# TSA's new photographer terrorist campaign



## Village Idiot (Sep 9, 2010)

From Carlos Miller's blog


> *By Carlos Miller*
> And people wonder why photographers are so sensitive these days.
> The Transportation Security Administration has published new posters that explicitly insinuate that if you are taking a picture of an airplane, you must be a terrorist and be reported to the authorities.
> 
> ...


----------



## PenguinPhotoWrx (Sep 9, 2010)

At the risk of a flame war, I do think we need to be sensitive to the issue.  That doesn't mean our freedoms should be taken away, but if we're sensitive to things such as this, it goes a lot further towards being allowed access.

How many pros or advanced amateurs would be taking pictures through the fence anyway?

Approach the airport, TSA, whatever, and obtain clearance to take the photos you want to take.  If you ask permission and go through their proper channels, I bet you get access and don't get hassled.  You might even get escorted!  Or get access to the other side of the fence!  I just don't see the need to be a rebel when you can probably get exactly what you want just by asking and giving them a good reason for the request.  Don't start out with major airports- like anything else, start out small and demonstrate past experience in this field, and you'll have a leg to stand on when requesting access.  Also remember that (I believe) most airports are actually private property, which means you need to ask permission anyway.

I was an amateur radio operator who volunteered with our county Office of Emergency Management- on 9/11 I was in an Emergency Operations Center during the attack- it was scary and surreal.  We saw the same videos the public saw, but we were also talking to the responders who were going into NY.  In the years that followed, we were privy to a lot of information from Homeland Security that the public never heard.  You gain a large respect for the security problems at hand, especially around airports.

Just my f/2.


----------



## Bram (Sep 9, 2010)

Ofcourse you *MUST* be a terrorist if your taking photos of planes and wearing a fleece hoody because maybe it's a little cold outside but not cold enough to wear a toque or a jacket.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 9, 2010)

I dont want to get into my feelings in general about the department of homeland security, because this is the wrong place for it imo.

I will say that from a photographers perspective this truly is ridiculous. Taking pictures of aircraft is a hobby of many people. Has doing so ever caused any harm? I doubt it.

My views on this also take into account that I work at a U.S. military airfield in Japan. I know all of the rules/regulations concerning access to our flight line.

They do not allow photography physically on the flight line, but directly outside of it they do (up to the fence). From my experience the U.S. Air Force security forces will not bother photographers, unless they were physically on the flight line.

I dont see how taking pictures of aircraft could even benefit a terrorist. You can find pictures of specific aircraft all over the internet. You can also find detailed specifications and information on them as well.

Maybe I am missing something though...


----------



## PenguinPhotoWrx (Sep 9, 2010)

A terrorist isn't usually taking pictures of the aircraft.  They're taking pictures of building layouts, security measures, guard positions, etc.

Despite the media's treatment of the TSA, most TSA security could tell the difference between an amateur hobbyist and a terrorist in about 3 seconds.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 9, 2010)

PenguinPhotoWrx said:


> A terrorist isn't usually taking pictures of the aircraft. They're taking pictures of building layouts, security measures, guard positions, etc.
> 
> Despite the media's treatment of the TSA, most TSA security could tell the difference between an amateur hobbyist and a terrorist in about 3 seconds.


 
And this is the problem with the ad. It's depicting the guy in the hoodie that is obviously using a DSLR with a large lens as suspicious. I wear a hoodie 90% of the time that I need to wear something warm. I know a lot of people that do.

How many terrorist are going to be standing at a fence with a DSLR with a large telephoto lens and be completely noticeable?

Any smart person that is going to be conducting surviellance is going to be doing so covertly.

And why would a terroist eve go out in the cold to photograph? Google Earth gives them maps of any installation they would want to attack. It's a far better tool than a large DSLR. Maybe they should make an ad saying that if you see some one using Google Earth that you should report them.

