[slomojoe]

Here is a security training newsletter from 2006 which carries information about terrorist surveillance. (Go to the second article).
http://www.iissm.com/downloads/ncr_newsletter_aug_06.pdf

Yup, that pretty much supports the point I was making, that there certainly is a justification for police/security to question a photographer in certain sensitive location, just like there has always been for them a justification to question anyone acting suspiciously for any reason. However, demanding that a person stops taking pictures altogether (except in security areas) is pointless and unjustified, since there are hundreds of ways terrorists can conduct surveillance that cannot be stopped (try blocking everyone in a train station from using a cell phone!), and there is no evidence that picture-taking is a critical one, or that banning it can prevent an attack.

[stewart_photo]

(snip) We have beat the "one point of view" angle senseless (snip) That is not OUR fault. (snip)

And I'm not trying to assign blame, Mike. Instead, I'm simply pointing to the realities - these stories are very often one-sided, with that person providing only his side of the story. For most people without a bias or an agenda to push, that alone should raise a major red flag, garnishing serious doubts about the accuracy of the story. None of us know the people involved in these stories, but certainly all of us know some will lie without restraint if that fits their needs. Thus, a person simply saying something in a story doesn't, for a moment, make it true. Instead, intelligent, thinking, adults (again without a bias or an agenda to promote), either have to ask questions seeking the truth or dismiss the stories outright. I've done both in previous such threads.

(snip) Since his trial date, Mr. Kerzic has steadfastly responded "No Comment" to all inquiries. (snip)

Well, since you started that thread and were aware of the above, I think you should have at least reported it in that thread, without trying to whitewash it or spin it to fit how you want others to view that information. Most people in this forum are adults, Mike. With our own minds, opinions, and BS meters. Thus, most here don't need others to interpret or spin the details, or preselect the information we see (withholding what one doesn't want us to know), in an effort to manipulate or influence what we think. We get enough of that nonsense from the so-called mainstream media today without it creeping into this forum as well. Instead, what we need is the actual and whole story, from start to end, so we can form our own conclusions as free-thinking adults.

stewart

[stewart_photo]

At the same time, many of your posts are very manipulative in favour of the police and "authorities" who you seem to side with at every opportunity. (snip)

No, Wheatfield. You just seem to believe, because I don't instantly and mindlessly accept the supposed victim's version of the story without question or doubt, I'm somehow siding with the police. Instead, I'm simply old enough, and thus minimally wise enough, to know most of these one-sided stories with little or no real detail are just pure bull manure to be stepped over or around, not consumed.

But, on the slim chance one of these stories might have some validity (the bias, missing details, and so on are just bad reporting, not an attempt to manipulate my thinking), I will occasionally question those involved, or those reporting about those involved, to learn more. If those questions aren't answered to some satisfaction, or the story is changed to fit the questions, or other such nonsense, few can honestly expect anyone beyond a complete fool (or someone with the same agenda or bias) to believe that story.

stewart

[stewart_photo]

Is there actually any case in which it has been shown terrorists had taken pictures of their targets before an attack? I can't think of any, really. At least not any in which the pictures figured prominently in the planning/execution of the attack. (snip)

The use of photographs by terrorists is fairly common knowledge, slomojoe. If you're not aware of it, here's just a tiny sampling of the great many news reports from all over the world specifically mentioning photographs in relation to terrorists...

• Seattle Post - Key al-Qaida figure in custody
• MSN NEWS - SIMI, Indian Mujahideen new faces of LET
• DH News Service - Explosives came from Karnataka
• Washington Post - A Terrorist's Guide To Infiltrate West
• USA TODAY - Terrorist instructions hidden online
• USA TODAY - Terror groups hide behind Web encryption
• Information Today - Nets of Terror - Terrorist Activity on the Internet
• Arkansas Gazette - 2 arrested in Bombay inquiry
• Arab News - India arrests ‘Pakistani spies’
• INTERPOL - INTERPOL releases Forensic Report..on seized FARC computers and hardware
• Baltimore Sun - Tracking terrorists with click of a mouse
• Radio Free Europe - Russian Reports That Georgia Planning Terrorist Attacks
• The Guardian - Terrorist material found in Sarajevo charity raid

stewart

[MRRiley]

-snip-

(snip) Since his trial date, Mr. Kerzic has steadfastly responded "No Comment" to all inquiries. (snip)

well since you started that thread and were aware of the above, I think you should have at least reported it in that thread, without trying to whitewash it or spin it to fit how you want others to view that information. Most people in this forum are adults, Mike. With our own minds, opinions, and BS meters. Thus, most here don't need others to interpret or spin the details, or preselect the information we see (withholding what one doesn't want us to know), in an effort to manipulate or influence what we think. We get enough of that nonsense from the so-called mainstream media today without it creeping into this forum as well. Instead, what we need is the actual and whole story, from start to end, so we can form our own conclusions as free-thinking adults.

