It's a nice photograph, but I can't exactly see it as an instrument of revolution. Did I miss the microfilm plans of Parliament or something?

What is wrong with these people's brains? I'm not certain, but I suspect it's related to the same brain disorder that afflicts many members of the TSA.

Posted March 30, 2008 6:52 PM by Madeleine Robins

I think it probably arises at least partially out of some inflated sense of [self]importance. If it's got to be guarded*, it's a) got to be guarded against everything, and b) must be the most important thing evah.

* For definitions of guarded that may include one unarmed Beefeater equivalent

Posted March 30, 2008 7:05 PM by joann

I like the composition. As you said, the framing is really cool.

As for what's wrong with these people, I have no idea. I don't know why security theater is so seductive. Maybe it's the same reason why people pass on chain letters about nefarious black marketers who harvest kidneys from drunk party goers. i.e., it makes them Feel Good. It gives them the illusion that they are Doing Something For The Cause. However, what they're actually doing is acting out of irrational panic. Cheney can enshrine this as the "1% Doctrine." That doesn't actually make it rational.

(I totally get the feeling of powerlessness. That doesn't mean absolutely any action is better than no action.)

Posted March 30, 2008 7:13 PM by John Chu

At St. Isaacs in St. Petersburg, there used to be--probably still is, as far as I know--a babushka whose job was to stand on the observation deck outside the dome and stop people from taking pix. I was there in March; heaven knows how she handles January.

Posted March 30, 2008 7:15 PM by Buce

Picture = Makes me want to visit.

Goon = Makes me want to stay away.

Thank you, Patrick, for hopelessly disconfabulating me.

Posted March 30, 2008 7:21 PM by Edward Oleander

Clearly, Patrick, you are a dangerous terrorist collecting information that could be of use to other terrorists as the coded information in that photograph of sheep on your Flikr page makes clear. And the railway map of the Netherlands is an even bigger giveaway, in the hands of the enemy it could lead to great devastation. Thank goodness Comrade Stalin Great Leader Cheney has protected us from such things.

Posted March 30, 2008 7:32 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Customers are objects to them. Their competitors are real people. The signs prevent their ever-vigilant enemy competitors from copying prices or special pieces. Also of interest: while most of these people don't run around trying to copy competitors this way, it's only because they are the best and wisest of their field. Everyone else cheats to stay even.

Posted March 30, 2008 7:32 PM by Brian Sniffen

Customers are objects to them. Their competitors are real people. The signs prevent their ever-vigilant enemy competitors from copying prices or special pieces. Also of interest: while most of these people don't run around trying to copy competitors this way, it's only because they are the best and wisest of their field. Everyone else cheats to stay even.

Posted March 30, 2008 7:34 PM by Brian Sniffen

They wanted it deleted because you mistook a rocket on a launch pad for a church spire. ;)

Posted March 30, 2008 7:35 PM by Dave Kuzminski

I can see how you might not want to be photographed at work, and have the point of view that your stall is for selling things and not a tourist attraction to be photographed. In that case a polite notice saying no photography please makes sense. The whole security guards and police stopping people taking photographs of anything ever is more puzzling.

More generally, doesn't being photographed steal bits of your soul? Also creatures without souls don't show up in photographs. Bearing this in mind, can we think of anyone the lack of photography might benefit?

Posted March 30, 2008 7:46 PM by Neil Willcox

Perhaps the man was actually a super secret Mall Ninja.

Posted March 30, 2008 7:51 PM by Miss Anthropy

As someone who does street photography for a living, it is strange how terrified you can get after taking photos. A couple of anecdotes from my recent trip to San Fransisco:

!) I really wanted to shoot the giant American flag beset with plastic eagles, in the airport customs line. It was a fantastic example of kitsch, and looked disturbingly like similar objects in Mussolini's Italy. I did not want to get delayed, or turned back on the flight. So I self censored.

2) I did take a photo of the new federal building on 6th Street, including the security zones. I was convinced as I set up my shots, that secuirty officers or police would get in, and arrest me. That the ear bugs of paranoia seem so natural to me is so science fiction like.

I get stopped maybe twice a month to delete photos, or to stop taking photos, and I often get threatened with physical harm. There is a number of other anecdotal evidence that suggests that other street photographer's have had similar experiences.

Aside, from tourists, 150 years of photography has rested on the ability to take photos outside, of common things. I wonder what would have happened to Eugene Atget or August Sanders or Gary Winograd or any of the New Topographers if the circumstances were the same?

It is this surreal push and pull narrative. Because we also have the Abu Gharib situation. Everything is documented but documentation has become more and more dangerous...

Anyways, the photo is excellent.

Posted March 30, 2008 7:51 PM by anthony

On a recent business trip I overheard a TSA agent accosting a frail-looking elderly man at the security checkpoint. I mean, top of her lungs yelling at him: "It doesn't matter that this bag is less than a quart, it's NOT A ZIPLOCK BAG! IT HAS TO BE A ZIPLOCK!"

You're right: something's just broken in these people's brains.

On the flipside, I'm thinking the ziplock people could probably use this in a commercial. "Our patented Ziplock™ technology really seals in the terror!"

Posted March 30, 2008 8:03 PM by Evan

Welcome to Britain. We get this bs all the time.

Posted March 30, 2008 8:10 PM by Squirrel

I did notice that Hefty is now marketing a small packet of quart-size ziplock bags specifically for going through security lines.

Posted March 30, 2008 8:10 PM by Madeleine Robins

I find Brian Sniffen's comment kind of plausible, come to think of it, as I was once sent on a spying-on-the-competition assignment.

My employer's intent wasn't to copy any of the competitors, but to get a sense of the range of quality and prices available from multiple vendors of a similar product.

If the venue hadn't had a blanket no-photographs policy, it wouldn't have surprised me if some of the vendors had had them individually, because there WAS a lot of competition in that particular product, and creative designs were prized.

Even so, the vendors were awfully nice to a perceived customer asking detailed questions and taking notes, and one even asked to take a photo of ME with the product. And event security didn't bust us for it.

The London security guard? Officious bozo.

Posted March 30, 2008 8:12 PM by Rikibeth

I did notice that Hefty is now marketing a small packet of quart-size ziplock bags specifically for going through security lines.

In the security line at Dublin Airport, there were piles of free bags for liquids, so at least meeting the requirements didn't cost you anything.

Posted March 30, 2008 8:25 PM by Gag Halfrunt

I guess this is where someone should mention the various experiments that indicate the effects of power and authority on people's decisionmaking.

The Milgrim and Stanford experiments come to mind, with the Stanford study explaining the TSA nearly perfectly. :)

Posted March 30, 2008 8:26 PM by Rob Hoffmann

My uniformed security guard had evidently found even more pressing issues to deal with, possibly terroristic squirrels, or people removing mattress tags.

