Next article, please.
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...
It's like the humorous attempts of the government to keep Groom Lake a secret. I lived in Vegas for a time and it seemed obvious that everyone knew for years something government was going on out there. From the unmarked white planes that left the airport, the special gate at the airport that only certain people could use that had guards that refused to answer any questions, the spot overlooking Groom Lake itself that was open to the public for years that allowed you to see everything, the photographs of nuclear mushroom clouds in the distance with the Strip in the foreground (people even had parties based around the bombing schedules!), and the modern method of using Google Maps to look at the area to see the runways and bomb craters.
My favorite example is the old movies where characters believed you were a spy if you happened to know that the CIA was headquartered in Langley, VA. Come on, everybody knows that.
Shooing people away from taking pictures of a nondescript entrance to a nondescript building is just a show of force and authority.
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.
Also, it isn't that photography "is" a crime but that it "can" be a crime.
ah, but the wikipedia article links to http://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center... so i guess it's here https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.97398,-76.92558&q=loc:38.... (is that the sign shown in the article main photo?)