-snip-

Stewart.... I do have a life outside of the forums and I frankly took a break from the issue for a couple of weeks. I have not had any personal communications with Mr. Kerzic since about 3 Feb. I first learned of his "No Comment" position on 18 Feb thru Carlos Miller's website. I spent the rest of that day trying to verify this and see if any other information was available. Finding nothing to contradict the claims, I posted the information on the 19th in this and in my original thread. No great time lag there, and no devious designs or spinning on my part. I could have kept silent as well, but since I consider the "silence" to be a pertinent part of the story, I reported the situation as soon as I was confident it was true (the "No Comment" part). Further, I have withheld nothing and have provided as much of the story as I know... from beginning to end.

Mike

[MRRiley]

Also of interest is the MBTA guidance for Transit Police (2007)

http://transitpolice.us/Photo%20Policy/Photo%20Policy%201.pdf

The real interesting part of that policy/procedure is that they assume they can control photography "OF MBTA PROPERTY" from outside of MBTA property. Though it does not come right out and say this, the use of the phrase "on, in or of..." implies it. This kind of phrasing in official policies is what gets so many people hassled. I would not dispute what they can control ON or inside of their property (assuming it is "private") but they have no authority over my actions when I am not on their property.

In general, photography of virtually anything clearly visible (short of "certain" nuclear or military facilities) "from" adjacent public property or adjacent private property where the photographer has permission to be, is COMPLETELY LEGAL. They (private property owners) can prevent you from using the photos commercially through "property release" and copyright/trademark control, but they cannot prohibit the collection of the image or it's use for private, educational or documentary purposes.

Unless MBTA officers are also sworn in as general city law enforcement personnel, they have no jurisdiction off of MBTA property and cannot even question you off of their property. The important question is... Are they granted LE privileges and powers off of MBTA property by the city/county/state? Does anyone know?

Mike

[slomojoe]

Is there actually any case in which it has been shown terrorists had taken pictures of their targets before an attack? I can't think of any, really. At least not any in which the pictures figured prominently in the planning/execution of the attack. (snip)

The use of photographs by terrorists is fairly common knowledge, slomojoe. If you're not aware of it, here's just a tiny sampling of the great many news reports from all over the world specifically mentioning photographs in relation to terrorists...

• Seattle Post - Key al-Qaida figure in custody
• MSN NEWS - SIMI, Indian Mujahideen new faces of LET
• DH News Service - Explosives came from Karnataka
• Washington Post - A Terrorist's Guide To Infiltrate West
• USA TODAY - Terrorist instructions hidden online
• USA TODAY - Terror groups hide behind Web encryption
• Information Today - Nets of Terror - Terrorist Activity on the Internet
• Arkansas Gazette - 2 arrested in Bombay inquiry
• Arab News - India arrests ‘Pakistani spies’
• INTERPOL - INTERPOL releases Forensic Report..on seized FARC computers and hardware
• Baltimore Sun - Tracking terrorists with click of a mouse
• Radio Free Europe - Russian Reports That Georgia Planning Terrorist Attacks
• The Guardian - Terrorist material found in Sarajevo charity raid

stewart

Well, I can definitely google for "terrorist + photographs" myself, but I am not sure that any of those links really says that photographs of would-be targets were key in the planning or execution of an attack, e.g. by revealing information that would not have been available otherwise, which really was the point I was trying to make. (Incidentally and for example, one of your links discusses photography in the context of Russians publicizing photos of US military advisors allegedly training Georgian troops to conduct terrorist attacks with explosive devices, which I am quite sure is not something that falls under the umbrella we are discussing right now.)

Again, the question is not whether terrorists can use photos for planning attacks, of course they can (and as I suggested, I would find it perfectly appropriate for officers to question a photographer in a sensitive area, just like they can question any otherwise suspicious individual), as they can use notepads, videocams, phones, GPSs, etc etc. The question is whether there is any evidence that preventing people from taking pictures (of non high-security, public areas) can deter terrorist attacks.

It is really the same old question of civil liberties vs security, and the key to find a compromise must be in our weighing effectiveness of deterrence, costs and the burden of curtailment of individual freedoms. I am sure that strip-searching all train passengers, or even just confiscating all cell phones inside train stations, would go a longer way to deter railroad attacks than harassing photographers, but I am also sure that you will agree they would both be impractical and excessive for the benefit they may bring.

