arrested. They followed procedure and the photos were reviewed. No one was hurt, no one was arrested, no harm no foul...
Alecto: I agree with you; unfortunately, B.O., very quietly, "re-signed" the Patriot Act into continuation when it was due to expire.
"Also corporate security is not limited to property owned by a company, but to the security of the company"
Yes it's concerns do - however they have no power in law, unless it is created by a legislative act. (for instance the right to detain people suspected of shoplifting). BP has no extra-legal rights.
I'm with the folks that say "I can understand a Homeland Security aspect", but I am always suspicous of large corporations and government in collusion; it's almost always a recipe for abuse.
Should we note that MMS, the agency in charge of offshore drilling, was waaaay too cozy with all the operators, and basically rubber-stamped permits? Ya know - big companies and big government have a common agenda - they just wanna 'get on with business' - and anyone who gets in the way of that can plan on getting disparaged and then mowed down if possible.
I like the Chinese idea (amazingly for me) of executing officials and business people found severely lacking in the concept of public policy. Boom - one to the head, sets a great example. Tell me that most of you can't think of a few deserving Americans... (I vote for Benrie). We seem to focus our wrath on those who harm a few with acts of violence (who usually can't afford a good defense), rather than looking at the big picture.
My two cents on a Grand Day to speak your mind.
Happy 4th!
Since none of us were there, I'm not going to debate with anyone about the rightness or wrongness of any of the actions mentioned in the article. I'd simply like to present another theory as to how/why the situation might have occurred.
You say that 'corporate "Security forces" jurisdiction ends at the gate .' Isn't it also possible that...
1. The security guard was ignorant of the fact that a photographer would be in the area taking pictures for a news article.
2. The security guard saw the photographer and questioned his motives.
3. The security guard followed the photographer and reported his actions to the local authorities out of concern for his own safety and the safety of his fellow BP employees.
If I were a BP employee right now, why would I be nervous about people taking pictures of the facility where I work? After all, people aren't spouting off hateful and vicious things about how BP is handling the oil spill. And there certainly aren't people out there crazy enough to blow up a facility because of their beliefs. True?
Most of you must forget 9-11 ! Since then ANYONE taking pics of ANY refinery or other sensitive installation will be investigated. It's hapened before. It's also a federal law. All the photog had to do was follow the rules and ask permission but now we wouldn't know his or the publication's name now would we. Most of you are being manipulated by the media. Use your heads. Do some research before commenting so you won't look so STUPID !!
Ring, I've not forgotten 9-11. The article stated that BP was aware of the story, it’s not clearly stated in this article, but I’d bet they were asked permission to take pics and denied it. As an avid amateur photog myself, I’m aware of the law regarding sensitive areas and the rules of staying on public areas while taking a pic. But seriously, I don’t think terrorist are stupid enough to take pics like that. If they were, the 9-11 attack would have been found out prior to its occurance.
Personally, while I’m not thrilled with the photog being detained by authorities, at least they had a valid reason – even if they were misled by BP (as BP knew of the story). However, I can’t see any validity in giving those same pics over to BP.
"But seriously, I don’t think terrorist are stupid enough to take pics like that. If they were, the 9-11 attack would have been found out prior to its occurance"
So we have to stop all the tourists in NYC from shooting photos of buildings? Are you kidding me? And you REALLY think that if security saw the supposed hijackers' photos of the WTC that these photos would have signaled their supposed intent to fly planes into them with the intent of causing them to come down in a pancake fashion? C'mon, you jest.
"Hey ringo" A citizen never has to ask anyone's permission to make photographs while standing on public property. Period. You'll look and sound "stupid" no matter how much "research" you do if you keep spouting your drivel..
If I can't take a photograph from a public location of anything that is in my view then we are no longer free. If something is so darned important that pictures should not be taken of it, then the company that owns that something needs to hide it from public view. So build a privacy fence or hang a curtain around it or something. But don't stop me from taking pictures of what I can see from the road I've paid for. If I'm on private property, then it's a different matter but if I'm on public property, leave me alone!
As it's the LAW he DOES have to ask permission. Read the law dummy !!
Ringo15: Let's make a deal. You TELL in advance N.S.A. in Laurel, Md. that you are going to drive around it & take pictures from the outside & see how far you get? IT IS A GOVERNMENT FACILITY WITH SECRETS, not a public business whose facade can be seen from a public road. (Since I was a kid & my Aunt worked there, I knew that they take down liscense plates & ck. them out if you drive around it.) BUT IT IS A SECRET PLACE! At one time it was called, (Tongue-in-cheek), "No Such Agency."
Actually, IF it was a terrorist plot, wouldn't it be a whole, lot smarter to follow them to see who ELSE is involved & what the plan was?
People use your heads here.
Even if BP knew about the article at a corp level, that doesn't mean that each and every employee did.
