I think his quote is absolutely spot on about how this stuff works:
"I lived through the McCarthy era, so I know how false accusations, surveillance, and keeping files on innocent people can destroy their careers and lives."
I'm actually rather amazed at the number of "so what?" comments I'm seeing here. I thought we were all much more conscious of how these types of programs start to spin out of control.
I've read about this happening to a guy that photographs underground missile silo's/bunkers already. That was admittedly pretty soon after 9/11, however.
I have lived through a communist regime and I believe that accusations, surveillance, and keeping files on innocent people can destroy a lot more than just their careers and lives. It slowly creates some kind of "let's just do nothing to make sure they don't notice me and put me on the list" atmosphere. It might take decades but it has crushing impact on society. Society needs certain things to thrive - like people doing stuff and communicating without fear and self-censoring. Pervasive surveillance can ruin that.
How can the nation so famous for its entrepreneurial spirit not understand that you have to accept some risks in order to thrive. You can never be totally safe - there is always going to be some attack vector left. You have two options - accept that some bad things will happen, limit the control you try to have over society, and thrive. Or try to act on everything, prevent every risk... and you will fail... and damage your society more than any terrorist ever could in the process.
I am not naive - there needs to be some surveillance. Of course that safety is an important value. But it should not be the most important everything-else-trumping value.
If your security services react to a real intelligence about a real threat - that is great. But if they react to stuff like some old guy taking a picture of art (and this is not the only case, nowadays it seems more like a rule than exception) - well, you might be building a cowardly society that is so risk-averse that it will degrade its progress in the future.
This also basically means losing war on terror and giving them what they want.
> accusations, surveillance, and keeping files on innocent people ... slowly creates some kind of "let's just do nothing to make sure they don't notice me and put me on the list" atmosphere
This is absolutely right. Censorship is internalised into self-censorship.
> I thought we were all much more conscious of how these types of programs start to spin out of control.
The FBI followed up to get the story straight. The FBI didn't know what the guy was doing or why he wasn't doing it, therefore they went to go find out. They sought out the truth. So please enlighten me as to how this can "spin out of control".
To get the story about what straight? The man was taking a picture of a natural gas tank with some art on it. What about that elicits involvement from the FBI?
Sure, you could argue the guards were concerned he (some 86 year old guy with a camera) was part of a terrorist plot to blow up the natural gas tank. If you draw the line for suspicious activity there, though, then that time I searched Google Maps for local dairies should be equally concerning, since I could be planning to poison the food supply (I'm not. I am, however, looking for a good source of fresh milk for cheesemaking).
You're pointing down the very best road that all this dragnet surveillance can take us: a war on the unexpected.
Once everything we do, on or off net, is observed and recorded, the only thing that Johnny Law can do is try to check out the things that are unusual: looking for fresh milk. Or wait, maybe you're one of the animal rights folks, and you're trying to figure out a way around the "ag-gag" laws. How does Johnny Law know? He or she doesn't. If you're lucky, like the photographer, they come ask. If not, you're on The List. Maybe you don't get to fly any more. Maybe you just can't get a new job.
We don't know what the security guard told the FBI. They may have exaggerated, lied, or there may have been other circumstances the author of the article didn't mention.
Boston is very touchy and has been, as evidenced by past displays like the Mooninite scare where the called the bomb squad over some cartoon signs with blinking lights.
I have to wonder, though, the way things are, if they were protecting the copyright on the building or because it's filled with liquified natural gas? Then again, it could be both...
I think if some terrorist actually did try to poison the food supply like that, it could very well make you become a suspect for that too. Except I don't recall anything famous like that actually having happened in the recent past (correct me if I'm wrong).
So you are advocating a reactive approach where we constantly look to the last terrorist attack as the pattern for what the next terrorist attack will look like?
Yeah, I think the models need to be recent terrorist attacks, not potential ones that people can dream of on a whim. Kind of like how judges work reactively, they don't make rulings on cases they haven't seen yet.
If the security guard suspicion was justified. The FBI found out that is wasn't. Case closed. They did everything by the book. And are you telling me that they shouldn't?
They should exercise some judgment, realize some bored-ass security guards (think about how dull it must be to guard a site like that) made a report just to feel important, and then toss it right in the trash can.
It was a guy taking pictures of a structure in public. No, the FBI should not be tracking him down.
Yes, except I want them to establish cognitive biases. Let's leave off that 'risk' part, as the risk is already inherent when you bark up wrong trees throughout the investigation. (time loss is the result of the risk posed by uncertain guesswork)
Let's get rid of that 'instead' you used, too. Sneaky! There's no reason for 'establish cognitive bias' and 'find the truth' to be exclusive from one another, is there?
