Liberty or security
"Some liberty must be sacrificed in exchange for greater security. This is obvious. The hard part is knowing how much we should give up."
...this has become a pressing issue in this country during the past years. In the name of the fight against terror people seem willing to give up a bit more liberty to feel a bit safer. But are we giving up too much? Photography - believe it or not - is important in this debate.
We want to be able to photograph things around us, and we want to feel safe doing so. However, the war on terror is encroaching on these freedoms in the name of security. We need to protect sensitive areas and we can't be too careful people say. Bridges, power plants, oil refineries, ports, highways, tall buildings and train depots are potential terror targets. Taking out your tripod at night to photograph these things is abnormal and borderline suspicious, right? I disagree. Harassing photographers is likely to have a negligble contribution in finding terrorists, however, the cost in terms of liberty is high. Even worse the state is wasting scare resources.
Why the suden need to rant? I had many encounters with paranoid law enforcement in NYC. Today I read a similar story from one of my contacts. The circumstances were different, but everything else was eerily similar. A 'suspicious site' (a rail depot). Cops checking IDs. Cops asking questions. No real logic. A sense that what happened contributed nothing to law enforcement.
Read about it here. Click on his link below the photo to read the post about what happened.
www.flickr.com/photos/nrbelex/2432509443/
I've written lots about this topic before. Read a summary here.
A while back somebody challenged my interpretation and I spent some quality time replying - and I feel it is worthwhile to post what I said here. I am not trying to mock the challenger. To the contrary, he presents the viewpoint of many in society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sorry you felt violated but (not being a wiseass) what were the cops supposed to do? As a Police Officer myself my opinion is going to be biased but reading the comments on here are hilarious. Everyone feels that since they are a good guy that the Police should just take your word for it and say "ok have a nice day". "I don't look like a criminal". Well who does? And if you think certain people do look like criminals I'll call the ACLU for you to try and articulate it.
They never searched your car or person and were professional. Reading the comments on here like the kite incident or how its just a camera are funny. Think hard to your self and before someone used a Ryder truck to blow up a building were you ever suspicious of vehicles in certain areas? Did you ever think that opening an envelope could kill you? That multiple aircraft could be hijacked at one time?
Is the war on terror somewhat exagerated..maybe but that's my job to investigate terrorism to stolen cars to identity theft, to dumping trash in a desolated area all of which you could have been involved in when you were stopped.
If you had been guilty of a criminal or terroristic act the same people criticizing are usually the first ones blaming the cops for not doing thier jobs and preventing a tragedy (example the airport security that let the hijackers on the planes).
Sorry, there are neccessary evils and in this case your inconvienece is miniscule to other wrongs in the world including abuse of power which this clearly wasn't.
PS your photo is quite nice. Was it a bulb setting?
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink | delete ) "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mazda6 (Tor) says:
"how its just a camera are funny."
I don't agree with the 'it is just a camera remark.' Cameras can be used in suspicious ways - and in those cases an investigation or questioning may be warranted. For instance, people plotting terrorist attacks often scout out areas using a video camera and/or cameras.
Nevertheless, law enforcement has limited resources in fighting terror and needs to use these resources efficiently. Not everything that is marginally suspicious can be investigated. It is not clear to me that using almost 3 man-hours on somebody who was observed for 20 seconds taking a picture of an old Chevy constitutes efficient use of resources.
Some law-enforcement is just for show. How does banning photography in tunnels and on bridge reduce terror? Anyone can sneak pictures of the tunnels with small cameras without anyone noticing. Anyone can take zoomed shots of bridges from other vantage points. There are boatloads of pictures of all bridges on the internet. How does grilling every visitor to the US improve security? Terrorists have already practiced every possible question and are the last people to trip up on this. It is just show. People want to see 'action' against terror and police and politicans want to be seen doing something. Sadly, terrorists are smart and cunning, and unless the resources fighting terror are used in such a way these initiatives and efforts will simply waste resources.
"Is the war on terror somewhat exagerated..maybe but that's my job to investigate terrorism to stolen cars to identity theft, to dumping trash in a desolated area all of which you could have been involved in when you were stopped."
Like I said above, it might have been considered odd or unusual behavior to take a photo an old Chevy in a desolute area. Maybe it was slightly suspicious. Maybe I wanted a picture of my car-bomb vehicle before driving it into the Holland Tunnel. Maybe I was practicing a special type of photography that I'd use to plan terror. Maybe. There are so many maybe's all around us. Can we investigate them all? What do you think it the probability of any of the above scenarios?
Most people engage in suspicious behavior sometimes. It may be something as simple as driving a white Ryder vans over a NYC area bridge. To illustrate the trade-off between security and liberty consider the following questions:
1) What suspicious behavior to investigate (should we check Ryder vans?)
2) How frequently should we investigate (what % of Ryder vans do we check)
If we investigate too many behaviors and too frequently we may achieve more security, but at a heavy cost to liberty and privacy. On the other hand, if we investigate too few and not very frequently, we compromise security and make terror more likely.
