Railway Security Question (got your ears on Gabe?)

[techguy57]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

I do not think it is an unworthy debate, and that is not what I meant when I said both concerns were relatively insignificant. I was merely noting that usually when there are disagreements, or usues debated in court, there is at least one major competing concern.

If you really want to scratch your head on this subject--it is--or at least was--legal to take a picture of a train loaded with nuclear waste. I think that presents a bigger threat than pictures of a military train.

Gabe

Didn't think you were saying it was an unworthy debate at all. I was just saying that it kinda seems like a drop in the bucket when you think about how small a percentage of trains we are actually talking about, doesn't it? And I'd agree that the nuclear waste trains would seem to be a bigger concern. But who am I to say really?

Mike

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

Every one has said the military is asking to limit photography.
Just where does it say "the military" is asking?
The BNSF is asking this question, with no mention of the US Government.
As for radioactive trains, sure, we have pictures! wanna see them?
Can't be too big a deal, accept to the tree hugger types, their movement and contents are described on the DOE site.
rrandb, thanks for sharing the days when you cut keys for a living. Must have been exciting? Did you work in one of those little kiosks people can drive up to? Hi! Welcome to Ed's Key Hut, your key cut in sixty seconds or it's free!
Good times....................

As the VP and a Master Locksmith and Safe technitian my time in the Kiosks was limited to training both Apprentices and Journymen but thanks for asking. Do you honestly beleive the request comes from just the BNSF as a part of there unique corperate policy or are you just stirring the pot. I beleive that 99.999 % of the people interested in takeing photo's are harmless and probably also patriotic. The restriction does not mention military loads in comercial shipments. The restriction clearly states "Military Trains and equipment". I read this as dedicated movements but I very well could be wrong. Without a blanket restriction the job of detecting that 00.001% element is only made more dificult. [2c]

[Anonymous]

Every one has said the military is asking to limit photography.

Just where does it say "the military" is asking?

The BNSF is asking this question, with no mention of the US Government.

As for radioactive trains, sure, we have pictures! wanna see them?

Can't be too big a deal, accept to the tree hugger types, their movement and contents are described on the DOE site.

rrandb, thanks for sharing the days when you cut keys for a living. Must have been exciting? Did you work in one of those little kiosks people can drive up to? Hi! Welcome to Ed's Key Hut, your key cut in sixty seconds or it's free!

Good times....................

[gabe]

I do not think it is an unworthy debate, and that is not what I meant when I said both concerns were relatively insignificant. I was merely noting that usually when there are disagreements, or usues debated in court, there is at least one major competing concern.

If you really want to scratch your head on this subject--it is--or at least was--legal to take a picture of a train loaded with nuclear waste. I think that presents a bigger threat than pictures of a military train.

Gabe

[techguy57]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Thanks, Mike, and I think this is a good topic to discuss in an accademic manner. For instance, what are the competing concerns:

(1) How does photographing a train of tanks that everyone knows is bound for the Persian Gulf hinder national security?

(2) How much of a strain is it on personal freedom not to be allowed to photograph 0.000001% of all rail traffic?

I think this is an interesting argument here, because--at least superficially--it seems to me that both competing concerns are fairly minor.

Gabe

Gabe,
As always, well put in both regards. I'd agree they are both minor concerns. I understand the need for security as well, but my feeling is that if the military can put said object onto a flat car uncovered then they can't be overly concerned about security themselves. Besides, what is the difference between taking a picture of a train carrying a convoy of military vehicles or taking a picture of the same convoy rolling down the highway? So long as I'm shooting from public property and not posting the pics quickly in an effort to document the equipment's movement, where is the harm? It seems pretty obvious where it is eventually headed and what its purpose is.
As for the second point you make, it does seem to be a rather insignificant number of traffic we are talking about here doesn't it? In perspective that'd be like spending a week (probably way more but math was never my stong suit) at Rochelle waiting to photograph a military train.

Perhaps its just the boy in me that is still fascinated with military equipment that wants to debate the pros and cons here.

Thanks for the good observations.

Mike

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by techguy57

Okay, folks! First of all I started this thread in an attempt for some informative thinking about the subject not for name-calling and self-agrandizing. Please, if you want to attack someone personally, take it somewhere else. If you think that I'm unpatriotic or anti-American for wondering what the big deal is about photographing military trains from public property, well you think what you want. I merely asked the question out of curiosity. Let's leave it at that. Bergie has enough work already.

Thank you all for your input and views on the subject, especially Gabe.

