Terrorising the Photographer instead

[JCSullivan]

A quote from the following article:

The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid 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.

Bruce Schneier: Are photographers really a threat? | World news | The Guardian

[lithos]

And a Terrorist isn't gonna use a friggin' SLR, either.

Oh no.

They're gonna use a cameraphone, so that they will look like every other dropkick taking snapshots. So they'll become invisible, because a security guard will ask you to put you camera away, yet blithely ignore a phone. They'll use a cameraphone to transmit any incriminating photos away, so that there is no immediate evidence on them if some gets suspicious.

And I don't think Bin Laden is willing to dole out a two thousand dollars so that the terrorists may see minute, beautifully rendered details in whatever they're looking to blow up. Images free of abberations, taken on expensive gear by a guy who's gonna use it for a few weeks before he kills himself and the camera ends up in an evidence locker.

[Wheatfield]

Governments have found over the years that the best way to keep the citizens compliant is to keep them scared.
This is why most societies have some sort of boogeyman, be it people of a different race, religion, political or social orientation.

In my lifetime, the boogeyman has taken on many faces, black, native American, those damned commies, Catholics, homosexuals, etc. All have been held out by one group or another as something to be vilified, not because they are particularly evil, but because they are different.

Now, in the age of terror, governments have seen a very real opportunity to keep us afraid by holding out terrorists as the ultimate boogeyman, even though, with the exception of Israel ind it's neighboring environs, the chances of getting hurt in a terrorist attack is close to non existent.
Governments feel they need to keep us afraid to keep us in line, and to exert ever more control over our lives and to take more and more freedoms from us

Unfortunately, like Catholics and Gays, terrorists are not especially visible, and the real terrormongers (I am thinking specifically of the Bush government and his coalition of the suckered) need something visible.

They need a Talisman of Terror, if you will.

What could possibly be more visible than the guy with a big camera? He is the ideal target for the paranoid.
Lurking around the fringes of whatever is happening, the photographer stalks, and skulks, and generally acts like as if he doesn't want to be noticed.
He aims his "weapon" at unsuspecting people, and he shoots.
The photograph is a "soft kill", and he takes his prey home to do whatever it is that photographers do with their trophies.

This all fits nicely together as a package for the terrormongers.
The photographer often has large visible equipment, so he is easily noticed, he invades peoples privacy when they have no expectation of same, and he is doing something visible and obvious, even when skulking around trying very hard to be anything but visible and obvious.
A gear laden photographer is an easy mark for those bombastic rent-a-cops that seem to think they have real authority, and so the protectors of society can be seen to be doing something to protect the citizenry.

Like the lepers, the niggers and the queers who came before him, the photographer is now societies boogeyman. He is there, he is visible, and he is harrassable.
He is held out as an invader of privacy, a purveyor of child pornography, and a pest.

He is the perfect target.

[bnishanth]

Bloody scremongering tactics by the government.

I'm part of a photographic club at work place and we have been advised to register ourselves at the local Police Stations in London so that we are not harrassed if we click 'Non-Touristy' places... What a shame if you have to do that..

Cheers
Nish

[Clicker]

the only threat a photographer poses, is out of focus head/limb chopped photos

terrorist seem to favour video

[MRRiley]

When I went to Union Station in Washington, DC last week I fully expected to be hassled by security as they have a long standing reputation for being "anti photography." However, last spring, Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC's non-voting Congresswoman, took the managing company to task and explained to them in no uncertain terms that Union Station, including the mall area, is PUBLIC property. There is no trerrorist threat and no reason or authorization allowing them to prevent people from shooting photographs or participating in any other legal activity.

Well I think they have finally gotten the message. I was soundly ignored by every rent-a-cop that passed me!

YIPPPPEEEE... a small victory perhaps, but a victory none the less.

[maxwell1295]

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

Governments have found over the years that the best way to keep the citizens compliant is to keep them scared.
This is why most societies have some sort of boogeyman, be it people of a different race, religion, political or social orientation...

I didn't want to quote the whole thing, but that was an EXCELLENT post!

[ve2vfd]

Originally Posted by bnishanth

I'm part of a photographic club at work place and we have been advised to register ourselves at the local Police Stations in London so that we are not harrassed if we click 'Non-Touristy' places...

Sounds like the soviet union back in 1978... not a free country in 2008...

How sad it has come to this...

Pat

[ftpaddict]

Indeed Wheatfield has made a very thought-provoking post. Now, more than ever, I want to blow up the entire government and senate.




later edit: PS: Now a government official will read this thread and think that I am talking business and turn paranoid. Woops.

[Mike Cash]

Originally Posted by bnishanth

Bloody scremongering tactics by the government.

I'm part of a photographic club at work place and we have been advised to register ourselves at the local Police Stations in London so that we are not harrassed if we click 'Non-Touristy' places... What a shame if you have to do that..

Cheers
Nish

Why does it bother you? It's just the government taking the piss. I don't believe you should find it offensive and you should sit silently by regarding things that bother you. After all, they don't mean you any harm by it. Lighten up.

Sounded good enough elsewhere, didn't it?

[Damn Brit]

Originally Posted by bnishanth

Bloody scremongering tactics by the government.

I'm part of a photographic club at work place and we have been advised to register ourselves at the local Police Stations in London so that we are not harrassed if we click 'Non-Touristy' places... What a shame if you have to do that..

Cheers
Nish

Wahay, that puts you London photographers on a par with sex offenders.

[cpopham]

With respect to public places, there is often an 'easy' way to deal with this. If you can see any reason why there might be restrictions, find a staff member, be friendly, and ask if there are any restrictions. Sometimes you'll find there are very reasonable restrictions in place, and they aren't "No Photography".

For example, in the London Underground, you're not allowed flashes, or tripods. These are actually pretty reasonable things to forbid.

I realise that while in most countries photographers do have legal entitlements to take photographs in public places, but acting with a sense of entitlement is no way to make friends and influence people.

By this, I'm not suggesting that you go along with the restrictions where, for example, a private company's security guards might try to stop you photographing their building from public land - but politely informing him that you understand photography is forbidden on their property, and if he will kindly show you where the boundary is (so you don't cross it), you'll make sure you comply with their rules.

[Clicker]

At least we don't have to take our shoes, belts and notebooks out if we don't want too

[mithrandir]

I suspect that police and security guards act the way they do because they feel frustrated and helpless about stopping the real terrorists prior to the act. Sadly, what they are doing is actually a waste of time for them and the public.

[Mallee Boy]

but its more than the terrorism excuse.

I went to a rodeo at our convention centre, big event. Rang the the convention centre admin to ask about photography, explaining that I would like to bring my dslr. Reply was that that was ok provided I did not use flash.

Get to the the door and I am turned away by an attendant standing next to a sign saying "NO FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY"........no amount of explaining that I was not using flash would get me past the door.

Off to the admin people....no joy there. Rules are rules I was told, and sensing that I was on the verge of being thrown out (got that feeling from the two hefty bruisers that had appeared by the door of the admin office)....I gave up, put the camera back in the car, and went in to watch the rodeo.....mightily pissed off.

Now...the best is yet to come:

The show starts with a dancing girl routine....and all around me out pops a barrage of p&S cameras and camera phones.....all with flash popping away!!!

The guy on the door did not want to know about it.

I will never go back to the convention centre ever again.

The moral of the story....I really have no idea what was trying to be achieved by the people running that show, but the people administering the policy had no bloody idea.

End of Rant (soap box kicked to pieces... again)