That's what I'm getting at. They're trying to sway the public's opinion to generally be suspicious of photographers. It's like putting up an ad that says report people with red hair, because the IRA blew people up.


----------



## PenguinPhotoWrx (Sep 9, 2010)

Don't get me wrong- I agree with you.  I'm merely suggesting that we need to be sensitive to the issue of security around installations such as this.

I do agree the ad stinks.  You're absolutely right- the chances of a terrorist standing by the fence in a hoodie with a big ol' camera are probably slim.  They would be more covert, in a car, and with a 10 megapixel point-and-shoot.  Stop, a few quick pix, and then gone.  The ad is not accomplishing its intended mission.

Google Earth- no, not a substitute for a ground level photograph.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 9, 2010)

A friend works for one of the major US airlines....there, the joke about TSA is that it means "thousands standing around". TSA is held in exceptionally low esteem by veteran airlines managers....and with this idiotic poster, it's obvious why...an incredible lack of brains must indeed permeate TSA, based on the stories and anecdotes I've been told.


----------



## Heck (Sep 9, 2010)

The poster would be more effective showing someone playing a flight sim on a pc. What dopes


----------



## skieur (Sep 9, 2010)

PenguinPhotoWrx said:


> Don't get me wrong- I agree with you.
> 
> Google Earth- no, not a substitute for a ground level photograph.


 
Google Earth does provide ground level photos.  I know because I am in one.

skieur


----------



## PenguinPhotoWrx (Sep 9, 2010)

skieur said:


> PenguinPhotoWrx said:
> 
> 
> > Don't get me wrong- I agree with you.
> ...


 
I'm not a Google Earth user so I can't really comment.  But I'm sure they're not updated more than every few weeks/months, no?

You have to understand the way these guys operate... they may take a picture of a truck that's parked in the same place every day, then add a comment with an arrow (place package here ->) or a picture of a guard (watch out for this guy, he eats his lunch in this spot).  Stuff like that.

Anyway, I think we're discussing two different things at this point.  I agree the poster really isn't that good, doesn't accomplish its intended mission, and the whole campaign is probably ill-conceived.

However, the message of awareness is a good one.  I was on a flight this year where someone left an unattended bag in the waiting area at the gate.  Everyone was nervous and on edge.  We spoke up and security took care of it.  They found the guy playing video games 200 feet from his bag.  Idiot almost closed the airport.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 9, 2010)

PenguinPhotoWrx said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > PenguinPhotoWrx said:
> ...



This anecdote is a good example of the stupid,blind,idiotic fear promulgated by these morons at TSA...OMG--IMAGINE--at an airport where 20,000 bags come through every day, as five to six thousand people board flights and get off flights, from all over the world--SOMEBODY leaves ONE of 20,000 pieces of luggage unattended for five to, OMG maybe even 10 whole minutes!!! OMG--that must mean there's a TERRORIST!!!!!!! (Uh, no....somebody needs a potty break, has to make a phone call, has to run after a wandering child...forgets his/her bag, needs to sit down,etc). Nope...unattended bag equals TERROR AND DEATH!

Idiocy and paranoia.


----------



## PenguinPhotoWrx (Sep 9, 2010)

It was a lot more than 5 or 10 minutes- they looked for the guy for almost 30 minutes before finding him- they even paged him a few times over the airport PA system. And the bag was there for quite awhile before security was notified.

It's nice to spout off that it is trivial. But if you were there you may have felt different. I know I did. Think about it from the other side for a moment- with all the stuff going on in the world, why would anyone leave an unattended bag in an airport? I have to think because their IQ is somewhere around 4.

I'm not going to get into a debate on worldwide terrorism and security on a photography forum, so this will be my last post on the issue.

There needs to be awareness and vigilance, IMO. However, as I said, I do agree that the poster didn't get the job done.


----------



## usayit (Sep 9, 2010)

So this is our generations boogey man?   God help us.


