| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/16/2004 04:05:34 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Originally posted by louddog:
I'm really glad you don't work for homeland security. I'm sure a good terrorist could mastermind an attack that will do maximum damage based on a few quickly taken snap shots. No need to monitor traffic paterns no need for detailed analysis of the structures... You are so right. Why would a terrorist want to sit out with a tripod to photograph and monitor an area all day under the disguise of a photo student... What a stupid idea. The FBI should just put out a memo that says ignore anyone with a tripod because per "spy novel" and "james bond" thinking a good terrorist wouldn't carry one. |
You still don't get it?
While Agent "What's his Name" was harrassing the guy that stood out for having a camera and tripod, there was a person sitting their ALL day painting with an Eazel, who apparently wasn't harrased. That person could have been noting traffic patterns and yadda-yadda.
Besides there are dozens of effective ways to 'monitor' an area without sticking out or sitting in one place all day long.
You want a traffic analysis?
If you have a team of people that's pretty easy. Rent a few seperate cars and drive through an area, several times a day. Heck all you have to do is live in an area for 6 months and you will learn the traffic patterns just by being there long enough. (Remember the terrorists of 9/11 had been in the US in some cases nearly to more then 2 years.)
How do 'quick shots' with a P&S add together to show off 'weak points' in a building/bridge?
Go back often, dressed differently, but still looking like a tourist. Send your 'buddies' there as well and take different shots each trip. Stagger your trips and nobody will be the wiser. (If you recall, the terrorist plot of 9/11 wasn't planned over the course of two weeks, but over the course of SEVERAL years.)
Is there anything else you want to add? Keep in mind that terrorists can and will take years to complete their tasks. As another posted related, you could easily obtain the plans to buildings and other structures all over the place by hitting city halls across America. |
SO anyone with a tripod is not a terrorist. Good start.
So what else should we do then? Question everyone? Question no one? Question only people without tripods? Question only white people?
Since you think what they are doing isn't right, give us some good, constructive, feasable suggestions for improving. |
|
|
|
07/16/2004 04:15:00 PM · #52 |
This may have been posted before, but here is something I just came across:
Bust Card (pdf file) which came from the ACLU site which was found via this lawyer's site which was found via another site.
just sharing.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 04:18:10 PM · #53 |
There has been a lot of talk of freedom in this thread. So much so that I thought it would be nice to refocus our attention...
... and now for something completely different
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 04:23:07 PM · #54 |
yeah i printed out that photographer's rights flier from that lawyers site and keep it on me just in case |
|
|
|
07/16/2004 04:57:21 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by louddog:
SO anyone with a tripod is not a terrorist. Good start.
So what else should we do then? Question everyone? Question no one? Question only people without tripods? Question only white people?
Since you think what they are doing isn't right, give us some good, constructive, feasable suggestions for improving. |
Should I call you "Trolldog"?
I never said that someone with a tripod is not a terrorist.
This gist of what I said is that it is wrong to immediately assume that someone with high-end camera equipment and a tripod is a terrorist. I suggested a number of ways that would accomplish the information gathering scenarios you brought up as well as clarified why it wouldn't be wise to attempt to be 'clandestine' in broad daylight by using such equipment.
1. It's very hard to be secretive if you stand out. Having high-end camera equipment makes anyone stand out.
2. There are many 'sneaky' ways to obtain the information you suggest terrorists would need without drawing undo attention to yourself, if you have time to obtain that information.
3. Profiling someone, because they have high-end equipment, is simply not enough to draw a reasonable doubt as to why someone is in an area. If the Police and Homeland Security have reason to believe that a terrorist cell is plotting the destruction of certain landmarks, bridges, buildings and infrastructure, that is reasonable doubt enough to stop and question people, but they better stop and question more then just one person and they better not be full of 'made up laws' when they do so.
What are they doing wrong?
That's difficult to answer. I am not at every possible place at every possible time to see what it and what isn't being effective.
In the case of the photographer that started this whole issue. The officials should have also accosted the painter. They should have stopped other people that were taking shots of the bridge. Any number of those other people could have been involved in a terrorist plot. We may never know for sure.
Terrorists are sneaky, decietful, terrible people that are often very patient, more cunning then most people would imagine.
Did you know that in the Middle East there are terrorists that dress as Conservative Jews, with everything from the hairstyle, including the locks all the way down to every last piece of clothing, with the addition of a belt bomb. Did you know that they pass perfectly as devout Jews?
