Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 02 Jun 2012 (Saturday) 17:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sad Testament...

 
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 142
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Jun 03, 2012 04:52 |  #16

sjones wrote in post #14522546 (external link)
Yes, terrorists have used cameras/videos to survey potential targets, including militants in Singapore and Jakarta. Before 2001, suspected Al Qaida militants reportedly took numerous photos of the Prudential building in New Jersey, and in Pakistan, officials raiding a suspected senior Al Qaida member's home reportedly discovered laptops containing hundreds of photos of potential targets in the United States. Criminals case joints, so do terrorists.

A terrorist attack occurs at least daily somewhere in the world, and you can bet photography is involved in some of these attacks, even if just a small minority of them. Why this should be surprising is actually what is surprising…plotting an attack can be a very complex process, and visual aids help.

Moreover, if it is illegal to use a camera somewhere, it is not the authorities' obligation to assume what type of camera a potential terrorist might use, especially since DSLRs now have video capabilities. If cameras are off limits, they are off limits.

As for second-guessing the mindset of what a terrorist might do or not, I'm wondering how any of you are qualified to make such sweeping assertions. This might come as a shock, but the type of folk who would blow themselves up are not always the brightest on the block, and how they go about surveying a potential target varies.

I know this, because it was my job for more than a decade to research, analyze, and write about militant/terrorist activity.

THIS SAID!!! I shoot street, or what I like to call, outdoors; meaning my stage is the public setting. Clamping down on my right to photograph in public would kill photography for me…I don't want to do macro shots in my backyard or portraits indoors.

And I emphatically agree, paranoia, increased restrictions, and authoritative abuse play right into the hands of the terrorists. I'm not defending any draconian response by any means, and I'm personally disgusted at the bigoted anti-Islamic sentiment coursing through much of the West.

Still, whenever this discussion comes up, there's always the, "Yeah, you think a terrorist would be stupid enough to use a big, conspicuous, white lens, of course they wouldn't" as though deliberately blowing up women and children is rational. And no, Google maps doesn't reveal info on security detail and other considerations.

Again, if photography is banned (whether reasonably so or not!), it is not for authorities to decide which cameras are OK under assumptions that a terrorist would never use a large camera. Hell, after reading this site, that's exactly what I would use, because no one would expect me to do such a thing.

Said my piece, I'm out, but PM's always welcome...

In regards to the point highlighted above, often, fanatics can be and have been educated, bright and highly motivated. There have been medical students, military officers, lawyers and other "intelligent" individuals who have strapped on vests packed with explosives.

In fact, as the west finds more ways to combat such attacks, you'll probably find more and more willing attackers being recruited from the ranks of the wealthy and educated. To think that such people don't exist is to leave yourself open to attack.


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Karl ­ C
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,953 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Now: N 39°36' 8.2" W 104°53' 58"; prev N 43°4' 33" W 88°13' 23"; home N 34°7' 0" W 118°16' 18"
     
Jun 03, 2012 10:15 |  #17

Wilt wrote in post #14522956 (external link)
He thought that you were carrying a Cannon in an artillery battery, not a Canon! They need to teach better spelling in school. :lol:

Isn't that the truth... :D

Clean Gene wrote in post #14523152 (external link)
So, like...did they take your camera? Or arrest you, or confiscate your memory card?

Nah, the officer was cool about the whole thing. Just filled out an FI card on me, no big deal.

elrey2375 wrote in post #14523438 (external link)
Did you ever think that since it's private property they don't want you wondering around? Maybe it has nothing to do with them thinking you are a terrorist, maybe there are unexploded shells out there or something. How are you supposed to tell the difference between someone who is just taking photos and someone who aims to do harm. It's not like the person aiming to do harm will be wearing a sign that indicates such. It's not a sad testament to anything. It's private property, they don't want anyone on it. They didn't confiscate your camera or card, you didn't get arrested. Not really sure what kind of response you were looking for. As for all the hoopla about paranoia and whatnot, think about it in these terms; a terrorist only has to be right one time. Those who protect us need to be right EVERY time. If the end result is you being stopped and asked a couple of questions, then so be it. It wouldn't bother me in the least if it happened to me.

Thanks for your reply. With all due respect, please go back and re-read what I posted. However, if you don't want to do that (since you posted my original comment), I'll say it again - it was not posted anywhere that it was private property. The sign at the gate where I entered said, "Department of Parks and Rec" which, in the City of Los Angeles, means public parks. In addition, there was a museum on premises open to the general public. How can someone know it's private property if it's not posted and appears to be part of the park system?

