Birders Discover They're the Ones Being Watched

[paul -]

The thread title is the same as the article...

<a

href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050705/ts_latimes/birdersdi

scovertheyretheonesbeingwatched">"Birders Discover They're the Ones

Being Watched" </a><p>Not trolling for a political argument, just

find it sadly amusing.

[greg s]

I don't find it sadly amusing, just plain sad. And a waste.

[vivek iyer]

Sad.

[Palouse]

Not sad--just plain depressing! And what a waste of resources (all kinds).

[lex_jenkins]

Doesn't surprise me. I still have trouble elucidating the problem for my cousin, who knows I'm a photographer and doesn't see anything wrong with what I'm doing when I photograph wildlife around our lakefront.

 

But I'm "me" and all those other photographers are potentially suspicious. Therefore it's okay for the government to crack down on everyone else. I try to explain that the government won't exempt me simply because she knows and trusts me. Once liberties are taken from other Americans, we all lose.

 

Then we get into the more complex issues of Americans vs. "them foreigners" residing in the U.S. and how difficult it can be to restrict non-Americans without placing similar restrictions on citizens because we Americans don't all look alike. There's a local fellow of Indian or Pakistani descent who operates a convenience store. I trust him a lot more than I do some of the white "good ol' boy" types I've known of for years who consider themselves to be outskirt outlaws, on the fringe of the crystal methamphetamine trade, burglarizing for a living, etc. Sure, they're "Americans", God bless their point li'l heads, but they're still undesirables and prolly should be transferred to Gitmo for a few months of ass-kicking.

[J.W. Wall]

Ok, I'm a birder, too, and hate to see areas shut off. I also like not being blown up or having it happen to you.

 

To what areas, if any, would you control access? Any? The responsibility to keep our key facilities from harm is a serious one. It just doesn't happen to be ours at the moment, at least directly. I'm not looking for an argument, either. It just makes sense to have some security, and perhaps made little sense not to have certain measures taken before 9/11. It is difficult to guess how one would control, for example, Ft. Huachuca, Arizona (home of various key security activities, including the Army's Intelligence School), in a different manner that is less restrictive than the article describes. Perhaps someone on this forum will have some suggestions. Frankly, it even seems a little surprising that some of these areas aren't entirely closed.

[stephen hazelton]

I guess what concerns me in these cases is that people determine to improve security, and then do it in just absolutely stupid ways. A prime example is limiting photography around certain bridges- you can look at the bridges, you can plan where your bombs should go, you just can't photograph.

 

It's not clear from the article, but just how hard is it go to those islands without permission, cut through a fence, and do whatever you want to do? It sounds very much like one of these "security" improvements that will keep only an honest person out.

 

The "security" commonly in place for municipal water storage tanks is 100% effective...assuming the terrorists don't have any tools! If they ever think to pick up a pair of pliers, it fails. It is really and truly sad, not just the limiting of freedom for the rest of us, but for the lack of thought that goes into these actions.

[doug herr]

Stephen H wrote: <I>"I guess what concerns me in these cases is that people determine to improve security, and then do it in just absolutely stupid ways."</I><P>

 

To Stephen's examples I'll add a nearby post office, located in a federal building. Cameras are not allowed in the building - at least cameras not in boxes. I've shipped cameras and lenses from this post office, have recieved the same in my P. O. Box. The people operating the x-ray machines recognize the items as camera components but as long as they pass through the building's entrance in a box there's no problem. If it's not in a box, it's not allowed (camera phones included). How much thought does it take to realize that cameras can be taken out of boxes?

[andrew robertson]

I have encountered hostile and suspicious rent-a-cops while photographing from a public

road next to a US Army Corps dam. My response is twofold - show them one of the two

'Photographer's Right' cards that I carry in my wallet, and tell them they are free to call the

police on me.

 

But the USA is now a police state, and sadly became this way because of the USA PATRIOT

Act, which your representative didn't read or analyze before passing. With fear driving the

rubber-stamping of such obviously unconstitutional laws, it's a wonder that we aren't all

working in slave camps in Alaska now.

[ted_marcus1]

<i>But the USA is now a police state, and sadly became this way because of the USA PATRIOT Act, which your representative didn't read or analyze before passing. With fear driving the rubber-stamping of such obviously unconstitutional laws, it's a wonder that we aren't all working in slave camps in Alaska now.</i>

 

<p>I'll agree that the Bush administration does seem unduly eager to exploit the terrorist tragedy as a fortuitous excuse to curtail the rights and liberties that governments inherently find onerous (that's supposedly why we have a Bill of Rights). But the USA-PATRIOT Act has nothing <i>directly</i> to do with increasing restrictions on photography. In fact, nothing in that massive, hastily-enacted law enforcement wish list says anything about photography.

