Why would it be wrong to have taken this photo?

[DigitalSkyPilot]

One sure way to get "chased" is to run! Your "buddy" is a fool and giving drone ops a bad image.

It's a refinery as you can see the cracking tower. Standard aircraft cannot fly over them because of the obvious. If one crashes into it you get a big loud boom. I'm sure security somehow didn't get the memo that small drones bounce off steel. Now having said that, I am sure refineries, chemical facilities, etc. have all received notices, from Homeland, about anyone observed taking photographs of their respective sites and told to tray to secure identification where possible. No idea why "security personnel" would conduct a full scale pursuit as 90% do not have police powers to chase down & apprehend. However, some states give security personnel "Police Powers" when on duty provided they have taken state mandated courses. FunN4io is correct in that photographs are not allowed of critical infrastructure facilities. Refinery/Chemical plants fall into that category. BTW the "buddy" says they were unmarked security vehicles chasing him. He knew this how? Could have been Feds, Police, Homeland Security, or a myriad of other agencies who have a special interest in the facility. Could have gotten real nasty real quick.

When you say "I am sure" then you say you don't have any idea why. " . I lose all credence of your post. As stated above I wonder if it was before 107? We were not there and have no idea what happened. Maybe hang on to the insults and name calling until the facts get known or not. Be nice.

 

[Osmosis]

You can fly over most things not marked as restricted by the FAA. Take-off from a public way, keep in in sight and youre good. If I can fly a Cessna over it, I can fly a drone over it.

Same for all aircraft (Airspace Restrictions)

• Stadiums and Sporting Events
• Near Airports
• Security Sensitive Airspace Restrictions
• Restricted or Special Use Airspace
• Washington, DC

And, per the FAA website, check the Know Before You Fly airspace maps.

I looked up a few refineries in NJ and found only yellow restrictions due to nearby airports and not the refinery. Red airspace is, of course - restricted.

U.S. Air Space Map | Know Before You Fly

Only the FAA regulates airspace, not local governments, Homeland, boogieman, etc. - only the FAA.

 

[Drestin Black]

Wasn’t this pic taken before part 107 existed.
If so no violations of regs.

Before

 

[Bad Andy]

This is a photo of Area 51 taken by a civilian from miles away. There are signs at end roads to Area 51 which say all photography is forbidden. Safe to say this falls into the “secret base/restricted” category.

Yet; here it is, published in a US magazine. Feds sent beating down the photogs door. So there has to be some practical limit. If you can see something as you are driving by in your car on a public road, it would be illegal to point your cell phone at it and click?

View attachment 108063

Har. While I totally get the sensitivity of what Big Brother does out there, I'm thinking that if the government didn't want us seeing stuff, they, well, you know, probably should not have built public roads with views of stuff. But maybe I'm just being silly.

Unfortunately in the name of "homeland security" we (not just "drone" operators but everyone with any kind of recording device) are being subjected to all kinds of foolishness as Big Brother and his hostages struggle to draw their respective lines in the sand. And much of it just makes no sense whatsoever.

I supposedly can't take a picture of the George Washington Bridge, but I can buy beautiful postcards of it in Times Square. And it's not like anyone can stop me (or an actual terrorist!) from getting stunning details from a mile away with any modern DSLR and renting an 800mm prime.

A friend of mine got harassed repeatedly at the merge for the Queens Midtown Tunnel because of a motorcycle helmet camera that wasn't even turned on, while countless thousand of cars with full-time dash cams, their little LEDs glowing brightly, go through there every day, most likely getting steadier footage.

Photographers get hassled about photographing places that come up nice and clear in online maps and street views by Google, Bing and more.

Unfortunately the foolishness surrounding photography doesn't stop with homeland security. I can walk the aisles of any store in Seoul and take pics of anything I want but watch people freak out here. Not that their efforts would stop someone with covert intent. And if I walked into the hospital here with an SLR on my shoulder and the lens cap on, I'd be warned by security not to take pictures, but they're not gonna give everyone with a 20mp camera -equipped smartphone in their hand a talking-to.

We're in a weird place with regards to freedoms in general, and when you add the potential for drones to fish their ways into stupid places and potentially do damage, intentionally or otherwise, possibly without even being able to attach a face to the perpetrator, it's not surprising that they'll attract even more attention.

