[Leica] OT - another horror story about photos and the Patriot Act

[abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge)]

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:31:57 -0600, Tim Atherton <timatherton@theedge.ca> 
wrote:
> Two things Adam:
> 
> a) Never ask for permission to do something which is a guaranteed right and
> freedom (informing whoever that you are going to do it is different - tell
> them don't ask)

In in IDEAL world this would be true. In reality it's a crock. It's
all very well to wrap yourself in the flag/Constitution/law and
proudly make things a whole lot more messy than if you just thought
about what was happening and talked to the right people to avoid
confrontation.

A little sensitivity about what you're doing goes a long way to
precluding incidents.

So I guess I'll be the guy undermining your "freedoms" in lieu of
making my life a lot easier.

> As soon as one or two people ask for permission, those being asked very 
> soon
> come to believe they actually have the power to grant that permission and
> will then require everyone to seek such permission
> 
> (How will you feel when you need to ask for permission to leave your city
> limits? or need to apply for an internal visa to cross State lines?)
> 
> > There are not many photographers on this list who were practicing
> > during WW II. I wonder what responses the taking of photos with a
> > tripod would have elicited from them? Probably not too friendly.
> 
> b) I believe the US was like every other major democracy during time of
> actual war - they sought emergency legislation from Congress (?)(as 
> Britain,
> Australia, Canada etc did from Parliament) for special measure for the
> duration. So acts such as photographing a bridge or a power station or a
> transportation route or whatever were illegal. But only temporarily.
> 
> The Patriot Act is such legislation, but the Administration did  not seek
> such brad and far reaching papers as were granted during WWII (probably for
> several reasons - to do so would have been to admit the terrorists were
> winning,  Congress probably wouldn't have granted them - nor would the
> American people as a whole accepted them -even after 9/11). BTW the Patriot
> Act nowhere mentions the prohibition of photography of any kind (the only
> mention of photography I recall was for extra funding to provide
> photogrpahic equipment to the Dept of Homeland Security or some such)
> 
> And despite what the Administration say, the US isn't at war and has only
> sought the very minimum of such powers.

I am talking about the Real World where people do goofy things for all
the wrong reasons. In the Real World, not some political abstract
place, people are edgy. Just like people are edgy of having
photographs taken of children. The two are precisely the same. People
are afraid of what will happen.

I do not NEED to ask permission to photograph someone's children. But,
you know what, I always do, and talk to their parents and if they say
"no" I don't go to the ACLU to uphold my rights to take pictures. I
just don't take that shot. The parents feel more comfortable and I
know I feel a lot more comfortable.

I guess I'm just throwing my rights away helter-skelter but they ARE
mine in my neighborhood and I'll just be thoughtful about where I want
to push the line.

your milage may vary.

Adam