Are Photographers Really a Threat?

T

Tuolumne

Veteran
Local time
2:27 AM
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
3,005
Bruce Schneier, the well-known security expert and analyst, has an article in the Guardian discussing this issue and explaining why it falsely bedevils so many government officials and people. This is the kind of debunking that Bruce is very good at. You can read it here.

/T
 
I seem to recall that the Guardian is known for sensationalist reporting. Do I have it confused with another?

I seem to recall hearing on the news how terrorists laptops or knapsacks have been found with photos. Of course that doesn't mean they took them. Speaking of movies, how many have you seen where military people showed sandbox mockups of an objective?

Don't misunderstand, I don't like to be restricted from legitimate photography. But I reserve the chance to evaluate each thing I hear about that. I don't want to give terrorists any thing to help them either. It isn't an easy call sometimes. Mind you, an officious cop or security guard isn't my favorite person either.

Nope, not always an easy call.
 
HA...very well written and executed. Of course, he's preaching to the choir here, but still...

Now the taller order is how to educate the people who try to restrict photography in our free societies? I suppose articles like this are for us to use on those types.
 
Great...now I have to find another way to be thought of as a threat to my country other than by taking pictures of the high school marching band and church events...
Street photography will no longer provide me with the adrenalin rush I long for now that I've been outed...Knowing that people no longer fear me cause I carry a camera...People will no longer talk behind my back as I pass by..."Look, there goes one of them Terrorist type camera guys..."

Nice and informative article...one should print this and hand it out to any paranoid & fearful citizen who thinks otherwise...Let them read this and then sit with them and talk...


Jimmy Olsen & Peter Parker will no longer be seen as Terrorists or as threats to mankind...simply because they use cameras...
 
oftheherd said:
I seem to recall that the Guardian is known for sensationalist reporting. Do I have it confused with another?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you probably have. The "Grauniad" is more renowned for it's left-wing slant and inabillitie too spel.

In order, from "left" to "right" (wing), UK daily newspapers generally run as follows:

Mirror*, Guardian, Times, Independent, Star*, Sun*, Express*, Telegraph, Mail*

You may argue with the exact placement, but this is broadly consistent. Those marked with an asterisk (*) are "tabloids". The others are generally known as "broadsheets", although, confusingly, the Guardian is "berliner"-sized, and the Times and the Independent are the same size these days as the tabloids. The Mirror, Star and Sun are also known as "Red Tops". These are usually the papers known for sensationalist reporting.

That said, this is an interesting and thought-provoking article.

Regards,

Bill
 
Last edited:
I have a friend who works for the New York Times. According to her information, numerous pencil sketches of the Times building have been found on Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan. No photos, though. True story.
 
Great read! Thanks very much for posting that link! Quite refreshing after I myself started to find reasons why this paranoia was perfectly reasonable!
There shoulb a passage in a screenplay like that:

"Sidwalk day: loud argument as two uniformed security men are trying to interrogate a photographer with an old camera on a tripod. Terrorist makes a quick snap of his target.
The photographer is dragged away- terrorist smirks as they drag the photog past him"
 
Last edited:
brachal said:
I have a friend who works for the New York Times. According to her information, numerous pencil sketches of the Times building have been found on Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan. No photos, though. True story.
Click to expand...

This example points out the paradox of camera fear. There are so many ways to capture an image of a target, whether by drawing, hidden camera, camera phone, miniature P&S, etc. that the person standing out in the open with a camera is the LEAST likely to be a terrorist. If you were a terrorist, you would be much more discreet than the average street shooting photographer.

/T
 
Sounds like one of those 'photographers rights' documents might be a handy thing to have.
About the artical - is that an Exacta?
 
Perhaps photographers should travel in pairs and perhaps put small camcorders into their bags. In the event that one is victimized, the other might help the first win a big-fat lawsuit. And if things go really wrong, who knows, it might mean a Pulitzer.
 
