Be afraid, be very afraid ........

[chris_waller]

<p>This kind of nonsense from officaldom makes my haemorrhoids flare up, so I get grouchy.<br>

"60,000 people will be trained to keep an eye out for terrorists, which includes anybody with a large lens and lord knows who else."<br>

Isn't that how the Stasi operated in the old East Germany. And here's me thinking we defeated Communist totalitarianism.</p>

[astral]

<p>While this wonderful scheme may adequately train the volunteers and show them that common sense must prevail (all in a few hours), the real risk is that within a month they will have forgotten the details, overstepped their responsibilities and authority, but nevertheless generally feel rather empowered and emboldened - just as many security guards are right now.</p>

<p>It has taken many years for British authorities (local and national) to control the abbrerant behaviour of parking wardens - and they still haven't fully suceeded, since many are not employed directly by the authorities, but by private 'for-profit' companies. More recently, there are reports that numerous civilian Police Community Support Officers have also had to be given clearer instructions, refresher training, or disciplined, regarding their duties and responsibilities, after over-zealously applying ficticious laws in inappropriate circumstances.</p>

<p> </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>I got news for all these terrorist experts. People who are terrorists are not obvious. They are not going to be standing around photo'ing with a recognizable camera. There is no need to harrass photog's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is it not *truly* amazing how reactive instead of proactive these people are? Is humanity that stupid? I was going to base my self out of the UK for my project this Fall, but I might re-consider it. And the laughable thing is going to be the lost tourist revenue due to all this bad press.<br>

I suppose I would be OK with a small bag of Leicas, but I just don't want to waste my time on a stupid country that I used to be a citizen of. What a drag the internet / digital age is.</p>

[lech1]

<p>The stronger the state the less freedom is left to citizens. The bigest terrorist is the state itself. The secret agents confidents are the tools of regime to preserve power. The international terror you speek here is something different. The hegemon has chosen some options and it is clear that this choise will last long. So somebody who is on the wrong side of the gun can look politely at the sky if bombers are coming or can become eventualy the terrorist. Photographers are dangerous in the same degree as flamenco dancers. I do not belive that UK lacks freedom.</p>

[arie07]

<p>The west got rid of the Soviet Union only to become it.</p>

[bernardwest]

Where's all the usual naysayers telling us we are just imaging this. Usually we get someone saying something like "I've photographed in London/NewYork/Baghdad/[substitute city name here] and i've never once been harassed in all my 137 years as a photographer. Therefore, you're all a bunch of net-gossipers".

 

People of the UK need to get out and protest against this stuff. It is truly shocking the reduction in personal rights that is going on over there.

[tom_cheshire]

<p>Just like "1984" the citizen is made to be the spy and the children became "junior spys" even against their parents. </p>

<p>The whole key to controlling a population is to make them control themselves. If people can be made frightened enough they will demand that their freedoms be taken away for their own "safety". </p>

<p>In the old days, they used the church to keep people in line. Now it is the aura of everyone suspecting everyone else that dissolves the cohesion of society. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>I think the really unacceptable part that you Brits should be protesting isn't specifically the relation of this to photographers but the existence of a group of 60,000 non-uniformed people spying and reporting "terrorist" activity to the government. That's the part that reminds me of various oppressive regimes of the 20th century.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Leo-exactly. I can't wait to see what is to become.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Daniel,<br>

You are absolutely right. This proposed idiocy moves me to make two quotes:-<br>

"Governments are bad, some are worse" (Martha Gellhorn)<br>

"Do you know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed." (Oxenstierne)</p>

[terrygilroy]

<p>It is rumoured that in the EU next year it will be neccessary to have a licence to own and operate a camera, it will also be essential to belong to an authorised camera club or photogrphic society.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>it the terrorists have done this to us, then the terrorists have truly "won."<br>

of course, they did not, and have not.<br>

the politicians -- meaning those at whose behest they act -- see a need to redefine "freedom" in the brave new world.<br>

there is a new order in the works, and the chinese with their "harmonious society" are the model.</p>

