Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Pete_G on December 12, 2009, 12:41:24 pm

Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Pete_G on December 12, 2009, 12:41:24 pm
Oh dear, the police in the UK are causing trouble again. On the front page of today's Guardian is an article about how the police, in response to a call out by paranoid private security guards,  harassed a Guardian photographer as he was shooting a London office building. Previous to this I'd not bothered too much about the misuse of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in relation to street photography, but it looks like we may have to take it seriously.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/li...4-terrorism-act (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/11/photographers-section-44-terrorism-act)


The article ends with this:

"This is why I will be in Trafalgar Square at 12 noon on Saturday 23 January 2010 for the I'm a Photographer Not a terrorist! mass picture taking event along with hundreds of other photographers to exercise our democratic right to make a picture in a public place."

See you there!
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 12, 2009, 01:48:12 pm
Best of luck and wish you all success! Tell the authorities that their frog-boiling strategies no pasaran.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: RSL on December 12, 2009, 02:10:16 pm
Pete, I can't make it in person, but I'll be there in spirit. Right on!
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Arminw on December 12, 2009, 02:39:12 pm
Yes it's becoming more and more difficult to walk around london and to take innocent picture of every days street life . I will be there to support the freedom of taking pictures...
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 12, 2009, 03:12:00 pm
This story has been around for a couple of weeks. I think it must be unique, in that it's managed to unite writers for the Grauniad (markedly left-wing) and the Torygraph (quite the opposite): see here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/6724053/Photographers-and-anti-terrorism-The-holiday-snaps-that-could-get-you-arrested.html).

It's a manifestation of the hysterical paranoia and officiousness that afflicts junior, inconsequential officials who have been given power over others and use it for self-aggrandisement. You can see it in security guards everywhere (and it's notable that the "police" involved in this and other episodes are generally "Community Support Officers", or pseudo-police).

Jeremy
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: BFoto on December 12, 2009, 04:17:48 pm
If you have ever lived in the UK, you will know the amount of CCTV camera's watching your every move, on every corner in every town.

One day in Cosham, NH, I J-walked and got yelled at by the loud speaker on the corner of the road - "you are in violation of act .....section ....of the roads coad, bla bla". So, they got the finger.

If you haven't been to the UK and seen it, just wish it never comes to your neighbourhood.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: LoisWakeman on December 12, 2009, 04:20:06 pm
Quote from: kikashi
it's notable that the "police" involved in this and other episodes are generally "Community Support Officers", or pseudo-police
I think you are right: a more senior policeman was interviewed on the Today programme last week, and was very clear that photographers should not be harassed by police or PCSOs for going about their ordinary business. No-one observed that a terrorist would probably use a concealed camera rather than a large camera on a tripod! (Unless we are going into double bluff territory.)

The word is full of self-important people who feel better about themselves by applying petty bureaucracy where it is neither necessary nor legal.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 12, 2009, 06:50:32 pm
Quote from: kikashi
... security guards everywhere (and it's notable that the "police" involved in this and other episodes are generally "Community Support Officers", or pseudo-police).
It is only too easy to blame the small guy (i.e., guards and pseudo-police), but the tone is usually set at the top. And then, as a ripple (or butterfly) effect, it reaches the gullible at the lowest levels. Country's top lawyers order a study on pushing the envelope in torture, yet a few of low-ranking "bad apples" end up being blamed for it. The initiator, of course, enjoys the plausible deniability defense.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: walter.sk on December 13, 2009, 10:10:10 am
A few weeks ago my wife and I were photographing autumn scenery under the Taconic Parkway in Westchester County, NY.  We were standing on a public road, shooting across water that is part of the NYC reservoir system.  We were approached by police in a car marked NYC Water Department and told we had to leave, as photography was forbidden in restricted areas.  There were no signs to that effect, but we decided not to push the issue.  

I have been stopped by police for shooting the Bayonne Bridge in Staten Island.  The demanded ID, took my name, address and license plate number and warned me that I was lucky to get off with a warning.  The next day I was at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge in Brooklyn along with literally dozens of photographers, and the police ignored us.

I was stopped in White Plains and interrogated as to why was I taking pictures of the clock tower at the railroad station (also from a public road), yet when I set up my tripod to take pictures of City Hall in Manhattan, a pocie officer got out of his car and approached me to ask if he should move his car in case it was blocking a good shot.

Go figure!  I have tried looking up on the web just what the law says on photography.  I have looked at the Homeland Security law, NYC laws on bridges and tunnels, etc., and can find no specific prohibitions.  It is confusing.

The interesting thing is that there are coffee-table sized books with detailed pictures of all of our bridges, monuments, etc, on sale at Barnes & Noble for $4.95 or so, and nothing I shoot would cover new detail!

I think harassment is the name of the game, and not national security.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Kirk Gittings on December 13, 2009, 01:43:23 pm
I love any excuse to go back to England, but can't make it this time. Good luck!
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: RSL on December 13, 2009, 02:10:06 pm
Quote from: walter.sk
A few weeks ago my wife and I were photographing autumn scenery under the Taconic Parkway in Westchester County, NY.  We were standing on a public road, shooting across water that is part of the NYC reservoir system.  We were approached by police in a car marked NYC Water Department and told we had to leave, as photography was forbidden in restricted areas.  There were no signs to that effect, but we decided not to push the issue.  

I have been stopped by police for shooting the Bayonne Bridge in Staten Island.  The demanded ID, took my name, address and license plate number and warned me that I was lucky to get off with a warning.  The next day I was at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge in Brooklyn along with literally dozens of photographers, and the police ignored us.

I was stopped in White Plains and interrogated as to why was I taking pictures of the clock tower at the railroad station (also from a public road), yet when I set up my tripod to take pictures of City Hall in Manhattan, a pocie officer got out of his car and approached me to ask if he should move his car in case it was blocking a good shot.

Go figure!  I have tried looking up on the web just what the law says on photography.  I have looked at the Homeland Security law, NYC laws on bridges and tunnels, etc., and can find no specific prohibitions.  It is confusing.

The interesting thing is that there are coffee-table sized books with detailed pictures of all of our bridges, monuments, etc, on sale at Barnes & Noble for $4.95 or so, and nothing I shoot would cover new detail!

I think harassment is the name of the game, and not national security.

Walter, That's really weird. Here in the west (Colorado, specifically) it's what Jeremy called the "community support officers," generally known here as "rent-a-cops," who make that kind of mistake -- not the sworn officers. For U.S. photographers the best reference I've found to the laws surrounding this kind of harassment is Bert Krages's "The Photographer's Right."  Unless the area is properly posted, the cop who tells you you can't shoot is wrong. Since he's the guy with the gun you can't very well argue, but if he tries to confiscate your equipment or run you in he can end up in a heap of trouble.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: walter.sk on December 13, 2009, 03:18:41 pm
Quote from: RSL
Walter, That's really weird. Here in the west (Colorado, specifically) it's what Jeremy called the "community support officers," generally known here as "rent-a-cops," who make that kind of mistake -- not the sworn officers. For U.S. photographers the best reference I've found to the laws surrounding this kind of harassment is Bert Krages's "The Photographer's Right."  Unless the area is properly posted, the cop who tells you you can't shoot is wrong. Since he's the guy with the gun you can't very well argue, but if he tries to confiscate your equipment or run you in he can end up in a heap of trouble.
I have seen Krages's book, as well as his website.  Actually, on some of the bridges here there are signs on the approaches that say Use of Cameras Prohibited.  I have pictures of all of the signs.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Josh-H on December 13, 2009, 07:26:08 pm
Quote
Actually, on some of the bridges here there are signs on the approaches that say Use of Cameras Prohibited. I have pictures of all of the signs.

