[Leica] Photo student harassed in Seattle by Homeland Security

[pklein at 2alpha.net (Peter Klein)]

All this reminds me of the joke about the drunk who lost his car keys.
He looks for them under a street light.  He didn't lose them there, but he
looks there because under the street light, he can see.

We know exactly who is more likely to be a terrorist.  But because we
don't "discriminate," those security people can't publicly single out
anyone of particular origin or religion (even though, of course, they
do--unofficially).  Since there are things that they can't do, they make a
show of doing things they can. Whether it's effective or legal is left as
an exercise for the reader.

There may be another factor involved, a slightly more enlightened version
of "because we can."  As someone who was a teenager in "The Sixties," I
remember well that police and authority figures could easily do things
that they weren't supposed to do, and get away with it.  The Homeland
Security agent who told the Seattle student he had broken the law by
photographing the Ballard locks is just a spiritual descendant of the cop
who hauled a 1960s kid in for "disorderly conduct," when the real crime
was having long hair or wearing an anti-war button.

I believe that cops were happy when such excesses were publicized, because
it made examples that kept others in line.  It made it easier to spot
those who were really going to make trouble. I don't think that Agent
Whatsis really cares much about photography.  He just wants as few people
as possible doing anything that *might* be suspicious, so it's easier to
spot something that is truly dangerous.

Remember that tough cop in your town who made even "good"  kids fear that
they might be sent to the slammer if they so much as looked at him
sideways?  He probably thought that he was doing public good by creating
fear that helped keep public order.  Ditto Agent Whatsis.  If a large
segment of the public is fooled into believing that photographing a
vulnerable waterway is illegal, it makes his job easier.

I don't say that any of this is right.  I also don't say that it is a
vast, monolithic right-wing conspiracy to suspend the constitution and
impose an Orwellian regime on us--though it does nudge things in that
direction.  Much of it strikes me as ordinary people bumbling along doing
the best they can in complex and contradictory circumstances.  And a few
power trippers taking advantage of the situation.  Regarding the latter,
thank God for the ACLU and a (sometimes) free press.

--Peter

-------
George wrote:
> Good points. However the times places and reasons, in my experience,
> have become ridiculous. In the past, pre-9/11, I pretty much knew when
> and where I might expect a discussion with authority, or actual
> confrontation, or possible arrest. My most recent experiences,
> since-9/11, have felt strangely silly.  I'm adapting and my sensibility
> is shifting to expect being approached by authority any place and any
> time for any reason.  This doesn't feel good. The next step is to be
> stopped and talked to even without a camera - just because they can.