Originally Posted by
PhlyingRPh
I think this is the bottom line here. Are we willing to live with a very slight chance that someone is taking photographs in order to do something mischievous later on, and allow everyone the freedom to engage in photography, or in order to maybe prevent one minor act of mischief every twelve years or so, do we want everyone who takes a photograph at the wrong time and the wrong place, and who is likely the wrong skin colour or religion to be interrogated, jailed, etc.
Which is it then, oh great nation of scaredy cats?
Well over at
PV, Blogdad Bob is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand,
Originally Posted by BB
...this one [poster] struck a nerve with photographers because it shows a person with their lens steadied towards a GA aircraft. Some felt this poster didn’t go far enough in distinguishing between general photography and suspicious surveillance activity. These images are simply meant to represent a number of different scenarios that are common in and around GA airfields. ...
Translation: photography is a potential suspicious "scenario." But on the other hand:
Originally Posted by BB
In fact, many photographers would be prime candidates to use such vigilance programs to report suspicious activity since they’re extremely observant of their surroundings.
Translation: no puppies this week so I'll pat the photographers on the head instead. Good
dog photographer. Sit. Beg. Roll over.
According to the comments (7 so far) the public isn't buying it. The word "harass" is getting used an awful lot.