 

[rfaaj]

Everything else aside, the picture is nicely done.

 

[solentlife]

As a traveller who goes to some 'interesting places' - the visible from the road argument is worthless.

Many countries have rules prohibiting photography of Govt buildings, Refinerys, Chemical and Important structures. In some you cannot even photograph a TV tower ! And many of these do not have signs telling you - but it is written into National and Local Laws.
In one country I know and visit - there is an open flat area with NOTHING on it ... illegal to photograph it ... never have found out why.

Just to lighten up the thread and I know its not directly on topic ... but this is a sign at entrance to a Compound in Nigeria :

 

[trevornewkirk]

@solentlife that's a great photo!!!
A case of lost in translation?

 

[Bad Andy]

Everything else aside, the picture is nicely done.

Absolutely. I love infrastructure (until it gets in the way of landscapes, LOL), urban decay, night photography. This ticks all the boxes.

Much of it also attracts the most scrutiny.

No wonder, since you never quite know what you'll find. A few years ago I was wandering around abandoned warehouses along the Brooklyn shoreline at oh dark thirty and saw a conning tower of a sub docked there sticking up out of the water. I replaced the lens cap and quietly walked away.

That some other countries may be more restrictive, is nice for perspective. As an American I've grown accustomed to certain expectations though. And it doesn't thrill me that the cost of freedom has been freedom.

 

[Drestin Black]

[Flying 1/2 hour after official sunset is prohibited by FAA regulations but doubt a security guard would know that. Critical infrastructures such as bridges, dams, power plants, etc are NFZ. This was most likely the reason for being chased. So your friend violated at least two FAA regs unless he had a waiver which I doubt was the case. The FAA website has all the regulations available for free.

I think everything you said is inaccurate, except that Regs are available for free. This was taken by a hobbyist before p107 existed.

 

[Drestin Black]

I will repeat, before anyone says one more word on “can’t take photos of something visible to the public” you should do a YouTube search for “First amendment audit” and watch people taking photos of refineries, prisons (by drone), the fbi building, bridges, cop shops, nuclear weapons facilities, etc. with cops and security coming up... and walking away empty handed.

 

[roosta]

I believe, today, you cannot fly at night.

That's actually a restriction in Australia unless you apply for and are granted a remote pilot license (RePL) and on top, are granted further allowances when flying under a ReOC (remote operator certificate) held by an individual or company - such restrictions can be waived or removed for a particular flight request if approved by our governing body, CASA. Apparently FAA, in short (watching the above video), actually allow this, which to be is very interesting given the amount of hobbyist flyers growing rapidly and a lot who are very uneducated or have no genuine idea how to control it, particularly if they lose VLOS.

Back to OP question...it's a strange one. They don't have any right to chase him I wouldn't think. He has not flown over private property (which can then involve security guards) and presumably, NOT entered restricted airspace which - for that matter - those security guards do not control or have any say about. I would've wanted to hear what they had to say...

RoOSTA

 

[solentlife]

I will repeat, before anyone says one more word on “can’t take photos of something visible to the public” you should do a YouTube search for “First amendment audit” and watch people taking photos of refineries, prisons (by drone), the fbi building, bridges, cop shops, nuclear weapons facilities, etc. with cops and security coming up... and walking away empty handed.

Thank you for a purely USA view on the matter. Rest of World holds its breath.

For those of USA persuasion - it is actually fact that many buildings / locations in many countrys that can be viewed by the 'eye' are NOT allowed to be photographed.
How many times do you read in the news about somebody accused of spying because they photographed XX. Just because they do not display a sign saying 'Photographs Prohibited' does not mean you can play tourist with your camera.

As to Refinerys in USA ... I can say quite honestly that cameras are not allowed inside. The problem then comes that interpretation of photographing such from outside becomes a subject of debate.

Let me ask a question then : How do you determine who is a terrorist photographing for his next move against that of a honest person just taking an unusual photograph ?

This is not Paranoia. This is a product of todays crap society where fanaticism has taken over on BOTH sides of the fence.

 

[Drestin Black]

Thank you for a purely USA view on the matter. Rest of World holds its breath.

