It's the Day Before Friday and all through the house, not a creature is stirring because they're all reading the evening Sift. Why don't you join them?
A- Curbed Miami posts a letter from Charlie Urstadt, Chairman of the Miami Design Preservation League, that details the alarming disappearance of historic homes on Miami Beach.
There is no law on our books that can effectively save an historic house from being demolished if the owner feels like it. If the Design Review Board is presented with a new plan they have no objection to, then they are bound to approve the demolition.B- Transit Miami explains how bike-friendly Art Basel has become this year.
The lack of protection of pre-1942 architecturally-significant homes started coming into focus a few weeks ago when I noticed a steady stream of applications to the Design Review Board for total demolition of such homes.
The lack of connectivity and the traffic woes between, Wynwood, the Design District, and Midtown have not gone unnoticed by the cycling community. This year the Green Mobility Network is setting up of a free bicycle valet service at O Cinema. With demand for safe, secure bike parking outstripping supply, the Green Mobility Network has found an opportunity to provide a much needed service. Hopefully, this will encourage more people to ride to Art Basel if there is a secure place to park their bicycle.C- Cool Santa photo at Miamism Pix.
D- Theater season is running full tilt as South Florida Theatre Scene shows us in this week's Scene.
E- Carlos Miller apparently has a problem with the government putting out alerts for people engaged in "suspicious photography and photography consistent with pre-operational activity and attack planning."
Labeling photographers as potential terrorists has been rampant since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but in 2010, after forcing a man to the ground for video recording a federal courthouse in New York City, the Department of Homeland Security agreed to a settlement, acknowledging that photographing federal buildings is not a crime.F- Boy Writes Miami likes Naked Pizza...but not too much.
Naked Pizza may not be the best tasting pizza around, but that’s not to say it’s bad. It’s like the Lou Diamond Phillips of pizza.G- Random Pixels tells us about another memorable moment in Miami history.
Wednesday, Feb. 22, 1939: A 21 year-old exotic dancer named "Zorita" takes her snake for a noon-time stroll on busy Flagler Street in downtown Miami.H- Photos of SCOPE Miami at Soul of Miami and Eye on Miami shares a couple images from Design Miami.
.
29 comments:
E - Carlos is right to have a problem with such a vague and pointless warning. Homeland Security is engaging in Security Theater; it's an edict intended to make them APPEAR to be working at keeping us safe, but without any real hope of doing so.
Simply taking photographs isn't in and of itself suspicious; so sending out warnings to look out for those of us who like taking pictures of trains and planes and bridges accomplishes little beyond trampling the rights of those of us who are thus defined as "suspicious."
So I'll ask you what I asked Carlos at his blog: Do we ignore them? And if we don't, what is the protocol for further investigation since "suspicious photography and photography consistent with pre-operational activity and attack planning" is too broad? I think these are fair questions to ask, no?
.
So what do we do about all those curious citizens who enter public libraries, which is probably a little more consistent with "pre-operational activity and attack planning" than photography?
Shall we stop and frisk them on the way in? Demand their IDs and run their names for warrants?
After all, if they have nothing to hide, then they shouldn't mind such minor inconveniences.
Don't throw up a smokescreen, Carlos.
Do we ignore people taking pictures and video outside of high risk terrorist targets? It's a pretty simple question.
.
Regarding the snake incident of 1939: So now we know how far back the problem of introducing invasive species in South Florida happened.
Terrorists attacks are the price we pay for a free and open society. Thousands may have to die but as long as I get to take my pictures without being asked what I'm doing, it's all worth it.
Reading the actual Roll Call Release he posted, it seems to me, there are some guidelines for suspicious behavior, ie, people photographing security features and critical infrastructure, not typically tourist sites.
There is also a specific warning that First Amendment protected activity should not be reported.
I read this as being something that says not to mess with a photographer taking pictures but look for other things that would indicate that what the person is doing is part of a bigger scheme.
I don't agree with their examples (especially with regard to the guy filming at the mall) but I think simply because photos weren't used in the cases Carlos cites, doesn't mean they can't be used and we shouldn't remain vigilant.
Annie-
I like to photograph examples of architecture and engineering; behavior described as "suspicious." So obviously I think that the description of my behavior as "suspicious" is absolutely ludicrous.
The fact is that Homeland's entire approach to security is untenable; you can't identify terrorists by searching everyone who is near a vaguely potential target. When you're looking for a needle in a haystack, you don't look at all the hay, you look for things that aren't hay.
So do you ignore them? No. But you don't arrest them, either. You keep an eye on them; and you don't even let them know you've seen them. Follow them. See where they go, who they meet. That way, you stand a chance of finding actual terrorists instead of merely hassling people who are within their rights to take photos.
You would think that if the DHS and the FBI really considered photography "consistent with pre-operational activity and attack planning," they would be able to list more than one vague example over the last ten years that may or may not have been connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
And that one example is of a guy whose recorded a video where he was making explosion sounds while recording the World Trade Center from a public street.
That's it. There is no other evidence that terrorists use cameras to plan their attacks.
What if next time I video record a cop on the street, I make machine gun sounds like I used to do when I was a kid and played cops and robbers?
Does that make me a cop killer?
I would love to see the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office trying to enter that as evidence that I am a terrorist.
The DHS/FBI document lists three other examples where citizens were harassed for taking pictures or shooting video which turned out to have nothing to do with terrorism yet they called it good training exercise.
One vague example from 2001 in a government document dated November 2012 does not equate consistency no matter how you look at it.
Just because the government says it's true doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
This is what is called critical thinking. Being able to see the facts and decide for yourselves.
Sorry about the poor structure of the second sentence.
It's hard to write in these small spaces.
You're still complaining, Carlos. Try to answer the question, Carlos. Here it is:
Do we ignore people taking pictures and video outside of high risk terrorist targets?
Third time's a charm.
CLJ....I think if you read the alert you'll find that there are actually some examples with some specifics that define what would be considered "suspicious." While the application of that memo's guidelines by field personnel might leave something to be desired at times, the memo that Carlos is trying to broad brush as labeling "photographers," in total, as threats, is, in fact, fairly narrow in its scope.
Application is another subject for another day but the memo that Carlos brings up does not, in my opinion, label photographers (as a group) as potential terrorists as Carlos seems to imply.
.
What's a high risk target?
The World Trade Center was a high risk target. It was also a tourist landmark that was photographed hundreds, if not thousands, of times a day.
So do we harass every citizen with a camera?
Or do we restrict this harassment to those who may be Muslim?
Or do we just keep an eye on them and make sure they're not leaving unattended bags or pulling out weapons or the usual things that terrorists do.
Because if we're going down the route you're suggesting, then we need to start visiting people at home who checked out these "high risk targets" on Google Earth.
If you don't want your "high-risk target" photographed, then cover it up with a tarp or something because if you can see it from a public road, you can legally photograph it.
Carlos Miller is an idiot. How else could terrorist find the buildings they want to blow unless they have photographs of it! Photos are obviously tools for extremists! There is no other use for photos.
According to Rick, Disney is off limits for cameras.
I'll tell you what, there is something seriously bad happening to the USA right now and it's destroying everything we stood for. We are so damn paranoid about terrorist that we are allowing our rights to be stripped away. We now live in a police state, and all you sheep are not saying a damn thing. We (the USA) is no better then what NAZI Germany was with how we are treating our citizens. It's truly sad ! Anybody that thinks taking a picture in a public setting is bad no matter what the picture is, should have their head checked because you are a psychotic paranoid NUT BAG.
Carlos...still waiting for an answer. I'm feeling I'm not going to get one. Why don't you just tell me so I'll quit wasting my time asking you.
Anonymous @ 10:16 and 10:25....is it that hard to tell the difference between a guy taking multiple pictures of the water plant at Disney and the guy photographing Cinderellas Castle? Because that, in part, is probably the difference between suspicious and not suspicious. I know it doesn't help you and your Big Brother fantasies but it's all there in black and white in memo form for those who can read and think...and not even critically.
.
Photographers are artists, some might find the water plant more interesting material(I would) than Cinderellas Castle which has already been photographed about a million times. Trying to typecast photographers makes you a douchebag, not a detective.
I'll say it clearly. People taking pictures of ANYTHING as long as they are not breaking any other law should not be stopped, questioned or bothered in the least.
I see Carlos has unleashed the hounds that sniff around his Facebook page.
Difster, I give you credit for saying that photographers hanging around and taking specific and close up photos of critical high-risk terrorist targets and national security sites like military bases, nuclear power plants and government offices should be totally and utterly ignored.
It's more than what Carlos has been willing to say. At least publicly.
.
those that are willing to give up freedom for security are entitled to neither.
If it's visible, then what's the problem taking a picture. If it's 'only high security risk' buildings, then why are they in non-secure areas? Can public areas be classified high risk? Of course not.
If I can see it, then it's not secure. Using a camera is not a sign of guilt. We need to keep making this clearer as we're all carrying decent quality cams/video devices these days, and that shouldn't make anyone guilty per se.
Rick, the way I read it, I'm suspicious if I
1. do suspicious things
2. behave in a suspicious manner
3. take photos that might be suspicious
That's waaaay too vague. We're already being stopped and questioned for taking photographs of trains, plains, bridges, tunnels, and government buildings. These doofuses are also prone to seizing cameras without the legally required court orders, and arresting you if you argue with them about it.
Carlos is on the money on this one.
And BTW Rick, I have answered your question about how this should be handled.
Why is it that all of you people have such a problem with someone photographing you in a public place, but you have no problem at all with all the cameras that are continuously photographing and videoing you at the bank, mall, traffic lights, resturants, etc? All of these very PUBLIC places can also be seen as potential places to cause mass terrorism. But who cares how many of our freedoms we give up...all in the name of safety.
I suspect the real problem here is the friction when black-and-white rules try to address behavior and circumstances where flexibility and judgment are better tools -- but there's no comfort zone in which those tasked to deploy flexibility and judgement and the rest of us subject to them exists.
It's the same issue that clouds racial profiling Is Black skin suspicious? How about wearing a hoodie? Tattoos? Long hair? Sawed-off shotgun protruding from your shorts (or are you just happy to see me?).
Its time for a MULTI-BILLION dollar class action lawsuit against camera manufacturers for selling a product that the government considers suspicious and can lead to undue stress and lost time due to police harassment
Notice I am using my real name, and not "anonymous" or something made up. I have no fear of revealing who I am.
I just posted a picture on Facebook (look me up there) of two bridges that cross the Columbia River at Umatilla, Oregon. These are the very definition of vital infrastructure. It shows in some detail the bridge design and type of construction. It is also an assignment I did for a photography class. The instructor commented that he has been trying to capture that bridge for years, and that I did what he has been unable to do to this point.
My point is, you cannot determine what is aesthetically pleasing for someone else, nor can you determine, by the subject, why someone is photographing something. It could be for artistic reasons, news or print media, or just for the hell of it.
Law enforcement has a right to approach you and attempt to question you for any reason. You, as a citizen, also have a right to not say anything and walk away. You don't have to tell them what you are taking pictures of, or why. Law enforcement also has a right to follow you all they want. You also have the right to film them anytime they are in a public space.
The security guards at McNary Dam (very close to these bridges) and I have had a fairly long standing cat and mouse game concerning photography around the dam. Whenever I even get the slightest inclination they are observing me, I take their picture and document them.
I am sure if Carlos and I were to ever meet, we would find plenty to disagree with one another on politically. On the issue of free speech and the Constitution it is another matter.
If a cop or a wannabe cop wants to start flexing their sphincter muscles around me, I will without hesitation, as Carlos has done on numerous occasions, show them mine, and let them see mine is bigger and stronger. Typically that is how law enforcement gets their way. We as citizens need to do the same and keep them accountable for their actions. The argument that "the cops have a hard job" is lame and used to excuse to much illegal activity perpetrated by the ones who chose to do that job. When they try and curb activities that citizens have a right to engage in, by fear and harassment, it just shows they are ignorant, bullies, and/or cowards.
Look, folks, this isn't a discussion of photographer's rights....Carlos does that 24/7 at his place and does a good job of it, I might add.
Rather this is a debate over whether or not a government "alert" classifies all photographers as terrorists as Carlos alleges. It doesn't unless you're a blogger and want to use rhetoric to get your readers fired up.
Mission accomplished.
.
When did Carlos allege that "a government "alert" classifies all photographers as terrorists"?
when was the last time someone blew up a building or hijacked a plane with a camera? just what is at risk if someone takes a photo of a "high risk target."
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.