ALL photographers are potential terrorists !

it is and your simple paranoia seems to be the bigger problem. i spent one new years eve in scranton pa and was in a government building that as being used by a local brass band. i saw a neat shot of an trumpet in it's case. i go up really close to shoot the tarnished valves and was immediately approached by security. he was rude, i was polite, he didn't get what i was shooting and i kindly explained it to him. end of story. posture up all you want and you make it harder for the polite people like me who understand that some people have hard jobs and bad training. these issues would shrink to almost nothing if people could only use common courtesy. i equate this to road rage.

the question i have is how badly do you want the picture? then why not swallow some pride, be polite and get the shot? it is just that easy 98% of the time.

Not long after the terorist attack on new york 9/11

i was taking photographs of the US/UK Nato listening station at Menwith hill yorkshire UK when the police cars started watching me .. i gave them a wave to let them know i new they were watching me .. i photographed the station (it has twenty plus large geodesic domes situated in the yorkshire countryside)

after photographing from a distance i pulled up my camper van by the perimeter and started to photograh one of the Domes .. at this point armed police officers arived .. one of them got out and politly asked me who i was and what i was doing.. i told him with a smille ."you know who i am youve just spent the last thirty minutes watching me and have obviously looked up my ID from my registration pates on the VAN "

he was very polite and laughted " fair enough but could you please confirm your ID for me" i did so and had a chat with him he was never threatening and we chated about photography for a while and then he wished me a good day and went off

NOW some people on here might think the photos i took (all on film so i havent put any up here ) could be of assistance to a Terrorist ???? well as i write on my PC i am looking at a verry detailed image of the listening station ( RAF menwith Hill Harrogate HG3 uk) on google earth.. ON My lap top .....possibly the first step for any terrorist doing a recce before planning an act of terrorism..and a bit less conspicus than carting a big DSLR around taking photos in public

come on dave, you can't make that statement as if it's fact. i expect more from you :-0

i'm a jerk for saying one should be polite? wow, great logic.

brent collins said:

come on dave, you can't make that statement as if it's fact. i expect more from you :-0

Click to expand...

Can you give us an example of a photograph of a public place open to the public that would be "useful" to a terrorist?

For example, I was told on another thread that pictures of Security cameras are very useful to terrorists. I do believe I've shown how silly that proposition is.

Mind you, if someone could take a picture of the control panel of a nuclear power plant, that would be useful - But if they could take such a photo, we're in bad shape anyway.

Dave

the trade centers have been photographed. they were destroyed by terrorists. how else would they have know what to crash into? did they use "the force"?

this will turn into a "prove that you exist" type of debate so I'm going out into the sun and do my PT.

I don't often reply to you because you have a tendency to fire back with personal attacks and then I just get pi$$ed and it gets my blood pressure up and and it just isn't worth it.

So, you took the pictures, the manager asked you questions, you answered them and you both went on about your business. Great. Works for me. You didn't call him Hitler, he presumably didn't call you Bin Laden. Life goes on. I think you're making our point here.

--
Fiat Lux

I grew up in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s with terrorists. I was going to university when my friends were going to prison. These police clowns are a complete waste of space and wouldn't know a terrorist if they had a sign round their neck.

When Danny Morrison was asked why the IRA gave up the armed struggle he stated, 'We lost the intelligence war.' 30 years of the British Army ducking bullets and bombs in NI taught the Met police nothing.

Randomly harrassing people achieves nothing and is a complete waste of resourses that could be channeled to winning the intelligence war.

To Dave Clarke29, as the saying goes, it is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You have just removed all doubt, you have zero understanding of what you are talking about. Why don't you join the Met Police and terrorise innocent photographers.

Dave get this To win this war the police need to win the intelligence war, anything else is a waste of time and resourses and is playing into the hands of terrorists!

Supporting this police behaviour is supporting terrorism. The police need to keep their eye on the ball not on the spectators.

DickyUK said:

i imagine its being dragged up again cos they are still doing it ...harassing inocent photographers.....if the police are so stupid as to believe a terrorist would be stood in a public place with a big DLR camera taking photos in broard daylight and then arguing that the police are harassing them then we really will be in big trouble if terrorists do try to blow us up again...... cos those idiots stoping photographers from photograping public places wouldnt be able to spot a real terrorist doing a reccce

David Clarke29 said:

what on earth is this being dragged up again for? It's already been stated ad nausium that the original legislation that got people hot and bothered is being re-written to address peoples concerns. We live in a society where terrorist threats are very very real and if a polite enquiry by a police/PCS officer keeps people on their toes , so be it.

I'm afraid that we expect to live in a society that gives our 'human rights' prority but expects the State to protect us at the same time. The sooner that people start realising that the two things are not always compatible the better. Having travelled worldwide for most of my life I know,by far, which country I prefer to live in.

Dave. (UK)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

brent collins said:

the trade centers have been photographed. they were destroyed by terrorists. how else would they have know what to crash into? did they use "the force"?

this will turn into a "prove that you exist" type of debate so I'm going out into the sun and do my PT.

