Click-Bang?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Joe, Jul 16, 2007.

  1. Joe

    Joe Guest

    I thought I'd tell you what happened this evening.

    I was out with my wife in the car and went to a place called Grangemouth (in
    Scotland). It's a huge oil refinery and looks like something space-age or
    from another planet. As we drove though, I stuck the camera out the window,
    but before long we were being tailed by the security team. They pulled us
    over and asked why I was taking photos. I said "for fun". They called out
    the cops who arrived in two minutes. I had to explain to them how I was a
    photographer! :) It wasn't so easy though as they were going on about
    terrorists and Glasgow airport and how they had to view everyone as a
    potential terrorist. I had to wait until they checked me out on their
    computer and let me go, but I had to erase the images first. I can sort of
    understand their point of view, but what are we NOT going to be able to take
    photos of next then? I guess these terrorists have already won as everyone
    is so scared of a guy with a camera nowadays.

    Joe.
     
    Joe, Jul 16, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Joe

    Pat Guest

    It's just another example of making a show of security rather than
    actually making something secure. This way people think they are
    secure rather than actually making people secure. It is security in a
    show-business world.

    So they made you delete the photos. What does that mean. That just
    means that it takes you an extra 30 seconds to undelete the images
    before you download them to your camera. It provided no security.

    The best it would do is to slightly delay a very, very stupid
    terrorist. However in all likelihood, if they were too stupid to
    undelete an image, they are too stupid to be a terrorist.
     
    Pat, Jul 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Joe

    JoeT Guest

    Shhh don't point that out, the idiots will start confiscating the memory
    cards from we poor unsuspecting photogs...

    Actually this is a rather common occurrence, especially surrounding
    facilities considered to be terrorist targets. Power plants, water works,
    refineries etc.

    Here's one site that deals with these issues. There are many.

    http://www.freedomtophotograph.com/
     
    JoeT, Jul 17, 2007
    #3
  4. Joe

    Fat Sam Guest

    I've found that if you think the security at a particular
    site/location/installation are likely to respond in this way, you can
    normally prevent the situation before you've even started by simply popping
    along to their security office and having a friendly chat with them
    beforehand.
    Explain who you are, what you're doing, what you want to photograph and why.
    Show them some of the more dazzling bits of kit in your bag, and tell them
    you'll provide them and/or the company with some prints of the shots you're
    taking that they can frame up to goon walls etc.
    Also, let them know why you're asking permission. Explain to them that in
    this day and age, you're afraid of being mistaken for a terrorist while
    doing something perfectly innocent.

    More often than not, this approach will pay dividends.
    Failing that, a letter to the management will often result in permission
    granted as a goodwill PR gesture.
     
    Fat Sam, Jul 17, 2007
    #4
  5. Ok so a second reading and I realised it was a typo for "go on walls", but I
    love the idea of their office boundaries being called "goon walls". Or perhaps
    the security perimeter for a site should be the "goon wall" on the model of
    "firewall"?

    ;-)
     
    Richard Polhill, Jul 17, 2007
    #5
  6. Joe

    Stan Beck Guest

    This is the result of fighting terrorism by the defense method (retreat &
    hide). The solution is to go on the offence, aggressively, and wipe it out.
    Then, we will have the freedom to take pictures without all of this.

    What they are doing now is not all that effective, and we are the ones being
    punished.

    --
    The smaller the fine print, the less you will like what it says.

    Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
    To reply, remove 101 from address.
    ***
     
    Stan Beck, Jul 17, 2007
    #6
  7. Joe

    Lloyd Erlick Guest


    July 17, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

    All too true -- plus: somewhere on the
    Internet there must already be photos of this
    superduper installation. We all know the
    terrorists know how to use the Internet just
    like it's a weapon, eh?

    regards,
    --le
    ________________________________
    Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
    website: www.heylloyd.com
    telephone: 416-686-0326
    email:
    ________________________________
    --
     
    Lloyd Erlick, Jul 17, 2007
    #7
  8. Joe

    Lloyd Erlick Guest


    July 17, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

    The whole problem would go away if they would
    just up the pay for front-line security
    personnel. If they were paid what the work is
    worth (the security of all of us, so they
    say), and if they were professionalized
    commensurately with the wage, we could rely
    on laws being appropritely enforced, not used
    as excuses for infringements like deleting
    someone's pictures.

    Are we just sitting around waiting for the
    legislation that specifies what we are
    allowed to photograph?

    regards,
    --le
    ________________________________
    Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
    website: www.heylloyd.com
    telephone: 416-686-0326
    email:
    ________________________________
    --
     
    Lloyd Erlick, Jul 17, 2007
    #8
  9. Joe

    Ric Trexell Guest

    **********************************************************************
    When cameras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cameras.
     
    Ric Trexell, Jul 18, 2007
    #9
  10. Joe

    Lloyd Erlick Guest


    July 19, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

    Yes, photographers should use the Saul
    Alinsky method pioneered in the sixties.

    Alinsky suggested a nonviolent method to
    resist institutional repression. If a
    restaurant or store refused service to
    certain people (members of a group as
    perceived by the owner of the establishment,
    such as, for example, black people...) and if
    that owner called Police who arrested the
    perceived miscreants, then next day fifty or
    a hundred unwanted folks would show up, be
    arrested and jailed. Net day another hundred
    or two or three, until the Police were
    exhausted and the jails full of people who
    exclusively behaved sweetly and cooperatively
    during their incarceration.

    So -- those friendly security guards and
    their overly co-operative Police associates
    should be treated to a couple of hundred
    photogs showing up to take pictures from the
    public vantage point used by the original
    poster. Groups of dozens showing up all day
    long, and the next day, and the next, until
    the publicity shames them into taking it very
    seriously indeed if they think they might
    just say sternly "keep your nose clean and
    wipe that memory card, boy."

    This requires organization and fortitude, and
    a few are bound to get beaten up. The first
    sign of violence on the part of any photog,
    though, and the game changes for the worse.

    I recommend voting for politicians and
    political parties that espouse rationality
    and intelligence. If there are any.

    regards,
    --le
     
    Lloyd Erlick, Jul 19, 2007
    #10
  11. Joe

    Lloyd Erlick Guest



    July 19, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

    Thus stimulating a market for small,
    concealable cameras!

    At least, I hope so.

    regards,
    --le
    ________________________________
    Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
    website: www.heylloyd.com
    telephone: 416-686-0326
    email:
    ________________________________
    --
     
    Lloyd Erlick, Jul 19, 2007
    #11
  12. Joe

    Stan Beck Guest

    No, I think it would do better to sue and win - from what I read, there are
    a lot of police and security guards who are enforcing laws that don't exist.
    To sue would help expose this and pinch their wallets.

    As for voting - vote for independents, and never vote for a political party.

    --
    The smaller the fine print, the less you will like what it says.

    Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
    To reply, remove 101 from address.
    ***
     
    Stan Beck, Jul 19, 2007
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.