So here's the new cleaned up version I think I can get behind :
"I would like the FBI to establish cognitive biases as a tool towards the goal of finding the truth."
Yeah. Exactly. The FBI chased a dead lead instead of investigating (actually) urgent matters, wasting time and taxpayer money in the process.
The agents may have acted fine. Whoever told them to act, or decided to act on such flimsy circumstances, are the ones who are wrong.
If the agents decided to investigate this at their own discretion perhaps it was a way to instantiate a cross-country vacation within the workplace. That'd be the best we could hope for, because if the agents thought that this guy was a threat (especially given his names' public image and photography portfolio), that's a problem.
You're not at all scared that FBI agents interpret the suspicions of a security guard with greater priority than some random person on the side of the road? I've met plenty of security guards, and a number of them were so grossly under qualified that the thought of them as some sort of authority figure is horrifying, doubly so with FBI backing.
It is not practical to investigate every instance of someone doing something 'unusual' (even if you can define it well enough). Even if you could investigate every instance of it you still shouldn't because a police state where everything 'unusual' is questioned is a terrible place to live. If you know that you're going to have to answer questions every time you take a photo, you'll stop taking photos.
the danger isn't in McCarthyism itself; it's the danger that McCarthyists pose to a society when they make accusations that either a) turn out to be false all together or b) were the result of agent misinterpretation or lies for the sake of personal career advancement.
McCarthyists accused and found so many 'red spies' not because they existed (although they did in very limited amounts), but because McCarthyism generated them through false accusation, followed by an unwavering inability to admit wrongdoing or fault.
This is a story about what can happen when a governmental agency has: A) too little oversight, B) way too much (taxpayer) money, and C) way, way too little transparency.
What can you do about it? A) join the ACLU and donate a little every month, B) actively support open government ordinances and proposals at every level of government, C) support investigative journalism and avoid agenda-driven media outlets and D) vote against surveillance-state supporting politicians (esp Feinstein and Boxer in CA) at every opportunity.
Law enforcement shouldn't keep information about people unless they've been convicted of a crime?
Pray tell how do you propose a system of law enforcement can work without both these things. Or do you think that law enforcement is an unnecessary evil?
>I've read about this happening //
This being 'someone asked about their whereabouts'? Really. This is too much of an invasion of your liberty to simply confirm that you were indeed the person in a particular place?
Perhaps he bought something on ebay from a person financially linked to terrorist operations abroad the week before he went visiting a natural gas storage facility .. we don't know. The outcome for him was to answer a couple of phone questions; I find it really hard to see anything in this story that shows the SAR program has failed.
I imagine they get a few folks taking pictures. Photogs tend to take lots-and-lots of pictures, and want to get in places where other people don't, get close-ups and such. TBH that this might look suspicious doesn't seem especially unreasonable. The security guards don't know he's a professional photog.
> Law enforcement shouldn't keep information about people unless they've been convicted of a crime?
"Law enforcement" has no job until a crime has been committed. There is no point in attempting to foil a terrorist plot that doesn't even exist. We could do without all of this pre-crime BS.
The FBI can't prevent terrorism. That's not how terrorism works. Any idiot can kill a bunch of random people on the street and there is literally nothing you can do about it. And notwithstanding that, it still doesn't happen often enough to be worth spending half the resources on it that we do.
But the real issue in this context is that the people in charge of the pre-crime BS are the same people in charge of putting you in prison for violating the law. Such people are extremely dangerous to normal people because they can so easily ruin your life with a pencil, which is why good upstanding citizens legitimately take such exception to encountering them in these types of situations.
It's the chilling effects problem. If something like taking pictures of things causes a visit from LEOs then you're liable to stop taking pictures of things, or advancing your political views in public, or associating with certain people. Which is a totally unacceptable reaction for LEOs to be causing in upstanding citizens who are doing nothing wrong.
There's different kinds of information that law enforcement can store.
Looking at extremes: keeping a record of which people have killed someone in the past seems like a very reasonable thing to do. On the other hand, keeping a record of how long each person brushes their teeth on average, seems like an invasion of privacy (and pointless when it comes to anti-terrorism).
Taking photos of an already well-photographed public landmark seems to fall in the latter category.
The argument, if you have approached it correctly is then "what level of pre-crime do you want?" Ideally it would be none, because there would be none, because the world is awesome. Reality tends to fall somewhere in the middle.
We don't know what the security guard told the FBI.