After 9/11 many people have accepted more (perceived?) security in exchange for less liberty. Society has accepted more frequent investigations into more suspicious behaviors. Some people - including me - believe this has gone too far.
If any sign of abnormal behavior leads to suspicion then we will be living in a paranoid and unplesant society. If every Ryder truck, every backpack, every camera is considered suspicious and subject to frequent search and questioning that would not only imply massive use of resources (lots of police), but also a the sense of living in a police state.
To fight terror police need to implement counter-terrorist polices that are intelligent and effective. What the NJ cops did that night was neither. They spent precious time investigating a marginally suspicious incident. Would the search have made more sense if I was close to a sensitive area? Yes. Would it have made more sense if I came back every night? Yes. Would it have made more sense if I was trying to hide (I was very visible)? Yes. Would it make more sense if I was photographing something sensitve? Yes.
Yet, I was not close to any sensitive areas, it was not repeat behavior, I was clearly not hiding and I was shooting an old car. In sum, in my mind they wasted scare anti-terror resources - and it seems like they waste a lot of resources on harrassing photographers these days. Those are the sentiments you hear echoed in the comments above - all of which I great appreciate! Thanks all!
Another example: Quizzing me about shooting the Sears Tower in Chicago from a mile away is not intelligent policing. To the contrary it reflects ignorance about how terrorists operate. If you want to photograph the Sears Tower you do it during the day. You use a smaller camera. You don't use a tripod. You find a more concealed position. You look at any of the 1 million shots on the web - and even if you get caught - it is the terrorist that knows how to answer police questions. Terrorists are smart. Don't mock them with dumb policing that is designed to show the electorate the police is 'doing something.'
"Sorry, there are neccessary evils and in this case your inconvienece is miniscule to other wrongs in the world including abuse of power which this clearly wasn't."
Isolated this may be miniscule, but if such incidents are frequent the burden on society quickly adds up. More importantly you are causing a nuisance and at the same time diverting scare policing resources from more effective anti-terror tactics. It may not be an abuse of power (and I never claimed it was), more than a waste of power. Where you see a necessary evil I - and the contributers above - see our hobby and passion threatened by over-zealous and ineffective policing.
However, it is not just photography it is about the type of society we want to live in. As phoneyman says "many of us still treasure living in a free society."
"PS your photo is quite nice. Was it a bulb setting?"
Thanks. Nope. Just a long exposure in Tv.
Liberty or security
"Some liberty must be sacrificed in exchange for greater security. This is obvious. The hard part is knowing how much we should give up."
...this has become a pressing issue in this country during the past years. In the name of the fight against terror people seem willing to give up a bit more liberty to feel a bit safer. But are we giving up too much? Photography - believe it or not - is important in this debate.
We want to be able to photograph things around us, and we want to feel safe doing so. However, the war on terror is encroaching on these freedoms in the name of security. We need to protect sensitive areas and we can't be too careful people say. Bridges, power plants, oil refineries, ports, highways, tall buildings and train depots are potential terror targets. Taking out your tripod at night to photograph these things is abnormal and borderline suspicious, right? I disagree. Harassing photographers is likely to have a negligble contribution in finding terrorists, however, the cost in terms of liberty is high. Even worse the state is wasting scare resources.
Why the suden need to rant? I had many encounters with paranoid law enforcement in NYC. Today I read a similar story from one of my contacts. The circumstances were different, but everything else was eerily similar. A 'suspicious site' (a rail depot). Cops checking IDs. Cops asking questions. No real logic. A sense that what happened contributed nothing to law enforcement.
Read about it here. Click on his link below the photo to read the post about what happened.
www.flickr.com/photos/nrbelex/2432509443/
I've written lots about this topic before. Read a summary here.
A while back somebody challenged my interpretation and I spent some quality time replying - and I feel it is worthwhile to post what I said here. I am not trying to mock the challenger. To the contrary, he presents the viewpoint of many in society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sorry you felt violated but (not being a wiseass) what were the cops supposed to do? As a Police Officer myself my opinion is going to be biased but reading the comments on here are hilarious. Everyone feels that since they are a good guy that the Police should just take your word for it and say "ok have a nice day". "I don't look like a criminal". Well who does? And if you think certain people do look like criminals I'll call the ACLU for you to try and articulate it.
They never searched your car or person and were professional. Reading the comments on here like the kite incident or how its just a camera are funny. Think hard to your self and before someone used a Ryder truck to blow up a building were you ever suspicious of vehicles in certain areas? Did you ever think that opening an envelope could kill you? That multiple aircraft could be hijacked at one time?
Is the war on terror somewhat exagerated..maybe but that's my job to investigate terrorism to stolen cars to identity theft, to dumping trash in a desolated area all of which you could have been involved in when you were stopped.
If you had been guilty of a criminal or terroristic act the same people criticizing are usually the first ones blaming the cops for not doing thier jobs and preventing a tragedy (example the airport security that let the hijackers on the planes).
