Thread: The War on Photographers

I don't know the situation with your friend's wife and she has my sympathies. Is it specifically because of a new law or something that her work status has changed? I completely agree that the bloated bureaucracy is doing a terrible job in the execution of security measures. And that is unacceptable, but I don’t' think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Again, I don't think that these examples have ever been essential liberties guaranteed to American citizens. Situations change and documentation requirements change with them. That area has always been the purview of the government. That's nothing new.

The other issues (passports - why is it a big deal to get a passport once every 10 years? - and not being able to go to Canada for dinner) sound more like a matter of convenience than freedoms. When we are at war, we need to make sacrifices and convenience often comes first. People made relatively big sacrifices during WWII for example.

The government has done a poor job explaining why they are doing what they are doing. They're afraid to ask us to make sacrifices and that is a mistake. They should trust us to do that.

If a policeman stops me while I'm walking down the street in my suburban town because of some new "anti-terrorist" law, then you're right. Given the context it would be ridiculous. If a state trooper checks my bag while I'm on a crowded commuter train travelling to an obvious target, that's a different story. There may have been threats; you have the London bombings, etc. Under the circumstances, it’s appropriate. Again, this is common sense. What law btw specifically allows our police to stop people randomly and without cause? - as if police couldn't find a reason to stop you if they wanted to before 9/11.

I think we just disagree on what constitutes governmental meddling in the life of an average law-abiding citizen. To me, it sounds like much of the concern is on a conceptual level. I'm convinced that I've not lost any essential freedoms nor has anyone I know.

I certainly respect your concerns and I'm not trying to denigrate them. I just don't understand them all that well.

Jordan

Originally Posted by jnich67

It sounds like the guards were private security, not the government. Or am I wrong on that?

Jordan

there were several incidents in the article, in a few, actual policemen (women?) did the harassing. the first guy was detained without being arrested, had his person searched, and a few of the others had property confiscated. one guy spent a few hours in a cell, if I read it correctly.

Now, I'm as inherently distrustful of law enforcement as anyone, perhaps moreso, but how can anyone see unwarranted search and seizure of private property as NOT violating the 4th Amendment?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I really wonder what would happen if one of these photographers was also a CPL holder I'm betting we would have another Rodney King type incident.

I have a CHL and frequently pack, and interestingly enough, I get LESS harassment from cops when they find out. I mean, it makes sense logically, (in my state, CHL licensees are fourteen times less likely to commit crime of any kind) but I guess I'm just so used to getting a hard time it sort of caught me off guard the first time.

one more thing and I'll shut up for now. This is from a book I recently read and I think it's rather relevant. emphasis is mine.

As the villainous Dr. Ferris in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand so forthrightly put it:
“Do you really think we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against – then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.”


Seem familiar? There are days when I start to wonder if the DHS's mission statement isn't a paraphrase of this.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Frankly I think the Dept of homeland security is a total waste of my money

Agreed, but highly doubtful it would ever go away. Getting rid of a government program once it's implemented is like trying to get rid of something that's impossible to get rid of! Shortly after Homeland Security rolled out, In our rural Minnesota town of under 3000 people, I was behind a huge brand new decked out fully loaded Ford Excursion on a frontage road. It was crawling along at less than 5mph (speed limit 30mph). It was a homeland security vehicle and the driver was scanning the area in an almost comical exaggerated manner. When I saw all of this, I said to myself out loud: "Oh, come on, give me a break!!" A waste.

Now.....I too am hesitant or even opposed to giving up additional personal freedoms for what I believe to be an illusion of increased safety, but... for different reasons than many:

There's an adage: "People who have nothing to hide hide nothing". Search me, search my car, search my home, search my computer. I have no fear or vehement opposition to such practices.

My concern in the loss of personal freedoms at the hand of government and those in authority positions is the potential for ABUSE of that power. Perfectly innocent people getting harassed by corrupt individuals who have the law behind them to act. That to me is of greater concern than simply the potential for law enforcement to stop me and ask me to show what's in my wallet, car, home, computer, etc.

Chris L

Originally Posted by jnich67

How has increased security directly and concretely effected you or people you know? I'm not trying to be a wiseguy with that question. I'd really like to know.

When I went to college in NYC (1966), I used to like to walk across the George Washington Bridge. I live in Italy now but in 2005, I visited NYC with my wife and her two sons and I took them for a walk across the bridge. From the moment we set foot on it until the moment we got off, we were followed by a policeman on a bicycle. We weren't stopped or interefered with in any way, but the sensation of being watched was very uncomfortable and, needless to say, I wouldn't do it again.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

When I went to college in NYC (1966), I used to like to walk across the George Washington Bridge. I live in Italy now but in 2005, I visited NYC with my wife and her two sons and I took them for a walk across the bridge. From the moment we set foot on it until the moment we got off, we were followed by a policeman on a bicycle. We weren't stopped or interefered with in any way, but the sensation of being watched was very uncomfortable and, needless to say, I wouldn't do it again.

You see, my reaction to this is to feel safer and appreciate that the police are being vigilant. I would have smiled and said "how ya' doin'?" to the policeman because I know I have nothing to worry about from him. We view things from different places/perspectives.

Jordan

Originally Posted by jnich67

You see, my reaction to this is to feel safer and appreciate that the police are being vigilant. I would have smiled and said "how ya' doin'?" to the policeman because I know I have nothing to worry about from him. We view things from different places/perspectives.

Jordan

guess so. I'd feel quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by jnich67

You see, my reaction to this is to feel safer and appreciate that the police are being vigilant. I would have smiled and said "how ya' doin'?" to the policeman because I know I have nothing to worry about from him. We view things from different places/perspectives.

Jordan

I dont need the babysitter.

I'm the kind of asshole that would tell my wife and kids to stare back for about five minutes. It's funny how quickly people will leave you alone when you do that. Plus, it's not like he can arrest you for it.

On the one hand, I can see people getting mad at photogs because of what Google is doing with Google streets. It's cool, but they really invade some people's privacy too much. For the most part though, and especially with the article, it's BS. Why do the police need to be called to search this man? The private security could have discussed the issue with him and had it been taken care of with no issues. Instead, he calls the police to have them do his job for him. What could have been a quiet conversation ended up being a shady search.