Comments on: Transit Photography in Vancouver – now criminal?

By: countablyinfinite

countablyinfinite — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:07:46 +0000

Keith, thanks for stopping by.

I don't think I have conveyed it very well, but I am in completely agreement with you on this (emphasis mine):

I would rather they take the budget for this campaign and put it into the intelligence apparatus such as analysts and agents who speak more than just English; into consultations with groups and communities who have the pulse of what is happening in their own worlds; and into practical emergency response should anything occur. Awareness, okay, but let's not kid ourselves that it is a simple trade off of freedoms for security.

I don't think it's a simple trade off by any means. I've had the experience of strolling through bag checks at malls in Manila, then finding out weeks later that those same places were bombed with many killed and wounded. I just think there are prudent ways to help people become more aware and discerning in the correct and actually helpful ways, and this ad did not pass the test with me as doing that effectively.

By: Keith Loh

Keith Loh — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:20:06 +0000

Karen, as I said in my blog and in that discussion, I think we all should be vigilant against real threats. But we still need to function as a democracy and as a free society. In all those states where terrorism is an omnipresent threat such as Israel, Northern Ireland during the troubles, these places you would expect have a hypervigilant atmosphere but despite that bombings still occurred. The main failure has been 1) not solving the political impetus behind terrorism and 2) knowing beforehand the existence of plots and networks. Let's face it. Anyone with a backpack can carry enough explosive to destroy a bus or a train. Anyone with a handbag could contain enough explosive to kill and injure a dozen people; an event that would grind the Olympics to a halt. Even given Big Brother powers where anyone can be stopped at any time and made to empty out the contents of their bags, this is just a pro forma security measure and extremely random. Even with the tightest security as you see in Israel, at the height of the Intifada they couldn't prevent every bomber from getting through. I would rather they take the budget for this campaign and put it into the intelligence apparatus such as analysts and agents who speak more than just English; into consultations with groups and communities who have the pulse of what is happening in their own worlds; and into practical emergency response should anything occur. Awareness, okay, but let's not kid ourselves that it is a simple trade off of freedoms for security.

By: Karen Fung

Karen Fung — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:29:27 +0000

Begs the question, have they run this (same) campaign in other major city centres, and if yes, what's the reaction there?

By: Karen Fung

Karen Fung — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:28:17 +0000

Be sure to use an SLR with the biggest lens possible, just to get people's heckles on size issues too.

By: Karen Fung

Karen Fung — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:24:39 +0000

Thanks for letting me know.

See, in the context of the other two ads, this one makes sense, and is actually a little funny. But being that this photographer one is the first one (thereby removing a lot of the context), and that the bus version of this ad does not have the first panel ("call a paranormal investigator"), there were few ways to interpret this that weren't negative.

Add to this that there's a certain demographic dimension to this too. Ads like this asking people to be more "aware" can encourage people to make judgments based on their pre-existing prejudices about people and encourage them to imagine scenarios based on things they've seen on 24. I think it would be rather groundbreaking for TransLink to work with riders to actually put across the message ("be aware") while also not getting ahead of themselves ("be mindful").

Perhaps I'm sensitive because I've had a certain experience with the paranoia that can come with racism, and I think this ad campaign actively contributes to that, purposefully or not.

By: Karen Fung

Karen Fung — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:16:25 +0000

Also, on another level, I've found some of the comments you've made on other blogs (not as much on this one) to be disrespectful of us, as the public, questioning how we choose to interpret what you've imposed on our mindspace as a condition of us using the transit system (regardless of the fare we pay). You may own and lease the space you've put the ad on, but you have no claim to the space between our ears. Implying that with our objections that we enable terrorism to happen to us is, frankly, pretty sickening to me, the sort of rhetoric I'd hoped had ended when we got a new President down south. (I imagine after the 3rd or 4th blog post it can get pretty exasperating. Jhenifer's tactic – responding once and forwarding people to that – seemed to work pretty well.)

I'm seeing some great comments coming out of the discussion Jhenifer joined on Flickr – perhaps a broader group of citizens who are immersed in the visual language can be your allies in crafting future campaigns that can accurately capture and convey the nuances of the message you are trying to put across.

By: Karen Fung

Karen Fung — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:07:49 +0000

If this campaign was intended to educate people on the difference between "suspicious" and "strange," then my disagreement is with the effectiveness of this ad in actually doing this. The ad may meet some criteria on the message it is conveying, but did you focus group this? Even I'll admit I didn't see the potentially negative consequences of a flaming trolley for the Vancouver Transit Camp logo when I stuck them together (it was not that long after Halloween 2007 either). There are many, many interpretations to the images in advertising, not just the "obvious" ones. This ad reminds us that the diversity of backgrounds and interests of those taking transit mean a more urgent need to acknowledge and prepare for diversity of responses, and to take this account in the design of the campaign.

I also tried to broach this subject when TransLink first put out an RFP for what looks a lot like this ad campaign, on the SkyTrain Unconference blog as well.

Paying attention can also manifest in several ways - not just suspicion, but also friendly awareness that can be just as discerning in spotting "suspicious" activities. Why not promote that instead?

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:57:01 +0000

Re: London, Madrid

While I can't comment on Israel, all bombings that have taken place in London and Madrid are obviously false flag operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag) perpetrated against the public to insight fear. In case you haven't been to London in a while, check out the posters that the government has put up everywhere:
http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/big_broth...
Before the bombings this would have been seen as frightening and Orwellian to the general population, instead polls have shown that the public actually like them!

By: Vincent Janelle

Vincent Janelle — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:44:42 +0000

Those were RCMP ads, afaik. I saw it and was confused myself.

By: Jhenifer @ TransLInk

Jhenifer @ TransLInk — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:19:05 +0000

Hi Karen,

Got your trackback. In addition to Ken's point, I just wanted to mention that I've also discussed TransLink's perspective on the ads in the Flickr thread you've mentioned. I've also posted images of the other 2 ads currently in the campaign.