As used in this section, the term “farm” includes any tract of land cultivated for the purpose of agricultural production, the raising and breeding of domestic animals, or the storage of a commodity.

Interesting.

I happen to have five pounds of flour stored in my pantry.  I guess I own a farm.

Roger, you point out 2 of the major holes in this bill.  As it's written a farm is almost ANYTHING, and the people at Google cleasrly have to spend the rest of their lives in jail for Google Earth and Street View.

Sounds like this guys idol is Joe Mcarthy.

Greg Cobb wrote:

This is a reply I received from someone in the Army who is stationed overseas:

As major farms in our country supply lots of our food, they naturally are targets for terriost attacks. That may sound stupid, but a biological attack on our food supply is very possible and would be to easy. Taking pictures of land, buildings, and other "areas" is the easiest way to gather the information needed to develop plans.

Greg, I could actually understand that, to a point, although I still wouldn't agree with the idea of making it a felony to photograph any nebulously defined "agricultural area" from otherwise public land... among other things, it'd be too easy to break the law ACCIDENTALLY.

But more to the point this guy SAID it was because of "creeping socialism" in the form of animal rights activists, not a WORD about terrorists & the food supply.  Plus, as noted, his district & some of his biggest supporters have been burned by things like the ABC News hidden camera pieces on migrant worker abuse... and this would make that illegal.

Greg Cobb wrote:

This is a reply I received from someone in the Army who is stationed overseas:

As major farms in our country supply lots of our food, they naturally are targets for terriost attacks. That may sound stupid, but a biological attack on our food supply is very possible and would be to easy. Taking pictures of land, buildings, and other "areas" is the easiest way to gather the information needed to develop plans.

ugh  with that mind set  DIRT would be a stratigic material  that could also be vulnerable to attack   guess we better close the boarders and put up metal detectors  and make people get permits to use the "DIRT"   

crops out in the field would be a an exceedingly poor target  because of its sheer size and volume   it is magnatudes more effective to attack the food after its picked but even then you would have to do ALOT to have any large effect.

even if someone tried to infect crops with some form of blight banning photography would do nothing to effect that.

http://www.salon.com/news/agriculture/i … y_open2011

Not sure about the interpretation given, "Norman is toting water for large agribusinesses" Salon is after all a supremely left leaning web site. Interesting never-the-less.

Dare2 be Photography wrote:

Greg Cobb wrote:

This is a reply I received from someone in the Army who is stationed overseas:

As major farms in our country supply lots of our food, they naturally are targets for terriost attacks. That may sound stupid, but a biological attack on our food supply is very possible and would be to easy. Taking pictures of land, buildings, and other "areas" is the easiest way to gather the information needed to develop plans.

ugh  with that mind set  DIRT would be a stratigic material  that could also be vulnerable to attack   guess we better close the boarders and put up metal detectors  and make people get permits to use the "DIRT"   

crops out in the field would be a an exceedingly poor target  because of its sheer size and volume   it is magnatudes more effective to attack the food after its picked but even then you would have to do ALOT to have any large effect.

even if someone tried to infect crops with some form of blight banning photography would do nothing to effect that.

Look up over your head.