PDA

View Full Version : Homeland security blues



Robert Brown
16-Jul-2004, 01:55
Here we go again-just ran across this on the news web:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040716/D83RNL400.html

Maybe this kind of exposure will help open the public eye!!

Bob

mark blackman
16-Jul-2004, 04:41
what has this got to do with LF?

Leonard Evens
16-Jul-2004, 06:44
Mark,

It has the following to do with LF. Anyone at all can quickly take a picture of anything using a small digital or point and shoot camera. A large format photographer is likely to scout around examining the scene from various angles, set up a tripod, and mount an impressive looking camera on it. That may induce these idiots to decide that the photographer is a terrorist and has to be stopped, whether or not he is breaking any rules or laws. We should join others in complaining about such infringements on our liberty. Not only does it harm us, but it also is a waste of taxpayers' money, including ours.

mark blackman
16-Jul-2004, 06:52
This may well be a waste of US taxpayers' money, but surely there are better places to discuss it than a global forum dedicated to LF photography?

Frank Petronio
16-Jul-2004, 06:56
True enough Leonard, but common sense dictates that if I wanted to find a ruse for studying the underside of a bridge to determine where to place explosives - or where to dump posion into a water supply- pretending to be a large format photographer would be an excellent cover. Not only would I have an excuse for wandering around "the backside," but I could take my sweet time studying traffic flow and details.

I agree that many of the TSA people are self-important and dumb, but good help is hard to find for such a crappy job. Now that they are federal employees and almost impossible to fire, their attitude is only getting worse.

These security rules weren't made to target photographers. Maybe we should stop thinking that we are so important that the "authorities" are "after" our hobby/professional in particular.

Dave Schneider
16-Jul-2004, 07:14
In other published accounts about this incident there were more details about the photographer's behavior. His actions included taking notes and becoming beligerant and hostile to authorities when he was asked for an ID. It appears the whole problem may have been avoided if he had simply shown the first officer his ID. There were also reports that the authorities were first made aware of this guy by phone calls from citizens about a suspicious person's activity in the area of the locks. The photographer was on federal property, simply showing an ID in this instance cannot be considered the invasion of our liberty and all the other nonsense people fear.

Calamity Jane
16-Jul-2004, 07:20
What has it to do with LF?

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich nicht protestiert; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich nicht protestiert; ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.

* Translation: When the Nazis arrested the Communists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist. When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat. When they arrested the trade unionists, I said nothing; afterall, I was not a trade unionist. When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew. When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

Jim Rice
16-Jul-2004, 07:29
Bingo, Jane

Mike Lopez
16-Jul-2004, 08:48
I was thrown out of a parking garage last weekend for taking a picture of some buildings. The self-important security guard told me the garage is for customers only. Fair enough, I said, but what if I were to park my car in the stall where I wanted to photograph from, pay the parking fee, and take a picture from the stall I've paid for? He couldn't come up with a response other than: "You can't take pictures from here! It's only for people coming and going!" The guy was a real ass.

tim atherton
16-Jul-2004, 08:55
"These security rules weren't made to target photographers. Maybe we should stop thinking that we are so important that the "authorities" are "after" our hobby/professional in particular."

Which security rules Frank? He broke no rules, indeed broke no laws. And the US Army Corps of Engineers say they have no problem with people photographing the bridge?

Don Cameron
16-Jul-2004, 09:10
"What does this have to do with LF?"

If the last two or three generations of our peers would have had to put up with this crap, there would be little, or no LF photographs to look at!

It is hard enough to take good? photographs in this age of Jet Con. trails, and powerlines: do we have to endure simple minded guards with to much power, also????

Neal Shields
16-Jul-2004, 09:20
There are Arabs committing genocide in the Sudan right now. There will probably be over a 100,000 dead by the end of the year and many, if not most, will be women and children. These are even fellow Muslims whose only crime is that their skin is just a little too dark!

The UN is doing the same thing that they have done over the last 50 years in these situations: talking and nothing.

There were over 3000 dead at the world trade center but it could have just as easily been 30,000 if the towers would have collapsed faster.

Many Americans think that we should not get involved in the prevention of mass murder in foreign countries and they may be right. However, defending ourselves is just common sense.

Americans better wake up and smell the coffee. These people are irrational sub-human barbarians and they will blow up their own little children to feed their hate.

Someone getting hysterical because they were asked to identify themselves to a policeman,isn’t news. It is just silly.

I have a picture of the local rail yards that I want to re-shoot with my 8x10. I have chosen not to. One reason is that I don't want to tie a policeman up checking me out when he might be doing something much more important.

If I do get into a suitation I will try to be as helpful to the policeman as possiable, so as to waste as little of both our times as I can.

I am fortunate enough, that I have enough imagination that I can think of other things to point my camera at that don't create problems.

Many many crimes have been solved or thwarted because of some minor happenstance such as someone getting stopped for a tail light bulb being out.

Some have been allowed to happen because people wanted a kinder and gentler application of the law. The best recent example was the failure to deport the young man that ended up being the Washington sniper. He was caught, identified as being in this country illegally and then turned loose to murder at will.

I do think that it is an approprate subject for forums like this to try to figure out how to enjoy our hobby while recognizing the new realities sinse 9/11.

However, that can be done without bringing these "the sky is falling" political rants to photography discussions.

Matthew Cordery
16-Jul-2004, 09:46
So, does 'being as helpful as to the policeman as possible' include not photographing anything they tell you not to, even if you are perfectly within your rights to do so? Forgive me for saying so but this strikes me as exactly how we lose our freedom to do anything, including LF photography. It's the old, "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" philosophy. It seems to me that cops and security guards often assume you are guilty of something when taking photographs of bridges, etc and can't be bothered proving you are doing anything wrong. What's the next step? National ID cards with mandatory security checks for photographers? Not thanks. That's not the country I grew up in.

Donal Taylor
16-Jul-2004, 10:01
"I do think that it is an approprate subject for forums like this to try to figure out how to enjoy our hobby while recognizing the new realities sinse 9/11.

However, that can be done without bringing these "the sky is falling" political rants to photography discussions"

Maybe a little self reflection is in order in light of your last sentence...?

Such a rant might have a point if any of it made sense - but photographers exercising "self-restraint" (censorship?) in terms of what they chose to photograph is less than pointless when the overall response to the events of 9/11 has been to make the US a more dangerous place to live in now than it was then.

There are plenty of things which could have been done to dramatically reduce the risk of further terrorist attack from those you rage against as "irrational sub-human barbarians" (a further example of a failure to actually understand the causes underlying any past and future terrorist attacks on the US).

Law enforcement officials making up their own laws and wasting their time on obvious and generally pointless tasks such as hassling photographers in a popular tourist spot is the sort of waste of time which is the end result of an organisation which doesn't really have a clue about what it is doing.

I was involved in counter-terrorism and counter revolutionary warfare for close to 20 years and the things you mention in these circumstances are pointless window dressing to do two contradictory things - reassure an anxious public, while at the same time maintaining a certain level of public paranoia - it's actually textbook strategy, but it has nothing to do with seriously preventing terrorism.

If photographers consider themselves to be true and honest citizens then yes, however minor it may seem, they really have a duty to oppose and make formal complaints about any such arbitrary behaviour by law enforcement - it is nothing but a slow and steady erosion of their constitutional rights.

If, in the light of 9/11 the administration had sought and congress had granted special emergency wartime powers which (as they did in WWII) prohibited photography of certain installations and buildings, that would be a different matter. No such powers were sought or granted. Law enforcement are, however, acting as if they were and using threats and intimidation to do that. To allow that to go unchecked is actually to fall into the terrorists hands and further their aims.

