Terrorism and photography in Seattle

[Bruce Watson]

In Seattle, a photographer escaped the rain by entering a bus terminal, as told in this story (http://komotv.com/stories/36238.htm). In short, he had his equipment confiscated by a King County Sherrif's deputy for taking pictures inside the bus terminal. The reason given was terrorism concerns. When all the dust cleared, it turns out that the photographer wasn't breaking any laws, and the duputy was wrong.

But, will he ever photograph bus terminals again? And isn't that really the point? How much of a chill does this put on the rest of us who see an interesting composition in a public place?

I wonder what they would have done to him if he'd been using a tripod...

[Scott Fleming]

LEOs don't get those jobs because they were their high school valedictorian.

[Roberts]

Next time, shoot the photographer becuase of terrorism concerns.

Now the enemy is at the gate. Kill all middle east people who visits the State. They are going to the State to kill us because we kill their father, mother, son and grandson in the middle east.

Finally, who is terrorist?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

See, I keep telling you guys, digital is evil and it attracts all kinds of bad things..... :)

SO there, now we can start a flame war over digital vs analog or politics...take your pick... :)

[domenico Foschi]

Oh crap! And I just bought 2 Speed Graphics....

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

Domenico, Just tape an 8 meg compact flash to the bottom and hand THAT to the cop when he ask for your film. John Berry

[francisco_5406]

Didn't you know we are in a state of war? The media seems to have forgotten that there are actual bad people out to do us harm, and that arresting a photographer is by far a greater evil than, say, blowing up buildings with thousands of people in them. Some photographers must like the attention and notarity of putting themselves in situations begging to have their civil rights violated and the local ACLU office is just waiting for another juicy test case to make a mockery of the Patriot Act.

Knowing the heightened security concerns and the intelligence of the security people, it seems prudent to identify yourself to the officers as soon as you approach a guarded facility. It's inconvenient and not at all right, but it's better than a Smith & Wesson in the head isn't it? The best thing about the approach is that you don't waste the security guard's time, so that maybe they could actually do their job.

Pompous self-rightous indignation and replies from multiple-personalites/San Francisco lawyers awaited.

[Brian Ellis]

One deputy acts like a jerk and you think this will have a big chilling effect? Geez, if jerks in positions of authority were confined to Seattle bus terminals this would be a great world but unfortunately such people exist everywhere. I encountered jerk security guards long before terrorism fears existed. and if fears of an encounter with jerks kept me from doing things there are plenty of things I never would have done, mainly going to law school.

[Andre Noble]

The beautiful thing here is the Sheriif's admitted making a mistake. End of story. Shows how good this country is in some ways after all.

[Leonard Evens]

Francisco,

Just how much disruption of normal life are you willing to put up with in order to prevent terrorists from blowing something up? You have to admit that the likelihood of death from a terrorist attack is highly unlikely. You are much more likely to be killed in an auto accident, for example. Clearly, if we locked everyone up except when they were going to work or to shop we would be safer from terrorist attacks. But few of us would be willing to put up with that.

It is fine to take effective measures to combat terrorism. But taking pictures in a bus terminal has nothing to do with terrorism. Of course, a terrorist might in principle take pictures in such a situation to plan an attack, but in that case it would make much more sense for him to surrepticiously use a cell phone camera.

It is incumbent on the authorities, who should know better, to educate their representatives on what is prudent and what intrudes too much on the rights of the public to engage in lawful activities. Not only do such activities put a chill on our freedoms, but they waste valuable time in which the agents of the government could be doing something useful.

[Bob Douglas]

This is another sad example of the paranoia instilled in us by the media and the administration. I'd bet the officer watches Fox News and.... Compound this with ineffective use of investigative techniques and we'll continue to have these situations. Seriously if this person was really a terrorist why simply confiscate the film and let the potential terrorist go, humm is this a rerun. It's obvious the officer and possibly the department should attend more training. Don't get me wrong we do need to be vigilant but not at the expense of the freedoms our forefathers and foremothers have shed blood over and so eloquantly engineered into our constitution and bill of rights.
Further food for thought if photography in itself is such a security risk then everyone approaching or using targets should be searched as cameras both still and motion have shrunk in size such that they allow anyone with the will and means to inconspicusouly photograph anything they want barring the presence of metal detectors. So with the officers' mindset maybe would should frisk everyone crossing the Golden Gate Bridge or entering Manhattan.

[Barry Trabitz]

Francisco,did not President Bush declare the war is over some two years ago? Even though Congress neve declared war as required by our Constitution.