Regarding your comment of unexploded artillery shells, please do a little research before posting. When was the last time there was a coastal artillery battery still in-service? This particular battery has been museum since 1985:

http://www.ftmac.org/O​sgood-Farley.htm (external link)
http://www.ftmac.org/C​ontacts.htm (external link)

As for what kind of responses I was expecting, I had zero expectations of any replies. The intent of this thread was a commentary on today's environment for photographers. I have had training in security for airports and fully understand the need to proactive law enforcement. I get it. However, in this case, law enforcement got it wrong - there were no signs posted it was private property and a museum volunteer on premise never said a word to me about shooting there.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply.


Gear: Kodak Brownie and homemade pin-hole cameras. Burlap sack for a bag.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,222 posts
Likes: 179
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Jun 03, 2012 12:31 |  #18

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14523511 (external link)
In regards to the point highlighted above, often, fanatics can be and have been educated, bright and highly motivated. There have been medical students, military officers, lawyers and other "intelligent" individuals who have strapped on vests packed with explosives.

In fact, as the west finds more ways to combat such attacks, you'll probably find more and more willing attackers being recruited from the ranks of the wealthy and educated. To think that such people don't exist is to leave yourself open to attack.

They can be, but not always! Again, not always, as I originally stated.

I'm very well aware of the nature of the folks involved, and certainly those who orchestrate attacks can be quite intelligent and shrewd, at least when it comes to planning ambitious attacks. But some of the operators are not that bright, including the "lone wolf" type, and some of them, even educated ones, can make mistakes, just as can militaries and governments, despite all the degrees floating amongst their respective members. And most security forces around the world largely understand that they are dealing with folks who can be remarkably clever and quickly adaptable to changing situations.

And I'm serious when I say this, being educated and motivated doesn't mean knowing how to properly conduct a successful terrorist attack---they don't necessarily teach this in law school (though some might disagree). Fortunately, a lot of otherwise reasonably educated terrorists have been stopped because they slipped up.

My point is that applying what you (the general POTN member) feel is a rational approach is not applicable to all, repeat ALL, potential terrorists, and if someone is pointing a 600mm at a nuclear power plant, I would not advise assuming, "Hey, no terrorists in their right mind would do such an obvious thing, so don't worry---besides, they would just use Google Maps---I know I would."

More to the point, terrorists have photographed prospective targets, and security forces have to take this fact into consideration.

Again, I'm not trying to condone authoritative abuse or excessive restrictions, but let's not go the other way by claiming that terrorists don't photograph potential targets; that's just not true.


Sept 2017-July 2018 (external link)
Grateful I'm not blind to Eggleston's brilliance.
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
Jun 03, 2012 12:39 |  #19

Karl C wrote in post #14524297 (external link)
Isn't that the truth... :D

Nah, the officer was cool about the whole thing. Just filled out an FI card on me, no big deal.

Thanks for your reply. With all due respect, please go back and re-read what I posted. However, if you don't want to do that (since you posted my original comment), I'll say it again - it was not posted anywhere that it was private property. The sign at the gate where I entered said, "Department of Parks and Rec" which, in the City of Los Angeles, means public parks. In addition, there was a museum on premises open to the general public. How can someone know it's private property if it's not posted and appears to be part of the park system?

Regarding your comment of unexploded artillery shells, please do a little research before posting. When was the last time there was a coastal artillery battery still in-service? This particular battery has been museum since 1985:

http://www.ftmac.org/O​sgood-Farley.htm (external link)
http://www.ftmac.org/C​ontacts.htm (external link)

As for what kind of responses I was expecting, I had zero expectations of any replies. The intent of this thread was a commentary on today's environment for photographers. I have had training in security for airports and fully understand the need to proactive law enforcement. I get it. However, in this case, law enforcement got it wrong - there were no signs posted it was private property and a museum volunteer on premise never said a word to me about shooting there.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply.

Reread my post. Never said that it was posted, but you were informed it was private property and asked to leave. There are still unexploded shells lying around from the Civil War, so that's a moot argument. My entire point was that I don't see it as a sad commentary on anything. You wondered somewhere you shouldn't have been, maybe it was marked correctly, maybe it wasn't, but you were informed and asked to leave. I don't see how that is a commentary on anything.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MikeFairbanks
Cream of the Crop
6,428 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Jun 03, 2012 12:46 |  #20

The dudes who did 9-11 were educated and pretty smart, actually. They came on student visas, rented homes in middle class neighborhoods, trained in Florida on flight simulators, and such.

