My fellow criminals...

[BillP]

Fair enough. I don't live in the UK and don't know what the conditions are. It shoulds like everyone is creeping about on tenterhooks, scared of their own shadows. If the government is encouraging that sort of fear, that's not a good thing, clearly.

I won't say we don't have our share of that sort of paranoia here, but I hope it hasn't gotten as bad as all that. I have never feared the police here - I simply dislike it when they make up their own 'laws' to keep people from doing perfectly legal things which they just don't happen to like.

Bill (and others) the point is just that. This is state-sponsored paranoia. I have no issue with the police - I am a law-abiding person who has actually got involved a couple of times on the side of the police in incidents. What I have an issue with is the climate of fear that is deliberately fostered, and the misleading nature of the adverts which leads people to assume "rights" that they do not have.

I also have an issue with the poorly trained "Community Police Support Officers" that have taken to our streets in recent years. Another political initiative to make up for the chronic shortfall in funding for the real police, these well-meaning but largely inexperienced "officers" are usually the ones cited in recent incidents involving photographers being detained when engaged in innocent activity.

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/community-policing/community-support-officers/community-cso-faq/

Regards,

Bill

 

[bmattock]

Bill (and others) the point is just that. This is state-sponsored paranoia. I have no issue with the police - I am a law-abiding person who has actually got involved a couple of times on the side of the police in incidents. What I have an issue with is the climate of fear that is deliberately fostered, and the misleading nature of the adverts which leads people to assume "rights" that they do not have.

My only question for you would be - what 'rights' do you think people are assuming they have? To call in what they think is suspicious behavior, or to actually interact with the person in question? I would agree with you on the latter, disagree on the former - of course a person has the right to call the law - anytime they wish.

I also have an issue with the poorly trained "Community Police Support Officers" that have taken to our streets in recent years. Another political initiative to make up for the chronic shortfall in funding for the real police, these well-meaning but largely inexperienced "officers" are usually the ones cited in recent incidents involving photographers being detained when engaged in innocent activity.

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/community-policing/community-support-officers/community-cso-faq/

Regards,

Bill

Yeah, that bit is rather scary. Many communities in the US have auxiliary police or reserve police - made up of volunteer citizens, mostly. Standards differ - some communities make them attend police academy and become fully qualified law enforcement officers, while others only require a subset of the usual training and use them (unarmed) in traffic control situations - such as during parades and community events.

However, it is unusual to see a reserve or auxiliary police officer on the streets - not the norm. And the ones I've met have typically been threatened within an inch of their lives - try and act like a 'real' cop and throw your weight around, and we'll pull that badge right off you. Most of them I've met are really decent citizens who just want to help out or retired with extra time on their hands.

Now, mall security guards, on the other hand --- don't get me started.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This is state-sponsored paranoia.

Dear Bill,

Exactly. The thing about 'reasonable' suspicion is that ads like these attempt shift the ground of what people regard as 'reasonable'. Anyone who is paranoid, or simply authoritarian, is being encouraged to give full rein to their unreasonable behaviour.

Cheers,

R.

 

[foto_fool]

Dear Bill,

Exactly. The thing about 'reasonable' suspicion is that ads like these attempt shift the ground of what people regard as 'reasonable'. Anyone who is paranoid, or simply authoritarian, is being encouraged to give full rein to their unreasonable behaviour.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, you have finally hit upon the real crux. We do have criminals and terrorists among us, and they are... us.

As Bush bullies the Congress this week to shield the phone companies from complying with his illegal warrantless wiretapping directives, we need to ask ourselves who is the real criminal.

Next time a mall security guard tries to take a photographer's camera and threatens retribution and hellfire, we have to ask ourselves how much we should allow ourselves to be terrorized. IMO terrorism starts well before rockets and suicide bombers.

Regards,

 

[bmattock]

Dear Bill,

Exactly. The thing about 'reasonable' suspicion is that ads like these attempt shift the ground of what people regard as 'reasonable'. Anyone who is paranoid, or simply authoritarian, is being encouraged to give full rein to their unreasonable behaviour.

