"WE'VE GOT A BIGGER PROBLEM NOW"
The line above, a song from the Dead Kennedys' 1981 album
("praising" the newly-elected Ronnie Reagan) aptly reflected the
somewhat changed atmosphere that resulted from the stricter security
measures. All very good and needed in the current threatening
situation, but some fine tuning and use of brain is always
allowed and applauded.
Before the trip, I had thus feared that the attack to the WTC would
enforce an even more, indeed, policed streetscape. In a sense I was
correct, but mostly the City indeed strolled on as before, the same
going also for the policies about photography -- and the use of
tripods... ;^) Unfortunately, the over-(the-top-)zealous conduct around
the heavily guarded Grand Central on the first shooting day by the police
also revealed the occasionally almost paranoid extent of this concern
for security.
First, I was just setting up the tripod on the Vanderbilt
Ave., the best sightline for the Lincoln Building, when a policeman
approached and politely and almost apologizingly explained that the
security was due to some "big bosses" being inside the terminal
(possibly the congressional delegation?). So I walked off, content
that he handled the situation in a well-mannered way. (I did
return on Sunday to bag the Lincoln from the same direction.)
The next one a few minutes later was a quite different thing altogether;
after having shot the Phil Morris Bldg. (with the bridge of Pershing
Aqueduct in the foreground) from the sidewalk in front of
Grand Central, number two approached. I thought he would complain about
the tripod -- boy, was I wrong. He started an inquiry about "who I was
taking the pictures for", claiming me to take pictures of bridges
(for terrorists, which he didn't explicitly say, but anyone could
understand he meant that) and demanded to see my ID. Luckily
I had the covers of my old passport in my back pocket mainly for
travellers check use so that he could fulfill his need. And nothing
even related to an apology. On leaving the scene I even thanked him(!)
as a sign of courtesy and of olde British spirit of "good sport" --
for them only doing their job. Perhaps it also had to do with the
fact that I had decided to take a lighter note on the tripod
restrictions and try to understand the difficult situation in the
City. (And, in general, the encounters with tripod-banning security
personnel were good-natured, even involving light banter on the subject,
like on the Penn 34th St. plaza or the ex-Equitable Bldg. plaza.)
Despite any "decisions" made while arriving from the JFK and seeing the
flags everywhere and the cropped Downtown skyline from the Queens,
the next meeting finally did make me angry, inwardly at least.
After having rounded to the back of the Grand Central and just bagged
the MetLife and the American Brands from the 45th Street with tripod,
I was packing my equipment for leaving. The two policemen that had been
standing under the elevated driveway across the street did just what I
had already expected them to do to: to approach and give a rundown --
in which sense they didn't disappoint. Maybe something about the
precision of my fast tripod packing, akin to Army rifle drill ;^), or
the fact that I had checked the images on my laptop raised their
suspicion. Whatever, they asked to see the ID and I foolishly said
"not again", which of course raised their suspicion further.
As with the earlier w*nk, any claim about shooting for my own scraper
web page were dismissed (how else?) -- so, the passport info, number
etc. were taken up for scrutiny (so I guess I'm a semi-potential name
in the FBI and NYPD lists from now on) and questions like the hotel
in was staying in were asked. To top it all, the other of the pigs,
I mean, "New York's Finest", asked if I was going to blow something up.
I of course, totally dumbfounded by the arrogance of the w*nk, only
dismissed it as a joke, although a bad one under the circumstances,
which I said. Although there was a slight air of "only trying the
ice" with the question, I'm afraid he was also half-convinced that I
had something to do with the terrorists. Now, even with my most
light-hearted attitude on the proceedings around the Grand Central,
I have to say that I was horrified how easily one could fall into
a very sloping ground with the "right" photo equipment. Once again
I saw that going the "touristy way" in photography will save a lot
of grief, at least from the authorities. What mostly angered me,
was the fact that not only did they treat me like a crime suspect
with background checks but that I, who had heeded Giuliani's
call to help the City by travelling there at a time when tourists
were leaving the industry high-and-dry, spending money there,
expressing my love for the City's high-rise architecture by
photographing it at a time when there's apparently need for NYers to
reflect on their city's skyline (and almost breaking my back in the
process) -- perhaps even risking my life on the way, given the
security (or lack of) of the airlines -- get to be called, in effect,
a terrorist by some [expletive] pigs. Of course they had their jobs
and "founded" suspicions (based on a d*mn tripod), but that
doesn't remove my right to be hurt by what happened as I personally know
what I am and what not. Although I only got roasted by the policemen
on these two occasions, they were enough to show that also non-arabs
doing suspicious things in the city could get suspected of everything
possible.
So, if the security of the Pershing Viaduct or the MetLife area is
raised once the war begins, you know who to blame...
An almost fatal indication of the increased security concerns
in this had led IMO to almost paranoid responses, one being
the approaching of a police on the sidewalk next to the cordoned-off
Javits Office Bldg. plaza while I was shooting the U.S. Courthouse
(I didn't even dare to take my
tripod out so as not to stand out from the "snappers", see the reason
above); he told me about the buildings being Fed buildings and
thus not allowed to be photographed and that one photographer had
already had his camera confiscated(!) for that and that I would in
a similar situation get it back only with a lawyer. (Sorry, but give
Ashcroft more power on top of that and the DK song will get
more chiller undertones.) Heck, I was grateful(!) I got to get away
scot-free and get to keep my camera as I skipped complaints...
After that, I was really nervous to shoot in Downtown --
if shooting the Pershing Aqueduct was considered suspicious,
how in the h*ll could I get away with craning my tripod-mounted
camera towards the high tops of Chase and 40 Wall -- perhaps as a
prelude to another aircraft attack, in somebody's minds at least?
A stark contrast was the policeman in Bryant Park, who gave me a
five-minute timeframe to complete my shooting -- I had course already
used the tripod on several shots there on the previous day and just
a few minutes earlier...
(24 May 2004:
Three years on and the proposed introduction of photo/videography
ban on the NYC Subway seems to be just one more, albeit a major,
development to the direction of a restricted environment of
suspicion that an event like 9/11 easily ensues. Fines will be
awaiting those who, even inadvertently, break the rules. Given the
attractiveness of a major transport system like the subway as a
terror attack target, perhaps a move to be expected sooner or later,
but, nevertheless, one not giving any inducement to soon shoot
anything publicly in the city. Especially with a tripod...)
© e t dankwa
3-4 October 2001