digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Strictly No Photography - Photos Taken Where You're not Supposed to

strictlynophotography.com — Like a Flickr for the forbidden, 'Strictly No Photography' features user-submitted photos taken in all the places where photography is strictly off-limits. Concerts, museums, classified government installations, nothing's sacred. Check out these cool pics before they get a cease & desist!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Nightlie, on 11/20/2007, -0/+77tis human nature to find forbidden facts to be funky

    http://www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/Humor/nseq5 ...
    • carguy84, on 11/20/2007, -9/+3Where are the toilet cam pics in the women's rooms?
      • jo3design, on 11/20/2007, -0/+7cuz you know, watching women piss really does turn all of us normal men on...

        really.
    • theblooms, on 11/20/2007, -2/+6My buddy in the Air Force showed me a picture of a U2 landing that he caught on his camera phone. A DEFINITE No-No if there ever was one!
  • BoneStamp, on 11/20/2007, -28/+4WARNING - THIS ARTICLE IS VERY SAFE FOR WORK

    Seriously, how is there no strip-club category?
    • Hipple, on 11/20/2007, -1/+16Whoa, keep it in your pants there, buddy
      • hulez, on 11/20/2007, -2/+3Dont listen to the hippie, i have a sudden urge to see it
  • physicx, on 11/20/2007, -0/+14I know exactly what they mean on the David photo - "I snapped this like a ninja when in Florence"
  • indyGuy, on 11/20/2007, -48/+12Wow - buried for lack of "upskirts on public transit" category
    • DeskFlyer, on 11/20/2007, -1/+39Creepiest comment of the day.
      • vornan19, on 11/20/2007, -9/+2He's just realizing that there is an amount of creepy people. taking pictures.
    • indyGuy, on 11/20/2007, -1/+5maybe I should've added emoticons to indicate the intended humor...
  • suxmonkey, on 11/20/2007, -1/+21The absolute best ones are at the bottom: pictures of 'do not take pictures' signs :)
  • dillyhoo, on 11/20/2007, -3/+111That'll teach those bastards not to try and protect priceless history from light exposure.
    • squeekyzebra, on 11/20/2007, -7/+0lol seriously though if you want a picture buy one at the gift shop at the end of the tour.
  • minnymoo, on 11/20/2007, -16/+2wtf? photography *is* allowed in concerts...
    but i'm loving the concept of this site :]
    -dugg
    • CraigJ, on 11/20/2007, -0/+10Generally it's not unless you have permission.
    • Rikkochet, on 11/20/2007, -3/+2Might wanna tell that to the guy saying "no photography" before the show...
  • foxhaze, on 11/20/2007, -1/+4Well, that was lame.
  • sparky108, on 11/20/2007, -17/+0haha a compilation of photos from places where picture-taking is not allowed
    • squeekyzebra, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4the no ***** sherlock comment of the day
  • spicytuna, on 11/20/2007, -9/+2this is going to go down fast. 149 objects on this page alone! http://www.strictlynophotography.com/index.php?cat ...
  • goldenratiophi, on 11/20/2007, -0/+18They clearly don't want you photographing this page >_>. Any sample images on living servers?
  • someone173406, on 11/20/2007, -3/+2too late, its already down.
  • cboj, on 11/20/2007, -9/+10Back in the 90's I carried a camera in the US House of Representatives. The guard glared at me and pointed to the no camera sign. So while I sat there the guard was called from the gallery, I quickly raised the camera and squeezed off a few frams (ya it was film) I ran out of there afterwards.

    Still got the pic ;)
    • Error601, on 11/20/2007, -0/+12It would have been easier to turn on CSPAN.
    • HappyEngineer, on 11/20/2007, -2/+3Would someone please explain why cboj is being dugg down? It seems like a perfectly relevant and uncontroversial anecdote. I have often noticed that the number of diggs does not always correspond to the content of the comment. Do people just digg randomly sometimes?
  • Gohan5052, on 11/20/2007, -1/+21am i the only who read pornography?
    • squeekyzebra, on 11/20/2007, -8/+0pretty much. considering the description clearly states what the site is about.
    • woofers07, on 11/20/2007, -0/+5no, you're definitely not.
    • mk2ja, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3Holy photography, Cameraman!

