bo_lorentzen
Established
Can't imagine that some type of photography or advance recon was NOT involved in almost every documented act of terror the last 10 years... probably even using digital devices such as cell phones etc.
Its hard to imagine any operation without intelligence (of sorts) and planning.
The issue is thinking that kicking out photographers will prevent a enemy from operating in a territory.
At best one can hope it discourages, at worst most of these anti-terror actions is simply placebo to make some parts of the pubic feel protected.
Besides, once we have hired and "trained" a bunch of janitors to frisk old ladies before they get on their flights... and unionized them... there is no way in hell we will ever get rid of those jokes. They are simply a permanent money drain to make sure we all fly safely without box cutters, toothpaste and shampoo.
Its hard to imagine any operation without intelligence (of sorts) and planning.
The issue is thinking that kicking out photographers will prevent a enemy from operating in a territory.
At best one can hope it discourages, at worst most of these anti-terror actions is simply placebo to make some parts of the pubic feel protected.
Besides, once we have hired and "trained" a bunch of janitors to frisk old ladies before they get on their flights... and unionized them... there is no way in hell we will ever get rid of those jokes. They are simply a permanent money drain to make sure we all fly safely without box cutters, toothpaste and shampoo.
robklurfield
eclipse
I was "bothered" a couple of weeks ago (harassed is too strong a word for what happened) by a couple of cops in a patrol car who passed me while I wa shooting the exterior of a defunct building at an abandoned state mental hospital FROM ACROSS THE STREET.
"Are you taking pictures?" (Well, guys, what does it look like?) "You know, that's state property;... you can't take pictures of the buildings here." I don't trespass (when I was 20 years old I might have; well actually, now that I think of it, I last tried that when I was about 40, but let's not go there in this thread). To the officers: if I accidentally parked my car in the wrong spot, I apologize. Can't take pictures of a soon-to-be-torn-down building that, technically as a taxpayer, I actually own in some small part? You must be kidding.
The last time I was in LA a few years ago, I took my kid up Mulholland Drive in the Hollywood Hills. We pulled up just beneath the famed Hollywood sign, where there is a small sign warning about rattle snakes. Stayed in the car to take a few shots not wanting to find out if the sign was to be believed (probably should be). Then we drove over to the Mulholland Dam, which holds back the mighty LA River (um, it's totally dry most of the year; you have to see it to believe it). Anyway, one can walk across much of the dam and see some very interesting views. There are signs posted warning that photography is verboten. This I get. I don't like it, but I get it. I hate all the repression going on in the post-9/11 world, but forwarned, I complied. There are surveillance cameras all around. I would have liked to get some pictures, but my fear of being arrested outweighed my photographic inclinations (that and worries about getting back to the airport on time).
I wonder: If 9/11 had destroyed something other than the WTC, today, would I be able to take this shot? Or, would the authorities be carting me off to Gitmo for some waterboarding? There has to be a better way to secure our safety AND protect our civil liberties from repression.
Having commuted through the World Trade Center for years and having second or third degree connections to a number of victims of the attacks (parents of several different families with whom my kids went to school, the fiance of a friend's sister, among others), I certainly do have a raw nerve that will never heal from the horror of it all. That said, if the best means we have of separating potential terrorists from the rest of us is by harassing people with cameras aimed at landmarks and other interesting structures, then we are in very deep trouble as a society.
In a way, the terrorists scored a victory. They got us to give up some things we hold dear in exchange for a false sense of security. Meanwhile, Cheney & Co. were getting us to wlling accede to all kinds of pointless repression by playing to our very worst fears. This is a slippery slope. The bad guys used cell phones. It does not follow that all cell phone users might be terrorists. Suspicious behavior is suspicious behavior (a la Supreme Court Justice Powell on porn: I can't tell you what it is, but "I know it when I see it."). By itself, taking pictures ought not to constitute suspicious behavior. Enough ranting from me....
I imagine that there must be as many amateur photographers among the police as there are in any other random segment of the population. A cop who shoots photographs as a hobby would understand what we're doing. The other ones are simply ignorant of the strange ways of all of us folks.
I now carry a Moo business card (thanks to MabelSound for tipping me off to this) in part to have something to justify what I do in public places. I'm sure it's hardly worth the nice card stock it's printed on, but at least it lets police and security people have a chance to scrutinize me for something other than my ocassionally long beard.
