Bruce Schneier: "Are photographers really a threat?"

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Adam Funk - 05 Jun 2008 21:54 GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism

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.
...
This is worth fighting. Search "photographer rights" on Google and
download one of the several wallet documents that can help you if
you get harassed; I found one for the UK, US, and Australia. Don't
cede your right to photograph in public. Don't propagate the
terrorist photographer story. Remind them that prohibiting
photography was something we used to ridicule about the
USSR. Eventually sanity will be restored, but it may take a while.

Reply to this Message

monopix - 06 Jun 2008 21:33 GMT

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism
>
> Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph
> his target, so vigilance is required.

Absolutely wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any terrorist has ever photographed a
target prior to comitting a terrorist act.

Don't know where you got this crap but suggest you do your homework first.

Reply to this Message

Graculus - 06 Jun 2008 21:59 GMT

>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Don't know where you got this crap but suggest you do your homework first.

Erm, try again.

Adam was quoting from the original Guardian article, with his comment on
top. Pay attention at the back :-)

Reply to this Message

monopix - 06 Jun 2008 22:40 GMT

>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Adam was quoting from the original Guardian article, with his comment on
> top. Pay attention at the back :-)

No quotation marks so he wasn't quoting. It was written as his own comment.
Learn to write... (and read).

Reply to this Message

WZR - 06 Jun 2008 23:53 GMT

>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> No quotation marks so he wasn't quoting. It was written as his own comment.
> Learn to write... (and read).

No quote marks, but he *was* quoting excerpts from the piece, which I have
in print. Learn to apply common sense, check facts, and "do your homework"
before sniping at posters.

With regards to your statement "There is no evidence whatsoever that any
terrorist has ever photographed a target prior to comitting a terrorist
act.", this was in fact the whole crux of the article, which you obviously
haven't read, so I'll add "learn to recognise sarcasm" to the above list.

Signature

WZR

Reply to this Message

Peter Beale - 06 Jun 2008 22:52 GMT

>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Don't know where you got this crap but suggest you do your homework first.

I should have thought in the context the statement was meant to be
sarcastic.

Peter Beale

Reply to this Message