Freedom Lost or maybe not?
Thinking of our loss of photographic freedom in the wake of 911, was brought into very sharp focus this weekend when a “suspicious-looking” pair were reported making photographs of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (in my vision at this very moment). When authorities stopped them, they attempted to hide the camera stating they were returning from the beach where they were making pictures. It has turned out that one of the pair was on FBI’s terrorist list and the confiscated camera (film?) showed details of bridge construction but no beach images. Hummm. Why didn’t they just ask me? I have several images of the bridge but no close-ups of toggles or gussets. Never in the right place et c.
I love the smell of fixer in the morning. It smells like...creativity!
Truly, dr bob.
Glad to hear this Dr. Bob. Despite the rants to the contrary, this extra amount of diligence does pay off. I have yet to anything but friendly encounters with anyone asking about what I am up to. Maybe it helps being fiftyish, having an unusually large camera, a US Veteran tag on the truck, and above all, thanking the officers for doing their job.
Dr. Bob I 'm glad you brought this up, I meant to and forgot . I know the few times I've been harrassed they've been well intentioned and have had only one incident where a little brain had to much power. The truth is the extra dilligence is comforting I have no problem moving on. Aggies experience was an anomally which should not have happened but there are those who are plotting indiscriminate distruction and the extra effort and awareness of these people on patrol as is evidenced by the capture of this terrorist on reconnaisance proves their necessity. And our need to be accomidating.
Yes it is freedom lost.
By your own account the images exist and by the accounts of many others the enforcement is uneven.
Making the law superfluous and at best haphazard.
When, in the next few weeks, months or years we are attacked again what will we do?
I suspect we will broaden and add more restrictive laws.
This is a tired debate.
Freedom comes with risks. You may be happy to allow your freedoms to be traded for security, I am not.
Hopefully in the next few election cycles those who feel that security trumps freedom will win some decisive victories. Then the rest us can move on.
I haven't seen this detail mentioned in reports of the story, but I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that they weren't using a large format camera mounted on a heavy tripod.
That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I agree with Mr. Callow.
"Liberty is a boisterous sea. Timid men prefer the calm of despotism."
- Thomas Jefferson
Ed Sukach, FFP.
1) That point is moot, since we're not achieving any greater security. The greatest security lies with the greatest freedom. We're just losing our freedoms and gaining in return....nothing.
Originally Posted by mrcallow
2) Since I believe that things economic and social are about to get much, much worse, I have to hope as you seem to that GeeDubya wins this time so that he and the neocons can be left holding the political bag in four years after the bear really has his way with the economy. My fear about that, however, is that four more years will allow them to consolidate power to the point that fair elections will be a thing of the past. Here comes the United Banana Republic of America.
This coming week in NYC may be a bizarre one. The security for the RNC convention will be...well....awesome - well beyond what anyone will be able to openly observe in its' depth and breadth. I suspect, as well, that those who plan to be disruptive will not ask for a permit to hold a demonstration, but will do as they will and invite confrontation which will lead to press coverage and so on. Enter the hapless tourist (or convention goer) who does what most tourists like to do....take 'snaps' of the city's landmarks and attractions. NOT the best idea this coming week perhaps, but inevitable. Those who make photographs for the purpose of surveilling for 'terrorist' outcomes have cameraphones and utterly unobtrusive devises available. Will those charged with securing the safety of the city be able to discriminate one from the other? Will the 'right' (at least I thought it was) to photograph freely be yet further curtailed than it's already been? Will police be well trained enough to not be drawn into deliberate confrontations carelessly, but know when to react with force that's appropriate and only when absolutely necessary? Stay tuned, folks. Next week may be a very bumpy ride.
(Having experienced the late 60's and early 70's political demonstrations in NYC, there is plenty of precedent for things getting totaly out of hand on all sides. Then, there were the TPF-tactical patrol force-who wielded clubs with great enthusiasm...I think things have advanced considerably since then..I sure hope so.)
:rolleyes: Can you say "paranoid"?
Originally Posted by c6h6o3
I, for one, embrace the increase in security. This is a time of war. I believe that we will be attacked again, within the US borders. dr bob's story shows that it works. Sure, there's no way they're going to stop everyone; but if just one life is saved, is it not worth it?
Originally Posted by c6h6o3
The RNC being just about a block from B&H, I'm sure there will be lots of folks with cameras walking around (he wrote as an army helicopter flew slowly past his window...).