Tha latter part of you sentence IS a serious matter. Didn't you hear the dire warnings of newscaster Lloyd Crawford, in the early days of TVland, that removing said tags would open a Gate to Hell?

Posted March 30, 2008 8:34 PM by Serge

I think that the general rule for conspiracy theorists applies here. Once someone is in that mindset, they might be made to realize that some individual piece of their facts or reasoning is incorrect. However, you will never be able to get them to understand that nobody cares. That the government and/or the terrorists aren't out to get them because... they just aren't attractive targets. And there aren't that many terrorists.

Posted March 30, 2008 8:38 PM by Eastof Weston

Rob: ISTR the Tom Baker version of Dr Who observing that giving people guns made them stupid. The same phenomenon appears to be going on here--giving people police powers and Big Responsibilities mostly doesn't improve their judgment, and often makes it worse.

Posted March 30, 2008 8:51 PM by albatross

This picture speaks to me. What's that, picture? I should kill who? With a what? Okay. I will. Okay. Yes, hail to the glorious revolution, picture.

Posted March 30, 2008 9:07 PM by Kip W

Kip W @ 22... I thought the picture was asking the camera what its objective was.

Posted March 30, 2008 9:11 PM by Serge

In further support of the Sniffen theory, I recently asked if I could take some photographs (for an art project I'm doing) at Wegmans, a big chain grocery store here in upstate NY (I don't know if it's elsewhere). I would have been shooting actors, not focusing on the content of the aisles; but they said no -- absolute corporate policy against photography. And they gave as a reason precisely this.

In fact, one of the actors working with me said she once went to (that same) Wegmans as a kid to take some photographs for a school project (without asking), and they not only stopped her but stood there and made her delete all the pictures she'd taken.

Incidentally, the answer for me was to ask at the local co-op grocery: local businesses tend to be much more relaxed about these things... which, I suppose, goes *against* the Sniffen theory in terms of he stalls. Damn.

(I'm still bitter, because nice as the local co-op was, the Wegmans was simply a magnificent space -- huge, with lots of great colors, and a second-floor balcony in one section that I could have used for an aerial shot -- and I just couldn't duplicate it. The results were fine, and I'm extremely grateful to the co-op, but damnit, Wegmans would have worked better.)

Posted March 30, 2008 9:15 PM by Stephen Frug

After they're done destroying the Church of Scientology, Anonymous needs to send a hundred camera-wielding Guy Fawkes to this place.

In fact, why wait?

Posted March 30, 2008 9:19 PM by Stefan Jones

@8:

The signs prevent their ever-vigilant enemy competitors from copying prices or special pieces.

@13:

I'm thinking the ziplock people could probably use this in a commercial.

Posted March 30, 2008 9:27 PM by Jonah

Show your work.

I've worked in crafts for years and many merchants do what they can to protect their work. Then there is also a privacy issue here. Even though they are in public there are folks who don't want their photo taken. A case in point... When I was a neofan Larry Niven was GOH of the con I was attending. I took his photo and I swear I thought he was going to take my head off. To this day I'll never understand his reaction.

I had a foreign exchange student from Russia back in '95 and she was so thrilled with our stores that she had me take her photo standing next to the booze, the candy and many other American trappings. We joked about it, but these were her favorite things about the U.S.

Posted March 30, 2008 9:40 PM by Gigi Rose

I went to the courthouse the other day, and they made me take my nail file back to my car. What am I going to do in the courthouse with a nail file? Even if I went crazy and decided to stab the judge with it, the cop on duty in the courtroom would have wrestled me to the ground instantly.

Posted March 30, 2008 9:44 PM by Tazistan Jen

Back on topic: I bet there will soon be cameras that don't look like cameras for taking pictures in public places. Like the old spy novels, where your brooch took pictures.

Posted March 30, 2008 9:46 PM by Tazistan Jen

#11 Miss A -- OMG that was a fun link! Thank you!

Gosh, and I was a security guard at the Mall of America... why didn't I ever see our Rapid Deployment Dark Ops Mutant Mall Ninjas? Maybe they were just so good that they defeated the Detect Invisibility skill of a mere 3rd level Security Guard like me...

Posted March 30, 2008 9:59 PM by Edward Oleander

Jumping to the end (I'll go back and read the 25 posts prior): What's wrong with these people is unknown, but not new.

I've been dealing with this for a couple of decades. The present unpleasantness has merely given a greater tendency to color the temptation to try and prohibit pictures with the air of, "We're fighting terrorosists. You understand."

It's all bullshit of course, and I don't understand. Trying to tell me I have to give up some liberties, because someon, somewhere, might be planning an attack; and we can't have that, doesn't fly.

A rent-a-cop? Not in a million years.

anthony: I am familiar with the sensation. It's worse now than it was 20 years ago. I've been threatened with personal harm, and the physical destruction of my equipment. I keep the police phone numbers for all the jurisdictions I frequent in my phone.

I find it a great defuser to smugly offer to let them use my phone to call the cops.

On the flip side, pulling out the phone and telling them that touching me, or my equipment, will earn them a trip to the local precint pulls them up short.

An absolute air of, "I won't put up with your nonsense" doesn't hurt.

So far those have worked.

Posted March 30, 2008 10:02 PM by Terry Karney

@ #29: cameras that don't look like cameras for taking pictures

They're called cell phones.

My daughter and I are currently 3,000 miles apart. We've emailed each other cell phone photos of possible purchase items (garments, houses) etc.

Even in the "no photography allowed" venues like department stores the cell phone photos get by.

Of course, they aren't careful compositions like Patrick's, but the essential information is captured.

Posted March 30, 2008 10:10 PM by Liz D.

Meanwhile in this county we have permanent automated speed traps taking pictures of our cars.

I've rather fallen out of the railfan world, but of course there was security theater about all these people taking pictures of trains. Never mind that these people are probably the most diligent watchers against sabotage. So we had policemen trying to stop people from taking pictures from public sidewalks and all that kind of nonsense. The reality that (a) trains are incredibly easy to sabotage, and (b) that nonetheless the terrorists weren't bothering wasn't sinking in. But then, it never does.

Posted March 30, 2008 10:10 PM by C. Wingate

I get to tell you what to do.

It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t make sense. Didn’t you hear me? I have been given license to tell you what to do. So do it already.

Posted March 30, 2008 10:12 PM by Kip Manley

Westfield seems to have a no photography policy at all of their malls (the US ones, at least--don't know about Britain). The way they worded the policy (I can't find it anywhere on their website after an admittedly brief search) made it pretty clear that it was in place so that they could act against local news agencies trying to get footage for stories that would make the mall look bad. They also made some noise about defending their tenants' trademarks, because apparently snapping a picture that has a store sign in the background is trademark infringement (is it?).