[Wheatfield]

Well, I can definitely google for "terrorist + photographs" myself, but I am not sure that any of those links really says that photographs of would-be targets were key in the planning or execution of an attack, e.g. by revealing information that would not have been available otherwise, which really was the point I was trying to make. (Incidentally and for example, one of your links discusses photography in the context of Russians publicizing photos of US military advisors allegedly training Georgian troops to conduct terrorist attacks with explosive devices, which I am quite sure is not something that falls under the umbrella we are discussing right now.)

Again, the question is not whether terrorists can use photos for planning attacks, of course they can (and as I suggested, I would find it perfectly appropriate for officers to question a photographer in a sensitive area, just like they can question any otherwise suspicious individual), as they can use notepads, videocams, phones, GPSs, etc etc. The question is whether there is any evidence that preventing people from taking pictures (of non high-security, public areas) can deter terrorist attacks.

It is really the same old question of civil liberties vs security, and the key to find a compromise must be in our weighing effectiveness of deterrence, costs and the burden of curtailment of individual freedoms. I am sure that strip-searching all train passengers, or even just confiscating all cell phones inside train stations, would go a longer way to deter railroad attacks than harassing photographers, but I am also sure that you will agree they would both be impractical and excessive for the benefit they may bring.

It's not about preventing terrorism. It never has been and it never will be. That is just an excuse, and a red herring to make it appear that the authorities are doing something.
Big cameras are visible, and for some reason, people feel safer when they see the police "doing their job", even when that job involves useless, stupid and potentially harassing activities.
Harass the photographer, everyone feels safer, and another potential pest has been removed.
One thing police really hate is to be observed. They prefer to create their own evidence.
I do think it odd that Stewart would post a news item pointing to the probability that the USA is engaged in terrorist activities of it's own.

[MRRiley]

The use of photographs by terrorists is fairly common knowledge, slomojoe. If you're not aware of it, here's just a tiny sampling of the great many news reports from all over the world specifically mentioning photographs in relation to terrorists...
-snip-
stewart

Yes, yes yes... Terrorists use cameras... Of course they do... BIG DEAL! They also use cars and trucks. They use cell phones and radios. They use PCs and notepads. They eat in restaurants and sleep in hotels. Until they commit a real crime that gets noticed, or the police get a tip from an informant, there is virtually nothing that authorities can do to detect or deter them without seriously curtailing the freedom of law abiding citizens.

So, let us admit... terrorists use cameras! However, that does not equate to, "people who use cameras are terrorists." The percentage of terrorists who use photography or imagery is probably in excess of 90%... However the percentage of photographers who use photography to aid terrorism is probably so infinitesimal as to be impossible to calculate.

If you want to suspect every photographer of possible connections to terrorism, you have to suspect everyone who drives a car, or uses a cell phone, or has a PC or sleeps in a hotel. There are terrorists within each of those groups yet those activities are not equated to terrorism to nearly the same extent as photograhers are.

[baltochef920]

Yes, yes yes... Terrorists use cameras... Of course they do... BIG DEAL! They also use cars and trucks. They use cell phones and radios. They use PCs and notepads. They eat in restaurants and sleep in hotels. Until they commit a real crime that gets noticed, or the police get a tip from an informant, there is virtually nothing that authorities can do to detect or deter them without seriously curtailing the freedom of law abiding citizens.

So, let us admit... terrorists use cameras! However, that does not equate to, "people who use cameras are terrorists." The percentage of terrorists who use photography or imagery is probably in excess of 90%... However the percentage of photographers who use photography to aid terrorism is probably so infinitesimal as to be impossible to calculate.

If you want to suspect every photographer of possible connections to terrorism, you have to suspect everyone who drives a car, or uses a cell phone, or has a PC or sleeps in a hotel. There are terrorists within each of those groups yet those activities are not equated to terrorism to nearly the same extent as photograhers are.

THANK YOU!!!! THANK YOU!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!

As Mike has stated, and as each and every one of us here on this forum knows absolutely; terrorists must use some form of camera in the intelligence gathering, and planning stages of a terrorist operation..That only makes common sense..SO WHAT!!!..

That fact does not make every camera carrying and wielding person in the USA a potential terrorist..But, assuming that every camera carrying person in the United States is a potential terrorist is the basis for the justification by which municipal police departments and private security forces are conducting these harassing tactics..And that, my friends and fellow forum members, violates our Constitutional rights on several levels..

The question that every citizen of the United States must ask themselves is this:

"Just how many of the freedoms that are guaranteed to you by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are you willing to permanently give up in order to try and make your life APPEAR to be safer than it actually is??"..

