archives

What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all terrorists, or does everyone just think they are?

Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harrassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.

Except that it's nonsense.

And even if terrorists did photograph their targets, the math doesn't make sense. Billions of photographs are taken by honest people every year, 50 billion by amateurs alone in the US And the national monuments you imagine terrorists taking photographs of are the same ones tourists like to take pictures of. If you see someone taking one of those photographs, the odds are infinitesimal that he's a terrorist.

This is worth fighting. Search "photographer rights" on Google and download one of the several wallet documents that can help you if you get harassed; I found one for the UK, US, and Australia. Don't cede your right to photograph in public. Don't propagate the terrorist photographer story. Remind them that prohibiting photography was something we used to ridicule about the USSR. Eventually sanity will be restored, but it may take a while.

After the first 'Hulk' movie in 2003 (which was a shame, as I generally really like Ang Lee's work), I was not really interested in seeing the latest 'Incredible Hulk'. I had not seen any commercials for it (since we have a DVR) until I saw Speed Racer (which I liked, by the way) the other week, and I saw that Edward Norton was Bruce Banner (and he co-wrote the screenplay)! Now I find out that Tim Roth is in it as well?!? Those two are definitely at the top of my list of contemporary actors (Roth in 'Rob Roy' was the best performances I have ever seen, and he was the only good thing in Burton's piss-poor 'Planet of the Apes').

I am so going to see this flick...