Photographers are Terrorists

usayit · Jul 13, 2007

Thomas Jefferson:
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty

People should ALWAYS stand up for their rights.... Period. What is important is how you stand up for your rights... This is one lesson of history that has been taught numerous of times.

Remember when protestors were told that can only protest from "designated" areas for "their own protection"? Rrrrriiiigggghhhhtttt..... When will people learn that government and those representing said government do not always have your best interest in mind. How about Japanese internment camps for "their own protection"?

I'm sick and tired of peoples' liberties being trampled in the name of terrorism.

PPAAUULL · Jul 13, 2007

I totaly agree with RMThompson about public fear. However we did not mean taking pictures of people, I meant architectural weaknesses and suck like that.

THORHAMMER · Jul 19, 2007

I say, be empathetic to the cop, and the citizen on the street, but if you want a shot, go for it !!!
And security guards and wanna eb vigilantes are what maglights and magnesium camera bodies are made for !!!

Alex_B · Jul 19, 2007

if i was a terrorist i would be walking around with a tiny p&s so i do not cause any unwanted attention.

skieur · Jul 19, 2007

craig said:
Your blog is vague. Certainly our rights can be taken away if we do not understand them. I shoot anywhere I please because I ask for permission first. If you shoot in front of a government building or even an apartment complex plan on getting harassed. Yes our rights are slightly violated, but security has changed dramatically. As photographers I believe that we should not fight this issue. It is better to help because believe it or not their job is really hard now.

Love & Bass

Interesting that the american rhetoric from presidents is about fighting for freedom and yet so many seem to be willing to give up their photographic freedom in the face of an intimidating or ignorant security guard as a matter of personal convenience.

I personally think that if individuals allow the threat of terrorism to restrict their hard won freedoms then the terrorists have won.

skieur

fmw · Jul 20, 2007

skieur said:
I personally think that if individuals allow the threat of terrorism to restrict their hard won freedoms then the terrorists have won.

skieur

That is the truth. I don't fly any more. I'm not afraid of flying or terrorist attacks. I am just not willing to go through all the hassle required at airports any longer. It ruins the trip for me.

I know I am in a tiny minority, but I don't think we should ever change anything we do because of terrorism other than to retaliate and fight against it. Otherwise we give the terrorists what they want. Imagine a few thousand crazed, power hungry religious zealots holding the free world hostage. It's crazy but it's happening.

lockwood81 · Jul 20, 2007

Is this the gripe thread?

Okay, I was out last night shooting some sportbikes, its on a road that runs near an airport and not long after being there a county sheriff pulls up with lights on and tells me to pack my gear and go. In his words “it’s a matter of national security”. He didn’t even mention the bikes going 80+ in a 45 zone. I was the dangerous one with the camera.

kombizz · Jul 20, 2007

I like your article , although I agree with the rest that need more input. It seems to me that it is little bit vague.

RMThompson · Jul 20, 2007

lockwood81 said:
Is this the gripe thread?

Okay, I was out last night shooting some sportbikes, its on a road that runs near an airport and not long after being there a county sheriff pulls up with lights on and tells me to pack my gear and go. In his words its a matter of national security. He didnt even mention the bikes going 80+ in a 45 zone. I was the dangerous one with the camera.

He was wrong.

And you were too, for giving in.

theusher · Jul 20, 2007

RM is correct in everything he has said.

All these bridges, buildings, etc have been extensively photographed over the years. Up close, far away, cables...you name it, it's been done. It's also all over the internet for anyone to located.

It boils down to another "control" over us "Freedom" loving Americans.

fmw said:
I know I am in a tiny minority, but I don't think we should ever change anything we do because of terrorism other than to retaliate and fight against it. Otherwise we give the terrorists what they want. Imagine a few thousand crazed, power hungry religious zealots holding the free world hostage. It's crazy but it's happening.

You are 100% right. It's too late, the terrorists have already won. They did what they intended to do, ****ed up life in America. People all know it's happening, but the mainstream news chooses to go with pictures of vapid twits like Paris Hilton crying about having to go to jail, so they just focus on that instead. All the while the idea of freedom and the United States slowly gets the final coffin nail driven in by a mad man and his dirty cronies. Average citizens are now presumed guilty and.... oh hey wait, is Britney not wearing underwear again???

WDodd · Jul 20, 2007

The sad thing is there are a great many people who live in the United States that don't even know who the vice president is but those same people know how long Paris Hilton is going to be in jail or what she is doing at any given moment.

I find most security measures that are being taken especially in airports to be frivolous. If a terrorist wants badly enough to accomplish something they will find a way. Inconveniencing everyone else for the sake of "security" is a complete waste of time. They catch someone trying to blow up a plane with a water bottle so they don't allow those on planes anymore, as if someone would try and bring something like that onto a plane anyways when they know that security is looking for it. Just dumb.

There is a nuclear power plant about an hour from my house on my way to college and everytime I drive by it I think that would make some cool pictures. My mom keeps telling me that I'm going to get arrested if I try and take pictures of it.

Edit: The U.S. Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated nuclear facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are usually not designated as such.

Just found that in the photographers rights thing, so who knows what will happen if I ever decide to do that.

glaston · Jul 20, 2007

The problem with this subject is peculiar.

