Police in UK continue to suffer from debilitating boredom.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Rich on 26 Jun 2010 11:48 Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom(a)PacBell.Net> wrote in news:u7l926hv9ueil43prhfu2bou84939l17jg(a)4ax.com: > That's interesting...I just got back from a week in London. I shot > pictures all around Parliament, Big Ben, and Westminster Abby with > professional looking camera (Canon 50D), a telephoto lens, a > photographer's vest, a bag of camera accessories, and a tripod. I did > this on multiple occasions. I walked all around Parliament, shooting > it from many angles. Nobody ever said anything. > > I also shot pictures in Trafalgar Square, although not nearly as many > since the weather was quite overcas. > > Gary > Well, then, all these incidences must be fiction...
From: Andrew Haley on 27 Jun 2010 11:04 In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:40:56 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: > >> >>the Brits are amazingly stupid. Do they really think stopping >>photographers will stop terrorism? Now that the terrorists know this, >>they'll do what, go somewhere else where you can shoot pics? >> >>Amazing... > > It's not so different in the USA, I think. See my reply to > Savageduck. > > In both countries, our governments perceive a need to be seen to be > doing something about the terrorist threat. I think that drives most > of the police's attitude to photography. The two terrorist attacks on > London in 2005 both had an element of photographic reconnaissance, so > that explains some of the apparent paranoia. "Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harassed, 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." See http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/the_war_on_phot.html Andrew.
From: Doug McDonald on 27 Jun 2010 11:50 On 6/27/2010 10:04 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > "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." > > See http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/the_war_on_phot.html > > Andrew. Remembr that at least in the US, the powers are doing a modestly good job of police protection. After 9/11, until Obama got in, they did, aided by Lady Luck, did a perfect job. With Obama, of course, Lady Luck saved us a couple of times ... and there was one real, actual, fatal, terrorist attack in the US with 14 fatalities. The successes in protecting us were done by standard police work: tips, spies, and profiling. The failure to protect was done by ignoring multiple, repeated, tips, no spies necessary, and by ignoring the very obvious perfect-fit terrorist profile of the perp. So that's the bottom line: tips, spies, profiling, and Lady Luck. It works. If Lady Luck fails, the others matter. Doug McDonald
From: Mike Russell on 27 Jun 2010 12:16 On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:50:40 -0500, Doug McDonald wrote: > After 9/11, until Obama got in, they did, > aided by Lady Luck, did a perfect job. Anthrax. -- Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
From: krishnananda on 27 Jun 2010 17:12
In article <i07rrb$rla$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > On 6/27/2010 10:04 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > > > "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." > > > > See http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/the_war_on_phot.html > > > > Andrew. > > Remembr that at least in the US, the powers are doing a modestly good > job of police protection. After 9/11, until Obama got in, they did, > aided by Lady Luck, did a perfect job. With Obama, of course, > Lady Luck saved us a couple of times ... and there was one real, actual, > fatal, terrorist attack in the US with 14 fatalities. I don't think you can count the explosion of the BP drill-baby-drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico as a "terrorist attack." Or maybe you can... > > The successes in protecting us were done by standard police work: > tips, spies, and profiling. The failure to protect was done by > ignoring multiple, repeated, tips, no spies necessary, and by ignoring the > very obvious perfect-fit terrorist profile of the perp. So the profile is: British, blonde, curly hair, penchant for yacht racing, "I want my life back" Tony Hayward? > > So that's the bottom line: tips, spies, profiling, and Lady Luck. It works. > If Lady Luck fails, the others matter. > > Doug McDonald |