The toadies who suggest kissing security's a--

--People suggesting "writing a letter" rather than confronting
security staff in public areas (because it's the right thing to do)
are missing the point. There is a REASON the instinctive reaction
of telling security to go f---- themselves cuts in. Because in free society,
they wouldn't be DOING what they are doing and as free people,
we react strongly to it. It may be somewhat irrational, but it's borne
of being free all our lives. "Just doing his/her job" is another non-issue.
Why should some blockhead get away with pushing people around
just because it's their "job?" It's like saying just because you aren't
in the army, you have no personal responsibility to maintain freedom
in a country that used to be more free.
Private property is another issue. But public property is the public's.
Lastly, the idea that a someone determined to get photos of
a landmark or building for nefarious purposes will be stopped by
a security hack is just silly. The only people they stop (much like gun
control nuts) are the ones who obey the law.
-Rich
E-1, 14-45mm, 40-150mm, OM 100-200mm, OM 50mm

I undertstand the frustration because I have also been told to 'move along' by security guards for doing nothing more than carrying my camera in plain view. I wasn't even taking pictures.

However, I think your anger is misplaced. It is not the poor slob who has to hassel you who is the problem but there are real badguys who are up to no good and who have made it bad for the rest of us. (Personally, I don't think a terrorist would waste his time taking pictures of the Statue of Liberty or the Golden Gate bridge when you can buy a postcard in any corner shop.) But, the problem that security has is that they can't tell by looking at us, who is a harmless photo hobbyist and who is a criminal seeking to cause trouble.

The problem isn't at we don't have a free and open society but that the bad guys take advantage of our feedoms to do their dirty work.

Meryl Arbing said:

However, I think your anger is misplaced. It is not the poor slob
who has to hassel you who is the problem

Click to expand...

that's one way to look at it. you can't argue subtleties of law and nuance with a guy who carries a gun (or a stick). he's not really interested, and I hate to say this but more often than not, he's not going to UNDERSTAND you. he's just a drone. lowest guy on the pole. you'll get nowhere arguing with them. and I doubt any point will be made if you argue with them.

Meryl Arbing said:

but there are real badguys
who are up to no good and who have made it bad for the rest of us.

Click to expand...

since the dawn of time, man has hunted man. there's nothing new here, no matter what our fearless leaders tell us. a few bad guys slipped thru a (lossy) net. but that's no reason to change how the ordinary guy on the street lives. if we let a few 'bad guys' totally ruin our level of personal and societal freedom, then (to use a tired old expression) "they won".

Meryl Arbing said:

you can buy a postcard in any corner shop.) But, the problem that
security has is that they can't tell by looking at us, who is a
harmless photo hobbyist and who is a criminal seeking to cause
trouble.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'd want to have them make judgement calls like that. they're not qualified and unless an actual CRIME is ocurring, its not their job to second-guess every person simply by the prejudice of that person carrying a camera. there is no cause/effect relationship between camera-carrying people and terr-a-rists [sic]. therefore they have no legitimate right to suspect or question us simply because we carry cameras in publicly accessible places.

Meryl Arbing said:

The problem isn't at we don't have a free and open society but that
the bad guys take advantage of our feedoms to do their dirty work.

Click to expand...

no, its our OVER-REACTION to the 'bad guys'. they simply attacked us once and then stopped. WE decided to continue the attack - on our own rights and liberties - all on our own. our loss of freedom is maybe 2% 'them' and 98% us!

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~

Hardly, there were many direct attacks before 9/11. Remember the USS Cole? Following that attack, nothing was done. People bent over backwards to appease the militants and all that happened was 9/11.
It is hard to negotiate with someone who's first demand is that you die!

linuxworks said:

no, its our OVER-REACTION to the 'bad guys'. they simply attacked
us once and then stopped. WE decided to continue the attack - on
our own rights and liberties - all on our own. our loss of
freedom is maybe 2% 'them' and 98% us!

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~

Click to expand...

