Police in UK continue to suffer from debilitating boredom.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:40:56 -0400, Bowser 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/archive...r_on_phot.html

Andrew.

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/archive...r_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

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

In article ,
Doug McDonald 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/archive...r_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

krishnananda wrote:
In article ,
Doug McDonald 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/archive...r_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."


Gotcha! I'm referring, of course to the terorist attack on the Army
base in Texas by an Islamic radical shrink.

So the profile is: British, blonde, curly hair, penchant for yacht
racing, "I want my life back" Tony Hayward?



You really ARE crazy!

Doug MCDonald

Mike Russell wrote:
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.

True. I had forgotten that.

But since we don't know who did it, or why, it is not clear
whether it is "real" terrorism or some sort of wacko Unibomber
type terrorism. Clearly the intent was to terrorize.

Doug