*chuckle*
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Steven Draper on December 13, 2009, 08:27:44 pm
I'm in Ontario Canada and fortunately we're still a few years behind the UK, from which I moved a few years ago.

I was at a media briefing for an Olympic Torch event I'm photographing on Tuesday and I was really happy to see how sensible the Organizers were being with regards to the photographic aspects.

I think the UK has more CCTV than the rest of Europe put together!!!

All the best in January.
Steven
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Rob C on December 15, 2009, 02:11:08 pm
Quote from: Steven Draper
I'm in Ontario Canada and fortunately we're still a few years behind the UK, from which I moved a few years ago.

I was at a media briefing for an Olympic Torch event I'm photographing on Tuesday and I was really happy to see how sensible the Organizers were being with regards to the photographic aspects.

I think the UK has more CCTV than the rest of Europe put together!!!

All the best in January.
Steven




There was a piece on this subject of street/public spaces photography on tv today - I surf the news channels so can't say which - but I do think that photographers should also look at it from the other side: the threat is there; people have been blown to bits in the street, in the bus, in the subway, in the carpark, at the airport and in the air, and the problem isn't going anywhere rapidly. Fighting an army without uniforms was never easy: you forget that uniforms are all part of recognition and sometimes even 'good guy' ideals of fair play. When your innocent neighbour suddenly thinks the time has come, that fifty virgins beckon him from afar, where will your sympathies lie then, other than in the morgue with the bits of you that some poor relative might struggle to identify?  

Too easy to complain; too easy to feel that a couple of snaps are more valuable than the possibility of some added safety.

Rob C
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Pete_G on December 15, 2009, 02:20:04 pm
Quote from: Rob C
There was a piece on this subject of street/public spaces photography on tv today - I surf the news channels so can't say which - but I do think that photographers should also look at it from the other side: the threat is there; people have been blown to bits in the street, in the bus, in the subway, in the carpark, at the airport and in the air, and the problem isn't going anywhere rapidly. Fighting an army without uniforms was never easy: you forget that uniforms are all part of recognition and sometimes even 'good guy' ideals of fair play. When your innocent neighbour suddenly thinks the time has come, that fifty virgins beckon him from afar, where will your sympathies lie then, other than in the morgue with the bits of you that some poor relative might struggle to identify?  

Too easy to complain; too easy to feel that a couple of snaps are more valuable than the possibility of some added safety.

Rob C


What are you suggesting then, that we stop taking "snaps", get rid of our cameras, that we put on uniforms and become "good guys", that we kill our innocent neighbours before they kill us?
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 15, 2009, 02:30:43 pm
Quote from: Rob C
... Too easy to complain; too easy to feel that a couple of snaps are more valuable than the possibility of some added safety.
While I agree with your safety-concern sentiment in the previous paragraph, I just do not see how "a couple of snaps" are diminishing "the possibility of some added safety"? And I think that is the crux of the whole debate: exactly how are photographers endangering national security? There is almost nothing under the sun (and in public view) that is not already available in great detail somewhere (book, library, movie, internet, etc.). Of all the terrorism-as-the-next-bogeyman (after communism) hysteria, the attack on photographers is the most mind-boggling in its senselessness.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: RSL on December 15, 2009, 02:48:13 pm
Rob, I hear what you're saying, but a life in fear is no life at all. Let's face it, life is terminal. Better enjoy it while you can.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Rob C on December 15, 2009, 04:54:56 pm
Well, in answer to both slobodan and Russ, the fact is that I am just suggesting the other side of the debate have a fair hearing too, which in a community of photographers, whilst a difficult thing to expect, is none the less reasonable for it.

There is no harm in the simple snap, per se, it is the fact that the simple snap isn't, perhaps, always that innocent. Concerning the notices about bridges, airports, stations and so on - of course there isn't any harm shooting those things as beautiful, evocative photographs; but there is something dangerous about too much structural detail being studied, the understanding that can be gained from that regarding construction, areas of weakness and vulnerability, there's no end to the dangers that can be pulled into the argument, but as with much, it is the intent that is the difference between the benign and the malevolent. I guess the fuzz has little choice but to try and err on the side of caution, particularly when they are the same people who are ever blamed for lack of foresight when things do go wrong; a no-win position for them, then?

How are photographers endangering national security, was asked: well that depends on the intention of the photographer, obviously enough; how much warfare is carried on without surveillance, photography from satellite, aircraft etc.  WW2 was full of it. You should know about the value of photography to bombing, Russ; the intention is seldom to waste ammunition. Why would present day urban fighters do any differently? Yes, prohibition is a pretty blunt instrument, but better than none at all, don't you think?

Anyway, having restrictions on photography of pretty obvious targets isn't really something that can be equated with living a life in fear - more with minor inconvenience to some photographers who may or may not be all that innocent. After all, the genuine photographer with a reasonable need can always apply for official permission which is by no means always denied.

Rob C
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 15, 2009, 06:13:03 pm
Rob,

I am all for audiatur et altera pars, but that is not what is at stake here: every minute police uses chasing photographers, is the minute wasted for chasing the real troublemakers (unless of course they are bored or need to justify their existence).

As for WW2, you are correct... but that was 60-70 years ago... this is the era of internet and omnipresent public information. To contrast how the times have changed, here is an excerpt from a TimeLife book "Travel Photography":

Quote
"... [In Japan], before WW2, a visitor's cameras were most ofter taken from him or sealed; when he was allowed to use them, he was watched while taking pictures and was required to have his film developed and to clear the negatives with a censor before he could leave. Today, of course, there are no longer any such restrictions, and the country is overrun with people using cameras, Japanese as well as visitors..."
As I said in the pervious post, there is almost nothing under the sun (and in public view) that is not already available in great detail somewhere (book, library, movie, Google Earth, internet, etc.). Or that can not be obtained as clandestinely as holding a cell-phone camera to your ear while passing by a target. Also, note that I am talking about "public view", not about "pretty obvious targets", which should then have clearly visible signs indicating that photography is prohibited.

And ultimately, can someone cite an example where photography was instrumental and indispensable (and not just coincidental) in a modern terrorist act? And speaking about phones (with or without built-in cameras), it is almost certain terrorists use them in planning and executing an attack. Should we then consider all cell phone users suspicious and guilty until they prove themselves innocent (as is the case with photographers, apparently)?
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Pete_G on December 15, 2009, 06:26:47 pm
Well the problem is really twofold. The first issue is the question of how much control the state has over the life of the individual. There's little effect a small (or even massive) demo in Trafalgar Square will have over this. The other question is related to the ignorance of the police over the extent of their powers in this matter, in most of the recent stories the police have acted against the meaning of the law; in this area demonstrations have more chance of changing things a little.

The first issue is one of the most important we have to face, but it's a political argument and as such would have no place on this forum I think.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 16, 2009, 09:32:13 am
Allowing everyone completely free and unfettered access to photograph anything they want is (despite protestations to the contrary by the uninformed) a significant security issue. It's easier to understand this if you have military experience, especially experience dealing with an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform and has no pretentions of honor or fairness or any notion of leaving innocent civilians out of things. To really understand this, you need to think like a terrorist.