I'd be willing to bet that if a security guard bothers to report a 72 year old with a high-quality camera for taking pictures of obvious artwork to the FBI that the guard exaggerated the encounter.
I've heard of several of these FBI followups in the past ~10 years but the person being interviewed always said nothing but positive things about how professional and calm the FBI agents were. They didn't send a 30 person SWAT team like the DEA would or multiple agents to your door with exposed guns threatening you. Yes, I've personally seen multiple instances of the DEA raiding homes while I was in college, good peoples lives were ruined because "someone smelled marijuana at a party".
It's the FBI's job to follow up on these types of instances. They were heavily criticized after 9/11 that they received tips but didn't properly follow up, now they follow up and everyone complains that they shouldn't bother anyone.
Does anyone think the FBI would simply leave a card asking for a phone call if they really believed that person was any real threat?
I'm just offering another possible perspective to the story that doesn't fit the mainstream "all law enforcement are bad" group-think going around. Think before jumping on the bandwagon guys.
The security guard who over-reacted is the issue here, not the FBI. Yes, the Patriot Act needs to be revisited or even thrown out and the NSA needs to go back to having very strict limitations on sharing with other agencies and allied nations, but that's a different conversation.
"It's the FBI's job to follow up on these types of instances."
What kind of instances? Taking a photo? The author's exact point is that society should recalibrate itself such that anybody photographing a public piece of artwork shouldn't raise suspicions or trigger an FBI follow-up. It's the physical equivalent to the NSA's "collect-it-all" mentality. Targeted intelligence gathering is the appropriate approach in my opinion. And sometimes that means accepting that a 72 year old photographing a made-to-be-photographed statue isn't leading a sleeper cell.
No, reports from a security guard is the kind of instance I am referring to. If the security guard had said "an older man wanted to take pictures of this art-work which happens to be a common natural-gas storage tank, he didn't appear to be a threat", then I can't imagine that the FBI would have wasted resources following up with more than a phone call.
Thats a tough issue, what if he was a threat. What harm is in the FBI just following up? When a 6 year old calls 911 to chat with an officer, police still follow up to make sure that it was just a 6 year old and not a distress signal.
If the officers were polite what harm is there in them following up and making sure?
Instances of this have chilling effects. I don't want FBI agents showing up at my door, ever. I might think twice about photographing something in public for fear that someone might report me. That's messed up.
You can play the "what if" game until the cows go home, and opinions will of course differ as to where the line of caution should be drawn, but IMO we're far far into the land of paranoia at this point.
It's a start down the 'report your neighbors for subversive ideas, comrade' path. What disincentive is there for security guards to not just "report everything, just in case?" How many people will decide not to photograph said art-piece because they might get a visit from the FBI?
Is the answer to all this just some hand-wavy 'everything changed after 9/11?'
> What disincentive is there for security guards to not just "report everything, just in case?"
Perhaps too many false positives and you get canned for not being able to do your job competently, then subsequently replaced by someone who can adequately assess threats?
Reporting suspicious activity and subsequently investigating it isn't a waste of time - analogously, if it were a waste of time we wouldn't keep security logs on any of our computers. The issue is adequately assessing what is a credible threat and what isn't, which the FBI is likely in a better position to do than the average security guard. That's likely the reason he just dropped off his business card instead of bringing along the SWAT team - based on whatever was tipped to the agent, this guy was probably not an actual threat.
- If there is such a "too many false-positives, you get canned" policy, I feel like the threshold is probably set too high... just in case.
- "Better safe than sorry, just report it because the FBI is in a better position to determine X" isn't the bar that you want to use for reporting things.
- The bar for 'suspicious' could just be 'argued with me (security guard) about my ability to prevent him (photographer) from photographing private property from public property.' Or maybe 'he knew his rights' / 'argued about his rights' / 'mentioned the ACLU.' Or just plain old 'he was Muslim and photographing things, I better report him!' I think that these 'filters' are not doing an adequate job of assessing threats, but probably fall well below any thresholds that would get said security guard in trouble for too many false-positives.
- From the FBI side of things, you could equally have 'better safe than sorry' group-think that says no one should be punished for making reports, because we don't want someone to see something that could prevent the 'next 9/11' and then not report it for fear of getting in trouble for if being a false-positive.
> Reporting suspicious activity and subsequently investigating it isn't a waste of time
The problem here is that everyone has different ideas on what is suspicious, and they bring their own prejudices to the table. Law-and-order / authority figures tend to view people that question them (and don't just fall in line) as acting subversively, and therefore suspicious. Just arguing with a guard about their inability to prevent you from photographing private property that is in plain-view from public property (without trespassing) could be enough to make you 'suspicious' just because most people are non-confrontational, and unwilling to push back against what the security guard says. As the Japanese saying goes, "The nail that sticks up its head, gets hammered."