Sorry, there are neccessary evils and in this case your inconvienece is miniscule to other wrongs in the world including abuse of power which this clearly wasn't.
PS your photo is quite nice. Was it a bulb setting?
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink | delete ) "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mazda6 (Tor) says:
"how its just a camera are funny."
I don't agree with the 'it is just a camera remark.' Cameras can be used in suspicious ways - and in those cases an investigation or questioning may be warranted. For instance, people plotting terrorist attacks often scout out areas using a video camera and/or cameras.
Nevertheless, law enforcement has limited resources in fighting terror and needs to use these resources efficiently. Not everything that is marginally suspicious can be investigated. It is not clear to me that using almost 3 man-hours on somebody who was observed for 20 seconds taking a picture of an old Chevy constitutes efficient use of resources.
Some law-enforcement is just for show. How does banning photography in tunnels and on bridge reduce terror? Anyone can sneak pictures of the tunnels with small cameras without anyone noticing. Anyone can take zoomed shots of bridges from other vantage points. There are boatloads of pictures of all bridges on the internet. How does grilling every visitor to the US improve security? Terrorists have already practiced every possible question and are the last people to trip up on this. It is just show. People want to see 'action' against terror and police and politicans want to be seen doing something. Sadly, terrorists are smart and cunning, and unless the resources fighting terror are used in such a way these initiatives and efforts will simply waste resources.
"Is the war on terror somewhat exagerated..maybe but that's my job to investigate terrorism to stolen cars to identity theft, to dumping trash in a desolated area all of which you could have been involved in when you were stopped."
Like I said above, it might have been considered odd or unusual behavior to take a photo an old Chevy in a desolute area. Maybe it was slightly suspicious. Maybe I wanted a picture of my car-bomb vehicle before driving it into the Holland Tunnel. Maybe I was practicing a special type of photography that I'd use to plan terror. Maybe. There are so many maybe's all around us. Can we investigate them all? What do you think it the probability of any of the above scenarios?
Most people engage in suspicious behavior sometimes. It may be something as simple as driving a white Ryder vans over a NYC area bridge. To illustrate the trade-off between security and liberty consider the following questions:
1) What suspicious behavior to investigate (should we check Ryder vans?)
2) How frequently should we investigate (what % of Ryder vans do we check)
If we investigate too many behaviors and too frequently we may achieve more security, but at a heavy cost to liberty and privacy. On the other hand, if we investigate too few and not very frequently, we compromise security and make terror more likely.
After 9/11 many people have accepted more (perceived?) security in exchange for less liberty. Society has accepted more frequent investigations into more suspicious behaviors. Some people - including me - believe this has gone too far.
If any sign of abnormal behavior leads to suspicion then we will be living in a paranoid and unplesant society. If every Ryder truck, every backpack, every camera is considered suspicious and subject to frequent search and questioning that would not only imply massive use of resources (lots of police), but also a the sense of living in a police state.
To fight terror police need to implement counter-terrorist polices that are intelligent and effective. What the NJ cops did that night was neither. They spent precious time investigating a marginally suspicious incident. Would the search have made more sense if I was close to a sensitive area? Yes. Would it have made more sense if I came back every night? Yes. Would it have made more sense if I was trying to hide (I was very visible)? Yes. Would it make more sense if I was photographing something sensitve? Yes.
Yet, I was not close to any sensitive areas, it was not repeat behavior, I was clearly not hiding and I was shooting an old car. In sum, in my mind they wasted scare anti-terror resources - and it seems like they waste a lot of resources on harrassing photographers these days. Those are the sentiments you hear echoed in the comments above - all of which I great appreciate! Thanks all!
Another example: Quizzing me about shooting the Sears Tower in Chicago from a mile away is not intelligent policing. To the contrary it reflects ignorance about how terrorists operate. If you want to photograph the Sears Tower you do it during the day. You use a smaller camera. You don't use a tripod. You find a more concealed position. You look at any of the 1 million shots on the web - and even if you get caught - it is the terrorist that knows how to answer police questions. Terrorists are smart. Don't mock them with dumb policing that is designed to show the electorate the police is 'doing something.'
"Sorry, there are neccessary evils and in this case your inconvienece is miniscule to other wrongs in the world including abuse of power which this clearly wasn't."
Isolated this may be miniscule, but if such incidents are frequent the burden on society quickly adds up. More importantly you are causing a nuisance and at the same time diverting scare policing resources from more effective anti-terror tactics. It may not be an abuse of power (and I never claimed it was), more than a waste of power. Where you see a necessary evil I - and the contributers above - see our hobby and passion threatened by over-zealous and ineffective policing.
However, it is not just photography it is about the type of society we want to live in. As phoneyman says "many of us still treasure living in a free society."
"PS your photo is quite nice. Was it a bulb setting?"
Thanks. Nope. Just a long exposure in Tv.