There's been a lot of static about this in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland. As part of a major urban renewal project, the city has leased a city block to private developers (with a public access easement). The developers contend that since they've leased the street, it's private property and they can forbid people from taking photographs there. Which is great except that the public access easement makes it public land on which the bill of rights is in effect. When the Mormon Church tried to pull a similar stunt on land they'd leased from Salt Lake City (they were trying to prevent those shifty Unitarians from handing out fliers there), a federal judge told them to stghu*. Now I take my camera with me every time I go down there, just to piss those idiots off.

But back to the subject at hand, that is a very nice picture. I like the strong lines and the contrast between the building and the sky.

*(First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City v. Salt Lake City Corp. 10th circuit, 2002. The city later sold the easement to the Church to get around the ruling).

Posted March 30, 2008 10:16 PM by annalee flower horne

My uniformed security guard...

On the first pass I read that as uninformed security guard. I still have to pause and think not to see it as a typo but my brain is all Mondayed out right now.

Posted March 30, 2008 10:23 PM by Paul Duncanson

Liz's mention of cell phone cameras in #32 reminds me of the half-day of jury duty I served a few weeks back. Cameras aren't allowed in court, as we know Bob, and court buildings in NYC have the sorts of security at the entrances that you'd expect -- metal detectors, cops, x-ray for your bags, etc. I've got a small digital camera that I carry in my jacket pocket, and I'd forgotten to leave it at home, so I had to check it at the entrance. My cell phone was no problem, but it's an old, crappy phone that doesn't have a camera. I later found out that the cops don't force you to check cameras that are built into cell phones; those can get taken into court.

On the other hand, I know someone who worked in the financial services industry in contexts where management is worried about people being able to sneak valuable information out. In their offices, cameras aren't allowed, and if your cell phone has a camera, it's not allowed either.

I'm tempted to cite that as an example of the difference between an organization that's actually interested in security, and one that's into security theater. Except the company my friend worked for also forbade workers from bringing portable storage media (USB thumb drives and the like) to their work computers -- but allowed iPods (which can easily be mounted as hard drives and used to transfer data).

Posted March 30, 2008 10:37 PM by Avram

If the terrorists could study photos of how merchandise is arranged in the booths, they could determine the exact bomb placement that would destroy the most expensive merchandise.

Lacking that information, they may not risk expending an expensive bomb to destroy cheap kitsch.

Now you know.

Posted March 30, 2008 10:42 PM by Pyre

That's it. I was trying to recall something.

Last week I was at TJ's. The clerk saw my camera (I wasn't willing to leave it in the front seat) and asked me to take her picture.

The manager came out and asked if I was taking pictures. I said, "Yes, she asked me to."

She said she had and he grumped away, telling her that wasn't kosher.

Posted March 30, 2008 10:49 PM by Terry Karney

And this happened in London, CCTV capital of the world? Where every person is photographed by the government some two-digit times every day?

The mind boggles. Given the record of national governments, the idea that gov't cameras watching you makes you safe - while autonomous ones in the hands of people put you in danger illustrates a dangerous lacuna in the teaching of history.

Posted March 30, 2008 10:50 PM by Dena Shunra

Besides, this is a society of equals, which makes OUR group of souvenir stands just as important as all those shops at the airport -- and the airplane gates, and the security offices, and the military and government offices, and the whole national infrastructure -- so we're entitled to just as officious and paranoid a defense.

Posted March 30, 2008 10:50 PM by Pyre

Avram @ 37: Your comments reminded me of our policies at work, and made me realize how lucky I am that we don't have too much security theater. In research, we do have to protect our facilities against animal rightists (aka domestic terrorists), so cell phones with cameras are not allowed. We have key card and entry lock access (two separate systems). However, once we get to work, we're trusted with a lot of responsibility and access. I've heard people in the industrial R&D side talk about their coded ID cards and how they could be tracked throughout a facility..and how access was limited to "need-to-know".

We do have security guards at our entrances; occasionally we get someone with TSA-itis. Recently one new guard tried to stop my technicians from taking an anesthetized patient from our facility to the MRI in the next building, because the rules say you're not supposed to take anything out without a property pass. ::rolls eyes::

Security theater is why I absolutely hate air travel. I'd rather drive or take the train than allow myself to be subjected to the whims of idiots with guns and an overinflated sense of importance.

Posted March 30, 2008 10:53 PM by Ginger

My friend and I filmed a goofy zombie movie our senior week of college at Cornell University a couple of years ago. We shot everywhere on campus - including in the chemistry building at midnight to three in the morning. But where did we get yelled at by the campus police? Standing on a bridge in the middle of campus where five million people a day take a photo of the beautiful waterfall behind us. They asked if we had a permit. Uh, no? Do we need one to lug around a video camera and tape each other running around like ninnies? I don't remember exactly what we said to them, but it was convincing enough to make them go away. I just remember thinking, "You have to be kidding."

Posted March 30, 2008 11:13 PM by Shannon

#28

The courthouse where I got to do jury duty last time has a no-pointy-objects policy - somehow they miss pens and pencils - and X-ray and metal detectors, for good reason. They also have pictures of some of the nastier objects they've found on people - knives disguised as belt buckles is the first one to mind. (It annoys me because they include kiddy scissors and knitting needles as dangerous objects also.)

Posted March 30, 2008 11:36 PM by P J Evans

joann at #2 writes:

> I think it probably arises at least partially out of some inflated sense of [self]importance. If it's got to be guarded*, it's a) got to be guarded against everything, and b) must be the most important thing evah.

I once did some part time programming work with a local university - one which was surrounded by a high fence and a guard booth at the gate. On the last day of my contract I worked till about 3am just to clean up loose ends, doing unpaid work out of the goodness of my heart.

As I left at 3am, this meant that my gate pass had expired, along with my contract, 3 hours before. I had a - in retrospect hilarious - screaming argument with the guard on the gate, as I was trying to leave an area I was no longer authorised to be in, and he knew deep inside that it Just Wasn't Right.

The punchline is that some years later the fences and guard booths were pulled down, and the university is now just another bit of open city real estate!

Posted March 31, 2008 12:26 AM by Steve Taylor

In October of 2007, I arrived at Heathrow on a very early flight, by the time that the Paddington Express pulled into Paddington Station it was 8am and the first rays of morning sun were hitting the fabulous Victorian iron tracery work of the back (trackside) window. I was enchanted.

After I got off the train, I looked back to the grand back window and the light streaming through the tracery was lovely. I put my bags down, got my camera out, and went to take a photo when I was stopped by two security officers (uniformed) who told me that photography was not allowed in the station.