Let's say you want to attack the Statue Of Liberty. The resources you have available to carry out the attack are 1 SUV, a small boat, 10 kilos of c-4, 5 men willing to die for their 72 virgins, 8 AK-47 rifles + 4000 rounds of ammunition, 3 9mm pistols + 2000 rounds of ammunition, 5 Kevlar vests, 2 RPGs, and 10 fragmentation grenades. What kind of attack might you be able to carry out with a reasonable chance of success (success being defined as maximum damage to the statue and maximum civilian casualties)? To answer these questions, you need to do a thorough reconnaissance of your intended target. Getting detailed photographs of the structural supports of the statue is critical to determine whether the explosives would be enough to topple/destroy the statue, but even more important is photos of the access to the structural supports (doors, passageways, etc), the physical security measures (type of door, type of lock), and other protective measures, such as photos of the guards, especially if you can determine what weapons the guards are carrying and duplicate their uniforms from the photos. Knowing the weapons carried by the guards is important--if you know that your vests are capable of stopping bullets from the guards' guns, that means you can plan for much more head-on confrontations with the guards than if you know your vests will not stop their bullets. Knowing the type of doors and locks between you and the target will tell you how much time you will need to breach the doors and reach the target, and whether you will need to allocate some of your explosives to breach the doors instead of blowing the statue itself.

Yes, you could probably find a structural drawing of the Statue online that would be sufficiently detailed to accurately calculate how much of a given explosive you'd need to collapse it, and where you'd need to place the charges for maximum effect. But that drawing isn't going to tell you what security measures are currently in place (where are surveillance cameras? how many guards are there? how alert are they? what is their response time? how secure is their base of operation? what kind of doors/locks are between best access point and target?, etc, etc.), or how long you'll need to fight off the guards while the charges are placed, or the best way to utilize the crowd of visitors as human shields to delay the guards' response. You could use Google Earth to figure out the best route from your base to the statue to launch your attack, but that isn't going to tell you the patrol routes of the Coast Guard assets in the area, or how quickly the guards at the Statue might coordinate with the Coast Guard if they saw a suspicious boat coming in. For the kind of data that an attacker really needs to be successful, there is no substitute for in-person reconnaissance done by someone who knows what kinds of things to look for that might spell the difference between success and failure. Photographs are an important part of such reconnaissance, no question.

That said, there is a shortage of common sense regarding police response to and treatment of photographers. The focus of a common tourist is going to be different than that of a terrorist, both in what is photographed and how. A tourist is going to generally go for the "postcard" type shots, while a terrorist is going to focus more on things like storm drain grates, doors and locks, security camera locations, security personnel and their equipment, etc. A smart terrorist is going to try to behave as much like a tourist as possible, but a trained observer should be able to tell the difference, especially if the photos taken are examined. The kneejerk law enforcement response is to simply ban photography altogether, but a smarter alternative would be to allow photography even in potentially sensitive areas, and observe the photographers. If you see someone a little too fixated on photographing security cameras or door locks or security personnel or other things directly related to planning a successful attack, you have an opportunity to disrupt a potential attack in the planning stages you would have missed if photography was banned altogether. And the majority of tourists can go on about their business without intrusive restrictions on normal tourist behaviors.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: chex on December 16, 2009, 10:16:59 am
While everything you say may be true (or not) the point is that the police and the idiot 'community support officers' aren't following the law when it comes to dealing with photographers, and resort to intimidating people that do know their rights, threatening them with arrest, detaining them for hours at a time etc. Unless the law is changed to allow this they have no right to treat people this way.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: john beardsworth on December 16, 2009, 10:21:34 am
Here's a videod example of how it works... Italian student taking pictures, stands up to a semi-cop, ends up getting arrested, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/i...-arrest-filming (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/italian-student-police-arrest-filming) .
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 16, 2009, 10:57:14 am
Quote from: chex
While everything you say may be true (or not) the point is that the police and the idiot 'community support officers' aren't following the law when it comes to dealing with photographers, and resort to intimidating people that do know their rights, threatening them with arrest, detaining them for hours at a time etc. Unless the law is changed to allow this they have no right to treat people this way.

Which is why I noted the "shortage of common sense" that seems to be prevalent in the law enforcement community. Not only are they harassing people who have no need to be harassed on questionable legal grounds, they are throwing away opportunities to discover Real Terrorists™ who would probably jump at the opportunity to hang themselves if given sufficient rope and the opportunity to use it...
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: RSL on December 16, 2009, 11:56:29 am
Jonathan, I agree with much of what you said, but I question the overriding significance of photography in the terrorists' planning. It's quite possible to do all that without photographs; it's just harder and it takes longer. If someone's going to blow up the Statue, they're going to blow it up unless our law enforcement people stop them -- photographs or no photographs. The biggest problem is PC political interference with law enforcement, making it a lot more difficult for them to do their jobs.

Quote
...a smarter alternative would be to allow photography even in potentially sensitive areas, and observe the photographers.

Unfortunately you can't do that because our "civil rights" people will call it "profiling," which is exactly what it is, and exactly what we should be doing in sensitive areas and especially in our airports. Instead we do the shoe thing. The problem is that law enforcement agencies are political and must show that they're "doing something," even if it's the wrong thing, like having people take off their shoes.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 16, 2009, 01:19:03 pm
Quote from: RSL
Jonathan, I agree with much of what you said, but I question the overriding significance of photography in the terrorists' planning. It's quite possible to do all that without photographs; it's just harder and it takes longer. If someone's going to blow up the Statue, they're going to blow it up unless our law enforcement people stop them -- photographs or no photographs. The biggest problem is PC political interference with law enforcement, making it a lot more difficult for them to do their jobs.

You can get much of the information without photography, but it is much more difficult and time consuming, and the process is more prone to errors of omission.

Quote
Unfortunately you can't do that because our "civil rights" people will call it "profiling," which is exactly what it is, and exactly what we should be doing in sensitive areas and especially in our airports. Instead we do the shoe thing. The problem is that law enforcement agencies are political and must show that they're "doing something," even if it's the wrong thing, like having people take off their shoes.

Which is simply another form of PC interference in the functioning of law enforcement. One of the biggest problems is that Political Correctness confuses issues of race vs culture, and assigns racial motivation to cultural phenomena. For example, if black people get arrested at a higher rate than whites in a given jurisdiction, the implicit assumption is that the police in that jurisdiction are racist bigots unless they can prove otherwise. While there have been incidents of actual racism, what is far more common is that black people are simply committing more crimes per capita than the whites.

This is not a racial thing, it is a cultural phenomenon. Before the civil rights movement, (say the 1940s) teen pregnancy and crime rates among blacks were significantly lower than among whites. Now it's the other way around--teen pregnancy and crime rates are far higher among blacks than whites. There are many reasons why this has happened, but race is not one of them. If you look at country music as being some kind of reflection of "white culture" and rap/hip-hop music as a reflection of "black culture", the reasons for the disparity become pretty clear. Country music has a lot of songs about cheating, but the majority depict it as a negative, hurtful thing ("Before He Cheats" by Carrie Underwood comes to mind). You can find many country songs that glorify traditional family life and being a decent, law-abiding citizen: "Front Porch Lookin' In" by Lonestar, "He Didn't Have To Be" by Brad Paisley, and many others. In contrast, rap/hip-hop songs generally glorify "thug life", dysfunctional criminal behavior, and promiscuous sex regardless of whether it happens within a relationship. To me, it is no surprise that the culture that spawned "Cop Killer" gets arrested at a higher rate than the one that spawned "Small Town USA", regardless of the skin color that predominates within those cultures.

