Bridging The Gap

The New York Daily News is reporting that law enforcement is assembling a database to handle instances where people are questioned by law enforcement over pictures they have taken.

The kind of pictures in question? Bridges. And tunnels.

MTA investigators are keeping a secret database of people stopped and questioned for filming or photographing bridges and tunnels as part of the agency's efforts to thwart terror, the Daily News has learned.
The information is used to try to determine whether shutterbugs are simply putting together vacation slide shows - or gathering intelligence to plot mayhem, law enforcement sources said.

In one instance, a man was questioned for filming on the Verrazano Bridge. He was questioned and released.

A few days later, authorities in another state stopped someone filming on a bridge and asked the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Interagency Counter Terrorism Task Force if it had information about the person, the sources said.

It turned out the other state's shutterbug was using the same vehicle as the man who was stopped for filming on the Verrazano, sources said.

The sources declined to elaborate on the investigation.

But one source noted that in general, if someone pops up twice filming a crossing, "You start to develop a case.

"Some may not go to a full-blown case that involves an arrest, but it develops into intelligence where you can establish a trail where you can tie individuals together that otherwise would have gone unknown," the source said.

Well, that makes sense. Terrorists seem to love striking at transportation targets - subways, planes, buses. Bridges and tunnels are a logical extension of those kinds of attacks. Many bridge and tunnel operators have already established policies prohibiting photos from being taken.

However, that doesn't stop people from taking pictures. So how do authorities tell the difference between a serious photographer seeking out a photo for publication, a tourist taking snapshots, or a terrorist looking to set reference points and determine strategy for attack?

Well, that's the problem. How do you tell the difference between someone who is a shutterbug and loves to take pictures of bridges, waterways, and scenic vistas and a terrorist hellbent on destroying said bridges and tunnels?

I can recall Mrs. Lawhawk taking photos of the Golden Gate Bridge as we approached, and then proceeded over it. We took lots of pictures of that bridge. A few rolls worth - it really is an amazing bridge and the Golden Gate forms a beautiful backdrop.

I've taken photos of many bridges since then - including the Brooklyn Bridge and other bridges on my travels. Some of those shots focus on the engineering facets of the structures - if only because they are striking architectural features. Spandrels, arches, stringers, and spanners. Gentle arcs. All of which a terrorist could assemble into a strategy for damaging or destroying the bridge.

So, would I be a candidate for the database. Quite possibly.

Am I troubled by the presence of this database? Well, sort of. It's somewhat comforting to know that law enforcement takes interdicting terrorist surveilance operations seriously - and taking out a bridge would be a spectacular terrorist operation. However, there are questions as to how the database would be managed, and whether it would function like a no-fly list for airlines (and we know that the no-fly list is far from foolproof or 100% accurate).