No Photos in a Federal Building. What?

[blackjack50]

I disagree with it but also realize that it is their building and they get to set the rules. Sad but true.

And don't come with that "poor me, I am a conservative and that is why you are disagreeing with me". I couldn't care if it was Bernie Sanders himself who was making these comments, my answer would be exactly the same regardless of political leaning.

Then why the **** are you trying to chastise me for asking questions and questioning the stupidity of the law? Not to mention the impossibility of enforcing it? Seems pretty ****ing pointless to me.

 

[blackjack50]

For all I care they ban use of phones inside the building. People are on their cellphones way too much anyway. Even when you go and eat or go to a quiz game with someone in a pub, everywhere you go people are using those infernal cellphones constantly.

Even in cars, on bikes and walking in the street people seem to have a real issue not using their phone for even a short amount of time.

Drat that Elvis and his new fangled Rock and roll

 

[RogueWarrior]

I can tell you the reasoning behind it. The more photographs of the inside of a federal building that are floating around out there the easier it is for a terrorist to plan an attack. Justified or not, that is the reasoning.

Faulty reasoning. Spy glasses will give the same detail. Any operative worth their salt, will get what they want regardless of the 'rules'.
It is like gun control. Criminals don't give a flying fornication about gun control. Why would terrorists care about not being able to use a phone camera?

The War on Terror works the same way as the war on drugs and the war on alcohol before it.
The only goal common to these 'wars' is increased government oversight.
FDR had it right: The only thing to fear is fear itself. Stop being frightened little ******s.

Reap what you sow.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Faulty reasoning. Spy glasses will give the same detail. Any operative worth their salt, will get what they want regardless of the 'rules'.
It is like gun control. Criminals don't give a flying fornication about gun control. Why would terrorists care about not being able to use a phone camera?

True, but it would mean terrorists would be required to do their own surveillance rather than just googling the images. The more visits they make to a target the more likely they will be identified or the more people they would have to use to not arouse suspicion. The slightly less soft the target becomes.

Granted, I am mostly playing Devil's advocate at this point.

 

[radcen]

Faulty reasoning. Spy glasses will give the same detail. Any operative worth their salt, will get what they want regardless of the 'rules'.
It is like gun control. Criminals don't give a flying fornication about gun control. Why would terrorists care about not being able to use a phone camera?

The War on Terror works the same way as the war on drugs and the war on alcohol before it.
The only goal common to these 'wars' is increased government oversight.
FDR had it right: The only thing to fear is fear itself. Stop being frightened little ******s.

Reap what you sow.

I completely agree with this. The real reason(s) behind these types of rules, I believe, are 1) to reassure the populace that they're doing something, and/or 2) they themselves have fears and don't know what to do, so they feel they have to do something... and this is it.

 

[chuckiechan]

They are OUR government. Ergo WE make the rules. This is America. We are supposed to control the government. The government isn't there to control us.

And bringing up the patriot act doesn't change this. It doesn't justify the continuance of the policy. It doesn't make it on under a democrat in office. I disagree with the patriot act. It is not an adequate defense of this "measure."

So going back to the topic: why the hell are we letting the government stop us from snapping a picture inside the public area of a public building that we technically own?

Seriously. What are we stopping in an age of cell phones able to record the entire interior without difficulty in high resolution or a complete panoramic?

"Ergo WE make the rules.".. No we don't. We elect people who do.

 

[AGENT J]

So the government can stop me from breathing and not violate my rights?

Another failed strawman that I nere said and infact said the opposite of in post #62
your strawman, post and posted lie fails again :laughat:

We are still waiting for you to support your failed OP with facts and tell us what factual rights of your were violated LMAO

opcorn2:

 

[Caine]

1.) its there building to make the rules of .. PERIOD. lol are you claiming they cant make the rules there? . . court house cant make their rules either? pentagon? LMAO
2.) ahh yes that would be different because THAT would be a FACTUAL violation of RIGHTS . . .see the difference .. . them not allowing you to take picture doesnt violate one single right at all
3.) what "i" feel or "You" feel doesnt matter . . only facts and rights
4.) and that point majorly failed because ZERO rights of yours were taken away . . .ZERO
5.) stopping you from breathing would violate your rights, not allowing you to take a picture doesnt.

Fact remains theres no violation here or rights you lost.

I believe that all public properties still have the ability, and SHOULD have the ability to make rules for their use by the public.

This includes areas owned by not only the federal but state and local governments as well.

So while I think it is a silly rule to not be allowed to take a photo inside of a post office, I also think it is silly that certain members of the public believe that "public property" belongs to them in that they can camp out in tent cities in public parks to protest..... something, anything who knows. (Remember the Occupy movement?).