For those of USA persuasion - it is actually fact that many buildings / locations in many countrys that can be viewed by the 'eye' are NOT allowed to be photographed.
How many times do you read in the news about somebody accused of spying because they photographed XX. Just because they do not display a sign saying 'Photographs Prohibited' does not mean you can play tourist with your camera.

As to Refinerys in USA ... I can say quite honestly that cameras are not allowed inside. The problem then comes that interpretation of photographing such from outside becomes a subject of debate.

Let me ask a question then : How do you determine who is a terrorist photographing for his next move against that of a honest person just taking an unusual photograph ?

This is not Paranoia. This is a product of todays crap society where fanaticism has taken over on BOTH sides of the fence.

Given that this photo was taken in the USA by a US citizen makes it only meaningful to apply US laws to it. Can’t speak to other countries as that’d be odd topic for this particular thread.

As to your question: absent other information, you can’t. In the US (on topic) you are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

 

[Drestin Black]

Honestly, you can.

 

[solentlife]

Honestly, you can.
View attachment 108320

That obviously is a stock Company photo .... where specific permission is given for photos to 'promote' the companys image.

My business involves not only USA Refinerys and Terminals but also worldwide - there are NO facilities including US that I am aware of that allow freedom of photography without prior request and vetting for purpose. Its very simple.

1. Anti terrorist
2. Battery discharge and possibility of spark - ignition
3. RF interference with telemetry information systems used.

Those are the ones that come to mind without delving into documents that each and every one of my Superintendents has to sign before entry to such.

My work also takes my people and myself into locations that on the open street camera's can lead to uncomfortable encounters with authority and that includes USA.

Ignorance is no defence.

 

[skymonkey]

When Does Filming An Oil Refinery Make You A Terrorist Threat?

 

[Dronebilly]

Since 9/11, the US government has increased the use of no fly zones and temporary flight restrictions. Good picture for sure but even if taken prior to Title 14 CFR part 107, a little common sense and spatial awareness would alert a conscientious UAS pilot of the potential alarm you cause. Totally agree ignorance is no defense.

 

[solentlife]

When Does Filming An Oil Refinery Make You A Terrorist Threat?

For 'petes sake' ... get real.

That's an organisation that goes out of its way to push the limits ...

In no way has it any bearing on the discussion .... that's like using the Black Panther's as example ...

So an Oil Refinery will never be a terrorist target ? Please tell the Dutch people that the attack years ago in a Europoort oil terminal was in no way terrorist.

 

[solentlife]

People tend to forget that photography has had a revolution in recent years. Photography before was light rendered chemicals and all you had was an image. Today the same photograph taken by your lowest of low digital camera has FAR more information in it. Your DJI photo for example has accurate GPS position and time ... let alone the other detail.
( Mod Removed )... if you were a guy looking at blowing up a facility ... digital camera use is one of the first actions ....

 

[Bad Andy]

My business involves not only USA Refinerys and Terminals but also worldwide - there are NO facilities including US that I am aware of that allow freedom of photography without prior request and vetting for purpose. Its very simple.

And yet, there's little that can be done, realistically, to prevent really detailed photography of many facilities, from behind windows or ledges or whatever from short distances away. Especially where I live, where tall residential structures get closer to power plants and the like every day. It's a conundrum, for sure.

"Facilities" notwithstanding, in the US the line in the sand is an ongoing struggle. Which is why folks like Photography is Not a Crime now exist. I've had experiences with rent-a-cops when photographing the exteriors of NYC office buildings, and have had to in a couple of instances "respectfully disagree" with their warnings and tell them if they think there's a real issue then please get an actual cop while I wait patiently. Fortunately nothing ever escalated for me. Others have been less fortunate.

I get the sensitivity about obvious potential terrorist targets and I understand some of the dangers that drones and other electronic gadgets can present, but I don't understand what some other folks are so afraid of. If I was gonna plan some kind of attack on an office building I'm thinking there are plenty of perfectly covert ways to get sufficient pictures without me standing out like a sore thumb with an SLR and a huge piece of glass.

I get the impression that some of it is actually liability-driven. Like, "he's photographing a broken ledge that we've been ignoring for ten years" or something.