Telephoto lenses present a clear security threat...

[bobatkins]

<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/bob-quick-terror-raids-leak">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/bob-quick-terror-raids-leak</a></p>

[rnt]

<p>Saw that... Somebody get that guy a manila folder... Oops, too late. Sharp lens, though...</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>The reason the guy resigned is because that document was supposed to be in a folder marked "classified". No exceptions.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Unbelievable. I can't imagine how much work was compromised by that blunder. You can bet that people throughout the biz are busy sending "don't forget your briefcase" memos to their staffs right about now. Yeesh.</p>

[bueh]

<p>That picture should be featured in Canon's next L glass adverts.</p>

[tim_price2]

<p>Honestly, the way that this can be exploited really has me concerned more than an operation that might have been blown. The UK already has the "no photographing officers" law on the books, and this will be used as justification. I am sure that here in the states many are looking at a way to use this to keep chipping away at the bill of rights as well. There's a thread on POTN about a guy being forced to delete his images and leave under threat of arrest by cops in a public park in Boston, simply because there was a LNG tanker in the harbor.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Canon actually used a similar shot back in the FD days. It was a shot of some UN diplomat (Kissinger?) carrying a folder about Vietman with readable text. Taken with, I think, an early 300/2.8L (maybe the FL). I think the claim was that it showed how sharp the lens was and I think it was one of the first lenses to use a Fluorite element.</p>

<p>I'm sure it's around on the web somewhere.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Well either they have to ban telephoto lenses or they have to ban stupid or careless civil servants...</p>

<p>Photographers should know that a great way to make money is to get themselves arrested for doing something perfectly legal, and then suing the Police Department. It's happened more than once (they usually win, in fact the police usually offer a settlement without the case going to court) and they probably made more money than they would have done on a legitimate assignment, plus they get lots of free publicity.</p>

<p>Here's another plug for Bert Krages "Photographer's Rights" download - <a href="http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm">http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm</a></p>

[jay a. frew]

<p>The problem is that photographers do not seem to have an effective advocate.</p>

<p>Did anyone in the UK government thank the photographer, or at least acknowledge the fact that, if not for his good work, their most senior counter-terrorism officer may have continued to compromise operations (and the lives of CT operators)?</p>

<p>Not bloody likely!</p>

<p>I do hope that a professional photographers' association in the UK has, or will, bring this to the attention of the press and the government!</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

<p> </p>

[mwaks]

<p>Bob Atkins: I took a photo of a plant growing between the tracks on a NYC subway track. A police officer questioned me and told me to delete the photo. I cooperated with him to avoid trouble. .....But what could have happened if I insisted I'm not a terrorist and refused to delete the photo? It sounds like a perfect example of the settlement situation you described. There was some big shots in the United Nations that day, except I was in another borough of NYC all together.</p>

[jerry_schuler]

<p>That's too idiotic not to be a hoax or a deliberate plant to create a controversy. Not even civil servants are that stupid to put documents marked secret in on top of the stack of folders in plain sight. It looks more like something somebody would do to create a news story.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p ><strong><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2128740">Michael Wakslicht</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> , Apr 10, 2009; 01:22 a.m.</strong></p>

 

<p><strong>Bob Atkins: I took a photo of a plant growing between the tracks on a NYC subway track. A police officer questioned me and told me to delete the photo. I cooperated with him to avoid trouble. </strong><br>

NEVER EVER delete the image. Usually there are few legal reasons that you should, and one compelling reason you should not - if you delete the image you delete the evidence of your innocence (and yes I DO know all about image retrieval software).</p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>I'm sure you'll understand that this has been subject to a lot of coverage in the UK these last couple of days. The media focus of this has been, so far, on the stupidity of the act, the untenability of the perpetrators position, and the fact that the police action seems so far to have been successful. Not on the impact of and on photography.<br>

What happens next could be interesting. There seems to be a tendency in this country for a big brouhaha over initial arrests only to see the suspects released after a few days or weeks either because the police didn't actually find any compelling evidence or that there wasn't any compelling evidence to find. At that point the police - a notoriously self-supportive group - will be looking for excuses that go beyond blaming one of their own for forcing precipitate action. Its then that I fear that the attention may swing onto the role of the media and attempts by the police to enforce their powers to prevent photography of their officers.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>All a telephoto lens does, of course, is magnify <em>before </em> capture. </p>