It may seem like a small, insignificant thing - after all we are just photographers doing our own personal thing. But it is always the small things that add up.

Neal Shields
16-Jul-2004, 10:07
Yes, in my case it does. I shoot photographs for a hobby.

If I was a professional and had a contract to shoot a picture of the rail yards, and there was no law against it, I would probably make an issue of it, very politely.

I would probably get in touch with the approprate people, explain what I wanted to do and why, and get a letter of identification from them to show to the security guard or policeman.

If I am just out there shooting for my own amusement, I am not going to tie up a policeman that is just trying to do his job.

I am afraid that I believe in the butterfly theory. I would hate to be the one that tied up the policeman, who then didn't stop the truck, that had the bomb that killed a million people.

I also got run off one time by a security guard at a power plant. Had a nice conversation with him however about his service in the Pacific during WW2. Kicked myself later for not making his portrait, which would have been better than the picture I had intended to take.

You are exactly right that: "this is not the country I grew up in". It isn't the one I grew up in either but it looks like it is going to take something much more serious than 9/11 for some people to figure that out.

That's the bad news, the good news is that it will probably be a costal city that we lose, and I live inland.

Neal Shields
16-Jul-2004, 10:14
"a further example of a failure to actually understand the causes underlying any past and future terrorist attacks on the US"

If I ever understand why people would tie a bomb to their own children and send them out to blow up other people's children, I hope I have enough sense to swim out to sea till I can't swim anymore.

Donal Taylor
16-Jul-2004, 10:36
"If I ever understand why people would tie a bomb to their own children and send them out to blow up other people's children, I hope I have enough sense to swim out to sea till I can't swim anymore."

I feel the same way about parents who send their children to drop high explosive on innocent women and their young children and babies

Neal Shields
16-Jul-2004, 10:57
About 2 months after 9/11 I was doing police volunteer work on a Saturday night which is usually car burglaries and wife beatings.

About 9 pm the police started monitoring the movements of a U Haul truck that was headed into our city. They had the helicopter up, and commanders out. It became obvious that they were concerned that the truck contained a bomb or poison gas. They were afraid to stop it, and afraid not to.

I have stood at “Ground Zero” in Hiroshima and walked the width and breadth of the blast zone. When they finally did stop the truck, my home would have been within that zone. It turns out that it was just a load of old furniture or something like it, but none of those police knew that. The driver of that truck probably thought that he was being picked on, but the police thought that the lives of their own families and those that they were sworn to protect might have been hanging in the balance.

If you ever do a ride along with a policeman or woman, you will learn, about the time your stomach starts growling, that most of the time, they don’t even have time to take lunch, much less just hassle photographers for their own amusement.

Years ago, when I was about 20 I took a job that kept me on the road a lot. I decided to rent a post office box so my mail wouldn’t build up in the box while I was gone and draw burglars.

At the post office, I felt that the man behind the counter was a bit too noisy as to why I wanted a post office box. I said something and he responded: “ Neal, I am the guy that rented the post office box to Lee Harvey Oswald that he used to get the rifle that he used to kill the President. I am a little more careful now.”

I think it is easy to understand that no Policeman wants to be the one that didn’t follow through and finds out later that people died because of it.

You also never know when they are, for very good reason, looking for a gray haired 50 year is, white male in a white car. So you may think that stopping you and asking for an ID is unreasonable when if you knew what they knew you would be helping them find some more like you to stop.

To Donal: When you are against something you are for the opposite. I was against the Viet Nam war and think I would be today for the very same reasons that I was then. However, we didn't have a smokeing hole in New York and if we would have left them alone, I don't think that the North Vietnameese would have been commiting genocide against the south.

Left up to me we wouldn't be in Iraq, but I am a selfish *** and after many years I have become comfortable with that.

mark blackman
16-Jul-2004, 13:17
I restate my question, what has this to do with LF around the globe? In foreign country someone has issues with law enforcement people implementing the local law - take it up at via whatever processes you have in place - it is of marginal interest to the 96% of us who do not reside in the USA.

jonathan smith
16-Jul-2004, 13:58
Within the last year I have had two policemen check me out, and I think we must consider it part of the territory. It's important to be calm and unemotional, and cooperative. One of my policemen was not professionally doing his job, he was trying to roust me as if he was Popeye Doyle. I had to endure . . . oh my God . . . sarcasm! But by cooperating while standing my ground, I was able to finish my shots.

My second policeman thought of himself as part of the copyright police; his main concern was that the image I was making have all the proper permissions prior to publication. I think that is an area outside of his jurisdiction. But what it comes down to, is when they see something unusual (and someone with full LF getup IS unusual) they want to deal with somehow, whether they have a good reason to or not.

It didn't help when California Governor Gray Davis announced on the news that people taking pictures at the airport should be questioned.

Frank Petronio
16-Jul-2004, 15:16
If you're worried that a domestic USA issue is not relevant to your interests, don't read the thread! But, at least for the million or so serious photographing in the USA, getting stopped for photographer - right or wrong - is still an important issue (I think.)

Bob Fowler
16-Jul-2004, 15:38
I've been stopped a couple of times during the past 3 years by both "real" cops and by rent-a-cop for shooting innocent pictures on public property. On more than one occasion, I felt like I was being treated like a convicted criminal when I was well within my rights as a citizen to be where I was and doing what I was doing. I don't like it, but I now carry an "ACLU Bust Card" and "The Photographer's Right" flyer (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm) in my camera case.

Not that it matters, but it took the Bush II administration to change me from a Republican into a Democrat...

Paul Metcalf
16-Jul-2004, 15:42
He's not helping his situation much:

http://brownequalsterrorist.com

He does have some great pictures of the area.

Bob Fowler
16-Jul-2004, 16:22
"He's not helping his situation much: http://brownequalsterrorist.com"

I disagree, I think he's doing the right thing. An out of control rent-a-cop with a large dog engaging in what is essentially racial profiling isn't something I'm comfortable with. I don't blame him for making a stink.

Paul Metcalf
16-Jul-2004, 21:06
Out of control anything is uncomfortable, especially terrorism. One thing's for certain, his approach (using counter-culture conduit like The Stranger) isn't going to slow the terrorists, but most likely increase their resolve.

Jim Billlups
16-Jul-2004, 22:41
Here in the Los Angeles area it's been a real pain too... Especialy in the Peoples Republic of Santa Monica... Ya know, this is exactly what the terrorists want!

Jim Billlups
16-Jul-2004, 23:25
I want to touch on what Jonathan posted earlier...

It's true; in a news conference, former California Governor, Gary Davis (aka Governor "low Beam") said that someone taking pictures in the airport could possibly be an art student or a terrorist, and since there was no way for the average citizen to know, he advised that if you are at the airport and see someone taking pictures, contact either security or the police department and report it just as a precaution... Like I said... exactly what the terrorists want.

Brian C. Miller
17-Jul-2004, 00:37
I came across this in the Seattle Times. Yeah, Ian could have avoided all of this by showing his ID the second time he was confronted at the locks, and then there wouldn't have been a third time with eight officers on one photographer.

I don't have a problem with officers inquiring about activities. However, I do have a problem with the eight-on-one, especially when its for nothing more than a show of force. The incident makes them look like bullying idiots, and undermines their credibility. The Homeland Security agent B.S.-ed Ian about a non-existant law prohibiting photography of federal property.

Most of you probably haven't seen the Ballard locks. As terrorist targets go, they would have really low value. If the locks don't operate then the only thing that happens is that latte-toting yuppies on pleasure boats are inconvenienced. The area gets photographed a lot, by many people, every day. There is a rail bridge, but that's still a lousy target. It would take too much effort for too little effect.

Hassling people for fun is not what law enforcement is supposed to do. I really think that they identified him during the second contact as a student doing a photography assignment. The third contact was a show of force, and nothing more. There was no need for it at all.