[domenico Foschi]

In a perfect world , where children were not brainwashed and not forced to recite the allegiance to the flag in schools, they should have Orwell's 1984 as required reading . They should teach :critical thinking ,(they should teach) that describing people or deeds good or evil are mainly ways to cover a lot of grey ares, that dissent can be a very good thing .

[Jim Ewins]

I respectfully suggest that Scott was incorrect. The deputy was a Seattle high school grad. If you're old enough and do community service thats all you need for a deploma. (No civics classes here) Jim

[francisco_5406]

If I were planning where to set explosives, such as on a bridge (and not necessarily a bus terminal) I would prefer the resolution of a nice 4x5 over a cell phone camera. So I could see questioning a photographer around a bridge, like the Golden Gate in San Francisco, as a good idea.

If I were planning to distribute an airborne pathogen to a crowd of people, who would disperse and spread the pathogen, then a bus terminal would be an ideal location for the release. And videotaping or photographing the circulation of people walking through the terminal, or where the air ducts are, would be part of the homework involved in the planning of the terrorism.

Do you think that the 9-11 skyjackers and their supporters reviewed the Twin Towers plans? Or that somebody from the group went on site to actually see the buildings, guage their structure, ride the elevators and look around to see for themselves where the best approaches were?

Had they done their homework earlier - by visiting the Twin Towers parking garage, and yes, photographing the structure for later study by engineers, perhaps they could have succeeded in blowing up the towers in their first attack in the early 1990s?

Do you think the terrorists who blew a hole in the side of the USS Cole might have photographed the ship ahead of time? Would a cell phone camera provided enough detail to tell them where the bulkheads were, and where the best place to strike was?

Perhaps the guard was a stupid nitwit. But I rather have stupid nitwit being extra cautious than nobody even caring. Until you guys suggest a better way to guard against attacks, I'd rather have them stop too many than too few. Funny how few attacks there have been on US soil since the security has been increased... but logic and results have nothing to do with it, right?

[Paul Metcalf]

Didn't see anything on his website that has to do with large format.

[paulr]

Domenico, I'm reporting you the authorities for advocating critical thinking in a public forum. Geez, someone's kids could be reading this!

[Bruce Watson]

Francisco, logic and results have everything to do with it. You don't seem to understand what's wrong with events like this, and there have been a lot of them scattered all over the USA and it's territories this decade. Lord knows that no one is going to change your mind about it. But even the USA's founding fathers knew this was wrong:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security" -- Benjamin Franklin

[Mark Carney]

Bruce

Thanks for the Franklin quote. I was hoping it would show up.

[Scott Fleming]

Jim could be right. I DO know however that the primary prerequisite for LEOs in general is that they deeply desire to carry a gun in public and wear a unifrom that makes them look forceful.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad they are there and a huge percentage of them are indeed well trained and respectful of the constitution. Unfortuneately that still leaves room for a million or so power hungry jerks within the ranks.

A great assesment tool in understanding LEOs is the fact that there is one class of folks they hate more than any other ... cops who bust cops. So if respect for the law is all that big with them ... why do they all hate the rat squad?

As to protecting us from terrorists ... after seeing how spiffy these alphabet types are in real life over the last couple decades ... I just pray that some level headed common citizen will be there to notice 'Akmed' acting odd before he can press the button or light the fuse.

[Henry Ambrose]

Arrrrrgggghhhh!

Scott, I suggest you call the ACLU next time someone's breaking in your front door. Maybe they'll come and help you since you seem to think law enforcement officers are so worthless. You sound like a 17 year old kid who just got a ticket for speeding in his dad's car. The Man been keeping you down for a long time for you to build up all that loathing?

My suggestion is that if you are asked to give up your gear or film that you simply refuse and ask them to arrest you. They'll need something to charge you with. By the time their supervisor arrives and tells them they're mistaken it'll be over. (if you're right, that is!)

Andre Noble's is the best response - "The beautiful thing here is the Sheriif's admitted making a mistake. End of story. Shows how good this country is in some ways after all."

No large format content here.

Where's the trash can for this thread?

[Scott Fleming]

Come on Henry! I'm a law and order kind a guy. It's just that I'd rather handle my own security thank you. ... and for the most part, I do.

I'm also very pro WOT and even pro Iraq War. I think it's an excellent first step on the way to straightening out Central Asia and it's militant inhabitants.

My problem with LEOs is I think we are headed for a police state and I don't like the attitude of most them I've known. They are not, in general, pro Second Ammendment nor do they exhibit the zeal for the Constitution I would like to see. Generally I see them as all to willing to take orders first and ask questions (if at all) later.

