Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I can assure you that Bill Mattocks does not have that view. (Sorry to speak for you, Bill.
) And neither do I.
JFH
Established
Back to the photography issue.... I'm not a "volume" poster here, nor am I a particularly great photographer.. but I can readily appreciate bmattock's views. I've followed another "freedom" issue... gun control.. here in the US since the early 1960's. Whether you believe in firearms freedom or not, or live in the US or another country, comparisons here can be interesting.
Those who would destroy freedoms such as firearms ownership (or the freedom to photograph) follow a fairly predictable pattern. First, they identify.. and in many cases inflate or exaggerate...(some would theorize that many of these are actually "created" by agents provocateur for the purpose) a "problem." Violence, security needs, "saaaafety" (insert sound of bleating sheep here), or whatever. Next, they pick a "target" to demonize, be it an object, person, or group of people. Along with this goes the creation of "slogans..." Anyone remember, "If it only saves one," "It's for the children..." and so forth? Most of this isn't designed to appeal to reason or common sense, but rather to elicit a visceral "gut" reaction. Emotion trumps reason every time. Maybe another "incident" "conveniently" occurs, and then "legislation" is proposed and passed which will "solve" the problem and now everybody can feel "safe" again.
This legislation isn't comprehensive and absolute at first... and of course it doesn't work very well either.. so the "anti's" have to keep up the charge. Obviously more rules and prohibitions will be called for. Nothing too radical to upset everyone. Rather, over time, an incremental approach is used. "Minor" changes, one or two at a time, easy to get used to, and so forth. All couched in principles of "reason" "safety" or "common sense." Phrased so that if one disagrees, he MUST hate children, kick puppies, or be unpatriotic. Such as not allowing photography of certain persons (cops.. they're just "doing their job"), places (secure areas, vulnerable buildings, etc.)... because "'they' could use these for eeeevil purposes."
Handily then, another incident manages to occur. This opportunity is siezed uopn and the cycle begins anew, and another ratchet on the torture rack goes "click." They're patient.. they can wait.. and when the time is right, another "increment" is completed. This is how it works. Apply this to your own situations and you may see what I mean.
It may very well be that the next great struggle for individual liberty and freedom is at least partially played out in the photographic arena. "Freedom of speech" is one thing, but can all too often boil down to "he said, she said" debates. The right photograph (s) added to the public archive are much harder to argue or suppress. And much more appealing to the aforementioned "visceral" nature of folk's reactions.... So the pen (or camera) is mightier than the sword (or gun.)
Keep photographing and fighting for the freedom to do so. Don't quit, and don't let "them" wear you down.
Those who would destroy freedoms such as firearms ownership (or the freedom to photograph) follow a fairly predictable pattern. First, they identify.. and in many cases inflate or exaggerate...(some would theorize that many of these are actually "created" by agents provocateur for the purpose) a "problem." Violence, security needs, "saaaafety" (insert sound of bleating sheep here), or whatever. Next, they pick a "target" to demonize, be it an object, person, or group of people. Along with this goes the creation of "slogans..." Anyone remember, "If it only saves one," "It's for the children..." and so forth? Most of this isn't designed to appeal to reason or common sense, but rather to elicit a visceral "gut" reaction. Emotion trumps reason every time. Maybe another "incident" "conveniently" occurs, and then "legislation" is proposed and passed which will "solve" the problem and now everybody can feel "safe" again.
This legislation isn't comprehensive and absolute at first... and of course it doesn't work very well either.. so the "anti's" have to keep up the charge. Obviously more rules and prohibitions will be called for. Nothing too radical to upset everyone. Rather, over time, an incremental approach is used. "Minor" changes, one or two at a time, easy to get used to, and so forth. All couched in principles of "reason" "safety" or "common sense." Phrased so that if one disagrees, he MUST hate children, kick puppies, or be unpatriotic. Such as not allowing photography of certain persons (cops.. they're just "doing their job"), places (secure areas, vulnerable buildings, etc.)... because "'they' could use these for eeeevil purposes."
Handily then, another incident manages to occur. This opportunity is siezed uopn and the cycle begins anew, and another ratchet on the torture rack goes "click." They're patient.. they can wait.. and when the time is right, another "increment" is completed. This is how it works. Apply this to your own situations and you may see what I mean.