I was operating on very little sleep, too much travel, and my brain just blinked. "What?" Security insisted that I could not take a photo as it could be used by terrorists. Brain continues to blink. Finally, I mustered up some words and said to the younger of the two guards, "But you know that there is already hundreds of photos in the 'paddingtonstation' flickr tags right?" The young guard blushed, nodded, and looked ashamed. The older guard said, "Please move along." I did.

Now, every time I go through Paddington (4x since Oct.) I have made a point to take photos while arriving, in the station, and of the trains and then moblog them to flickr.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:29 AM by Ms. Jen

Back in 1990 my (now ex-) wife and I honeymooned in Paris. The thing I remember most about our visit to the Louvre was the young woman whose job it was to yell "No flash!!" at random intervals in the alcove that housed the Venus de Milo.

Back then it seemed so intrusive and absurd. Simpler times.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:30 AM by pb

stegosaurus graffiti kitteh

Posted March 31, 2008 12:40 AM by Earl Cooley III

The only place I've ever been where security theater is more ridiculous than in the US was Heathrow, where a friendly guard advised me to carry my two computers to make room in my backpack for my camera and camera bag so I didn't violate the rules, while her co-worker was barking at me that I had to throw away at least one bag and its contents. I did get through the checkpoint, but I'm disinclined to travel through there ever again.

The first place I ever got grilled for taking photos was at the old post office in Asheville, NC, which is now a US District Court. Thankfully my friends (locals) dropped into their best Western NC accents and appeased the plainclothes guard. (To be fair, he was very courteous.)

@pb @47 - What I found amusing about the "No Flash" proclaimer was that they only yelled in English, when most of the flash-wielders were Japanese.

Posted March 31, 2008 1:23 AM by Larry Brennan

I can totally understand the desire to prevent oneself from being photographed. I myself hate being caught on film most of the time, which is one reason why I try to be behind the camera and also why I try to respect other people's wishes to not be photographed.

However, I can't imagine telling people that they can't take photos in and/or of a public space. I know it happens, but it still makes my brain hurt.

Posted March 31, 2008 1:30 AM by Kayjayoh

pb: There is a reason museams disallow flash: the nature of the light damages the art. Not so much marble, but pigments in paintings.

Posted March 31, 2008 1:55 AM by Terry Karney

Anthony@12: I took cell phone photos of that Federal building the ENTIRE TIME it was being built...never once got in trouble. (My boyfriend's apartment was just down the street--we walked by it every day.) I know other people have had problems in SF, but I never did.

I do, however, have a story about Dallas.

From March 2005:

Anyway, I have soured on Dallas as a city. I have acquired a parking ticket and been subtly threatened with the police, because you know, these days, you can't take pictures of big buildings. That's suspicious, don't you know.

We went to the Chase/J.P. Morgan building downtown. Lee used to work there in his days at Ionstorm. We went up to the Sky Lobby, which is open to the public. Keep in mind that not only is it open to the public, but people have receptions and weddings and whatnot up there all the time. Keep in mind too, that I have been up there before, taken pictures with the complicit knowledge of security guards, and emerged unscathed to tell the tale. (You can see the prior pictures at my DevArt gallery.) Keep in mind that on the way up in the elevator, we were asked by a fellow passenger if we were going up to take pictures, as if that was the most common and logical thing in the world. Nobody said anything. No signs were posted.

However, I had taken maybe two pictures, when I was accosted by a security guard and told not to. I was expecting that, because I saw him sidling over as I aimed the camera for my second picture. What I wasn't expecting was the injunction that this was because of 9/11. (Given that the time I had last been here was after 9/11, and the security guards let me take pictures without any problems, I was somewhat dubious that "it's been this way since 9-1-1.") I was also somewhat surprised to be told that I better not take any pictures downtown at any of the other buildings, or the Dallas Police would have to be called. The security guard, having delivered his ominous warning, went over and conferred with his fellow security guard, and both of them directed dark and dire looks at us.

So we left.

Posted March 31, 2008 1:58 AM by pixelfish

It's all about commercial sensitivity: the stalls try to protect their wares AND there's probably some sort of exclusive contract between the market managing company and professional photographers/postcard-makers.

Posted March 31, 2008 3:15 AM by Giacomo

I haven't blogged about this, for several reasons, but I got threatened with arrest for taking a photo at a railway station last week. I wasn't on my own time; if I had been I would have patiently spoken to British Transport Police and let them arrest me if they liked, after which I would have caused them a shedload of civil liberties trouble.

But the security goons told me it was illegal to take photos, which it isn't. They demanded I removed my photos, which they can't. They threatened me with arrest. They told me that by taking a photo of a member of their staff, I was breaking the Data Protection Act, which really offended me. The DPA is designed to protect individuals from the abuses of large companies; they were using it as a technique for large companies to abuse and threaten private individuals. They told me to stay where I was, which they can't; and when I started walking and pointed out to them that they couldn't touch me or stop me from boarding a train, they told me that if I boarded a train they'd charge me £3000 a minute for delaying it.

Eventually, of course, my desire to become a member of the Next Great Citizen's Army was exceeded by my desire to get to my meeting on time. I deleted my photos, and they let me catch my train. I do hope that the next generation of the iPhone will be tweakable to upload every photo to online storage as soon as it's taken.

Note I've used a none-too-complex pseudonym on this post.

Posted March 31, 2008 3:21 AM by Alison Plokta

Parkinson's Law states that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."

"Cyril Northcote Parkinson [said] that once a core organisation exists, it will perpetuate and expand itself regardless of the reason it came into being."

Posted March 31, 2008 4:08 AM by A.R.Yngve

#54 - Alison

Hmmm. Perhaps they could enlighten me how an image of a person held on a personal phone/camera/memory stick is subject to the Data Protection Act. It wasn't the last time I read it (and I have, dear reader, oh how I have)

As for 'No Photography' signs in markets etc; nothing to do with competitors, everything to do with the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise.

Posted March 31, 2008 4:22 AM by martyn44

This is all due to the police announcing that companies in the city should be concerned about terrorists photographing buildings as a precursor to attacking.

My company got a similar alert and immediately started watching for these terrorist killers...

...the fact that we are right next to the "gherkin" and everyone is taking photo's made the whole exercise futile and we gave up after a day.

'tis all bullshit.

Posted March 31, 2008 5:26 AM by Basho

Remember, there are people in this city who will drive you out of town for money.

Posted March 31, 2008 5:39 AM by Dave Bell

There's a line in an Iain M Banks short story, when a Culture character is confronted by a "No Photography" sign:

"Do these people think they own the light?"

Posted March 31, 2008 5:48 AM by Chaz Brenchley

People who run market stalls don't like having their photo taken because they are all on the make. Their job is cash in hand and no doubt their not telling the tax man how much they realy make. And then there's the benefits they are scamming as well.