Nation

V

Toilet




The sad truth is that not only the public is falling for this crap so are the uniformed... which I had hoped would know better.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 9, 2010)

I have to question the wisdom of encouraging citizens to report on other citizens for doing nothing illegal.  Rather makes one wonder about the "free" in "... land of the free and home..."  Seems to me that there used to be a country where that was commonplace...


----------



## skieur (Sep 9, 2010)

PenguinPhotoWrx said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > PenguinPhotoWrx said:
> ...


 
You are creating the impression of having problems with paranoia. Despite the B.S. that flies around the Internet, photos of airplanes or anything else do not lead to terrorism. I am sure that photos of the towers were NOT taken by terrorists prior to 9/11, and what would photos tell them that they did NOT already know.

As for photos of airplanes, any terrorist could phone up the manufacturer and get a complete folder, images and specifications sent out to him/her.
Why would photos be useful?

Use your brain and logic.

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Sep 9, 2010)

PenguinPhotoWrx said:


> It was a lot more than 5 or 10 minutes- they looked for the guy for almost 30 minutes before finding him- they even paged him a few times over the airport PA system. And the bag was there for quite awhile before security was notified.
> 
> It's nice to spout off that it is trivial. But if you were there you may have felt different. I know I did. Think about it from the other side for a moment- with all the stuff going on in the world, why would anyone leave an unattended bag in an airport? I have to think because their IQ is somewhere around 4.
> 
> ...




Why would somebody leave an unattended bag in an airport??? OMG...I can think of fifty to sixty reasons right off the top of my head. I even listed a handful in my original reply. Clearly, an unattended suitcase is a trivial,trivial thing. Oh, no wait,wait,wait--it means there's a TERRORIST and DEATH TO AMERICA is just around the corner! yeah, that's right...an unattended suitcase, full of cheap clothes from Ross Dress For Less, that fit only their owner, means mayhem! Terror! Death! Please, give it a rest. 

"Paranoia do destroy ya"...ever heard that lyric?

Why don't we as a country, go back to being afraid of "the Black man"? Or "the commies" or "the red menace" or "swine flu" or "nuclear armageddon"?

"Duck and Cover." Look it up. Then, move forward 50 years, and look up WMD, and lunacy. Then, get back to us with a full report.


----------



## LokiZ (Sep 9, 2010)

Is it just me or was the photo on the poster more along the lines of a snapshot?  

Maybe someone from TSA took the picture instead of hiring someone because they couldn't find a photographer who would stoop so low?

Shouldn't this be considered at least some sort of Libel statement on TSA's part?

Definition of libel 4: Libel per se describes statements, which                  are widely understood to be harmful to a person's reputation.                  For example, referring to an individual *(Photographer)* as an alcoholic or criminal,                  or any description, *(Terrorist)* which would lower the reputation of that individual                  in the eyes of others. These words are harmful and libelous.

Definition of libel 9: Published material meeting three conditions:                  The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The                  defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one                  or more persons; *(Photograhers)* and, The material must be distributed to someone                  other than the offended party; *(The Public)* i.e. published; distinguished from                  slander.

The hard part may be proving that TSA has malicious intent toward photographers.  But one has to ask why could they not have made their sign with out the camera being in the image?  To me that is singling out an individual, the photographer.  If only there was a lawyer to work for us probono on this issue.  I mean all we are really asking is that they remove the add or remove the camera correct?

Definition of Libel - Defamation of Character

Just my 2 cents.

Edit:  Also it does not to me even look like he is photographing that particular plane.  <Shrug>


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 9, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> I dont see how taking pictures of aircraft could even benefit a terrorist. You can find pictures of specific aircraft all over the internet. You can also find detailed specifications and information on them as well.
> 
> *Maybe I am missing something though...*


The terrorists don't have internet.  Same reason you can't take pictures of bridges, highways, dams, power plants, etc...

Yes, you can find pictures of all that stuff with a quick search online - probably drawings of them too, they don't have that luxury - living in a cave and all...

