"Are photographers really a threat?"

Asks an editorial in the UK paper the guardian:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism

Excellent article. Definitely worth reading. Nothing we don't all know, but the author says it well.

Quite so. Perhaps the most important part of the article are the last two paragraphs - very relevant, very important.

 

- Randy

I am currently going through being demonized for photographing neighborhood children. Despite to the New York City Public Advocate, the Mayor's office on Film Theatre and Broadcasting, and the NYCLU, I have been prohibited from photographing people in public under threat of arrest by the NYC police. There was a thread about this last week. Great to have an ammendment protecting our rights, but other laws and regulations contradict that. In the end, unless you want to be arrested and spend a lot on legal fees, you have no rights, at least in this city.

Honestly, I think a lot of what's happening is not "terrorist" related at all. It reads good

in articles that way, though.

�The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.� � H.L. Mencken

Wow, photo.net really didn't like those double-quotes.

Most terrorists don't photograph, but I bet most of them do drive cars. Why don't the police etc go after drivers in their search for soft targets that create the impression that they might just be doing something useful.

The download of the pdf document at http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm that is linked to in the article is very useful.

 

As to the original question, some photographers on this site seem to me to be more of a threat than others.....

 

;)

The author of the referenced article does not say ( or know) if photography was used in the planning for those events.

"The author of the referenced article does not say ( or know) if photography was used in the planning for those events."

 

So what if it was? They probably wrote things down during their planning, do we now ban pens and paper?

...I wish I could teleport back to 1950's England, the modern one is slowly becoming crap...

Terrorism is just a convenience for those who have a vested interest in controlling public photography and videography or their 'public image'...police, security agencies, politicians, celebrities...

 

I wouldn't waste time or energy on the terrorism angle, it is meant to suck off energy.

Excuse my ignorance, but it the author this Bruce Schneier?

 

http://www.schneier.com/

The question, Mark, isn't whether terrorist types are real (if you're questioning that, I suppose that's the end of the discussion), or whether they've been known to use cameras and video recorders to gather information when planning attacks on public spaces. They have, and they do. They also like to capture video of such attacks being planned and in progress, when they can, because of the enormous PR potential when they post videos online proclaiming their sophistication and might. All of that is very real - it's quite literally out of the handbooks.

 

No, the question is whether or not you're going to actually stop the next Bali or London or Madrid or WTC or Beslen by stopping them from using cameras while just being out and about like the rest of us. Probably not. Just inconvenience them. Which isn't really worth it, not at the level that trickles down to walking the street with a camera.

 

But does that make the hobgoblins that killed people in European train stations, or roasted them alive in a tourist night spot in Bali imaginary? Speaking out against an impractical, non-productive, generally negative tone about photographers in the street is NOT helped by pretending that there are no such things as organized, murderous people. People who use a range of tools and technologies to analyze the best way to inflict damage on people gathered together in order to maximize the shock value. It's not a question of whether they're imaginary, it's a question of the efficacy of giving photographers a rash in public when that tactic, in particular, won't make enough of a difference to matter.

 

On the other hand, the guys that set up that horror show in the Beslen school were working off of still images and video tape gathered over the course of several weeks before hand. That's exactly the sort of thing that gives teachers the creeps when they see someone walking around their school trying and failing to be subtle with a camcorder. So, where do you draw the line? Is it EVER appropriate for a cop to ask someone like that why they're photographing all the doors of school building from the street? Blithely dismissing issues like that as political scare mongering is - itself - a form of political scare mongering. The key is balance and doing a reality check on what's worth doing about it, not pretending bad things never happen or that violent idealogues don't exist except as Mencken-esque propoganda.

No. Photographers are not in general a threat, but the camera nazis want people to think so, so that there will be more jobs for camera nazis.