But of course the professional race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson built their careers on accusing others of racism, and there's not nearly as much money in promoting the notion of having morals and decency and finding more productive things to do than selling crack on the street corner. It's far easier to blame others for your problems.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 16, 2009, 03:36:11 pm
Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
You can get much of the information without photography, but it is much more difficult and time consuming, and the process is more prone to errors of omission...
Couldn't the same be said for:

Quote
... 1 SUV, a small boat, 10 kilos of c-4, 5 men willing to die for their 72 virgins, 8 AK-47 rifles + 4000 rounds of ammunition, 3 9mm pistols + 2000 rounds of ammunition, 5 Kevlar vests, 2 RPGs, and 10 fragmentation grenades.
You could eliminate every one item on the list, or even several (except c-4, one man, and 72 virgins, I guess), and the attack will still be possible, though "much more difficult and time consuming".

And yet the police does not stop every SUV or boat driver to ask why he is driving around the Statue of Liberty. Heck, they do not always do that even for people carrying guns openly (in jurisdictions that allow that) and even in the presence of the president of the United States:

[attachment=18705:art.obama.gun.pool.jpg]

Here is what the police did do at the anti-Obama protest in Phoenix, Arizona, where the above picture was taken in August 2009 (emphases mine):

Quote
... authorities monitored about a dozen people carrying weapons while peacefully demonstrating.

... So despite the man's proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made. ... officers explained the law to some people who were upset about the presence of weapons at the protest.
But hey... try to photograph a building in public view and you might end up harassed, threatened with a black-hole disappearance (aka anti-terrorism act), thrown to the ground, handcuffed, in jail (if only for a couple of hours), fined for "disturbance of piece", etc. (from the experience of an Italian art student in London, linked in one of the posts here).

I guess it is a high time for a new amendment to the Constitution: the right to carry cameras.  
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 16, 2009, 03:42:32 pm
Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
... One of the biggest problems is that Political Correctness confuses issues of race vs culture, and assigns racial motivation to cultural phenomena... This is not a racial thing, it is a cultural phenomenon...
Hallelujah, brother! (in agreement)
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: ckimmerle on December 16, 2009, 05:26:14 pm
Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
Allowing everyone completely free and unfettered access to photograph anything they want is (despite protestations to the contrary by the uninformed) a significant security issue.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it can be used to control almost every aspect of our lives. Replace "photograph" with "internet" or "cell phone" or "public access" and it's equally valid. Where do we draw the line? The reality is that, in the modern western world, photography is not only unavoidable, it is inevitable. We live in a visual world. Cameras are a part of our everyday life. If people don't have a camera, they have a phone or MP3 player with one attached.

More importantly, restricting photography will not stop the determined now matter how strict the enforcement. If not done overtly, as in the manner of the general public, it will be done covertly. It simply cannot be completely stopped and until law enforcement realizes that we're going to continue to have problems.

And no, I do not agree that being a veteran makes one more insightful on such issues. If anything, it has the opposite effect. And to answer the next question, yes, I am.

Chuck
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: alain on December 16, 2009, 06:55:33 pm
Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
Allowing everyone completely free and unfettered access to photograph anything they want is (despite protestations to the contrary by the uninformed) a significant security issue. It's easier to understand this if you have military experience, especially experience dealing with an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform and has no pretentions of honor or fairness or any notion of leaving innocent civilians out of things. To really understand this, you need to think like a terrorist.

Let's say you want to attack the Statue Of Liberty. The resources you have available to carry out the attack are 1 SUV, a small boat, 10 kilos of c-4, 5 men willing to die for their 72 virgins, 8 AK-47 rifles + 4000 rounds of ammunition, 3 9mm pistols + 2000 rounds of ammunition, 5 Kevlar vests, 2 RPGs, and 10 fragmentation grenades. What kind of attack might you be able to carry out with a reasonable chance of success (success being defined as maximum damage to the statue and maximum civilian casualties)? To answer these questions, you need to do a thorough reconnaissance of your intended target. Getting detailed photographs of the structural supports of the statue is critical to determine whether the explosives would be enough to topple/destroy the statue, but even more important is photos of the access to the structural supports (doors, passageways, etc), the physical security measures (type of door, type of lock), and other protective measures, such as photos of the guards, especially if you can determine what weapons the guards are carrying and duplicate their uniforms from the photos. Knowing the weapons carried by the guards is important--if you know that your vests are capable of stopping bullets from the guards' guns, that means you can plan for much more head-on confrontations with the guards than if you know your vests will not stop their bullets. Knowing the type of doors and locks between you and the target will tell you how much time you will need to breach the doors and reach the target, and whether you will need to allocate some of your explosives to breach the doors instead of blowing the statue itself.

Yes, you could probably find a structural drawing of the Statue online that would be sufficiently detailed to accurately calculate how much of a given explosive you'd need to collapse it, and where you'd need to place the charges for maximum effect. But that drawing isn't going to tell you what security measures are currently in place (where are surveillance cameras? how many guards are there? how alert are they? what is their response time? how secure is their base of operation? what kind of doors/locks are between best access point and target?, etc, etc.), or how long you'll need to fight off the guards while the charges are placed, or the best way to utilize the crowd of visitors as human shields to delay the guards' response. You could use Google Earth to figure out the best route from your base to the statue to launch your attack, but that isn't going to tell you the patrol routes of the Coast Guard assets in the area, or how quickly the guards at the Statue might coordinate with the Coast Guard if they saw a suspicious boat coming in. For the kind of data that an attacker really needs to be successful, there is no substitute for in-person reconnaissance done by someone who knows what kinds of things to look for that might spell the difference between success and failure. Photographs are an important part of such reconnaissance, no question.

That said, there is a shortage of common sense regarding police response to and treatment of photographers. The focus of a common tourist is going to be different than that of a terrorist, both in what is photographed and how. A tourist is going to generally go for the "postcard" type shots, while a terrorist is going to focus more on things like storm drain grates, doors and locks, security camera locations, security personnel and their equipment, etc. A smart terrorist is going to try to behave as much like a tourist as possible, but a trained observer should be able to tell the difference, especially if the photos taken are examined. The kneejerk law enforcement response is to simply ban photography altogether, but a smarter alternative would be to allow photography even in potentially sensitive areas, and observe the photographers. If you see someone a little too fixated on photographing security cameras or door locks or security personnel or other things directly related to planning a successful attack, you have an opportunity to disrupt a potential attack in the planning stages you would have missed if photography was banned altogether. And the majority of tourists can go on about their business without intrusive restrictions on normal tourist behaviors.

I can only hope that terrorists think so stupid.  As terrorist I would for example start getting fighters as security guards and there are much much better and easier targets.  I wouldn't be surprised if this is already happening.  (BTW. It's even a difficult scenario imho.)


BTW. Like a lot of photographers I don't do that much "postcard" type shots.

Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Misirlou on December 16, 2009, 10:59:06 pm
Quote from: alain
I can only hope that terrorists think so stupid.  As terrorist I would for example start getting fighters as security guards and there are much much better and easier targets.  I wouldn't be surprised if this is already happening.  (BTW. It's even a difficult scenario imho.)


BTW. Like a lot of photographers I don't do that much "postcard" type shots.

Well, having dealt with these bastards face to face, as Jonathan has, I can say emphatically that many of them are really quite apallingly ignorant. I can't go into great detail here, but I can tell you many of us who are veterans of recent conflicts are very gratified that certain cultures consider aiming a weapon with the sights to be "unmanly," relative to simply spraying lead from the hip. You would be shocked at the stupid things some of them do.

I once made aquaintance with a former Khmer Rouge intelligence officer (not a "terrrorist" by any means, but this example is still instructive). His favorite dish was something called "marijuana chicken." One packed a chicken full of canabis, then covered it with hot coals, and buried it for a day or so. Said to be quite tasty, though I'll never personally partake. He told me that he would never be able to visit the US, because the US security services tested the blood of every person who entered the country, and would imprison anyone with THC in their blood for life. And he had been one of the better "educated" men in his unit...

Now, there are plenty of other devils out there who are far more worldy and aware. But if most them weren't as idiotic as they are, we'd have a much more serious problem on our hands. Or, maybe they wouldn't be terrorist in the first place, if they weren't so ignorant and indoctrinated.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2009, 02:35:28 am
Quote from: Misirlou
... But if most them weren't as idiotic as they are, we'd have a much more serious problem on our hands. Or, maybe they wouldn't be terrorist in the first place, if they weren't so ignorant and indoctrinated.
Ah, the beauty of ignorant arrogance!

From the Times article "Most Domestic 'Jihadists' Are Educated, Well-Off":

"Historically, the idea that terrorists come from [poor and quasi-literate] backgrounds is a complete myth," says Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University. "They are much more likely to be well-educated and come from middle-class and wealthy families."

The whole article here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1947703,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947703,00.html)

Not to mention that most of the 9/11 terrorists were also well-educated, and that Bin Laden himself comes from one of the wealthiest Saudi families.

It is never a good idea to underestimate your opponents.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Rob C on December 17, 2009, 05:04:26 am
There is no argument against the inevitability of some terrorist success; there is no reason to stack the odds in their favour.

Leaving terrorists aside for the moment, has anyone considered the potential damge that Google maps produced by drives down the street can do? I am able to find my old house in Scotland, find my son's new place, look into the gardens and surrounding properties. What better service can commerce possibly offer the men in the stripped T-shirts with the Lone Ranger eye-decoration and the swag bag in the back of the van? Harry H. Whatever, you couldn't offer a better reconnaissance service, attack routes, escape routes, lookout points... for free or even for money! Who needs a camera on that level of crime?

Rob C
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 17, 2009, 07:24:16 am
Quote from: slobodan56
Ah, the beauty of ignorant arrogance!

From the Times article "Most Domestic 'Jihadists' Are Educated, Well-Off":

"Historically, the idea that terrorists come from [poor and quasi-literate] backgrounds is a complete myth," says Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University. "They are much more likely to be well-educated and come from middle-class and wealthy families."

The whole article here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1947703,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947703,00.html)

Not to mention that most of the 9/11 terrorists were also well-educated, and that Bin Laden himself comes from one of the wealthiest Saudi families.

While that may be true of jihadi elite/leadership, my experience is that many of the low-level foot soldiers have yet to discover why soap was invented...when detainees were brought to the aid station for treatment, one could generally tell they were in the area by the smell before they entered.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 17, 2009, 07:26:45 am
Quote from: alain
BTW. Like a lot of photographers I don't do that much "postcard" type shots.

If you visited the Statue of Liberty, would you spend most of your time photographing the guards, the security cameras, door locks, and things like that?
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 17, 2009, 07:36:20 am
Quote from: alain
As terrorist I would for example start getting fighters as security guards and there are much much better and easier targets.  I wouldn't be surprised if this is already happening.  (BTW. It's even a difficult scenario imho.)

This is an area of concern, which is why there are background checks that you need to go through to be law enforcement or security, especially at the federal level. To get through the vetting process you'd have to be a "sleeper" agent--someone with a clean background and criminal record, and no traceable connections to any terrorist group. I've been through this process, and trust me, it is VERY thorough.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 17, 2009, 08:20:44 am
After reading many of the discussions on this topic (especially on the dpreview forums that have a tendency to become vitriolic), I can't  help wondering if much of the discussion is a red herring. That is, when a bad cop does something stupid to a photographer, is it just historical coincidence that they invoke "terrorists", that is, is it just a lame excuse for the bad job they're doing?

An example of what I mean is one I read about recently (sorry, no link, can't remember where but it might have been "photo.net"), about a wedding photographer who was stopped and had her camera confiscated (temporarily) by an over-zealous officer (possibly off-duty at the time), because she wasn't sufficiently subservient to his questions. I mean, the wedding party was right there, she was taking pics of them, and said as much to the officer, so really, how much of a terrorist threat can she be, but things escalated because he didn't like her tone. The subsequent forum discussion and legal repercussions (I believe she filed a complaint) covered the usual ground that these discussions do, terrorists, real or imagined threats, tough job the cops do, blah, blah, cliché after cliché. I would say that the issue there was not terrorism, it was a cop with a god complex and a (possibly) impolite photographer being interrupted in the middle of a high pressure job. Thirty years ago, that same officer might have done something similar, but used a different excuse. The current in vogue excuse is the war on terror.

My sincere hope is that the people who are actually in charge of tracking the crazies are a couple of cuts above the occasional rogue bully we read about in forums who likes to push photographers around for no good reason. In the long run, that is the sad part. Stories of pointless law enforcement of this type does not make the rest of us feel good about who is protecting us. You would think that the forces in question would be happy to find out who these guys are and weed them out, but the tendency for any organization is to circle the wagons, and law enforcement is no exception, it's human nature to protect your own.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: john beardsworth on December 17, 2009, 08:41:28 am
Quote from: Robert Roaldi
After reading many of the discussions on this topic (especially on the dpreview forums that have a tendency to become vitriolic), I can't  help wondering if much of the discussion is a red herring. That is, when a bad cop does something stupid to a photographer, is it just historical coincidence that they invoke "terrorists", that is, is it just a lame excuse for the bad job they're doing?

Not really - that doesn't explain the rise in the amount of such Keystone Cop-isms. Having lived in London throughout the period of IRA and now Islamist terrorism, the harassment is significantly more likely. However, you are right to point to the accidental or coincidental - after all, busybodies can now look at the digital images you've taken, can play the child protection card more than in the past, and companies are more into managing their image rights. But right now what is winding people up is the specific abuse of anti-terrorism laws, often by half-baked cops and security goons,  to prevent us doing what we've always done.

Quote from: Robert Roaldi
An example of what I mean is one I read about recently (sorry, no link, can't remember where but it might have been "photo.net"), about a wedding photographer who was stopped and had her camera confiscated (temporarily) by an over-zealous officer (possibly off-duty at the time), because she wasn't sufficiently subservient to his questions. I mean, the wedding party was right there, she was taking pics of them, and said as much to the officer, so really, how much of a terrorist threat can she be, but things escalated because he didn't like her tone. The subsequent forum discussion and legal repercussions (I believe she filed a complaint) covered the usual ground that these discussions do, terrorists, real or imagined threats, tough job the cops do, blah, blah, cliché after cliché. I would say that the issue there was not terrorism, it was a cop with a god complex and a (possibly) impolite photographer being interrupted in the middle of a high pressure job. Thirty years ago, that same officer might have done something similar, but used a different excuse. The current in vogue excuse is the war on terror.