> Perhaps too many false positives and you get canned for not being able to do your job competently, then subsequently replaced by someone who can adequately assess threats?
That would be a great policy. Too bad the reality is nothing like that -- probably the opposite.
The FBI is older than 2001. Greybeards remember using telnet to send mail 'From: president@whitehouse.gov' , triggering a reply with some colorful language, prompting a visit from Secret Service.
>What kind of instances? Taking a photo? [...] that anybody photographing a public piece of artwork shouldn't raise suspicions or trigger an FBI follow-up. //
If he took a single photo he's nothing like any photog that I've ever met. Sure, they probably have tourists, art appreciators or whatever, taking photos sometimes. But, I'm guessing, they don't all get added to an FBI SAR list - so this person was clearly not "[just] [t]aking a photo". Indeed he was probably taking dozens of photos, from lots of angles.
There's too little detail of course in the story to know - that would move against the angle they're trying to sell.
> It's the FBI's job to follow up on these types of instances.
It's part of their job to sanely estimate the credibility of reports. If I can phone the FBI and say something that causes them to send an agent to track someone down (or worse, to sent a SWAT team), there's a serious problem with the way they are performing their job.
When the FBI investigates someone from a tip that isn't very obviously a serious threat they do not treat the person being investigated like a criminal, that's half of what I wrote above.
Many times if they want an extended chat they will even take the person out for coffee, just to get a feel of the situation and ask questions.
I'm just saying that if the FBI did investigate me there is a reasonable chance they would act civil and objectively rather than abusing their power and using unnecessary force, and that's the way it should be.
So, what do you expect would their reaction be if you refused their coffee? And would you even try to refuse?
You see, having to explain what you do and why you do it is already a limitation of your freedom, and has chilling effects on society as a whole. If there is no indication I have done anything illegal, it's none of their business, I don't have to explain how I live my life and why, to anybody.
Disappointing lack of common sense from these commenters.
The prior probability that someone has bugged your house isn't affected by their claiming to be an FBI agent and taking you out for coffee. That's because, if you secretly bug someone's house, it's a secret. They would be doing it either way. (Or not doing it, because what are you supposed to find exactly?)
> It's the FBI's job to follow up on these types of instances.
What types of instances are these? "I saw someone photographing a monument" instances? Don't you think that our resources would be spread pretty thin if we were investigating all such instances?
> They were heavily criticized after 9/11 that they received tips but didn't properly follow up
They were criticized for not following up on "photography of landmarks is suspicious" tips?
They had his name and address. I suspect they also found that he was a published photographer of the subject matter in question. Did no one think "oh, I see, he was just doing his work." and left it at that? No need to contact him.
I would argue that we are not qualified to make that assumption but the FBI agents in question are.
There could have easily been a small fact or incident in the past with the author of the article that raised a red-flag for the agents. There could be a policy that says ALL tips must be followed up on and contacted.
I'm all for exposing and preventing abuses of power by law enforcement, but I see no evidence of that happening in this situation.
I would agree that we don't know the details in this particular case. OTOH, I think we hear about similar cases often enough to safely assume that at least a fair number of them wouldn't need to be taken as far if a little bit of common sense was utilized. (But maybe it's just that we don't hear about the ones where it was.)
There are crazy and evil people in the world who are determined to harm society and other innocent people, and part of the FBI's job is to help prevent this. The acceptable cost is debatable.
If the FBI investigates 500,000 people and prevents a single instance similar to the photo below, is it worth it?
Yeah. Crazy/evil people. Gotta keep an eye on 'em.
What I'm talking about is an 80 year old guy who is well documented for professionally photographing public art.
When they saw someone taking pictures of that piece there could be a couple reasons: A) he's scoping it out to come back later and lob an RPG at it, B) he's working on the second edition of his book you can buy on Amazon.
They don't need to talk to the guy to find out which one it is. That's what I'm saying.
I think everyone wants to imagine some reason for this man being contacted, but I would put forward a different view:
The FBI just aren't bright enough to do a cursory Google search, because they 'have all the info anyways'.
It's simpler than "Oh, but maybe they saw he was part of some obscure group in the 60s...". They probably just aren't very good at what they do, but with almost unlimited power it's hard for other people to see how shit you are at your job, as an organization and as a person.
Reworded that sentence, thanks, I didn't know that was a possible issue, was a little ticked off after typing a long thoughtful response only to see it instantly down-voted before anyone could have possibly had a chance to read it.