But if they photographed their targets ahead of time, it must have been with Nikons.

Canon users wouldn't do stuff like that (well, except Canon users who don't use AV, TV, and M.

;)


Thank you. bw!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
birdfromboat
Goldmember
Avatar
1,839 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
Location: somewhere in Oregon trying to keep this laptop dry
     
Jun 03, 2012 13:19 |  #21

kfreels wrote in post #14522417 (external link)
Something to consider. I read an article a few weeks ago that suggests that the number of people who die on the roads because of the extra hassle of air travel and additional fears cause them to drive rather than fly, kills more people every two years than the number of people actually killed on 9/11.

How about the invasion of Baghdad? there was a point during the invasion at which some very pragmatic journalist reported that had we taken the same number of young people involved in the invasion and plucked them out of Iran and put them on our highways for an equivalent amount of time, we would have lost more at home than over there. I would bet that the balance has changed, but the point is we are very aware of deaths that occur as a part of a hostile action than a careless one.

As for the subject of this thread, raised by the OP, we had better get used to it. No one stood up and fought when the government took control of the radio spectrum. Movies are just a form of recorded variations of the light spectrum accompanied with vibrations in the audible spectrum and our government sees fit to regulate what variations in light and vibrations of air are Ok and whats not OK. Some people have stood up and fought this and it is becoming less controlled and overseen but is far from free and the government still has a hand in your pocket when you want to make and distribute a movie.

Now the government wants us to accept that photons that bounce off of government owned objects are government controlled photons. It's bogus for so many reasons we don't have the space or time to argue them all.

But the precedents are there and undeniable and we had better get used to our government having the ability to tell us which photons are public domain and which ones are private and which ones are a matter of national security.

thats all I got on this- we need to stop thinking in terms of subject matter and start looking at photography as the simple act of recording the patterns and variations of reflected light regardless of subject. Taking pictures should be no more regulated than the use of a geiger counter or wind speed indicator or thermometer or AM radio....you get the idea.


5D, 10D, G10, the required 100 macro, 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8, 300 f2.8)
Looking through a glass un-yun

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Jun 03, 2012 14:09 |  #22

birdfromboat wrote in post #14524978 (external link)
How about the invasion of Baghdad? there was a point during the invasion at which some very pragmatic journalist reported that had we taken the same number of young people involved in the invasion and plucked them out of Iran and put them on our highways for an equivalent amount of time, we would have lost more at home than over there. I would bet that the balance has changed, but the point is we are very aware of deaths that occur as a part of a hostile action than a careless one.

As for the subject of this thread, raised by the OP, we had better get used to it. No one stood up and fought when the government took control of the radio spectrum. Movies are just a form of recorded variations of the light spectrum accompanied with vibrations in the audible spectrum and our government sees fit to regulate what variations in light and vibrations of air are Ok and whats not OK. Some people have stood up and fought this and it is becoming less controlled and overseen but is far from free and the government still has a hand in your pocket when you want to make and distribute a movie.

Now the government wants us to accept that photons that bounce off of government owned objects are government controlled photons. It's bogus for so many reasons we don't have the space or time to argue them all.

But the precedents are there and undeniable and we had better get used to our government having the ability to tell us which photons are public domain and which ones are private and which ones are a matter of national security.

thats all I got on this- we need to stop thinking in terms of subject matter and start looking at photography as the simple act of recording the patterns and variations of reflected light regardless of subject. Taking pictures should be no more regulated than the use of a geiger counter or wind speed indicator or thermometer or AM radio....you get the idea.

So using the same argument I suppose one could render the case of a murder down the the stopping of the movement of electrons and claim that the victim had no more rights over the control of those electrons than the murderer.


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nature ­ Nut
Goldmember
Avatar
1,366 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2012
Location: NY
     
Jun 03, 2012 14:22 |  #23

kfreels wrote in post #14525133 (external link)
So using the same argument I suppose one could render the case of a murder down the the stopping of the movement of electrons and claim that the victim had no more rights over the control of those electrons than the murderer.

Existential !!....bw!