This incident will do nothing more than hamper the local police. The Seattle police have previously been directed to not do any racial profiling, to such an extent that the beat cops don't want to interact with minorities. That's the local climate. This is only going to be fuel for local activists.

Jean-Louis Llech
17-Jul-2004, 03:10
There are two different points about photography and patriot act :

First, the act of photographing with a large format camera, a tripod and 50 lb of photographic gear is not the most discreet way to get informations about federal buildings, bridges and railway stations.
If I had to collect such confidential or strategic informations, I would better use a van with tinted glasses, a 35mm SLR and a 600mm tele, park the van at a half mile from the target, and end all the operation within an hour.
Of course, if I were paranoiac, I would think that a terrorist would reason like that to collect informations without giving birth to suspicions.

Second, the color of the photographer's skin is probably somewhere important. I'm not sure that security agents would have had the same attitude with a Norwegian-looking man with blond hair, white skin and blue eyes.
That's a pity, but I am sure I'm not wrong. In France, police forces have exactly the same attitude. In an airport, as I stayed in a queue among other people, some security agents asked several people for ID.
As I have an "aryan look", a white skin and blue eyes, they ignored me, but I noticed all people who were controlled were either arabs, africans or other people with dark skin.
In France, we use to call it "Délit de sale gueule" (something I could translate as "dirty face offence")

About this thread, are you aware that all what is written here has probably been read and analyzed by some security service agents, as soon as several words have been written : 9/11, arabs, TSA, terrorists, bomb, ground zero ?
We don't have to go outdoors with a camera and a tripod to see where a part of our freedom is ending.

Andre Noble
17-Jul-2004, 09:00
I consider myself African American – ‘black’ as they say. I look like the guy in the article, because I am half black and half white by ethnicity like him. Although I must say I am the more handsome :>)

I know that many white photographers on this forum have been hassled by the police/security, so I won't say the man's problem was entirely due to race. But I have to tell you that I get stopped/question about 80% of days I just go out to shoot something in public for any extended period of time. I'm sure this is much higher than my white brethren on this site. The reasons for such a high percentage I believe are:

1) I am in L.A., people either want to get paid because you're shooting someplace where they work/live/play or as security guards they want impress their boss that they interrogated you knowing damn well that you're not doing anything wrong. So this has nothing to do with race obviously.

2) People see I am a minority and perhaps unconsciously assign me the 'second class citizen' status, and hence assume they can give me less decent treatment, and that I will be afraid of the authorities should they decide to call them. I'm sure they also conclude (incorrectly) that I will be less likely to make a legal stink over being harassed.

How do I respond to being harassed? Let me give you a few honest examples:

Recently 5 muscular Dreadlock African American men surrounded me at Venice beach because they thought I was paparazzi with my Nikon 300 2.8 sport lens, and told me they wanted to take me in an alley to kick my ass because they didn’t like me shooting their bongo drum circle festivity. I stood firm, told them I am an amateur photographer and that photography was my passion. I then hinted that I was carrying a concealed gun in the lens case, with a permit to so carry it (a ruse). They quickly left me alone and haven't bothered me on subsequent visits.

A few months ago, while shooting publics works building from the sidewalk in Beverly Hills, the department manager himself came outside to tell me that I couldn't shoot the bldg. and then threatened to call the Beverly Hills police. I got the man's business card, left, and walked to the police station myself and started a paper trail with the sergeant on duty. I eventually sent certified letters of the incident to the supervisor's supervisor and city attorney's office. Within days, I received a formal written apology from the supervisor.

Coincidently, I saw him again last week while riding my bicycle. He recognized me immediately and greeted me with, "Good morning Mr. Noble!" despite being 20 years my senior. (He was actually a very nice guy.)

Bottom line is I am not a terrorist. I don’t intend to pay for their sins. Photography is my passion. I am a very passionate person. Don't bother me. I will give you a handful one way or another if you try to keep me from engaging my hobby.

Terence McDonagh
17-Jul-2004, 11:25
It was ridiculous before 9/11 and has gotten worse. I'm a structural engineer by trade and work in NYC, and was a couple blocks away on 9/11. Several months ago I was stopped while setting up my 8x10 in a federal park (Fort Wadsworth) on Staten Island. I was told by park police that anyone showing "undue attention" to the Verrazano Bridge was not allowed to photograph it. I went to the info center and enquired if that was true. They said yes and I would have to get a "special use" permit from the public relations office which was closed on weekends. I was also told that a such a permit would require paying for a security guard to be with me. When I called the PO Office on Monday I was told that none of this was true. Called back the info people who stuck to their story. Got both on the line and asked them to hash it out. End result, nothing. The police would still stop me from photographing. Letters to my congressmen have gone unanswered. Here's why it's large format related. Did I mention that there were several dozen tourists standing next to me with every sort of 35mm and digital camera imaginable shooting the exact same photos? None of them were approached by the police. Nor was I approached when I decided to shoot the bridge from the Brooklyn side. Oh, and did I mention that anyone who wants to know anything about the bridge could find it in the numerous history and engineering books related to it? I guess that's why they want to track our library records too. Not that any engineer couldn't figure out how to take down a structure. Maybe we should stop teaching civil engineering too. The bridge is not any safer by stopping photography of the bridge. I'm as conservative as they come, but I can't help thinking that we're paying for stupidity not security.

CP Goerz
17-Jul-2004, 11:36
If the entire US Government couldn't foil the 9/11 plot despite being given numerous clues what makes you think that a rent-a-cop/real cop busting my ass while taking a picture is going to be the same one to stop some nuke in a uhaul from going off you have to be living in a different universe.

Still 'terrified' and 'on-alert-for-no-specific-reason-I-can-be-told-about' in LA.

CP Goerz

Jim Ewins
17-Jul-2004, 16:24
Please, all, re read Calamity Jane's contribution. If the CIA keeps stirring the nest with a stick what happens. Jim

Calamity Jane
17-Jul-2004, 18:51
The sad part of the whole thing is that such harrasment is not really about stopping terrorism - it is about "public relations" - to be seen to be doing something (even if that 'something" is absolutely useless). It is/was the same way with "gun control" up here in Canada since '97.

Was it Franklin who said "Those who give up liberty for security end up with neither."

Frank Petronio
18-Jul-2004, 06:58
The Franklin quote, used ad nauseum by the anti-Bush crowd, was made to criticize John Adams' anti-sedition policies. The Patriot Act comes nowhere near the severity or scope of Adams' four-month anti-sedition law, in which a dozen spies and British sabateours were tried and hung.

Please tell me, if you were in charge given the current situation, what you would do to prevent terrorist attacks on civilian populations? Would you be able to screen every security guard to make sure they had common sense, judgement, and values? Or given the magnitude of having to screen a million people against a subjective standard, would you accept that it might be better to err on the side of caution?

If "you" are allowed to wander unimpedded underneath the Golden Gate bridge - or perhaps even climb onto the structure? - or to wander around a public water supply - or merely loiter around a Federal building with your fifty pounds of camera gear - then I can assure you, a terrorist has exactly the same rights. And do you really want some terrorist dumping some bio-weapon into your water supply? Heavens, it might screw up your film processing.

Steve Gangi
18-Jul-2004, 09:22
The "anti Bush crowd"??? Excuse me, but that sounds like the old "Either yer with us or agin us" mindset. I suppose whoever does not blindly follow all "royal edicts" is a traitor too.

Donal Taylor
18-Jul-2004, 10:06
"Please tell me, if you were in charge given the current situation, what you would do to prevent terrorist attacks on civilian populations?"

Bear in mnd that agreat number of actions taken by "those in charge" since 9/11 have increased the further risk of this exponentially.

