Originally Posted by Custardthecat (Post 14633740)

5000 or 50, makes no difference when reading about this event. The Internet is wonderful in that respect. You can have a business meeting with colleagues on a different continent without leaving the office via conference call, great isn't it (not for mileage points though!). Anyway, I'm just saying what my opinion is i.e. I don't know why you did it, only that I think you did.

Originally Posted by PhoenixRev (Post 14633774)

Like photography in airports, no one knows why it is suspicious, but why let facts stop people from thinking the worst of innocent people doing nothing more than enjoying themselves?

Originally Posted by Custardthecat (Post 14633694)

A bit naiive. You are assuming that the individuals in the Jeep were also those charged with all planning and recce in addition. I'm not sure this is the way it would happen.

Originally Posted by PhoenixRev (Post 14633774)

If it is an artform, it is producing bad art.

It also is circular reasoning: It is suspicious because it is.

I am reminded of a tired cliche that use to inundate American television dramas in the 1970. The script trotted out a 60ish married male character and placed him in a restaurant having a candlelit dinner with a very pretty, 18-year-old female who was not his wife. There is giggling and laughing and then the man would present the woman with a gift, usually jewelry. Next, one of them kisses the other on the cheek. The story would then focus on this man and who was that woman he was with that wasn't his wife and they would spin the suspicion that he was having an affair until the big reveal: he took his granddaughter out for dinner on her birthday and gave her earrings as a present followed by a kiss on the cheek (or she kissed him on the cheek out of gratitude) and isn't everyone just horrible for thinking the worst of the man. Tsk, tsk.

Like photography in airports, no one knows why it is suspicious, but why let facts stop people from thinking the worst of innocent people doing nothing more than enjoying themselves?

Originally Posted by PhoenixRev (Post 14633687)

So, we have a solution in search of a problem.

We have this equation: photographing security areas/personnel + X = possible terrorism.

So far, no one has stated what X is other than a whim or pure speculation without any data to back it up.

Originally Posted by patom (Post 14633996)

I make no such assumption but if you do some research you will find that Bilal Abdullah and Kafeel Ahmed had very limited help with their attempts in London and with the GLA blast.

Originally Posted by Custardthecat (Post 14632354)

What I was trying to illustrate was the behavoiral aspect / reason for being at an airport issues perspectives and what concepts are seen as reasonable to enforce. I provided the UK example in order for you to draw perspective as this seems to be devolved from what is considered reasonable behavoir at airports here. The actual laws in UK / US are not the primary point.

Originally Posted by Custardthecat (Post 14632542)

The 'airliner plot' originating here (2007 I think) would have been catastophic but for intervention.

Originally Posted by essxjay (Post 14634140)

Actually, that's precisely the relevant hinge. Your perspective belies a position of assumed guilt whereas the context under consideration -- a U.S. airport governed by U.S. law -- the reasonable and operating presumption is one of innocence.

Flatly untrue.

August of 2006, btw. While conjecture about would've been has little argumentative merit, I must give you snaps for having the cojenes to take a swan dive into TS/S within minutes of registering here just four days ago. :)

Welcome to Flyertalk, Custardthecat.

Originally Posted by Custardthecat (Post 14634139)

I'm not at all in agreement with that patom. You will be aware then, that the GLA event followed approx 24hrs after a failed attempt on a night club in London where the thing was made safe by the ordnace guy as the mobile attached to it was ringing. Well done to that guy!! I am pretty sure it was reported that the two events were linked in some way by some sort of evidence and therefore a significant cell would seem to have been active across the length of the UK in a co-ordinated way. As you would expect with 2 events in that short time span

Originally Posted by Custardthecat (Post 14633706)

That's an intriguing one PhoenixRev. Have to think about it but I suspect it's more of an artform than an algebraic formula

Originally Posted by patom (Post 14634406)

Not necessarily. Check http://www.heraldscotland.com/glasgo...-plot-1.897581

Originally Posted by armandov9 (Post 14634575)

I'll make it easy for you: X = irrational paranoia and a willingness to toss away rights and freedoms in exchange for the illusion of safety for comfort.

Originally Posted by Custardthecat (Post 14634941)

Heres a scenario for you

Lets say it involves an individual, or number of individuals and your house, thus:

Whilst driving past your nice house the local fuzz see someone taking pictures of your house from a vehicle (including your security system /alarm) and that nice new BMW / Lexus in your drive

scenario 1.

Cops pull up and ask whats occurring

Individual(s) state their business as realtors involved in house sale and appear to be able to attain credibility in this respect (by whatever means) and cops drive away, suspicions abated

or

Individuals refuse to assist cops in enquiries stating its a free country and they can do as they please in terms of taking pictures. Cops either push it, or they don't

or

Cops see pictures taken and whilst thinking, thats a little odd they drive on thinking its none of their business as no crime is being committed and the person(s) is obviously exercising their rights and it's not suspicious at all because they have 'a right' to do it.

next night


Nothing at all happens

or

Your house is violently entered your family held at knife point while the keys are demanded and your stolen to order car is never seen again, except on another continent having been shipped out on a container within 24hrs and your loved ones are traumatised to boot.


then


You become aware that there was unusual activity unacted upon by the Police who could have put in a challenge and thus detterred the crims what would be your feelings. 'Don'y worry, you upheld their rights in doing nothing to be curious and challenge' or would you file suit for neglect (not sure how it works over there).