"Are you taking pictures?" (Well, guys, what does it look like?) "You know, that's state property;... you can't take pictures of the buildings here." I don't trespass (when I was 20 years old I might have; well actually, now that I think of it, I last tried that when I was about 40, but let's not go there in this thread). To the officers: if I accidentally parked my car in the wrong spot, I apologize. Can't take pictures of a soon-to-be-torn-down building that, technically as a taxpayer, I actually own in some small part? You must be kidding.
The last time I was in LA a few years ago, I took my kid up Mulholland Drive in the Hollywood Hills. We pulled up just beneath the famed Hollywood sign, where there is a small sign warning about rattle snakes. Stayed in the car to take a few shots not wanting to find out if the sign was to be believed (probably should be). Then we drove over to the Mulholland Dam, which holds back the mighty LA River (um, it's totally dry most of the year; you have to see it to believe it). Anyway, one can walk across much of the dam and see some very interesting views. There are signs posted warning that photography is verboten. This I get. I don't like it, but I get it. I hate all the repression going on in the post-9/11 world, but forwarned, I complied. There are surveillance cameras all around. I would have liked to get some pictures, but my fear of being arrested outweighed my photographic inclinations (that and worries about getting back to the airport on time).
I wonder: If 9/11 had destroyed something other than the WTC, today, would I be able to take this shot? Or, would the authorities be carting me off to Gitmo for some waterboarding? There has to be a better way to secure our safety AND protect our civil liberties from repression.
Having commuted through the World Trade Center for years and having second or third degree connections to a number of victims of the attacks (parents of several different families with whom my kids went to school, the fiance of a friend's sister, among others), I certainly do have a raw nerve that will never heal from the horror of it all. That said, if the best means we have of separating potential terrorists from the rest of us is by harassing people with cameras aimed at landmarks and other interesting structures, then we are in very deep trouble as a society.
In a way, the terrorists scored a victory. They got us to give up some things we hold dear in exchange for a false sense of security. Meanwhile, Cheney & Co. were getting us to wlling accede to all kinds of pointless repression by playing to our very worst fears. This is a slippery slope. The bad guys used cell phones. It does not follow that all cell phone users might be terrorists. Suspicious behavior is suspicious behavior (a la Supreme Court Justice Powell on porn: I can't tell you what it is, but "I know it when I see it."). By itself, taking pictures ought not to constitute suspicious behavior. Enough ranting from me....
I imagine that there must be as many amateur photographers among the police as there are in any other random segment of the population. A cop who shoots photographs as a hobby would understand what we're doing. The other ones are simply ignorant of the strange ways of all of us folks.
I now carry a Moo business card (thanks to MabelSound for tipping me off to this) in part to have something to justify what I do in public places. I'm sure it's hardly worth the nice card stock it's printed on, but at least it lets police and security people have a chance to scrutinize me for something other than my ocassionally long beard.
S
st3ph3nm
Guest
Cops watch too many movies. Even security experts think that the authorities have it wrong:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/the_war_on_phot.html
Cheers,
Steve
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/the_war_on_phot.html
Cheers,
Steve
Jamie123
Veteran
I just said what was reported in the news. I don't know whether it's true or not, all I can say is that it's been reported by reputable newspapers.
Anyways, it's not really important whether or not terrorists take pictures of their targets. IMO the argument that photographers shouldn't be harrassed by the police because terrorists don't take pictures is wrong. It implies that the police would actually be justified in harrassing photographers if it turns out that some terrorist take pictures of their target.
In my opinion that's not right. If we want to preserve our civil liberties we have to accept certain risks and one of them is that a few terrorists get away with photographing their targets. Otherwise we might aswell live in a society where our phones are tapped, our mail is read and our asses are searched for bombs everytime we use the public transportation system.
Perhaps people should lobby for the police to put it into their SOP to take photographs of people taking photographs and to let them keep taking their photographs. That way if anything happens, they will know who to go after.
Turtle
Veteran
Photography/imagery is much more of an issue in espionage than terrorism, such as the photographing of communications antennae to determine the activities within a given building etc
Schneier makes very valid points. I believe the stopping/checking of photographers is primarily done because it is easy. It requires no brains, no understanding, need have no practical purpose whatsoever, yet still gives the impression that 'something is being done.' Its the 'something must be done, lets have a telcon/conference about it' brigade that tends to make a mess out of most things. In all cases they tend to sail far too close to the political spin machine and far too far away from where facts are both gleaned and implemented. we have far too many in Afghanistan, both the hawkish variety and the doves. All talk, all charts, all bluff and bluster and VERY little fact or research behind what they do. Just remember, appearances are everything. And that includes stopping anyone with a camera. Facts tend to get in the way of the intended message.