 

<p>By invoking the USA-PATRIOT Act, you're in a way committing the very same mistake law enforcement agents and rent-a-cops around the country make when they use it to justify harassing photographers who actually are doing nothing illegal. But I think John Ashcroft deliberately intended this sort of "chilling effect" when he rammed a massive, poorly-understood "anti-terror" bill through a terrified Congress desperate to show their constituents they were "doing something" about terrorism.

 

<p>Since few people really know or understand what the Act actually says, law enforcement agents, officials, and rent-a-cops feel that it empowers them to go after anything they consider "suspicious" or that they just don't like. Not knowing any better, those people may honestly believe that because photography is somehow "connected to terrorism" the mysterious USA-PATRIOT Act surely <i>must</i> contain something about prohibiting photography near whatever building, bridge, or island they're diligently protecting. City councils, also desperate to show voters they're "doing something" about terrorism, similarly find justification to make photographers an easy target for dubious ordinances and regulations.

 

<p>And if photographers (and others) come to <i>believe</i> that the USA-PATRIOT Act has criminalized various perfectly-legal acts (like photographing a bridge) and they refrain from doing so out of fear and ignorance, the USA-PATRIOT Act has suddenly effected a magical destruction of rights and liberties that go well beyond what its text actually says. Never mind asking whether the loss of these rights and liberties actually makes anyone safer— that would be "unpatriotic." I have no doubt that administration officials are very happy when this occurs, as they surely like nothing better than for fearful ignorant people to surrender their freedoms voluntarily. After all, that's much easier than sending them to slave camps in Alaska.

 

<p>The thing to remember is that the USA-PATRIOT Act does <i>not</i> prohibit photography. Nor does it specifically empower any cops or guards to arrest photographers who might intrude on their turf. Indeed, while the USA-PATRIOT Act contains some truly frightening provisions that expand the power of federal law enforcement officials and let them bypass "inconvenient" checks and balances, it actually does very little to curtail the rights and liberties of individuals. But it can have that effect nonetheless if people <i>believe</i> that it "necessarily" eliminates a wide range of rights and liberties in the name of "fighting terrorism."

 

<p>That can only happen because of ignorance; and the administration has certainly not made a priority of clarifying what the USA-PATRIOT Act really contains. They apparently prefer it to remain mysterious. As George Orwell noted, "Ignorance Is Strength."

[andrew robertson]

The PATRIOT act may not say anything specifically about photography, but it certainly

provides LEOs with a lot of vague excuses to do just about anything they want under the

'anti terrorist' banner. What makes me afraid is that the climate of fear that so pervades

Washington will allow even more vague and restrictive laws to be passed in the future.

 

By invoking the PATRIOT act I hardly provide the proponents and LEOs who would take

advantage of it with ammunition to do so. I don't claim to have read the whole act. I have

read numerous dispassionate analyses of it, and they all come to the conclusion that it

needlessly duplicates many laws already on the books, and goes several steps too far. We

let bomb making terrorists from some countries go free after they are caught red-handed,

and put some other 'suspects' into a gulag for what could be the rest of their natural lives.

The terrorism laws now on the books are very selectively enforced, to our detriment.

[Two23]

This thread started out as an interesting one but has degenerated into another stupid political one. As such, it should be deleted.

 

 

Kent in SD

[loren_cain]

Personally, I saw nothing terribly disturbing in that article. It's unfortunate that innocent birders and photographers are impacted, but they seemed like reasonable security measures to me, given the current circumstances (notice the news from London this morning?). There was a time when an airline passenger could just wander up to the open cockpit door and talk to the pilots (I remember doing this as a child), but would anyone really advocate leaving cockpits open and unlocked today?

 

Also, for all the horror stories one reads about heavy-handed, obnoxious security folks, I believe there are far more stories you never hear about simply because they are, if not pleasant, at least not unpleasant. For example:

 

About two years ago I stopped at Catoctin Mountain Park on my way home from Gettysburg. I knew nothing about the park, but had seen the sign a number of times and decided to stop and check it out. As I was hiking in the woods, with my white, tripod-mounted 300mm lens slung over my shoulder, a man approached me from the other direction. He was dressed in a polo shirt and Dockers, which seemed a little odd, and he went out of his way to engage me in a "You must be a professional, get any good pictures?" type of conversation. Talking to people on hiking trails is common, but this guy seemed a little more interested in me than normal. He wished me well and went on his way. About five minutes later, another similarly-dressed guy approached me and engaged me in an almost identical conversation. The first time it happened, it seemed a little odd, but the second time it seemed very odd. Neither guy looked like the average hiker, and I was wondering what they were doing out there in the woods. Only after I got home and did some research on the park did I realize that I had been walking around the perimeter of Camp David carrying a 300mm lens (it's not shown on the park map). I believe I was "interrogated" by a pair of Secret Service agents, and it was done in such a manner that I never even knew it was happening. No one said I had no right to be there, or shouldn't take pictures, or anything else. They just wanted to find out what I was up to, in a non-confrontational manner.

