Are photographers really a threat?

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:20:41 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Bruce Schneier at The Guardian - clamping down on photography is a "movie plot" security measure, says Mr. Schneier. Only in movies do terrorists use cameras to plan their bombings. [picks]

Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harrassed, 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.

...

Fear aside, there aren't many legal restrictions on what you can photograph from a public place that's already in public view. If you're harassed, it's almost certainly a law enforcement official, public or private, acting way beyond his authority. There's nothing in any post-9/11 law that restricts your right to photograph.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (2):

The whole giving up freedom

Submitted by Scott Hughes on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:17:25 GMT

The whole giving up freedom for security deal rarely makes sense. I think it's generally a play on the irrationality of our fear.

Edit comment

no filming by 9/11 plotters?

Submitted by Steve on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:51:16 GMT

I recall seeing a news story in which video footage of one of the twin towers was shown, purportedly taken by a collaborator. The camera zooms in on the approximate location of impact. So the Guardian piece is likely inaccurate on that one point. Not that it would justify hindering innocent people from taking pictures, mind you.

Edit comment