What could/should they do?

Not invade Iraq (a non-beligerant, non threatening nation not involveded in any serous way in terrorism directed against the US) - by doing so the US has encreased the number of potential terrorists by thousands and fullled what it is that drives them. This act alone has probably set the "war against terrorism back 10 years at least.

Stop the unquestioning support of Israels policies towards the Palestinians and begin to work in a serious and determined way towards bringing peace in Israel/Palestine.

Stop supporting/proping up non-elected despotic regimes in the Middle East (eg the Saudi royal family) who are constant human rights violators, who do not allow democracy to develop in the countries and much more

These are just three of the many steps that could be taken which would have a huge impact on the safety and security of US residents on US soil vis a vis the threat of "islamic" terrorism. They would have immensly more impact (many hundred fold) than the window dressing of the Patriot Act and the current bumblings and window dressing of law enforcement.

Donal Taylor
18-Jul-2004, 10:18
"Please tell me, if you were in charge given the current situation, what you would do to prevent terrorist attacks on civilian populations? Would you be able to screen every security guard to make sure they had common sense, judgement, and values? Or given the magnitude of having to screen a million people against a subjective standard, would you accept that it might be better to err on the side of caution?"

Again - one simple step - pay such guards a sufficient amount of money to make it a proper and serious career. The billions that have been wasted in Iraq could easily have been put to such use.

Recent testing by the TSA showed that the security level at airports was almost exactly the same as in 1989 - which is to say, terrible. This despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on new security technology. (testers managed to get Smith & Wesson revolvers on board aircraft, never mind box cutters or knitting needles. And one poor tourist got all the way home, opened his suitcase and found a small package of explosive inside - it had been planted for a security test but never found and had flown all the way home with him) It's generally a human problem, not a technical one - but the typical response is to throw more money at hi-tech solutions. The most simple enhancement which would have the greatest effect would be to increase the motivation, skills and level of education of the security personal. Which has not been seriously done.

The best airport security in the world is in Israel and Malaysia. Both countries do not treat their security personal as just above minimum wage bottom feeders who have failed to make it as cops (go forbid), but as important members of their countries first liens of defence against terror and attack. They are rewarded and trained accordingly. The best way to catch and spot terrorists is still the Mk1 human eyeball with an intelligent brain behind it. With the right training it will always catch more terrorists than all the hi-tech sniffers and profiling software out there. And that hi-tech gear when it is there needs a good and motiviated operator - not someone on a poor wage with poor education and skills (18% of whom still have criminal records

Andre Noble
18-Jul-2004, 11:54
...and sometimes, we are Not harrased! An hour ago, I brought my 6x6 for a walk through downtown L.A. A commercial crew was filming in front of the beautiful Disney Hall, had sprayed the road with a water truck, and posted crew to keep the area clear of parked cars, pedestrians, and street traffic. A rare sight indeed. In between takes, the crew, uniformed LAPD, and Disney Hall security all allowed me to go into the filming area to take snaps of Disney Hall, with clean, wet road in foreground. I was so thrilled I almost didn't know what to do.

Frank Petronio
18-Jul-2004, 12:33
Well Donal, based on your word I feel better now knowing that Iraq wasn't a threat to people in the USA. And I feel terrible that we disposed an innocent mass-murdering dictator while supporting democracies and moderate allies in the Mideast. And I'm downright dumbfounded that I never thought of forcing Israel to compromise, especially when we gave millions of dollars of support and aid to the Palestinians - which somehow disappeared into the corrupt - err, freedom loving - leadership's pockets.

In fact, I would so like to be further enlightened,so I'd like to invite you to discuss politics over at the Underground Leica Forum - it's set up to do just these kinds of things. This large format forum tends to avoid political debate in favor of staying on track with practical large format photography discussion. (http://www.cleanpage.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi)

Which brings us back to the topic at hand - is the new emphasis on security curtailing your photography efforts and is it innappropriate? And what solutions have photographers found as a way of dealing with it? My opinion is that I can live with the increased security and I rather err on the side of having too much than too little.

We can continue the political - Patriot Act - GW Bush - Iraq discussion elsewhere and save this forum from turning into a free for all. This is a good discussion - but if we go much further, it's just not the right material for this forum (in my humble opinion).

Jim Billlups
18-Jul-2004, 13:59
I feel this topic is entirely appropriate for this forum and value all contirbutions posted thus far.

Donal Taylor
18-Jul-2004, 15:03
"...is the new emphasis on security curtailing your photography efforts and is it innappropriate? And what solutions have photographers found as a way of dealing with it? My opinion is that I can live with the increased security and I rather err on the side of having too much than too little."

Frank, I think you miss the point - as you seem to have done so through the entire discussion.

It isn't a matter of how photographers may or may not react to increased levels of security and how we can find ways of dealing with them.

Rather it is about are we willing to accept, put up with and deal with illegal, arbitrary (often) pointless restrictions on our photography in the name of such security?

The current administration apparently saw no need to place any restrictions at all on photography over and above those few which already existed (military establishments etc) prior to 9/11.

If they wished to prevent people from photographing in certain places and certain locations they could have gone to the legislative bodies - as they did in WWII - and requested such powers and included them in the Patriot Act.

tim atherton
18-Jul-2004, 15:05
"I feel better now knowing that Iraq wasn't a threat to people in the USA"

LOL - wow - I didn't think there was anyone gullable enough left in the USofA who actually believed Iraq posed any sort of threat to the US (or evenit's immediate neighbours).

Donal Taylor
18-Jul-2004, 15:07
"in fact, I would so like to be further enlightened,so I'd like to invite you to discuss politics over at the Underground Leica Forum"

Frank, thanks for the invitation, but I don't have much desire to hang out time with HEGR fondlers... :-)

Steve Gangi
18-Jul-2004, 15:43
If Iraq was so dangerous, the where the $#%@ are the WMD? Why are the Bushies now trying so hard to convince us that the total lack of any evidence whatsoever doesn't matter? If we are now supposedly trying to rebuild a better Iraq, why was Halliburton (Cheney's company) given a monopoly over the operations without even pretending to compete? If Halliburton is there to "support" the military, why is the military now investigating them for goldplating, overcharging and outright fraud? Why is there a very convenient "terror alert" every time anyone starts to question the Bushies publicly, or whenever the polls ratings go down? Why are undertrained private security guards given power to annoy people? Quite often these are the same guys who could not cut the mustard and join the real police forces. While we're at it, please explain to me what the proposed removal of overtime pay, the removal of job protection in the revised civil service sytem, laws against the reimportation of drugs manufactured within our borders, or the spying on regular citizens without need for a warrant or even a reason, have to do with security? How about the "family values" bill that the Bushies were pushing? Absolutely nothing. Oh, we're gonna be overthrown by dark skinned, book reading, Democrat, gay civil service workers who use overtime pay to topple the country. It has nothing to do with making anyone safer. It's all about grabbing more power for yourself, while making your cronies richer than they already are. But, I forgot... God Himself told George to do it. So, if you question anything, you don't just go to jail, now you go to hell too. Give me a break.

Frank Petronio
19-Jul-2004, 09:07
Donol - What's a HEGR fondler?

Tim - Yep, I know a whole bunch.

Steve - I don't agree with Bush on everything, but I do on Iraq. If his motivation for the war was to enrich himself and his buddies, I think there would have been far easier ways for him to do it. One of the best justifications of Bush's intent was that he took the risk of going to war - with all of its associated risks and unknowns - when any reasonable political advisor (Karl Rove for instance) would have told him it was a risky and unwise political move. That he felt strongly enough to persevere, in spite of the risk to his political future, says volumes as to his resolve and intent.

