Here's the place we can put all your letters and blog pingbacks (so search engines can love them), which we don't have room to do in print. Last week saw a sort of explosion among photographers as they heard their prayers (of the sweary sort) answered. Click through to read all..
NHS IT WOES >> I don't know if it's Cerner's problem entirely since NHS wrote the specs (I assume) and they've run off other big vendors with their inflexibility. If NHS didn't budget money for scope creep localization and Cerner is already on a tight margin, I can see why there would be a stalemate on who pays. My opinion is that no vendor can make them happy for the price they want to pay. Cerner would take a black eye for losing business there, but I bet it's so minimally profitable that they wouldn't be too upset (once shareholders got over it, anyway). There's always the Middle East. histalk2.com
PHOTOGRAPHERS Thank you for printing an article showing the plight of the amateur photographer such as myself. I am a member of a photography forum, www.talkphotography.co.uk and one of the matters frequently discussed is harassment form officials, usually PCSO or Police. You may find this thread interesting if you ever plan a follow up article: it shows the progress of the early day motion from Austin Mitchell MP on this subject. Many of us wrote to out local MP on the matter and I have a reply given to my MP from Tony McNulty, a Home Office Minister of State, that I now carry in my photo bag to show any overzealous official I am doing nothing wrong. The thread also links to other sites giving details of more harassment. Thank you. Mark Oldreive, Spalding, Lincs
Thank you for writing the column titled "Are photographers really a threat?" It presents a solid perspective in an entertaining and persuasive way. I have not used the movie analogy but have told several journalists over the past several years that the American television show "Mission Impossible" started each episode with Peter Graves looking at 8x10 glossies and probably made everyone think that photography was a necessary and useful predicate for anyone intent on performing some sort of covert act. Of course, before the 1960's, you had Hemingway's depiction of Robert Jordan sketching the bridge he intended to blow up in "For Whom the Bell Tolls." No one seems to read Hemingway any more (although many people still recognize the name from being forced to read "The Old Man and the Sea" in high school) so I don't think the blame for the popular misconception that photography is useful to terrorists can be placed on works of literature. I would also like to point out that photography, particularly in the age of cell phones with cameras, has served a legitimate purpose in recording terrorist acts and in apprehending criminals. The citizen images of the London subway bombings come to mind. If you saw someone board a train, leave a backpack under the seat, and hastily depart, do you think the police would prefer that you not take photographs or would they like to see a photograph of him? I suspect that terrorists would prefer to operate in a world where public photography was prohibited and law enforcement personnel devoted large portions of their time deleting images taken by tourists and hobbyists. Once again thanks. Bert P. Krages, Attorney at Law, Portland, Oregon
>> The issue with photographer's rights is a symptom of a larger issue. People are simply more and more unaware of their basic rights in confrontation with authority. Even the authorities themselves don't know where their boundaries are. My hats off to those who complain, critique and criticize. You are doing the rest of us an important service. schneier.com
>> It's disturbing to contemplate that the same species-specific brain wiring that makes us create and enjoy stories might also be responsible for the insane "security" panic that's eating our culture alive. But the idea has an awful plausibility. nielsenhayden.com
>> Photographers should know that virtually all public photography is quite legal in the USA. The public should understand that it is also almost always completely innocent. gdanmitchell.com
>> If I were seriously doing homework about a potential target and didn't want to tip my hat that I was casing the target, especially if it were a well-known tourist attraction or point of interest, I'd be spending my time anonymously browsing Flickr, YouTube and the like for pictures that had already been taken by thousands, nay millions, of other people. hvytk.blogspot.com
>> As a result, we get movie-plot security, which, unfortunately, only works in movies. heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/blog/
>> Remember, that under normal circumstances, no-one (including Police, other officials or security guards) has the right to seize your photographic equipment or demand that memory cards are deleted/confiscated without a court order, even if they think they contain damaging or useful evidence. If an enforcement official erases any of your photographs without your permission, it amounts to criminal damage and that anyone who deletes a photographer's images without permission could face criminal, civil or disciplinary action. Be aware, though, that in some circumstances, the police are permitted to confiscate your film or memory cards but they are still not permitted to delete any images because the images could be used as evidence for or against you. womblesrants.blogspot.com
>> Personal experience has shown that, at least from the photographer's point of view, he's dead right. imagesurgery.ca
>> I'm no terrorist, and I do often struggle to see how pictures that I'm taking when I'm stopped could have helped a terrorist, nonetheless, if security experts think that photographs might stop an attack, then I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to question people taking photographs. byjoeybaker.com
>> This utter confusion over what is allowed and what is not is wonderfully and comically encapsulated in this clip from Fox5, where during an interview with the PR officer for the train station in which he explaisn that there are no restrictions on photographing there, a security guard comes over and tells the crew to stop filming! eflections.edublogs.org
>> On more than one occasion, while out and about taking photographs, (mainly in London) I've been stopped for having a camera round my neck and looking like I might be about to take a picture. ourmaninside.com
XOBNI Does Kate Bevan know if Xobni works for Outlook Express? Stephen King, Sudbury [No: see this FAQ - Tech. Ed]
TWITTERATI Congratulations on writing another incredibly boring Twitter piece, recycling opinions that have been floating around for well over a year. How about looking into why Twitter doesn't charge anyone? Or how if it had this fatal flaw it could still command the kind of valuation you mentioned? Ben Holden (no post town given)
>> Twitter could start to receive money from other ways, such as advertising. I know people do not want to adverts on Twitter, but surely it is the lesser of the two evils, having adverts or to paying to use the service? shinyred.tv
>> the API is what made Twitter what it is today, and the volume of requests is what makes it so popular - it's all about the "ambient conversation". Charging for either of these would provoke a backlash from the community, who would see it as turning against those who got it where it is. guyrintoul.com
BUT WILL IT FLY? >> This is the third article in the guardian within the last 4 weeks that features airships, which shows that they are experiencing a big comeback. airshipworld.blogspot.com