Mike

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Apparently, I just now have my ears on. But, thank you.

All I can add to this, is forbidding photography of military trains and installations is hardly anything new--either in law or in practice.

There have been greater civil liberties that have been trounced upon with a free pass from our highest court by use of a military explanation: the allien and sedition acts, American concentration camps, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus come to mind most easily.

Is it necessary? I don't have the answer.

Gabe

Thanks, Mike, and I think this is a good topic to discuss in an accademic manner. For instance, what are the competing concerns:

(1) How does photographing a train of tanks that everyone knows is bound for the Persian Gulf hinder national security?

(2) How much of a strain is it on personal freedom not to be allowed to photograph 0.000001% of all rail traffic?

I think this is an interesting argument here, because--at least superficially--it seems to me that both competing concerns are fairly minor.

Gabe

[techguy57]

Okay, folks! First of all I started this thread in an attempt for some informative thinking about the subject not for name-calling and self-agrandizing. Please, if you want to attack someone personally, take it somewhere else. If you think that I'm unpatriotic or anti-American for wondering what the big deal is about photographing military trains from public property, well you think what you want. I merely asked the question out of curiosity. Let's leave it at that. Bergie has enough work already.

Thank you all for your input and views on the subject, especially Gabe.

Mike

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Apparently, I just now have my ears on. But, thank you.

All I can add to this, is forbidding photography of military trains and installations is hardly anything new--either in law or in practice.

There have been greater civil liberties that have been trounced upon with a free pass from our highest court by use of a military explanation: the allien and sedition acts, American concentration camps, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus come to mind most easily.

Is it necessary? I don't have the answer.

Gabe

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

As the former VP of a Safe and Lock company that held the contract to change all the TS safes at the pentagon I think I know who Jane's is and have first hand knowledge of their working relationship with the Pentagon. There is a working relationship with Jane's that allows them to release some information but not all. Jane's knows they are not getting the whole picture but what is released is verifyable. You will notice they prefer to have facts and not just speculation. I sat in on a meeting with Jane's who was requesting access to plans for the next generation of safe locks( tamper and X-Ray proof). We did verify that they were to be 100% plastic that resisted X-Rays which they had figured out but no details were released untill 1 year later and the product was released comercially. What is your relationship with Jane's?

The fact you have disclosed you are privy to the above information may have jepordized national security. Why would you even disclose what kind of locks in use? Janes can guess all they want, you don't have to confirm that.
I'm not saying you would willingly give up information, though it seems you have, but whats to stop a terrorist reading this, from beating the stuffing out of you to extract what else they think you may know?
Highly unlikely, of course. but you still gave up more than I did by taking a slide which will sit in a box only to be seen by me.
Simcox

The facts I quoted are 21 years old and as stated became common knowledge 1 year later. It was not my choice to confirm the info to Jane's but the DOD's. The request made on the BNSF guide lines are simple "Do not take pictures of military trains and equipment". You obviously feel this does not apply to you. I guess that makes you a "special person". The box cars you asked about routinely carry materials that are considered Haz-Mat in nature and the color is to help ID them in case of emergency. As far as the rocket boosters I am unaware of any such restrictions as far as NASA is concerned. No where has anyone alluded to any motives on your part for using any photo's for anything less than honorable reasons. Can the same be said for everyone who might wi***o take such photo's?[?]

[zugmann]

You guys really need to find a new source of water. I fear there is something in yours...


I sure hope you don't take photos of trians carrying oil, ethanol, chlorine, auto parts, coal, or anything else for that matter. Heck throw out your camera...you could be giving info as we speak.

Whatever.

[youngengineer]

I say shoot away screw security, screw those who work for the government they are only trying to keep the truth from us, and hmmm what other crazed rants can I find to support my right to be an American.

To live in America is a great great privilege, to be born American is the greatest gift ever, yet we stand around and try to question everything our government does, if the military says do not photgraph our trains, than why whine, there are only 10,000 other trains out there.

I think sometimes our zeal to be totally unihibited gets in the way of common sense, we are so spoiled with absolute freedom that when asked not to do something all we can do is cry like a baby, why does the miltary say dont photograph there trains, hmmmm maybe because they didnt want the bullet point to read, you may photograph cars dodx ??????? through dodx ?????? but not these cars, and these open load cars are ok a but not these ones and so on. If one does not like that the miltiary is trampling on your right to photograph anything you want at anytime, (still trying to find the right to take photos at anytime anywhere in the constitution), than you should go to russia or say china and take a photo of there military trains and see what the penalty is.