Schneier makes very valid points. I believe the stopping/checking of photographers is primarily done because it is easy. It requires no brains, no understanding, need have no practical purpose whatsoever, yet still gives the impression that 'something is being done.' Its the 'something must be done, lets have a telcon/conference about it' brigade that tends to make a mess out of most things. In all cases they tend to sail far too close to the political spin machine and far too far away from where facts are both gleaned and implemented. we have far too many in Afghanistan, both the hawkish variety and the doves. All talk, all charts, all bluff and bluster and VERY little fact or research behind what they do. Just remember, appearances are everything. And that includes stopping anyone with a camera. Facts tend to get in the way of the intended message.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
The purpose of all these random, inconsistent acts of security is that the billions of dollars pissed away on security employees and infrastructure means that they have to occasionally do something... And once in a while, whether organized or freelance, some dumb terrorist like the British Shoe Bomber is sacrificed to the cause. That ******* alone is responsible for billions of dollars of security measures, billions of wasted hours, and undo stress on an impatient civilian population -- which probably has a greater effect than the actual impact of blowing up an airliner.
The terrorists goal is to break down our society -- even something as minor as the argument over public photography contributes to that. Sure there are lousy cops and ridiculous policies -- but the real blame still should be on those backward, hateful Islamist zealots.
Most of us now treat security as a nuisance and are skeptical of even appropriate, common sense measures -- which is exactly what the terrorists want to happen. We're being lulled into thinking they will attack exactly the same way as the last incident... Doh!
The terrorists goal is to break down our society -- even something as minor as the argument over public photography contributes to that. Sure there are lousy cops and ridiculous policies -- but the real blame still should be on those backward, hateful Islamist zealots.
Most of us now treat security as a nuisance and are skeptical of even appropriate, common sense measures -- which is exactly what the terrorists want to happen. We're being lulled into thinking they will attack exactly the same way as the last incident... Doh!
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ari,
Sometimes, when I point out the obvious like that, people look shocked and say "You're thinking like a terrorist."
Well, yes. Most of the truly cretinous restrictions we face today were thought up by those who can't think like terrorists because they lack the intelligence or the imagination (or both). Then they were passed into law by governments who realized that most of the voters wouldn't think, either, but the restriction made it look as if they were doing something.
I seem to recall that Ralph Nader recommended armoured doors to pilots' cabins in airliners long before September 11th, and that the airlines fought it on cost grounds and the Reagan administration on the grounds of excessive regulation -- but I may be misremembering.
Cheers,
R.
Silva Lining
CanoHasseLeica
wgerrard
Veteran
I agree! I've often thought about turning up for a flight barefoot - put my shoes in hold luggage.... I'm sure I would attract 'special interest' though!
I'm hoping for tech solutions to eventually make our lives easier, and more secure. If that involved standing for a few seconds in a booth while I'm scanned and sniffed, then so be it.
I will accept that all sorts of nefarious things could be placed inside thick-soled shoes. I'm curious, though, why we just can't stand on a scanner that checks the shoes, rather than removing them. Is it the health risks of the x-rays, or paranoia about those risks?
bo_lorentzen
Established
Guys, give em a break.. there is logic to the madness.
last year waiting to get screened for a international flight, two asians were harassed about their waterbottles, told to toss them in the dumpster and move on... no such luck the guys popped the bottles and chucked the water on the spot, then tossed the empty bottles in the trash.. they were not about to waste the good water, and with that they proceeded to board. with their water, so to speak.
I boarded with a 300mm, a solid tripod and a bunch of chargers and batteries rolled up in the camera bag, it was never checked in details.
.
Bo
www.bophoto.typepad.com
last year waiting to get screened for a international flight, two asians were harassed about their waterbottles, told to toss them in the dumpster and move on... no such luck the guys popped the bottles and chucked the water on the spot, then tossed the empty bottles in the trash.. they were not about to waste the good water, and with that they proceeded to board. with their water, so to speak.
I boarded with a 300mm, a solid tripod and a bunch of chargers and batteries rolled up in the camera bag, it was never checked in details.
.
Bo
www.bophoto.typepad.com
Jamie123
Veteran
I disagree. Blaming those "backward, hateful Islamist zealots" is exactly what politicians do when they try to justify taking away people's civil liberties. The terrorists should be blamed for killing people and blowing up buildings but I'm afraid the blame for the break down of society is on us.
George S.
How many is enough?
The US's security measures are a joke. We're always reacting to the last threat, never looking ahead as to what might be being dreamed up by the bad guys now.