What's the flip side to running down every lead though? Information overload that may (will?) miss more significant threats. Do they not have some sort of triage for this ?
I'm sure the FBI understands the concept of prioritizing leads when/if they get overloaded. There are generally field offices in most major cities so I doubt they had to travel across the country or anything.
Common sense? An 80+ year old man standing on public property taking a photograph of a famous piece of artwork isn't remotely a terrorist threat. Presumably the FBI could have even figured out that he's been a professional photographer for most of his life, and done a little research on their that would make it entirely obvious that there was nothing fishy going on there.
And double shame on the security guards for even reporting him in the first place.
> Common sense? An 80+ year old man standing on public property taking a photograph of a famous piece of artwork isn't remotely a terrorist threat. Presumably the FBI could have even figured out that he's been a professional photographer for most of his life, and done a little research on their that would make it entirely obvious that there was nothing fishy going on there.
Everything you just said here is the point of a follow-up.
Did you read the article? He's published books of photography. His work has been on display at the Smithsonian. Google and Wikipedia (yes, he has a page) might not give final confirmation of these facts, but it would bring them up, and the agents could verify them through other channels.
The solution to this is really simple. Photography is never illegal. It literally infuriates me every time I enter the midtown tunnel in NYC to see the "PHOTOGRAPHY PROHIBITED" signs at the entrance[0]. No, it fucking isn't.
Don't put it in public if you don't want people taking pictures of it. We use that argument for Street View, for aerial photographs, for countless other things. There should never be reason to harass people for photography, regardless of what Tom Clancy told you in his latest novel.
Indeed! I got dragged to the police station once by a guy cause I took a picture of his front door. He even tried to force me in to his car. Instead I walked to the cops with the guy driving next to me. He explained the problem and the cops told him to leave me alone.
The problem is that at least in the US there is a prevalence of "public access" places that are technically "private property" and enforce bans on photography as such, including public transport stations in some cities.
>Photography is never illegal.
Well that isn't true. Whilst there may well be several public places where photography is not inherently illegal (doesn't mean that there won't be other laws that apply to the particular photos you are taking) and yet a sign prohibiting it exists there are also several places (private property etc.) where such restrictions can be imposed.
The underlying issue probably requires a reformulation of the Constitution to resolve.
The problem is that the police can investigate anyone for any reason. Arresting them is harder, but not that hard. You have no redress for this; investigations and arrests that don't lead to a conviction (or indictment) can waste an infinite amount of your time. The Constitutional protections (however weak these days) only prevent you from being punished without a trial. If no charges are filed, you can effectively be punished without the Constitution mattering.
I'm not sure what the solution is -- I'm not a lawyer or political scientist or whatever -- but something seems not right.
(I've been investigated before; it really wasn't as bad as people say. I thought the agents were extremely competent and professional, which is not quite what you hear from the average Reddit commenter. Some things need to be looked at in detail before being dropped on the floor; asking the person suspected can be a good way to decide whether or not to continue the investigation.
I think I've posted the details to HN before, but I'm not sure how to filter that out from my many other comments :)
More transparency and punishment for abuse of power would go a long way.
Law enforcement releasing details about investigation statistics would do much more good for the country than keeping it secret in effort to prevent criminals from learning how to avoid law enforcement.
Do terrorists actually take pictures of potential targets?
I know that's what happens in the movies, but have there been documented accounts of terrorists taking photos before an attack--is it common? If it is common, is the false positive rate low enough to justify classifying this kind of photography as suspicious behavior?
Pictures of most likely targets are readily available online, and they can get those without exposing themselves to countersurveillance. Why would they stand around taking pictures?
Yes they do. The competent ones will have surveillance teams that are different from the operational teams. (A team can be a single person, obviously).
Look for a copy of the "terrorist recognition manual", the 2nd ed. has leaked in PDF, and the 3rd edition is on amazon. It goes into quite a lot of detail regarding the terrorist attack cycle. Surveillance is a significant part of planning a successful terrorist attack.
If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting surveillance. It usually the best time to capture them, since they haven't conducted an attack that kills anyone yet :)
> If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting surveillance. It usually the best time to capture them, since they haven't conducted an attack that kills anyone yet
I have to ask: If they have not conducted an attack, how was it determined that they were a terrorist?
This would only happen if the target had not been cataloged already and repeatedly by incidentals, which, if it's a target, it has. Surveillance of operational matters wouldn't require and ,in fact, may preclude overt photography. If necessary, it could be done at a distance with compound lens. But the reasons that would require this are minimal and remote. A simple walkabout can determine personnel, schedules, traffic, routes, routines, etc. I am unconvinced a sophisticated group would risk personnel and exposure by on site photography whose value would either be minimal or better obtained by less overt means.