Meryl Arbing said:

Hardly, there were many direct attacks before 9/11. Remember the
USS Cole? Following that attack, nothing was done. People bent over
backwards to appease the militants and all that happened was 9/11.

Click to expand...

9/11 wasn't the first time anyone attacked US assets and it won't be the last. its NOT an excuse to curb our citizens' freedoms. that's a very lame excuse and at this point, most of the US can see thru this thin disguise for a power-grab.

Meryl Arbing said:

It is hard to negotiate with someone who's first demand is that you
die!

Click to expand...

what are you talking about? still 9/11?

its getting to be such a tired old (and overused) expression. its now even a cliche.

after all the orange and yellow alerts we had (and they suddently quieted down after the last election; curious, that, huh?) - the US has had enough of this wolf-crying.

and then gonzales has to MANUFACTURE some terr-a-rists for the news corp.

there's no 'war' - you can't wage war against an idea - only a country. and there isn't one single country that we've declared war against. there's just us killing and being killed for no good reason other than to support bush's personal vendetta against the 'man who wanted to kill mah daddy'.

Meryl Arbing said:

linuxworks said:

no, its our OVER-REACTION to the 'bad guys'. they simply attacked
us once and then stopped. WE decided to continue the attack - on
our own rights and liberties - all on our own. our loss of
freedom is maybe 2% 'them' and 98% us!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~

We expect the people wearing our nation's military uniforms to be brave when in combat; brave to the point willing to die for our nation. Do we, as civilians, have the courage to take certain risks in order to preserve our basic consititutional rights and freedoms? Or are we going to continue trading basic rights for mythical security? Willing to trade freedom for security is obviously dangerous to a democracy. Can we be as brave as those wearing our uniforms? Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said something about people preferring security over freedom deserved neither?
--
thezero

Duwane Huffaker said:

wearing our uniforms? Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said something
about people preferring security over freedom deserved neither?

Click to expand...

I would bet that franklin, taken today by today's US administration, would be labelled as 'a liberal' and quickly dismissed as unpatriotic.

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~

My daughter told me we were going to New York for New Year after she heard people were not going because of fear. She was 11 years old at the time!

We ended up right next to the main platform were Michael Bloomberg was sworn in as New York City mayor that night.

As we walked back to the hotel that night she said that Franklin D. Roosevelt was right when he said in his first Inaugural address, “The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”. I should note that we went to Warm Springs in Georgia the year before and she was quite impressed with him.

We needed a Rosevelt and got a fearful National Guard dropout!

Duwane Huffaker said:

We expect the people wearing our nation's military uniforms to be
brave when in combat; brave to the point willing to die for our
nation. Do we, as civilians, have the courage to take certain
risks in order to preserve our basic consititutional rights and
freedoms? Or are we going to continue trading basic rights for
mythical security? Willing to trade freedom for security is
obviously dangerous to a democracy. Can we be as brave as those
wearing our uniforms? Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said something
about people preferring security over freedom deserved neither?
--
thezero

Click to expand...

--
Rick

linuxworks said:

I would bet that franklin, taken today by today's US
administration, would be labelled as 'a liberal' and quickly
dismissed as unpatriotic.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, unfortunately. And I am proud to share his beliefs. George Washington once said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

But as far as photography, I tend to pick my battles. I agree there is way too much paranoia currently, but I do consider the circumstances. If there is sensitive material around, even if cameras are brought in for innocent reasons, I can see a rule not to allow them. But a photo of the outside of a landmark, give me a break. But I tend to write a letter to the editor and go to my elected officials and hassle them rather than the minor employee who is just doing his job. Unless he hassles me, of course.

--
Darlene
Dee Seventy, Dee Fifty, Eighty Eight Hundred
http://www.pbase.com/imacatmom

An audio file is clickable in this link of Roosevelt's first speech as President of the United States of America.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/

BTW, Roosevelt defeated the first 'Axis of Evil' in less days than this current guy. It's amazing that we defeated several 'Great Powers' in WWII faster than a small country of less than 25 million people (Iraq)

Mojo151 said:

We ended up right next to the main platform were Michael Bloomberg
was sworn in as New York City mayor that night.

