I came across an interesting article in BBC News today written by Tom Geoghegan.(found via Mark O'Neill )
The article focuses on photographers being approached, questioned, searched and sometimes detained by authorities just for taking pictures. It's a prickly subject to be sure. The overall issue here is that as we transition into a more security conscious society, we're more tuned-in to possible intelligence gathering methods that could be used for terrorist agendas. Of course there are problems galore recently on this topic, civil liberties and balancing the proper security posture with true risk - and with public freedoms.
Proper security posture: government, military, law enforcement and security institutions define proper security postures very differently at times. They each have their own core objectives which can be similar , but can also differ greatly. To complicate things, each of the classifications are part of their own little world, are subject to their own rules, standards and expectations that shape their perspective. It's no wonder that countries that have been dealing with terrorism longer have much more integrated government, military, law enforcement and security institutions.
True Risk: True risk vs. perceived risk is a hot topic. And just like enforcement agencies have different perspectives on the application of measures (see above) they have different interpretations of risk (for a lot of the same reasons). Determining risk is a very difficult thing. Just the idea of applying a tangible metric to the factors that make up the possibility of trouble can seem totally unreasonable - not to mention imposable. But nonetheless, once you have to spend money, or change established behavior, you've got to show tangible reasons. Add the concept of ROI to the mix and you've got even more "assessment tools" to wrangle. It's easy to error on the side of caution when it comes to human life, but when freedoms and finances are at stake you've got internal conflict brewing.
Public Freedoms: Once again, we (America) are infants in terms of living with the threat of terrorism. It sounds terrible, but the more we lose as a result of terrorism the more the general public accepts that you just can't do the same things you used to do. None of us like it - but as security practitioners we have gazed much deeper into the abyss - and we are more understanding. Public opinion on implied and protected freedoms is subject to many things. It's not easy to consider it when providing security, but a clear understanding of it helps everyone.
On the specific topic of photographers, I've seen some shifts in the way public spaces fit into security planning. Critical areas and assets should be, and are starting to bedesigned out of public view more often. I'm a big supporter of keeping critical assets totally separate from public space. It's not always possible, but it's a method that helps to preserve public freedoms and increases security at the same time. If your critical asset IS the public space, it's much more difficult. We're getting better at including CPTED and force protection in the initial design of these spaces but it's essential that we try harder. The problem here is, there is no money to be made in it. If the solutions were cameras, sensors or guards than you'd have plenty of folks knocking down the door to be part of the design. But the solution has more to do with the physical layout of space, angles of view,vulnerability to explosives, standoff distances and lighting. Architecture firms should be focusing on getting security design training to their architects as part of an enhanced service offering. City Managers and similar roles should be making room for security consulting services in their budget.
The funny thing is, if a terrorist were taking pictures of a target now-a-days, it probably wouldn't be that obvious.
