It seems in the US that if there is a chance of any terrorist link however
remote then the Constitution and Civil Liberties are no longer adhered to.
It does not matter if there isn't a law against taking pictures of certain
buildings, the authorities will make one up or just tell you they have made
a law.

Guantanamo Bay should tell you all you need to know about the US authorities
respecting civil liberties and international law.

If you dare to question anyone in authority about what is and isn't
permissible then you are seen as being Anti-American.

the USA is no longer the land of the free but the home of the repressed.

I believe it IS illegal, under the present circumstances, for security
reasons.  I know that you have to go through considerable security
background checks to work in any FBI facility, as a contractor, even to
cut grass.  That is the nature of the times that we are living in.

I've had discussions with law enforcement officers and FBI agents
regarding photography, and they all seem to be very interested in
striking a balance between the right of street photography and the need
for security.

You can probably challenge it, but do you want to go through all of that
grief.

Personally, I don't find Federal buildings interesting enough to
photograph in the first place, as I'm sure that you don't, either.

Can't answer your question about the US, I'm afraid. Of course, in the UK
it's always been strictly illegal to take photographs (or make drawings!)
of military establishments, prisons etc.

Reminds of when I was in East Berlin in 1981. I did the usual tourist thing
of going through Checkpoint Charlie into the East on a day visa. While I
was going through, my camera bag was very thoroughly searched. That's where
they found my press pass, which meant that *I* was very thoroughly
searched. In the end, they decided to let me through having temporarily
confiscated my Olympus dictaphone (that was okay, all it had was a
recording of my drunk German relatives yelling 'scheise'. I was sure the
guards confiscated it to check what was on it and would have loved to have
seen their faces when they found out).

However, as I strolled up the street, away from the checkpoint, I realised I
was being followed. There was nothing covert about it - just two East
German border guards in a small van about 50 yards behind me and keeping
steady pace with me. I wondered if I was being paranoid and decided I
wasn't when I turned the corner into the main street and they turned with
me, still crawling along making the traffic go around them. A guy
approached me on the street, having seen the cameras hanging from my neck,
and asked me, in English, if I would give him dollars or West German marks
in exchange for East German. This was, of course, strictly illegal and
there were tourists languishing in East German jails at the time for doing
precisely that. I nodded towards the van and suggested it wasn't a good
idea and the guy scurried off hurriedly.

The point of all this preamble is that I was in a very paranoid state of
mind after all this. Anyhow, I wandered around, snapping this and that.
East Berlin was very beautiful (it was a communist showcase town) and the
light was fab (it was Xmas). I strolled around a building and up some
stairs to a veranda-like affair along the front. I noticed that the snow up
there was completely unbroken - not a single footprint. I snapped a picture
of the East German national symbol on the front of the building, and got to
wondering why it was there. Then it dawned on me - this was the main
government building. I figured, if there's any one building they're going
to be sensitive about, this is probably it. I decided it was time to get
back to the west, pronto (On the way down the steps I noticed the broken
chain I'd missed on the way up).

The picture, BTW, is at:

http://www.montcocher.com/portfolio/index.php?pagemode=display&dir=travel&img=14

It seems that almost *all* of the stories about "you can't take pictures
here" come from the New York City area.

I wonder why ... why just NYC?

First, you can take photos of the federal building all you want,
legally - as long as you're not in it or on its lawn.  Whether or not
some fedcop has any power to ban anyone from photoing anything from
inside it is also dubious.
The weekend after 9/11, I took photos all over "official" Washington -
without any problems.  An officer with the Supreme Court Police asked
for my ID - but didn't interfere with my photoing.  I even took photos
showing a huge truck go within 400 yds of the White House that day!

No $4 to park!  No $6 admission!
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW

I had a similar incident in Paterson, NJ.  I was part of the Paterson Youth
Photography Project (PYPP) and we had about 15 ten year old children out on
a field trip taking photos in downtown Paterson.  All the kids had cameras
along with the instructors and we got stopped by the police when we got near
the federal court house.  They were nice  but told us we could not take any
photos of the courthouse.  This was post 9/11 and we were told the ban
applied to all federal buildings

July 13, 2005, from Lloyd Erlick,

I don't understand the officials on this one.

Buildings are out in public, so people can
see them and look at them all they want. If a
terrorist wants a picture, he only has to get
a small camera, put it inside his coat, and
do it. Who could tell what was going on?

By approaching people they see with cameras,
they only alienate the public.

And, of course, there are plenty of people
who can look at something and draw it later,
with most surprising accuracy. Maybe
terrorists can't do this, just like they
can't use computers or fly jumbo jets?

Why don't the officials take the much more
secure approach of making sure their
buildings reveal nothing on their exteriors
that is of value to a terrorist. If the
details they would like to prevent being
photographed are things like height, width,
number of windows, and the like, I think it
might be too late. That information is long
out of the bag.

How do 'officials' make the leap of logic
required to regard cameras and photographers
as threats?

regards,
--le

There is probably no law, but insisting on your rights could still
really ruin your day. Its worth assuming that all security people are
almost insanely paranoid, and not worth provoking unless its something
very important to you.

Ian