The War on Photography

[paul_stein1]

Check out http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0806.html - a web page on

computer security. The continued stopping and questioning of photographers is

still an ongoing problem

[lex_jenkins]

Take a picture, it'll last longer. Say, 10-25 years in a federal gulag.

[spritestress]

The larger spectrum of articles on Bruce Schneier's site demonstrates the extent to which we now live in an Orwellian police state, in the aftermath of the WTC bombings. What is more amazing is the number of people who don't care they their rights are disappearing, and the number of people all too ready to see civil rights, civil liberties, and personal privacy destroyed.

[lex_jenkins]

Propagandist Michael Reagan's call for fatwah against Mark Dice last week is another facet of this same increasing attitude of paranoia, intolerance and hysteria. We can't strike the real enemy so we create enemies at home on whom we can safely vent our collective anger based in sweating, stinking, unfocused fear.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Lex,

Wouldn't it be nice if the FBI hired more native arabic and farsi related languages speaking field agents. as of 2008 the grand total of arabic and farsi related languages speaking field agents is 9. In August 2001 it was 7. it is no wonder we don't have a clue as to what possible threats we face from that direction.

[rnt]

Ellis, I think I heard a snippit of an NPR program over the weekend. Unless I misheard, one of the reasons given for not hiring native speakers in those (among other) languages is the extended family structure in those cultures- it's hard to find someone who doesn't have some familial link to a troubled region- a security clearance no-no. I think our (US) government needs to figure out a better way to determine who's 'safe' or not besides names, distant relatives, religion or ethnicity.

[steve torelli]

Terrorist don't take pictures? How about flying lessons?

 

10-25 years in a federal gulag, an Orwellian police state? People that think

they live in a police state because someone questions them when they see their

camera have never lived in a police state. And they're not living in the real

world. It may be unfortunate, but in a world where terrorism can occur any time,

any where, it's a small price to pay. Our civil rights aren't being violated

simply because someone asks you what you're doing any more than when a cop asks

you if you've been drinking. Besides, how many of your friends and family have

been dragged off the street, never to be seen again recently?

 

I don't know where you live, but in America that doesn't happen and any thinking

person knows it, unless you're writing a blog from your mother's basement with a

tin foil hat on your head. I think we need to keep things in perspective, being

questioned by a cop or a security guard isn't the same thing as getting hit in

the head with a nightstick and dragged off to jail and being held without charge.

[josh_baker]

The terrible crimes that occur in a police state may not happen today, but I don't think I want to wait until the first time I see someone dragged off the street to notice the slow erosion of freedom.

[photo_dark]

@ Steve

 

So.... Guantanamo doesn't exist? how about the people being held there without charge or trial?

[rnt]

It's a fuzzy line/slippery slope we're talking about here. Most of the cases of

photographer harassment we read about -isn't- just about questioning but is

actual intimidation by security or law enforcement professionals who seem to

have little knowledge of the legal basis for their actions.

 

Yes, it is wise in this day and age to be aware of threats and protect against

them as far as the law allows, but harassing photographers is a misuse of

resources and attention that might be better spent in other ways.

 

In these perilous days I'm constantly reminded of the quote, attributed to

Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a

little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

 

Granted, photography may not be classed an "Essential Liberty" per se, but

perhaps more a canary in a coal mine. If you're a miner and the canary keels

over, you probably shouldn't think "It's just a canary, who cares?" because

bigger and more dangerous things may be just around the corner.

[steve torelli]

"So.... Guantanamo doesn't exist? how about the people being held there without charge or trial?"

 

There's also a difference between prisoners of war and the average citizen on the street. The people in Gitmo aren't there for selling encyclopedias without a license. They're there because they tried to kill people like you and me.

[steve torelli]

Robert,

 

I too am aware of the slippery slope. But, again, perspective. Things happen

every day in this country that are minor violations of our personal rights or

private space. Like when the cop tells you to move along at the scene of a fire

or an accident. That doesn't mean where living in an Orwellian police state or

that gulags are right around the corner. And, I believe that kind of thinking

minimizes the plight of the millions of people around the world who are really

suffering at the hands of real totalitarian regimes. Among those, you can take

your pick.

[david_dorcich1]

"There's also a difference between prisoners of war and the average citizen on the street. The people in Gitmo aren't there for selling encyclopedias without a license. They're there because they tried to kill people like you and me."

 

If they don't know why they are there, how can you presume to? Since they were labeled as "illegal enemy combatants" habeas corpus was suspended. They only recently won the right to even know why they are being held.

[steve torelli]

I think they all know why they're being held. The SCOTUS has made a huge mistake by granting foreign enemy combatants the same rights that you have as an American citizen.

