MORONS

There's a special class of idiot loose in the world today whose logic runs as follows:

I enjoy activity X.

I am not a terrorist.

Therefore, activity X cannot possibly be a security risk, and restricting it in any way is nothing more than a paranoid restriction of my rights.

I've seen this logic play out before, but rarely as absurdly as with a group of photographers who have decided that the pending ban on photography in the New York City subway system is -- wait for it -- a paranoid restriction of their rights, since after all, they're photographers and they aren't terrorists.

What are these people using for brains, their lenses?

We've already seen security alerts for public transit. We know New York continues to be a target. We have the example of Madrid. And, oh yeah, we know that al Queda has a pattern of doing surveillance -- and taking pictures -- on any target they're thinking of hitting. They did it in Kenya and Tanzania. And they did it in New York.

The idea that the subways are already "well documented" is crazy. They don't want the kinds of pictures that are already out there. They take those kinds of pictures only as cover, as an excuse for taking the kinds of pictures they really want -- of security measures.

Far be it, however, for the New York Times to bring any of that up. These are quirky artists, after all. So the article isn't just indulgent, it's flattering, and the strong impression that's left is that the government is just taking action to be seen as taking action -- whether it makes sense or not.

Comments

[DaninVan]

Your points are valid, it's just that it would be virtually unenforcible.
How are you going to stop people from using camera cellphones or discretely hidden video cams. The only people it will deter entirely are the legitimate photographers.

[Athena]

Camera cell phones could be indispensable to terrorists in this case. Not only can they get the picture, but they can send it instantly. If someone notices the suspicious activity and security confiscates their phones or questions them, the image has already been sent.

Haha...'lenses for brains'...funny.

And Lord knows (and the NYT), it's a sin to suppress anything slightly Bohemian in nature.

[dauber]

I think the reason they put the ban in place is so that they don't have to try and sort anything out -- if you're taking pictures, we have the right to assume at least some level of ill intent and start questioning you (and, I don't know this, but I'll bet also confiscate the pics.)

Camera phones? Surely a complication. (Alot of people's lives have been complicated by those damn things.) Would they not, like digital cameras, leave some record in the device of what was taken and sent?