I don't know if any of ya have been keeping up lately on other various sites, but let's face it, it seems as of late, our rights as photographers are under constant attack. The whole "Look he has a camera, he must be a terrorist" mindset is amazing...and has cost many photographers their images, and time that they have been held, illegally detained, and harassed. One only needs to head over to flickr to see all the images on that site of said things happening.
This AM I was just on dpreview when someone posted this article from the Denver Post entitled "Terror watch uses local eyes 181 TRAINED IN COLO." http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9725077 and yes, guess what....photographers are mentioned. "Men filming the Dillon dam that holds Denver's water."
You all may wish to read it....
So wh has been harassed for shooting?? Curious.
This sounds so much like the McCarthy inquisition of the 50's, it's scary. But of course, I'm wrong. According to the article -
"We don't snoop into private citizens' lives. We aren't living in a communist state."
Thanks for the link, John.
Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.
Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.
This is also happening in Great Britain. Its hard to say what the reasons are, but its very counterintuitive. Photographers would likely have evidence of what happened immediately after an incident and should be considered an asset for the government.
The article I've linked calls this a movie plot threat.
I'm just glad I'm a fat white guy taking pictures, as opposed to a foreigner of say Saudi origin.
By the way, this was also discussed on the last broadcast of "democracy now". In that show, they were specifically discussing Colorado and some cases that have been filed by the ACLU.
That pretty much describes my entire portfolio. I'm screwed....
I just about shot hot coffee out my nose reading that...LOL!
I guess we all need to stick with the iconic shots now...no going outside the government's definition of "aesthetic value". This movement is just as f&^!@#)d as the McCarthy witch hunts and will be looked upon by future generations with sadness and disdain. But in the meantime, don't let people take away your right to photograph anything. "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
Rick, you beat me to it, but in my case it's actually true.
This is exactly the type of thing I would expect from a large, bloated and inefficient government that already can't handle security at highly controlled areas such as airports. Now, we're going to worry about La Junta?
I am probably on a list, though I have flown a number of times since with no problems, so at least I didn't make the no fly list.
I was practicing with my camera someplace in the tech center. A security guard approached me followed shortly by two unmarked SUVs. I was "detained" (for lack of a better word) and questioned, and my information was taken. I showed them the images on the camera. They thanked me, and let me go on my way. Turns out a building in the direction of the camera was a DEA building.
There's no metric by which to measure the insanity of this mindset. They couldn't stop over a dozen terrorists - many of them already on gov't watchlists - from passing through airport security, hijacking 4 jetliners and flying them into high profile buildings. And this despite at least one FBI report that indicated this very thing was likely to happen. The only people who did anything remotely competent in trying to stop it were a bunch of frequent fliers on a United flight...
So, clearly, the logical response is to worry less about how to actually make use of the useful data that does exist, and instead focus on collecting sh!tloads of useless data that will further reduce the infinitesimal chance that our incompetent government can actually do anything meaningful to improve security.
Meanwhile, any upstart terrorist can pretty much get everything that's needed to launch their career by downloading a free program called Google Earth, now with enhanced resolution and STREET VIEW!!!
One thing to keep in mind is the media and how they report the news. While most of the time they do not out right lie in their reports, they do 98% of the time report with a slant or agenda and they leave out just enough information in their reports to make you think what they want you to think.
I know as I am a Certified Member of the Local Press and Associated Press. I think Todd can also pipe in on this as well as he used to work for the local funny paper here in Colorado Springs. I deal a lot with the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain Snooze and the huge amount of editorial reporting they do.
So please be very careful when getting information from any source. It's like Lawyers. Any Lawyer worth their salt will tell you never to trust another lawyer, Well as a member of the press, I'm telling you never to trust anotehr writer or reporter to give you 100% of the entire story about anything. Reporters make the worst witnesses in court.
Just like the fires at the Pinon Canyon Area, you're going to get a story from Network and Civilian media much different from what I could tell you. Even the issue on the depleated urainium which was reported by someone with an agenda.