Cheers,

R.

Again I ask how a person can be unreasonable in ringing up the local constabulary.

No one's rights are being violated by citizens who merely call the police with a suspicion, no matter how well-founded or silly that suspicion may turn out to be in the end.

As I've said, I certainly agree that the police can - and clearly sometimes do - violate the public trust by exceeding their authority. But that has little or nothing to do with citizens calling them. The point at which rights are being violated is by the police when they make contact, not over the phone when concerned citizens (or Nosy Parkers, your choice) call them in.

 

[uhligfd]

I think, in the long run, it was not such a good idea to dismantle the STASI in East Germany. Now every "good" country in the west imitates the Stasi: in surveillance, in Gulags etc.

Long live the Stasi and our Gulags ...

Wonder when a western Solchenitsin will write his/her book about the normalcy of human interaction in the detention camps of the west ... And it will of course be banned here, but make record sales in the "bad" countries, after having been smuggled out ...

 

[bmattock]

I think, in the long run, it was not such a good idea to dismantle the STASI in East Germany. Now every "good" country in the west imitates the Stasi: in surveillance, in Gulags etc.

Long live the Stasi and our Gulags ...

Wonder when a western Solchenitsin will write his/her book about the normalcy of human interaction in the detention camps of the west ... And it will of course be banned here, but make record sales in the "bad" countries, after having been smuggled out ...

It's paranoid and silly to think that modern governments want to make prisoners of their citizens. They don't want to enslave us - they want to make better consumers of us. We must consume, spend money, and have relatively happy lives so that we will gleefully give up all of our rights in exchange for some measure of relative safety.

Oppressed peoples eventually revolt and overthrow governments. People with an SUV and a big-screen TV say 'why ask why', pop the top on another Budweiser and settle back to watch the game as their rights are taken away one by one - usually with their full approval.

We're not Orwelled - we're Huxleyed. Look around you - we're not oppressing our citizens - we're coddling them. The problem we photographers experience is that we're outside the norm, so we see that everyone inside is safe and left alone.

 

[Ade-oh]

I honestly don't have a problem with this. I used to be a military intelligence officer (and, yup, I've heard all the jokes) and I've taken part in various counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency campaigns. The fact is that for all but the most amateurish of terrorists, reconnaissance is an essential part of their modus operandi and if you do anything to deter them from that, it can only be a good thing. During the Northern Ireland campaign, we trained our soldiers to look out for 'dickers', as they were called, who were doing the recces for terrorist attacks and this often meant that we were able to take steps to prevent the attacks from taking place at all.

It's worth remembering that the actor James Woods is believed to have seen and reported some of the 9/11 hijackers acting suspiciously on a flight a short time before their attack, but nothing was done about it, IIRC.

We aren't talking about hard arrests of tourists and amateur photographers, simply encouraging members of the public to keep their eyes open on the slight chance that they may be able to prevent an attack.

 

[bmattock]

We aren't talking about hard arrests of tourists and amateur photographers, simply encouraging members of the public to keep their eyes open on the slight chance that they may be able to prevent an attack.

I completely agree. The response to citizen concerns can be over the top and infringe on citizen's rights - that's the problem. But not reporting concerns.

 

[JoeV]

We do need to explain ourselves if others think we're behaving suspiciously and the police are called. Once we've done that, we should be left alone to do as we like, of course.

Bill, the problem is that society as a whole will surely grind to a halt if every untrained observer on the street were permitted to report their suspicions to the police. I don't think our under-paid and over-worked civil servants deserve to be distracted from their jobs by millions of false alarms.

Suspicion of others, and feeling terrorized, are not objective states, but subjective psychological conditions, easily manipulated by governments and media - and terrorists.

Plus, if we actually applied common sense to the problem of terrorism, we would soon realize that real terrorists don't have to plan future missions by posing as tourists with cameras; they merely have to log onto Google Earth from their Afgan cave and they can download all the pictures they want of potential target areas - the images have already been captured via satellite.