Just my two cents.[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

As the former VP of a Safe and Lock company that held the contract to change all the TS safes at the pentagon I think I know who Jane's is and have first hand knowledge of their working relationship with the Pentagon. There is a working relationship with Jane's that allows them to release some information but not all. Jane's knows they are not getting the whole picture but what is released is verifyable. You will notice they prefer to have facts and not just speculation. I sat in on a meeting with Jane's who was requesting access to plans for the next generation of safe locks( tamper and X-Ray proof). We did verify that they were to be 100% plastic that resisted X-Rays which they had figured out but no details were released untill 1 year later and the product was released comercially. What is your relationship with Jane's? [?]

The fact you have disclosed you are privy to the above information may have jepordized national security. Why would you even disclose what kind of locks in use? Janes can guess all they want, you don't have to confirm that.

I'm not saying you would willingly give up information, though it seems you have, but whats to stop a terrorist reading this, from beating the stuffing out of you to extract what else they think you may know?

Highly unlikely, of course. but you still gave up more than I did by taking a slide which will sit in a box only to be seen by me.

In addition, have you read some of the military aircraft magazines? some give more info than any train mag ever.

This case is closed!

Simcox

[Anonymous]

I said pray not prey, you goof! I was just quoting your moronic rant.

By the way a warthog is an Fairchild A-10 attack plane, not some flying pigs.

Frankly the "warm fuzzy feeling" I get is of the enjoyment of taking pictures of trains, military and otherwise.

Simcox

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

Dear rrandb,
Since you now are a member of the coveted "Citizens for Rail Security" and even though you pray that you never meet me trackside, what happens if your prayers are not answered and you happen to see me taking a picture of a military train.
What will then happen, will you fulfill your obligation to save America's railroads (the BNSF anyway) and report me to the authorities? Or should I surrender to you for detention?
Will you have a railfan checkpoint set up to capture me? "Your orange card please"
This could be quite the manhunt!
Ford Simcox
Undocumented railfan, still on the loose.

Why ? Is this something that would give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside? I kow my buddy Ted Nugent enjoys hunting "Live Game". Are you offering to be "prey" [?] [:-^]

[Anonymous]

Question, would the ban on military photography include rocket motor shipments?

I occasionally see them on their way to a (location censored ) for the launching of ( craft name censored) into (exact area of space censored).

Again, just wondering.

Ford

[Anonymous]

By the way, has any one seen those yellow boxcars with the red doors that say "United States Army" in big red letters?

If the military is concerned about keeping a low profile and being stealthy, is this a good paint scheme?

Just wondering.

Ford Simcox
I also have pictures of those boxcars!

[Anonymous]

Dear rrandb,

Since you now are a member of the coveted "Citizens for Rail Security" and even though you pray that you never meet me trackside, what happens if your prayers are not answered and you happen to see me taking a picture of a military train.

What will then happen, will you fulfill your obligation to save America's railroads (the BNSF anyway) and report me to the authorities? Or should I surrender to you for detention?

Will you have a railfan checkpoint set up to capture me? "Your orange card please"

This could be quite the manhunt!

Ford Simcox
Undocumented railfan, still on the loose.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zugmann

Sit down, Rush.

We are talking about loads being transported UNCOVERED out in the OPEN being hauled by PRIVATE common carriers. And any employee can easily track said loads. If it was so vital, they'd at least toss a blue tarp over them. Or someone with a really big gun would tell me not to look. I do see plenty of warthogs flying overhead. Shall I divert my attention to the lovely ground next time?

Let me answer your last question first. If those flying pigs you got are anything like the ones we have that are on the ground the last place you should be looking is up. If fact you may want to find some shelter or even duck and cover especially if they are like our local flying birds.The real sensitive stuff is shipped in sealed and escorted cotainers. Larger items are covered and escorted. There is little choice but to use PRIVATE CC's as we have no military railroad systems. No where do they state there request only applies to UNCOVERED military trains? The request is very simple. What ever you do in flying warthog country is up to you. [2c]

[gabe]

Apparently, I just now have my ears on. But, thank you.

All I can add to this, is forbidding photography of military trains and installations is hardly anything new--either in law or in practice.

There have been greater civil liberties that have been trounced upon with a free pass from our highest court by use of a military explanation: the allien and sedition acts, American concentration camps, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus come to mind most easily.

Is it necessary? I don't have the answer.

Gabe

[zugmann]

Sit down, Rush.