Here's what happens when the press finds out the Govt. has done something. The rush over asking the same questions over and over, while an active investigation is on going and when they don't get the response they want, they say, The Govt Refused to Comment. What really happened was that the Govt said what they could so not to jeapordise the case they may have built and could not comment on speculative things the press asked or asserted to the public relations person.
I have seen it happen as a Reporter and as a Military Public Relations official. I've seen editors totally change what the reporter noted so that the story would have more punch and be placed at a higher value to the reader or viewer. It's all about headlines, ratings and getting something somone else has not had yet.
I am an avid NPR listener, BBC listener and CNN listener, I read the DP, RMN and Gazette daily and I compair what is written about the same incident that is twisted at the local level. Even AP reports get screwed with a lot and the AP had already edited their content. Remember that game as kids we played called telephone line where you whispered in a chain of kids a fact and by the time it got to the kid at the end of the line, the fact had changed?
The best course I ever took in College was critical thinking which basically told me never to believe anything I read, watch on TV or hear on the radio I cannot verify for myself.
Schneier's about as authoritative a source as it gets. Crypto-gram is *the* newsletter to read if you're into security and ethics - glad you quoted it.
The whole schtick on terrorist photographers is a load of hooey; now we've moved from railroad photographers to folks interested in the Denver skyline?
Mel, what I am saying, is trust only your own information gathering efforts and not one or two Media sources. I know even the Govt has its agenda and will only tell you what it has to tell you or wants to, so no. I work for the Govt. and I don't trust it as far as I can throw a tank.
But I know how to get the facts myself and know where both sides fall short on total transparency.
James, as an avid NPR, BBC, and CNN listener, do you not find them all coming from the same angle? As a conservative, I'm probably in the minority on this forum, but I've found NPR to be the most left-leaning news organization out there (I've never listened to the BBC). In fact, I emailed them a few months ago after listening to their one-sided reporting on S-CHIP day after day (this was before I got XM radio). I got a response back that they take great care to provide balanced coverage, but they're so far to the left, they don't understand what balanced coverage is. And, of course, they didn't answer any of my points. All that said, I do agree that one has to get news from multiple sources. Just make sure they're not all reading from the same playbook.
I have to say that the only time I have been "hassled" about taking a photo was in South Korea in the beautiful Incheon International Airport terminal. The security guard who informed me that taking pictures of the terminal is not allowed was quite polite and apologetic and did not ask that I delete the images I had already taken.
Surprisingly, I have never been hassled in China, though I have wandered into some questionable areas in search of images that could conceivably have terrorist value, such as bridges and prominent high-rise buildings under construction. On at least four occasions I have had a police officer at my elbow as I set up and exposed some shots. But a friendly grin and an offer of a peek at the groundglass image disarmed them (figuratively) every time. Perhaps similar friendliness may also disarm the occasional "McCarthyite" we might encounter.
Discussion
14 repliesThis AM I was just on dpreview when someone posted this article from the Denver Post entitled "Terror watch uses local eyes 181 TRAINED IN COLO." http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9725077 and yes, guess what....photographers are mentioned.
"Men filming the Dillon dam that holds Denver's water."
You all may wish to read it....
So wh has been harassed for shooting?? Curious.
"We don't snoop into private citizens' lives. We aren't living in a communist state."
Thanks for the link, John.
That pretty much describes my entire portfolio. I'm screwed....
This is also happening in Great Britain. Its hard to say what the reasons are, but its very counterintuitive. Photographers would likely have evidence of what happened immediately after an incident and should be considered an asset for the government.
The article I've linked calls this a movie plot threat.
I'm just glad I'm a fat white guy taking pictures, as opposed to a foreigner of say Saudi origin.
I just about shot hot coffee out my nose reading that...LOL!
I guess we all need to stick with the iconic shots now...no going outside the government's definition of "aesthetic value". This movement is just as f&^!@#)d as the McCarthy witch hunts and will be looked upon by future generations with sadness and disdain. But in the meantime, don't let people take away your right to photograph anything. "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
-D
Rick, you beat me to it, but in my case it's actually true.