No evidence of them working please! So no Photos allright!

Posted March 31, 2008 6:16 AM by Rodney

Interesting choice of nom de net for the driveby, Rodney.

How's Del Boy keeping?

Posted March 31, 2008 6:22 AM by abi

"After they're done destroying the Church of Scientology, Anonymous needs to send a hundred camera-wielding Guy Fawkes to this place."

roombas equipped with cheap digital cameras.

Posted March 31, 2008 6:27 AM by bryan

Sorry, no privacy issues. If you're in a public place in Britain, you have no "right to privacy" against photography.

Posted March 31, 2008 6:30 AM by Squirrel

If anyone takes a camera off you and deletes pictures from it, then it may well be that they're committing an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 - specifically, unauthorised modification under Section 3. I'll have to look and see if there's any case law on this but my understanding is that a digital camera would fall within this legislation.

Posted March 31, 2008 6:54 AM by Simon Bradshaw

I once went to a local preview of Serenity. The cinema made you check mobile phones, because they might have cameras (which could copy the film). However (a) you weren't searched and (b) people with actual large professional cameras in camera holders went through ok. They concentrated so hard on the cell-phone exception they'd forgotten to actually ban cameras.

Posted March 31, 2008 7:11 AM by Jack V.

When I visited the Central African Republic (1990), in the capital (Bangui), one pretty much didn't want to be seen carrying a camera, and certainly not taking any pictures with it, or the gendarmes would take and smash it. (The gendarmes were young men who were given uniforms and guns, but no salaries; the only income they had was from fees/fines they could levy and bribes. There's a small problem in this plan.) When we went for an evening stroll along the river side, with my brother explaining all the reasons one did not swim in the water, e.g., giardia, crocodiles, etc., we approached a water tower and were angrily waved away and shouted at until we crossed to the other side of the road. A water tower is a government installation; they couldn't allow people who might be spies to get close enough to take a good look.

It was, at that time, one of the poorest countries in the world. I think the near-hysterical fear of spies was an important way of...feeling important.

Why this kind of thing is now common in some of the richest countries in the world is another question, of course.

Posted March 31, 2008 7:16 AM by Calluna V.

Chaz Brenchley @ 59... "Do these people think they own the light?"

My eyes! My eyes!

Posted March 31, 2008 7:17 AM by Serge

Rodney @ 60... Hmm... So, merchants wouldn't want to be photographed because the photographic evidence thus collated would allow the govt to find out how much money the merchants really make? (This reminds me of how clues were already out there that might have prevented 9/11, but thy were ignored or missed because of all the extraneous data. So, of course the govt's solution was to get more information to plod thru.) I don't know. This sounds like the premise for a skit by Monty Python's Flying Circus, or for an episode of Doctor Who with Simon Pegg as the villainous govt all-seeing eye.

Posted March 31, 2008 7:36 AM by Serge

"After they're done destroying the Church of Scientology, Anonymous needs to send a hundred camera-wielding Guy Fawkes to this place."

roombas equipped with cheap digital cameras.

I think you might be able to get government funding for this ingenious scheme to clean up the streets.

Posted March 31, 2008 7:39 AM by Dave Bell

Admittedly a long time ago, when I worked a summer job in high school for a company that did traffic analysis for large markets, the stores' real (as opposed to the stated) reason for not allowing photographs was simply that they didn't want anyone getting physical evidence of the many egregious violations of health, safety, and food handling laws. This was in the US, mostly the Northeast.

Posted March 31, 2008 7:44 AM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

Serge @ 68

Although it seems paranoid on the part of the merchants it's a fear the government encourages.

See here for more details. This is an official government poster that plays on this sort of fear. It's part of an increasing and unpleasant campaign against people receiving benefits which - in my view - ignores the integral value of social benefits to civilisation.

Posted March 31, 2008 8:02 AM by Benedict Leigh

Benedict in #71:

The poster warns benefit thieves. What, exactly, is a "benefit thief?"

Posted March 31, 2008 8:49 AM by Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey

The security guard obviously forgot to mention that you were stealing the market's soul by taking its picture.

Posted March 31, 2008 9:10 AM by Kathryn Cramer

There is no policy advanced by preventing you taking that photograph, except to have a generation grow up with the technology to take photographs anywhere anytime but the ingrained belief that you may only take them at specific permitted times and places.

Today's photograph hurts nothing, sooner or later some photograph someone doesn't take because they were intimidated today might be able to prove someone's innocence and hurt those in power.

The habit of being afraid benefits those who can play to that. A fearful population is an easily cowed population, a cowed population is easily led, and once decieved, continues to decieve itself.

Alison's comment above could be a scene straight out of Nineteen Seventy Four.

Posted March 31, 2008 9:23 AM by Jo Walton

Benedict Leigh @ 71... it's a fear the government encourages

That fear seems to operate under the assumption that people won't think things thru. Then again, that has been shown to happen, especially when the powers-that-be encourage an environment of fear.

Bill Higgins @ 72... I suppose that a benefit thief is the same thing as Ronnie Raygun's welfare queen. The difference, according to that ad that Benedict linked to, is that the thief walks while the queen drives a Cadillac.

Posted March 31, 2008 9:24 AM by Serge

I was out photographing old and new buildings in London one early morning a few years back for a photography course I was on and was at the tower of london - well technically the building directly west of the tower of london and wanted to take a pic of the tower reflected in the plate glass windows... I was promptly surrounded by 4 security guards and asked to leave..

I did some research and found out they were in the wrong as i was on a public highway and went back and complained to the head of security armed with documents on my rights.

I cant remember where i found the original document - but heres a link to a pdf of your rights as a photographer... http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

Posted March 31, 2008 9:26 AM by taryn-vee burnett

Bruce, as a farmer, for over 20 years I have had to follow government rules on the storage of pesticides, such as RoundUp, Monsanto's branded version of glyphosate.

One of the general rules is that the pesticides cannot be stored in the same building as food.

And, every year since I was told of this rule, I have seen the supermarkets filling shelves with gardening products, including verious brands of glyphosate, other herbicides, insecticides, and molluscicides.

On occasion, I've known that there have been spillages of these pesticides--the scents can be very distinctive--and the customers will cheerfully dump then in amongst their shopping.

So, yes, I can quite believe that the supermarkets don't want anyone accidentally collecting evidence.

And, when the PA system invites all available staff to the rumble on aisle three, maybe one should be careful.

Posted March 31, 2008 9:38 AM by Dave Bell

From Lieutenant 030

to Bill #72;

A benefit thief is somebody in the UK that claims monetary support from the Government whilst they are also earning money from either full time or 'cash in hand' employment. This support is called benefit.

What we need is a(camera)flash mob to go to Spitalfields and take pictues en masse.