Thank god they don't have access to the internet, and have to resort to actually going there and taking pictures of it.  Otherwise, we would never know what they were planning on attacking next.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 9, 2010)

Duck and Cover, an official Civil Defense Film, brought to you by the US Federal Government:   [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0K_LZDXp0I[/ame]


Old homosexual warning film: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfq-LVxV3yo&feature=related[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PybgH_ItUik&feature=related[/ame]
"More doctors smoke Camel cigarettes!!!"

"Girls Beware!" :  [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAKo-i4jpQ&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## orb9220 (Sep 10, 2010)

Good examples of the stupidly blind induced fear for the lemmings,sheep crowds of humans without a brain. Which translate over to all other aspects of our society.

Gee as an old fart. I can't even walk through a park with my camera at my side without the Laser-Beam eyes of condemnation of a "Perv" ready to pounce if I draw my flithy camera up to my eye. Or yep taking pics at the amtrak,federal building brings enmass security thugs spouting out erroneous legal jargon that they even haven't looked up what the words mean. Or understand they are the ones violating the law.

Even tried to stop me outside their permit zone from photographing the "Leverage" TV series filming outside my building which has happened twice so far. Stating Legal jargon. I told them they were full of it and kept shooting. Once was from my window in my own building and No I wasn't in their filming frame shot.

Geeze where is Darwin when we Need him? The lack of Common Sense and Rational Thought with a dash of Critical Thinking skills are missing from the masses. I am consistently flabbergasted by what I see and hear said by others around me. And just shake my head knowing We as a species just might not have what it takes to make it.
_
"Good evening, America. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. 

But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. 

There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? 

Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression.

*And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. 

I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you!* _ _

Quoted from one my fav movies "V for Vendetta"_
.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 10, 2010)

I will be acquiring and watching that movie tonight.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 10, 2010)

^^^Good movie.  Almost like the 'new' 1984, but with a graphic novel twist.


----------



## orb9220 (Sep 10, 2010)

Another of my favs tho some didn't like it.
*Equilibrium (2002)*


----------



## usayit (Sep 10, 2010)

V Vendetta.... great movie!  

1984 

and Brave New World

They are so applicable today that its scary...  Let's start putting babies on electrified floors with pictures of "terrorists" (or whatever other boogey man we can come up with) to start their paranoia early, shall we?


----------



## supraman215 (Sep 13, 2010)

LISTEN TO The Show - No Agenda - With Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak

99% of you would benefit greatly from this podcast. 

Back to the second poster, who has disappeared, which often happens to these people when rational thought is injected into a discussion, I will not accept the abhorrent restriction of my liberties in place of "security."  However when it comes to private property the owner of the property has the rights. Not sure who is the owner of the property because I don't know that much about airports. But there are PLENTY of articles on that site where the property is clearly public and people are given a very hard time for taking pictures. 

once again, 
LISTEN TO The Show - No Agenda - With Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak


----------



## Scatterbrained (Sep 13, 2010)

The TSA is the reason why I now drive just about everywhere.  As to the poster who thinks they are actually trained to tell a terrorist from a hobbyist, you are giving them far too much credit.


----------



## PenguinPhotoWrx (Sep 13, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> Back to the second poster, who has disappeared, which often happens to these people when rational thought is injected into a discussion


 
So now I'm "these people?"  I don't appreciate that.  I haven't disappeared.  I've moved on to posting in more technical threads that actually involve photography on the forum since this one seems to be so polarizing.  As I said in one of my other posts (which you obviously missed), I'm not going to get into a debate on worldwide terrorism on a photography forum (if I wanted to do that I'd go to the CNN or FOXNews web sites), so that was my last post on the issue.  I'm only posting this response because I am being called out, which I don't totally appreciate.

I actually regret posting in this thread to begin with and I won't make the mistake of posting in threads such as this again.


