What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all
terrorists, or does everyone just think they are?
Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography.
Photographers have been harassed, questioned, detained, arrested or
worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to
watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any
terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is
required.
Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph
anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway
bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh
didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber
didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid.
Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian
suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those
manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk
about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7,
the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.
Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to
photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that
terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that
we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?
In article
<09485b28-a3a0-4756-9097-b91c3efd43b4@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Anna.Marek6969@gmail.com wrote:
> Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography.
> Photographers have been harassed, questioned, detained, arrested or
> worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to
> watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any
> terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is
> required.
Just as a data point, I have taken over 5,000 photos of bridges
in the past 5 years, and have taken 25,000 photos of airplanes
since 1985. I cannot think of one time that I was harassed, and
in most cases, when I asked for permission from authorities, they
did everything they could to accommodate me.
> What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all
> terrorists, or does everyone just think they are?
> Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography.
> Photographers have been harassed, questioned, detained, arrested or
> worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to
> watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any
> terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is
> required.
> Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph
> anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway
> bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh
> didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber
> didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid.
> Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian
> suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those
> manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk
> about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7,
> the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.
> Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to
> photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that
> terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that
> we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?
> Because it's a movie-plot threat.
I wish it was just movie-plots. Unfortunately that kind of reasoning
goes a lot further than Hollywood. It's the same kind of reasoning as
trying to stop future Al Quaeda terrorist threats by invading
Iraq. Wrong country George. God save us all when the most powerful
military forces the world has ever known are commanded by people who
think like that.
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> Just as a data point, I have taken over 5,000 photos of bridges
> in the past 5 years, and have taken 25,000 photos of airplanes
> since 1985. I cannot think of one time that I was harassed,
> and in most cases, when I asked for permission from authorities,
> they did everything they could to accommodate me.
I was "harassed" for using a videocam in Victoria Station, London,
last year. But then, the British tend to be more skittish about their
rail stations than we in the States, and for good reason. So, I said,
"Sorry," and dropped the cam to my waist (but it kept recording).
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Anna.Marek6969@gmail.com wrote:
>> Security Guru Bruce Schneier has a new article on "The War on
>> Photography."
>
>> Excerpt:
>
>> http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0806.html
>
>> What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all
>> terrorists, or does everyone just think they are?
>
>> Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography.
>> Photographers have been harassed, questioned, detained, arrested or
>> worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to
>> watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any
>> terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is
>> required.
>
>> Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph
>> anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway
>> bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh
>> didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber
>> didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid.
>> Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian
>> suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those
>> manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk
>> about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7,
>> the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.
>
>> Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to
>> photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that
>> terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that
>> we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?
>
>> Because it's a movie-plot threat.
>
> I wish it was just movie-plots. Unfortunately that kind of reasoning
> goes a lot further than Hollywood. It's the same kind of reasoning as
> trying to stop future Al Quaeda terrorist threats by invading
> Iraq. Wrong country George. God save us all when the most powerful
> military forces the world has ever known are commanded by people who
> think like that.
On Jul 8, 11:52*pm, "John A. Weeks III" <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> In article
> <09485b28-a3a0-4756-9097-b91c3efd4...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> *Anna.Marek6...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography.
> > Photographers have been harassed, questioned, detained, arrested or
> > worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to
> > watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any
> > terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is
> > required.
>
> Just as a data point, I have taken over 5,000 photos of bridges
> in the past 5 years, and have taken 25,000 photos of airplanes
> since 1985. *I cannot think of one time that I was harassed, and
> in most cases, when I asked for permission from authorities, they
> did everything they could to accommodate me.
Thanks for your data point.
FYI, there's a list of over a dozen links labeled,
"Incidents and anti-photography campaigns: "
in the Schneier article.
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge 
Linear Mode
