It would seem that taking photographs in NYC (or anywhere in the US for that matter) can land you with accusations of being a terrorist, unless you're "a member of the press, holding a valid press identification card issued by the New York City Police Department or by others duly authorized in writing to engage in such activity by the authority". No, I'm not kidding. The possible penalty if innocent? Up to 10 days in jail and US$125 fine in the case of taking a photo in the NYC subway system. Nice one. Note that authorities were enforcing this law even though it had apparently not been legally passed into law at the time (I'm unsure if it has been passed into law even now). I guess that's where the Patriot Act abuse comes in - it seems authorities can just make it up as they go.

I can understand the need for police to question the motives of people taking photos of possible terrorist targets, but lets be a little realistic here; New York attracts tourists, and tourists take photographs, it's as simple as that. Similarly, I'd like to take photos around NYC so friends and family back home in New Zealand (or anyone else who's interested) can come to this website and see what we've been up to. It seems that I won't be able to do that. I thought that kind of crap went out with Communist Russia.

A weblogger named Etan was taking photos around his campus in New Jersey the other day when he was stopped by police and told that taking photos was illegal, and the officer went on to call him a terrorist (read the full story here on his weblog). Considering I'm starting my first day of class ever in an American educational institution tomorrow, I was thinking of taking some photos around campus as well. Guess not, I don't want to spend my first day of class being detained by the police, thank you very much.

Of course there's been a fair bit of discussion about this. My own thoughts in Etans case is that the officer was fully within his rights and doing his job to question him, and I don't have a problem with that (in fact in that sense I think the Patriot Act is ok in that it allows the officer to question him - there's no harm in that, and I would even consider it as being proactive). Calling Etan a terrorist and telling him it's illegal to take photographs is just complete bullshit however. Usually I'd say, "Don't blame the street cops, they're just following orders", but in this case the officer appears to have gone too far. I'd be highly offended if someone accused me of being a terrorist, and I'd damn well let them know it. What is really bad is that if Etan told them where to go and got arrested for it, that would go down on his permanent record and could adversely effect future employment etc., despite Etan being completely innocent, and that's totally unjust. Another commenter named 'Otter' said something which was very true though:

..and what is amazing to me is that I can read over what I write, and read Etan's post, and realize that three years ago today all of this would have sounded literally impossible to me. I'd sound like a conspiracy theorist. Etan would sound like a nutball. The police would sound like representatives of a government which is given powers and liberties which would not exist in the America I knew at the time..

Another example of the excesses and unfairness being exercised in enforcing the laws against these 'illegal activities' is well illustrated in this account titled "Humiliated, Angry, Ashamed, Brown." by photography student Ian Spiers. The photo essay is several pages worth and a very interesting read, the irony being that while Ian was harassed for wielding a camera by local security police and federal agents, camera-wielding tourists were passing by all around them unimpeded. I hope Ian gets an A+ for that assignment, he deserves it.

The moral in both these cases (if you can call it a moral) is to cooperate fully and do whatever the police say, regardless of your actual rights. That is not a good moral in a country based on freedom and democracy.

Of course there is a lot of people putting the blame squarely on Bush's shoulders. One thing to remember is that Bush did not start this, a group of terrorists started it almost three years ago by flying jets into the World Trade Towers. Had it been Kerry in power and had he done nothing (which seems to be likely), Kerry would've been torn apart by the public for it, and people would've been screaming to remove Kerry and replace him with Bush, however it just so happens that Bush was in the drivers seat when it went down. A comment by 'deadscot' on John P Hoke's Asylum addressed the following analogy to me in regards to wanting President Bush out:

Have you ever seen one of the prison buses with the cage that divides the poisoners from the guards and driver? Let's say you're sitting in the back of that bus and the driver is heading straight for a cliff. Do you want to stick with him because he knows how to drive, or do you want one of the guards to push him out of the way and take over the bus?

My response to this was to add an additional circumstance to the same analogy:

Let's say you're sitting in the back of that bus and the driver is heading straight for a cliff because some terrorist is holding a gun to his head. Do you want the guard to overpower the driver because he just happened to be the in that seat when the terrorist put the gun to his head, or do you want the guard to try to push the terrorist out of the way and let the driver do his job?

I don't like what's happening in the US, but at the same time I realize that as much as I dislike it, it is a consequence of the actions of terrorists.

If you want to blame someone, ultimately you should blame them.