Tuolumne said:
This example points out the paradox of camera fear. There are so many ways to capture an image of a target, whether by drawing, hidden camera, camera phone, miniature P&S, etc. that the person standing out in the open with a camera is the LEAST likely to be a terrorist. If you were a terrorist, you would be much more discreet than the average street shooting photographer./T
Click to expand...


As a photographer I would hope that more people would think this way first before jumping to conclusions...

And as a bonus, for them, the Terrorists are probably watching all this and having a good chuckle at what else they've caused...
 
Al Patterson said:
Here's an interesting video from Washington DC. The local Fox affiliate is interviewing an Amtrak spokesman who says there is no prohibition from photographing in Union Staion, when lo and behold, up comes a rent-a-cop who tells them to stop filming. You can't make this stuff up...

http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/...ale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1
Click to expand...

OY!!! :bang:

Yes, please call the real police, Mr. Rent-A-Cop, I want to have you arrested on a civil rights violation.
 
"Are Photographers Really a Threat? "

In a second thought, after having recommended consistent disobedience by us of any prohibition, for a long time, I think I would advice we become somewhat flexible in our approach.

The US and other European nations have suffered a real trauma from terrorist acts. Common people have a right to be afraid. It is normal and it may fade with time. If Israel could be an example, common people are not afraid of cameras of the type RFF members use.
Pro bazookas are another cathegory and they frighten even without any terrorism.

Now beyond the desire by the governments to defend buildings, which could be understood too, it seems we are facing a wave of the Orwelian big brother Watch due to tecnology advance and without any relation to terrorism. We all are being watched more and more.

And at the same time we, who do not have any bad intention, find more and more trouble to carry our cameras and use them.

So in my opinion it is a complex situation requiring on-the-spot judgement. After all we too cannot stop photographing because there is fear out there.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Pitxu,

I could go further on and put the question of who are more terrorists, the violent Islamist or the Governments in many countries of the west. To cut it short, we agree.

We agree too that Governments took abusive advantage of terrorist acts, as true terrorism will allways play to the hands of the Western Governments to ensure the latter further incroach at the Arab oil wells. Fine.

But I would like to ask your agreement in that demolishing buildings full of civilians is not akin to the ethics of armed movements like the IRA or the ETA.

If you deliberatedly target civilians (As many of the most powerfull nations have done in the past) you are declaring a war of civil extermination. Again, such wars are not the monopoly of extreme terrorism.

Bit once an armed movement engages in civil mass extermination tactics, it throws dirt to its own flag, to the flag of liberty and betrays the future of its people. Haven't we learnt nothing from the self collapse of the USSR ?

Therefore, besides all hypocresies, US citizens are very much right in their perceptions, non-withstanding the fact many may be wrong about the role of their own Government in the mess.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ruben said:
But I would like to ask your agreement in that demolishing buildings full of civilians is not akin to the ethics of armed movements like the IRA or the ETA.
Click to expand...

Ruben, I believe you mean well, but as one who lived through the IRA years of terror I find this remark breathtakingly insensitive in the extreme.

I am with Pitxu on this. Violence - any form of violence - in pursuit of an end result is simply abhorrent and inexcusable.

Regards,

Bill
 
*sigh*

i now have a little story of my own. i went to take pictures of the plant barriers around the oil refinery in town and in just a few minutes, an employee stopped her car to scare me off, citing "home security". i asked if she thought taking pictures from the sidewalk was illegal, because i knew it wasn't. she said she didn't care and was going to call security to cart me off. anyhow, a few minutes later, i'm waiting at an intersection and a police car drives up. the cops were actually pretty cool, and said they knew it wasn't illegal to photograph in the area. they just wanted to warn me about standing in the middle of the street blocking traffic...it seems the woman lied to the cops!

in the end, no harm done. cool cops, underhanded "patriot". :rolleyes:
 
aizan...welcome to the club...
now that you know how it feels, it's time to find as much information on the subject and ready yourself for the next time...yes, there will be a next time...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom