xtcian

I take it you think we couldn't possibly be making aspiring terrorists' lives easier by making photos of our subways downloadable to Baluchistan--or you think we wouldn't make it "significantly" easier (where by signficant I mean the value of the freedom to post is exceeded by the cost any associated death and destruction). Why should I consider you more credible than Tom Ridge on this matter? Is it that you place a more reasonable value on freedom than Tom Ridge, that you have a better sense of the terrorist risk or that you're not a Republican high official?

It seems to me that not being a Republican official is at least a step in the right direction as far as "being trustworthy" goes. I mean, if two people gave me conflicting advice, and one of them was a known Republican official, all else being equal, I know which one I'd listen to...

Oliver, I've been lied to so many times by this (and other) admistrations, the press, the TEE VEE, even long ago, my teachers, that I find it hard to take anything very serously until I've done the math/research/reading myself in order to have some sense of what is really happening. And I don't respond well to party line propoganda (from either side).

Sure, I admit I tend toward the weirdo Hippy peace-freak end of the political spectrum, but after seven decades of life on earth I tend to disbelieve the right-wing more, and the current administration more than anyone... even the teacher who told us that you "blow through the trumpet" to play it. If you don't know how the trumpet is played, I won't bore you with the explanation.

But speaking of trumpets... the trumpeting of Bush and his posse that dazzles people like you with noise, fear, and pretend-like security measures, while leaving our ports wide open, while cutting back on funding for police forces everywhere, while making ME, an aged gramma, take off my sneakers and be patted down by a transportation minion because my fake hip sets off some of the alarms.... Or why Steve can't fly his tiny single engine plane over a stadium... it won't hold enough explosive to even blow up the snack bar, much less cause a disaster... well, I just don't know what to tell you.

I can't believe that the illegal photos (link in Steve's blog, above) pose any sort of security threat. If a terrorist wanted detailed maps and pictures of the subway, they are widely available.

Actually, I don't know why you read Ian's blog... unless, like many right wingers, it makes you happy to be mad at the world.

Peace.

Oliver, my goals in writing this did not include convincing you (or anyone else) that I'm more credible than Tom Ridge (or Michael Chertoff or Admiral Loy). I just want to document my opinions so they're part of the fabric of the discussion. It sounds like I made you think. That's all I ask.

If you really want to judge my credibility vs. Tom Ridge, I encourage you to read my other writings and see whether you think I'm an honest guy with good common sense and no hidden agenda.

I will say this: I certainly know more about general aviation than Tom Ridge, and probably more about commercial aviation. I certainly know enough about aviation to know that TSA is almost entirely for show.

Dude, there's no way these photos help terrorists! Free societies will always be easy targets. I doubt we can change that by becoming less free. Even if we could, I wouldn't want to.

Do I value freedom more than the risk of helping terrorists? Yeah, our American tradition of free expression is a LOT more important to me than perfect safety! And I think the RIGHT way to make us more safe from terrorism is to end our country's policies and actions that incite terrorism.

But even that's beside the point! In San Francisco, the cops are making up laws on the fly, assuming we will just roll over because they say "security." In New York, there may be a law, but to me it seems obvious it is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

There's only one word for it: hysteria. And the Bush administration, HSD, and TSA are directly responsible. I believe they INTEND to sow hysteria, because it serves their political purposes. We must resist their craven posturing.

Whoa, Nelly! Well I see I made you guys think too. Not the way I intended though. I think my implicit point is that it's crazy to assume everything your government tells you is a lie, in particular regarding things about which our government is likely to know more than us, such as the doings of covert terrorist organizations. Secondarily, I sincerely wanted to hear/read a case made for regarding this photo ban as something to reject and act against. You made me sympathetic by reminding me of the political incentive for making people fearful and for seeming to be doing something, which it seems pretty clear has been a major motivator for a lot of what the Bush administration has done. But I'm not bowled over, and for something so serious as preventing terrorism I'd like to hear a compelling argument for why everyone on the World Wide Web should go out right now and do the opposite of what the government advises. It's common for photo-taking to be banned at checkpoints abroad, and it's far from obvious to me that the subway ban is just for show. Even if posted photos themeselves didn't make planning terrorist attacks easier, by making the ban on photo-taking widely known to riders you get everybody taking close(r) note of (brown-skinned turbaned) people taking photos, presumably increasing the opportunities of apprehending people who are really doing reconnaisance for a bombing or whatever. I can think of down-sides and counter-arguments, but I don't see that as my burden, because I'm not the one telling people to go out and violate the ban. Incidentally, I have not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

Ah. I assumed we were talking about considered policies developered under some national plan, not some entirely creative endeavor of the Muni board or sports team. I hadn't followed the link to the story--or any of your links, in fact. You might consider saving your readers a lot of work (that Muni article was long!) and/or the risk of misunderstanding you by saying more about what you're linking to and why. Meanwhile, I'll try to upgrade my reading technique for the 21st century.

Somebody's clock is messed up. My last comment has appeared above the one by Steve that ends "encourage civil disobedience," but it was in reply to that one.

Oliver, I'm not crazy. I don't think everything the government says is a lie. I'm in favor of big government telling us lots of things, like: It's against the law to discriminate against people because of their brown skin or their religious tradition of wearing turbans.

But when I can see an obvious lie, and I can see the political reasons for the lie, I'm going to call them on it.

The most compelling argument in favor of disobeying the photo ban is that it is our duty as Americans to resist the abuse of power. In San Francisco, the cops are making up laws out of whole cloth!

In New York, journalists must apply for a government license before doing their jobs. Bloggers need not apply. Artists aren't even on the radar. In America, we have a free press, not one licensed by the government, and free expression, remember?

But there are more concrete reasons, too. In the case of the subway, there's copious information out there already. Journalists and artists aren't adding significantly to the terrorist's resources. But they add measurably to our knowledge and our culture every day.

In the case of the Chicago's Cloud Gate sculpture, they want to ban photos of a public space! And especially photos of the dominant visual attraction in that space, paid for by tax dollars. Why? Because some idiot city fathers told the artist he could retain the copyright. That artist should be ashamed, and the city fathers should be recalled.

But then, those same Chicago city officials used federal funds to bulldoze a public airport in the dark of night, so I'm not really surprised.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/04-1-087x.html

Their justification for bulldozing the airport? It was a terrorist threat, they said! Your buddy Tom Ridge later said they were lying about that.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-2-033x.html

A concrete reason for me to decry the NFL's ban on stadium overflights is that it materially increases the risk of my flights up to see Michelle in Napa. I can't take the direct route over the level terrain of the East Bay, but must instead head out over rough terrain of the Hayward hills, where the weather and turbulence frequently are much worse. All of this to ensure that NFL controls every bit of advertising revenue, even that which comes from the sky. And what justification did they give? Right. Terrorism. Admiral Loy over at the Department of Homeland Security exposed that lie, too.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-4-059x.html

These faux-security measures only make our people complacent, unless we puncture them loudly and often. They have even given you the idea that brown people in turbans with cameras are somehow threatening, and that is the saddest reason of all to encourage civil disobedience.