Cases in point: Waco. Illian Gonzales. FBI lab frauds in order to frame 'perps'. Serpico. (no it was not just a movie) World Trade Center '93. World Trade Center 9/11/01 (All those guys had multiple drivers licenses and the LEOs had been informed they were taking flying lessons)

I could go on and on. The central core of my problem with LEOs is they are low level gubmint employees of an out of control thousand headed hydra buerocracy that cares nothing about individual rights.

And yet ... we live in an increasingly dangerous society in a nearly out of control world. We need our police and we need our military. Too bad we have no education system capable of giving our youth an honest perspective of whats going on ... on this planet.

[francisco_5406]

Aye, Aye Scottie. But until the LEO start hiring smarter people, we gotta get by with what we've got. And that is why this peaceful, law-abidding American supports the NRA. You can't rely on the cops alone.

[Bob Douglas]

Yes there are bad cops, bad laws, bad people and bad enforcement and there are more good cops,... but that's not the issue here. The question for our society is which methods and tools should be used to balance the prevention of terrorist activities all the while preserving our rights and freedoms and more timely are the current methods effective? It's OK to discuss this.



Stopping this photographer was probably not legal and if it were legal it was definately not done correctly and hence the questioning of are we doing the right thing? Are the experts really doing something or is any/some/most of this window dressing?



So this excerise is good as it does create critical thinking which is one our America's core competancies as proven over and over by history.



PS. Having been a LEO in the past there is truth to both sides as there are good and bad cops. Each individual has a choice to be good or bad but more importantly it's the organization responsibility to set the proper tone that bad cops are not welcomed and put in place the processes to weed them during the whole lifecycle.

[Barry Trabitz]

What does LEO stand for?

[Paul Cocklin]

Just to stick my two cents in (only worth a penny and a half, now) since I'm a former Philadelphia boy. I think the Ben Franklin quote was actually;

"Those who would surrender Liberty for Security deserve neither",

I don't think old Ben said anything about 'essential' liberties or 'temporary' security.
And isn't that what most of this country is doing? Giving the government more power and control over their lives and decisions in return for social benefits? I think that's what Ben was talking about; surrendering the ability to make choices to a king that didn't really care about you but offered vague assurances of a happy life.
For what it's worth though, I agree that some steps go too far. The genesis of some of the stupid security steps we've taken are rooted in politicians wanting to appear proactive, and to come off to the general public as if they're doing something about the perceived and unperceived threats that await us. I just heard that now you can't take a cigarette lighter on an airplane. As if I could bring down a 747 with a bic.

And let's face it, LF photographers stand out as something most people, including security guards don't get to see everyday. I just started into LF, and I've only been out shooting in public five or six times so far, but I can't believe the amount of attention I get; from everyone! I checked, and I wasn't wearing a sign around my neck that said "please talk to me, I'm lonely". (although it may have been on my back)

I'm a firm believer that I can take care of my own security; let the government built the roads and fund public education with my tax dollars; but don't tell me I have to wear diapers, in case I wet myself on a public bus.

Paul

[Bruce Watson]

Paul,

We're both wrong. The actual quote (http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html) is this:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

The word "essential" is important, because these guys believed that it was absolutely a requirement. Remember that they were coming from a land that believed in the "devine rule of kings." What they created in its place was a country governed by the "rule of law" that was explicitly designed to protect essential Liberty.

[CP Goerz]

Unless there has been an update to the story the photographer has neither the apology or the flashcards at present.

CP Goerz

[Paul Cocklin]

Bruce,

Thanks for the accuracy; sad to say I was too lazy to actually look up the quote, relying instead on my Phila Public school education. ;-D

In conclusion,

We the People of the Large Format Forum,
In order to form a more perfect image,
establish developing times,
insure a dust free darkroom,
provide for the common film user,
promote the general knowledge,
and secure the blessings of depth of field to ourselves and our posterity,
Do ordain and establish this camera usage guide for the dedicated photographer.

:-) keep shooting, even when they tell you to stop!
Paul

[Jim Rice]

Do we as Americans (in the most provential sense) live in a free society anymore?

[domenico Foschi]

Jim, something tells me you already have the answer.

[francisco_5406]

It's a freer society than anywhere else on earth. Even the UK censors its press from time to time. Maybe Iceland or some advanced Scandanavian country has a higher quality of life, but they also have a monolithic culture. Only the US has freedom and cultural diversity.

