

Journalists Detained Attempting to Video NSA Building where Snowden Worked - fianchetto
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/06/13/journalists-detained-attempting-to-video-record-nsa-building-where-snowden-worked/

======
JonSkeptic
Is it really news when someone points cameras at a possibly secret government
facility and is then told by government security that they're not allowed to
do that?

Next article, please.

~~~
wting
I'm surprised at the nonchalant dismissal.

Everybody gets in a dizzy when some bill may or may not infringe on the 2nd
amendment, but the same response is noticeably absent when it comes to
photographers' rights.

Even though photographers are legally allowed to photograph a government
building from public property, why the dismissal when the government is in
contempt of her own laws?

The steady erosion of personal rights and laissez faire attitude towards
government behavior is what lead to the PRISM situation to begin with.

More info:

[http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/you-have-every-right-
photogr...](http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/you-have-every-right-photograph-
cop)

~~~
mpyne
We shoo away photographers who are mapping out the gates to our military bases
as well. The U.S. Embassay bombing in Lebanon is only one of many, many
examples of why there is a valid security interest in not having people map
out your physical security vulnerabilities if you can avoid it.

~~~
andrewcooke
isn't "if you can avoid it" the crux here? there's a trade-off between freedom
and protection. and the idea was, i thought, that people decided that
together, as a community, and created laws that reflect it.

but what's happening here doesn't follow any law. it's extra protection, and
less freedom.

and what's so weird is the way people like you come out of the woodwork as
apologists for this process.

when are you going to stop?

the usa already has laws so "protecting" and "un-freedom" that it seems the
nsa can assemble huge databases on your communication. if you hadn't noticed,
there's a huge fuss about that right now. yet the best you can come up with is
to argue that _less_ freedom than the current law provides is a great idea?

it kind of boggles the mind. how little freedom do you actually want?

~~~
mpyne
Unless I'm mistaken there _is_ a law, FISA. It even uses warrants with
judicial review, and FISA itself has been publically known for awhile, so it's
hardly some fait accompli. The people have bought in, whether on purpose or
not.

So, people aren't complaining that this is _illegal_ , per se, they're
complaining that there _shouldn 't be that law at all_. Didn't you watch the
Daily Show clip from the other night?

P.S. When are people going to stop calling those with a view not 100% aligned
with their own "apologists" and acknowledge that there might even be different
conclusions that reasonable people can reach on a topic?

------
CapitalistCartr
There are several such events every day, where someone is hassled, arrested,
or assaulted for photography. They're carried on the blog "Photography is not
a crime"
[http://photographyisnotacrime.com/](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/)

------
anologwintermut
Contrary to the blog's URL, photography IS a crime ... if it's of certain
military installations.
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/795](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/795)

It probably shouldn't be applied in this case( there seems to be little
sensitive information in a photograph of a building, though maybe they didn't
want personel identified) , but it can be.

~~~
talmand
I can see concern of people being photographed entering and leaving the
building, but even then it's silly. If someone wants to know something of
these people then just follow them from work. If the person's identity and
involvement of what's going on inside needs to be secret then they shouldn't
be seen at all entering or leaving the facility.

Also, it isn't that photography "is" a crime but that it "can" be a crime.

------
andrewcooke
huh. the centre for advanced study of language (casl) at the university of
maryland really isn't on google maps, afaict.
[http://maps.google.cl/maps?q=centre+for+advanced+study+of+la...](http://maps.google.cl/maps?q=centre+for+advanced+study+of+language,+university+of+maryland&hl=en&sll=39.774944,-75.73025&sspn=5.225779,5.196533&hq=centre+for+advanced+study+of+language,+university+of&hnear=Maryland,+United+States&t=m&z=10)

ah, but the wikipedia article links to
[http://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center...](http://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center_for_Advanced_Study_of_Language&params=38.97398_N_76.92558_W_)
so i guess it's here
[https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.97398,-76.92558&q=loc:38....](https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.97398,-76.92558&q=loc:38.97398,-76.92558&hl=en&t=m&z=11)
(is that the sign shown in the article main photo?)

~~~
talmand
What's with the weird arrangement of what appears to be traffic cones in the
old parking lot to the east of the building? Plus, why did they build a fence
that cuts the east parking lot in half?

------
Pxtl
Hey NSA, if you have nothing to hide...