<p>With a non-telephoto lens and an incredible number of pixels, we can get the same result by magnifying <em>after </em> capture.</p>

<p>So, it's just a matter of time before we have 1.3 TERApixel sensors. Then even a "normal" lens capture can be cropped after-the-fact and have enough information equivalent to what the telphoto lens captured here. Coming soon to a DSLR near you -- 1 micron sensels. </p>

<p>So, today we think it's the telephoto lens, but tomorrow, the sensor will evolve, and any lens will do. </p>

<p>Heck, someday, someone blowing up traffic security camera shots might see through a car window and read the fine print sitting open in the passenger's briefcase! ;-)</p>

<p>.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Earlier: "<em>... A police officer questioned me and told me to delete the photo ...</em> "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's destruction of copyright goods, intellectual property, and absolutely against the law and international treaty under Berne and so on for anyone in authority to destroy someone else's copyright property.</p>

<p>Also, that would be destruction of evidence, also verboten for a police officer to do or to instruct anyoen to do. What a Bozo -- ooops, that's insulting Bozo!</p>

<p>Wow, what a case there -- go for it! That police officer, and their boss, needs an education, and paying for a lawsuit is one great way to charge tuition on that education.</p>

<p>Of course you removed the storage card so as not to write over the deleted file and recovered the image later, right?</p>

<p>As mentioned, we need advocacy, and the ACLU is too haphazard and not dedicated to photographer's rights exclusively. HELP! Somebody?</p>

<p>.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>A couple of months ago, someone from the treasury (I think) turned up at Downing Street with a confidential document in a transparent folder. Naturally, it was a sensitive economic report and everyone was very embarrassed.<br>

Unfortunately, as the people who perform these stupid acts are the ones who leave laptops behind or send public records in the unsecure post, nothing was learned and they continue to wander round with secret documents in plain view.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> That's destruction of copyright goods, intellectual property, and absolutely against the law and international treaty under Berne and so on for anyone in authority to destroy someone else's copyright property.</p>

<p>How about some citations backing that claim?</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Brad, who would he call, the police?</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Great questions -- how do we cite precedent for legal authority <em>protecting </em> against destruction of other people's intellectual property, protecting against destruction of our original latent images, which are our copyright intellectual property as soon as we create it? If the police said, "you're not allowed to park here, you must now burn your car ...", or, "you're not allowed to take notes in Starbucks, tear up your unpublished novel ..."?</p>

<p>Very provocative, and we're all going on whimsical presumption, not a careful understanding of our participatory rights and obligations in any modern society!</p>

<p>Very challenging questions, and thankfully, questions we seldom have to address. But when the situation arises, what can we do?</p>

<p>HELP! Anybody? Anybody? Gerry Spence? William Kunstler? Jim Lowe? (At least Gerry Spence is also a photographer, but the other two vigilant defenders of the defenseless are dead!)</p>

<p>You tell us: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=intellectual+property+law">http://www.google.com/search?q=intellectual+property+law</a> because, sadly,</p>

<ul>

<li>a Google search for the exact phrase: "<em><strong>lawyer defends photographer</strong> </em> " gets <em><strong>ZERO results</strong> </em> ! </li>

</ul>

<p>OUCH!</p>

<p>.</p>

[mwaks]

<p>Yes, the photo was recovered. This was the illegal image in question.</p><div></div>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>The problem is that photographers do not seem to have an effective advocate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Join the NPPA or the PPA. I do beleive that both provide legal council for photographers.</p>

[dansutton]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2128740">Michael Wakslicht</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> quite clearly wants to document critical infrastructures specifics for al qaeda. that's basically a blue print for the system of mass industrial transportation in america, especially for industrial chemical transportation. we are now all at risk.</p>

[mwaks]

<p>Actually my plan was to provide enough water and fertilizer to the plant so that it would grow so large as to derail the train.</p>

[david_thorpe]

<p>Any terrorist seeing that picture could creep to the track, water those plants and when fully grown, cut them down, cook and feed them to a fellow terrorist.<br>

The policeman was right. Not only should pictures of plants on railway tracks be banned, photographing any plant should be made a criminal act. Ditto buildings and people.<br>

If it saves just one life, it's worth it.</p>

 

[mwaks]

<p>Well, I feel that should this case go to trial, the jury would probably give me no less then a "four" for aesthetics. However my attorney has prepared me to except that I may have to serve time for originality.</p>