My sincere hope is that the people who are actually in charge of tracking the crazies are a couple of cuts above the occasional rogue bully we read about in forums who likes to push photographers around for no good reason. In the long run, that is the sad part. Stories of pointless law enforcement of this type does not make the rest of us feel good about who is protecting us. You would think that the forces in question would be happy to find out who these guys are and weed them out, but the tendency for any organization is to circle the wagons, and law enforcement is no exception, it's human nature to protect your own.
The wedding photographer may be this one http://www.bindmans.com/index.php?id=672 (http://www.bindmans.com/index.php?id=672) . The hotel is on the edge of a district of financial skyscrapers.

"Stories of pointless law enforcement of this type does not make the rest of us feel good about who is protecting us." - you hit the nail right on the head. Every minute they waste hassling a simple photographer, is a minute they can't spend protecting us from terrorists, child abusers, rapists, muggers, bankers....

John
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 17, 2009, 08:57:24 am
Thanks John, that's exactly the story I had read, but couldn't remember where I'd seen it.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Misirlou on December 17, 2009, 01:13:27 pm
Quote from: slobodan56
Ah, the beauty of ignorant arrogance!

From the Times article "Most Domestic 'Jihadists' Are Educated, Well-Off":

"Historically, the idea that terrorists come from [poor and quasi-literate] backgrounds is a complete myth," says Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University. "They are much more likely to be well-educated and come from middle-class and wealthy families."

The whole article here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1947703,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947703,00.html)

Not to mention that most of the 9/11 terrorists were also well-educated, and that Bin Laden himself comes from one of the wealthiest Saudi families.

It is never a good idea to underestimate your opponents.

Umm, I've been in the same room, or on the same battlefield with some of these people, so I'm less "ignorant" of them than any handful of academics and writers. I've also read the books, fatwas and manifestos some of the others have written, over a period of 25 years. It's not "underestimating" to take a honest appraisal of what one sees with one's own eyes. Education is not the same thing as experience, wealth is not the same thing as intelligence, literate does imply wise. Clearly, we could point to any number of famous, wealthy, beautiful fools in the news these days.

It's very easy to "mirror image" one's opponent. Ahmed went to a university in Paris, and since I went to a University, he must think like I do. Well, he may have attended some classes, but he may also believe some things I find quite bizarre, and have a very weird view of the way things work outside his own country. Remember when Dianne Sawyer interviewed Sadam Hussein during the run up to Gulf War I? He seemed shocked to learn that people were allowed to openly ridicule politicians in the US. He had a profound misunderstanding of the life in a western country. It's not "arrogant" to note that, and exploit it. If you're not used to living in a country like the US, you're probably not much better prepared to operate there than your average American would be to operate in the Sahara or a jungle in Laos.

I think what some of us are trying to say is that there are many ways one can try to protect the public against terrorists, and although harassing wedding photographers is clearly fruitless, there are a vast array of techniques in use that were developed via long experience. It's a really bad idea to fully divulge those techniques to the publc, because that's just giving the enemy the keys. So when people who aren't involved in the thinking behind the protection measures start making pronouncements about terrorists being too "smart" to do this or that, they may just not know the full background.

Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: alain on December 17, 2009, 03:25:43 pm
Quote from: Misirlou
Well, having dealt with these bastards face to face, as Jonathan has, I can say emphatically that many of them are really quite apallingly ignorant. I can't go into great detail here, but I can tell you many of us who are veterans of recent conflicts are very gratified that certain cultures consider aiming a weapon with the sights to be "unmanly," relative to simply spraying lead from the hip. You would be shocked at the stupid things some of them do.

...

Now, there are plenty of other devils out there who are far more worldy and aware. But if most them weren't as idiotic as they are, we'd have a much more serious problem on our hands. Or, maybe they wouldn't be terrorist in the first place, if they weren't so ignorant and indoctrinated.

Terrorists normally don't operate in a conflict area, those are freedom fighters.  This mostly to fight some foreign army that occupies they're country, this is completely different.  It's very rare that those freedom figther operate outside there home country.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: alain on December 17, 2009, 03:28:16 pm
Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
If you visited the Statue of Liberty, would you spend most of your time photographing the guards, the security cameras, door locks, and things like that?

First with a decent dslr it doesn't make a difference.   I would probably take details of,  structures, materials, utility infrastructure etc...  Probably not the guards because I respect the guards privacy.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: alain on December 17, 2009, 03:32:37 pm
Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
This is an area of concern, which is why there are background checks that you need to go through to be law enforcement or security, especially at the federal level. To get through the vetting process you'd have to be a "sleeper" agent--someone with a clean background and criminal record, and no traceable connections to any terrorist group. I've been through this process, and trust me, it is VERY thorough.

Given the sheer cost of doing even a simple background check and the very low wages of most security guards, it's very unlikely that most background checks are thorough.  

So you're relatives and "friends", neigbours,... did give you feedback that they where questioned to check you out?
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2009, 03:50:50 pm
Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
While that may be true of jihadi elite/leadership, my experience is that many of the low-level foot soldiers...
Low-level foot soldiers are not going to be the terrorist hijacking four planes simultaneously and successfully hitting three high-level targets by flying them (or execute any other high-profile terrorist act), so what is the point in declaring terrorist (in general) stupid, idiotic and ignorant?
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: alain on December 17, 2009, 04:10:36 pm
Quote from: Misirlou
Umm, I've been in the same room, or on the same battlefield with some of these people, so I'm less "ignorant" of them than any handful of academics and writers. I've also read the books, fatwas and manifestos some of the others have written, over a period of 25 years. It's not "underestimating" to take a honest appraisal of what one sees with one's own eyes. Education is not the same thing as experience, wealth is not the same thing as intelligence, literate does imply wise. Clearly, we could point to any number of famous, wealthy, beautiful fools in the news these days.

It's very easy to "mirror image" one's opponent. Ahmed went to a university in Paris, and since I went to a University, he must think like I do. Well, he may have attended some classes, but he may also believe some things I find quite bizarre, and have a very weird view of the way things work outside his own country. Remember when Dianne Sawyer interviewed Sadam Hussein during the run up to Gulf War I? He seemed shocked to learn that people were allowed to openly ridicule politicians in the US. He had a profound misunderstanding of the life in a western country. It's not "arrogant" to note that, and exploit it. If you're not used to living in a country like the US, you're probably not much better prepared to operate there than your average American would be to operate in the Sahara or a jungle in Laos.

I think what some of us are trying to say is that there are many ways one can try to protect the public against terrorists, and although harassing wedding photographers is clearly fruitless, there are a vast array of techniques in use that were developed via long experience. It's a really bad idea to fully divulge those techniques to the publc, because that's just giving the enemy the keys. So when people who aren't involved in the thinking behind the protection measures start making pronouncements about terrorists being too "smart" to do this or that, they may just not know the full background.

Terrorist usually avoid battlefields ;-)  I agree fully with you that most of them will think quite differently, like most of us think different.  