Adam - Upstate NY:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
birdfromboat
Goldmember
Avatar
1,839 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
Location: somewhere in Oregon trying to keep this laptop dry
     
Jun 03, 2012 15:49 |  #24

kfreels wrote in post #14525133 (external link)
So using the same argument I suppose one could render the case of a murder down the the stopping of the movement of electrons and claim that the victim had no more rights over the control of those electrons than the murderer.

no, I think you have a right to keep your own electrons to yourself and I should expect you to let me keep mine in order too. But if you are willing to just let the photons that are rightfully yours ( because they did hit you first) just bounce off you all willy -nilly, whats to stop me from recording a few now and then? Certainly not the government, right?


5D, 10D, G10, the required 100 macro, 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8, 300 f2.8)
Looking through a glass un-yun

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
374 posts
Likes: 58
Joined Jan 2009
     
Jun 03, 2012 16:53 |  #25

That's a sad testament concerning signage practices.

If the area was off limits, it should have been clearly indicated as such.


Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link) Shadows of Turning (external link) Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 187
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Jun 03, 2012 20:14 |  #26

elrey2375 wrote in post #14523438 (external link)
Did you ever think that since it's private property they don't want you wondering around? Maybe it has nothing to do with them thinking you are a terrorist, maybe there are unexploded shells out there or something. How are you supposed to tell the difference between someone who is just taking photos and someone who aims to do harm. It's not like the person aiming to do harm will be wearing a sign that indicates such. It's not a sad testament to anything. It's private property, they don't want anyone on it. They didn't confiscate your camera or card, you didn't get arrested. Not really sure what kind of response you were looking for. As for all the hoopla about paranoia and whatnot, think about it in these terms; a terrorist only has to be right one time. Those who protect us need to be right EVERY time. If the end result is you being stopped and asked a couple of questions, then so be it. It wouldn't bother me in the least if it happened to me.

If it was a matter of private property, why was he not simply informed as such, and escorted off the property? (And ideally apologised to for the lack of clear signage in what was obviously an area where such a misunderstanding could occur.) OP could have then said sorry for the mistake, thanked them for their help, shook hands and parted ways.

"Excuse me sir, this area is off limits, I'm going to have to ask you to leave." would have been a far more suitable response than was described if it was a simple matter of someone being where they weren't suppose to.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MikeFairbanks
Cream of the Crop
6,428 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Jun 03, 2012 20:34 |  #27

The real tragedy is the no skateboarding signs everywhere. Very sad.


Thank you. bw!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bear ­ Dale
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,699 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 259
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
Jun 03, 2012 20:45 |  #28

Is this the fort -

http://www.ftmac.org/ (external link)


Cheers,
Bear Dale

Some of my photos featured on Flickr Bear Dale (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
madjack
Goldmember
1,396 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ.
     
Jun 03, 2012 21:44 as a reply to  @ Bear Dale's post |  #29

To the OP.

Seeing as I live in the area, I just want to thank you for the heads up on this location. I definately don't want to wander into a place that I'm not welcome, and definately don't want to step on an unexploded shell. ;)

I agree with you, the U.S. really has adopted "the sky is falling" attitude since 9/11..


www.pva.org (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Karl ­ C
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,953 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Now: N 39°36' 8.2" W 104°53' 58"; prev N 43°4' 33" W 88°13' 23"; home N 34°7' 0" W 118°16' 18"
     
Jun 06, 2012 09:29 |  #30

elrey2375 wrote in post #14524823 (external link)
My entire point was that I don't see it as a sad commentary on anything. You wondered somewhere you shouldn't have been, maybe it was marked correctly, maybe it wasn't, but you were informed and asked to leave. I don't see how that is a commentary on anything.

There is no "maybe it was marked correctly" because it wasn't marked. And, I had already left the premises by the time law enforcement arrived. In fact, had it been a minute later, there wouldn't have been an FI. The officer and I wouldn't have crossed paths on the road.

fotoworx wrote in post #14526707 (external link)
Is this the fort -

http://www.ftmac.org/ (external link)

Yes, sir.

madjack wrote in post #14526934 (external link)
To the OP.

Seeing as I live in the area, I just want to thank you for the heads up on this location. I definitely don't want to wander into a place that I'm not welcome, and definitely don't want to step on an unexploded shell. ;)

No problem - it is a neat place with some great photo ops. Too bad someone manning the CCTV monitors is the twitchy, nervous type. ;)


Gear: Kodak Brownie and homemade pin-hole cameras. Burlap sack for a bag.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,689 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sad Testament...
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is sam729
2303 guests, 305 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.