Excessive Photography = Terrorism

Blackhawk - which ones?
John

blackhawk wrote in post #9480020
You really don't know about the cold war do you?
There are still facilities in the US where you can be shot on sight, no warning, no nothing.

Such As?

Every AF facility I've been on that feels the need will at least have a red "Line of Death" along the flightline beyond which you are (in fact) subject to deadly force if deemed necessary but it's not "without warning."

Seen on a sign:
"Trespassers will be shot. Those found still alive in the morning will be shot again"
John

Nike bases had one handler guard dogs that would attack anyone else including other base personnel.
The Hanford site had guards with submachine guns with orders to shoot intruders on sight inside areas with weapons grade plutonium.

They don't advertise, but it makes sense when it's involving weapons and/or materials of mass destruction.
Area 51 is said to use land mines in it's deeper layers of perimeter defense.

blackhawk wrote in post #9480020
You really don't know about the cold war do you?
There are still facilities in the US where you can be shot on sight, no warning, no nothing.

I have a BA in political science and history; I'd bet I know more about the Cold War than nearly everyone here, but that's not relevant.

However, you named military examples. Those are an exception to the "public property rule" and are just being contrary.

what do you think they consider "Large cameras" to be

Odie23 wrote in post #9442003
Please don't. As a firefighter I'd hate to think that someone burned to death because folks were trying to prove a point over a policy that will be ignored by the traveling public anyway.

Odie

It would seem to me that 911 dispatchers and responders would be some of the first to complain about this addition to their workload anyway.

"Hello, I want to report someone taking a lot of pictures."

A 911 call? Really? Really?

blackhawk wrote in post #9480020
You really don't know about the cold war do you?
There are still facilities in the US where you can be shot on sight, no warning, no nothing.

The Cold War is over, and we won. I even have a Cold War veteran certificate. Whole military commands (such as SAC) were disestablished and all the rules were re-written.

Even during the Cold War, as an augmentee to the SAC IG for Operational Readiness Inspections, I sometimes had to cross the "red line" to test their security response. They were rough (I once got a bruise on the side of my head where the SP pressed it against the hood of his truck with his full weight while he frisked me), but they never shot me.

dovaka wrote in post #9481782
what do you think they consider "Large cameras" to be

Up to the discretion of the LEO.

asysin2leads wrote in post #9437928
We live in such a pussified society anymore.

+ 1

Al Queda has to be lauging their butts off at us and all our rediculous "security" policies. They have accomplished their goal, to disrupt our society.

I don't think they're laughing--they hate us too much to laugh at anything less than death at their hands. Vigilance is necessary, but it needs to be an intelligent vigilance, and warnings need to be based on real indications.

At this point, there is simply no more fact-based correlation of photography with terrorism than there is between terrorism and athletic shoes.

RDKirk wrote in post #9496732
I don't think they're laughing--they hate us too much to laugh at anything less than death at their hands. Vigilance is necessary, but it needs to be an intelligent vigilance, and warnings need to be based on real indications.

At this point, there is simply no more fact-based correlation of photography with terrorism than there is between terrorism and athletic shoes.

It's almost... common knowledge that Al Queda scouts potentail targets and uses cams to help capture info.
Sometimes they get lucky.

blackhawk wrote in post #9497372
It's almost... common knowledge that Al Queda scouts potentail targets and uses cams to help capture info.
Sometimes they get lucky.

"Common knowledge" and "fact-based" are not the same thing. I recall they found a few (not "excessive") photographs in the possession of one of the 9/11 terrorists, but nothing more than a tourist would have. There has never been a positive correlation between "excessive photography" and terrorism.

RDKirk wrote in post #9497836
"Common knowledge" and "fact-based" are not the same thing. I recall they found a few (not "excessive") photographs in the possession of one of the 9/11 terrorists, but nothing more than a tourist would have. There has never been a positive correlation between "excessive photography" and terrorism.

Well the DHS doesn't share your feelings, and if they do, they still are following what they were directed to do.
Regardless, the results are about the same if you get in their sights.

Trust me, they still make house calls...

blackhawk wrote in post #9498745
Well the DHS doesn't share your feelings, and if they do, they still are following what they were directed to do.

Are you implying competence at the DHS?

Yup - they will give you a stern talking to after you burn off your own genitals with an underwear bomb.