Londoners seem to keep their wits about them in stressful and even terrible times, as we saw during the Tube and bus bombings a few years ago. That’s good, because the latest media campaign by London Metropolitan Police would likely spread fear, panic and paranoia in a less even-keeled city. Though the text of the news release (excerpted below) is reasonable and appeals to common sense, most people will just see the ad above in newspapers, without the deeper context.
“We want people to look out for the unusual – some activity or behaviour which strikes them as not quite right and out of place in their normal day to day lives.”Terrorists live within our communities, making their plans whilst doing everything they can to blend in, and trying not to raise suspicions about their activities.
“They have a lot of work to do before they attack. They need money and may commit cheque, credit card and identity fraud to finance their activities.
“Terrorists use chemicals. Do you know someone buying large or unusual quantities of chemicals for no obvious reason?
Handling chemicals is dangerous, and maybe you’ve seen goggles or masks dumped somewhere?
“Observation and surveillance help terrorists plan attacks. Have you seen anyone taking pictures of security arrangements such as CCTV? Has it made you suspicious?
“Meetings, training and planning for terrorist attacks can take place anywhere. Do you know someone who travels but is vague about where they’re going?
“Terrorists use computers – do you know someone who visits terrorist-related websites?
We are all suspects in this campaign. If you check the Metropolitian Police website, mobile phones and front doors can also be suspicious. Thinking back to last summer, taking pictures all over London and trying to text with my weird European mobile phone, I likely looked a bit strange too.
Via boingboing.
10 comments
Back in the summer of ’06, I got the “terrorist” treatment was taking pictures of one of my favourite London street names, Haunch of Venison Yard. The full story.
I think they’ve actually done a decent job of wording this — doesn’t “Thousands of people take photos every day” imply that the average picture-taker is not a threat? That said, the blanket coverage of CCTV cameras there does creep me out.
I don’t recall ever being hassled for taking pictures in London, even in “high-risk” areas like Canary Wharf. New York is probably more agressive. Toronto is a mixed bag: the guards at Commerce Court will warn you off photos in their courtyard, but while I was taking a photo of the island airport ferry, a staffer approached me to let me know that I was welcome to take a free ferry ride over to the island!
Matt> It’s true — it would be interesting to see how a similar campaign would be worded in another city, or how a similarly worded ad would be received in, say, NYC as you suggest.
The British reaction to terror and the threat of terror is interesting to watch — and probably learn from.
The worst place to take photos in the GTA is the Mississauga bus terminal. I’ve been kicked out several times.
Also, if you follow the BoingBoing link their headline is “London police declare war on photography” which, as Matt L notes, is not exactly the case.
I have taken tons of photos in Toronto, in subway stations, in Los Angeles and in New York State and have not been stopped once, though a lot of times the prospect of it kind of worries me.
With all the tiny cameras they have now it seems like it would be very easy to take photos where no one would be able to tell.
I always find it interesting to hear stories of people being harassed for taking pictures of obvious things, be it street signs, buildings, trains, buses, boats, or landmarks. As the ad above points out, specifically taking pictures of CCTV camera locations, or generally trying to take pictures of something “off-limits” to the public is more worthy of questioning. Treating people snapping photos of the elephants in the Commerce Court courtyard like dangerous trespassers intent on mayhem seems completely ridiculous yet this kind of harassment by power-tripping security guards goes on all the time. As pointed out above, the tiny cameras that can be used to take photographs of sensitive areas should be their concern, not harassing photographers using clunky 25-year old Olympus 35mm cameras loaded with slide film for a photography exercise.
The current NYC transit campaign is “If You See Something, Say Something.” Among other things, it asks people to report “exposed wiring” — as a TTC regular, I’d never think that was out of the ordinary.
In Seattle in early 2004, I saw a billboard that I think sums up the American attidude quite well. Stark red and black text, in all caps, on a solid white background read:
We can be afraid.
Or we can be ready.
[Ready]
http://www.ready.gov | 1-800-be-ready
(Thankfully, no one harassed me when I took a picture of it.)
I have been detained in NY for shooting photos and video even though I have foreign press credentials and a carnet.
In London I have never had a problem with the police and in fact have found them quite helpful.
I noted on the news today 2 stories where CCTV cameras have led to suspects. I say that as somebody the other day questioned if they were ever really of use.
For crying out loud, this kind of thing is just useless, absolutely useless. You’re right that London has been one of the saner places in the tumult of anti-terrorist fear mongering we’ve seen the past 6 years so this is especially disappointing. It’s one of the few places that has avoided such hysterical reactions, and this comes after decades of sensible and effective anti-terrorism vigilance advertising in England.
The truth is that the people who end up getting hassled are people like me, who use semi-pro equipment and often shoot alone. The stupid thing is that no terrorist is ever going to be dumb enough to take a high-end camera, set in on a tripod and take photos of some landmark like we would. They would pose as tourist, they would use a consumer video camera, the last thing they would do is draw attention to themselves.