As we walked back to the hotel that night she said that Franklin D.
Roosevelt was right when he said in his first Inaugural address,
“The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”. I should note that
we went to Warm Springs in Georgia the year before and she was
quite impressed with him.

We needed a Rosevelt and got a fearful National Guard dropout!

Duwane Huffaker said:

We expect the people wearing our nation's military uniforms to be
brave when in combat; brave to the point willing to die for our
nation. Do we, as civilians, have the courage to take certain
risks in order to preserve our basic consititutional rights and
freedoms? Or are we going to continue trading basic rights for
mythical security? Willing to trade freedom for security is
obviously dangerous to a democracy. Can we be as brave as those
wearing our uniforms? Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said something
about people preferring security over freedom deserved neither?
--
thezero

Click to expand...

--
Rick

Click to expand...

--
Rick

It's ignorant to think that security concerns are some simple current American domestic political farce. The parents in Beslan would have trouble blaming George Bush for the deaths of their children. Or that Bush was responsible for the gassing of the Tokyo subway, the bombing of Air India flight 182, and a host of other tragic but oh so real and not so American events. Perhaps some are too young to remember the Red Army Faction and the Red Brigades, or are clueless as to why the bombings n Spain were first laid at the feet of Basque separatists. Or the broader context of the death of Mountbatten, or the violence in France and Algeria.

And as to the concept that people working in security are somehow lesser people, it's an arrogance evinced by some photographers that is undeserved - and yet the casual dehumanizing so decried of others falls so easily to the effete as well.. One need only follow these forums and look also at the wide variety of "photographic" jobs and the people to see that the bell curve fits both fields equally well.

Cozied up to Stalin, was more than a little casual about maintaining or respecting neutrality, authorized the use of "strategic" bombardment, developed chemical and biological weapons and authorized the development and use of nuclear weapons. Interned citizens and aliens alike, utilized military tribunals to try and convict foreign saboteurs, executed them, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_River_Gorge_Bridge

You can google just about any public structure, etc., and get more information than you will get from one photograph. Homeland Security is becoming our KGB, but that is our fault. U.S. citizens elected the bozos who passed such a ridiculous law, creating another juggernaut bureaucracy that can't find it's way out of the building, as evidenced by Katrina. Funny thing is that 70 of the top officials of Homeland Security have left the organization for higher paying jobs in private industry, supposedly in the security field. What company in its right mind would hire people who were seemingly so inept coping with a disaster. gc

Craig,

He was advised several times that he had better hel* win the war, or else be hanged as a war criminal.

Yes, that was not at Warm Springs, I had to explain that to my daughter separately from the tour.

BTW, at the Saint Louis Arch I explained about the medallions given to Indian chiefs for each "Treaty" they signed. Each one signed over land to the government. Some treaty! One time, a father next to us got very excitedly told his daughter, "See, see! Grandfather was telling the truth. We signed these things staring down the barrel of a gun".

Iraq! Democracy! 130,000 troops! Barrel of the Gun!

Are you on dope!

Craig Gillette said:

Cozied up to Stalin, was more than a little casual about
maintaining or respecting neutrality, authorized the use of
"strategic" bombardment, developed chemical and biological weapons
and authorized the development and use of nuclear weapons.
Interned citizens and aliens alike, utilized military tribunals to
try and convict foreign saboteurs, executed them, etc.

Click to expand...

--
Rick

Mojo151 said:

BTW, Roosevelt defeated the first 'Axis of Evil' in less days than
this current guy. It's amazing that we defeated several 'Great
Powers' in WWII faster than a small country of less than 25 million
people (Iraq)

Click to expand...

Yes it is, but you have to remember that we gave no quarter in WWII. We bombed cities, firebombed Tokyo and other Japanese cities, firebombed Dresden Germany. But fighting a political war is not as easy as the all out war of WWII and WWI, not to mention our Civil War. What carnage we wreaked on each other.

