Security Guru Bruce Schneier has a new article on "The War on
Photography."
Excerpt:
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0806.html
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 harassed, 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.
Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph
anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway
bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh
didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber
didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid.
Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian
suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those
manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk
about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7,
the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.
Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to
photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that
terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that
we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?
Because it's a movie-plot threat.
This is NYC.Transit. |