" there are a vast array of techniques in use that were developed via long experience."  --> the problem is that there are seldom checks if the "experience" has some use anymore or  if it's effective.  This is often blocked with it's "secret" and most involved parties have clearly a benefit with getting "more".  

BTW.  ironic :  I have a very effective garden fence against pink elephants, never seen one inside my garden.   How it works is secret.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2009, 04:40:35 pm
Quote from: Misirlou
... I've been in the same room, or on the same battlefield with some of these people, so I'm less "ignorant" of them than any handful of academics and writers... It's not "underestimating" to take a honest appraisal of what one sees with one's own eyes...
While useful, anyone's personal experience is usually far from being a sufficient condition for any serious analysis, and more often than not leads to the proverbial "not seeing the forest for the trees" syndrome. If opposite would be true, than any floor-trading stock trader would know more about economy than members of the federal reserve board (often academics themselves)... any paramedic would know more about medicine than university professors... etc.

Besides, as someone has already pointed out, "being in the same room or battlefield" with you disqualifies them as terrorists, at least those we in the western world should be afraid of.

And again, some of the key players in the 9/11 attack spent years living, getting high education and working in the West. Yes, they have a different value system, but stupid, idiotic and ignorant they aren't (unless, of course, you assume that not adopting our value system makes them so). Those who "never heard of soap" are not going to fly planes against us.

But just for fun, let's assume you are right and that they are really that stupid and ignorant... in such a case, they surely would not know how to operate a modern dslr, hence any photographer with a dslr should be automatically above suspicion... and only poor souls with Holgas and Dianas should immediately be arrested.  
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 18, 2009, 08:19:30 am
Quote from: alain
Terrorists normally don't operate in a conflict area, those are freedom fighters.  This mostly to fight some foreign army that occupies they're country, this is completely different.  It's very rare that those freedom figther operate outside there home country.

This statement is both extremely ignorant and highly insulting. Please explain why a majority of the "freedom fighters" operating in Iraq are from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, etc. I was in Ramadi in late 2006 when the local tribes decided they'd had enough of the "freedom fighters" terrorizing the locals, and formally allied themselves with the US military to get rid of them. As a result, Al-Anbar province went from one of the most dangerous places in Iraq to one of the safest.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 18, 2009, 08:25:15 am
Quote from: slobodan56
Low-level foot soldiers are not going to be the terrorist hijacking four planes simultaneously and successfully hitting three high-level targets by flying them (or execute any other high-profile terrorist act), so what is the point in declaring terrorist (in general) stupid, idiotic and ignorant?

Perhaps not, but that doesn't stop them from building and planting IEDs, or manning a mortar, or blowing themselves up in the middle of a crowded market. Those missions may not be as high-profile as 9/11, but they've killed more people.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 18, 2009, 08:27:45 am
Quote from: alain
Given the sheer cost of doing even a simple background check and the very low wages of most security guards, it's very unlikely that most background checks are thorough.  

So you're relatives and "friends", neigbours,... did give you feedback that they where questioned to check you out?

Yes. Some had an investigator visit in person.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Misirlou on December 18, 2009, 10:42:19 am
Quote from: alain
" there are a vast array of techniques in use that were developed via long experience."  --> the problem is that there are seldom checks if the "experience" has some use anymore or  if it's effective.  This is often blocked with it's "secret" and most involved parties have clearly a benefit with getting "more".

What evidence do you have of that? How do you know what procedures are in use, and which ones have stopped attacks lately? Do you really think you're getting the whole story in the open press? I don't think so.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: alain on December 18, 2009, 11:31:41 am
Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
This statement is both extremely ignorant and highly insulting. Please explain why a majority of the "freedom fighters" operating in Iraq are from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, etc. I was in Ramadi in late 2006 when the local tribes decided they'd had enough of the "freedom fighters" terrorizing the locals, and formally allied themselves with the US military to get rid of them. As a result, Al-Anbar province went from one of the most dangerous places in Iraq to one of the safest.

In WWII a lot of freedom fighters against the nazi's crossed borders very frequently.  A lot of them (that survived) are considered big heroes now.  Also in WWII some local "authorities" collaborated with the nazi's, to keep things quiet (and often to get wealthy), thousands and thousands went to the gaschamber because of this.  

But those freedom fighters are very unlikely to use a DSLR to get info outside there occupied country.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: alain on December 18, 2009, 11:35:43 am
Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
Yes. Some had an investigator visit in person.

Jonathan, I doubt this was done for being a security guard at a building, maybe for guarding weappons of mass destruction.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: alain on December 18, 2009, 11:51:00 am
Quote from: Misirlou
What evidence do you have of that? How do you know what procedures are in use, and which ones have stopped attacks lately? Do you really think you're getting the whole story in the open press? I don't think so.

Well I know that my fence againts pink elephants is extremely effective.  But it's working is highly secret.

I do know some "research" (in my expertise) against terrorists threats that is complete absurd, but expensive.  It's so easy to avoid and gives so much expensive  false positives that it's completely unusable.   You won't find those facts in the results, even if well known, a lot of people have benefits from going on with it.

Common sense security measures on the other hand are not mentioned or implemented, probably because it won't generate income.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Misirlou on December 18, 2009, 02:06:40 pm
Quote from: slobodan56
While useful, anyone's personal experience is usually far from being a sufficient condition for any serious analysis, and more often than not leads to the proverbial "not seeing the forest for the trees" syndrome. If opposite would be true, than any floor-trading stock trader would know more about economy than members of the federal reserve board (often academics themselves)... any paramedic would know more about medicine than university professors... etc.

Besides, as someone has already pointed out, "being in the same room or battlefield" with you disqualifies them as terrorists, at least those we in the western world should be afraid of.

And again, some of the key players in the 9/11 attack spent years living, getting high education and working in the West. Yes, they have a different value system, but stupid, idiotic and ignorant they aren't (unless, of course, you assume that not adopting our value system makes them so). Those who "never heard of soap" are not going to fly planes against us.

But just for fun, let's assume you are right and that they are really that stupid and ignorant... in such a case, they surely would not know how to operate a modern dslr, hence any photographer with a dslr should be automatically above suspicion... and only poor souls with Holgas and Dianas should immediately be arrested.  

You're straw-manning my argument. We never defined "terrorist" so we are doing apples and orange comparisons all over the place. If you're mostly concerned about 911 style aircraft hijackers, then why are we discussing harassment of photographers on the street? And I never said all of them are completely stupid in the first place. Just that some are, and that it would wrong to think that they're too wiley to be caught with seemingly ordinary measures. Remember how the millenium bomber was caught crossing the border?

My point was, and remains, that there are a lot of people working very hard every day to stay one step ahead of any number of serious enemies. They take their jobs very seriously, and most of them are extremely good at what they do. There are also some over-zealous types at the fringes who do things like detaining wedding photographers. We can agree the second group are not helping, but that gives you no ability to make judgements about the value of what the first group is doing. Serious analysis by outsiders is compromised in this case by a very serious lack of facts.

Anyone who has ever worked inside a national security organization can tell you that their is a vast chasm between the public perception of what intelligence organizations do and what actually happens. The movies and the newspapers would have you believing some of the big US intel organizations are doing things daily which are physically impossible. There's a sort of running narrative that paints every last possible action in a negative light, and inexplicably ignores countervailing evidence that is staring everyone straight in the face.