Posted March 31, 2008 9:50 AM by lieutenant 030

Tazistan Jan @28, the first time I went to see the USS Constitution, it was the March after 9/11. I went with a couple of friends, one of whom had a tiny, keychain-sized Swiss Army knife. After rifling through our wallets (like, literally through every card and bill in there), they told him he could either surrender his tiny knife or not board the ship. He chose not to board the ship, as he'd seen it before.

I have never seen him so disgusted. He didn't say it to the nice sailors doing the frisking, but afterwards there was much "Because I'm going to hijack Old Ironsides with my two-inch knife, sail it out into Boston Harbor all by myself, and....shoot the two decorative cannonballs they have on board? With no gunpowder? So I'm going to throw two cannonballs at the city."

Posted March 31, 2008 9:55 AM by Caroline

Caroline @ 79... Because I'm going to hijack Old Ironsides with my two-inch knife, sail it out into Boston Harbor all by myself, and....shoot the two decorative cannonballs

I can see Jim Macdonald doing that.

Posted March 31, 2008 10:24 AM by Serge

WWAHD?

What would Abbie Hoffman do?

I imagine he'd take a nice portfolio of pictures of the security goon bursting a blood vessel over the whole affair. As the control apparatus revs up, disobedience becomes the obligation of those committed to civil liberty.

Posted March 31, 2008 10:27 AM by Mark Satola

Ginger @42:

Security theater is why I absolutely hate air travel. I'd rather drive or take the train than allow myself to be subjected to the whims of idiots with guns and an overinflated sense of importance.

At first I wasn't sure whether you meant the security guards or the terrorists.

Posted March 31, 2008 10:32 AM by jstewart

terry karney @ 31 ... oddly enough I ended up in a "Fine, let's call the cops then" situation yesterday (along with a minor case of hypothermia from standing about outside). It was resolved without severe idiocy, but - well - not impressed.

All that aside - when you give otherwise powerless people some area in which they do have power, it's exceedingly common for that power to be abused. Witness many volunteer organizations...

Posted March 31, 2008 10:35 AM by xeger

Maybe the market's security staff are just big fans of Cory, don't produce anything in the way of art or literature that he'd find interesting but hope to be the subject of a BoingBoing post someday?

Posted March 31, 2008 11:13 AM by Flippanter

This kind of security is the spirit of the age. I remember a friend of mine pointing out that, as a result of various school shooting/drugs/what-have-you scares involving high school kids, we were passing a whole generation through the schools who would be accustomed to police-state type intrusive crap in their youth. (Metal detectors, armed policemen at the doors, see-through mesh bookbags, etc.) And those kids would grow up feeling like this was normal, and would be very easy to sell on extending those same security measures to every part of daily life.

In fact, something worse happened. We got the school kids used to having no rights and living with police-state measures. (This didn't stop the already incredibly rare school shootings, but it didn't have to.) We also got the folks at the top used to secured buildings for their private or government employers, airport security checks, and courthouse security checks. All with a double helping of "papers, please" and "no joking allowed" and dimwitted rent-a-cops with the power to make your life very hard if you didn't obey their idiotic demands. (Yep, you'll have to hand over your Swiss Army Knife with the inch long blade and your toenail clippers. Yep, you'll have to hand over your camera or expose the film or delete the pictures off the memory. Not because it makes sense. Because we told you to. This is a very important lesson in how our relationship with the government (and more generally, uniformed folks with guns) is changing.

Given what America is becoming, I expect that learning to obey when uniformed dimwits bark stupid orders at you is important. It's a valuable skill we'll need in the next thirty years.

I'm so old, I remember when the guys in the movies that demanded "papers, please" were the bad guys. And the governments that routinely wiretapped their citizens' phone calls, tracked their library books, and otherwise spied on them were the bad guys, the Commies and Facists that we could thank God weren't running our country. Similarly, in the movies, the guys who tortured and mistreated prisoners, and threatened to punish the families of prisoners to get them to talk, were the unambiguous bad guys. Ah, but that was in another age. Now, they're the Heroes Protecting the State.

Posted March 31, 2008 11:22 AM by albatross

albatross, they really are the heroes protecting the state.

Death to such a state, I say.

Posted March 31, 2008 11:55 AM by Xopher

(The gendarmes were young men who were given uniforms and guns, but no salaries; the only income they had was from fees/fines they could levy and bribes. There's a small problem in this plan.)

I see what you are saying here, but perhaps you have the wrong plan in mind. If (say) you have an interest in imposing random (small- or large-scale) terror on a population as cheaply as possible, this seems an excellent plan. It's just that we are tied to our modern expectations of fairness and democracy and legal oversight.

A system of widespread corruption is arguably very efficient at keeping dictators in power. It's largely how the Roman empire worked. The worrying thing for me in Patrick's post is the evidence of what some people will do unbribed.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:07 PM by candle

jstewart @82: There's a difference?

There's video of another pair of London cops trying to prevent photography, plus commentary, is here. There's apparently a petition up regarding this. As the blogger who linked it (Siege at Nerve) titled it, "Your camera is a weapon. Use it."

I recall hearing of photographers being harassed for taking pictures of buildings in San Francisco before, but I don't have references handy, and I'd be very surprised if photographers in Boston hadn't been harassed as well. Probably every major US city. Which doesn't make it right.

I'm not /sure/ if Spitalfields Market falls under the same rules -- if it qualifies as public property -- but I can't come up with any good reasons to prevent photography there regardless.

I don't think Brian @7 was offering fear of competitors taking photographs with intent to copy as a *valid* reason for stores to prevent photography, just a justification they might use. ("...while most of these people don't run around trying to copy competitors this way, it's only because they are the best and wisest of their field.") Ferchrissakes, if it was a product they wanted to copy, their competitors could just *buy* one and document it. (And they do -- see the photographed disassemblies of Apple products. Protecting that is what patents and trademarks are for.) And if it's display style their competitors want to copy, all that's needed is someone with a decent memory to visit. Protecting it by banning photography is futile.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:07 PM by Kevin Riggle

Also, that is an awfully nice picture, Patrick, and I'm glad you didn't delete it. I love the framing and the strong lines.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:12 PM by Kevin Riggle

My brother's had the same experience, taking pictures of the World Trade Center in downtown Denver. It was double BS, considering he was taking the photos from the street, which is public property. He also got the same line from a hopped-up little security guard at a different building, which was owned by the same company. (Transwestern.)

It's just idiotic. The outside of a building is open for public view, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It's not like taking a photo of it is going to steal a bit of the building's soul or something. Maybe it's just an excuse for these companies to act far more important than they really are.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:15 PM by Katsu

What astonishes me is the market itself, which looks as warm and inviting as a mausoleum. Clueless security guards aside, why would someone want to linger in this space? Hardly a surprise that there're only one or two people in sight....

