12

I'm seeing lots of claims that photography could contribute to terrorism, and photographers are being stopped on a regular basis in many more places than before, especially in the UK (see http://www.met.police.uk/campaigns/campaign_ct_2008.htm, especially http://www.met.police.uk/campaigns/counter_terrorism/ct_camera_2008.pdf). Photographers are trying to counter these claims and the laws creating these restrictions and regain their right to take pictures in most public areas (see http://www.not-a-crime.com/ and http://photographernotaterrorist.org/). Can photography actually be used for terrorism? If so, under what circumstances? Can restricting photography reduce terrorism?

bwDraco
  • 431
  • 3
  • 10
  • 8
    No, photography doesn't "contribute to terrorism". But a terrorist could visit the target (if a public place) and take pictures to be able to plan the attack. Which is mentioned on the first link you linked to. – Lennart Regebro Jul 22 '11 at 14:06
  • 1
    Reworded question to clarify. – bwDraco Jul 22 '11 at 14:08
  • 3
    I might wanna mention that restricting photography inside museums has more to do with getting more money from the souvenir shop and preserving the art pieces (due to the flash which not everyone shuts off) – ratchet freak Jul 22 '11 at 14:23
  • 1
    @ratchetfreak: A museum is not always a publicly-owned facility, and the reasons for the restrictions here are not normally related to terrorism. I'm talking about public areas such as train stations and some government buildings. – bwDraco Jul 22 '11 at 14:34
  • 4
    A trivial question. Can bread contribute to terrorism? A terrorist might eat bread! Have you thought of it? Now is prohibiting bread a solution? But unfortunately, political decisions where made in this silly pattern, which is, why I refuse to vote to close this question. – user unknown Jul 22 '11 at 15:39
  • 1
    Air also contributes to terrorism as terrorists require air to breathe. I would say that air is far more vital to a terrorist than a photo. And infact has played a part in every terrorist attack. I think we should restrict access to air that will prevent terrorism... – Chad Jul 22 '11 at 16:46
  • 1
    It's hard to get sufficient, substantiated data on the topic of terrorism, since the incidents are rare and unique (in the western world, at least -- in Israel or Iraq, statistics may offer insight). Security officials dream up potential scenarios and risk factors with no need to substantiate them or do cost/benefit analysis. Those scenarios rarely come even close to matching the next major terrorist incident (e.g. the recent bombs/shootings in Norway recently). – dbkk Jul 23 '11 at 20:04
  • can photography be used is a trivial question, whether restricting it is any help is not. I think the scope needs to be restricted to the second part for this to be a good question. – matt_black Jul 21 '12 at 12:37

1 Answers1

19

Can photography actually be used for terrorism?

It can absolutely be used for aiding in planning terror attacks.

I don't have the articles handy at the moment but a good source is StratFor's series of counter-terrorism and security articles. To paraphrase their many articles:

  • Any planned terror attack has standard phases, one of which is recon of the objective.

    • StratFor's Vulnerabilities in the Terrorist Attack Cycle

      During the target selection and planning stages, terrorists conduct pre-operational surveillance...

      Al Qaeda training manuals, including the infamous “Military Studies in the Jihad against the Tyrants,” and their online training magazines instruct operatives to perform surveillance, and even go so far as to discuss what type of information to gather.

    • Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

      U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, DCSINT Handbook No.1, 2007 Appendix A: Terrorist Planning Cycle

      Phase II: Intelligence Gathering and Surveillance

  • Taking photographs is both a good cover for hanging around a public place and checking things out without looking conspicuous; also photographs provide a wealth of possible information in post-recon planning phase - both to remind of the details that are otherwise forgotten and to help with visual/spacial reconstruction of the target environment.

    • National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (9/11 report)

      (84) On the group's surveillance and photography activities, see trial testimony of L'Houssaine Kherchtou, United States v. bin Laden, Feb. 21, 2001 (transcript pp. 1499-1500); FBI reports of investigation, interviews of L'Houssaine Kherchtou,Aug. 18, 2000; Oct. 18, 2000; see also FBI report of investigation, interview of confidential source, Sept. 16, 1999.

    *

    On or about 05/15/2010, at a hotel in Herndon, Farooque Ahmed allegedly agreed to watch and photograph another hotel in Washington, D.C., as well as a Metro station in Arlington to get information about their security and busiest periods

In addition, photography can be possibly used as cover for actual attack execution (OBL's assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, Northern alliance commander, on 9/9/2001, was done by a guy posing as a news reporter with the bomb hidden in video camera).

Can restricting photography reduce terrorism?

Not likely, since you can always use other means of helping with recon. In addition, these days surreptitious photography is extremely accessible, with spy cameras of low end type going for like $20-$50 on meritline.com - I can provide a link if one is required as proof. Not to mention there are photos of most public places all over Internet these days.

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
user5341
  • 31,075
  • 8
  • 130
  • 178
  • 3
    Agreed. Such measures are relic from times were cameras were bulky, and it was possible to catch those using them. It is no longer efficient, it can catch only very naive spies. – Suma Jul 22 '11 at 14:50
  • 1
    Speculation. Not a skeptic answer. You know the drill, fix or remove. – Sklivvz Jul 23 '11 at 21:10
  • 1
    @Sklivvz - the community doesn't think so. With all due respect, this is meant to be a community driven site, not moderator-driven. I'll add a couple of links to things that seem too obvious to require links/proof. – user5341 Jul 24 '11 at 06:25
  • 2
    With all due respect, I don't think the community is 6 up votes. – Sklivvz Jul 24 '11 at 07:24
  • 1
    @Sklivvz - would be interesting to see the stats on average up/down votes for posts (possibly limited to 1-answer-only, ideally normalized by question views). But I seriously doubt that 7-up/1-down would be on the lower end of the spectrum. If this answer had 2 ups and 4 downs, you'd have reason to say that community thinks this is a bad answer. – user5341 Jul 24 '11 at 07:41
  • 2
    DVK: no reference -> not a skeptical answer -> off-topic here. votes are irrelevant. – Sklivvz Jul 24 '11 at 07:45
  • 1
    @Sklivvz - do you require reference that 2+2 is 4? No? Then why require reference to the fact that terrorists conduct pre-operational surveillance which is just as 100% obvious? Or that having photographs helps with post-surveillance planning? I added a bunch of references, and I honestly think that they didn't improve the answer at ALL. – user5341 Jul 24 '11 at 07:53
  • 2
    Thank you for the references. You are a high-rep user and should be helping us in setting an example. Skepticism is examining the evidence, if you don't do that then what are we doing here? Also removed your polemic statement from the answer. Try to make this site a better place for skepticism next time. – Sklivvz Jul 24 '11 at 08:03