Or, perhaps you buy into the mass media's characterization that Bush is an idiot? Then I pity you, because you are, indeed, the gullible one. If Bush is an idiot, then the failure of the Democratic party, European Union, and United Nations leadership to counter him puts the measure of their intelligence at least one notch lower than "idiot" - somewhere in the moronic category.

Cheers ;-)

CP Goerz
19-Jul-2004, 13:23
Well now that we have brought peace, electricity and clean water to Iraq and oh, lets not forget a democracy based on people that 'we' can get along with all seems bright and cheerful in Iraq.

The milk in my refrigerator will have a longer shelf life than the newly elected president or whatever the Iraqi word for target is. The Turks are looking in a steely manner at the Kurds in Iraq and lets not forget the fact that Iran is just next door-and didn't we just dismantle the Iraqi army? does anyone remember the little spat they had a few years ago and the Iran/Contra machinations?

The different factions/religious leaders will battle things out forever as they are gearing up to do now and George Bush(Dubyah) and his cronies will be laughing as they watch their bank accounts fill up with even more cash from arms deals and the like. The 'GodblessAmerica' groupies just love the fact that we have again shown the world that we can kick brown skinned ass and prove how strong America is. Do we really need a reminder every few years?

As for Dubyah being essentially selfless for attacking Iraq.....Ha Ha Ha!! Lets see Dubyah put on a jacket and patrol the streets of Baghdad with the underpaid, overworked and least cared for individuals in the whole conflict, that is next to the people we were sent to 'free'.



Weapons of mass destruction like the ones mentioned every single minute prior to invasion... 'nuceuler' and nerve/biological agents.... remember them or was that a minor detail? Were you swayed by the 'incontrovertible proof of connection' between 9/11 and Sadaam? (Yes Sadaam is a rather nasty chap but who propped him up and fed him billions of $$$ to keep him in power? None other than that late great saint Ronnie Reagan who also fed cash and weapons to none other than the Bin Laden cave dwellers, how we reap what we sow). Were you busy thinking of all the different ways you could bring freedom/peace to the people in the middle east? Who is next in line for liberation? It won't be any country that doesn't have oil I can guarantee that.

Dubyah still has to visit any of the family members whose sons/daughters made the supreme sacrifice, barely one single picture of a flag draped coffin has made it out and the media is supposed to be a bunch of left wing reactionaries? Is the administration afraid that we may start to wonder who the one or two people that get picked off each day might be? maybe real people with lives and loves as we all have?

The bottom line is that Dubyah and his entire family are in the oil business and he has been sucking at the financial teat of the Saudi family for decades. Till the day that the last drop of oil is taken from below the sand the people in that region will always be pawns in a ruthless and cynical game.



CP Goerz

tim atherton
19-Jul-2004, 19:07
oh ohh - Dagor Andy has been on the Ir'n Bru and shortcake again... that worse than Popeye and his spinach ;-)

CP Goerz
20-Jul-2004, 00:10
Actually Tim I'm suffering from Irn Bru withdrawal! Possibly worse than anything known to man or beast!! :-)

CP Goerz

Jean-Louis Llech
20-Jul-2004, 04:00
After the end of cold war and the fall of communist governments in eastern Europe and Russia, I just wonder if the United States of America are able to live without a threat, without an enemy and without a potential target to strike.
If I consider how the american economy, the american army, the american society and the american medias currently function, I doubt each day more and more that this will be possible.
This has nothing to do with large format photography, but with the freedom to do all photographies I would like to do, and this is a consequence of that.
Sorry if I hurt someone, that's just the viewpoint of a silly frenchman.

Frank Petronio
20-Jul-2004, 06:13
It seems my later post was deleted. Maybe it was Homeland Security in action?

In any event, I respectfully disagree with many of your anti-war stances and there are places we can discuss this further. Back to the original thread starter:

What was wrong with questioning the photographer of an explosive, unsecured oil refinery? He wasn't going to be arrested, just asked what he was doing. That sounds reasonable enough to me.

Jorge Gasteazoro
21-Jul-2004, 00:05
Or, perhaps you buy into the mass media's characterization that Bush is an idiot? Then I pity you, because you are, indeed, the gullible one. If Bush is an idiot, then the failure of the Democratic party, European Union, and United Nations leadership to counter him puts the measure of their intelligence at least one notch lower than "idiot" - somewhere in the moronic category.



I have managed to stay out of this one both here and in the APUG forum, but this statement really takes the cake.
C'mon Frank, the EU, UN and the rest of the world for that matter did not "fail" to counter Bush, as a matter of fact they did so very well. Bush just decided to do what he wanted, much like the school yard bully taking the weaker kid's lunch. It really does not take much intelligence for that.

As a republican who always voted the straight ticket, I can say that Bill Clinton was a far smarter man than Bush (his morals not withstanding). Iraq's invasion is done, for whatever reasons, not much sense on arguing about them now, but lets not make Bush a brilliant man, cause that he is not!

I gotta say, that IMO the Kerry/Edwards ticket is going to eat Bush's lunch come next election. The buck stops at the presidency and Bush invaded Iraq for all the wrong reasons and now is going to come back an bite him in the ass. WMDs? nope, none found.....Terrorists and links to 9/11? nope, Hussein was to busy robbing his country blind to bother with something like that.....The need for democracy in Iraq?...pluueessse....just who died and made the US the king of the hill which has the divine right to dole out democracy as if it was bread? Democracy is something you earn not something that can be given to a country just because you think is the way it should be.

Bottom line, 9/11 happened in Bush's watch and he needed a good target to retaliate.....just so happens Iraq was ripe for the picking.

Frank Petronio
21-Jul-2004, 06:43
Com'on Jorge - your beautiful portfolio of weapons reveals your true sentiments - maybe you're a fiscal Republican but don't tell me that GWB was the first "hawk" that you disagreed with.

I never said GWB was a genius, and I'm sure Clinton has a higher IQ... But GWB clearly is not as dumb as the mass media likes to portray him as. If he was really such a bonehead, his opponents should be making mincemeat of him - and that has yet to be the case.

Brian K
21-Jul-2004, 08:27
I was one of those who first thought that we needed to go to war with Iraq. I thought so because I believed Bush when he said that there were WMDs and a link between Iraq and Alqaida. I would never imagine that a President would so blatantly lie about such a serious issue, this makes the Gulf of Tonkin lie seem minor, and most of us know what were the consequences of that, a little skirmish called Viet Nam.

Now it is apparent that Iraq is a blunder of huge proportion. It is also apparent that Bush was gunning for iraq on day one of his administration, that evidence is clear from the statements of former treasury sec Paul O'neill, terrorist czar Richard Clarke, the 9/11 commission and the Bush administrations own public comments at the time. Bush was blinded by his desire to spank Saddam for trying to whack his daddy, and any intel that could be cherry picked to support a war with Iraq would do.

The character of the Bush administration, our protectors in this time of threat, would be humourous if it were not for the fact that people are dying, and will continue to die or be maimed because of them. Our fearless leader, Dubya, a man who was able to score an impressive 940 on his SAT's, ( they give you 800 for spelling your name right, thank God his name was Bush, if it was Rostenkowski he'd have gone to a community college) was trained as an attack aircraft pilot, at a cost of about $1 million taxpayer dollars. He miraculously was able to jump ahead of hundreds of others who were on the national guard enlistment list. Few if any from his old unit has the faintest recollection of who he was or of ever meeting him. He failed to make many required calls to duty and even missed his flight physical which cost him his flight status. I find it amazing that a young man who is trained to fly jets, would allow the opportunity to fly lapse because they didn't feel like taking a physical. Well that's a million in taxpayer dollars down the drain. Who knows maybe he had controlled substances in his blood and knew such a test would be a serious problem. He's chosen to DWI, I guess it's tougher to DWI a jet fighter. But praise the Lord, he found Jesus, so all of those youthful mistakes he made prior to his 40th birthday don't count. However let's make certain that we punish John Kerry for being against the Viet Nam war after receiving 3 purple hearts a silver and bronze star for serving in it. Kerry after all was in DC in 1969 the same week Jane Fonda was, clearly that's a Iraq/Alqaida type connection. And don't forget Kerry supporter Max Clelland who was cast as being unpatriotic by his republican opponent. Max only lost both legs and and an arm in Viet Nam, clearly he's un-american, a real patriot is usually too busy dodging those pesky national guard call ups while he campaigns for the republicans in Alabama.

