[this came from slash.org the other day and seems rather relevant. though, that may only apply pre-1984...]

Know your rights as a photographer!

Except in special circumstances (e.g., certain government facilities), there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public or private property. If you can be there, you can take pictures there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission to do so, even on private property.

Trespassing laws naturally apply. If a property owner demands you leave, you must. But if a place is open to the public -- a mall, office-building lobby, etc. -- permission to enter is assumed (although it can be revoked).

In terms of the law, trespass and photography are separate events; the former is illegal, but the latter is not. Only if the use of photographic equipment itself violates a person's privacy (e.g., by using a long lens to look into someone's private room) might it violate privacy law. Further, while people have a right of privacy, businesses do not except as it relates to trade secrets.

Subject to specific limits, photographers can publish any photos they take, provided those photos do not violate the privacy of the subject. This includes photos taken while trespassing or otherwise being someplace they shouldn't be. Taking photos and publishing photos are two separate issues.

Please read the full PDF here [nyud.net] with much more detail. I print copies of this on 4x5 index cards and keep them with me at all times when I'm taking photos in any public place.

Also, if someone demands your "film" or your camera, let them know that it is not legal for them to take it, unless you have been arrested of a crime involving that camera and that film. The crime for someone to demand and take your camera or film, is called theft, and threatening to do so (or to "break your camera"), is called coercion. Don't tolerate either of them, and if your equipment IS taken or broken, call the police and file charges.

Know your rights, and don't tolerate this supression.

From slashdot.org.

Unfortunately, none of that applies in cases of evidence presented before a Grand Jury. The GJ does have the right to require surrender of evidence that can be used to prosecute the commission of a crime.

Normally I am all for free speech and the rights of man, but I can only say that this gentleman is justly deserving of his punishment.

Anarchists can protest, but not destroy property. And, no, they can't get around that with the silly argument that they're 'anarchists'. Mr. Wolf's tape may allow authorities to prosecute those who committed the crime. He must give it up.

I do not personally know if Mr. Wolf is an Anarchist, but his political views are not at issue here. He is a citizen of the United States and, as such, is subject to the Law.

If he finds the law distasteful, I am not going to suggest he leave the U.S. I am going to suggest he try to have the law changed.

If going to jail is his method of raising awareness for the law then 'good on yer!'

It does not change the fact that he is guilty.

Gauntlet... ran.

Oh, and I'm of two minds about this story. Still collating data.