Do real terrorists take pictures first? Like, ever?

S

squirrel$$$bandit

Veteran
Local time
5:58 PM
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
6,249
View My Gallery
Does anyone know if there is a documented case, anywhere on earth in the past 10 years, when actual terrorists have gone to the future scene of their crime and taken a bunch of pictures? It would seem to me that this would be completely pointless, given the existence of Google street view and aerial photos of every single inch of earth. I mean, the very surveillance culture that has created the phenomenon of cops harrassing photographers has simultaneously made it utterly pointless for terrorists to photograph possible attack sites.

So, unless there's compelling evidence to the contrary, can we deduce that the reason cops harrass photographers is that they, and their superiors, simply enjoy weilding their authority?
 
I believe there is little dispute that terrorists use photos & video, among other tools like the internet, for surveillance/scouting. Of course, this begs the main question of whether this fact justifies specific restrictions on photography by private citizens who are not terrorists.
 
I expect they do, even if they don't take pictures - reconnaissance would be essential.

Of course, one of the reasons that a large number of 'average joes' are stopped whilst taking wonky pictures of St Pauls Catherdral is to ensure 'fairness' in stop and search statistics. That is, in order to stop and search individuals from, shall we say, 'target groups', They have to stop and search a proportionate number of individuals from all other groups, in order that They can defend themselves when They are accussed of targeting one group in particular (which has a history or causing riots in the UK)

Hope I've explained that clearly 🙂 I was told this by someone who should know.
 
Well apparently Saddam Hussein was planning to blow up a radio station in Prague back in 2000. The police found out about it because one of the "spies" was photographing this ugly building a bit too thoroughly. Not a joke.
 
If memory serves, I can recall at least one series of press reports about people on some agency's watch list who were observed photographing buildings they were thought to be planning to attack. I don't know if anyone actually detained for terrorism has been shown to have photographed something before attacking it.

Google obviously provides many images, but whether as street-level shot is sufficient to a terrorist's needs depends on what the terrorist wants to do.

My point of view on this is that anything you can photograph you can see. Having a photo may make planning easier, but the same thing can be accomplished by simply looking and memorizing.

Now, to be fair, that cannot be said for things that are too far away to be seen clearly. That might be behind the apparent wariness about long lenses. Point the lens at your buddy 10 yards away and you're ignored. Turn around and point it at the big building 1000 yards away, and you're suspicious.

I'd attribute "the phenomenon of cops harrassing photographers" less to being on power trip and more to over-zealousness, fear, ignorance of cameras and photography, and, most importantly, poorly written laws and regulations and broad-brush orders from supervisors.
 
George9 said:
I could not find a mention of photos in that link??
Click to expand...

Yes, like I said, I read it somewhere else. I can give you the link if you can read German.

Anyways, I still don't think this one time event justifies treating photographers like terrorist suspects.
 
Jamie123 said:
Well apparently Saddam Hussein was planning to blow up a radio station in Prague back in 2000. The police found out about it because one of the "spies" was photographing this ugly building a bit too thoroughly. Not a joke.
Click to expand...

Nor terrorism either. If we consider US bombardments of Iraqi radio stations legitimate acts of warfare, the Iraq must be allowed to do the same with US radios as well...
 
I was out and about taking photos at the weekend. I noticed a policeman staring at me, and I just stared him out. He didn't approach me, but I was definitely being 'observed'.
 
Silva Lining said:
I expect they do, even if they don't take pictures - reconnaissance would be essential.

Of course, one of the reasons that a large number of 'average joes' are stopped whilst taking wonky pictures of St Pauls Catherdral is to ensure 'fairness' in stop and search statistics. That is, in order to stop and search individuals from, shall we say, 'target groups', They have to stop and search a proportionate number of individuals from all other groups, in order that They can defend themselves when They are accussed of targeting one group in particular (which has a history or causing riots in the UK)

Hope I've explained that clearly 🙂 I was told this by someone who should know.
Click to expand...


If that's the case I'm willing to take one for the team...but then I'm a bit darker than your average Mid-Westerner Tourist in the Big City so my "harrassment" might go in the wrong column...
So far, I haven't been asked any questions by uniformed authorities while shooting in Public places...I have been harrassed by the average guy on the street as to what I'm doing...

Just yesterday I was photographing the new Police Station in downtown Los Angeles...I was using my stealthy Mamiya 645 with the ever so small 45mm lens...many saw me no one said anything...
 
Last edited:
mabelsound said:
more reasonably, if they were going to take surveillance photos, wouldn't they just use cell phones? Why call attention to yourself with a giant DSLR and camera bag, like that BBC dude doubtless had?
Click to expand...

Exactly
who the heck is going to taek surveillance photos with film cameras/ RF's/ MF/ LF etc when any beginner cell phone boosts a camera.
Or maybe terroristts are keen of good bokeh or "smooth rendition of the tones"
 
I wonder what will happen when terrorists stop taking pictures leaving only us dodgy snappers?

Maybe anyone weilding an easel and oil paints will prove suspicious?!
 
sanmich said:
Exactly
who the heck is going to taek surveillance photos with film cameras/ RF's/ MF/ LF etc when any beginner cell phone boosts a camera.
Or maybe terroristts are keen of good bokeh or "smooth rendition of the tones"
Click to expand...

A moment's reflection should indicate that photos of a building shot at a distance, even with a long lens, are not going to be very useful to anyone targeting that building. If they intend to use, say, a car bomb, they only need to drive by and look for a place to park. If they want to introduce toxins into the building's water or HVAC system, then they're going to need a much closer look.

So, worry about the guy with the cellphone who's nosing around in the back or on the roof, not the tourists or photographers with the DSLR's out front.
 
Jamie123 said:
Well apparently Saddam Hussein was planning to blow up a radio station in Prague back in 2000. The police found out about it because one of the "spies" was photographing this ugly building a bit too thoroughly. Not a joke.
Click to expand...

For your information, Saddam Hussein was hanged in December, 2006, so what are you talking about? All the remains of "the regime of late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein" were destroyed by so-called American "peacemakers". To my mind this nonsense is somehow connected with the idea of placing anti-missile defense complex in the territory of Czech Republic.
 
sevo said:
Nor terrorism either. If we consider US bombardments of Iraqi radio stations legitimate acts of warfare, the Iraq must be allowed to do the same with US radios as well...
Click to expand...

imho, that sir, is a bit of a stretch.

That aside, I think most law enforcement officers, at least in the USA, think they are doing the right thing. They are the lowest work unit. Whatever their supervisors say, or imply, they rightfully try to do. I say rightfully, assuming they haven't been told what the rules actually are, and think they are acting lawfully.

Law makers and police supervisors are the ones we should be complaining to, not the officer on the beat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom