The Seattle Ferry Controversy: Was the PI Right Not to Publish the Photos?
August 22, 2007
I’m pretty ambivalent about the recent controversy over the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s decision not to run the photos of two men who have been seen “acting suspiciously” aboard Washington State ferries in the past few months.
A ferry employee snapped this photo of the two men:
Let me know what you think I should do.
The FBI took the unusual step Monday of releasing the photos in the hopes that someone who knows the two men would come forward. They are not accusing the men of terrorism, but they do want to know why they showed unusual interest in the ship’s systems.
The PI elected not to publish the photo, despite the FBI’s request. They said that the image was not newsworthy given that neither man was suspected formally of any crime. Their concern was for the rights of the individual.
This is a pretty classic example of the upheaval in our society surrounding security vs. individual liberties. And it makes me pretty ambivalent.
I completely understand the need for vigilance. I agree with Michelle Malkin that political correctness should be thrown out the window when we are concerned for our immediate safety or the well-being of others. In this post 9/11 world, do we have the luxury to give anyone who acts suspiciously the benefit of the doubt? And how much damage does a false positive really cause to the person who has been identified as suspicious?
I also relish the freedoms that I have as an American. I understand that widespread surveillance — with neighbors reporting on neighbors to the government — can be harbingers of fascism. I believe that President Bush is a wannabe fascist who, fortunately for us, is the leader of a nation whose Constitution and culture will not permit a permanent police state. And so when I see trends that point to past police states, I cringe. I respect the PI’s aversion to violating individual rights and privacy.
I’m curious what you think. Can we draw a clear line between the two extremes of surveillance and freedom? Are there mechanisms we can put in place to ensure that people feel free to come forward with information, knowing that we can effectively and swiftly exonerate those who do not have any involvement in terrorist conspiracies? Or in the absence of a perfect system, must we error on one side or the other?
Here are some other points in the conversation:
I think I’m in the PI camp here. I mean honestly…are we trying to start a witch hunt?
Teresa - Tough question, but I’m going to posit that you’re not exactly as ambivalent about this as you suggest. Firstly, you have posted the very same photograph, and secondly you have indicated your agreement with Malkin’s position that “political correctness should be thrown out the window when we are concerned for our immediate safety or the well-being of others”.
This is not a political issue. It is not a matter of being PC. This is a civil liberties issue. Last I knew it was not illegal to take photographs on ferries. If the crew wanted to know why these two were doing so they could have asked them. I haven’t read anything that suggests they did that. They could have simply been taking photographs for a creative photography class for all we know.
We have become programmed into profiling people. These two “look” the part of what we now have been programmed to think of as terrorists. But then we have Timothy McVeigh, who certainly was a terrorist, but didn’t look like these guys, or those that killed thousands on Sept 11th, 2001.
Do we want to live like we’re in Orwell’s 1984?
If there is a concern about security on ferries, put a cop on board. Let that person confront shady types. Let’s not get into a game of you or I deciding someone is up to something because they look a certain way, or seem to be doing something odd in our mind. That road leads down a slippery slope.
Daniel: I published the photo because I think the controversy made it newsworthy enough to publish, not because I think the PI should have published it. And I honestly am ambivalent about this whole issue, like many Americans.
Besides, could you have really known or said that they “looked the part” without seeing the photo? We can’t know the extent to which racial profiling played a role in this whole uproar without seeing it.
A description of “two men” would have sufficed. There are multiple issues here, and racial profiling is one of them. Remember the guy at the Ballard Locks who was asked to give up his camera? Same issue. If Joe American Tourist was taking these photos they’d have been no fuss.
Again, did these guys commit a crime? I can’t help but think of that security guard at the Atlanta Olympics who was falsely accused of the nail bombing. It ruined his life. Are we ready to ruin the lives of innocent people because we have become a paranoid nation?
The next time you take a trip to a foreign country, perhaps near the Middle East, will you be looking at everyone with suspicion? I hope not.
I’m reading Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason in fits and starts. This section really stood out at me last night.
“In 1999, Israel’s highest court was asked to balance the right of individual prisoners against dire threats to the security of its people. Here is what the court declared: ‘This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the rule of law and recognition of an individual’s liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day they strengthen its spirit and allow it to overcome its difficulties.”
As for my decision to post the photo, we’ll have to agree to disagree about whether it was the right thing to do. I believe that the additional harm that can be done to these two men — innocent or not — will not be significantly altered by the presence of the photo on my blog.
I do pledge that if any information comes to light that removes suspicion from these two men, I will post it here and make it clear to my readers that these two men are not suspects in any crime or terrorist plot.
That leaves an assumption that they are, which they are not. You see how easy it is to paint the wrong picture, intended or not?
Although this was previously mentioned in another comment this really does reek to me of 1984. Even the appearance of suspicious activity by people who “look the part” is enough for the FBI to want to publish their picture in a newspaper? I’m hardly a dove when it comes to issues of national security but this strikes me as an unnecessary trampling of these men’s privacy.