~Joe

 

[bmattock]

Bill, the problem is that society as a whole will surely grind to a halt if every untrained observer on the street were permitted to report their suspicions to the police. I don't think our under-paid and over-worked civil servants deserve to be distracted from their jobs by millions of false alarms.

Everyone in the US (and the UK to the best of my knowledge) *is* permitted to contact the police with their suspicions, queries, problems, and reports. The police remain un-overwhelmed - at least, due to that, anyway. Lack of staffing and funds is a problem, that's for sure. Too many citizens requesting services is not a problem.

In what manner would you inform citizens that they CANNOT contact their police? Would you hang up on people who called 'too many' times? Would you tell them they are not allowed to call the police?

Suspicion of others, and feeling terrorized, are not objective states, but subjective psychological conditions, easily manipulated by governments and media - and terrorists.

For what purpose? I do not believe that modern governments want to keep their citizenry in chains - only buying things. Terrified people do not buy things.

Plus, if we actually applied common sense to the problem of terrorism, we would soon realize that real terrorists don't have to plan future missions by posing as tourists with cameras; they merely have to log onto Google Earth from their Afgan cave and they can download all the pictures they want of potential target areas - the images have already been captured via satellite.

That's as may be. The fact is, citizens have both a right and a duty to report suspicious activity to the police - including that which does not turn out to be significant.

This morning, as you may be aware, a small bomb exploded at a military recruiting office in Manhattan, NYC. It was powerful enough to shatter glass and residents of nearby hotels claimed that the building they were in 'shook' with the force of the blast.

As I read news reports, it becomes clear that while no one saw the bomb being planted, several people saw a man on a bicycle 'behaving suspiciously' in front of the recruiting office prior to the explosion. Did they call the police? No, they did not.

Perhaps they felt that their concern was not worthy of police attention - or that they'd be ignored anyway. Perhaps they felt that they were not qualified to say what is and what is not 'suspicious', except for after the fact.

But one can say this with certainty - since it went unreported, the chances of the police stopping it before it went off were effectively zero. That's a fact. If it had been reported, I do not know what the chances are that it would have been stopped from exploding - but they would not have been zero.

If the bomb had been of sufficient power, we'd be having a different discussion today. Those who had seen the bicyclist and not reported him would be cursed as fools and worse for 'letting this happen'. Instead, we curse anyone who would report anything they think is suspicious because we don't wish to be bothered by the police poking around our affairs.

 

[peterc]

Would someone explain to me what is wrong with a person reporting something that they think might be suspicious?

Because what the average slack-jawed yokel finds suspicious probably isn't.
I have been approached and questioned for taking a closeup of a door, a construction crane against the sky, a mailbox, shadows against a building, a large inflated duck and a food court. Those are just the ones I can remember now. In two of those instances the "concerned citizen" brought a security guard.
My usual response is that I'm having beer with Osama in an hour and they're welcome to join us.
Twitchy governments in western countries have their citizens so wound up they find anything other than driving to Wal-Mart suspicious.

 

[bmattock]

Because what the average slack-jawed yokel finds suspicious probably isn't.

Probably not. So what?

I have been approached and questioned for taking a closeup of a door, a construction crane against the sky, a mailbox, shadows against a building, a large inflated duck and a food court. Those are just the ones I can remember now. In two of those instances the "concerned citizen" brought a security guard.

And in what way were your rights violated by these questions?

My usual response is that I'm having beer with Osama in an hour and they're welcome to join us.

Yes, that usually gets a warm response.

Twitchy governments in western countries have their citizens so wound up they find anything other than driving to Wal-Mart suspicious.

Citizens have a duty and an obligation to report anything they find suspicious to their police departments. It is up to the police to determine if their suspicions are founded or unfounded.

Being asked what you're about is in no way a violation of your rights.

In fact, what you're proposing is that citizens be kept from reporting YOUR behavior, because YOU don't like having to explain yourself to police and security guards.