Posted March 31, 2008 12:18 PM by Richard Anderson

Ginger @42:

Security theater is why I absolutely hate air travel. I'd rather drive or take the train than allow myself to be subjected to the whims of idiots with guns and an overinflated sense of importance

This is why I don't want to visit the US again until the TSA is seriously reined in. Much as there are people over there I'd love to see, the aggravation (and sometimes much worse) just isn't worth it. Millions of missing overseas tourists apparently agree with me.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:22 PM by Rob Hansen

@47 pb:

That's because flashes actually do ruin artwork. The Mona Lisa is behind glass that is designed to protect it from tourists who don't pay any attention to the signs around explaining that using a flash can harm the art, and it's still getting destroyed. People don't know how to work their own cameras.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:25 PM by Emily Weise

Caroline: (#79) I went to see the USS Constitution in 1999. I was subjected to as detailed a search (though the officer in charge got upset with me for holdimg up the line by showing the Seaman where he was missing things. A bit of security theater even then).

They were looking for sharp things, not for fear of highjacking, but vandalism. They don't want people carving into the wood of the ship, or snipping bits of rope for souveniers.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:29 PM by Terry Karney

It's not so bad here in the land of Oz, but when I was working at Russell Offices (Australia's answer to the Pentagon), the visiting-from-out-of-state parents of one of my friends were nabbed by security for photographing the 'chicken on a stick'* in Blamey Square.

It's a public monument and generally portrayed as a tourist attraction. The damn thing is available on postcards, for crying out loud!

(and on the web):

http://www.lalorfamily.com/04Lloyd/0402William/040201Greg/RussellOffices.jpg

*okay, so it's really called the Australian-American Friendship Memorial and the chicken is an eagle...

Posted March 31, 2008 12:37 PM by deathbird

Emily Weisse; Some of that (lack of knowing how to work the equipment) is the fault of the equipment.

Cameras with auto-flash, and no way to defeat it (save a finger over the strobe) are why stadia look like sparklers.

I don't know how they'd implement it, but if I were running a museum, there would either be a ban on all cameras, or a knowledgeable person who took the time to check each one that came in, explained the reason for no flash, and told the patron that any use of flash would lead to ejection.

I'd also have lots of guards who know what to look for.

The Huntington Gardens (one of my favortite haunts in LA) has some of this. No use of tripods in buildings. No flash in buildings. Artwork one can walk right up to.

Security guards who can see pretty much everything. Who will talk to you about the art. Who will (politely) tell you not to touch (my companion was indicating some detail on a chair).

If you try to use a flash. They will take your camera for the duration of your stay. You can claim it at the entrance.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:40 PM by Terry Karney

The world is full of terrorist threats to our security -- nipple rings and photographers apparently being among the most serious. My own photographic encounter with a security guard at a federal courthouse back here in Wisconsin resulted in my identifying myself, an odd conversation, but no deletion. I emerged with a photo of the security guard's shadow: My shadow is the one with the camera. The other one is the suspicious security guard.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:42 PM by Madison Guy

First- Albatross, I loved your post. totally agree and it grieves me deeply to the bottom of my soul. I prefer having my old illusions about American courage and Constitutional rights. They are now gone.

I am/was a passionate amature photographer.

Aprox six weeks after 9/11, I decided that I would try to go out and do something to get my life back to some semblance of normal.

I took my camera to downtown Atlanta, (where I live), and began photographing the Atlanta Gift Mart from the street. The building has some interesting round external cement staircases. I loved the repetition in B&W.

I looked up and could see a small crowd of people staring at me out the windows of the ground floor.

A cop began to walk toward me.

He said "Lady, Ive got a bunch of terrified customers in the building. Why are you taking pictures?" Then he hauled me into his security supervisor.

I could not believe it. Now,I was terrified. The Atlanta Gift Mart is a primary terrorist target? Oh, honey, please.

To make a long story short, the only way I got out of going to jail for questioning was the fact that my husband is prominent attorney and civic leader in the city. Not the fact that I was photographing from the street in an unconcealed manner, or that I am a middle-aged female, or that what I was doing is legal. But it took twenty minutes of talking to the Supervisor to get me out of it.

To this day, my husband thinks that this story is somewhat funny. I don't. I felt like I was being raped. I no longer always assume that the law and order guys are right or even telling the story in a fair and truthful manner. And I Goddamned hate Republicans who have used fear and lies to win so many elections.

It also explains so much to me about the subsequent turn of this country. This is why we love strong military guys. At heart, we are a terrified mass. That is why we hide behind our big bombers, vote for blustery asshole politicians and tolerate the loss of our freedoms. We use this to hide the fact that we are a frightened nation of sheep.

Sheep must love their shepherd. He keeps them safe, dry and fed. They just ignore the fact that sooner or later he is the one who leads them to the slaughter... for his own benefit.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:49 PM by Donna

In London, it may be hard to tell new, menacing security theatre from our good old-fashioned English petty-mindedness. The default attitude comes with a song, which Google tells me I must have read in George Orwell:

For you can't do that there 'ere,
No, you can't do that there, 'ere;
Anywhere else you can do that there
But you can't do that there 'ere!

As it happens, a lot of the railway stations have policies specifically permitting personal photography: Network Rail, which I think runs most of the big London mainline stations, says it's all right as long as you don't sell your images or - classy touch - photograph the CCTV cameras; and London Underground is fine as long as you're not using flash or a tripod. But I wouldn't back myself to argue the case to a security guard.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:51 PM by Jasper Milvain

Emily Weise #93: People don't know how to work their own cameras.

Or they get distracted and forget. I'm an art historian by training, and even I have had a couple of "camera malfunction" incidents, usually in Italian churches, simply because the damn camera came up with flash enabled as the default. Sort of the reverse of forgetting to take off the lens cap. I now have a nicer camera that makes it impossible to open up the camera and start shooting with the flash already on--you have to raise the little flash compartment. Works a treat.

Posted March 31, 2008 12:57 PM by joann

Terry @96:

There is no camera that I am aware of that has an auto-flash with no mechanism to turn it off. People are not willing to take a few minutes to read a manual or understand how to use their cameras, which is NOT the fault of the equipment (putting aside variations on menu choices and the like. I agree that software is not always optimally designed).

There are so many hundreds upon hundreds of people that roll through the Louvre that it would actually be impossible to work out that kind of plan on their own.

Interesting, though, that they yell that warning in English. I wonder how they worked out that it was the English-speaking tourists who were fucking everything up?

Posted March 31, 2008 1:00 PM by Emily Weise

Joann @101:

Yes! The same kind of forgetting that allows normally very pleasant and respectful people such as myself to neglect to turn off their cell phone ringer in a movie theater.