Im not going to state my opinion on this matter, but I will tell about something that happened last week when my family and I took the ferry to San Juan Island last week. My dad is an avid photographer. He brought his large digital camera with zoom lense with him on the trip, since San Juan is definantly photo worthy. While my family and I were sitting in the car waiting to board the ferry, my dad got out of the car to take pictures. My mom began to freak out, and begged him to come back into the car, since she thought the security guards would find my dad suspicious and detain us for questions. My dad ignored her and contiued to take pictures, even snapped a few of the security guards. When we finally boarded the ferry, my mom found a pamphlet about safety, that instructed ferry passengers to report all suspicious activity, such as “taking photographs of the ferry”. My dad ignored my mom’s pleas the whole trip and continued to take photos of the ferry and surrounding area.
My question is: Why should my mom be afraid of my dad doing this? Is this what America is about now? What if someone thought my dad was suspicious? What if my dad’s picture was in the paper? He is a city council member, it would most likely ruin his reputation. Should my dad have to go through that? Should my dad have to give up his hobby so that he doesnt have to deal with that in the future?
I look foward to people’s response.
Trista - That’s the slippery slope we’re headed down with this. It may seem like a little thing here, and a little thing there, but they all add up to a large number of little things that we end up being restricted to do. Can’t take certain innocuous objects on an airplane anymore. Have to take off shoes at airport security checks. Can’t take photos of things. Can’t walk in a certain manner, look at people in a certain way, eat a certain type of food. Can’t call certain countries without possibly being snooped. Can’t take a book out of the library without possibly being snooped. Can’t do this. Can’t do that.
Your story is very telling.
There has been one succesful terrorist attack on our country this decade. Why the hell are people so worried?
Sidenote: As far as wiretapping goes, it seems to me that the only purpose of wiretapping citizens is to invade their civil liberties, since we don’t have enough arabic translators to know what they are saying. Computer modeling is not sufficient: I doubt a terrorist is going to be all, “Hey, Osama, what time was I supposed to detonate the nuclear bomb again? 7? Cool.”
Take the “JFK Terrorist Plot” of a few months ago. Who were those guys? They were dead-enders and guys from Trinidad & Tobago. So what are we going to do now, invade Trinidad & Tobago to ride the world of terrorism? Did they actually do anything other than conspire? Were they ever going to be able to carry out whatever it was they were planning?
Bush claims we will rid the world of “terror”. Ain’t gonna happen, ever. There have been terrorists since man could terrorize. Al Qaeda is just one of the latest terrorist groups out there.
So do we become a police state, watching over one another for “suspicious” activity, undermining our civil liberties in the process, or do we realize that more people are dying from cancer and heart disease every year, or living in poverty, or uneducated, and work on those things, and perhaps fewer people will be aggrieved and in a mind to take drastic violent measures against others because they’ve been wronged by society, life, or an imperialist nation?
Good point. Do you think I should post a caption? I’d like to do my best to clarify that these men are not suspected of any crime, they are just “people of interest” due to their behavior.
Daniel - If guys from Trinidad and Tobago had actually attacked us, I know exactly what Bush’s response would have been: 10,000 troops to Trinidad and Tobago, and 150,000 to Iran.
Teresa - This is your site and your decision. FWIW, I wouldn’t have posted the photo on my site.
While I know that, I do value the opinion of my community. Sometimes, it’s enough to change my own. I’m starting to think that the reason I posted the image was because I’m becoming just a little too comfortable with the direction things are headed in this country.
So if a couple more people tell me that they think I should take the photo down, I will.
I read this story for the first time this morning, and it struck me that I have done this same exact type of behavior in public places. I’m an artist, and I’m working on a 3D neighborhood. For reference photos, I capture many different angles, and for texture reference, I take detail shots of the ground, walls, and detail items such as the “restricted area” signs that the “persons of interest” were supposedly taking. If I were going to build a ferry in 3D, I would do the same thing on the ship: gather reference. Does this mean that they’re not terrorists? No. But we shouldn’t live in fear all the time assuming that if someone is doing something we don’t quite understand, that they’re planning terrorism.
Oh look another f***ing traitor. WSP pulled the same s*** again today on the Seattle Bremerton run against a brown family using a video camera. It’s morons like you the perpetuate this racism. You can get all the mechanical information you want about the ferries on WSF own goddamn website idiot.
Charlie, I’m not sure who you were talking to in your comment, but language like yours leads me to this logical conclusion: you are a terrorist.
any profiling issues aside, has anyone considered maybe the fbi had a lead/information on something going on in regards to ferry security that they could not disclose or that the PI could not disclose to the public? if the two guys were really just curious (and could find all the mechanical info on the wsf website anyway) then why would the fbi choose to get so involved in a case of two random guys who–as suggested before–could be just like any other art student taking pictures or a curious engineer?
Deb
My dad has to take the ferry to work, and he is also an avid photographer. A few weeks ago a “security” person on the ferry tried to get him to stop taking pictures. My dad told him he had a right to, and they got in a fight over it. The security guard told the captain of the ferry to keep an eye on my dad. The security guard also took my dad’s info off of his driver’s liscence. I guess my dad is a domestic terrorist becuase he likes to take pictures of sea gulls while riding the ferry. I think this previous case was very much profiling.