----------



## supraman215 (Sep 13, 2010)

I won't discuss politics further on this thread.


----------



## Garbz (Sep 14, 2010)

PenguinPhotoWrx said:


> How many pros or advanced amateurs would be taking pictures through the fence anyway?



Why not? At f/2.8 you won't even see a chain link fence in the picture. I've taken some great photos through a fence in my time. 



PenguinPhotoWrx said:


> Approach the airport, TSA, whatever, and obtain clearance to take the photos you want to take.  If you ask permission and go through their proper channels, I bet you get access and don't get hassled.



I'm going to call you out. You've clearly never done this before. Reminds me of the story of the two photographers who obtained written signed permission from the operator of a rail network in America, along with proof that taking photos of the rail network in not an offence, and then spent an evening in jail when they refused to leave when confronted by police. 

Taking a sensitive stance on these issues is just another way of grabbing your ankles and saying "do me"! No one cares. You're now bending over backwards to do something that is entirely legal while the average person has no idea that you're being unfairly prosecuted. 

Not until you organise 1000 people to gather to promote awareness of the issue do you even make the news. And even with this event in Sydney all that ended up being reported was a feel good story on page 15 of the local newspaper. http://www.artsfreedomaustralia.com...10/08/SIMMONDS_GMPHOTO_AFA-RALLYIMG_82175.jpg



PenguinPhotoWrx said:


> I'm not a Google Earth user so I can't really comment.  But I'm sure they're not updated more than every few weeks/months, no?



No it isn't but that didn't stop various governments implicating the use of Google Earth in terrorist attacks in the past. But then what about going to the source? The local company which does the mapping for Australia provides online free access to satellite images of cities and it's updated monthly. 




This isn't about raising awareness. This is about the fact that someguy in a hoodie and a nice camera is suddenly labelled as a suspect, whereas in reality terrorism does not work like this. The end result is we suffer for NO greater good. I don't think you quite comprehend this.


----------



## usayit (Sep 14, 2010)

FYI...

Bush intercontinental airport in Houston Texas has dedicated areas complete with parking around the perimeter for those who either want to watch the planes take off and land or even take pictures.   They have been their for as long as I can remember....   I visited last year and they are still there.  

My friends father used to take us there for a nice quiet time..   Those were nice times and memories.. threatened not by terrorists but by our own doing... 


 Ironically an airport carries the last name of the very person who help perpetuate this attitude...


----------



## epp_b (Sep 14, 2010)

_OH NOES!! Hees gonna tak a picher of a airplan an, uh .... give peepls some paprcuts!!!

_


> A terrorist isn't usually taking pictures of the aircraft.  They're  taking pictures of building layouts, security measures, guard positions,  etc.


No, a terrorist isn't taking pictures of anything.  You don't need building layouts to walk into an airport carrying a backpack loaded with explosives.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 14, 2010)

This topic reminds me of the movie "Pearl Harbor" because there is a scene with a guy with a camera, taking pictures of all the boats and the layout, etc...


----------



## epp_b (Sep 14, 2010)

Oh... that explains it all.  The TSA have watched too many movies and now think that cameras are actually bazookas.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 14, 2010)

usayit said:


> FYI...
> 
> Bush intercontinental airport in Houston Texas has dedicated areas complete with parking around the perimeter for those who either want to watch the planes take off and land or even take pictures.   They have been their for as long as I can remember....   I visited last year and they are still there.
> 
> ...


Most airports I've been too also had an observation deck.  I can't remember if DFW has one or not...

I don't think the airport I work at now has one, but it's pretty tiny.  It does have a long enough runway for most aircraft (10,000 feet, with 1,000 foot over-runs on each end), but oddly enough - it gets used by little sport planes more than anything else.

The stuff we're working on is much larger, but they don't fly all that much.  (We're talking like a 2 year turn-around time for wheels down to delivery...)


----------



## Joves (Sep 14, 2010)

PenguinPhotoWrx said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the second poster, who has disappeared, which often happens to these people when rational thought is injected into a discussion
> ...


