Listening In (Is the KGB dead?)

This photo -- 'Listening In', taken in a former part of the USSR,

asks the question 'Is the KGB dead' but takes on new relevance as US

news has revealed that almost all US communications now are being

listened in on, at least 'electronically' and without court-issued

warrants, leaving the question of what the differences are between

the totalitarian state of the former USSR and 'free' United States --

and how 'free' can 'freedom' be if you can't utter a 'secret' over

the telephone without it being overheard by Big Brother (all in the

name of anti-terrorism -- but who watches over the watchers?) Your

ratings and critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate

harshly or very critically, please submit a helpful and constructive

comment. Please share your superior photographic knowledge to help

improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John (Comments about the

subject are most welcome -- vigorous debate encouraged and most

welcome)

First things first. I am thrilled to have discovered your portfolio. Back to this image, and for that matter most of your photos. The following happened: because I am an amateur and basically have neither training or a real clue of what I am doing, I made the saying "if you have to explain your photo you did not succeed" a part of my approach to photography.

After going through your extensive portfolio, I realised that what your are doing in your text with the photos, is not the inverse of what is stated above. It is actually an enhancement. Your photos still speaks for itself - but in giving the wider context and aiming at the relevance with current socio-economic realities worldwide (especially US), you hit the bulls eye. Well done.

And thank you, because you have unknowingly given direction to my outlook towards photography in a way which Photoshop will never be able to. :-)

Highest regards

JH de Beer (South Africa)

PS: I have nothing against PS or the use of it - and I don't have it.

JH,

It long has been my intention that each photo 'speak for itself' but some viewers are 'thicker' than others and some need a 'little prodding' to understand things than the more worldly and better educated, so sometimes a little help in the caption or an explanatory preface is helpful.

This photo, when I took it this winter, stood for what it purports to in the caption -- a question of whether this phone repairman actually is what he appears to be, a repairman, or whether he is part of the 'secret police' apparatus which in former times in the USSR (Ukraine was part of the USSR) was known in its 'second' incarnation as the feared KGB and now, in Russia, as the FSB, of which Russian head Vladimir Putin was the head (under both names), and hence knows a trick or two (about stealing elections for one thing which needn't be stolen, -- see Moscow Times extensive reportage on the subject a couple of years ago -- it's an English language newspaper which deals largely in 'wire service' coverage in English plus features written in English, so it's hardly a threat to the Putin Administration.

But, before I decided to 'take a chance' on posting this 'strange' photograph, events overtook me and we found that in the US not only was the US government involved in intercepting all foreign communications from/to the

us, in doing so, it was also intercepting domestic communications, and then we found that it had a program to intercept domestic communications by implanting in telephone company offices special equipment for sorting and analyzing telephone calls by ALL CUSTOMERS, in violation of the US Constitution as well as violating various laws, and Bush (and company) contend they had the power because ALL that he does purportedly against terorism is legal -- e.g. if he commits murder, it is not murder because he does so in the name of anti-terrorism, I suppose, reducing the argument ad absurdum.

Hence the question: Who's watching the watchers?

One telephone company refused to surveil, citing legal difficulties and now my local, huge telephone company, which acceded to blanket surveillance on behalf of the Administration, is being sued for violation of civil rights by people who were surveilled -- a surefire nightmare because such a suit probably will succeed.

Many Americans say 'what the heck, I have nothing to hide, so listen away,' but those are dangerous people, because they don't know how to value their liberties . . . or how dangerous a man FBI founder J. Edgar Hoover was, or that the Adminisgtration already admits that at least one person who was entrusted with knowledge of 'secrets' has tried to misuse them for personal/political gain (and may have succeeded).

And who knows if the Bush Administration, with knowledge of Democratic secrets gleaned from taps (without court warrants which may be gotten AFTER the fact, which the Administration refuses to request knowing they are not going to be eligible for them), will use those 'secrets' to torpedo the Democrats' next campaign plans, all surreptitiously. Secrets can and WILL be misused -- J. Edgar Hoover built his career on his database of misused secrets and gossip.

Of course things work the opposite way, and the Democrats might succumb to such power -- LBJ surely would have -- he was a megalomaniac.

And so it goes, which is why I invited discussion, and am sorry there were only three rates and only one comment.

But this photo stays up, and so do the comments, and who knows when it will become important to someone, if only as a historical anecdote.

Personally, I don't have a telephone to tap.

When I had a large insurance claim, I found a strange 'telephone truck and two 'telephone workers' ready to climb my telephone pole to 'fix' alleged problems on my 'telephone' but they arrived after 5:00 on a Friday, had no company ID, no drivers' licenses, their truck did not belong to the telephone company (although it had a cherry picker bucket and they had lineman equipment), they didn't have work orders, they didn't know the name of their boss, the telephone company doesn't work on lines at that hour, they spoke with distinctly regional out-of-state accents which was 'most unusual' for linemen in these parts (I know many linemen), and so on and so on, leading me to believe they were fictitious linemen (investigators) meaning only to plant a recording device on my telephone, and I only caught them because I happened to be home at the time, or they would have succeded (they backed down a 1,200 foot driveway with their truck in reverse after I told them to skeedaddle, and I had my phone disconnected forever.)