Click to expand...

Photographs can be useful when you are photographing "secrets." Photographing places like public buildings, malls, where your object is simply to kill as many people as possible are not. If you can ride a subway anytime you want, what is the point of a photograph?

What is the point of photographing a "security camera?" When in fact, you're planning to either blow yourself up or leave a bomb. The Times Square bomber was photographed by tens of security cameras - But he was stopped by some little Muslim street peddler who called the cops because he saw smoke coming from a van. He was caught, not because of the cameras but because of the license plate on the van.

The whole question is just a red herring. And I was offering a serious question. Can you name a place, open to the public, where a photograph would help a terrorist?

Dave

arizonadesertrat said:

I don't often reply to you because you have a tendency to fire back with personal attacks and then I just get pi$$ed and it gets my blood pressure up and and it just isn't worth it.

So, you took the pictures, the manager asked you questions, you answered them and you both went on about your business. Great. Works for me. You didn't call him Hitler, he presumably didn't call you Bin Laden. Life goes on. I think you're making our point here.

--
Fiat Lux

Click to expand...

My point is a rebutal to your claim that the act of photographing security cameras is inherently suspicious. While the above are just "snapshots," I often take snapshots of any "object" that I want people to see.

Vent alarms, door knobs, old fences, old locks on old fences, and yes security cameras.

But an image of a security camera has no "context." In fact I took a lot more of these images than I posted, and sorting through them, even I, who took the images on the same day, had a hard time remembering their location.

And I got annoyed at you because of your "pulling rank" and claiming more expertise in this field than I have. No argument can be made against someone who states, (pardon the quotes, it's a paraphrase) "I worked in security and photographs are very useful in military matters, you don't know what you're talking about."

Of course these aren't "military matter," they are terrorists whose only goal is kill a maximum number of people.

I will (and have) happily admitted that taking pictures of secrets can be useful to terrorists. But if a photographer is in a position to take such a picture, it has nothing to do with the issue of Police stopping you or I from shooting public places.

Dave

Chato said:

arizonadesertrat said:

I don't often reply to you because you have a tendency to fire back with personal attacks and then I just get pi$$ed and it gets my blood pressure up and and it just isn't worth it.

So, you took the pictures, the manager asked you questions, you answered them and you both went on about your business. Great. Works for me. You didn't call him Hitler, he presumably didn't call you Bin Laden. Life goes on. I think you're making our point here.

--
Fiat Lux

Click to expand...

My point is a rebutal to your claim that the act of photographing security cameras is inherently suspicious. While the above are just "snapshots," I often take snapshots of any "object" that I want people to see.
Dave,

Click to expand...

Ok, I get that you don't think that taking pictures of security cameras is suspicious. That's all fine and good. But security professionals are trained to think differently. It's their job. Why not allow them the opportunity to ascertain that your interest in their security is simply platonic and take their job as seriously as you take your hobby? No harm done, right?

Chato said:

Vent alarms, door knobs, old fences, old locks on old fences, and yes security cameras.

But an image of a security camera has no "context." In fact I took a lot more of these images than I posted, and sorting through them, even I, who took the images on the same day, had a hard time remembering their location.

And I got annoyed at you because of your "pulling rank" and claiming more expertise in this field than I have. No argument can be made against someone who states, (pardon the quotes, it's a paraphrase) "I worked in security and photographs are very useful in military matters, you don't know what you're talking about."

Click to expand...

I can't do anything about your annoyance. I do in fact have expertise in this field. I was highly trained and very well compensated for my expertise. It was part of my job to think like a terrorist in order to advise certain entities of the weak points in their physical security plans. It's a job I thoroughly enjoyed and was very good at.

Chato said:

Of course these aren't "military matter," they are terrorists whose only goal is kill a maximum number of people.

I will (and have) happily admitted that taking pictures of secrets can be useful to terrorists. But if a photographer is in a position to take such a picture, it has nothing to do with the issue of Police stopping you or I from shooting public places.

Click to expand...

My only point in this and other discussion on this subject is simply this: If you're out pursuing your hobby/job and you're approached by a security professional because you've entered his envelope, why not show him/her the same courtesy you would expect from them? Be polite with them and I'll bet you they'll be just as polite back and you'll both be on your way in a matter of minutes. If you approach the situation with a chip on your shoulder then yes, you may get hassled, especially if you run into a guy who thinks he now has to prove that his is bigger than yours and the whole thing just turns ugly.

So I ask you, why make life harder for the security guy and for yourself? Why not do exactly what you did when you took the pictures you showed to us here? Isn't life short enough already without getting into urinating contests just for the heck of it or because you want to make a point?

Chato said:

Dave

Click to expand...

--
Fiat Lux

For Fish 323.

I'm afraid I find your appraisal of me insulting, and as you know nothing about me, ignorant. I fully appreciate the conditions in N. Ireland when you were in your teens - I have direct knowledge of it!!

Intelligence is prerequisite for LARGE SCALE counter terrorism, however the eventual interface are the uniformed members of the Police Service who act on advice from the intelligence agencies, whether civilian or military.