It may very well be that the next great struggle for individual liberty and freedom is at least partially played out in the photographic arena. "Freedom of speech" is one thing, but can all too often boil down to "he said, she said" debates. The right photograph (s) added to the public archive are much harder to argue or suppress. And much more appealing to the aforementioned "visceral" nature of folk's reactions.... So the pen (or camera) is mightier than the sword (or gun.)
Keep photographing and fighting for the freedom to do so. Don't quit, and don't let "them" wear you down.
bmattock
Veteran
I worked in law enforcement for a decade or so. I don't know everything about law enforcement, and my knowledge isn't current, but I know some things.
A lot depends upon the circumstances under which I came in contact with them. At the very least, I'd make field interview cards on them, no matter what else I did. I'd also check them for wants and warrants. But I'd do that with nearly anyone I came in contact with. If they were wanted for any crimes, I'd take them into custody on that basis.
Let's presume that they were 'behaving suspiciously' and attracted my attention, and during the course of my interviewing them, one of them spilled a bag with the items you described in them. A fake US passport is illegal in and of itself, so that would give me probable cause for an arrest. However, if I could not determine the passport's authenticity, and they had committed no crimes that I could ascertain, I would make notes about what I found and release them.
I would of course file an incident report with my department and if I thought they might be involved in terrorist activity, I'd notify the DHS or their local representative. If I could reach the DHS during working hours and they requested a hold be put on the men, I'd do that.
Laws have to be for the purpose they say they're intended for, or I believe they will not pass a test for constitutionality. You cannot make laws prohibiting photography of police officers (for example) when what you really want to do is not prohibit photography of police officers, but catch terrorists who photograph police officers. It doesn't work that way. That's making a status criminal out of every photographer who happens to have a police officer somewhere in his or her frame when they snap a shutter, and making it possible for the Barney Fife's in the LEO world to decide to enforce it 'as written' instead of as you intended it.
In the past, there were laws such as you describe. They were known under the catch-all of 'Jim Crow' laws in the USA. Laws requiring literacy tests prior to voting were not 'really' to make sure people could read before voting, they were to make sure blacks didn't vote. Such laws have been struck down, and rightfully so.
Terrorists and would-be terrorists are caught by good intelligence, good investigative work, good cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and thorough understanding of the people they are trying to catch. They are not caught (to the best of my knowledge) by rousting random citizens who take photos of police officers until one of them just happens to be a bad guy - in my opinion.
jon.f
Newbie
I was in the Soviet Union in 1975 on a group trip from my high school. We were told before we left that the following activities were illegal and would end up with us getting arrested:
- Taking pictures of Militiamen (Policemen) -- even accidentally including one in an otherwise scenic photo
- Taking pictures of military personnel no matter in what conditions
- Taking pictures of the KGB headquarters in Dzherzhinsky Square, Moscow
- Taking pictures outside the city limits of either Moscow or Leningrad (as it was called at the time) except for designated tourist locations
- Taking pictures at or of any airport or airplane
There was quite a bit more on the list of what not to do, but these were the photographic laws. Now, of course my buddies and I ignored many of these rules, being young and stupid, but I will guarantee that none of the pictures we took had any bearing on the fall of the Soviet Union 16 years later.
Paranoia in government leads to stupid laws restricting the otherwise harmless activities of citizens. Too many times I have heard the 9/11 argument trotted out to justify an erosion of the Constitutional protections we enjoy. These kinds of laws restrictions serve no purpose other than to whip up jingoism and suspicion, usually for the basest reasons like wanting to cling to power.
In 1975 Brezhnev was old, sick, delusional, and paranoid. In 1975 Soviet citizens had precious little in the way of protection from government excess. By allowing our democratically elected governments to emulate the Cold War policies of the Warsaw Pact nations we as citizens have abdicated our rights, including the right to be free of government control.
How many photographs of police officers were used in the planning of the 9/11 attacks?
dfoo
Well-known
For that matter how many of the stupid new airport or passport restrictions would have stopped the 9/11 attacks?
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
US, UK, now France as well... who's next on the list?!!! Any bets?
with the economics as they are a lot of Manifs and riots will rise...
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=837675
be afraid... very...
with the economics as they are a lot of Manifs and riots will rise...
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=837675
be afraid... very...
Olsen
Well-known
Not true. The few political discussions here are very interesting - and civilized.
Except for that these political threads very soon get moved 'downhill' to the off topic section. Sad.