Reddit mentions of Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images (Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights & Liabilities of)

> See above point. Also if there are cases in the courts that counter my points, provide evidence to them. I doubt sincerely that any prohibit the actions or protocols followed by the government and guards here.

Okay, here's a list.

• https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers
  
• http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/Is-It-Legal-to-Photograph-Federal-Buildings.htm
  
• http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/photographing-a-federal-building-from-a-public-space-youre-not-breaking-any-laws/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
  
  I could keep going but those are literally the first three links on Google. These all include links to case law.
  
  > I understand that its meant to be seen, but there is an inherent security risk associated with the building and grounds, thus its not seen as an "art installation," and to view it as anything less than what it is would be ignorant and dangerous.
  
  This entirely contravenes its point as an art installation. From 30+ years ago. NPR even points this out from 13 years ago, which was post-9/11, pre-this actual incident. That aside, there is still legal precedent stating you can take pictures of private property if you are on public land, e.g. a sidewalk. It's how papparazi can take pictures of people in (or around) their homes without getting sued into oblivion, they're taking the photos from a public place. In fact, many times, unless otherwise specified, you can take photos of private property from private property, unless specifically posted signs contravene this or you are asked not to. Mr. Prigoff was asked to not photograph the LNG tank and he did not do so, according to his deposition, therefore no laws were broken. A lawyer has conveniently compiled all such legal-related information in a book specifically to educate photographers. Carlos Miller has been writing about this specific issue for almost 8 years. As a photographer, I'm highly invested in keeping myself abreast of such legal issues.
  
  >Did you ask the guards this?
  
  Read the article, that's exactly what the guards told the old man. What he said wasn't just something he wrote for ACLU.org, it's from his sworn deposition in Gill v DOJ.
  
  >This entire sentence is semantics, and you could not possible have any factual evidence to support this.
  
  [Hmmm, really] (https://www.google.com/#q=see+something+say+something&safe=off&search_plus_one=form)? Where do the first two links point? Right to DHS. Also, when was DHS officially put into action as a full-fledged agency? 2003. This incident happened in 2004. That's not semantics, that's fact.

You have zero understanding of privacy laws regarding photography and videography.

I recommend this book to get you up to speed.

Ethics are something you'll have to figure out for yourself. For instance many people find Bruce Gilden and his style offensive, I think he's one of the finest out there. You should get a grasp on law (check out: http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Handbook-Photographers-Rights-Liabilities/dp/1608954757) and decide for yourself your own ethics, limits and boundaries.

Sometimes. Some military areas can't even be legally photographed from publicly-accessible areas. From Your Rights and Remedies When Stopped or Confronted for Photography, by Bert Krages, an attorney specializing in photography law who literally wrote the book on this subject:

"The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs... There are some exceptions to the general rule. A significant one is that commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific areas when they deem it necessary to protect national security."