AND until they detained and ID'd the photographer how could they be sure he was the one that was hired for this article? If he had permission it would have been set up in advance and there would not be a problem.
He was on a public road, You don't need permission for that. However, Home land defense detaining him for filming the refinery to see and question him is normal. Refineries, like airports, are tempting targets for those who wish to do Our Nation harm. They didn't keep his photos, just did there jobs. I just hope his article also includes BP 20 year neglect of the Alaska pipe line they allowed to go down a few years back, Which caused fuel prices to soar, just the the refinery Explosion that killed many, and now the total devastation of the economies of the states near there busted well. All of these seem to be common operations for BP. They may be limited on how much the Feds can fine them. But I Strongly urge the States affected to each sue them out of business.
Ringo15 (your age?):
Just so I won't act/feel so stupid, please enlighten me as to ALL the places here in the U.S. I CAN'T take pictures of from a public road. I wouldn't want to miss any. I was absent the day they taught the Patriot Act in school!
This is an example of the true definition of Fascism: the marriage of large corporations and the State. It is private ownership, but government control. The police are militarized, and the rights of sovereign citizens are taken away in the name of "security". It's not a "conspiracy", but rather is right out in the open for all to see. Government becomes the Master, not the servant. The Corporatocracy reigns supreme.
Meanwhile, most Americans either are bamboozled or asleep at the wheel. Wake up: the new political paradigm is Globalism v. Sovereignty, or Globalists v. the common people.
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
Where are the tea-baggers. BP is the new East India Trading Company. Isn't THAT what the REAL tea party patriots were contesting back in December of 1773.
http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312848/btp.htm
"In May, 1773, Parliament gave money to the British East India Company so they could lower their tea prices. The Americans got mad because the British East India Company would trade only with pro-British merchants.
In September, 1773, the British East India Company put 500,000 pounds of tea on the market. They did this because they had so much extra tea on hand, and many of the members of Parliament were investors in the tea market. If there was too much tea for sale, tea would be cheaper and the members of Parliament would lose money. The Boston Tea Party took place on December 16, 1773, when colonists threw tea into the Boston Harbor. They did this because they didn't like the British tea taxes."
I would hope not just anyone can wander up and start taking photos of something that in a way could become sensitive. Anymore we live in a place where we think we are entitled to view everything and know everything. Sometimes that is not the case.
Having said that I am not sure why people are surprised as the WH has now put parameters on people reporting from the Gulf so why should this be any different.
I've taken pictures all my life as an amateur photographer and of all the stuff I've read in the how-to books and magazines I don't recall any article that clearly defines what I can and cannot photograph. Clearly photos can be used for different purposes such as art, journalism or even espionage. But I don't see any reason why I should be stopped from taking a picture of anything from public property. Photography should be protected under the first amendment as much or even more than gun ownership is protected by the second amendment. Besides, do you think that a spy or terrorist would call attention to themselves by brandishing two or three Nikon's with huge lens. I would think they would use any number of cameras that are almost impossible to detect this day in age. BP's tack here is to misuse homeland security regulations to keep their operations under wraps.
Try going onto a military installation and walk around where you please and take photographs. I know you think a photographer should be allowed to take pictures of anything in the country he wishes but it's simply not true.
Lao, your argument doesn't hold water. The photographer was on a PUBLIC road, not on BPs property.
3 words Lao Tzu: FROM PUBLIC PROPERTY!
The fact that self help books failed to explain the limitations impossed by the patriot act fail to change the fact that the photographer was legally stopped and his photos were determined by homeland security to be non threatening and he was released.....
Most citys have laws that allow you to be stopped and questioned for seemingly harmless things. Try loitering near a school during the day, or taking pictures of other peoples kids at a park. You better be prepared to explain your purpose.....
Lao Tzu there is a great deal of difference between a secure military installation and a public highway. On the military installation you are a trespasser or a guest and as such your activitity is restricted and controlled. On a public highway, there is no trespassing or restriction. If I am able to see it I have every right to photograph it or write about it. It is called freedom of the press in the Constitution.
Photography seems to be treated differently than just plain observation. Is it that much more powerful than straight journalism that special restriction can be placed upon someone carrying a camera? And what business is it of anybody except the IRS to obtain your SSI number. As far as I know the national ID card is still in the legislative wind and that's being bandied about as a means to get a handle on immigration. So unless a facility is deemed to be of national security value and is clearly posted I don't see why anyone should be able to demand that you identify yourself if you are on public property and not violating any laws.
Scott Haley,
They don't call it "AMERICAN IDLE" for nothing. It dissipates the need for the american public to JUDGE that which is happening around them. These stupid, vapid reality shows are for this purpose. Vote for this one, vote for that one. VOTE TO HAVE YOUR GOVERNMENT BACK UNDER THE TENETS OF ITS CONSTITUTION.