Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I won't disagree. I think it's a combo of policy, incompetence, and individual thuggery. Hmmmm... Some analogue to Chomsky's analysis of the delicate dynamics of press self-censorship comes to mind for some reason. I read Chomsky back in school, so I'm still not to be counted as a crank ;-) What I find odd, especially living in a tourist town like Wash, DC, is that I would think by now (this has been a LUG topic for the 2 or so years I've been on the list) that the police force would have been briefed on this issue of harassing folks taking pictures. It's happened plenty of times; I don't think they've nabbed any "bad guys;" it's made the papers a few times IIRC; it's a waste of precious force resources; and it's "bad for business" in a tourist town. And, btw, living in Wash, DC, I do *not* mean stuff like taking pics of the security forces outside the White House or anything. Actually, I made that mistake once, and the Secret Service guys were pretty nice about it. Just some hand waving and shouts of "No pictures" from across the street. Probably happens all the time with the tourists. So why does it continue? Scott B. D. Colen wrote: >Well, Scott - I'm getting to be as paranoid as the next guy, but I think >you're giving them far, far too much credit. This isn't planned out >intimidation of the general populace, it's "security" provided by idiots >whose idea of a law enforcement agent is Melvin Purvis. > > >On 3/31/06 2:24 PM, "Scott McLoughlin" <scott@adrenaline.com> wrote: > > > >>Paul, >> >>Your logic is flawless, except they are NOT afraid of photography. I >>wince every time someone says that the authorities are "paranoid." >>No, they know exactly what they are doing. The point is to intimidate >>the general populace, plain and simple. >> >>Remember Sherlock Holmes - "when all the other possibilities have >>been removed, the remaining possibility, no matter how unlikely, must >>be the truth." :-) or I guess that should be :-( in this case. >> >>Scott >> >>PHC wrote: >> >> >> >>>My point is, why should someone need pictures of a station or a train >>>or whatever in order to walk onto it with a backpack full of >>>explosives? And if they do, why not use a phone camera? >>> >>>If someone really wants reconnaissance pictures of a public place they >>>will get them, and I hardly think a chap with a (comparatively) large >>>camera, standing still in one place for minutes at a time, obviously >>>taking pictures, is going to be on terrorist recce duty. Still, I >>>guess the security staff have got to have something to do. >>> >>>It seems that all over the world authorities are scared of photography >>>and, sensitive areas aside, assuming they've done nothing to be >>>ashamed of I don't understand why they should be. >>> >>>P. >>> >>>******* >>>Paul Hardy Carter >>>www.paulhardycarter.com >>>+44 (0)20 7871 7553 >>>******* >>> >>>On 31 Mar 2006, at 14:00, Don Dory wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I think that it would be a strong possibility that there were pictures >>>>found. The security forces around the world have all had the same >>>>reaction >>>>to eliminate picture taking around high value sites. In the U.S through >>>>some strong protest most public spaces can be photographed now but >>>>that was >>>>probably realization that a small digital could take pictures that the >>>>security would never see. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Leica Users Group. >>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > -- Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35 (Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act)