I've seen this posted a dozen times in the last two days, but Google doesn't reveal any versions of this story that didn't originate at 2600. Since, as far as know, 2600 hasn't ever printed a true word, I'm inclined to disbelieve the whole thing...

Sure, it sounds heavy handed, but there are several clear cases of terrorists taking pictures before an act of terrorism. If I was a law enforcement type, I'd be extremely nervous about someone taking a lot of pictures around any sensitive area or person. Is that surprising?

Edited by author 12-07-2002 05:18 AM
I had a mildly similar incident (less hassle and closer to 9/11 event). I am a lawyer in New Orleans, and I wanted a picture of the federal appellate court building (i.e. US 5th Cir.) for my law firm's website. I went over to take pictures with my digital camera one weekend (I wanted a picture without any people or cars in the foreground). Within 2 minutes a security guy came out and told me I couldn't take pictures of the building. I told him what I was doing, i.e. that I was a lawyer and so forth. He said it didn't matter. I had to stop. I said, well I have a First Amendment right to stand in a public place and take pictures of a public building. He said I didn't. Of course, I knew he was wrong, but I also knew that pressing the point wasn't going to make me a better lawyer, but it might land me in jail. So I stopped taking pictures and got in my car, and thought how much this reminded me of living in the repressive dictatorial regime of General Torrijos back in the 1970's in Panama.

It may well be that some terrorists take photographs of buildings, but how many more non-terrorists also take photographs of buildings?

The concept of the false positive seems to be lost on these people, and along with it go a lot of rights and protections.

Would it be a possible terrorist offense to film police beating up demonstrators? Or just a single member of the public like Rodney King?

You can arrest somebody for taking pictures? This is cool. Maybe now we can do something about the anti-choice terrorists who constantly snap pictures of clinic workers, patients, and guards outside womens' health clinics. They do it to intimidate, and god knows what else.

Even assuming that the story is the gospel truth, it has a major inconsistency. On the one hand the Patriot Act is blamed for providing police with new ways to take away our freedoms. But on the other hand the police are claiming that the action never took place. They aren't hiding behind the Patriot Act.

They act more like they believe that their actions were not justified by any law, that they're trying to cover up what they now realize was a mistake. If the Patriot Act were as bad as the article claims, the police wouldn't need to lie about what happened, the law would justify their actions.

Police and security forces are a conservative institution...in the sense that they tend to 'err on the side of caution.'

This is probably a good thing...better safe then sorry and all.

It is up to the Leadership of our institutions to set the tone as to how far that impulse is allowed to go.

Our current leadership is using events in order to push an agenda. They are actively resisting questions, at every level. 'If you ask questions you are helping the enemy.'

The PATRIOT Act certainly helps in that effort, but as this case points out, much of the repressive power of a police or security force comes from the very individual impulse to CYA...it requires active efforts to resist that natural impulse.

And again, we not only do not have an active effort from the Adminstration to resist repression, but an active effort to encourage and increase acts of repression and control.

Those are the facts...

Of course, the whole issue of 'Terrorism' being whatever _we_ say it is, can be left unaddressed at this point. But I would argue that one hell of a lot of acts that fit the criteria of 'terrorist' are in fact legitimate acts...

Edited by author 12-07-2002 05:13 PM
The police only backed down on charging him when they realized that a) he was not going to break and admit his "terrorism" and b) he was going to make a media spectacle of the arrest.

I doubt it would be very hard to make most people crack under the threat and stress of a police interrogation, or to manipulate their words in ways that would make them amenable to prosecution under the PATRIOT Act. This individual didn't. He very well could have. Bits and pieces of everyday speech can be made to seem infinitely more sinister when in print, as anyone who's ever given an interview and been quoted out of context can attest to.

This is one of the reasons I'm sold on the idea of mobile multimedia blogging. It would be nice if, in the near future, people in his situation could use their cellphones as microphones or camcorders to record their arrests (or possibly even their interrogations) and have the data uploaded immediately to the Web. Heck, you could even use your one phone call to leave a message on your blog, if you knew people would be reading it. It would eliminate the ability of police to simply detain, threaten, and deny, as it appears they have here.

Edited by author 12-09-2002 04:42 PM
Whoa. Wait a sec, this is just plain wrong: "as far as know, 2600 hasn't ever printed a true word" ?? As far as you know... have you ever *read* the magazine? Not as though it's a far-right or leftist rag printing stories like "4,000 jews didn't show up for work at WTC on 9/11" etc.

Mostly what they print are detailed instructions and stories on hacking... which would be of *zero value* if not true.

So your post isn't just erroneous or biased, it's clearly misinformed: you're spreading misinformation.

Furthermore, the photographer in question, Mike McGinnis, contacted 2600's website, and was interviewed the next evening on 2600's one hour radio show on WBAI in New York (where I heard about this story), which you can listen to here:

http://www.2600.com/offthehook/2002/1202.html

Listen for yourself, but if you're going to come back that you don't believe any of the interview, or that it's somehow false, provide some facts.