Originally posted by J.Scott Or even easier, just surf the net and pull up all kinds of pictures of buildings and structures.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but don't most terrorist attacks come in the form of suicide bombings, or placing of innocent looking packages containing explosives in very public areas? Neither of which requires any sort of photography, especially stealthy photography. Photography isn't dangerous or threatening - but crazy, brain-washed wackos are.
Targeting photographers as the cause of terrorist attacks is like blaming oil producers for making the gasoline that propels a car down the freeway at 100mph in the wrong lane. It's all about focus.
The 9-11 terrorists planned the attacks for months beforehand. They took many pictures and gathered intel on infrastructure around the country, including the Mall of America and the nuke plant just down the road from me. Also, they have a track record of terrorist attacks around the world with similar behavior beforehand. Because of this M.O., agencies now use these "symptoms" to locate terrorist supsects to prevent an attack....right or wrong.
There are thousands of images on the internet, this is true. But planning an attack would involve much more than just some pictures of the target, as any military planner would tell you. It requires intelligence...what time do they close, how many people come in and out and at what time are the most people there. Where are the vulnerabilities, what's next door, how will emergency services respond and what roads will they take to get there, etc. etc. In order to gather this information, you have to visit the target many times...and take pictures.
As an example, one of the things terrorist organizations have done in the past is create a false alarm at the target (bomb threat, medical emergency, etc.) and then have someone watch what ensues...and take pictures. The same could be said at a train station...how are people getting on and off the train, how many people are typically getting off a train, how many trains are there at 11:00am, etc.
I would agree that using an expensive SLR camera would draw attention and more than likely a P&S or cellphone would be a better choice. Of course, before the 9-11 attack, using an SLR would probably have been preferred as it would be obvious they were not hiding anything.
The fact is, there is plenty of proof that terrorists do take pictures and gather intel before a large attack. So does our military or any military in the world. It's necessary and nothing new.
What is new is how the U.S. has responded to it....completely overblown and paranoid. Again, this is because we do not accept the fact that life has risks. Yes, terrorists will take pictures....so what! If we did happen to catch a terrorist and made him delete his pictures, what has it gained for us? Not a thing. To the terrorist, his suspicions about our predictability would just be confirmed. He will just come back next time with his cellphone.
What this overblown approach has done is let them win. The root of the word terrorist is terror...and they have succeeded in keeping everyone terrorized for 7 years in the U.S. We've allowed it to affect our economy and our freedoms...the very things they wanted to affect. Sounds more like they succeeded in this regard.
The sad thing is we have done it to ourselves. Sometimes the most lethal attack is the one in your mind.