Harry Lime
Practitioner
Yeah, but once you are stopped your name is in a database that flags you as someone who was stopped, on suspicion of terrorist related activity, along with a DNA sample. That can't be good. It's not like they stop you, find nothing, release you and that's it. You are stuck with a record, even if you are innocent.
Last edited:
chambrenoire
Well-known
Ronald M
Mentor
The USA is trying to pas a new law for DNA samples for all arrested persons in addition to finger prints.
You all will probably laugh, but I have it on very good authority President Kennedy was shot and killed from a raised sewer grate with a bullet through the windshield. There are missing frames at the end of the commonly shown Abraham Zapruder film that clearly show it, but the end is chopped off to maintain the myth of him being shot from behind from the top floor of the Texas Book Depoittory.
There was a second gunman behind the stockade on the grassy knoll. Both missed.
Just think how the back of his skull was blown out. This is an exit wound, not an entrance wound. Remember how Jackie climbed over the trunk of the open car to retrieve the pieces? This is a grand cover up. That or one must conclude the Warren Commission ,which was comprised of some of the best lawyers and judges, were fools or the FBI did not present them with all the photo evidence from the Zapruder film. The FBI does in fact have the photos.
Now you know why sewers are now welded shut before a presidential parade as part of the prep. This still goes on to this day.
You may think sewers are art, but infact they have already been used for terrorism.
Unfortunately you have unknowing encroached in suspicious behavior realm.
You all will probably laugh, but I have it on very good authority President Kennedy was shot and killed from a raised sewer grate with a bullet through the windshield. There are missing frames at the end of the commonly shown Abraham Zapruder film that clearly show it, but the end is chopped off to maintain the myth of him being shot from behind from the top floor of the Texas Book Depoittory.
There was a second gunman behind the stockade on the grassy knoll. Both missed.
Just think how the back of his skull was blown out. This is an exit wound, not an entrance wound. Remember how Jackie climbed over the trunk of the open car to retrieve the pieces? This is a grand cover up. That or one must conclude the Warren Commission ,which was comprised of some of the best lawyers and judges, were fools or the FBI did not present them with all the photo evidence from the Zapruder film. The FBI does in fact have the photos.
Now you know why sewers are now welded shut before a presidential parade as part of the prep. This still goes on to this day.
You may think sewers are art, but infact they have already been used for terrorism.
Unfortunately you have unknowing encroached in suspicious behavior realm.
Last edited:
bmattock
Mentor
Somebody needs to encroach on a butterfly net.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Maybe I'm too laid back as I don't care if my name is on a database, my name can clog up their database for all I care - if its as efficient as any other government database I'd suggest its fairly useless anyway. As for DNA samples, its never happened to anyone I know...though maybe this is where the paranoia really kicks in?!
kuzano
Mentor
And How Long before they must be registered....
And How Long before they must be registered....
Hmmmm, next thing we know... to get a camera phone, you cannot be a previous felon. You will have to apply to the FTCA (Firearms,Tobacco, Camera, Alcohol) agency, and approval of a license to carry a camera will take 7 days.
Don't chuckle here, and don't think I'm giving them ideas. It would not surprise me if potential legislation is not already in the works..
Bet's on which country first... USA or UK???
And How Long before they must be registered....
Hmmmm, next thing we know... to get a camera phone, you cannot be a previous felon. You will have to apply to the FTCA (Firearms,Tobacco, Camera, Alcohol) agency, and approval of a license to carry a camera will take 7 days.
Don't chuckle here, and don't think I'm giving them ideas. It would not surprise me if potential legislation is not already in the works..
Bet's on which country first... USA or UK???
bmattock
Mentor
I think you may have hit on it.
It won't be illegal to own a camera, but they will all be registered, and all photos must be submitted to the government for approval before showing them to anyone else. If you are convicted of making subversive artwork, it's Gitmo for you - they'll have some room once they turn the terrorists loose.
This finally explains the error of my own judgment - I had simply thought that people who claimed that 'film' was being intentionally destroyed by 'digital' were candidates for the Tinfoil Helmet Brigade - but I can see now that they were right! Yes, film must be shut down and ended, made obsolete, to make way for digital photography, because every digital sensor will have a secretly-encoded serial number that will be in every photo taken, by steganographic technique. If a photo shows up that is not government approved, they will know what camera it came from.
Wow...
sojournerphoto
Mentor
Whilst we in the UK, at least, do appear to be coming under heavier and heavier handed restrictions I would like to point out that these in no way have any real impact on most photographers on a day to day basis.
Both myself and many colleagues rarely come across any problems such as those illustrated by the original poster's news story. Chris, quoted above, makes a good point that photographers are only really in danger of such things happening when they are photographing without Press Credentials in an area that has either a permanent high security cordone such as an airbase or a temporary one when a Royal, Member of Parliament etc etc is visiting an area. I have been questioned by Police, Military and Royal security services on occasion and it is certainly a pain in the backside but I have always been treated respectfully and kept from my photography for the minimum amount of time possible. This has happened when I've been working and when I've just stumbled upon a Royal visit or some such thing.
How this develops in the future is clearly open to debate but to suggest that we can all be held without charge, made to wear orange jump suits and have an unwanted three year holiday in a part of the Caribbean is only a short step from some voices here.
From my experience and those fellow professionals and semi-professionals ( those that often struggle to get relevant accreditation for certain events ) that I have spoken to about this are more concerned about the (often private) security groups that can hinder and even make your job impossible because they have no real grasp of the current law and how they can legally impose their 'rights.'