When replying to people that I do not agree with I normally try to do so in a non patronising and polite manner - seems this doesn't apply in your case.

Dave. (UK)

arizonadesertrat said:

So I ask you, why make life harder for the security guy and for yourself? Why not do exactly what you did when you took the pictures you showed to us here? Isn't life short enough already without getting into urinating contests just for the heck of it or because you want to make a point?

Click to expand...

because they/you do not have the right do to so and I will let you or any security and police officers know about it every time I am confronted with it. Freedom is not free and I will fight for my freedom whenever some one is trying to chip away at my liberties. And that is MY POINT.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
--
Menace about taking pictures of anything and anybody

Erwin

There are instances in which you are right in refusing to cooperate and there are instances in which you would be very wrong. Your blanket statement is incorrect.

Having served in uniform for 25 years I tend to choose my battles.

Menacer said:

Menacer said:

So I ask you, why make life harder for the security guy and for yourself? Why not do exactly what you did when you took the pictures you showed to us here? Isn't life short enough already without getting into urinating contests just for the heck of it or because you want to make a point?

Click to expand...

because they/you do not have the right do to so and I will let you or any security and police officers know about it every time I am confronted with it. Freedom is not free and I will fight for my freedom whenever some one is trying to chip away at my liberties. And that is MY POINT.

Click to expand...

Of course, as you quote here " Freedom isn't free". So what price are you willing to pay for your freedom and who is asking you to pay that price? I'm not getting the connection to the discussion at hand.

Menacer said:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Click to expand...

I too am a fan of old Ben Franklin. But in this case I must ask what essential liberty you are being asked to give up?

--
Fiat Lux

Brian D. Schneider said:

Laurentiu Todie said:

If I weren't an artist, I'd probably contemplate becoming a cop.

(those who use threads like this to push their political agenda should know that they look like jerks to me and hopefully to many other people)

Click to expand...

Defending our rights is a "political agenda?"
You are the jerk around here along with your buddy Brent.
--
Brian Schneider

Click to expand...

Is that debatable?

(I know that you are a jerk; the proof is in your post above. Did you read it? Can you? : )

My apologies for being rude it was not acceptable.

I might know nothing about you, but you obviously no know nothing about terrorism.
Perhaps you should stick to subjects you have some understanding of.

RobertSigmund said:

I find this utterly shocking.
These forums are full of atrocious examples.

It is bewildering that even in these forums, photographers' forums, one might assume, there are enough defenders of this behaviour of public authorities.

Yet it is explainable: right wingers, gearheads who do not really go out to take photos or (the next higher level) those who content themselves with taking photos of Diners' neon light signs, albeit in vivid colours, might not feel concerned - that is, until it happens to them as well, may be simply for the fact that they carry a camera.

Click to expand...

It's rather bigoted of you to paint with such a broad brush. You seem to pretend to know what conservative minded folks think but you don't or else you wouldn't have posted what you did.

RobertSigmund said:

In one of these threads I told the story that I was banned from taking pictures of a Boston tramway, and, seriously, I was asked in a following post why I wanted to take pictures of tramways.

Congrats, Bin Laden, you have had an enormous success so far. Our freedom is in danger.

Click to expand...

--
My humble photo gallery: http://www.pete-the-greek.com

arizonadesertrat said:

I don't often reply to you because you have a tendency to fire back with personal attacks and then I just get pi$$ed and it gets my blood pressure up and and it just isn't worth it.

So, you took the pictures, the manager asked you questions, you answered them and you both went on about your business. Great. Works for me. You didn't call him Hitler, he presumably didn't call you Bin Laden. Life goes on. I think you're making our point here.

Click to expand...

Sometimes, despite a photographer's best effort to remain polite, it is not reciprocated. Security guards who sometimes don't have a clue as to what is legal and what isn't in regards to photography from a public place are the worst offenders. I've seen it quite a few times.
--
My humble photo gallery: http://www.pete-the-greek.com

Some things I know about terrorists don't paint them as Einsteins.

Mohammad Salameh, the 1993 WTC bomber who rented the van, went back to claim the rental deposit and got arrested.

Why does anyone think that the terrorists are smart?

Photographs were used by wannabe terrorist surveyors in 2003 and if you go now on the Brooklyn Bridge photographing certain cables you won't be politely asked what you are taking pictures of from public places, you'd most likely end up in Guantanamo for thorough questioning about every second of your life.

You can't photograph the correct succession of cables by mistake, and this obscure info is in the public domain because security measures were taken.

However, topics like this should be banned for obvious reasons which escape to too many pompous "experts" on this and other forums.

(hint: a thousand monkeys can find a sensible spot; don't be a monkey!)

Do you know what country you really want to live in?

David Clarke29 said:

Having travelled worldwide for most of my life I know,by far, which country I prefer to live in.

Click to expand...

Having traveled world wide it's not England, not by a wide shot. Give me someplace where you are free.

But keep someone caged for long enough, and they no longer know what freedom is.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Police_ban_photographers_London_Eye_pics_news_305673.html