I’m OK With Cops
The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.
-Bruce Schneier: Are photographers really a threat? | Technology | The Guardian
What an interesting and valid point: terrorists aren't photographers.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that photographers aren't terrorists. Bruce Schneier's main point is that, "If we spend a zillion dollars defending Wimbledon and terrorists blow up a different sporting event, that's money wasted." There's an obvious flaw in this logic: the money isn't wasted, it worked. No attack on Wimbledon meant the protection put in place did the job it was there to do.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a photographer. I've been stopped numerous times (by both public and private security) and asked to stop photographing. In every case, I was within my rights, and the officer had no right to stop me (though UK stop-and-search laws are rather annoying).
I'm no terrorist, and I do often struggle to see how pictures that I'm taking when I'm stopped could have helped a terrorist, nonetheless, if security experts think that photographs might stop an attack, then I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to question people taking photographs. It seems to be a reasonable approach. As long as that remains their limit, then I am willing to continue being annoyed in the name of security.
Vuze Says Some ISPs Abuse TCP Resets; Data Not That Clearcut
They then ranked ISPs by how many attempted TCP connections were interrupted by reset packets. And guess who is at the top of the list.
If you said "Comcast," you guessed correctly. According to the Vuze people's initial results, the number of reset connections was 20 percent for that ISP's subscribers.
-Vuze says some ISPs abuse TCP resets; data not that clearcut
Well, they are a bit of a biased source – but this is certainly a limit on the internet – censorship in a form not quite as extreme as China's but certainly uncalled for. It is reasons like this that we need government regulation on the internet.
The technology is 15 years old at this point. For a country that depends as heavily as they do on the internet, the US, the internet is still a wild-west of legality.
CNN.Com Survives Random Outages – CNET News.com
To make the attack on CNN a literal truth, Chinese Hackers have launched a DoS attack on CNN.com. They've got so far as to launch a downloadable tool for all those interested in assisting in the next attack.
How does bringing down a media outlet help stop western media bias? …when the bias is that the Chinese society is closed and not open to hearing outside opinions?
EU States Agree That Inciting Terrorism on the Internet Is a Crime
Representatives of the EU's 27 member states formally agreed today to harmonize their respective countries' definitions of criminally prosecutable acts of terrorism by expanding them to include three new types of crimes: "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, [terrorist] recruitment, and training for terrorism." The definition of "public provocation" was especially controversial, and it encompasses content posted on the Internet, including not only direct incitements to violence but also terrorist propaganda and bomb-making expertise.
EU states agree that inciting terrorism on the Internet is a crime
As a timely follow-up to the recent news that the UK has jailed 6 men for publicly supporting terrorism through speech, the EU has legally declared that internet support of terrorism is also a crime. This is a severe blow to freedom of speech advocates everywhere.
Terrorists are using the internet to spread their message. I don't deny this at all. The problem with making that act illegal is the definition of who a 'terrorist' is. I heartily submit that this definition is by no means concrete enough to make their support illegal.
Al-Queda is a terrorist organization. Banning their internet activities probably enhances our security. Is Hamas a terrorist organization? They are also a political group. Should be ban them? What about PETA? Should their website be taken off-line?
Fortunately, there is still good news. Although the EU has passed this law, they have not really provided a means of enforcing it. Though the paper precedent is on the books, it does not look like it can be acted on … yet.
Graffiti Artist Banksy Pulls Off Most Audacious Stunt to Date – Despite Being Watched by CCTV | the Daily Mail
The article cover the entire story nicely. But I think I'll just leave it at a picture is worth a 1000 words.
China ‘Gold Medal’ For Executions – BBC
In case you're wondering what all the Olympic torch protestors have been complaining about, the BBC is running an article about a recent report from Amnesty International on the death penalty around the world. The article focuses on China.
"As the world's biggest executioner, China gets the 'gold medal' for global executions," said the organisation's UK director, Kate Allen.
"According to reliable estimates, on average China secretly executes around 22 prisoners every day - that's 374 people during the Olympic Games," she added.
Apparently, the idea of capital crimes is a bit different in China than the rest of the world:
More than 60 crimes can carry the death penalty in China, including tax fraud, stealing VAT receipts, damaging electric power facilities, selling counterfeit medicine, embezzlement, accepting bribes and drug offences, Amnesty [International] said.
…and the idea of due process is a bit different than western states:
The BBC's Quentin Sommerville, in Beijing, says justice is usually swift - most of those sentenced to death are executed only weeks after they are found guilty.
The article then goes on to discuss the findings in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries – where the death penalty is also prevalent. Iran was the only country to have more reported capital punishments than China.
The report and article end with a call for the world to stop employing the death penalty.
ABC News: Sources: ‘Principals’ OK’D Harsh Tactics
In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.
ABC News: Sources: 'Principals' OK'd Harsh Tactics
This new is a couple of days old, but … wow. I suppose this has been known/guessed at for a while now. But it's a pretty easy step here to say that 'senior administration officials' have committed a crime or two here. As a matter of fact, they certainly have.
The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.
At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
The Photographer’s Right: UK Style
I'm a big fan of the Photographer's Rights PDF. I carry a copy around in my camera bag at all times, and tell all photogs that I know about it. If you're going to photograph in today's security conscious society, you have to know what you can and can't shoot. I've just come across the UK version of this leaflet which is important as the laws in this regard are drastically different between the two countries. Link below:UK photographer's rights
Photojojo » Photography and the Law: Know Your Rights
A must read for every photographer.
THE TEN LEGAL COMMANDMENTS OF PHOTOGRAPHY
I. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.
II. If you are on public property, you can take pictures of private property. If a building, for example, is visible from the sidewalk, it’s fair game.
III. If you are on private property and are asked not to take pictures, you are obligated to honor that request. This includes posted signs.
IV. Sensitive government buildings (military bases, nuclear facilities) can prohibit photography if it is deemed a threat to national security.
V. People can be photographed if they are in public (without their consent) unless they have secluded themselves and can expect a reasonable degree of privacy. Kids swimming in a fountain? Okay. Somebody entering their PIN at the ATM? Not okay.
VI. The following can almost always be photographed from public places, despite popular opinion:
VII. Although “security” is often given as the reason somebody doesn’t want you to take photos, it’s rarely valid. Taking a photo of a publicly visible subject does not constitute terrorism, nor does it infringe on a company’s trade secrets.
VIII. If you are challenged, you do not have to explain why you are taking pictures, nor to you have to disclose your identity (except in some cases when questioned by a law enforcement officer.)
IX. Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your will, and can be subject to legal action if they harass you.
X. If someone tries to confiscate your camera and/or film, you don’t have to give it to them. If they take it by force or threaten you, they can be liable for things like theft and coercion. Even law enforcement officers need a court order.
WHAT TO DO IF YOU’RE CONFRONTED