 
Well first off I will say that terrorists photographing targets is for the most part Hollyweird fiction. In the busts of terrorists they havent found photos of the targets. For one a terrorist can now use a cellphone to discreetly shoot photos, which would be more likely. 

The TSA and many others labeling photographers as potential terrorists with this type of propaganda is an afront to freedom. The whole Fatherland Security sickens me as a patriot but, what sickens me more is the amount of people who say it is for our safety, not realizing they have made themselves less safe from a government which encroaches on their very rights. What these types of system do is lead to a form of soft tyranny at forst till they gain the control, then eventually to total tyranny where the people have no rights.The Constitution  was written to restrain the power of the Federal Government and the modern government does not like it. Ben Franklin said if you give up freedoms for security, then you deserve neither.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 14, 2010)

PenguinPhotoWrx said:


> I actually regret posting in this thread to begin with and I won't make the mistake of posting in threads such as this again.


You should learn to recognize discussion in which the majority of the participants will have a different world-view than yourself...  They do turn up from time to time (and eventually get locked - this thread is no exception ... eventually it will be locked down).  Learning to spot them early will help you avoid reading anything that goes against the things you hold dear...  I think that is something that would be greatly valued by you...

If you pretend to participate in a discussion such as this, but are unwilling to see the other side, then all you are doing is 'pretending to participate'...

I can see both sides, and I know which one I'm on...

That photographers could be considered terrorists is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard...  Taking a picture of a plane doesn't make you a suspect, trying to bring a bomb onto one does.

Maybe it's becoming hard for you to tell the difference ... I think you eat up everything the media tells you if that is the case.  Learn to exercise some independent thought and you will go far.  Just because they say it doesn't mean it's so...

A little common sense goes a long way...


...  _Le sens commun est fort rare. - Voltair
_(Common sense is quite rare.)


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 15, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> PenguinPhotoWrx said:
> 
> 
> > I actually regret posting in this thread to begin with and I won't make the mistake of posting in threads such as this again.
> ...


 
You look like my firend Lilmyer. I don't actually ever remember his first name, I just know his brother Jeremy Billmyer and I know he drinks Wild Turkey with me, so I just call him Lilmyer.


----------



## usayit (Sep 15, 2010)

Remember the old NRA (not intended to bring NRA up for discussion specifically) campaign that went like this:

"Guns don't kill people, People kill People"

Maybe the photographic community needs something along the same line.

"Cameras don't kill people, People kill People".


----------



## abraxas (Sep 15, 2010)

usayit said:


> ...
> 
> Maybe the photographic community needs something along the same line.
> 
> "Cameras don't kill people, People kill People".



"If you don't have the balls to take the picture, then don't take the picture."


----------



## table1349 (Sep 15, 2010)

usayit said:


> Remember the old NRA (not intended to bring NRA up for discussion specifically) campaign that went like this:
> 
> "Guns don't kill people, People kill People"
> 
> ...



Oh great, now everybody is going to have to take a camera safety course before they can get one and go use it.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Oh great, now everybody is going to have to take a camera safety course before they can get one and go use it.



No,no,no! The course will only be required for kids 12 and under...those over the age of 12 will be able to use cameras on their own, without an adult present! Yeeeeesh, dude, you're such an alarmist.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 15, 2010)

Derrel said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh great, now everybody is going to have to take a camera safety course before they can get one and go use it.
> ...



Wrong, if you were born after 1965, you will have to take the course and certify that you can safely and responsibly use a camera.  Fortunately I was born before 1965.  :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen: (Sadly I was born quite a few years before 1965)


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...




Whew....I squeak in before the deadline too! Look what happens when the Federal Gov'mint gets its mitts onto things like camera safety....the nanny State camera safety course laws are enacted....next they'll be requiring us to wear seat belts and to not drive drunk....man...


----------