This is exactly the type of thing I would expect from a large, bloated and inefficient government that already can't handle security at highly controlled areas such as airports. Now, we're going to worry about La Junta?
I was practicing with my camera someplace in the tech center. A security guard approached me followed shortly by two unmarked SUVs. I was "detained" (for lack of a better word) and questioned, and my information was taken. I showed them the images on the camera. They thanked me, and let me go on my way. Turns out a building in the direction of the camera was a DEA building.
So, clearly, the logical response is to worry less about how to actually make use of the useful data that does exist, and instead focus on collecting sh!tloads of useless data that will further reduce the infinitesimal chance that our incompetent government can actually do anything meaningful to improve security.
Meanwhile, any upstart terrorist can pretty much get everything that's needed to launch their career by downloading a free program called Google Earth, now with enhanced resolution and STREET VIEW!!!
Ugh. It's freakin' hopeless....
I know as I am a Certified Member of the Local Press and Associated Press. I think Todd can also pipe in on this as well as he used to work for the local funny paper here in Colorado Springs. I deal a lot with the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain Snooze and the huge amount of editorial reporting they do.
So please be very careful when getting information from any source. It's like Lawyers. Any Lawyer worth their salt will tell you never to trust another lawyer, Well as a member of the press, I'm telling you never to trust anotehr writer or reporter to give you 100% of the entire story about anything. Reporters make the worst witnesses in court.
Just like the fires at the Pinon Canyon Area, you're going to get a story from Network and Civilian media much different from what I could tell you. Even the issue on the depleated urainium which was reported by someone with an agenda.
Here's what happens when the press finds out the Govt. has done something. The rush over asking the same questions over and over, while an active investigation is on going and when they don't get the response they want, they say, The Govt Refused to Comment. What really happened was that the Govt said what they could so not to jeapordise the case they may have built and could not comment on speculative things the press asked or asserted to the public relations person.
I have seen it happen as a Reporter and as a Military Public Relations official. I've seen editors totally change what the reporter noted so that the story would have more punch and be placed at a higher value to the reader or viewer. It's all about headlines, ratings and getting something somone else has not had yet.
I am an avid NPR listener, BBC listener and CNN listener, I read the DP, RMN and Gazette daily and I compair what is written about the same incident that is twisted at the local level. Even AP reports get screwed with a lot and the AP had already edited their content. Remember that game as kids we played called telephone line where you whispered in a chain of kids a fact and by the time it got to the kid at the end of the line, the fact had changed?
The best course I ever took in College was critical thinking which basically told me never to believe anything I read, watch on TV or hear on the radio I cannot verify for myself.
The whole schtick on terrorist photographers is a load of hooey; now we've moved from railroad photographers to folks interested in the Denver skyline?
But I know how to get the facts myself and know where both sides fall short on total transparency.
James, as an avid NPR, BBC, and CNN listener, do you not find them all coming from the same angle? As a conservative, I'm probably in the minority on this forum, but I've found NPR to be the most left-leaning news organization out there (I've never listened to the BBC). In fact, I emailed them a few months ago after listening to their one-sided reporting on S-CHIP day after day (this was before I got XM radio). I got a response back that they take great care to provide balanced coverage, but they're so far to the left, they don't understand what balanced coverage is. And, of course, they didn't answer any of my points. All that said, I do agree that one has to get news from multiple sources. Just make sure they're not all reading from the same playbook.
Surprisingly, I have never been hassled in China, though I have wandered into some questionable areas in search of images that could conceivably have terrorist value, such as bridges and prominent high-rise buildings under construction. On at least four occasions I have had a police officer at my elbow as I set up and exposed some shots. But a friendly grin and an offer of a peek at the groundglass image disarmed them (figuratively) every time. Perhaps similar friendliness may also disarm the occasional "McCarthyite" we might encounter.