 

Anyway, before this thread gets deleted for getting too political, let me thank you all for the discussion. I'm inspired by the fact that here we can have differing opinions without fear of reprisals, even if one person is a Reagan conservative and the other a Clintonian liberal. Good luck !

[josoiii]

Fear is big business and they are working to keep it that way, no more praying in school. Faith will make a come back someday, I don't know if it will happen in God Bless America, fear is in charge, temporarily. Keep the Faith, and you will overcome any fear! Terrorism is all about keeping you in fear, because they know your losing your Faith! Webster's says, terrorism, to frighten people into obeying completely. hmmmm

[drr]

Give 'em hell, Steve. Those gentlemen at "Club Gitmo" are not even POWs according to definitions set by the Geneva Convention. They have no ligitimate rights, whatsoever. Spies and un-uniformed combatants have always been subject to summary execution when caught. Our left, including those five SCOTUS morons, has a suicidal impulse and wish the rest of us to join them. - Roy

[emiliogtz]

"It may be unfortunate, but in a world where terrorism can occur any time, any where, it's a small price to pay."

 

Anyone that is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither.

-Ben Franklin.

[chris_waller]

Here in the UK the fightback has begun, as reported in the British Journal of Photography:-

 

http://www.bjphoto.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=792719

 

('Coppers' is rather old-fashioned English vernacular for the police.)

[marc_bergman1]

"Those gentlemen at "Club Gitmo" are not even POWs according to definitions set by the Geneva Convention."

 

So the right to hold these people by this administration would also apply to any country who would want to kidnap and detain any US citizens. Is that what we really want?

 

I see a lot of people leaping to the conclusion that these "Gentlemen" have committed a crime. I thought that is what a trial is for.

[bernie moore]

I suppose I should read the article suggested by the OP, but having got this far I'm just too depressed. Think I'll take some pics of the cat. Regards, Bernie

[KenPapai]

"('Coppers' is rather old-fashioned English vernacular for the police.)"

 

James Cagney used the word "copper" for police a lot in the films from the 1930s.

[daniel_sheehy]

Steve:

 

I do live in a country where people who wind up in Police stations (or Military custody) sometimes don't walk out, and it's sad to see a country like the USA throwing away those freedoms in the name of perceived safety.

I don't think it's possible to understand what's going on until you've lived in a place where you can't count on enjoying those freedoms.

 

Safety cannot be legislated, risk is inherent to life. (:

[Matthew Currie]

"There's also a difference between prisoners of war and the average citizen on the street. The people in Gitmo aren't there for selling encyclopedias without a license. They're there because they tried to kill people like you and me."

 

Not quite. They're there because someone somewhere thinks that they tried to kill people like you and me. Unfortunately, the manner in which they're held, and in which they are unable to present a defense, makes it difficult to determine whether or not they actually did, but at least a few have been released after many years of detention when it was discovered that in fact they did not try to kill us. I think that's an important distinction. Few rational people are arguing that we should not arrest, lock up, interrogate and try terrorists and criminals. But the manner in which this has been done recently by the U.S. is not to our credit.

 

It may not by itself mark us as a police state, any more than a person who gets down on the floor, growls and bites people's legs is by that act turned into a dog, but it's not a good symptom, either.

[lex_jenkins]

"I'm inspired by the fact that here we can have differing opinions without fear of reprisals, even if one person is a Reagan conservative and the other a Clintonian liberal."

 

I agree with everything before the comma.

 

I'm not sure about what was written after the comma has to do with the issue. But it's emblematic of the polarization that has occurred. It's not a conservative/liberal issue, belongs to neither party nor to any figurehead. The erosion affects us all and is eating away at the core of American liberty and values.

 

Matthew's analogy is excellent. To much of the world we resemble that junkyard dog, snapping at everyone, not discriminating between friend, foe and disinterested passersby. But we look foolish because we're humans, not curs.

[carbon_dragon]

"10-25 years in a federal gulag, an Orwellian police state? People that think they live in a police state because someone questions them when they see their camera have never lived in a police state"

 

No they think they're living in a budding police state because the police do not merely question, they intimidate, using their police powers to threaten photographers with authority they don't have. It's happened to me and I'm a landscape amateur.

 

It's interesting that some people think Bill Clinton is a prototype liberal (perhaps because he was an iconic Democrat). Actually Bill is a pretty centrist guy, at least he was when he was President. Of course Reagan was reasonably centrist too and I voted for both of them so I guess you can have worse standard bearers. Certainly Bush jr. is about as far to the right as it's possible to be.