Secret Service hates photography?

The U.S. Secret Service may have overstepped its bounds by asking a man to delete a photograph of the entrance to a baseball stadium.

(Credit: U.S. Secret Service)

I don't know if it's silly that this surprises me, but apparently London's police aren't the only ones who have a problem with photography. According to a report on wusa9.com, the Web site of a local news station in Washington, the United States Secret Service asked a man outside the stadium of the Washington National's baseball team to delete a photo he took that included one of the stadium's security checkpoints. President George W. Bush was in the stadium to throw the first pitch for the team's opening day.

I know that a lot of people would think that the Secret Service's request is normal, but I also think that a lot of those same people might've wanted to take the same picture in that moment (you can see the entrance gate in the video on the wusa9.com site). Since the checkpoint includes a sign with the stadium's name, it would've been an easy way to show a friend the scene at the stadium that night. Interestingly, since the Secret Service's request had little legal merit, the video crew for the news station was able to film the security checkpoints and included the footage in the report they aired on television and which is now posted on the station's Web site. This is a touchy subject, especially since it involves the security of the president and isn't just about a photographer's rights in an everyday situation, but I see it as another example of the obstacles photographers face as they try to enjoy their hobby. Ultimately, the photographer has to stand up for their rights in that moment. When faced with someone who has the power to physically detain you if you refuse his request, however, I know I tend to comply.

[keith.r.benedict]

As an avid photographer, I can see this from both perspectives. On one hand, I should be able to take pictures of whatever I want. I'm not breaking any laws by doing so. On the other hand, how do law enforcement officials know what my true intentions are? For all they know, I could be taking surveillance photographs, not creating art.

I think a lot of understanding and patience is required on both sides. That seems to be sorely lacking, though.

[Studio City]

If the photographer was shooting for an investigative piece on, say, abusive behavior by security guards, then I'd support the journalistic principles above all else. But the Secret Service and related agencies have legitimate concerns that benefit all citizens, even us liberals. In short, two words: President Cheney.

[jp_mcguire]

I was at the game and heard SS telling Univision they couldn't film the actual security gate or SS people and air it. Of course the gate was practically connected to the stadium entrance with the fancy Nationals park sign.

Oh, it also took over an hour to get through security a full two hours before game time. The TSA has nothing on the sluggish speed of these folks. I hope Bush stays home next year. He got booed anyway.

[jdw242]

well, I have a pretty good memory, so if I see the entrance, check points, etc., AND take a photo, will they make me un-see the entrance? Will they scrub my memory of the photo I took as well as making me delete it??

I can remember detail very well, sometimes drawing what I've seen. Will they break my hands so I can't draw it?

Am I the only person that sees the logical fallacy behind making people stop photographing so-called public places?

Surely, as Mr. Benedict has pointed out, understanding is called for, but the state of law enforcement these days is more of a 'we're so right and you're clearly wrong' stance instead of 'maybe we make mistakes'.

This is ignorant. I wish rationale would return...

[fleurya]

I bet the guy they were harassing was using some kind of SLR camera, and while they were harassing him 50 other people took similar photos with their little point and shoots or phones. Anyone with experience taking pics with SLR's know exactly what I'm talking about.

[Pete.Goswell]

The Bushies long since trashed the Constitution and the Voters re-elected them, so its that old saying "Be careful what you wish for, 'cause you just may get it !" Y'all elected them, then re-elected them. So quit y'*******!
Gosgog

[skipper2491]

While there are obviously limits to what should be allowed in the interest of protecting the President of the US, I find the the SS (interesting term, was it borrowed from the Nazis?) excessive in their protective efforts. I wish no ill will to the President or his family, but he wanted the job. In theory the President of the US is a 35 year old natural born citizen. Any fool (and several have succeeded) can be President so why make such a big deal out of protecting him (or her, as may soon be the case)? The SS has gone way overboard on this issue. Furthermore, most of what they do is simply a complete waste of time that protects no one except the jobs of the people doing the protecting.

[geofffeldman]

As much as I can't stand Bush, as much as I agree that his administration has ignored the basic values that I was tought from childhood that our country stands for: rule of law, due process, human rights, a free and independent press, I think that this case is being blown out of proportion. Yes, the photographer technically had the right to refuse the request to delete the photo. Yet if I were in his situation I would have complied too, not out of fear but out of respect for the office of the president. As we know the dangers to the president are real and protecting the president, regardless of one's opinion of him, is a very high priority.

[acktracker]

"how do law enforcement officials know what my true intentions are? " That is a classy quote right there. So if you're unsure of something, or someone for that matter, best to go ahead and detain them right? Send them to some island prison and leave them there because you don't know for sure what their intentions are. Or if they are taking pictures and you have no idea what the reasoning is, best to go ahead and make sure the pictures are deleted because no way you could be photographing for personal pleasure, its gotta be terrorism. Or say you don't know what someone is talking about on the phone? Best to go ahead a surveil them without their knowledge, and without getting proper authorization from any sort of judicial body. Yes, it is good to be an American.