Repo Man said:This is an extreme overreaction. What is next, banning photography at national monuments? On the street? Plus, the ban wouldn't apply to media people, which is stupid because the media could take pictures and post them in a newspaper for all to see anyhow. Some of the dumb stuff that governement is doing in the name of "protecting us from terrorsts" are a complete joke and serve more as a feel-good measure than an effective means to thwart terrorists.
The way to make a society free and reasonably safe is to put in appropriate support measures for Good Stuff. Merely focusing on squashing bad stuff...can leave you a vacuum more dangerous than what you have squashed and can promote bad stuff since focusing on something tends to magnify the issue. I agree: excessive.Wulf9 said:Excess.
One of the problems with a free society is that the freedom also leaves openings for bad people to do bad things.
If you take away enough freedoms to be able to control the bad people, you no longer have a free society.
So one of the prices of a free society is a certain amount of risk.
Last year, on my way out of town, I took a few picts of the Newark International NJ Transit station. A lady official on the opposite platform sprinted over, arms flailing, and yelled, "Stop! No pictures!"mgk920 said:The railroad enthusiast ('railfan') newsgroups have been crackling the last few days about New Jersey Transit and their rigorously enforced (and legally questionable) ban on photography of their facilities...
And in the interest of being inclusionary, no detailed descriptions for visually-impaired potential terrorists, either.Cardinal said:Let's take this to its logical conclusion. Airports and subway tunnels may be subjects of terrorism. To deny the terrorists access to information, we should prohibit people from taking pictures of them. Federal buildings are similarly threatened, as are other governmental buildings. So are monuments. So are large public places, like shopping malls, or even the local Wal-Mart (10 posts). Who are the targets of terrorist attacks? Celebrities, certainly, but also ordinary folks like you an me. Therefore I proposa a ban on all photography of any sort, and just to be safe, no sketching either.
jordanb said:The Chicago CTA is appearently agitating to do the same now that the MTA is doing it.
Monkey see, monkey do.
JNA said:A bit OT
What's next -
Do you think I will get trouble for taking pictures of our Greeenway that is located on our Levee ?
Who else might have this trouble ?
I rue the day they even begin to float the idea of a picture ban at Grand Central Terminal, the finest public space in NYC. But it doesn't take a big leap to imagine, if the subway ban is approved, that the policy voraciously grows to include all MTA properties.Rumpy Tunanator said:I'm also guilty of taking pictures of the subway in NYC and Grand Central Station after 9/11, but then again I saw other people taking pictures as well.
Plannerbabs said:And in the interest of being inclusionary, no detailed descriptions for visually-impaired potential terrorists, either.
Just to be safe, all movies, tv shows, and commercials should be filmed with the same generic "every-place" backdrop. No identifiable landmarks, please, someone may want to invade Central Perk.
Spatial_Monkey said:... what we need to do is go to the ROOT of the problem, and enslave (oops) PROTECT the entire population in little glass bubbles, with a virtual reality based on the teletubbies world to live in where they can be of no harm to anyone or anything...