      I still thought it said "pornography" until I saw your comment. Woops!
  • pencilneck, on 11/20/2007, -0/+13Seems that the digg effect works faster than any "cease & desist". Server down for the count.
  • boris92, on 11/20/2007, -3/+13I don't get it, this site went down at 270 digs, no look how many there are.
    WTF are people digging it without going to the site?
    • werddrew, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2Cool concept, I suppose...
    • Hoov, on 11/20/2007, -2/+2Does yes answer your question, or do I need to explain it to you too?
    • clickwir, on 11/20/2007, -1/+7maybe there were 5000 people able to view it before we saw an issue, just because there were X number of diggs isn't any indicator of how many people actually viewed it. On the other hand, maybe 500 people had clicked on it over 10 hours ago and are just coming back to digg it now. I know I'll open a handful of stories in other tabs and after I'm done with them, I return to my digg tab and digg the ones I thought should be dugg. That could be 5 mins later, it could be 5 hours later.
    • dbr_onix, on 11/20/2007, -1/+6*Puts on tinfoil hat* Maybe the Government submitted the page to Digg, knowing it would be knocked offline?
      (And it's likely people are Digg'ing the story while the server is down, with the intention of looking at it later. Or, they used one of the numerous mirrors?)
  • chopperrockets, on 11/20/2007, -2/+50DOWN! im always too late for the cool *****.
  • VAJasonL, on 11/20/2007, -20/+25Mirror-http://72.14.209.104/search?hs=sUq&hl=en&lr=&c2cof ...
    • blueforce4116, on 11/20/2007, -1/+9google cache is not a mirror...
  • Hoov, on 11/20/2007, -9/+3Digg me to enlightenment.
  • fractorial, on 11/20/2007, -2/+20Strictly no bandwidth!

    Ah ***** it. I tried.
  • phantom_mullet, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2Haha...this reminds me of one of my friends...she took a bunch of pictures at the Sistine Chapel by holding her camera at her waist and pointing it up...you can see her nose in about half of them....
  • ScienceDoc, on 11/20/2007, -1/+9Buried....can't see it.
  • RogerStrong, on 11/20/2007, -1/+2I have a couple "forbidden" pictures I took while in the Soviet Union back in 1987.

    One is of a rail yard. Photos of rail yards, crossroads, fuel stations and other potential targets was strictly off limits. The other is an anonomous official going by in his limo, taken inside the Kremlin.
  • skyshock1, on 11/20/2007, -0/+5I guess the server thinks I shouldn't see these either.
  • 23MAL, on 11/20/2007, -0/+29Reminder to self. Come back in a week when everyone on Digg's forgotten about this site.
    • endlessoul, on 11/20/2007, -1/+21I can't tell you how many times I've thought that.

      Then forget to come back.
    • DontGiveADamn, on 11/20/2007, -1/+2I drag the link to my desktop and then I'll remember.
  • banq59, on 11/20/2007, -4/+1If people were not retarded and knew how to take a picture without a flash then we could all have pictures of priceless artwork. *looks at photo taken of the Mona Lisa* *leans back*
  • ChronicColonic, on 11/20/2007, -10/+5Pics or it didn't happ...oh wait a minute...
  • mikusjay, on 11/20/2007, -2/+25my girlfriend has a "strictly no photography" policy nowadays.
  • egonSchiele, on 11/20/2007, -3/+1the only thing I see is a picture of toulouse-lautrec.

    saucy.
  • jikai55, on 11/20/2007, -7/+2The Digg Effect strikes again!
  • Lactoes, on 11/20/2007, -6/+1Strictly not enough bandwidth.
  • maiku00, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2People are too stupid to work the flash on their cameras. The ones with brains have to suffer because of the blanket ban.
  • tehowe, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2For some reason, there's a no pictures warning in the freaking Loblaws around here. (Grocery Stores). What, were too many photography students taking suggestive shots of green peppers?
  • Balath, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1Can it be more mirrors time now pweese?
    • DDION, on 11/20/2007, -1/+1It's too late, they know about the pictures now...
  • ronygenius, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1no photographs means no photographs hence the site goes down
  • WyllyWylly, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1Lame. Where are the secret weapons caches and intelligence safehouses?
  • kevyn, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2so ummm... anyone actually found any good results?
  • jackdubious, on 11/20/2007, -0/+0Ooooooh unauthorized pics of KT Tunstall in concert. Is that the FBI I hear knocking?
  • bikingshaun, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1wow - pictures of "no photography" signs how exciting
  • TheKappa, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1In the words of Eric Cartman: "Lame!"
    B-b-b-BURIED!
  • ZeroDayPhoto, on 02/16/2008, -0/+0Wow, this website is so awesome. Anyone know how some of these concert pictures come out so well? Doesn't security get crazy, when they see the cameras come out?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.