Just because someone's in a telephone box doesn't mean they have 'authority' -- they might easily be 'snooping' and even if they've from the 'government' that doesn't mean they're snooping legally. Warrants are required in the US, and for terrorism, warrants for telephone calls issue from a special court (probably unconstitutionally) which can issue warrants up to three days AFTER the interception) (an ex post facto warrant, how much easier can you get, yet the Bush Administration refuses to seek such warrants, because the SECRET COURT that issues such warrants has telegraphed that it won't issue such warrants to the extent that the Bush Adminstration wants them).

And I'm totally against terrorism -- I'm just for the Constitution, and believe the Bill of Rights is an important document.

As for your 'view' on photography, I remember a guy who called himslf a 'poor country lawyer' who asked 'simple questions' that needed asking -- his quesstions seemed 'simple' but they resulted in the resignation of Richard Milhouse Nixon, just before Nixon would have been impeached. (Sam Erwin).

I am very chary of anyone who trumpets their lack of knowledge of anything for those are the individuals who are the most to be contended with.

And as far as 'owning' Photoshop, if you're taking film, most minilabs finish photos just as Photoshop would, (or Photoshop LE, the economy version, which is very powerful, and if you disregard copyrights, file sharing programs have many older versions of Photoshop available for download, but I can't endorse that. I have a paid version, and it was expensive.

Very expensive.

To get the best out of a digital camera, however, sharpening is almost always required over and agove what the camera does 'in the box' as digital cameras all 'sharpen' and Shutterbug Magazine and many others say that all digital photos must be 'sharpened', especially Nikon photos, particularly those destined for the web, because Nikon's standard sharpening is so weak and blah., which is just one reason for owning Photoshop and another is for resizing your photos, and then there's image enhancement through contrast and brightness adjustment and so forth, without doing all the tricks -- and those aren't necessarily considered 'manipulation' if they could be done with film by a minilab processing film.

I made a big deal that I didn't use Photoshop when I first joined (and I didn't even own a copy, because my film was processed, but then I found out what the processing computer did -- contrast adjustment, brightness adjustment, sharpening, color enhancement, etc., just as though I'd used Photoshop, so I settled down and became less vociferous about the entire matter.

Now I just say 'no manipulation' noting that I hadn't manipulated 'under the guidelines' other than might be done by a minilab machine. (So go read the photo critique submission guidlines on what constitutes 'manipulation' and you might be surprised).

I am glad my 'style' (if it can be called that) has struck a chord with you. It's more the photojournalism style; my local and famous camera store staff said their customers over time (many of whom were or are famous photographers) who had work that had an appearance similar to mine included one photographer for the once-famous 'Black Star' photo agency, the Magnum Agency (Henri Cartier-Bresson founded that one with some compatriots including Robert Capa) and one photographer for National Geographic, and if you're in South Africa, what better way to photograph whether it's the veldt or Soweto, than to do so in the Geographic style or the Cartier-Bresson style -- or at least with respect to their styles (God help you if you actually can muster their styles as you'll soon become famous).

[The National Geographic ending in 2,000 put out a disk set of EVERY photograph it had ever published -- you might try to get your havds on a boxec CD set or copy.]

By the way, the Democrats, especially the Dixicrats, especially LBJ (for all the good things he ended up doing good for this country's social fabric) were pretty awful characters who did some horrible things for which this country should be condemned, and Bush deserves some credit for having done some wonderful and well-intentioned things. (Not eveything is -- to abuse an expression --- black and white).

You might notice I take and post photos without regard to ratings; it's a good process once you've taken a few good ones to establish your credentials -- if you look at my first photo posted, it's my best ever, my highest rated ever, and one of my highest viewed, so I had the luxury of being taken seriously from the start -- a luxury few photographers are able to enjoy, and so I can post what I want -- if it suits my thematic purposes or acts as a springboard for discussion, and it's no skin off my back -- a wonderful place to be -- since I know now (not so much a year or so ago) that I can go out any day and take some wonderful photos, no matter what the genre, and if I post a less than well-received shot, well what the hay. . . . ?

You have flattered me greatly, you do understand what it is I do, and I'll be watching your postings to see your growth.

John (Crosley)

I am truly grateful for your feedback. Unfortunately I just had enough time to read it through. I will be back again to share some insights with you, as I am also a lawyer, come from a country rich with history, problems and a new constitution, and a lot of challenges ahead.

I want to re-iterate that I appreciate the trouble you went through in your reply. I would consider it a honour if you could from time to time comment ons some of my efforts.

Yours, JH de Beer (Stellenbosch, South Africa).