But if they were likewise kept from reporting - say - the bicyclist whom I just mentioned in the previous post - then we'd wail and gnash our teeth and complain 'oh why didn't a citizen come forward and report this guy before the bomb went off?'

Citizens do not need to be trained observers, nor do they have to have a well-developed reason to pick up the phone and call the police about behavior they find suspicious. That is for the police to decide - it is their job. No citizen infringes on any right of yours by reporting your photographic activities.

 

[peterc]

No citizen infringes on any right of yours by reporting your photographic activities.

True. But it's really annoying.
My main point is that people are so wound up they're seeing terrorism around every corner. Anything slightly out of the ordinary is to be questioned. And the chances of being killed or even injured by a terrorist are pretty slim.
The response is way out of proportion to the threat.

 

[bmattock]

True. But it's really annoying.
My main point is that people are so wound up they're seeing terrorism around every corner. Anything slightly out of the ordinary is to be questioned. And the chances of being killed or even injured by a terrorist are pretty slim.
The response is way out of proportion to the threat.

Granted. This too, shall pass. The concern I have is to not let our rights as photographers be eroded by the zeitgeist.

 

[giovatony]

Why would any photographer think he has a god given right to go about shooting pictures of anything he wants to without having to answer to anyone?
Maybe years ago when there were fewer security concerns but presently the world is full of dangerous people who want to hurt others .
And of course there are plenty of silly liberal fools who are just as dangerous because they refuse to believe it and would indeed think because they have a camera that it comes with certain unalienable rights.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Again I ask how a person can be unreasonable in ringing up the local constabulary.

Dear Bill,

I think you answer your own question. Encouraging every drooling loony with a tinfoil helmet to call the police whenever they feel like it is not, by any legal definition you choose, encouraging reasonable behaviour.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

.. . presently the world is full of dangerous people who want to hurt others .

Of course, this has never happened in the past. Read some history.

The world today is orders of magnitude safer than it has ever been for the vast majority of people. Look at any statistics you can find. Statistics, not scaremongering in the press.

Yes, there is an infinitesimal chance of being killed by terrorists. It's a lot smaller than the risks of motor accidents or suicide, and I suspect it's smaller than the chance of being struck by lightning.

This tiny, tiny risk does not justify responses that are not only disproportionate, but also give comfort to the extremists by presenting them with an equal but opposite extremism.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

I think you answer your own question. Encouraging every drooling loony with a tinfoil helmet to call the police whenever they feel like it is not, by any legal definition you choose, encouraging reasonable behaviour.

I have to suspect you're simply being a contrarian, Roger, but let's go with it.

First of all, loonies and assorted members of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade call the police day and night with their fevered imaginings anyway. They hardly need encouragement.

The only behavior I find myself concerned with is that of the local gendarmes when they receive said call and choose to investigate it by asking me what I think I'm up to.

If my response is truthful and my actions legal, then they have in no way infringed my liberties, and providing they then go about their own business and let me be about mine, the matter is closed. Citizen Bucket-head did his worst, and nothing came of it.

On the other hand, if the local constabulary decide to get shirty about my photographing someone's prize petunias or the bronze bust of Sir Henry Fartsalot in the town square, then THAT is what I am concerned about.

But this is not a result of Citizen Bucket-head's actions, this is a result of Officer Smoketoomuch's insufficient understanding of the law.

So I have no problem encouraging Citizen Bucket-head to call all he wishes, over whatever is currently offending him. If he calls enough to indicate he's gone off his nut, I believe they'll find a nice rubber room for him in time. If he harasses the police by calling incessantly for no reason at all, or to harass a specific person, then that too is a crime in most jurisdictions. For the average booger-eating-moron on the street, a few calls now and then are hardly going to tip the balance, and they'd do it anyway, with or without encouragement.

 

[icebear]

Relax ... use Rangefinder and be OK

Relax ... use Rangefinder and be OK

Relax everybody,
this ad clearly identifies as digital P&S camera as being potentially used for suspicious activity, so all use our rangefinders and be fine ....😀 😀 😀 .