[ts_photo]

<p>I've read a few dozen similar threads over the last 2 years (that I've been paying attention to this type issue, esp. in the UK) in various fora. This thread starts out with particularly dismaying news, the demi-training and appointing of 'Hall Monitors' a.k.a. 'Bullies'. This mirrors an ongoing program here in the states whose name I forget, but it is directed at training business people, service people, etc. in looking for signs of terrorism and giving them a channel of direct communication to the US version of STASI (jackboots, entirely secret and secretive, responsible only to themselves - no oversight, checks, balances, or democracy involved.)</p>

<p><a title="Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F" title="Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?">Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?<br /> </a></p>

<p>I think that these agencies are missing the bet: why not appoint little old ladies wearing scarves (Babushkas) and children with the right racial makeup (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_youth">Hitler Youth</a> )? They could regularly denounce citizens, even just for furn or practice!</p>

<p>/..</p>

[ilkka]

<p>" 'thuggish behaviour of the police' ...amounts to a handful of incidents (4, I think - all still to be investigated) in a day of omgoing skirmishes"</p>

<p>Four recorded and published incidents of thuggish behaviour by trained policemen in one day in one somewhat specific location? How many unrecorded or unpublished cases were there? To me this sounds like a huge problem, not an isolated incident that can just be brushed aside. Looks like more photographers are needed to keep England safe, not less.</p>

[rogerwb]

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=726018"><em>Leo Gottfried</em></a><em> </em><a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Apr 25, 2009; 07:54 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>The west got rid of the Soviet Union only to become it.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

A classic line Leo, I'll have to remember that.</p>

 

[acarodp]

<p>From the article:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Civilians are being told to be on guard for people carrying cameras and <strong>zoom lenses</strong> as part of anti-terrorism seminars being rolled out nationwide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>HAHA! finally a revenge for us prime shooters!</p>

<p>L.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Did i say i was happy to live in Canada?</p>

<p>I can take images of what i want, where i want, when i want with the tools i need..and live happy (at least until now)</p>

 

[Art X Photography]

<p>I have to agree with Tom C about the "obvious" lengths or rather lack of, to which terrorists go to in order to remain inconspicuous. That said, in an attempt to blend in, a so called 'terrorist' will develop 'weapons' through common day to day items and so governments tent to react rather than be proactive in the first place. I also agree that if it's not the 'threat of terrorism' controlling a population, it's the 'act of terror' inflicted by organised religion (such as the times of the inquisition). Seems the only card left to play now is an economic one.....ohh wait that's a card we're becoming familiar with now (sarcasm). I guess it's impractical to take away people's mobile phones or shoes, so instead will take away their cameras and replace them with CCTV (am I too cynical? probably). Such 'counter-terrorism' policies only serve to bring us one step closer to George Orwell's 1984. As much as I like the vision of that movie's inception I don't want to experience it</p>

[CosteaM]

<p>Leo Gottfried and Tom Cheshire nailed so well. </p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>This is like something out of a Monty Python skit. "Well he had a camera and looked a bit shifty"<br /> "Shifty? How so mum?"<br /> "You Know, he had a big camera and wore one of those Boris Badenoff Hats like on Rocky and Bull Winkle"<br /> Good grief, I just bought a 100-400 mm lens, guess that vacation to Great Britain this year is out.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Lots of persons with cameras might actually serve as a deterrent against criminals and terrorists--not that I would ever recommend carrying or installing a camera for that reason. Most of the pictures made of September 11, 2001 were made by amateur photographers.</p>

<p>The greatest danger all along was from those who might overreact to that event and others, and that danger--the threat to liberty--still exists. Politicians and public officials who have made their mark by preying upon fears have been a great part of the problem, and their excesses have been and continue to be a lot more threatening and damaging than anything else that has actually happened.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>