9/11 happened and they had box cutters, so now box cutters are banned. One inept moron tries to light his shoe, and we're all now made to be sniffed and to remove shoes. Someone overseas dreams up a plot using liquid explosives and now we can't bring a water bottle or deodorant when we travel.
Israeli security forces have already told us how our next attack will be done, with a simple bomb in a piece of luggage. Someone will just walk through the glass doors and into the terminal and place the bag on the floor and walk away. There's probably 500 people near enough waiting on several check-in lines that are within the blast zone.
Apparently they do not allow unchecked people and bags into their terminals, all security checks are done outside and then you are allowed to enter. I don't think it could be easily done in say- Minneapolis in January though. But food for thought. If the past practices are any indication we ( the USA) will probably adopt that method of screening only after the terrorists attack us in that way.
9/11 happened and they had box cutters, so now box cutters are banned. One inept moron tries to light his shoe, and we're all now made to be sniffed and to remove shoes. Someone overseas dreams up a plot using liquid explosives and now we can't bring a water bottle or deodorant when we travel.
Israeli security forces have already told us how our next attack will be done, with a simple bomb in a piece of luggage. Someone will just walk through the glass doors and into the terminal and place the bag on the floor and walk away. There's probably 500 people near enough waiting on several check-in lines that are within the blast zone.
Apparently they do not allow unchecked people and bags into their terminals, all security checks are done outside and then you are allowed to enter. I don't think it could be easily done in say- Minneapolis in January though. But food for thought. If the past practices are any indication we ( the USA) will probably adopt that method of screening only after the terrorists attack us in that way.
Last edited:
user237428934
User deletion pending
Google pictures are surely not a reliable source for terrorist activities. The information is most of the time just too old. The pictures of the area around my company are more than 4 years old.
wgerrard
Veteran
The deal with the restrictions on liquids is to keep the volume of liquids people can bring onboard from off airport below the minimum believed to be necessary to mix with other liquids and create an explosive. Sadly, there's no reason for anyone, including other passengers, to accept a passenger's word about what's in his bottle.
As someone said, doing passenger security checks before anyone can even enter the airport would boost security. Such a move would likely stir a firestorm of protest, not the least from airports that would need to invest in infrastructure to support the checks. ( You'd need new facilities to house the checks and you'd need to reconfigure traffic patterns to funnel all passengers to the security building.)
user237428934
User deletion pending
If the goal is to blow up a bomb in a crowd of people then it's no difference if someone does this inside the airport building or outside in the crowd that waits to get in.
sanmich
Veteran
It seems to me that the goal of terrorism is to fight by spreading terror and paralyse as much as possible regular activities of a civilian population.
So the impact should also be measured on an economic scale.
what is the relative impact if people stop to use buses vs if they stop to use airplanes. What if any post parcel has to be sniffed . etc.
In theory, the best weapon against terrorism (apart prevention of course) could be not to report anything in the medias
I know... very theoretical.....
One thing essential when facing terrorism is to set the disturbance to regular life to the minimum required by preventive activities. It doesn't seem to be the case in certain countries when we hear all these stories about photog harassment.
One example I can think of is the spped at which the anti bomb squad will usually clear a suspect bag in Israel. It can be a question of five to ten minutes.
It's essential to do everything very quickly when they have to this often and when each event of this sort is completely blocking a group of streets.
rphenning
Established
do you or anyone you know closely work in any sort of military or national security (IE border patrol) position?
Also that claim that the Israelis have already told us how our next attack is going to come is old and untrue in the respect I think you meant it in? I could be wrong but have a read: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/juvalaviv.asp
My point is basically the US government stops/thwarts/preempts a lot more than it leads on. They aren't just a bunch of idiots with their thumbs up their butts running the show. The people in charge and the people at the forefront of our national security are actually pretty damn good at what they do.
And as abrasive as I'm sure this comes off on the internet, I mean no disrespect. I just enjoy a good conversation.
George S.
How many is enough?
I would tend to agree with you, but having never flown into or out of Israel, I can only talk about what I've seen on TV and what security people have told me. Perhaps someone living in Israel can add more of an explanation.
George S.
How many is enough?
Mr rphenning,
Yes, I am in the police ranks and I can tell you that your sense that the government stops all these attempts through their smarts is hogwash. They generally only catch the stupid criminals, and thank goodness most of these guys have made many mistakes which has allowed them to be caught.
The Israeli statement I quoted was from a show possibly broadcast on CNN, IIRC. I don't get my information from internet rumors.