My 2 cents, although by the time I'm done, I may need change of a dollar.
1) As a few of you know, I get very suspicious of any person/organization that cites "security" for what turns out to be self-serving purposes. If you want to sell overpriced food and water, fine. Just don't mask that by saying people can't bring in their own bottle of Poland Spring for "security" reasons. Photos are often banned because officialdom isn't as concerned about security as they are about simply being seen in an unflattering light. Anyone familiar with George Orwell's "Animal Farm" might remember that any time the animals questioned the self-serving decisions of the pigs, the pigs simply replied, "Surely you don't want Jones back?" Now "security" is the catch-all answer to anyone who questions authority.
2) If some one needs photos of a building, person, etc. for sinister purposes, there has never been, and there will never be, a no-photography policy that will prevent that person from getting the photos, videotape, etc. that he needs. With cellphone cameras and ever-smaller digital cameras, it is extremely easy to conceal a camera.
3) Because photo bans are impossible to enforce, banning photography could actually be counter-productive and make it easier for potential terrorists. Questioning and chasing railfans (on lawful, public property) distracts police from the real search for terrorists. And more important, countless crimes have been solved because somebody taking a picture of a tree, train, friend, etc. also recorded the presence of a suspect in the background. So if a bombing or other act took place, having many photos of the site taken in the days, weeks and months prior to the event may help to identify suspects. Maybe officials think security cameras can do that job, but I think you can't have too many sets of eyes.
4) Taking photos from public places is one thing, but railroads do have a point about increasing vigilance of people trespassing to get photos. Where once walking down the tracks to a photo spot was not considered a big deal, a vandal, thief or terrorist could obscure their intent by pretending to be a railfan. (Imagine that: Somebody WANTING to look like a railfan!) Put a camera around Timothy McViegh's neck, and he'd look like any other railfan even though he might be scouting out an attack.
4) From an intellectual property viewpoint, the law is pretty simple. If you can see something from public property, it is basically in the public domain. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame sued a photographer who sold photos of the outside of the building, claiming the photographer violated the Hall's rights to its images. The courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, said that anything inside is their property, and a photographer would need permission to reproduce those images. However, this photographer's shots were taken of the outside of the building from public property, and the R&R Hall of Fame could not dictate the use of its image when viewed from public areas. Otherwise a photo or post card of a city skyline would require the permission of everybuilding owner in the shot. Simply not realistic. There are limits. This ruling does not outweigh people's reasonable expectations of privacy (i.e you don't have a right to photograph somebody through a bedroom window, even from the sidewalk) and legitimate concerns for safety and security can prevail, and probably would in the case of transportation facilities.
But as I said, no photo ban will stop a determined terrorist from getting what he needs.
"But Dad. It's Smokey!"