The benefit of this free society is unmatched prosperity, where even our poor people are too fat and watch too much TV. The cost is tolerating some self-rightous victims who fail to realize their public whining is the very proof against their claim "that we aren't free."

[tim atherton]

"It's a freer society than anywhere else on earth. Even the UK censors its
press from time to time. Maybe Iceland or some advanced Scandanavian
country has a higher quality of life, but they also have a monolithic
culture. Only the US has freedom and cultural diversity."

Sorry Francisco - look north - Canada

As much (if not more freedoms), higher qulaity and standard of living and at least as much cultural diversity.

(And consistently rated abouve the US in the annual UN quality of living ratings).

Don't get me wrong - I like the US as a place and a people. But your statement above is just rather blinkered.

[Kirk Gittings]

"Sorry Francisco - look north - Canada"

I have to agree with Tim here. Having spent a few years in Canada, I think the difference is illuminating and palpable. I don't want to get into a long winded arguement about it..... but..... there is something about living in a country that is not trying to economically and politically force their way of life down the throats of the rest of the world that is both liberating and refreshing. I loved Canada and if some career things had worked out differently I would have stayed there. My family's roots in America go back, on one side, to the Mayflower and on the other side to the Native Americans who greeted them on the shore. But I truely do not like the direction this country is going....

[Henry Ambrose]

OK Scott, we're probably close to being on the same side here. But I still think blaming "joe average policeman" is not fair to them and certainly not correct. Its the -politicians- that we have to watch for.

And I still think Andre got it right about this particular case.

[Bruce Watson]

Francisco,

Unmatched prosperity? According to whom? If by prosperous you are talking about the quality of life in a given country, the last report (http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005) I saw says that the USA isn't even in the top 10 anymore. Sigh...

Simple flag waving isn't going to get us back in the top 10 either. What will, is facing up to the problems and working to fix them, IMHO. We can't do that if we refuse to acknowledging the problems in the first place.

[francisco_5406]

While I like Canada very much too, I hardly see it as being more "free" than the US. But then I consider excessive taxation, restrictions on my property rights, and the silly nation-wide bilingual requirements as greatly inhibiting my freedom in Canada. Especially one of the most essential freedoms, that being the ability to run a business and make a living without the state taking more than their fair share.

The same goes for the other Northern Socialist paradises like Scandanavia. Thank goodness they have abundant and profitable natural resources, like Canada, or otherwise they'd be more broke than they already are.

If I were a European I wouldn't be too smug either. Over the past few years the EU has consolidated power and continues to grow into a stifling bureaucracy and a homogenizing super state. Free speech can be considered a "hate crime", property rights are nil, and taxation and welfare keep people locked in social strata just as rigid as the 18th-Century. Heck, school children can't wear religious items in France.

But it's not "cool" or "arty" to dwell on such matters. It's much more relevant to equate Bubba the cop as being the embodiment of Orwell's Big Brother. Maybe another government sponsored grant will arrive in the meantime, that is, if the committee approves my work.

[CP Goerz]

Francisco, are you saying that the US press isn't censored? When was the last time you saw a picture of a flag draped coffin from Iraq on TV or in the papers?



I've found in the little travelling I've done that people make their own little villages wherever they go, just about all your complaints of Europe can also apply here too. As for giving a grudging nod to Scandanavian countries for using and living off their natural resources, are you blind to the fact that a great part of the US history is based on that practice? Lets see if Sweden cuts down all their trees to appease a few billionaire stockholders who will take their money to some faraway continent. Monolithic cultures? I've been in Denmark a lot lately and there are all kinds of people there, not just blondes and brunettes either.

Do the 'rigid rules' of class society have no purchase in this land? Its human nature to have people who are considered better than others (better off to be more accurate), and then there are those who are considered a 'bad lot'. Every town in every state has a well to do side of town and the 'other' side. This is true the world over whether you live in a big hut in a shanty town or a mansion row in Beverly Hills, its all relative. If we replace the word 'class' with 'economic' when refering to strata you'll see that there isn't anything new here.

In the story all the security guy had to do was patrol the bus station so don't you think he would at the least be versed in the rules regarding what is reasonable or not? He doesn't help your argument he hurts it, his one opening quote set the stage for the entire incident. The poor leftist liberal artsy photographer was just trying to widen the scope of his portfolio...trying to make more money which I'm sure was against his higher principals. If he used a view camera we would probably still be looking for his body ;-)





CP Goerz.

[Bruce Watson]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/04/16/airport.screeners.ap/index.html

There's always this to add - that spending billions on "security" isn't making us any more secure.