SiriusAddict.com

There was an interesting Flickr group and new segment on Fox News ( video ) about a photographer that decided that after taking pictures in a public place and being approached by security guards he’d speak up and rally against this action by the security guard. According to the video and posts on Flickr, he was taking pictures of the shops and sidewalks in Silver Spring, MD and was approached by a security guard telling him to essentially stop doing so because it was against the rules or something, despite it being a public place.

Also in the video when Fox News brought out their news camera near the FBI building a security guard, that could only chase down a donut if it was running away from her (she was huge and really the only thing she could protect is blocking the doors to the building by standing in them), approached them and question them. While I sort of understand the concept behind not taking picture of federal buildings, it’s kind of stupid honestly. I am willing to bet I could walk down there with a pen and notepad, walk around the building a few times casually looking at it and taking notes of where entrances, cameras, and security guards are located. And in fact, that can be just as effective as a picture or video if done detailed enough. But would I get questioned about it? Probably not if I was careful about it. Sure, I’d be on surveillance video, but so what?

Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for national security and wouldn’t do the above because I don’t want trouble in any event (and frankly don’t care enough to do so) . But there’s a limit to what is national security and what is a public place that should be open to do as you please (under the law and decency standards). I just feel it’s kind of wrong that a security guard approached the subject that started this outcry in the first place. It’s not like he was taking a picture of something highly sensitive: it was a sidewalk and shops in Silver Spring, MD. According to another post on the Flickr group for banned photography in D.C., the property is owned privately and it’s the policy of the company that owns the property to “not allow pictures” as they can be used to “say bad things” about the stores and/or company. Hmmm… last I checked, I can open my mouth and bad mouth the stores on this street due to lack of service, less than sanitary conditions, etc (if that were the case of course; I don’t know as I’ve never been) and the company owning the property could not do a thing about it. They’d probably try to charge me on slander or something and they might even win because God knows I wouldn’t have any proof to back it up except my word since pictures “aren’t allowed” on this particular street.

In the end, it’s all ridiculous and I’m certainly not trying to change the rules or law or by any means trying to change what the government feels is national security as I’m sure they have a good reason for defining the rules they’ve defined and that’s totally cool with me. It’s just that the flaws in the arguments are what bother me in life. If you’re going to make a stand on something, you better have a good reason for doing so and be able to support it nearly flawlessly, otherwise it’s just a stupid stance you’re taking in my opinion. Thoughts? Against it? For it?