It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The War on Photography

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

The War on Photography


rinf.com

By Bruce Schneier | What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all terrorists, or does everyone just think they are? 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.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I agree here, has anyone heard any public announcements regarding taking photos in public? I would like to add the paragraph to this because all need to understand this and try to uncover why this is happening.


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.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Why do the Powers that Be not want the public taking pictures in public?

rinf.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Pictures can be used as evidence. Otherwise you just have to believe the talking heads at ten o'clock.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
It's hard to control information with digital distribution, going after photographers is just an old fascist trick, an atempt to control the flow of information. A picture tells a thousand words, and most of those words go against official spin.

Solution? Everyone carry a camera on them and don't be afraid to use it



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
This is the case where I live in New York City, can't take a photo on the train or in the subway system despite the beautiful and nearing ancient remnants of the old IRT and BMT train stations. Can't take any photos on a bridge despite the fact that the bridges have inspired photographers for generations. Can't take any photos of cops or police equipment and you certainly can't take photos of the illegal and unconstitutional random checkpoint bag searches. Hell, for a little while after 9/11 they were telling us we can't take photos of any major landmarks.

YOU CAN'T TAKE PHOTOS OF MAJOR LANDMARKS IN NEW YORK CITY?!?!?!?!?!?!


Sorry for the caps but I hope I'm not the only one who sees how ridiculous that is.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The deal in London at the moment is that we are allowed to take pictures if we are no more than two people, and if we are more than two that we notify the local police department and only use instantly portable gear.
If we want to do big shoots we have to buy a permit.

I was down on Canary Wharf yesterday looking for inspiration in this capitalistic world. I thought the local bank centre would be an interesting idea.
I only got home with 160 shots, but many of them was taken almost right outside the individual buildings.
I don't know if it was the number of tourists present but I wasn't approached at any time. Even took a shot of a building with two guards outside.
I guess I didn't look islam enough

Strange though... I was wearing a hat and sunglasses. Must have looked a bit suspicious, hehe.

But yes, what is it with those paranoid bastards and photographers. I mean, if the terrorists want pictures of something they are gonna get em anyways. Wouldn't take more than a phonecam to get useful images for planning.
The laws surrounding photography are hurting us pros, not the ones it was meant for.


[edit on 9/6/08 by flice]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Photography for military purposes is as old as the camera itself. Reconnaissance is a fact of war and insurection and security. This is a bit overboard to say the least. What makes me upset by it is that They can photograph you but not the other way around. Malicious editing though is a problem as well as the use of doctored media to prove a negative point. Not sure how to combat it either way!


Zindo



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join