Consider that most of what is publically known about intelligence sources and methods came from people who hate the intelligence community. Anyone with access to sources and methods takes an oath to never reveal them, and violation of that can carry the strictest penalties. So when a newspaper runs a story with supposedly insider information, it came from either someone who really doesn't know what they're talking about, or is a traitor. You may call them "whistleblowers" if you like, but consider that some of those whistles kill people. A few days after 911, the Washington Post ran a story that we were tracking Bin Laden via his satellite phone. Guess how long he continued to use that phone.

In the movies, anyone with a security clearance seems to be able to access any classified fact at any time. In the real world, programs are broken into small compartments with very limited access, to keep them safe. One individual may see only a small piece of the puzzle. Sometimes they're only seeing part of a deception plan, so if they go blabbing to the press, they may be saying thigs they believe to be true, but really are not.

Lest you worry that such a complex series of compartments promotes abuse, know that every single one is tracked down to the last dollar by congress. A long time ago, a number of politicians realized they could say pretty much anything they wanted to about intel people, because they knew the intel people couldn't publically disagree without revealing classified information. So now we have an arrangement whereby congress members frequently get briefed on a program, approve it wholeheartedly, then make public statements later that they didn't know, and are outraged. And the people who work in the organizations just keep doing their jobs in silence.

I'm retired now. But I'm still not going to let out the most insignificant piece of classified data. All I can say is that the threat is real. There are a lot of good people dedicating their lives to countering it. Some of them are highly competent, others are clueless. Same thing on the other side. The difference is that the good guys are generally so conscious of their duty that they won't even spill the beans when they're smeared in the most outlandish ways. The bad guys are so ruthless they'll cut the heads off reporters to make political points, use children to deliver remotely controlled bombs, specifically target civillian women, etc., etc. And yes, we still catch them from time to time because they do things you would consider senseless.

I'm sorry if you don't want to believe that, and I'm sorry I can't provide any more details, but that's the way it has to be.
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Misirlou on December 18, 2009, 02:25:32 pm
Quote from: alain
Well I know that my fence againts pink elephants is extremely effective.  But it's working is highly secret.

I do know some "research" (in my expertise) against terrorists threats that is complete absurd, but expensive.  It's so easy to avoid and gives so much expensive  false positives that it's completely unusable.   You won't find those facts in the results, even if well known, a lot of people have benefits from going on with it.

Common sense security measures on the other hand are not mentioned or implemented, probably because it won't generate income.

Well, I'm not part of the compartmented program that looks at pink elephants, but I haven't see that particular threat well mentioned in the literature.

Yes, some programs fail. Some that were expected to fail actually succeed. It's not like you can go down to the anti-terrorist store and buy a defensive process with many satisfied customers and a nice warranty,
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 18, 2009, 05:13:46 pm
Quote from: Misirlou
... If you're mostly concerned about 911 style aircraft hijackers, then why are we discussing harassment of photographers on the street? And I never said all of them are completely stupid in the first place. Just that some are, and that it would wrong to think that they're too wiley to be caught with seemingly ordinary measures....
I am not sure what to make of this, so please help me understand (and to avoid unintentional "straw-manning"). Are you suggesting that "harassing street photographers" is one of those "seemingly ordinary measures" capable of netting real terrorists? If that is what you are saying, then I will continue to vigorously dispute it as mind-boggling. Are you suggesting that after police asks them why they are taking pictures, they will get nervous, act strange, break down and admit wrong-doing? Carrying explosive in your trunk while crossing a border (the millennium bomber) is a rather good reason to act nervously and strange... but taking pictures?

But say it does make them nervous and police takes them for questioning... they will be released hours later, a minor inconvenience for the would-be terrorist, but a major shock for ordinary photographers. Remember that taking a potential terrorist to a police station does not guarantee much... some 9/11 guys actually went themselves to a police station (to report a stolen car). Some of 9/11 guys were actually reported to the local FBI by their flight instructors for acting strange (i.e., being interested only in learning how to land a plane). I can assure you that I would act nervously, as would most law-obiding citizens, if police starts questioning me in public for a perfectly legal activity (i.e., photographing).

But why stop at photography? If you want to provoke someone to act nervously, why not randomly stopping people on the street for talking on their cells (who knows, maybe they are in the midst of coordinating an attack and would act nervously)? Why not stop people driving by (who knows, maybe one in million drivers passing by an important building is the one providing a getaway car at the moment or carrying explosives)?

As for the millennium bomber, again I am not sure what you are suggesting. I assume you are referring to him being stupid and acting strange and thus causing suspicion by the border agents? However, maybe it helped that he was under surveillance by Canadian authorities for years and that they tipped US customs that his border-crossing is imminent? Even if he was caught because of "ordinary measures" (i.e., random inspection, or inspection based on suspicion), these measures are indeed ordinary at border-crossings, and designed specifically for that purpose.

Quote
... I'm sorry if you don't want to believe that...
I am not sure which part of what I've been saying makes you come to the conclusion that I do not believe there are good guys doing good things in intelligence services (including yourself). On the contrary, I do believe that is the right place to track terrorists (i.e., by and within intelligence services, and mostly outside public view). So allow me to use this opportunity to express my gratitude for their (and yours) good work. But I still believe harassing photographers in public is not helpful: every minute thus spent is a minute wasted in the pursuit of real terrorists.  

On a lighter note (and in a facetious tone), I am glad I learned we've never caught Bin Laden because of... the Washington Post.  
Title: I'm a photographer, not a terrorist
Post by: Misirlou on December 18, 2009, 06:04:56 pm
Quote from: slobodan56
Are you suggesting that "harassing street photographers" is one of those "seemingly ordinary measures" capable of netting real terrorists?...

As for the millennium bomber, again I am not sure what you are suggesting. I assume you are referring to him being stupid and acting strange and thus causing suspicion by the border agents?

On a lighter note (and in a facetious tone), I am glad I learned we've never caught Bin Laden because of... the Washington Post.  

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. Harassing photographers, as I've said three times now, is generally pointless. Terrorists do use cameras to help plan their attacks. I've seen photos recovered from the laptops in Afghanistan (at a homeland security conference in Philadelphia - not talking classified data here), and there were lots of careful shots of assorted buildings, bridges, etc. in DC and NY. I'm pretty sure they weren't just admiring the architecture. But it would be difficult indeed to make that harder for them. As Jonathon pointed out, I'd rather let them take the photos, and add that to the stack of evidence if I already have one of them under surveillance for other reasons. (There were also hand sketches. Rather silly to start confiscating pencils.)

And I've even been victim of this myself. I had a security guy stop me from taking pictures of a rollercoaster in Northern CA, from the parking lot no less, with a Hasselblad on a tripod. Ludicrous. I showed him my ID, and that ended the "discussion" of course.

You're following my general point on the millenium bomber. With all of our vaunted security apparatus, it came down to the personal instincts of a border patrol agent. Who knows how many lives she saved, with nothing but her intuition and experience?

Yes, the WP phone incident is one the great unheralded bad examples of our time. Every time I hear a lot of moaning about Bin Laden still being on the loose, I think back to that. I'm sure it's the same for all of us who were working intel at the time. As far as I can tell, the leak came from a congressional staffer, or an actual member of congress. Remarkably stupid.