We are talking about loads being transported UNCOVERED out in the OPEN being hauled by PRIVATE common carriers. And any employee can easily track said loads. If it was so vital, they'd at least toss a blue tarp over them. Or someone with a really big gun would tell me not to look. (and I would comply... [;)])

I never see much DODX stuff around here....so I guess the point is moot. But I do see plenty of warthogs flying overhead. Shall I divert my attention to the lovely ground next time?

[rrandb]

This is not the RR's request but "OUR" governments. That means all of US are in this together. I will and have defended your first amed. rights to take said photo's. You have been politely asked to refrain. You can find plenty of published photo's of DODX equipment with loads if that's what you are interested in. If you are not part of the soulution then you are part of the problem.

[zugmann]

Funny...I go by the laws of the land. Not what some private corporation "tells me" what I can and cannot do off of their property.

And dude...stop being so paranoid. You're driving tin prices up.

[Anonymous]

Whats the freakin problem here?...........if the railroad says dont do it, then just dont freakin do it. You may think you know all the reasons why you can and should, but I would bet that there are MANY things we dont know and probably dont want to know. Seems like a few of you are bent on taking the pictures regardless, so if you are deliberately doing something the RR asked you not to, no wonder the RRs have a bad outlook on railfans. Yeah, yeah I know you have rights.....well so does my brother whos been in Iraq, along with all of our troops over seas and at home.....if there is even the SLIGHTEST possiblility a picture could help the enemy would you take it? Sure sounds like some of you would because you have "rights". How do you know it cant help the enemy?
Shaun........locomotive engineer.

[Anonymous]

Bottom line, there is no law against it!

Yes you may be questioned or even detained.

But you haven't broken any law unless intent to commit a crime is proven.

You guys aren't casing the joint are you?

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dsktc

Your assumptions were rendered
obsolete by the invention and
mass proliferation of cell phones with cameras.

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon


As for 1), LMAO! Thanks, and I agree.
As for 2), I'd have to agree again. The *** have nothing to do with anything. Our enemies and potential enemies are not limited to insurgents in Iraq and The Stan. Iran, North Korea, and even China have a keen interest in everything we do militarily. Can we hide it all? Hell no. Do we have to spoon feed it to them? Absolutely not.

Techology may change, but the basics of collection and analysis remain the same. But of course you already knew that since you are well versed in this process.

[Anonymous]

Your assumptions were rendered
obsolete by the invention and
mass proliferation of cell phones with cameras.

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon


As for 1), LMAO! Thanks, and I agree.
As for 2), I'd have to agree again. The *** have nothing to do with anything. Our enemies and potential enemies are not limited to insurgents in Iraq and The Stan. Iran, North Korea, and even China have a keen interest in everything we do militarily. Can we hide it all? Hell no. Do we have to spoon feed it to them? Absolutely not.

[Anonymous]

Sorry. You don't have a need to know.
[:)]

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

. What is your relationship with Jane's? [?]

[Anonymous]

Actually, you are wrong on both
counts.

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by dsktc

This part of your statement is one of the dumbest
things I have read on this forum.

This is not 1944 and our enemy is not the ***.

You are still fighting the last war.

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by LAHDPOP

A couple pictures of a military train will NOT ruin the war effort. But it may very well provide a tiny piece of information to someone who wants to do us harm. Three, four, or twenty of these little pieces of information can indeed add up to give an enemy actionable intelligence concerning our capabilties abroad, or our vulnerabilities at home. Just something to think about.

If you think this is one of the dumbest statements you have read, then:

1) you don't read too much here..and
2) you have very little knowledge of intelligence collection and should perhaps refrain from commenting on it and stick to trains.

Dan

[zugmann]

To go by some people's thoughts on rail and terrorism security, one should refrain from all railroad photography. Esp. trains serving power plants, refineries, distribution centers, etc.

Heck, don't take photos of rivers or streams (water supply), landscapes (terrain), streetscapes (transportation infrastructure) or anything else for that matter.

No thanks.

[rrandb]

As the former VP of a Safe and Lock company that held the contract to change all the TS safes at the pentagon I think I know who Jane's is and have first hand knowledge of their working relationship with the Pentagon. There is a working relationship with Jane's that allows them to release some information but not all. Jane's knows they are not getting the whole picture but what is released is verifyable. You will notice they prefer to have facts and not just speculation. I sat in on a meeting with Jane's who was requesting access to plans for the next generation of safe locks( tamper and X-Ray proof). We did verify that they were to be 100% plastic that resisted X-Rays which they had figured out but no details were released untill 1 year later and the product was released comercially. What is your relationship with Jane's? [?]