But I digress, back to the Bush administration and Cheney, our protector number 2. He's an accomplished man, he holds the Wyoming state record for draft deferments, having received 5 of them during the Viet Nam war. He knows that war is hell and he is staying far, far away!!!! He is currently paid a million dollar a year severance from Halliburton and he's worth every penny to them. Afterall how often do you get a multi billion dollar, no competition contract from the US gov't? I'm sure he has many, many shares of halliburton stock in blind trusts so we're all safe from any sort of influence that it may have over him. I mean it's not a lock that a multi billion dollar contract will make his stock go up, is it? And a very profitable one as halliburton has managed to misappropriate many millions of the funds paid to them and has overcharged the US considerably. The Bush admin is very cozy with sleazy business operations, after all they chose Ken Lay of Enron to help determine the energy policy of the US. Then again Enron did give Bush $675,000 in campaign funds and when you give that much money you want more than a night in the Lincoln room.

Personally I think a memo titled," Alqaida determined to attack within the US" or words to that affect, would make people stand up and do something. It went on to mention the WTC and hijacking commercial jets and this memo comes out at the same time that the FBI reports that arab men are learning to fly jets, but not land or take off in them. The Bush admin claims it's an historical document, and they are right, it sure is historical now!! They further claim that there was not enough info to make any conclusions from, well, I'm sorry but isn't it their job to draw conslusions from insufficient data, hell they did that so well with Iraq. Where was their decisiveness in the summer of 2001?

But all in all I feel far safer now knowing that the biggest threat to America is firmly in the mind of our president. That threat, gay marriage. Thanks to Bush's efforts, millions of heterosexual marriages have been saved due to the elimination of gay marriage. After all it would be so tempting to leave your spouse, turn gay and marry someone of the opposite sex if it were made legal. Then our country would be filled with "girlie men" and only governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ( a name worth 1200 points on the SAT's) would be there to protect us.

CP Goerz
21-Jul-2004, 14:10
From what has been coming to light regarding the invasion of Iraq is that the plans to invade were already there before Dubyah got into office. Rumsfelds and the like were just waiting for some dupe to convince and have their way with, it seems like very little argument was needed. War is always good for votes and pre 9/11 you may remember that Dubyah was being destroyed in the polls for his economic decisions(yet do we remember how Clinton was pilloried because of sending a few Tomahawk missiles off to Iraq as a 'blatant attempt' to reflect interest from Kenneth Starrs witchunt?). Dubyah has agreed to have the 9/11 debacle looked into by an independant council...AFTER he has left office though! What an honest guy, obviously nothing to hide!!

If the press isn't portraying Dubyah as the idiot he seems to be (presidentially speaking that is, as a guy he may be of average intelligence but I want someone a lot smarter than me runnning the country!!) then we don't have too far to look to see why...just look at the Ronald Reagan historical whitewash of a few weeks ago...ever a mention of how he did a deal with the Ayatollah to hold the captives a bit longer so he could be elected a little more easily? George Bush Sr by the way was the one who brokered the deal during a meeting in Spain. How RR put everything he could into the overthrow of the one democratically elected governement in South America, the mining of a sovereign nations harbor, Grenada invasion, unbalanced budget after unbalanced budget, funding of Bin Laden,funding of Sadaam, funding of just about every dictator/strong man in South America(have we all forgotten Noriega(sp)??),Iran-Contra,the turfing out of all the mentally ill from hospitals etc etc etc, he wasn't that great before he became president either as we here in CA may care to remember-look at our schools now! CA used to be in the top five for education pre-Ronnie. Is it any surprise therefore that Dubyah isn't given some good ole Clinton treatment?



The movie 9/11 should not have been made by a movie director, it should be on the 6 o clock news each night! But it seems that access to the White House is so paramount that the reporters there are deadly afraid of losing their passes so they won't ask the tough questions or question the off topic answers (like the one recently aired on a radio regarding torture of suspects in US 'custody').



A few of my Republican friends have finally admitted that voting for Dubyah was a really bad decision and it was one based on voting 'against' Clinton rather than voting 'for' Dubyah. As a bumper sticker I saw recently said..'No-one died when Clinton lied'. For 800+ of the US forces in Iraq though this statement holds particularly true.

CP Goerz

Jorge Gasteazoro
21-Jul-2004, 14:46
Com'on Jorge - your beautiful portfolio of weapons reveals your true sentiments - maybe you're a fiscal Republican but don't tell me that GWB was the first "hawk" that you disagreed with.

I never said GWB was a genius, and I'm sure Clinton has a higher IQ... But GWB clearly is not as dumb as the mass media likes to portray him as. If he was really such a bonehead, his opponents should be making mincemeat of him - and that has yet to be the case



Nope, I just dont let party ideology blind me to the fact that bubba was either taken by some of his advisers or was really, really dumb. In either case as I said, the responsibility rests with him, no matter what errors other agencies like the CIA etc made. Apparently you are of the opinion that if one is republican one should mantain they cannot do any wrong. And yes, this is the first time I see a republican doing really stupid things and getting people killed for no other reason than to get reelected.

As to his intelligence, well, like Crispin said, I would like to see someone far smarter than I am directing the most powerful country in the world. I dont agree with all Crispin said, but this is one true statement.

tim atherton
21-Jul-2004, 14:53
I'm partial to the view that seems popular in his "home State":

70-year-old Texas Rancher got his hand caught in a gate while working cattle. He wrapped the hand in his bandana and drove his pickup to the doctor. While suturing the laceration, the doctor asked the old man about George W. Bush being in the White House.

The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'Post Turtle.'"

Not knowing what the old man meant, the doctor asked what a Post Turtle was.

The old man looked at him and drawled, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a Post Turtle."

The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain:

"You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up there, and you just want to help the poor dumb bastard get down."

CP Goerz
21-Jul-2004, 16:39
In a lighter mood ;-)



Three famous surgeons were having some single malt and it wasn't long before they started to boast of their greatest cases. The first surgeon tells a story of how a man had both hands crushed to a pulp but after a 15 hour operation he saved the hands and now the man is a famous concert pianist.

The second surgeon not to be outdone tells how a man who lost both arms and legs in an accident with a tractor, after a 20 hour operation this man is now in the olympic swimming team and looks like he will win a gold.

The third surgeon from Texas sips a drink and says he has them all beat. A man was pushing a truck on some railroad tracks and all we had left after the train hit him was a Stetson and an asshole, after a 24 hour operation he is now president.

cp goerz

Brian K
21-Jul-2004, 16:50
Hey speak well of our commander in chief, just remember he's the dyslexic with his finger on the button of our nuke-u-ler arsenal. ( I really hope they use some sort of color coding on that button..)

It's interesting to note how all of this information about how Iran might have been involved in 9/11 is coming out. Remember Bush's "axis of evil" speech which listed Iraq, Iran and N korea as the great evils (evildoers!!!!) ? Well one down, two to go.