Posted March 31, 2008 1:01 PM by Emily Weise

albatross #85: Have you read Francine Prose's After? You just pretty much described it, and methinks you would like it.

Oh, and this: I remember when the guys in the movies that demanded "papers, please" were the bad guys.

Yes. I often wonder how many people my age--or, more particularly, people five to ten years younger than me--have seen those movies, and what their reaction would be if they were shown them. I'm finding it increasingly hard to imagine what the world must look like to people who were born only slightly later than I was, and that's scary.

Posted March 31, 2008 1:08 PM by ethan

Emily Weise #101: I haven't used one since the advent of digital, but when I was using them disposable cameras tended to be autoflash with no other option. I bet a lot of touristy types use them.

Posted March 31, 2008 1:12 PM by ethan

What's really amusing about the 'no photography' rule in that market is that, more than likely, there are security cameras recording every bit of the place, 24/7.

Your encounter with the guard is probably immortalized for future prosecution should something unfortunate occur.

Posted March 31, 2008 1:17 PM by beth meacham

The last time I was in Vancouver (2006) I spent quite some time--sans flash--photographing the interior of the Cathedral Place building right across the street from our hotel, with particular reference to a large glass and metal sculpture ("Ancient Navigational Device", a super-sized riff on the Antikythera Mexhanism) that had caught my fancy on a previous trip. The security guard was watchful but felt no cause to intervene, perhaps because it was Saturday afternoon.

Posted March 31, 2008 1:20 PM by joann

Emily #102:

Or even worse, a musical event. I was at a noontime concert the other day, realized just after the music began that I had forgotten to turn off my phone, and *didn't do anything about it*. Why? Because my cheap pay-as-you-go phone plays a tune when it is being turned off, a song that there is no way to silence.

Posted March 31, 2008 1:25 PM by joann

@ joann on # 107 -

Sure there is. Just pop the battery.

Posted March 31, 2008 1:28 PM by Josh Jasper

Ethan #104:

Every disposable film camera I have ever seen had a button you had to hold down to charge the flash. Taking a picture without the flash is really easy -- just don't charge it.

Posted March 31, 2008 1:36 PM by Emily Weise

Josh #108:

Blush. Being a software person, I looked for a software solution. (Although I should mention that I normally find changing batteries on small devices to be an exercise in extreme frustration and clumsiness, generally accompanied by loud curses as I break yet another fingernail. So I don't even think in those directions anyway.)

Posted March 31, 2008 1:40 PM by joann

Bill @72

What's a Benefit Thief? Well, I suppose an example would be the nice middle-aged chap who was an occasional handyman for an elderly female relative of mine. He was very helpful and always did a good job, so I once offered to help pay for a bit of work he was doing for EFR. When I started writing a cheque out for EFR to give to him, she explained that no, he always got paid cash-in-hand. Because (and EFR turned out to be quite aware of this) as far as HM Govt were concerned, he was unemployed and too disabled to work and so large payments into his bank account might make things "awkward" for him.

I agreed that they probably would. I also noted, as tactfully as I could, that it was this sort of thing that made it "awkward" for my then-wife to get disability benefit at all, even though she actually was disabled.

As someone who also strongly believes in social benefits, I have big issues with welfare cheats - they're not stealing from 'the system', they're taking money from their fellow citizens.

Posted March 31, 2008 2:03 PM by Simon Bradshaw

joann @ 110... Heheheh... I think there was an episode of Eureka where some device was starting to malfunction and dire things would happen if nothing was done. Everybody started thinking of which protocol to use to shut the machine down, but all possibilities would take too long. In comes in sherriff Jack, who just pulled the plug. (Maybe I imagined that story, but, if it didn't happen, it should have.)

Posted March 31, 2008 2:28 PM by Serge

During the last eclipse trip I went on, they made sure to remind the people to turn off their flashes before taking pictures of the eclipsed sun; because, as they said, no matter how powerful your flash is, it's just not gonna illuminate the moon.

Posted March 31, 2008 2:35 PM by Steve C.

Bill@72

"benefit thieves" is used, I think, as a rhetorical device to stigmatise people claiming benefits. Whilst I agree with Simon Bradshaw @ 111 that claiming money you're not entitled to steals from your fellow citizens most of the evidence shows that overclaiming / fraudulent claims are minor (compared to the losses from tax avoidance). The complexity of rules for disability benefits (in the UK) mean that people who could do small amounts of useful work either don't, or volunteer, or work illegally (this is especially true if your illness is cyclical). This seems a bad idea and a waste of talent.

Posted March 31, 2008 2:53 PM by Benedict Leigh

I've skipped a bit, and thus possibly someone else has already said this more succinctly, but here goes.

The world is too complex to understand. Improved communications makes this much, much harder to ignore than the prevailing village-customs used to do, and don't think the rich and powerful don't have village customs and aren't cranky about it when they are forced to look outside and notice that they have no real idea just exactly what is going on.

Everybody is helpless, all the time. (This is not the same as hapless.) It used to be that most people worked, or had worked, the sort of hard manual labour job, or job with large livestock, or outside job that forces you to come to an accommodation with this awareness; the wind blows, blizzards happen, kicks from horses can kill you, plan and cope as you can.

The primary present cause of helplessness in the US (and increasingly in other "First World" nations) is not the environment, but large and indifferent organizations that regard individual people as something between an annoyance and a food source. It is not acceptable to publically acknowledge this, nor the erosion of the rule of law and mechanisms of rights which were intended to prevent such a state of affairs.

So everybody is aware that there's stuff going on they don't know about, and that some of it is (effectively) malicious, and that the mechanisms that are supposed to protect them aren't reliable.

You can react to that by trying to fix the mechanisms that protect you; you can react to that by working on the great 'build an external brain to understand this stuff with' project called science; you can react to that by striving to achieve a sort of balanced Zen detachment.

If you can believe that you can fix the mechanisms by making them very, very simple, simple enough that you're comfortable with understanding them even when you're frightened, that gets you away from feeling helpless and away from feeling confused and it's much, much easier than any of the three approaches which produce tangible good results. So it has a huge selective advantage, in an environment that is not yet all that actually dangerous -- it's much less work, so you have lots more energy and effort left over for other things.

So you get the whole "fear makes you stupid; iterate" process of people doing their best to solve the problem of not understanding what's going on, or why, by simplification through appeal to authority. Through the creation of authority; you don't have to understand, you just have to follow the rules. It's -- in a cognitive load sense, in a systematic sense of difficulties of decision and control -- very, very easy.

It's a long term utter disaster, but that doesn't keep it from spreading like a very sincere fungus in the short term.

Posted March 31, 2008 2:59 PM by Graydon