Discussion on BAN

Perhaps the most depressing thing about all of this is not the petty
authouritinarian approach but the fact that the banning pictures on the subway
shows so little real knowledge of clandestine means of gathering information,
the amount of information already available in public record, or the nature of
the threat we face. The ban does nothing to increase our security while giving
transit cops something to harrass tourists over. If anything, the ban works
against security. It simply reminds the opposition to be more careful in how
it collects its information. Such bans on photography did not stop us from
collecting information in Russia during the cold war and the KGB was expending
a lot more effort in maintaining security and control than we would ever
tolerate (hopefully). With the advent of miniaturised ditital cameras, the
notion that we could stop folks that wanted images of the subways from makeing
them is even more fatuous. AQ has the money to procure whatever technology
they need and to put well trained and motivated agents and sleeper cells in the
field who can use that technology. Security is important - perhaps too
important to be entrusted to those who thought this ban would be an effective
deterrent.

In article ,
(KFritch) wrote:

Perhaps the most depressing thing about all of this is not the petty
authouritinarian approach but the fact that the banning pictures on the subway
shows so little real knowledge of clandestine means of gathering information
[...]

It shows no such thing. What it does show is how authorities and
politicians will test the public sense with outrageous assertions and
proposals so that they might exploit the public sense or nonsense to
implement social controls.

Banning photography in the subway system serves to prepare the public for
more strident control of their behavior. Is not the NYC subway system a
highly critical and vulnerable infrastructure? I'd think that it could be
profoundly regimented and monitored. Traffic is narrowed to single-queues
at at least one point for each person. Expect some interesting personal
scanning equipment to show up eventually.

I think you overrate some of our city security luminaries. They really don't
understand all that well. What they do understand is that security is a hot
button issue and if they want their increased budgets and manpower and
prestige, they'd best be seen as protecting the citizenry which has even less
of a clue than anyone else. Even in the cold war military, there was a
striking lack of appreciation of what a single trained and motivated individual
could do as far as collection of information and they were keyed to threats in
a way that few civilian planners are.

The scanning technology you speak of is not far off, but probably would not be
employed in the way you suggest simply because it would be so spectacularly
inconvenient to commuters that it would become a political no win for whoever
was doing it. The trick will be to develop powerful enough scanners to screen
a wide area with multiple persons and then install it in such a way that people
are not constantly conscious of being scanned.

Wasn't it jjs who said...
Is not the NYC subway system a
highly critical and vulnerable infrastructure? I'd think that it could be
profoundly regimented and monitored. Traffic is narrowed to single-queues
at at least one point for each person. Expect some interesting personal
scanning equipment to show up eventually.

It's here. Rather, it's in New Carrollton, MD

One of the Metro (WashDC subway) stations has a sniffer installed
which puffs air at a passenger going through the turnstiles and
sniffs for chemicals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004May4.html


--
Joe Pucillo
Baltimore, Maryland USA

To reply by email, please remove the .xx

"jjs" posted:
"... It shows no such thing. What it does show is how authorities and
politicians will test the public sense with outrageous assertions and
proposals so that they might exploit the public sense or nonsense to
implement social controls. ..."

True. It reminds me of an incident a couple of years ago here in Southern California. Some
was cruising the freeways, and using "something" to blow out car windows. Weelllllllll ...
some sub-moronic "CHP" officer got the hair-brained idea that "the perpetrator" was using
"Laser Pointers." Hysteria ensued among the Law Enforcement "types," and they were making
all kinds of "claims" and taking all kinds of "action."

At the time, Laser Pointers were also quite inexpensive. A cheap one could be bought for
less than $10, and they quite the rage with the late-teen and early-twentysomething crowd
.... and a *lot* of kids were carrying them around "just for the fun of it."

Well, after several incidents where young people simply carrying a "Laser Pointer" were
stopped by the cops ... of virtually *all* the local departments (and there are roughly 90
different "law-enforcement" organizations in Los Angeles County alone) ... and treated to
what is termed a "Felony Stop of an Armed Fugitive (with a record of assaulting a Police
Officer)," someone else did a relatively scientific demonstration of just how ludicrous
this idea was. It also turns out that a small group of less-than-intelligent teens were
using a sling-shot and ball bearings ... because they liked watching the glass break, and
the people (in the car) freak-out!

BUT ... many people had been virtually assaulted by "The Police" ... with NO recourse for
being humiliated, roughed up, and sometimes thrown in jail - just for carrying a
completely non-violent toy.

Just another example of "how authorities and politicians will test the public sense with
outrageous assertions and proposals."

KFritch wrote:

With the advent of miniaturised ditital cameras,
the notion that we could stop folks that wanted images of the subways from
makeing
them is even more fatuous.
curity is important - perhaps too
important to be entrusted to those who thought this ban would be an
effective deterrent.

Exactly. It would be simple to put a digicam in a briefcase etc and take
hundreds of shots of whatever they wanted.
--

Stacey

New York City seems to have been doing a lot of this silly photo banning
lately. They also get fussy about bridges, freeways, public buildings, and
who knows what else. I can understand banning photos on the subways as a
privacy issue or as a safety and congestion issue but not so much as a
security issue. The photos would be of little use in planning a terrorist
attack. They might, however, prove useful later in training and briefing
those who would carry out the attack. It still seems like overkill.

"KFritch" wrote in message
...
Perhaps the most depressing thing about all of this is not the petty
authouritinarian approach but the fact that the banning pictures on the
subway
shows so little real knowledge of clandestine means of gathering
information,
the amount of information already available in public record, or the
nature of
the threat we face. The ban does nothing to increase our security while
giving
transit cops something to harrass tourists over. If anything, the ban
works
against security. It simply reminds the opposition to be more careful in
how
it collects its information. Such bans on photography did not stop us from
collecting information in Russia during the cold war and the KGB was
expending
a lot more effort in maintaining security and control than we would ever
tolerate (hopefully). With the advent of miniaturised ditital cameras,
the
notion that we could stop folks that wanted images of the subways from
makeing
them is even more fatuous. AQ has the money to procure whatever
technology
they need and to put well trained and motivated agents and sleeper cells
in the
field who can use that technology. Security is important - perhaps too
important to be entrusted to those who thought this ban would be an
effective
deterrent.