Just because someone has white skin doesn't mean they couldn't be a terrorist working with Al-Qaeda. Remember John-Walker Lynn? The "All-American" looking kid from the US that was captured in Afghanistan? The guy that looks just like every other 'Average American'.
How many more people like him do you think are out there? How many people like him could have been out at that bridge snapping shots of the bridge for their cell of terrorists? One, two or three?
Racial profiling isn't going to protect us. Going after the 'Obvious' isn't going to protect us. Going all "Police State" isn't going to protect us either. Being so scared that we give up all of our freedoms, because it temporarily makes us feel 'safer', isn't going to help us either.
The only way to win against this enemy is through inteligence, education, assistance and acceptance. |
|
|
|
07/16/2004 05:11:07 PM · #56 |
Perhaps it's time the government(s) spend a little less time trying to prevent terrorist acts, and more time (and money) on preventing people from wanting to be terrorists in the first place ... a subject in which our "uniter" of a President seems to need some remedial education.
Perhaps he could start by studying this quote from one of our more prescient Republican Presidents and acknowledged military "expert."
Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and co-operation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969)
 |
|
|
|
07/16/2004 05:27:14 PM · #57 |
Yeesh... Okay, all I'm going to say is, it does not hurt anyone if a police officer asks a few questions and/or asks to see ID. No one's freedom is being taken away. Maybe certain people will be asked questions because on the size of their equipment and/or the color of their skin. Who cares. If they are only asking questions they are not violaiting your civil rights.
If they do more then ask questions, post here and I'll share your outrage.
Have a good weekend.
The Troll!
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 05:32:33 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Yeesh... Okay, all I'm going to say is, it does not hurt anyone if a police officer asks a few questions and/or asks to see ID. No one's freedom is being taken away. |
Yes ... it is. If I'm standing around on the sidewalk, perfectly legally and everything, and you walk up to me and ask to see my ID, I am free to turn and walk away (or call the police). If a police officer does the same, and I similarly turn and walk away I am likely to be arrested or shot. I call that a loss of freedom. |
|
|
|
07/16/2004 05:37:29 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Yeesh... Okay, all I'm going to say is, it does not hurt anyone if a police officer asks a few questions and/or asks to see ID. No one's freedom is being taken away. Maybe certain people will be asked questions because on the size of their equipment and/or the color of their skin. Who cares. If they are only asking questions they are not violaiting your civil rights.
If they do more then ask questions, post here and I'll share your outrage.
Have a good weekend.
The Troll! |
All states have laws on the books allowing police and other officials to ask for ID and requiring those asked to identify themselves. It is ILLEGAL to refuse. These laws are NOT new, are NOT part of the PATRIOT act and were in place well before 9/11.
The issue recently came before the US Supreme Court, which upheld them.
See here: Hiibel v. Nevada
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 05:48:55 PM · #60 |
| But ... according to Capt. B. Miller (Berkeley P.D. for umpteen years and on the Board of the clinic I work at), the officer MUST have (reasonable) probable cause to believe a crime had been or was going to be committed. They are specifically not permitted just to single someone out and question them because they feel like it. |
|
|
|
07/16/2004 05:53:32 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
But ... according to Capt. B. Miller (Berkeley P.D. for umpteen years and on the Board of the clinic I work at), the officer MUST have (reasonable) probable cause to believe a crime had been or was going to be committed. They are specifically not permitted just to single someone out and question them because they feel like it. |
Except they can cite probable cause if someone is making a study of something.. whether it be with a camera or not. The other tourists in this photographer's account were most probably clicking and walking away while he was studying the location. Not that he shouldn't be allowed to. Just playing both sides.
I won't even touch the racial implications, as I know them too personally.
Message edited by author 2004-07-16 17:54:05.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 06:00:35 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
But ... according to Capt. B. Miller |
Do you work with Detectives Fish and Wojohowitz too?
Sorry, couldn't resist......................
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 06:12:30 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
But ... according to Capt. B. Miller |
Do you work with Detectives Fish and Wojohowitz too?
Sorry, couldn't resist...................... |
LOL -- And I thought I was trying to be nice by preserving his anonymity somewhat :)
I'm not even saying it's completely unreasonable for someone to ask (politely) what you are doing, especially if they're willing to be satisfied with a reasonable explanation instead of immediately demanding ID.
