Can't take pics on Boston T

[JMI]

With the technology hanging off of everyone's belt (or in their purse) does anyone really think that terrorists need thousands of dollars of professional camera gear to gather intel?

The restrictions in place, and the unwarranted/illegal abuse that some photographers have been subjected to, has many causes but the policies in place are there to CREATE THE ILLUSION OF SECURITY. From a politician's point of view, perception is much more important than reality.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

What is crazy is that you can go to the manufacturers sites and get info on the cars themselves.
http://www.bombardier.com/
http://www.transit-rider.com/lrt/boeing.cfm
Bet if you looked hard enough on the net you can find the full schematics on all of the car designs.

And with pocket point and shoots you can pretty much palm one of those small cameras and shoot pics, just be sure the flash is set to off.
Pretty much all light rail cars and subway cars are the same either with benches along the sides or full seating.

I agree with Jase that it is an illusion of security.

[David]

Originally Posted by TxLerman

I understand that the terror cell raids have shown that terrorists take lots of photographs of potential targets. I realize that this is very unsettling. However, the focus of my question was do people really think that terrorists will go away if they and everyone else can not take photographs? In other words, is the key to security just to ban all forms of visual recording? What would stop the terrorists from sitting on park bench or in a chair in a lobby with a note pad and take lots of written notes? Or should we ban the more modern situation, sitting in chair typing away on a laptop as I am currently doing from the gate area at an airport? Should we ban note taking as well in public places? What about people walking around with digital audio recording devices (dictaphones)? Should we require people to get licenses or permits to own and use a camera in the name of security?

I am just trying to come to form an opinion on whether or not restricting photography in public places will really provide security or if terrorists will simply adapt and continue with their plans?

What do you think? Will restrictions on photography really provide security or just an illusion of security?

David

In my professional opinion I think banning cameras is not a good idea and is a false sense of security. After 9-11 alot of companies and building owners went on a hire spree to hire security people. When they hired security guards they were hiring people who were and still are un trained and un qualified to do the job. If you want to get a security job in most places as long as you show up 99% of the time and can stand up you got the job.

If you are going to hire a security guard or security professional you need to train them. Also everyone needs to get away from the perception that every terrorist is an arab with a turban. That is not the case anymore. My Israeli counterparts have been putting out reports that the new face of terrorists and suicide bombers are young females and house wifes.

Below is a picture that I attached of a female that was going to blow up a night club in Tel Aviv over the summer. She was caught after intel officers issued a city wide alert and started to use check points. She was caught at a check point with TNT in her car and the stuff to make it go boom in her person and clothes. As you can see that if you would see her on the street she looks like someone you might see in a clubbing district of any city and you would never think twice.

I think the solution to this problem is to train security people in good counter terror skills, customer service/public relations and train photographers on the dos and donts. In the classes I teach we teach the security people to be vigilant and to ask questions. If you see someone with a camera go up to them and talk to them. after a few minutes you can tell what they are really up to by the type of answers given and the way there body moves.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Yeah the guy/gal with the bomb won't look like the hippie or the "arab" or the local "gun nut" but will look like the average jane/joe on the street.

I would not be suprised to see them trying to recruit people with incurrable cancers/deseases that they know will lead to agonizing deaths if they live on and that no cure is anywhere in site. With all of the people with AIDS and other deseases that are out there can lead to a huge supply of potential "terrorists" that don't fit a profile.

I would like to say that if the US was hit with the bombings like Madrid and London things would get a lot more scary.

Hey a backpack full of plastique could take out a lot of people and weigh under 25 lbs
http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm just about $15 a lb?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/c-42.htm

[adirty1]

they tried that in NYC and got sued.
if you know what your talking about you can shoot in the subway.

[Stephen H]

I took some shots on the Dart train and on the TRE without incident a while back. On the underground station halfway up 75 (I forget the name of it) there actually is a sign there saying no photography in that location without permission. I emailed them to see what was involved in getting permission, they emailed back a phone number, and I haven't checked into it since. (To me, the attraction at that location is the extremely long escalators, not the train level itself.)

This issue has been batted around a good bit. I understand some of the NYC bridges were supposed to be off-limits to photography, which strikes me as just plain stupid.

One of the problems is that in many cases, it won't be illegal to photograph there, but security people will try to make you think it is, threaten, harass, etc. (I think this has been an issue at refineries) I ran into this up at the Lake Lavon dam. There are no signs restricting photography there. And it's a public place, used by fisherman, with a parking lot and all. But when I started to take a picture there, the ranger told me it wasn't allowed, it was illegal, it's a restricted area, they'd call the sheriff, confiscate my camera, etc. I looked into this some later, actually contacted the site office, read all their rules, and never could find any rule that actually prohibited photography, not even the rule which the ranger's boss referred me to prohibited photography (which is probably why there wasn't a sign!) (The base commander has the authority to limit any particular activity, but evidently hadn't done so, as closures have to be publicly posted.) It really irks me that these guys would just go out and lie to people like that.

Meanwhile, while we're protecting Lavon Dam from the scourge of terrorism, it appears that tourists are freely permitted to photograph the innards out at Hoover Dam, which is a great deal more of a target.

There's no doubt that terrorists have used photographs in planning or contemplating attacks. But it seems the type of restrictions and enforcement in effect are just about 100% guaranteed to miss that type of surveillance. Out at Lavon Lake, I could have walked around all day with a little 10MP point-n-shoot and shot every last detail of that dam in great detail, without the ranger being any the wiser. But pull out a tripod and a K1000, and they're all set to prevent that. When your anti-terrorism efforts can't even afford to put up a $5 sign, what can you say? Ranchers go to more effort to keep people out of pastures- at least they have signs up.

I've heard the example of the guy who goes to work, his boss yells at him, so he goes home and kicks the dog. I think this is the attitude that prompts 99% of the restrictions on photography. Consider the security people at a refinery. They sit there day after day, they patrol the fence, they man the gate, it's got to be immensely boring. They're trying to prevent terrorism- only there aren't any terrorists to be seen. But, they see a photographer! So they're off to kick the dog, because he's there and handy, and they can't kick the terrorist.

Aside from the inconvenience, the major danger in all this is the assumption that when you've done these kinds of trivial activities, you've made the country safe. I guarantee you that the ranger out at Lavon Lake isn't going to stop any terrorists- unless they're unarmed and peaceful terrorists.

[jkderby]

It is just our current government giveing the American public a "feel good environment". It will not stop the terriosts. If they want to, they will find a way. Just takes time.

[markfh]

I might not agree with the restrictions and certainly don't agree with the treatment some people have been subjected to but I do agree that most people in this country really haven't taken the terrorism threat as seriously as I think they should.

I haven't had a problem taking pictures whereever I wanted with the single exception of an active Navy base. That for the obvious reasons.

I have however made an effort to get permission or at least inform local authorities of what I wanted to do.

The saying "it's easier to get forgiveness than to ask permission" does not apply today.

I know it's a hard concept to swallow but we don't have absolute rights just because we want them.

But then, that's just my experience and opinion.