Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I too just finished reading the article. In fact, it was the first one I turned to. In any free society there is always a balance between personal freedom, national security, corporate security, and the rights granted under the constitution (which I'm not even going to venture on since I'm not a lawyer <grin>). From a basic perspective any corporation has a right to protect its property and take reasonable/legal steps to do so. If a person is on corporate property, then they are trespassing (guilty @ times myself), and whether or not action is taken will be dependent upon the perceived liability/threat imposed on the corporation of that incursion. They have a right to protect their property, assets, and employees. If a person is on public property, then the coporation should only have authority to contact the appropriate law enforcement and report the individual if there is a perceived threat/liability. For example, someone sitting in a tree 50 feet from the corporate property holding a gun would be probable cause to contact law enforcement. Someone sitting in a car 50 feet from corporate property taking pictures should not be harrassed. Chasing a train, that's probably not a risk, just something the crew should probably laugh about and wonder why the individuals doesn't have a life (guilty myself from time to time). From my perspective, if someone is intent on collecting information, such as train movement and pictures, no amount of security will keep them from doing that. The RR infrastructure is so vast that it is impossible to patrol/monitor it effectively. Furthermore, with scanners broadcasting communication between crews and dispatchers, once someone is reported they would have plenty of time to move on. Obviously the use of digital data terminals significantly reduces this notification of being caught. In the end, we live in a "free" society. The rights of individuals are something that should be protected. That doesn't mean throwing common sense to the wind, it simply means that there has to be a balance between individual rights, and corporate/national security. Too often, restrictions are imposed on individuals in the name of national security, when in fact there are other reasons behind the rules. If individual rights are squashed to the point that I can't stand on public property and take pictures, then in the words of Goerge Carlin..."The terrorists win..." Lastly, for myself I usually go to visible public places where rail fans typically visit. Yes, sometimes the best hiding place is in the open, but at least if someone is in the open they can be evaluated. So, as long as we live in a "free" society, and people act responsibly, then imposition of rules and regulations (hmmm, RR=R&R (not the rest/relaxation one, though taking pictures is R&R) on activities occuring on public property are silly and probably as effective as airport security (that's another rant).... choochoo75
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag