"When taking pictures is a 'suspicious activity'"

The story does not mention our specific subset but the point is well made.

George Will wrote:Herewith a story of today’s inevitable friction between people exercising, and others protecting, freedom.

Full story: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will011912.php3

As are instances of government overreaching in the name of security. Most seasoned law enforcement professionals, however, have sufficient judgment to accommodate the fact that online opportunities for the dissemination of photographs mean lots of people can plausibly claim to be photojournalists.

Funny thing, whenever I had problems, it was never with actual law enforcement - just with railroad employees. Cops have always been really cool, even recommended places for me to get videos and photos. :D

How is the point "well made" when George merely speculates that it's possible that terrorists might (might) take photographs of their targets first? Of course it's possible. It's also possible that they take detailed sketches, contact the town office for maps of the sites, interview former employees, fly drones over the area to take overhead shots, and shoot anybody who tries to stop them. It's also possible that they do a dance to try to bring down sulfuric acid rain on the target to get it to dissolve before their eyes. Many things are possible; fewer things are likely; and when it comes to terrorism (coward brain candy!), nothing is probable.

Another classic example of people trying to use 9/11 as a blanket excuse to justify their own paranoia.