Frank Petronio
21-Jul-2004, 18:21
Ha Ha, so you elite scholars are basically saying that GWB, with his SAT of only 940, can recogonize a elementary truth better than you can. The civilized world depends on oil. If Saddam or some other bugger controls the price of oil, he has the world by the short hairs. And all the UN resolutions in the world won't budge him - only military force.

Did you ever consider what would happen if Saddam and his buddies cut off the oil? Worldwide depression and chaos - a replay of the 1930s run up to WW2 - only with nuclear and bio weapons.

Finally, in spite of all the blundering, the funny thing is that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. Maybe those over zealous cops are doing something after all?

Brian K
21-Jul-2004, 20:04
Saddam had little control over the availability or price of oil, especially in the decade since the first gulf war. Iraq's oil exports were minimal. If the Bush administration is so concerned about the oil supply then they should have been in favor of the legislation that would have raised the fuel efficiency requirements for cars. Saddam's "buddies" won't cut off the supply of oil, it's the only source of income they have, and for as much income as the Saudis derive from oil, they are still a debtor nation and their oil reserves are expected to be gone in 40 years. The last time they tried to cut off the oil supply was in the 1970's, and as a result of that the US and many other nations, have built up huge emergency oil reserves just in case. If they were to attempt an oil embargo now, it would hurt themselves far more than it would us. They need our food more than we need their oil, the US is an oil producing nation, it's just cheaper to buy it from the arabs than drill for it ourselves. At the point when the arabs raise the price of oil to where it's cheaper to drill here, we will. And that is why the Saudis keep a lot of control over the price of oil, too high and we may just start drilling in Alaska.

As for the lack of terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, we've been lucky. Our allies Spain and Turkey have not been so lucky as their support of Bush's policies has caused them much bloodshed and grief. However the death toll from 9/11 is still not complete. You see the Bush administration ordered the EPA to tone down it's post 9/11 warnings about the quality of the air near the WTC. All of those buildings that came down from the attacks, and it was more than just the 2 towers, were filled with asbestos. Hundreds, possibly thousands of people, who lived or worked near the WTC could have protected themselves from the possibilty of mesothelioma by wearing a simple dust mask, but the warnings of the hazard were blocked thanks to the Bush administration.

Bush stood on the grounds of the WTC, his arm around a firefighter. he promised NYC $20 billion to help pay for the damage. He only gave us $6 billion. Ironically many firehouses have closed in NYC as a result, many businesses in lower manhattan went under. As for Iraq, so far he's spent $200 billion on the Iraq war, and that will go up significantly. He's given them $87 billion for rebuilding, so far. The contract to halliburton alone, and I may be wrong on this one, was $20 billion. And let's not forget the 1000 coalition soldiers who have died so far, more than 800 of which were americans.

Regarding Bush's intelligence, he really needs to work on his math. He inherited a $282 billion surplus, we now have a $650 billion deficit, and growing. Two million people have lost their jobs since he took office, I believe Clinton added 11 million jobs during his 2 terms. The people that are getting jobs now, are getting paid an average of $9000 a year less than they were making. His tax cut, overwhelmingly to the rich, did not lower the overall tax bill for the average american. In fact it's the opposite, we may pay less in federal taxes right now, but most states and localities have raised income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and licensing fees to compensate for monies they are no longer getting from the federal government. The only people who really got a tax break are those in the top 1 or 2 percent of income.

tim atherton
15-Nov-2004, 12:54
another sad tale imo


http://www.billemory.com/NOTES/pocket%20litter.html (http://www.billemory.com/NOTES/pocket%20litter.html)

Clay Turtle
11-Mar-2006, 13:56
Remembering the good ole dazes, a long time ago I was in a mall & thought "I like that they have all these trees growing in here! I want to take a picture. I was stopped by the local sucurity guard & told photographs were forbidden of the mall & that was with a 35mm & no tripod, not even a camera bag . . . oh, no fanatical view that some terrorist were lurking about setting bombs or chemical weapons.
As for the bush (bull) sh*t, I knew he was lying through his teeth from the get go so whatelse is new?

Steve M Hostetter
21-Sep-2010, 12:22
If you're worried that a domestic USA issue is not relevant to your interests, don't read the thread! But, at least for the million or so serious photographing in the USA, getting stopped for photographer - right or wrong - is still an important issue (I think.)

I agree.. and also I'd like to add that the smart terrorist just look up the images they need on the internet rather then act like photographers

Steve M Hostetter
21-Sep-2010, 12:36
dang I just noticed this thread is from like 4 years ago.. I feel like a troll now:D

Dan Fromm
21-Sep-2010, 13:45
So Steve, do you enjoy living under a bridge? Does a steady diet of goat suit you? I mean, Jamaican curry goat isn't bad.

AgentX
21-Sep-2010, 15:01
I agree.. and also I'd like to add that the smart terrorist just look up the images they need on the internet rather then act like photographers

While I have many issues with the way the concerns with terrorism vis-a-vis surveillance are handled by many, many authorities (and non-authorities), this is a common misconception.

Surveillance, photographic or otherwise, is not simply about obtaining an image of a target. This may be a component of it, but it's only the first 10% of what a real terrorist is trying to learn. (And yes, they all know they can get photos online...though Google Earth and many public street-level photos don't always show the info on security infrastructure they seek.) It is about observing procedures, timing, entry and exit of specific persons, responses to irregularities, etc. And the act of surveillance serves as a test of the level of alertness surrounding the target--it can be a probe in and of itself.

And it can be done photographically or non-photographically--the problem is that many ostensible security personnel don't really know what to look for, or what to do in the case of potential or suspected surveillance. And information about potential surveillance isn't appropriately collected, organized, and analyzed across a target area (worldwide, for some of us) in many cases.

Steve M Hostetter
21-Sep-2010, 19:28
So Steve, do you enjoy living under a bridge? Does a steady diet of goat suit you? I mean, Jamaican curry goat isn't bad.

Dan,, I think your onto something :D

evan clarke
22-Sep-2010, 08:31
It was ridiculous before 9/11 and has gotten worse. I'm a structural engineer by trade and work in NYC, and was a couple blocks away on 9/11. Several months ago I was stopped while setting up my 8x10 in a federal park (Fort Wadsworth) on Staten Island. I was told by park police that anyone showing "undue attention" to the Verrazano Bridge was not allowed to photograph it. I went to the info center and enquired if that was true. They said yes and I would have to get a "special use" permit from the public relations office which was closed on weekends. I was also told that a such a permit would require paying for a security guard to be with me. When I called the PO Office on Monday I was told that none of this was true. Called back the info people who stuck to their story. Got both on the line and asked them to hash it out. End result, nothing. The police would still stop me from photographing. Letters to my congressmen have gone unanswered. Here's why it's large format related. Did I mention that there were several dozen tourists standing next to me with every sort of 35mm and digital camera imaginable shooting the exact same photos? None of them were approached by the police. Nor was I approached when I decided to shoot the bridge from the Brooklyn side. Oh, and did I mention that anyone who wants to know anything about the bridge could find it in the numerous history and engineering books related to it? I guess that's why they want to track our library records too. Not that any engineer couldn't figure out how to take down a structure. Maybe we should stop teaching civil engineering too. The bridge is not any safer by stopping photography of the bridge. I'm as conservative as they come, but I can't help thinking that we're paying for stupidity not security.

Have any of them seen the Bing birdseye view??.The world has to get a grip on reality..EC

Steve M Hostetter
22-Sep-2010, 08:38
sht is really gettin spooky around here isn't it?

mrladewig
30-Sep-2010, 10:37
Many many crimes have been solved or thwarted because of some minor happenstance such as someone getting stopped for a tail light bulb being out.


Photographic surveillance was not used in any of the major terrorist attacks. Besides, why go out and photograph a location when google earth has done it for you already.