This is a good start on the terrorist attack cycle and the surveillance techniques that are used. One of the problems with defense is that you had to protect against all possible attacks, and that includes people conducting on the ground surveillance.
As you suggest, more sophisticated groups will find better means of gathering the intelligence they need. Unfortunately, that still leaves crappy groups that don't know any better. Surveillance remains the best time to catch terrorists.
I can't speak to the specific example in the article, as usual the US is paranoid and over reacts, but the fundamentals are solid. Look for people conducting surveillance to catch terrorists.
Unless you are in a war zone, which USA is not, there aren't terrorists to find. USA soil is incrediy safe as a baseline, and all the security theatre doesn't stop anyone who actually tries. Nearly all the "wins" are entrapment of mentally ill people.
Yes, you're right. However, that's another issue. The question was "do terrorists take pictures of their targets?" and the answer is "yes they do". If the question is "are there terrorists in the USA?" then the answer is more complicated (I'd argue that shooting up an abortion clinic is terrorism), but in general the answer is "no". Should photographers be singled out for harassment? No, definitely not.
But does surveillance include photography? According to Bruce Schneier, none of the perpetrators of the major terrorist attacks of the last decade took any photos. [1]
Do you have any specific examples of terrorists who photographed their sites before attacking? I don't think there is much information that a terrorist couldn't get from a combination of watching and jotting things down in a notebook, and google street view + image search.
In general, blacklisting or whitelisting specific techniques is not the path to security. Looking for people conducting surveillance activities around targets is a good way to catch terrorist plots before they execute. The alternative, catching them after they execute, is not particularly good.
The only mention of photography in that example was of a military base. There aren't likely to be publicly available photos of a military base, so I can see why you'd want photos for planning.
This is completely different from a public landmark in the US which for which you will easily be able to find hundreds or thousands of photos from every conceivable angle.
I've still yet to see any evidence that overt photography or a public landmark would be useful to a terrorist, or any evidence that this has actually happened with enough frequency to classify photographing landmarks as suspicious behavior, or for that matter ever happened at all.
I'm not denying that terrorists conduct surveillance. What I'd like to see is evidence that they do so through overt photography of public landmarks and buildings.
If we stop investigating only potential surveillors who take photos as a matter of policy to to blog complaints, doesn't that make it easy to hide surveillance operations from scrutiny by just having everyone bring a camera along?
It wouldn't make sense to ignore other suspicious activity just because the suspect has a camera. My point is, are we justified in treating photography alone as a suspicious activity?
I wonder if Google Streetview usage information is examined for "suspicious activity", since it could very well be used in lieu of from-the-street photographs taken personally by the attackers.
> "If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting surveillance."
Which? And how did they react when the FBI agent left them his business card so they could have a chat on the phone?
In cases of actual terrorists, the FBI almost certainly would not contact them by leaving a business card and asking them to call. The did it in this case because they already knew that he was almost certainly not a terrorist.
First, an actual terrorist would probably have left as soon as the guards came out, rather than argue with them over whether or not photography from public property is allowed. Staying and arguing gives the guards more time to note identifying details that could lead their plans being disrupted.
Second, since they tracked him down from his rental car, and since they FBI does in fact have basic competence, they knew by then that he was a professional photographer and everything about the incident was consistent with his expected behavior based on his profession and his publication history.
So why not drop it at that point? My guess is they just wanted to make sure it really was him who rented the car in his name. A smart terrorist would use a fake identity to rent the car, and what better than to use an identity of someone who you would expect to find out photographing things like their target?
Looking at the layout, he was probably on that little drive that parallels the freeway (that's where the nicer photo is), and it probably isn't a public street.
edit: Looking at Street View, he must have been somewhere on Victory, that drive is gated.
another edit: The aerials in 2004 probably would not have been quite so detailed. But they would still be pretty detailed.
Yes. Its so obvious that they would I can't understand why someone would ask this question. They also commonly videotape targets and visit them before hand. Did you really think that the entire concept of reconnaissance was a Hollywood myth?
No, I can see how reconnaissance would be useful, but why photography? They can get pictures online, and anything dynamic they can either write in a notebook or use a hidden camera.
If we are profiling people taking pictures of landmarks, it seems like a terrorist wouldn't want to be a person taking pictures of landmarks.
I was just asserting the fact that terrorists do take pictures of their targets quite frequently.
