Terrorism and photography in Seattle

[Bruce Watson]

In Seattle, a photographer escaped the rain by entering a bus terminal, as told in this story. 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.