Click-Bang?
in [Photography]
|
Prev: Anyone using Bible Pro for raw images?
Next: soles up
From: Joe on 16 Jul 2007 17:28 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.
From: Pat on 16 Jul 2007 21:38 On Jul 16, 5:28 pm, "Joe" <NoM...(a)htndjpghqwrt.com> wrote: > 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. 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.
From: JoeT on 16 Jul 2007 23:35 "Pat" <groups(a)artisticphotography.us> wrote in message news:1184636282.117705.83910(a)n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 16, 5:28 pm, "Joe" <NoM...(a)htndjpghqwrt.com> wrote: >> 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. > > 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. > 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/
From: Fat Sam on 17 Jul 2007 05:44 JoeT wrote: > "Pat" <groups(a)artisticphotography.us> wrote in message > news:1184636282.117705.83910(a)n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 16, 5:28 pm, "Joe" <NoM...(a)htndjpghqwrt.com> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> 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. >> > > 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/ 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.
From: Richard Polhill on 17 Jul 2007 06:03
Fat Sam wrote: > ... they can frame up to goon walls etc. 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"? ;-) |