They'd be FAR more likely to catch a potential terrorist by engaging in a friendly and enthusiastic discussion of (lens) apertures and the relative benefits of the new 4:3 lenses vs. traditional mounts or the Canon vs Nikon debate ... if their job is to surveil terrorist targets they are less likely to be fluent in camera-speak than they are to have a valid fake ID .... |
|
|
|
07/16/2004 06:26:00 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
BradP... so how did the officer find you? Did the security guard take down your plate number or something? |
Yup.
Security Guard reported it to wherever they do, ran my plate (LUGNUT), found out where I lived and because I live outside of San Diego's city limits, they contacted the Sheriffs dept.
LOL |
So now you've got my curiosity peaked. Which mall?
Edit: Oops, just read your response above. Nevermind. :)
I often worry about this, but have never been stopped, even late night walking around the capital building in DC. You people must all look really suspicious. ;)
Message edited by author 2004-07-16 18:27:03. |
|
|
|
07/16/2004 06:58:24 PM · #65 |
This is an interesting conversation. I have been stopped 3 times. Twice at the local VA hospital and once at work. I can understand why for both places.
But I finally learned to ask for permission first. Now I can take all the pictures I want to at the VA and most of the ones I want to at work.
Hasn't anyone else thought about this? Suppose you are at the mall. Most of them have security on site. Find him/her and ask if it's ok to take pictures of whatever you are interested in. Better yet, ask the management for permission in advance. The VA even gave me a letter I can carry around. If you ask, you can avoid a possible confrontation that could make you and whoever has responsibility for the protection of their workplace uneasy and angry. I've taken pictures of our police station, fire station, bus station, all without any problems because I asked first.
Anyway. That is my policy for now. |
|
|
|
07/16/2004 07:01:20 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
But ... according to Capt. B. Miller (Berkeley P.D. for umpteen years and on the Board of the clinic I work at), the officer MUST have (reasonable) probable cause to believe a crime had been or was going to be committed. They are specifically not permitted just to single someone out and question them because they feel like it. |
Except they can cite probable cause if someone is making a study of something.. whether it be with a camera or not. The other tourists in this photographer's account were most probably clicking and walking away while he was studying the location. Not that he shouldn't be allowed to. Just playing both sides.
I won't even touch the racial implications, as I know them too personally. |
I wouldn't be too hasty to assume the other photographers were doing anything different than what the gentleman in the story described his actions to be. That would be complete conjecture.
[quote=louddog]Maybe certain people will be asked questions because on the size of their equipment and/or the color of their skin. Who cares. If they are only asking questions they are not violaiting your civil rights. [/louddog]
Racial profiling in itself is a violation of civil rights. Can you really be that insensitive to the indignities of being suspected of criminal misconduct merely because of the color of one's skin? Or do you just not give a damn because you believe it doesn't effect you?
This gentleman, fortunately, wasn't detained but his privacy was violated. As has been explained in this thread already, other people have been detained for no other cause then they happen to be of a particular race.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 07:19:25 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Racial profiling in itself is a violation of civil rights. Can you really be that insensitive to the indignities of being suspected of criminal misconduct merely because of the color of one's skin? Or do you just not give a damn because you believe it doesn't effect you? |
I've been picked up and detained twice because I matched a description. It has affected me. One time, I was a white man in a hispaninc neighborhood where a white man killed someone.
I was mad I got picked up, put and put in a police car with a lot of people watching, but I was glad the police were trying to get the murderer.
So I'll repeat, a police officer simply asking qustions, for what ever reason they want, to whoever they want, is perfectly legal, always has been, and always should be. Having a police officer ask you questions is not a violation of your civil rights. A cop does not need to prove probable cause to ask you a question.
I'll bet in the case we are talking about it wasn't security or police that questioned this guys intentions. A little old lady probably saw him and thought he was suspicious. Security and police only did as they are suppose to do, and check it out. |
|
|
|
07/16/2004 07:39:02 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by louddog:
Yeesh... Okay, all I'm going to say is, it does not hurt anyone if a police officer asks a few questions and/or asks to see ID. No one's freedom is being taken away. |
Yes ... it is. If I'm standing around on the sidewalk, perfectly legally and everything, and you walk up to me and ask to see my ID, I am free to turn and walk away (or call the police). If a police officer does the same, and I similarly turn and walk away I am likely to be arrested or shot. I call that a loss of freedom. |
That would be more then ask just questions. Let me know if that happens and I'll back you up in your fight :) |
|
|
|
07/16/2004 08:24:56 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by melismatica:
Racial profiling in itself is a violation of civil rights. Can you really be that insensitive to the indignities of being suspected of criminal misconduct merely because of the color of one's skin? Or do you just not give a damn because you believe it doesn't effect you? |
I've been picked up and detained twice because I matched a description. It has affected me. One time, I was a white man in a hispaninc neighborhood where a white man killed someone. |
And I repeat, this is not the same as racial profiling. Middle aged white guys are not racially profiled.