It's not actually so much about the application of security, but more about giving people the illusion of it.
With the security that is in place as we speak, it doesn't actually make anyone safer in any way.
When security personnel are on the scene, it's all about telling people what they can and CANT do, or where they can and CANT be.
This gives scared people the illusion that someone is taking their disposition seriously.
Especially when it ends up on the news, people think that security is actually being dealt with.

However, someone with the intent of wrong doing is just gonna circumvent the security strongholds anyway.
A terrorist will just slip between the cracks.

The whole thing here in the US about terrorists and security isn't really about keeping people safe.
It's about getting people to surrender their rights with little or no fight.

It's about a new way of government. You can't forcefully remove peoples rights without some sort of backlash.
But if you make people think that they need to relinquish these rights in the name of security of themselves and their loved ones, they will do it with not so much as a second thought in most cases.
It's all in an effort to establish a totalitarian state! To make the people dependent on government for everything.

Think back to right after 9/11. Our government gave everyone the idea that another attack could be at anytime and in any way.
So people didn't do much, they were on some level afraid to leave their houses.
That resulted in a huge threat to our economy. So they had Shrub(Bush) go on camera and tell people to go out and buy stuff and do things like normal, but re-iterated the need to be vigilant.
IMO, America is NOT the free nation that people thought it was or think it is now.
It's a modified version of a communist state.
When we think of communism, we think overt control. Which is the gray area here, this not an overt communist state but a covert communist state.
This way works better. We aren't being forced to comply(that would be too obvious), we're being tricked into compliance by thinking it's in our best interests.
Just watch and see. When this "American Experiment" that we're living is over (which isn't too far off), these lessons we're learning will be common knowledge.
And future experiments will use this as a road map of what NOT to do when trying to establish a nation FOR the people BY the people.

I personally value individual rights. I don't violate the rights of others while exercising my own.
But as far as having a corrupt and power hungry government tell me where I can and CANT go, or that I can't take photos of things that my tax dollars paid for, that's just something I refuse to submit to.
I don't use my camera as a shield to infringe on others rights, so I don't allow others to use devices to infringe on my own rights.
If I want to take a picture at the gates of a nuclear power plant, I will.
I fully understand that this puts me at risk for harassment, having my equipment siezed and possibly damaged. If that happens, I'll just replace the equipment.
But if they were to give me the song and dance about post 9/11 safety, I would eagerly tell them to save that **** for someone who's buyin it.

I reserve the right, and don't often pass up the chance to say "F*CK YOU" when I smell BS in the air.

John_05 · Jul 21, 2007

glaston said:
The problem with this subject is peculiar.

It's not actually so much about the application of security, but more about giving people the illusion of it.
With the security that is in place as we speak, it doesn't actually make anyone safer in any way.
When security personnel are on the scene, it's all about telling people what they can and CANT do, or where they can and CANT be.
This gives scared people the illusion that someone is taking their disposition seriously.
Especially when it ends up on the news, people think that security is actually being dealt with.

However, someone with the intent of wrong doing is just gonna circumvent the security strongholds anyway.
A terrorist will just slip between the cracks.

The whole thing here in the US about terrorists and security isn't really about keeping people safe.
It's about getting people to surrender their rights with little or no fight.

It's about a new way of government. You can't forcefully remove peoples rights without some sort of backlash.
But if you make people think that they need to relinquish these rights in the name of security of themselves and their loved ones, they will do it with not so much as a second thought in most cases.
It's all in an effort to establish a totalitarian state! To make the people dependent on government for everything.

Think back to right after 9/11. Our government gave everyone the idea that another attack could be at anytime and in any way.
So people didn't do much, they were on some level afraid to leave their houses.
That resulted in a huge threat to our economy. So they had Shrub(Bush) go on camera and tell people to go out and buy stuff and do things like normal, but re-iterated the need to be vigilant.
IMO, America is NOT the free nation that people thought it was or think it is now.
It's a modified version of a communist state.
When we think of communism, we think overt control. Which is the gray area here, this not an overt communist state but a covert communist state.
This way works better. We aren't being forced to comply(that would be too obvious), we're being tricked into compliance by thinking it's in our best interests.
Just watch and see. When this "American Experiment" that we're living is over (which isn't too far off), these lessons we're learning will be common knowledge.
And future experiments will use this as a road map of what NOT to do when trying to establish a nation FOR the people BY the people.

I personally value individual rights. I don't violate the rights of others while exercising my own.
But as far as having a corrupt and power hungry government tell me where I can and CANT go, or that I can't take photos of things that my tax dollars paid for, that's just something I refuse to submit to.
I don't use my camera as a shield to infringe on others rights, so I don't allow others to use devices to infringe on my own rights.
If I want to take a picture at the gates of a nuclear power plant, I will.
I fully understand that this puts me at risk for harassment, having my equipment siezed and possibly damaged. If that happens, I'll just replace the equipment.
But if they were to give me the song and dance about post 9/11 safety, I would eagerly tell them to save that **** for someone who's buyin it.

I reserve the right, and don't often pass up the chance to say "F*CK YOU" when I smell BS in the air.