File :-(, x, )
should we tag photographers? Anonymous
Are they harmless toys for eliteist liberals, or an unregulated tool for terrorists, lawbreakers and sexual deviants hell-bent on undermining America’s conservative values, morality and traditions? Americans are starting to realize the risks of this new technology: It’s time to act. We at STR.com believe that this potentially harmful technology should be registered and only allowed into the hands of those who can use it responsibly. We do not endorse banning these devices, we only need to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. Camera ownership is not constitutionally protected right. We do not object to law-abiding citizens owning cameras.

Do you agree that licenced ownership of cameras and id-tagged gear and photographic software would be a solution?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
wtf is this shit?
>> Anonymous
obvious troll etc..
>> Anonymous
I lol'd
>> Anonymous
photojournalists, moar liek phototerrorists amirite?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Hard working police officers have found themselves hounded by camera wielding liberals intent on disrupting their peace-keeping activities. There are few police officers who have not been threatened by liberal activists who claim to have gathered “evidence of “unfairness” or “brutality”. Why do we allow liberals to persecute the brave men and women who do the best to protect America from the forces of terrorism and communism? Who will save our fighting men from the liberals armed with cameras and hate for America?

If only this were the limit to the threat that these out of control technologies pose we could contain the problem, unfortunately this digital technology has found it’s way into the hands of every al-queda operative that the Democrats invited into America. These evil islamofascists have been ordered to photograph government employees and buildings. They are building a dossier on every single American Christian, so that when the tribulations start they can have their revenge on us.

The innocent looking man taking zoom-lens photos of the White house may be plotting to kill the President. Unlike film-based photography, there is no way for government agents to scrutinize the photos - they are sent by the Internet directly to an Al-Queda intelligence bunker where Osama Bin Laden personally plots the downfall of all we hold dear.
>> Anonymous
This stuff is great. Where are you getting it?
>> Anonymous
>>88282
oh wow, Orwellian much?

>Unlike film-based photography, there is no way for government agents to scrutinize the photos - they are sent by the Internet directly

'cause everyone take film to walmart for developing right?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
this is becoming epic, needs more.
>> Anonymous
>>88283

Google turns up http://www.shelleytherepublican.com
>> Anonymous
Article:

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/2006/11/21/when-will-we-digitally-disarm-the-terrorists.aspx
>> Anonymous
"The majority of liberals who own expensive digital cameras are members of “kiddie-porn clubs”."

fucking christ
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
"This foreign-made camera is one of Osama’s eyes in America. The evil islamofascist leader is collecting images of your family for his evil dossier."
>> Anonymous
That is just the kind of common sense I’ve come to expect from this great Christian Republican web site! God bless you for continuing to educate us on the great dangers facing us in this time of liberal domination of our lifestyle. I’ve long thought that digital cameras were the work of the Devil and are primarily used to photograph people without clothes on and performing acts that should only be performed by married couples in total darkness. That they are used mostly by pedophiles, terrorists and liberals (all pretty much the same thing by the way!) shouldn’t surprise me too much I suppose.

I had previously advocated digital cameras being totally banned along with pornography and masturbation devices but your idea about registering them makes much more sense. We need our guns and I definitely don’t support gun registration or any restrictions on our guns but there is no way we need those silly digital cameras unless they are needed for anti-terrorist work or Church related activities. Okay you can take pictures of your kids as long as they are fully dressed. If these liberals, terrorists and pedophiles want to take pictures let them get a Kodak box camera like I have. That way the people who work in the drug store photo labs will be able to confiscate any suspicious pictures that look like terrorist surveilance or people naked or engaged in immoral sex acts and the terrorists and perverted liberals will be brought to justice. Thanks again for your usual rational approach to another serious problem facing this great country of ours. God bless all on this great website and God bless America!
>> Anonymous
id love to hang out in the street in front of her house with the chunkiest camera i can find
>> Anonymous
I make my kiddie-porn with a view camera, contact prints always. It's the only way to be safe from the government/Wal-Mart!
>> Anonymous
its a good thing that Kodak has that anti-terrorism/kiddie porn coating on their lenses
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I can't even tell if the guy who wrote the article is an epic troll, on drugs or just ill.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2002:08:13 19:48:21Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width512Image Height384
>> Anonymous
>>88311
Take your pick. It doesn't really matter. Idiocy is idiocy.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
OMG I just looked around that site, they must believe fact-checking is immoral.
>> Anonymous
"If we do not act today, the next “clicks” you hear will be the bullets that kill your wife and children."

that being said of course, GUN CONTROL should never be advocated for, because that would totally be anti-american.
>> Anonymous
greatest troll ever
>> Anonymous
>The majority of liberals who own expensive digital cameras are members of “kiddie-porn clubs"

/b/ is that way.
>> Anonymous
>an impenetrable anti-terrorist ring around London

Does this guy even watch the news?
>> Anonymous
Even as a amateur photographer I must agree that something must be done! It's not only about suspect guys taking pictures of official buildings, it's a lot worse than that, this technology is being used to undermine American businesses! Digital cameras can be used to photograph copyrighted buildings or take videos of movies in theaters. American made movies often appear as “cams”, low quality digital clones available at a fraction of the price. Anybody who visits the bazaars of Syria and Iran will see a brisk trade in pirated American movies.

According to research by the RIAA, profit from the sale of these counterfeit movies goes to buy assault rifles for Al-Queda. Would this have been possible without digital cameras? Of course not. So lets find a solution to the digital photography problem.
>> Anonymous
>>88285

you got a point, nondigital cams should also need to be registered, and all existing cams should get fingerprinted and the owners registered!
>> else !L6xabslN96
enjoy your totalitarian society, amerifags.