I am just as opposed to profiling photographers as you are. After all, a terrorist taking a picture of a landmark is probably going to look exactly like any other tourist.
Edit: All of the down-votes in the world won't change reality. Just because you personally don't have access to evidence that terrorists conduct photographic surveillance doesn't mean that no one does.
>All of the down-votes in the world won't change reality. Just because you personally don't have access to evidence that terrorists conduct photographic surveillance doesn't mean that no one does.
I didn't downvote you, but are you asserting that this evidence exists or just that it might? If so, what is your basis for thinking this?
I'm asserting that the evidence exists and that I have seen it. Before I saw it, I never for an instant doubted that it was happening.
To further clarify, because some others (not you) seem confused, just because terrorists are in fact using photos and videos to plan attacks, doesn't mean that we have to start reporting everyone we see holding a camera in public. Its entirely possible for profiling photographers to be a bad idea even if every single terrorist had a camera.
I wonder how my boss would feel if I spent a bunch of time on a ridiculous task, say, maybe two days hand typing a list of project files in alphabetical order with three space indention into a text file and then printing it out, then spent a day reviewing it, and then ran 12 copies for everyone in the office....just in case the project git got messed up at some point, so we would know what our file names were. I wonder if explaining to him that "one can never be to careful" would fly? Or would he consider this to be unreasonable, wasteful, counterproductive and that I should be doing something meaningful instead? Probably he would. Which would obviously mean that he isn't a real patriot and that he hates America. Just as I suspected!
I don't know which is worse. The undue suspicion or the waste of time and resources which are needed to fight actual crime.
I suspect we all do unnecessary things from time to time at work. Sounds like law enforcement maybe does more this more than it's fair share however. I guess this is what happens when you don't have a ship date.
There's part of the story missing: how did he jump from "Have you been to Boston?" to the security guards reporting him?
No reason not to believe him per se, but if he's trying to be persuasive he needs to paint a fuller picture and explain what let him make the connection, not suddenly jump to conclusions like that.
It wasn't until after reading the article did it register that the event took place less than 3 years after 9/11. I think that's important context.
Don't get me wrong, I felt for the guy. It seems silly to investigate 76 year old man photographing public art. Today I would have argued my rights to photograph while on public property.
But back then, I distinctly remember calling the police when I saw someone with an SLR and a humongous zoom lens taking photos of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Center. Better safe than sorry was my thinking.
That's very different from public art, but it was also public art on a 140' tall gas tank. It's not unreasonable to view that as a terrorist target, esp. 2.5 years after 9/11, and in a major city (that fairly recently suffered a terrorist attack). Again, just trying to provide some context.
Not sure if I agree or disagree here, but if I was a security guard and saw someone photographing a natural gas tank, the thought would at least cross my mind that maybe he's planning to do something not so nice with that picture. (If you don't get what I'm saying, it could very well have been that he was taking a picture to figure out the best places to detonate bombs at.) It's a valid cause for concern, and it's not like I'd go ahead and check Wikipedia on the spot. And of course if I report it to the police, it's their job to follow up (but nicely). Maybe I shouldn't report it in the first place, but then that's my fault, not law enforcement's.
If you were a security guard for the largest piece of copyrighted art work in the world, and you saw someone trying to take a picture of it, you'd think he's maybe a terrorist?
You think the guard knew it was the largest piece of copyrighted art work?
You think he even considered it artwork, and that's what he was paid to guard? I think he probably thought of it as what it was: a large gas tank.
We as a culture should be very afraid of our future if as a culture we treat anything out of the ordinary as a potential threat. It will mean the end of a creative vibrant society if this is left unchecked - we simply cannot walk thru life as if there /may/ be a boogyman around every corner.
People need to be taught what reasonable risks are, and be better themselves at making good choices - moreover, we should all learn or be taught the difference between fear, and actual risk.
The problem here isn't the government, it's just the canary in the mine for a far larger societal problem - the abject fear of anything and everything - in short, this never should have been reported in the first place, much less investigated.
I don't get the overreaction. If some stranger is walking around the neighborhood, doing something legal but suspicious or out-of-the-ordinary, a cop should have the right to stop him and ask questions. Cops should have the power to stop and ask questions when someone is doing something that is not normally done. Sure, he has the right to do things that are legal. But at the same time, cops should have the right to investigate. They weren't saying he did anything illegal.
[I am assuming there is not racial or religious profiling going on].
Photographing a famous public piece of artwork is "suspicious"? That's what a lot of us are reacting to.
Yes, I know the painting is on a natural gas tank. They should still let people photograph it; photographs can already be found on the Web, so the horse is pretty much out of the barn, as they say.
