[jsherman999]

....

Therefore, don't ignore the early signs. Please, don't be with levity. Especially, as this concerns photographs and photo journalists.
....

100% correct. I've been 'stopped' twice now for taking photographs in a public place in broad daylight by overreaching security-guard type people who were trying to interpret rules like this.

Speaking as a US citizen, it's a very strange feeling to be told I can't take a photograph of something - all of a sudden, a right I took for granted was removed, and as usual, I didn't appreciate it until it was gone. And it makes me a little bit angry.


.

[Okami]

Just wondering,

Was this security guard one guarding a government type place or are you talking about something like an outdoor shopping center where the owners own the property and parking lot area.

[Gooshin]

on the other hand,

it is money that is

a) going into the hands of employees who then go out and spend it on living supplies and what not

b) money that goes into research and development of this "spy infrastructure", i doubt the DHS is just sitting there with its thumb up its ass watching porn all day long. People of high specialization in networking, programming, analysis and so forth are hired and put to use.

c) while its a very unethical and redundant system, statistically speaking it will catch a crook or two once in awhile....

[Okami]

as to it's effectiveness, c'mon. this is the US government. if they did successfully do something, they'd leak it to their press, who would plaster it all over the news. we still live in an era of propaganda, especially effected through the news

This i agree with you 100% so my point in this whole argument is yes. DHS is not really great or maybe not even good. But at 59 bill I can stomach it even if they stopped 1 or 2 attacks in it's whole existence. If they have to stop a few photographers that they feel really are putting us in danger then go ahead. The problem lies within the full definition and the training of the cops / agents that are on the lookout for this. And there is no right answer for the training. Because it really is a subjective thing.

A question.. If you saw a guy taking random pictures of your house... Front door, back yard, windows with a huge zoom lens (all this from public property). Would you want to be able to put in a report about him without the fear of you being sued? That's the topic that is being covered by this law.

If I was stopped from taking pictures of the statue of liberty would I be pissed? Yeah I would and would probably raise hell at first... but in the end I would understand why they are doing it.

We have a lottttt more problems that are really hurting our bottom line that I feel are much more important issues than the DHS. Issues that we should go after first.

[dws1117]

Wow, another southern, anti-shrub, fervent gun owner who shoots k-mount. I'm guessing we've just about exhausted that particular sub-genre.

Besides the DA*'s, I also like my Stoeger over/under 12 gauge.

I'm a 1911 and revolver man.

[dws1117]

Originally Posted by Gooshin View Post
ever consider not shooting things other than your cameras? do we really need guns?

I'm going to steer clear of this one...

Same here. Steer clear and respectfully disagree.

[séamuis]

This i agree with you 100% so my point in this whole argument is yes. DHS is not really great or maybe not even good. But at 59 bill I can stomach it even if they stopped 1 or 2 attacks in it's whole existence.

but what you still seem to be missing is that there is no proof that they have stopped anything, and as has been said before we already have numerous agencies that are supposed to be protecting our country: FBI, CIA, NSA, Military. so why do we need to devote another half a trillion dollars to what is essentially a redundancy which has done nothing that any one of the other agencies couldnt do? show me proof that the DHS is truly needed, and dont go on about it being post 9/11 this wasnt even the first terrorist attack on those buildings.

I think the american people need to start taking more of a stand and evaluate whether something is really needed or not and if not how to better spend the money, instead of just sitting back and saying 'hey the government thinks we need it so I guess we do.'

[Gooshin]

Same here. Steer clear and respectfully disagree.

funny how its the people from texas and florida that posted such two comments.

just an observation.

[jsherman999]

on the other hand,

...

b) money that goes into research and development of this "spy infrastructure", i doubt the DHS is just sitting there with its thumb up its ass watching porn all day long. People of high specialization in networking, programming, analysis and so forth are hired and put to use.

c) while its a very unethical and redundant system, statistically speaking it will catch a crook or two once in awhile....

The main thing, I think, to remember is that its a trade-off - sure, every once in a while, every great once in a while, you may be able to catch and question someone who may have ties to, say, a terrorist cell - but the trade-off is that everyone's rights across the country have been restricted just a bit more to do this.

The best thing about this country is not our standard of living, not our form or effectiveness of government - the best thing is our freedom and civil liberties. If we start restricting those, we'd be better be damn sure that its worth it to restrict them - and in the case of public photography restrictions, it's just not.