Speaking of presidents who were tyrants, taking away everyday freedoms, take a look at Mr. Lincoln: suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned 13,000 dissidents and tried them before military tribunals(sound familiar), had a candidate for governor of Ohio arrested for saying in a campaign speech that the war was a mistake, and had him BANNED to the south, whereupon he fled to Canada(sound familiar) and became the inspiration for the story of The Man Without A Country. gc

Maybe that was why the war lasted so long. It is recognized by historians that those items were not a benefit to ending that war. The same was true in Japan and Europe.

BTW, one more story. In grade school we did a field trip to the Harry S Truman Library. Truman happened by and asked us if we had any questions. Well! I just knew something interesting was going to happen since he picked my older brother. Well! My brother asked him if he really had to drop the atomic bomb. Truman went ramrod straight and got beet red. He then shuddered and walked rapidly away. I have since learned that the decision was a very heated discussion at the time. He was told in no uncertain terms that it would be a criminal action. The decision haunted him forever!

GCam said:

GCam said:

BTW, Roosevelt defeated the first 'Axis of Evil' in less days than
this current guy. It's amazing that we defeated several 'Great
Powers' in WWII faster than a small country of less than 25 million
people (Iraq)

Click to expand...

Yes it is, but you have to remember that we gave no quarter in
WWII. We bombed cities, firebombed Tokyo and other Japanese
cities, firebombed Dresden Germany. But fighting a political war
is not as easy as the all out war of WWII and WWI, not to mention
our Civil War. What carnage we wreaked on each other.

Speaking of presidents who were tyrants, taking away everyday
freedoms, take a look at Mr. Lincoln: suspended habeas corpus,
imprisoned 13,000 dissidents and tried them before military
tribunals(sound familiar), had a candidate for governor of Ohio
arrested for saying in a campaign speech that the war was a
mistake, and had him BANNED to the south, whereupon he fled to
Canada(sound familiar) and became the inspiration for the story of
The Man Without A Country. gc

Click to expand...

--
Rick

linuxworks said:

I would bet that franklin, taken today by today's US
administration, would be labelled as 'a liberal' and quickly
dismissed as unpatriotic.

Click to expand...

I bet that Franklin would puke equally at the current Democratic and Republican parties. Both are controlled by special interests, and both attempt to cater to their 'base'.

linuxworks said:

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~

Click to expand...

--
http://kf3.net/pics/sig5by .jpg
Kristian Farren
http://kf3.net/gallery/

I would bet you are correct! It's a shame on both sides.

snow4ever said:

linuxworks said:

I would bet that franklin, taken today by today's US
administration, would be labelled as 'a liberal' and quickly
dismissed as unpatriotic.

Click to expand...

I bet that Franklin would puke equally at the current Democratic
and Republican parties. Both are controlled by special interests,
and both attempt to cater to their 'base'.

kristian2000 said:

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~

Click to expand...

--
http://kf3.net/pics/sig5by .jpg
Kristian Farren
http://kf3.net/gallery/

Click to expand...

--
Rick

linuxworks said:

Duwane Huffaker said:

wearing our uniforms? Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said something
about people preferring security over freedom deserved neither?

Click to expand...

I would bet that franklin, taken today by today's US
administration, would be labelled as 'a liberal' and quickly
dismissed as unpatriotic.

--

Click to expand...

Almost certainly. An astounding mind and an amazing man. If you want to get more read Morgan's "Benjamin Franklin." Superb biography, by an excellent writer.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

Craig Gillette said:

Cozied up to Stalin, was more than a little casual about
maintaining or respecting neutrality, authorized the use of
"strategic" bombardment, developed chemical and biological weapons
and authorized the development and use of nuclear weapons.
Interned citizens and aliens alike, utilized military tribunals to
try and convict foreign saboteurs, executed them, etc.

Click to expand...

Ah. He didn't live up to modern standards, eh? He cozied up to Stalin for a reason, no one in that era was able to maintain or respect neutraility, Dresden bombing was tragic, but may have been necessary, and so on. Certainly he made mistakes and took bad advice...but he was something stronger than this chickensh!t twerp we now have in office.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com