Today, a security guard told me that I couldn't take pictures there. "Why?", I asked. She wasn't really sure. Something having to do with the power plant being a potential terrorist target. If I moved back 2 feet so I was on the sidewalk, I was off the property and could photograph as much as I wanted. Silly, huh? The guard was nice, and apparently determined that three german shepherds, two women, and myself were not a terrorist threat.
Still, something is wrong when you can't photograph a public building. Especially the non-power parts of it. There is a picture on the web here that would be much more useful. Not to mention the hundreds of better angles and the fact that someone could be across the street with a telephoto lens hiding in a car.
I'm not sure who to complain to (if anyone) about the incident. I understand why they are concerned, and that the security guard was just doing her job, but it's a silly rule.
Railfans (Score:2)
-- ask bjoern hansen [askbjoernhansen.com], !try; do();
Re:Railfans (Score:1)
He says the police and federal agents were very nice and professional. He wasn't arrested, only detained until the FBI counter-terrorist agent could get there.
It's a suspicious activity. People concerned about security respond to suspicious activity.
Re: Photographing public buildings (Score:1)
Remember, any good terrorist, and apparently there are some good ones, study their targets pretty well. Bad guys good at their jobs don't hide in the bushes and do tricky things. More that likely they'll walk up to the fence with a friend, or three dogs, and start taking pictures. When the guard asks them what their doing, they'll apologize and move on.
This way, not only do
Re: Photographing public buildings (Score:1)
Re: Photographing public buildings (Score:1)
Part of my training has been reading the cases all of sorts of different physical security violations. I'm sure anyone working in loss prevention can sympathize.