Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nextgrid | Hacker News Reader

Why would taking pictures of the infrastructure be illegal?

In many countries the advice is not to photograph infrastructure (bridges, dams, etc.), as it is illegal.

Examples:

> Photography: Taking photographs of UAE military facilities, sensitive civilian sites, airports, some beaches, or foreign diplomatic missions – including the U.S. Embassy or Consulate General – may result in arrest, detention, and/or prosecution by local authorities. Travelers should be aware of signs which indicate where photography is prohibited. Note that it is illegal to take photographs of other people without their consent. In addition, engaging in mapping activities, especially mapping that includes the use of GPS equipment, without coordination with UAE authorities, may have the same consequences.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-tra...

> Photography: Photographing military installations is forbidden. Individuals have been detained and/or had their cameras and film confiscated for taking pictures of hospitals, schools, bridges, industrial sites, and airports. Sites where photography is prohibited are not always marked.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-tra...

After the 2005 bombings in London, which targeted public transport networks and the people on them, the security services are understandably concerned about similar attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

It's not illegal, AFAIK, just suspicious, at least to some people.

It is actually illegal in some countries.

Got marched to a police station and interrogated in Mozambique for it

Other countries designate key infrastructure as strategic

It’s why we can’t have good things. Someone will abuse the privilege.

Just earlier we had a post about people pulling the emergency brakes on NYC subway cars. For decades it was fine. Suddenly people are causing some chaos.

That’s about it. People will exploit weaknesses and we all lose.

I don't think they'll remove emergency brakes. I think they'll beef up CCTV and enhance patrols so they can respond quickly next time it happens.

So everyone now is surveilled en masse and patrolled by agents of the state, great solution. Is that really what we want?

In the article I read, the suspect exited the carriage and went down an employees only tunnel. Those sorts of tunnels seem like a place it's OK to put CCTV, since the general public doesn't even use them.

Evidently "security by obscurity" is our government's approach. Reduces accountability and public freedom as a supposed solution to terrorism.

It’s like hanging out at a bank too much. Not illegal per se, but people are going to assume you’re casing the joint eventually.

My city has a beautiful courthouse. You'll be detained and questioned for taking pictures of it. It's not technically illegal, but they'll ruin your day, strongly discouraging you from doing it again.

Pictures can be used for planning an attack against said infrastructure.

The whole situation is unfortunate since there's a lot of cool looking government buildings and infrastructure out there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com