I just want to leave a word to the wise about laws on terrorism (or protection form "terrorism".

I was vacationing in a certain state, and happened upon a hilarious situation, which I immediately wanted to photograph. This was a "photos of this building areprohibited" sign, which ahd fallen, and was obscured by grasses and weeds.

The building was a munitions firm, and the US was at war. It looked delapidated, but I got the hint, and it is from living in an area where almost Japanese-lke politesse seems to be encouraged, although rarely employed.

I understood that weapons technology, at times, has relied upon very sensitive heavy metals. Ina n older structure, it is quite possible that heavy-metals rich insects and animals could pattern upon thoughts and internet views (via cabling or lineswork underground), since they operate in tribal patterning on tiny things we don't think about, like an eyelash or sweat left behind from the shoot.

So, to be on the safe side, any land or structured site, which could possibly be rigged as a potentially resonant feature which could aggrandize as threatening vibration elsewhere, becoming a realized health hazard, has to be guarded.

They will not publish much about possible problems (including the source of computer viridiae) because they seem (all) to feel that any knowledge in the wrong hands could set off some attack.

What they need to do, seriously, is to keep commercial photographers posted on serious problems. Most people would stick to guideleines, or lose their license.

I am not a fascist, by the way- just safety oriented.

Cheers-your photo is beautifu, but have you thought of at what price?

(Though I would say Starbucks, PF Changs, et. al. are within their rights to restrict photography within their establishments.)

I'd be laughing a lot harder at that story if it weren't so infuriating. There have been posts on a couple of blogs related to this either directly or tangentially. It's happened to me and I've written about it myself at least once.

In one case, someone related that it's actually illegal in some places to photography bridges and other similar structures. I have a hard time believing that, but what do I know?

I think it would be great if someone could find out definitively what the law is with regard to such things. I will endeavor to do so myself, but I don't know how far I'll get.

If there are any photobloggers out there who happen to be lawyers as well, perhaps you might have better luck?

It can be very intimidating in certain circumstances to be confronted in such a way. I would hope that with some authoritative legal facts at our disposal, it might make it a lot easier to confront situations as confidently as Thomas did.

In some cases you're not allowed to take pictures of buildings because you might be a terrorist casing the joint. I'm pretty sure the guards would get upset if I started taking pictures inside the Bank of America headquarters in Charlotte, NC. Maybe even if I took too many pictures of the outside of the building.

It's great. You can print out this PDF and give it to security guards or whoever bothers you. It saves a lot of explaining.

For a few months afte 9/11 I was questioned absolutely everywhere. I find it less of a problem these days but still you get hassled sometimes.

Excellent.