 

I think the difference is that most cops and physical plant security personnel are not trained that way. Their jobs require them to be visible objects of authority, and when they tell you to do something, you must do it or it undermines that authority. For example, in my experience, *most* cops are extremely professional and courteous as long as you treat them with respect and do what they tell you to do. As soon as you talk back or argue with them, the encounter changes drastically.

[andrew robertson]

Feeling a little woozy from the cognitive dissonance, Kent?

[andy_depaulo]

Instead of complaining about security measures and how they inconvenience everyone, perhaps we should be complaining about the people that want to convert you or kill you.

 

Seems to me the people who gripe about being overcautious are usually the same ones who wonder why we weren't prepared when some kook blows something up.

 

If these good ol' boys weren't blowing innocent people up, would security issues be such an inconvenience?

 

Flame on...

[greg s]

There have been numerous articles outlining the vulnerability of all manner of sensitive sites, years after 9-11. TV crews have pranced about these sites unchallenged, and no significant measures have been enacted to secure them. (industry doesn't like it, so no dice) Likewise, measures to beef up identity documentation and border security have been seriously lacking. Meanwhile, at the airport I watch security personel rummaging through many a grandma's luggage. It's called 'going through the motions'.

[ted_marcus1]

<i>Instead of complaining about security measures and how they inconvenience everyone, perhaps we should be complaining about the people that want to convert you or kill you.</i>

 

<p>I completely support intelligently-drawn security measures that specifically and effectively target the "bad guys" while respecting the rights of innocent people. Unfortunately, the reaction of all levels of Officialdom has been anything but intelligent. Rather, it has involved hasty, overly-broad measures that inconvenience and trample on the rights of innocent people while providing only illusory protection against the "bad guys." Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to do that than to do something intelligent and effective, especially since too many people can't tell the difference.

 

<p>And by the way, the "bad guys" really are mostly seeking to drag down our economy and our free society into a tar pit of stupid, wasteful, and <i>ineffective</i> "security." Killing innocent people is merely their way to goad our Officials into digging and filling that tar pit, since they're very much aware that there's nothing Officials love more than that.

 

<p>When Officials detain innocent photographers for "unlawful possession of camera equipment," or force millions of innocent people to spend millions of hours waiting in queues for ineffective airport security, they are unwittingly helping terrorists to achieve their goals. The best way to defeat terrorists is to constantly question the Officials about the effectivness and necessity of their measures, and to demand that they institute intelligent security that genuinely protects us while respecting our rights. When Officials erroneously cite poorly-understood legislation to justify their acts, or worse insist that any such questioning is "unpatriotic," it's a sure sign they're not doing anything effective.

 

<p>Tony Blair made exactly the right speech in reaction to the terrible bombings in London. He insisted that Britain will not let terrorists destroy their way of life. I know that's easier said than done, but I can't imagine Bush saying anything like that.

[craig_gillette]

Not trolling, just sadly amusing? Just plain sad. Typical Los Angeles Times fishwrap. Of course, we know they want to present both sides of the issues. Remember how they did when they talked about the Hubbard and photography? I guess they're still working on presenting both sides.

 

No more free access to the vent systems for mile long underwater tunnels? Why were they unsupervised to begin with? Fort Huachuca? Trying to find ways to accomodate non-citizens on an Army post involved with sensitive intelligence and communications/electronics and border drug surveillance. And citizens need car insurance and driver's licenses to drive on base. Yeah, that's going to put a crimp in the whole birding thing.

 

Insurgents blast water and sewage facilities near Baghdad and it's terrible, at least Saddam let people have water sometimes. Guard local facilities and the entire natural history of the US (if not the western world) is put at risk because some birds may not get counted.

 

So the truth squad rushes out, spews falsehoods about the Patriot Act (let's give them credit for never reading it instead of simply lying about it). You'd have thought somebody in the White House used presto logs or the PS clone tool the way they carry on.

[tholte]

I personally think they should watch those birders pretty darn carefully. Just a couple of years ago a bunch of British senior citizen slash plane-spotters were caught spying in Greece. The old codgers were hanging around the Athens airport taking photos of the planes taking off and landing. The ever vigilant Greek authorities had them arrested for espionage and they were eventually convicted. The Greeks could not understand the concept of plane-spotting. By the grace of Apollo and Britain's version of AARP (American Association of Retired People) the spys were eventually freed and shipped back to Britain. You may ask "what has this to do with birders in America"? What do you think birders are really doing?

[j_robinson2]

"Kent in SD"

 

Instead of deleting this 'stupid thread', lets delete Kent in SD instead. What good has ever come from SoDakota?