 

[Peter King]

At my summer job they took our cell phones away for the day and some of my friends had "separation anxiety".

A sad but true account of what people today are like, everything has to be instant gratification all of the time.

 

[AGENT J]

I think it is a silly rule to not be allowed to take a photo inside of a post office, I also think it is silly that certain members of the public believe that "public property" belongs to them

I agree

 

[Peter King]

Then why the **** are you trying to chastise me for asking questions and questioning the stupidity of the law? Not to mention the impossibility of enforcing it? Seems pretty ****ing pointless to me.

I am not chastising you. If I had been chastising you would have known it because there would be the same kind of **** that I am seeing from your posts to me.

 

[Peter King]

Drat that Elvis and his new fangled Rock and roll

Don't speak ill of the King, I love that man and his Rock and Roll. I have a mobile phone and my house is full of good gadgets and new electronic goods (more than good for me ) but I have not fallen into the mobile smartphone addiction that many people suffer from.

 

[Bodi]

Is there anything that's too petty for a right winger to whine about?

I guess you want your rights erroded...

 

[Thoreau72]

As opposed to them getting the photos by pretending to be on a cell phone?

Maybe we should be treated guilty until proven innocent? And bar that pesky 4th amendment?

FYI my young friend, that pesky 4th has already been neutered, effectively nullified. And for that you can thank the USA Patriot Act, passed when you were not yet 10 years old, and of which it appears you are not quite aware.

If you know what Habeas Corpus is, be advised that your elected officials have also nullified that, by way of NDAA amendments going back about 3 years now.

If you wake up, you might just smell the napalm. :2wave:

 

[sangha]

So that is your response? You are completely ok with arbitrary rules on your life that cannot be justified. Sacrifice your rights in the name of worship to the mighty government?

Is there no amount of government foot licking the left wing lunatics won't cave to? How pathetic.

I forgot that the constitution says you're allowed to do whatever the **** you want.

 

[RogueWarrior]

True, but it would mean terrorists would be required to do their own surveillance rather than just googling the images. The more visits they make to a target the more likely they will be identified or the more people they would have to use to not arouse suspicion. The slightly less soft the target becomes.

Granted, I am mostly playing Devil's advocate at this point.

I blame the beer

 

[sangha]

They are OUR government. Ergo WE make the rules. This is America. We are supposed to control the government. The government isn't there to control us.

Right! "We" make the rules, not "you"

We make the rules through the political system, and the congress *WE* elected voted to restrict photography in federal buildings.

 

[americanwoman]

Why can't you step outside, take a picture, and then come back in? Does that really make too much sense?


I don't have a right to take pictures anywhere I want and it's not a big deal.

 

[radcen]

Right! "We" make the rules, not "you"

We make the rules through the political system, and the congress *WE* elected voted to restrict photography in federal buildings.

What you're saying, even though I'm sure you'll dispute it (as is your SOP), is that once rules are in place that we should never ever comment on them or seek to change them.

 

[sangha]

What you're saying, even though I'm sure you'll dispute it (as is your SOP), is that once rules are in place that we should never ever comment on them or seek to change them.

No, what I'm saying is that there's a difference between criticizing a law because it's flawed, and whining about how your freedom is being denied.

 

[Russell797]

I can take a picture of anyone or anything within the public domain from a place within the public domain. From a position within the public domain I can photograph anyone or anything even on private property. I can stand in the street in front of your home and shoot pics of your kids all day long and there is not a damned thing you can legally do about it. I can not go onto private property and photograph without permission anything on that private property without the consent of the property owner.

Is a public building in the public domain or is it private property?

 

[sangha]

I can take a picture of anyone or anything within the public domain from a place within the public domain. From a position within the public domain I can photograph anyone or anything even on private property. I can stand in the street in front of your home and shoot pics of your kids all day long and there is not a damned thing you can legally do about it. I can not go onto private property and photograph without permission anything on that private property without the consent of the property owner.

Is a public building in the public domain or is it private property?

The USPS is an independent federal agency established by the Constitution and regulated by "We, the People" through our representatives in Congress who have passed laws forbidding the taking of pictures inside of post offices.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Is there anything that's too petty for a right winger to whine about?

This is not petty at all.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I can tell you the reasoning behind it. The more photographs of the inside of a federal building that are floating around out there the easier it is for a terrorist to plan an attack. Justified or not, that is the reasoning.

of course any of these "terrorists" can simply go visit the federal building and see it in person

 

[Southern Dad]

A business, including the post office has the right to control what happens inside of its property. If they tell you no photographs inside, that means no photographs. If you insist on taking photographs, they would be within their rights to have the police issue a trespass. Just as the post office is allowed to post a no gun policy. Courthouses, police stations, etc are allowed to have their own rules just as any other business.