Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Dec 17, 2007.
Saudi's King Khalid Military City is visible on Google Earth!
I wonder why...
So is Area 51. It's hard to hide a couple of hundred square miles.
Don't disagree, but as yet I think most terrorists don't have much in the way of spyplanes or satellites, unless you know better...
Working on the basis of the Provisional IRA, they were quite well funded, mostly by supporters in anti-terrorist nations such as the USA. If al Qaeda are as much of a threat as HM Govt (and that of the USA) claim they are, they must be well funded too, though probably from different sources.
Hire of a light aircraft and a pilot who will do what he's told (within the law) can be arranged for not much more than £100 per hour, a one hour flight can cover quite a lot of ground.
Quite apart from the fact that there are numerous commercial satellites providing images of the Earth, which may not be of the quality of those provided by military surveillance sats (which can very nearly read a British car registration plate from low earth orbit), but could possibly be of value to anyone planning an attack on an installation which Google Earth has "fuzzed out".
Somehow, I thought you might be an expert on terrorists...
There are at least some people with an interest in private aviation who do not, have never and in all probability never will engage in terrorism, just as there may be a few photographers who are not suicide bombers researching a potential target.
But, having lived in Northern Ireland through the worst years of the Troubles, I've probably met more terrorists (on both sides, and without knowledge at the time) than you, as well as being in the vicinity of more bombs than the whole of London has seen since 1945. If that makes me an "expert on terrorists", then yeah, mea culpa.
I still think that attempts to obfuscate information clearly visible to any person going about their innocent way, or any sort of police crackdown on any sort of activity which is not unambiguously related to criminal activity, is counterproductive. Terrorists win every time someone is prevented from carrying out a lawful activity, or is obstructed whilst doing so. They thrive on publicity, the best way to beat them is to deprive them of that lifeblood.
It seems that Liberty might not agree
"Strangely, there still seems to be no general right to protection from invasion of privacy by other individuals in society. However, the right to respect for privacy under Article 8 (of the EU convention of human rights), along with existing protections in a number of different areas of common law, and the new obligation on courts to interpret statutory law compatibly with Convention rights wherever possible, should go some way to protecting against invasion of privacy in practice."
That quite clearly doesn't relate to the question at hand i.e. photos taken in a public place.
Let's face it, if the EU Convention of Human Rights was practised, in its entirety, to the letter by all society would grind to a halt!
Sorry I don't agree. The human rights legisilation has it roots in English Law dating back to the post war period and much of it was simply adoped by the European Court of Human Rights, which I might add has nothing to do with the European Union as such, its an indpendent court of rights which pre dates the EU and EEC.
Most of the problems relating to these acts are in fact a mixture of urban myths ... errr you is breaking me human rights mate ..... or misinterpretation of the acts that exist. So much crap is talked about Human Rights now that the urban myths have become reality while the Courts are left to pick up the pieces of the real breeches of the acts that never make the from pages of the Sun, Daily Mail & Express comics.
So is Harwell... (being decommissioned) & Rutherford Appleton Labs and as a guest you can take pictures inside these establishments with no problem.
Furthermore bunkers containing ordance of various types scattered around the UK are clearly visable as are all UK bases, some of which are not clearly listed in public records.
The fact is that so much is in the public domain a terrorists taking photos just is not an issue.
If something can be seen from a public place then it would be futile anyway to stop anyone taking photographs of it. The reasons being that anyone can just stand there and look at it anyway. As regards pictures, if they were determined they would come back at some later time.
There's a lot of wooly thinking goes on and some people just love to be officious.
What they gonna do next, lock up savants who can draw precise images from memory...!
what about artists sitting sketching...
Actually, that would be an interesting exercise.
I've got this surreal image in my mind now of a group of photographers setting up tripods and artists setting up easels and then all being carried away by police, to be released later with letters of apology.
It could be a 1960s protest all over again. Don't forget the flowers...
Anyone booked the mini-bus yet?
I thought we'd march from Jarrow?
Ah yes. Let history repeat itself (in a round-about way).
Separate names with a comma.