n4zhg

You'll end up on the new terrorist database.

On the plus side, this might actually put an end to Terry Stops. There is now a legitimate 5th Amendment defense that Hibel didn't eliminate.

bluenotesro

For crying out loud....might as well throw us all in Guantanamo. Grandma taking a photo at a soccer match...throw her in the dungeon....dad taking pics of the family outing next to an airport....he disappears.....little junior tries out his new camera at the mall and guess what? hear the cell doors slamming shut?

Put on a 'terrorist list' without due process?? Pray this makes it to the courts real soon.

doober

I think we should all go out and do "something suspicious" to get our names on the list.

For the love of God, what is this country coming to?

RichardKenner

It's Hiibel (two 'i's). And this doesn't touch on the issue of Terry Stops, just the legitimacy of ID requirement laws. But I disagree (unfortunately) that this creates a 5th Amendment issue because being put on that list isn't a "criminal case" and the 5th Amendment only applies to them.

IrishDoesntFlyNow

IANAL. but it's my understanding that the 5th applies whenever one has a legitimate articulated belief that the information provided might be used in a prosecution, even if charges have not been filed or the prosecution is not imminent.


~~ Irish

mikemey

Another step towards a police state.

I'm so ready to look into emmigrating out.

mozgytog

The Fifth Amendment doesn't say anything regarding actually being charged or prosecuted. It says you have a right not to say anything that might incriminate yourself.

If saying my name might get me put into a government database of suspected terrorists though nothing I was actually doing was illegal (photographing a public building from a public place), it seems that I should enjoy the protection against self incrimination and be able to remain silent.

IslandBased

I found this comment interesting:

Without motivation and logistics the FBI is providing, some of the "terrorists" would be nothing more than protesters.

IrishDoesntFlyNow

It (like everything) has been defined in case law. I have a memory of reading something about this in an article about civil liberties.


It seems like that to me, too. Perhaps one of our attorneys will weigh in.


~~ Irish

divemistressofthedark

Perhaps an organized day of photography is in order. I live in another part of the country, but I may have a camera I'm willing to donate.

KyRoamer

Where to?

mikemey

I don't even know.

But thats the extent of my frustration.

JDiver

This mania and madness is catching - I was taking a few photos in Paddington station in London, and was severely chastised by some uniformed official.

clrankin

It would seem that leaving one's ID at home when taking pictures in public might actually be a good idea. If there's no ID on one's person, the authorities can't read it. And if one refuses to provide one's name for fear of extra-judicial punishment and merely asks to contact a lawyer instead, I'm not sure there's much that the police can do...

I suppose they could always arrest one for "suspicion" of doing something... But other than that, there's not much that they can make stick. If one is standing in a public place, taking a picture of a public building, and not breaking any laws at the time, I'm not sure that one can be compelled to provide one's identity-- especially if it means being added to some sort of list of people who are supposedly "too dangerous" to not be listed but "too law abiding" to be arrested and tried for a crime.

Pharaoh

For anyone taking photos (of any thing, any time), check out and Download The Photographer’s Right. I keep a copy in my camera bag for reference but, fortunately, have never been stopped.