I've always said, If I was standing, taking my normal PHL photos and someone several yards away had a semi-automatic. People driving by would say, "Oh My God, he's gotta camera !" Even my co-workers who are not into aviation say half-jokingly, "What Are you, a terrorist" I'm happy to read someone in the journalistic world makes sense. Thanks Bill for posting! Paul Bill Hough wrote: > --- In ObservationCar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Michael Ross Valentine > <michael@...> wrote: > > This was in today's Guardian- and is a good read, interesting > analogy- enjoy > -MRV > > Are photographers really a threat? > Bruce Schneier > The Guardian, Thursday June 5 2008 > > What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all > terrorists, or does everyone just think they are? > Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. > Photographers have been harrassed, questioned, detained, arrested > or > worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to > watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly > any > terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is > required. > > Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph > anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway > bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh > didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber > didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. > Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian > suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even > those > manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk > about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami > 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography. > > Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem > to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional > wisdom > that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so > great > that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer? > > Because it's a movie-plot threat. > > A movie-plot threat is a specific threat, vivid in our minds like > the > plot of a movie. You remember them from the months after the 9/11 > attacks: anthrax spread from crop dusters, a contaminated milk > supply, terrorist scuba divers armed with almanacs. Our > imaginations > run wild with detailed and specific threats, from the news, and > from > actual movies and television shows. These movie plots resonate in > our > minds and in the minds of others we talk to. And many of us get > scared. > > Terrorists taking pictures is a quintessential detail in any good > movie. Of course it makes sense that terrorists will take pictures > of > their targets. They have to do reconnaissance, don't they? We need > 45 > minutes of television action before the actual terrorist attack -- > 90 > minutes if it's a movie -- and a photography scene is just perfect. > It's our movie-plot terrorists that are photographers, even if the > real-world ones are not. > > The problem with movie-plot security is it only works if we guess > the > plot correctly. If we spend a zillion dollars defending Wimbledon > and > terrorists blow up a different sporting event, that's money wasted. > If we post guards all over the Underground and terrorists bomb a > crowded shopping area, that's also a waste. If we teach everyone to > be alert for photographers, and terrorists don't take photographs, > we've wasted money and effort, and taught people to fear something > they shouldn't. > > And even if terrorists did photograph their targets, the math > doesn't > make sense. Billions of photographs are taken by honest people > every > year, 50 billion by amateurs alone in the US And the national > monuments you imagine terrorists taking photographs of are the same > ones tourists like to take pictures of. If you see someone taking > one > of those photographs, the odds are infinitesimal that he's a > terrorist. > > Of course, it's far easier to explain the problem than it is to fix > it. Because we're a species of storytellers, we find movie-plot > threats uniquely compelling. A single vivid scenario will do more > to > convince people that photographers might be terrorists than all the > data I can muster to demonstrate that they're not. > > Fear aside, there aren't many legal restrictions on what you can > photograph from a public place that's already in public view. If > you're harassed, it's almost certainly a law enforcement official, > public or private, acting way beyond his authority. There's nothing > in any post-9/11 law that restricts your right to photograph. > > This is worth fighting. Search "photographer rights" on Google and > download one of the several wallet documents that can help you if > you > get harassed; I found one for the UK, US, and Australia. Don't cede > your right to photograph in public. Don't propagate the terrorist > photographer story. Remind them that prohibiting photography was > something we used to ridicule about the USSR. Eventually sanity > will > be restored, but it may take a while. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > --- End forwarded message --- > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > If you wish to unsubscribe from the AIRLINE List, please send an E-mail to: > "listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx". Within the body of the text, only write the following:"SIGNOFF AIRLINE". > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you wish to unsubscribe from the AIRLINE List, please send an E-mail to: "listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx". Within the body of the text, only write the following:"SIGNOFF AIRLINE".