Different when it's closer to home, perhaps

In the case of your house and someone perhaps casing it, what would you, have the officers do?

A. Approach and clear suspicion that they are legitimate

B. Nothing

Originally Posted by Custardthecat (Post 14633819)

I think the site library(s) of pictures covering landside roads at GLA in 2007 would not be as extensive as you imagine. In addition it did prove you did not check the validity of your link before posting.

Originally Posted by Wally Bird (Post 14635256)

You cited photographs of GLA. I showed you where some could be found.

And that is the end of my responses to you. Never argue with an ....

Originally Posted by Custardthecat (Post 14634643)

It's a comprehensive report patom, but I am not inclined, at this point anyway, to change my opinion based on facts released to the Glasgow Herald. I agree only several charachters are described in this report but it is interesting some of the things they are described as doing. Tourist buses did it say, Landmarks. That will be the open top double decker bus variety in London. Cameras, perhaps?

So much material found it took 14 days, was it. Was any of it photographs perhaps.

I think we are developing off topic here though. I can't provide evidence to prove you wrong in this case and I don't think whatever happened here is the rule of thumb for all cases



....and still they come, with no sense of objectivity and willingness to reasonably discuss. I now know what it must have felt like at Rourkes Drift!

I will say this though. Being objective and fair with your statement (despite it's obtuse overtone) I agree that many measures are probably pointless and probably an exercise in public re-assurance. For example I have no idea what putting tanks in place at an airport during times of elevated concern achieves in a practical sense as a deterrent. Paranoia. 'Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you'. I could say the same, in any case, about many of the posts I've seen on here.

Heres a scenario for you

Lets say it involves an individual, or number of individuals and your house, thus:

Whilst driving past your nice house the local fuzz see someone taking pictures of said house from a vehicle (including your security system /alarm) and that nice new BMW / Lexus in your drive

scenario 1.

Cops pull up and ask whats occurring

Individual(s) state their business as realtors involved in house sale and appear to be able to attain credibility in this respect (by whatever means) and cops drive away, suspicions abated

or

Individuals refuse to assist cops in enquiries stating its a free country and they can do as they please in terms of taking pictures. Cops either push it, or they don't (judgement call)

or

Cops see pictures being taken and whilst thinking, thats a little odd they drive on thinking its none of their business as no crime is [apparently] being committed and the person(s) is 'obviously' exercising their right to photograph in a public place and it's not suspicious at all because they have 'a right' to do it.

next night


Nothing at all happens

or

Your security system is disabled and your house is violently entered, your family held at knife point while the keys are demanded and your stolen to order car (complete with vanity plates) is never seen again, except on another continent having been shipped out on a sea container within 24hrs and your loved ones are traumatised to boot.


then


You become aware that there was unusual activity in the neighbourhood (actually outside your house) unacted upon by the Police who could have put in a challenge and thus detterred the crims. What would be your feeling. 'Don'y worry, you upheld their rights in doing nothing to be curious and challenge'? Or, would you file suit for neglect (not sure how it works over there).

Different when it's closer to home, perhaps

In the case of your house and someone perhaps 'casing the joint', what would you, have the officers do?

A. Approach and clear suspicions via checks e.g. ID, DMV, car search, question credibility

B. Nothing, drive on

Now we are not at the airport here, but I believe the principle is the same. Forgetting the fact that the OP could have used his photos for any horrible and nasty purpose, he might e.g. have been a reporter for a local rag who sensationalised the fact that he was allowed to wander freely around taking pictures of the security operation without any intervention at all. Where would the poor guy in the picture have been then? Carpeted! I don't suppose I have convinced the hard core but maybe just maybe, food for thought.

OK, I'm out, it's been a blast!

Originally Posted by armandov9 (Post 14635528)

Care to elaborate as to what "push it" means in terms of the cops' behavior? Or would that ruin your "argument"?

Photograph away. I don't see how photographs of the outside of my house are going to help you get in. If you want in, you're getting in. My house is exposed to the street. How the hell does a picture compromise my safety? Is my door stronger or my window more shatter-proof because the house has never been photographed? Does the picture let people figure out my security system's inner workings and a way to disable it? Really? You're THAT scared?

In any case, I have NO PROBLEM with the cops asking questions of the person photographing my house, that's great, BUT THEY CANNOT FORCE THEM TO ANSWER OR DETAIN THEM BASED ON A REFUSAL TO ANSWER.

I will give up my car before I give up the 4th amendment. Just because YOU are willing to give rights up easily doesn't mean the rest of us are. If you like police states because you're more comfortable that way, you should move to one and let us try to keep ours from becoming one.

Originally Posted by wildcatlh (Post 14635114)

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that police officers are under no duty to protect us. So there'd be no recourse against the police regardless of what they did or didn't do.

We could be completely safe if we lived in a police state. If we didn't have rights guaranteed to us under Natural Law (the United States Constitution isn't a guarantor of our rights; it's a limit on what the government can do to deny us those rights), if police could investigate anyone they wanted, search without cause, we'd be safer. But it wouldn't be worth it.

As for anything else? Thomas Paine once said that "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Sounds like a pretty good way to think about things to me.