Many of us here find that the biggest hindrance to photography, both as hobby and profession, is the private companies that own land/property that is not obviously private land and have a zero tolerance of photography without a prior agreement in place. I'm not saying that this is unfair or an infringement of my rights etc but it is certainly a pain that is becoming more and more widespread.
This is my opinion based upon discussions with other photographers and my own experiences, though I would certainly agree that we do need to ensure that we don't allow Photography as a means to a valid social document to be lost to a law or series of laws that are put into place due to reactionism over thoughtful process.
There is a lot in what you say, but
- I have been affected by the behaviour of private security guards and it was not very pleasant as they exceeded their authority very significantly. I complained to their employer, the Ministry of Justice, and received a letter acknowledging that they had behaved outside of their guidleines, but still justifying the approach.
- I have a grave concern at the increasing tendency to view photographing public officers etc as something that requires a licence. I am not a press photographer nor a full time professional, but I do currently have a legal right to take photographs in public places. I increasingly feel this right is being eroded in practice if not in law, and the logical conclusion is to remove the legal right from the last small group of photographers who aren't interested in oversaturated, but dull, landscapes with borrowed skys inpired by the latest issue of amateur photoshopper (not an antidiigital rant)
- My doubts about these stories have been reduced by my own experience. A pinch of salt is still needed and not paranoia, but there does appear to be a trend. My local paper ran an article about a 'suspicious photographer' who had been seen taking pictures of children in a local park. Some people had called the police and the paper fully supported their actions, but (acknowledging parents responsibility to protect their children from predators - I am a parent after all) there was no acknowledgement that no illegal act had taken place or that he may have been just a photographer. The whole piece was biased and dangerous in my view.
- Even though it doesn't currently apply to my photography, I remain convinced that phtography as a witness has an important part to play in maintaining the freedom of free states and revealing the corruption in less free parts of the world. When our freedom is encroached on we are tending towards the latter.
- Finally, obviously the government has a duty to put in place measure to detect and prevent terrorist acts. We live in a world where these are planned. However, it also has a duty to preserve freedom and it increasingly appears to be failing in this, with no strong evidence that the preventative measures are relevant to the prevention of terrorism. Fear is a powerful and dangerous tool in the hands of those who know best for others.
Mike
Peter_Jones
Well-known
Sorry to lighten the tone but bmattock nearly caused me to have an accident while laughing at the phrase "Tinfoil Helmet Brigade"
sojournerphoto
Mentor
Sparrow
Mentor
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Mike,
Absolutely. Which is why so many people are afraid of free speech, and why it is (at least theoretically) enshrined in the US Constitution. Some of the 'less free parts of the world' are uncomfortably close to home, no matter where you live.
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
Mentor
You say Tomato, I say Jihadi. Hey, we're turning them loose to kill more Americans and Brits, that must thrill you, what are you complaining about?
peterm1
Mentor
Good lord. I always conspicuously have a camera with me and take photos of odd things like sewer grates. Abstract things like this make wonderful photos.
Fortunately(?) the police service has been cut to the bone in my home state and after returning here a year ago I dont think I have seen a single police officer on foot in the city and seldom see one anywhere else. The police used to have a visible presence in Adelaide CBD and would often be seen walking the streets and malls. Not any more. So (un ) terrorists like me are able to go about our (un) illegal business of snapping photos just for the hell of it and the sake of our art.
Fortunately(?) the police service has been cut to the bone in my home state and after returning here a year ago I dont think I have seen a single police officer on foot in the city and seldom see one anywhere else. The police used to have a visible presence in Adelaide CBD and would often be seen walking the streets and malls. Not any more. So (un ) terrorists like me are able to go about our (un) illegal business of snapping photos just for the hell of it and the sake of our art.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Bill,
Wasn't Richard's point that either you observe the rule of law, or you give in to blind prejudice or paranoia? At which point, hey, let's lynch anyone with the wrong colour skin, or the wrong way of spelling color, or the wrong accent, or... They might be killers, after all!
Tashi delegs,
Roger
bmattock
Mentor
It is the American way. We violated that by sending them in violation of our own law to Gitmo. Now it appears that the ones we have set free (the ones we thought were least likely to continue their murderous ways) are indeed back to doing naughty things to us infidels.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28642784/
I wish we had not done what we did, but we did. We can't let them go, they're damaged goods, and they hate us now much more than they did before (odd, that). I don't think it is fair to keep them locked up either. So I am in favor of summary executions. They may be innocent - some of them - but it no longer matters. We have to execute them.
But that's dreaming. In reality, we're going to let them go, and they're going to kill more Americans and Brits. And as I pointed out to you, you should quit complaining, you like it when they do that, right?
R
rpsawin
Guest
I enjoyed this more when I thought they were arresting fish.........
Bob
Bob
bmattock
Mentor
Nope. See my response to Pistu. He's right that we never convicted them of anything, they were held illegally, we clearly violated our own standards of justice, and now we have a problem - release them and they blow us up some more. Can't have that. So...
Sparrow
Mentor
We had problems with the Irish for many years and you didn't find us resorting to administrative imprisonment, well only a bit of internment anyway, and they did get their own back; they blew up Manchester, coincidentally a few yards from where this chap claims to have been arrested, small world init
http://www.triskelle.eu/history/internment.php?index=060.170.040.010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_City_Centre_bombing
http://www.triskelle.eu/history/internment.php?index=060.170.040.010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_City_Centre_bombing
Last edited:
bmattock
Mentor
No, we haven't locked them up in durance vile until they hate us with an undying passion. If we did, then perhaps yes. Let's see how it all turns out.