Many if not most crimes have never been solved. I've seen statistics indicating that more than 50% of murder cases go unsolved despite what you might be lead to believe by watching the "First 48" or "Law and Order" where 99% are wrapped up with a neat bow in a 1 hour show.

The visible "security" actions of TSA and homeland security are not meant to stop determined criminals. They're intended to make you feel safer and reduce the mass anxiety of the sheeple.

AgentX
30-Sep-2010, 11:17
Photographic surveillance was not used in any of the major terrorist attacks. Besides, why go out and photograph a location when google earth has done it for you already.



Incorrect.

WTC 1993, Kenya, Tanzania...the list goes on and on, up to and likely including (based on the method of attack) the recent attack on the consulate in Pakistan. 9/11 is the only one that comes to mind where it wasn't necessary, for obvious reasons.

The fact that you somehow decided it wasn't doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If you are stating this as a professional, I'd like to alert your customers to your dangerously uninformed point of view.


I've already explained that Google Earth doesn't reveal security features or procedures in operation, or the timing of entry/exits.

Steve M Hostetter
30-Sep-2010, 18:45
As I've said I would turn anyone in if I suspected them trying to bring harm to anyone.
I think the best we can do is if we get stopped and questioned just hand the official our ID's and tell them to check us out..
Tell them we are members of this forum and that we are artist's and that our main intent is to celebrate life, not take it..
Then maybe they will just let us go and do our thing without any misconceptions..

AgentX
1-Oct-2010, 05:40
Never seen it in the Patriot Act. Sure have seen it in al-Queada manuals, though.

(Along with many other forms of surveillance and related activity that the security sector in the US generally fails to notice or care about, mind you...and this also doesn't mean the general anti-photography sentiment we tend to see these days is somehow an effective way of catching or deterring real terrorists.)

mrladewig
1-Oct-2010, 06:58
WTC 1993, Kenya, Tanzania...the list goes on and on, up to and likely including (based on the method of attack) the recent attack on the consulate in Pakistan. 9/11 is the only one that comes to mind where it wasn't necessary, for obvious reasons.

And you know what? Trucks were used in terrorist many attacks too, so maybe we should start calling in all the truck drivers we see. And that Times Square attack involved an SUV. Maybe we should start reporting all SUVs and vans too.

I think its is safe to say that no large format view camera has been used in a modern terrorist attack.

There is also evidence that the presence of security cameras and civilians with cameras have been helpful in tracking down suspects after some crimes. And yet for all of our own surveillance prowess, including the ability to use multi-spectral imaging to differentiate between vehicles running on diesel and gasoline from space through their emissions signatures and the ability to read licenses plates from satellites, we've been unable to find a man in the mountains for 10+ years.



If you are stating this as a professional, I'd like to alert your customers to your dangerously uninformed point of view.

If this is your profession, maybe you shouldn't be posting on the topic in a public forum. Maybe your employer would be interested in knowing that you can't keep your mouth shut.



I've already explained that Google Earth doesn't reveal security features or procedures in operation, or the timing of entry/exits.

I don't think anyone here believes that photographs aren't used in intelligence gathering. And you may believe that Google earth's images don't provide information on security features, but the satellite images are extremely helpful in route planning and the street level images can illustrate vulnerabilities. But what do you think is more likely. A terrorist with a view camera... or a tourist with a camera phone.

link 1 (http://chemical-facility-security-news.blogspot.com/2008/06/counter-surveillance-in-operation.html)

link 2 (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/)

Whats the difference between these two?

Repeatedly anti-terrorism laws have been used as an excuse for otherwise unauthorized agencies to conduct surveillance and gather records on civilians who don't fit into the prescribed norm. Minorities, (http://www.ndu.org.nz/free_tag/terrorism) demonstrators, (https://wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/prot-a25.shtml) artists, "political dissidents" (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1221-04.htm) and countless others have been targeted in our "free" society. Denver Police were recently caught red handed keeping records on law abiding civilians doing things like feeding the homeless in a soup kitchen. Dangerous those radical soup kitchen folks are. Further, wiretap laws have recently been perverted to allow the police to charge individuals with crimes for recording encounters with law enforcement. In other words, you can be charged with a felony crime in many states for photographing, videotaping or voice recording a police officer performing an illegal act!

We have willingly created policies to restrict our freedom and have done so in a manner that is not effective and likely counterproductive to our security goals. I am and will continue to be a critic of of laws that remove the freedom of law abiding citizens to photograph, videotape or record sound in public areas.

And I'm sorry Steve, but my photography business card isn't going to serve as official ID in the eyes of suspicious and defensive police or security personnel. In these days of paranoia, I doubt a press pass will do you any good either.

AgentX
1-Oct-2010, 08:10
Um, I never said large format photographers were involved in any terrorist attacks.

Agree totally that a terrorist is likely to use a camera phone or P&S than even a DSLR. A video camera is even more likely, in whatever form...(HD flip, etc.)

But you said photographic surveillance was never used. That's simply incorrect. It's commonly used. The fact that US (and world) security personnel don't interpret or react to potential surveillance effectively is another issue. And the fact that surveillance of many types is used by terrorists should be public knowledge, so accusing me of saying something improper on a public forum kind of baffles me.

I'm also a critic of laws that restrict photography in general. The answer isn't more laws, it's good security practice. This can, as much as some people hate it, involve security or police saying "Hi! Nice camera! What're you taking pictures of today?" to you while you're shooting. (Note your own right to say "none of your business," as well...) And/or taking your picture while you're in public taking a picture of something else--it's their right to photograph in public, too. And to keep these photos on file and share them to see if you're involved in a suspicious pattern of activity. (Note, before you fly off the handle, simply photographing major monuments, structures, buildings, etc. isn't a suspicious pattern in and of itself...)

Steve M Hostetter
1-Oct-2010, 08:20
what about the man on the silver mountain.. speaking of suspicious
we are starting to think he might be a fabrication ??

Curt
4-Jan-2011, 23:48
Mam, is that a Hasselblad, I had one like that when I was a.... is that a dam picture you're taking. Mam, I'm weirder than you are, mam, did you stub your toe, mam, are you a class 3. ...That's so interesting, I had no idea, really.

I took some dammmm pictures a while ago, right in plain site and at a pull off, it came out really fine. Anyone can get a book and see that same picture that I took, I mean how many angles can you get of a dam? It's a dam little image I know, that's what the upload is like. It was hand held leaning on a cement siding rail and I used a 645 with a tele, it's not going to be printed, it's not that interesting. Its had its 15 minutes and that's probably more than me.

I figure the police have their dam job to do and I have my dam photo's to take. That's the dam world we live in.

Nortega
15-Jan-2011, 12:18
I figure the police have their dam job to do and I have my dam photo's to take. That's the dam world we live in.

LOL. Amen, brutha.

Allen in Montreal
15-Jan-2011, 18:12
"Homeland security blues"

Please don't think that our friends south of the border are the only ones suffering Homeland Insecurity Blues!


Sick!
I just want to slap the SOB that put her through this.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/down+makes+cancer+survivor/4115266/story.html

rguinter
16-Jan-2011, 17:31
This kind of thing (I suspect) is happening all the time.

So far here in this forum I haven't mentioned the time I was forced to strip down to my shorts under armed guard for another trip through the scanner in my skivies.

Seems the button on my levis set off the scanner the first time through and then it was either drop 'em... or be escorted into a closed room with two rifle toting guards.

I decided in favor of dropping 'em and having my levis sent through the x-ray detector separately.

Gotta love it!

Bob G.

rguinter
16-Jan-2011, 17:34
P.S. I thought about bending over and "mooning" 'em after going through the second time without an alarm... but at my age I've kinda given up that kind of thing........ B.G.