Many people in the "law enforcement" or "security business" are eager to become heroes in the Global War On Terror. Unfortunately (for them), actual terrorists are rather few and far between. So to keep in practice and to establish their credentials, they go after photographers. People in the "law enforcement" or "security business" inherently dislike photographers because of the possibility of being photographed doing something embarrassing or damaging to their careers, like abusing suspects (think of Rodney King) or dozing on the job. So photographers make irresistible targets, especially when the pervasive climate of fear justifies harassment and "investigation" of anyone they arbitrarily decide is "suspicious." They can always invoke the Patriot Act, since it sounds impressive and only John Ashcroft knows what that enormous bundle of legislation actually contains (it says nothing about photography, by the way). Better safe than sorry, and if the photographer (or anyone else they decide is "suspicious") really isn't a terrorist he or she should have little difficulty proving innocence in the appropriate forum.

<i>So, where do you draw the line? Is it EVER appropriate for a cop to ask someone like that why they're photographing all the doors of school building from the street?</i>

 

<p>Yes, it's quite appropriate for a cop to approach a photographer and ask what he or she is doing-- <i>provided that both the cop and the photographer are polite and professional about the encounter</i>. Justified or not, we live in times of fear and paranoia. So a photographer approached by a cop should (as always) treat the cop with respect and politeness and explain exactly what he or she is doing and why he or she has the right to do it. And the cop should similarly approach the photographer as a respecful and professional law enforcement officer who respects the rights of innocent people, rather than a "hero" who approaches with guns and sirens blazing and demands immediate surrender of the camera, threatens arrest, or insists that photography is "prohibited" under the Patriot Act or some other unspecified law.

 

<p>Unfortunately, there are as many professional cops as "heroic" ones, and cops have the authority to make someone's life miserable if they decide to do it. So the photographer's only recourse is to obey instantly, and protest to the appropriate authorities later if and when it's safe to do that.

 

<p>Again, we live in an age of fear and paranoia. And there are too many people eager to exploit that fear and paranoia for their own benefit.

<i>Terrorism is just a convenience for those who have a vested interest in controlling public photography and videography or their 'public image'...police, security agencies, politicians, celebrities...</i>

 

<p>Terrorism is a very real threat. But those who exploit it strictly to expand their power and authority, and to do away with rights and restrictions that they consider inconvenient, are an even greater threat than the terrorists.

 

<p>Terrorists want us to change the way we live, and particularly to neutralize our country by smothering its economy and vitality in continually escalating (and probably ineffective) reactive "security measures." Those who exploit terrorism in the name of "security" are giving the terrorists exactly what they want. As Bruce Schneier continually insists, "Refuse to be terrorized, people!"

The well trained terrorist learns to swim with the fish in the water of the general populace. Mao's dictum need to be carefully translated, swimming with the fish in NY can mean something rather different.

 

The argument, from society and in laws, "You don't need one of those." has been used on guns, cigarettes, alcohol, various recreational drugs, SUVs. "They" can do it on cameras, they've had plenty of practice.

If i were a terrorist, it might be useful to me to have a photo to see the soft points of a target.

 

But I would go in with a small camera that could not be observed or one hidden in various ways.

 

So far nobody has shown how photos have actually helped terrorists though. I suppose I could draw a sketch of a target while looking at it. Suppose they will ban paper and pencils next.

Or you could just google search it, most "targets" have been photographed for years already.

I agree terrorism is a threat. Where I live there is one building at least where security will find you a person of interest if you are seen photographing it from "above eye level". Their brief is "terrorism". Yet you can buy postcards shot from helicopters of the building, and you can peruse the building's roof from Google Earth. So, something else is going on. It's a famous building by a famous architect. I am sure the owners are actually protecting or asserting a copyright over its image, and has nothing to do with terrorism.

I disagree with Brad's post. I feel that this is very much so terrorist-related. However, I also feel that the terrorists in this situation are the enforcers and lawmakers attempting to exert undue control over others.

I boot up Google Earth and get this "Tip of the Day":

 

"View hundreds of photo-realistic buildings in may of the world's cities. Click certain landmark buildings to learn more. Tilt or zoom in to get a better view. To view buildings, in the Layer's panel, check 3D Buildings"

 

I guess you could even use Google Earth as a diy flight simulator.