Think about it. If a terrorist cell really needs photographs of some publicly visible structure in order to carry out some dastardly plan, its very, very, very easy to take surreptitious photos of it using a simple hidden camera. Someone setting up a tripod in a public square to take architecture photos is not gonna be a terrorist.

This i agree with you 100% so my point in this whole argument is yes. DHS is not really great or maybe not even good. But at 59 billI can stomach it even if they stopped 1 or 2 attacks in it's whole existence. If they have to stop a few photographers that they feel really are putting us in danger then go ahead. The problem lies within the full definition and the training of the cops / agents that are on the lookout for this. And there is no right answer for the training. Because it really is a subjective thing.

But at what price? If they clamped down on freedom even more, they'd be able to catch even more potential criminals. How about setting up ID toll booths on every interstate where your driver's license is checked before you can get on the freeway? (this was proposed in 2002, I believe, by the proto-DHS at the time.)

If I was stopped from taking pictures of the statue of liberty would I be pissed? Yeah I would and would probably raise hell at first... but in the end I would understand why they are doing it.

I would understand why they were doing it, all right - because someone in the DHS basically made a lazy law - a catch-all that sounds good on paper, and can be spun if it's sent out with a 'patriotic' twist, but really has no effect on our security, and in fact has only a detrimental effect on our freedoms.

I see it all the time in the corporate world - a sort-term 'bottom line' decision that can supposedly save/gain X amount of $$, but undercuts everything else but the short-term bottom line - because the decision sounds good on paper and is an easy sell to management, who also happen to be desperate to pad their "accomplishments" just before bonus time

We have a lottttt more problems that are really hurting our bottom line that I feel are much more important issues than the DHS. Issues that we should go after first.

Nothing, nothing, IMO, is worth more than our personal freedoms. If our safety was really affected by in-public photography that would be another issue, but it's really not, and making a catch-all law with no regard to how it chips away at what makes our country great (freedom) is thinking that comes from fear and laziness. In my (and many other's) opinion.

We can fight the terrorists smartly and effectively using our brains, our ingenuity, and occasionally, our armed forces. They never will win, because we have those things in abundance, and just like they say they will never give up - well, we know we won't either.

But - If they make us hurt ourselves by self-restricting our freedoms without real gain, that's the only way they can come close to winning in the end. Lets not help them with that.

Happy 4th of July, BTW.


.

[séamuis]

funny how its the people from texas and florida that posted such two comments.

I'm from Texas :ugh:

[dws1117]

jsherman999 - That was a very, very good post. Well stated sir.

gooshin - Yes the attitude that you've observed is more common in the southern part of our country, but it is not exclusive to the south. I respect your right to your opinion, I just disagree.

[ve2vfd]

How about setting up ID toll booths on every interstate where your driver's license is checked before you can get on the freeway? (this was proposed in 2002, I believe, by the proto-DHS at the time.)

I hate to tell you this, but it's already being done... in my travels to the US in the last few years, I've gone thru 3 "control points", where the DHS completely blocked a highway and checked peoples ID... one was a joint INS/DHS operation.

I had never seen or experienced that before, but a friend who was with me on one of my trips commented that "ID checks" were quite common when she used to live in Poland and the soviets ran things (her family defected back in the "not so good-old-days").

Pat

[falconeye]

@jsherman999

I think this was a very good post.

Let me add 2 cents from the perspective of a country which has already went through an entire war on terrorism.

You write:

We can fight the terrorists smartly and effectively using our brains, our ingenuity, and occasionally, our armed forces. They never will win, because we have those things in abundance, and just like they say they will never give up - well, we know we won't either.

But - If they make us hurt ourselves by self-restricting our freedoms without real gain, that's the only way they can come close to winning in the end. Lets not help them with that.

Well. They'll give up, eventually.

Germany's war on terrorism peaked around 1977. The main terror organisation was RAF (Red Army Faction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The organisation or any followers officially gave up in 1998.

It is important to observe their strategy in later stages (as later was revealed): They made the country unsafe for everybody in the attempt to provoque counter measures from the government with totalitarian elements. In essence, to make the political system less free and less worthwhile to be defended. Then, so their hope, a large enough fraction would turn against it and revolt.

[jdmccol]

The DHS is not a totally new organization created 100% from scratch. It does incorporate the old United States Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Coast Guard.