It's suspicious if it is not done frequently, and it is a sensitive location (e.g. a huge gas tank). Cops aren't stopping you if you take pictures of the Washington monument or the Statue of Liberty. But if something that doesn't happen normally happens, it's natural the the cops want to look into it.
Sure, the picture of the painted gas tank might be on the web, but a guy with a camera might be taking pictures of other sensitive things that are at the location, not just the painted gas tank.
Imagine, that every time you say "Hi" to some girl you get visited by her father and brother carrying baseball bats. Nothing illegal, they are just making sure your intentions are nice.
Would you like that?
It's a pretty thin story of harassment. As far as I can tell, the security guards erred in that they said he couldn't take photos from a public place. From there, they took down his registration and submitted a report. The FBI gets this report and talks to him to sort things out. There's no mention of further contact after this.
It really doesn't matter how many companies he's been a senior VP of - and in fact, it's kind've unsettling that this is prominent in these stories, painting him as some sort of de facto nobility who should get treatment better than an anonymous person. Guards fucked up, pinged him for taking a photo when they shouldn't have. FBI checks the story out, and doesn't seem to have progressed after that one contact, ten years ago.
'Suspicion' is just that. It's not harassment unless it's ongoing.
There's a great disconnect between actual security needs and the security theatre demanded of those who must engage in guard duties. Those in charge must view the empowerment of security guards to determine actual threats as somehow inviting disaster when in fact, it may reduce the significant bureaucracy and paperwork these "centralised evaluation" procedures may impose.
I'm afraid to say that I'm worried that the more power you give guards to determine threats, the more they will harass folks. There is a bit of a ratcheting effect, no one will get in trouble for being too strict, but you're likely to get in trouble if you miss something, but there's also the human love of power in there. Give people power over a limited domain, and they just love to wield it.
He said that when he called the agent, he was asked if he had been to Boston recently; you can therefore infer that the reason the card was left was so that he would be able to contact said agent(an agent who was looking into him due to the 'photography incident' in Boston)...
It's basically the entire point of the article; although I guess you're right, that aspect is technically implied, not stated explicity. It's a clear implication though in my opinion.
Having a number to report suspicious activity is a great idea. There isn't a single thing Orwellian or unpatriotic about it. Unfortunately too many people don't really have any experience identifying suspicious behavior, so they end up reporting all kinds of benign activity.
Its really just a sad case of human nature making a good idea impractical to use in the real world.
In spite of the popular belief in this thread, terrorists do take photographs of their targets quite frequently. Unfortunately, they look just like innocent people taking photographs, so the practice of harassing everyone that takes a photographs isn't going to catch us very many terrorists.
However, there are many different types of suspicious behavior, and some of them will have a much lower false-positive rate than photography.
> In spite of the popular belief in this thread, terrorists do take photographs of their targets quite frequently.
My bullshometer pegs every time assertions are made about what terrorists frequently do. How does one acquire a visceral sense for terrorist picture-taking habits? And I mean everyone, right up to the consultants selling snake oil anti-terrorist training to companies renting out minwage security guards. How does that happen?
I used to think that way about a lot of things until I realized it makes a lot more sense to redefine "good idea" to exclude things that assume all humans will act ideally and rationally.
In other words, if humanity lived up to even a small fraction of its potential, it would be a good idea in both theory and practice. Unfortunately, most people can't be bothered. So, yeah, its a bad idea in practice.
So he gets into a minor argument with some security guards, guards call the cops, cops leave their business card on his front door and when he calls them he's asked if he's been to Boston recently... what am I supposed to be outraged about?
The FBI are cops - federal instead of local. Still, what's your point? No arrests, bullying, massive surveillance... They obviously didn't take think he was a threat, or else he wouldn't have showed up and left his business card. The agent was just following up on a routine report. Is it a violation of civil liberties for a cop to ask questions?
"Is it a violation of civil liberties for a cop to ask questions?"
If it's questions about your life and the cop doesn't make it clear that you can refuse to answer without any consequences, then yes, it very much is. Part of civil liberties is that you don't have to explain to anyone how you live your life unless there is some good reason to believe you did something illegal.
"I lived through the McCarthy era, so I know how false accusations, surveillance, and keeping files on innocent people can destroy their careers and lives."
I'm actually rather amazed at the number of "so what?" comments I'm seeing here. I thought we were all much more conscious of how these types of programs start to spin out of control.
I've read about this happening to a guy that photographs underground missile silo's/bunkers already. That was admittedly pretty soon after 9/11, however.