Originally posted by louddog:
I'll bet in the case we are talking about it wasn't security or police that questioned this guys intentions. A little old lady probably saw him and thought he was suspicious. Security and police only did as they are suppose to do, and check it out. |
Then you didn't even read the whole story. He was actually questioned twice. The first time at his house after someone turned his licence plate into the police. The second time was at the Locks when he refused to show a security guard his id, which was within his rights. He had obtained permission in advance of being there. Permission which he did not need, I hasten to point.
From the article in the Seattle Times, Corps (of Army Engineers) spokeswoman Patricia Graesser said her agency wasn't involved in either incident. "Any member of the public is welcome to come on the grounds of the Locks and take pictures," she said.
Sometime after the security guard left, Mr.Spiers was approached by eight officers (including a Federal agent) and questioned at length. The agent outright lied to him, saying his actions were illegal. Before leaving the agent too Mr.Spiers' photograph against his will.
Here is a section of an interesting article on racial profiling and its efficacey (or lack thereof) on preventing future terrorist acts.
We do know that most American citizens and residents of all racial groups are innocent of terrorist activity and feel frightened by the events of September 11th. Therefore, stopping or otherwise intruding upon the privacy and liberty of people in a given group will certainly harm countless individuals who have done nothing to deserve such intrusions. This truth, however, will not entirely satisfy those who wish to consider the efficacy question.
Unlike the drug trade, in which very large numbers of people —of every race — are involved, there is reason to think that relatively few individuals here are engaged in planning terrorist attacks on the United States. Therefore, any criteria police use to identify or "profile" terrorists, whether or not those criteria rely on suspect classifications such as race, ethnicity, or national origin, will yield many more false positives than they will disclose true conspiring murderers. In other words, an overwhelming number of "suspects" will prove to be innocent, no matter what combination of factors is used to focus in on them.
The whole article can be found here.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 08:58:32 PM · #70 |
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
-Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
It's sad that 41 years later, this is still only a dream.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 10:04:05 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by louddog:
I've been picked up and detained twice because I matched a description. |
"Matched a description" of the specific perpetrator of a crime who was actively being sought in that area.
Not because you were a white guy in a hispanic neighborhood looking for some decent chiles rellenos.
Message edited by author 2004-07-16 22:07:06. |
|
|
|
07/16/2004 10:06:19 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
-Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
It's sad that 41 years later, this is still only a dream.
-Terry |
That's because we'd be forced to judge everyone -- like politicians, for example -- by the "content of their character." Can you imagine the civil disaster that would engender? |
|
|
|
07/17/2004 12:19:03 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Sorry folks, we are living in a different world now. You may get asked questions when you start taking a lot of pictures of something that most people (non-photog types) see as not that interesting, such as a mall.
I'd much rather they question me, as opposed to letting potential terrorist do all the homework they want without being questioned. |
We are only living in a different world if we let the terrorists and politicians put us there. People who are afraid and people who willingly give up some of their privacy are more effective than the terrorists in making us lose our rights. There will be no victory in the war against terrorism until we acknowledge that it is really about economic desparity. Those who benefit from that desparity would like to divert our attention by making us fearful. I am not afraid of terrorism any more than I am afraid of being struck by lightening. |
|
|
|
07/17/2004 10:38:46 AM · #74 |
I guess a cop asking someone a question or two is a big burden. I'm sorry. Next time I get asked questions I'll refuse, put a fight and call Al Sharpton and the ACLU to come defend my civil rights. THE MAN HAS NO REASON TO KNOW WHY I'M TAKING PICTURES!
Jeez, police asking me questions. What freedoms are they going to take away from us next. I feel like I'm living in communist russia...
Message edited by author 2004-07-17 10:41:07. |
|
|
|
07/17/2004 01:35:32 PM · #75 |
| A law enforcement officer asking a few questions in a polite and respectful manner is a far cry from being asked to identify yourself when there is no apparent reason or need for the officer to know who you are; and it is a far cry from being questioned by more than one officer when one would do, or the kind of detaining that was addressed in the recent Supreme Court ruling. Intimidation, and a presumption of impropriority, should not be SOP of law enforcement. |
|