Because, the people living in the former Soviet Union, and its satellite countries, did give up all of the freedoms that we take for granted here in the USA,; and their lives were not very much safer then, than our lives are currently..In fact it can be argued quite effectively that any safety that the citizens of Soviet Bloc countries gained from the predations of ordinary criminals and terrorists as a result of those groups being artificially suppressed by the government; they more than lost in the dangers that they faced every day from their own government..

Does anyone on this forum truly believe that banning photography by ordinary citizens will make the United States a safer place to live from the perspective of a potential terrorist attack??..

[skeuos]

Back to the OP -

I've spent a fair bit of time shooting in the NYC subways, but have yet to be harassed. I offer no guess as to why. However, I do carry a copy of the MTA regulations when I shoot. However, ultimately, I think I would just close up shot and move on. It's simply a matter of what its worth.

I was thinking about heading to the subway tomorrow, but now this gives me pause . . .

[Wheatfield]

Does anyone on this forum truly believe that banning photography by ordinary citizens will make the United States a safer place to live from the perspective of a potential terrorist attack??..

Lets be a little less centrist here. Britain has just enacted (or is close to enacting) an anti-photography law that is so heavy handed that even some members of the police are questioning it's wisdom.
It's reasonable to assume that interested people are also going to be knowledgeable and engaged onlookers.
The train enthusiast (I'll use this example for convenience) who hangs around on station platforms taking pictures of the comings and goings probably also has a better working knowledge of what belongs there and what doesn't belong there than the average wage earning pseudo cop that just wants to go for a beer at the end of his shift.
That person arguably knows more about keeping trains safe than the Keystone Kops who get put in charge of moving the sheep from platform to door.

Harassing photographers, especially hobby photographers is actually making things more dangerous, not less. By putting a chill on their activities, the authorities are removing from the observation loop the very people who are best suited to see things that are outside the norm.
When it comes to terrorist threats, our governments are pretty much working for the terrorists on many many levels.
Our foreign policies pretty much guarantee that a new generation of terrorists will follow on the footsteps of the present one, and our domestic policies pretty much guarantee that there will be no one to be a first alerter when someone decides to leave a bomb hidden somewhere that the pretend-security drones don't know where to look.

[baltochef920]

Lets be a little less centrist here. Britain has just enacted (or is close to enacting) an anti-photography law that is so heavy handed that even some members of the police are questioning it's wisdom.
It's reasonable to assume that interested people are also going to be knowledgeable and engaged onlookers.
The train enthusiast (I'll use this example for convenience) who hangs around on station platforms taking pictures of the comings and goings probably also has a better working knowledge of what belongs there and what doesn't belong there than the average wage earning pseudo cop that just wants to go for a beer at the end of his shift.
That person arguably knows more about keeping trains safe than the Keystone Kops who get put in charge of moving the sheep from platform to door.

Harassing photographers, especially hobby photographers is actually making things more dangerous, not less. By putting a chill on their activities, the authorities are removing from the observation loop the very people who are best suited to see things that are outside the norm.
When it comes to terrorist threats, our governments are pretty much working for the terrorists on many many levels.
Our foreign policies pretty much guarantee that a new generation of terrorists will follow on the footsteps of the present one, and our domestic policies pretty much guarantee that there will be no one to be a first alerter when someone decides to leave a bomb hidden somewhere that the pretend-security drones don't know where to look.

Wheatfield

I agree 100% with this post..Harassing, and banning, enthusiast photographers from specific infrastructure locations (railways, subways, bridges, airports, etc.) only makes a society less safe..As you point out, the enthusiast often has a greater working knowledge of these areas than the municipal police officers specifically tasked with safe guarding those spaces..Same thing applies to the private security guards tasked with "guarding" these spaces..In my experience private security forces tend to be less vigilant than sworn police officers with real police powers..I know that this is a broad generalization, but of the approximately 15 private security guards that I have come into intimate contact with in my life, both male and female, I do not believe that I would truly trust a single one of them with a real security situation..Their level of training, alertness, and fitness is just not anywhere near the standards of a true police officer..The reality of their everyday jobs tends to make them less alert, as opposed to constantly alert, to threats..

Another thing worth mentioning; I don't think any security measure introduced in recent years as made life any easier or safer for any of us. This just serves to erode the goodwill of the public towards the police and other associated agencies. When all the goodwill is gone the powers that be will see no alternative other than becoming a Police State.

[stewart_photo]

(snip) the question is not whether terrorists can use photos for planning attacks, (snip)

You very specifically asked (which I quoted)...

"Is there actually any case in which it has been shown terrorists had taken pictures of their targets before an attack? I can't think of any, really. At least not any in which the pictures figured prominently in the planning/execution of the attack."

...which I clearly answered by providing links giving examples.

stewart