Lockheed Martin sign prohibits sketching and "gathering information"

Jef Pozkanzer snapped this delightful pic of a way minatory sign on the chain-link outside a Lockheed-Martin factory. I love that they prohibit "gathering of information" -- I wonder what Claude Shannon would have to say about that. I'd love to see the court case, in any event, provided I wasn't the defendant.

unauthorized

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Anonymous

I wonder if they would mind me making a lovely oil painting of their warehouse.
- Michael Smith
  
  I wonder if they would mind me making a lovely oil painting of their warehouse.
  I am sure they would, but what would they do about me remembering the appearance of their warehouse?
semiotix

Lockheed-Martin was in charge of the last census collection. Gathering of information indeed!

Whoa whoa whoa. They were a contractor, not in charge. I mean, a pencil company supplied the census with some pencils too, but that doesn’t mean it was Eberhard Faber knocking on my door, or H&R Block levying taxes on me, or whatever.

Besides which, the census is a Good Thing. I’m fine with high-tech defense companies getting involved if it distracts them from what they normally do.
- rebus
  
  I figured someone would jump on my wording. Let me fix that for you:
  
  Lockheed-Martin created and managed the databases that collected and now hold personal identifying information – name, address, income rate, opt. phone number, race – on every citizen in the country (as authorized by the Government in order to service the US Census.)
  
  Is that better?
  - semiotix
    
    Much better!
    
    Incidentally, all that data you mentioned can be bought from private companies for chump change. (Except it’s more complete, since lots of the people who are too suspicious to fill out a census form have three credit cards.)
    
    And given the unique legal nastiness that goes along with census data, I’d bet the farm that Lockheed-Martin took some rather extraordinary measures to make sure the gummint didn’t think it was keeping any of that data for itself. (Companies of that size have lawyers and board members rich enough to try real hard not to go to jail for pointless, avoidable reasons.)
    
    But yeah–they built a database, subcontracted some call centers, and operated a government server farm. I have no idea if they did it cheapest or best, but they did it.
Anonymous

California Penal Code 552-555, the state code provisions cited on the sign, do not prohibit photography, sketching or the gathering of information. Instead, these provisions authorize the posting of “No Tresspassing” signs on certain types of properties where the general public is accorded access, thereby making it a misdemeanor to enter, remain upon, or loiter in the immediate vicinity of any such posted property without the written permission of the owner. Per CPC 553, these provisions of the California Penal Code expressly do not apply to “the lawful use of an established and
existing right of way for public road purposes.” Indeed, the sign above does not satisfy the substantive requirements of California Penal Code 553(a), which brings into doubt its legal effectiveness in any case.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=60566611654+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Anonymous

Imply and deny.
Marcel

If it’s Lockheed Martin they probably try to prevent you from taking pictures of them pouring buckets of pork down the F-35′s jet engines to see how fast it burns.
Anonymous

I just wanted to congratulate the author on his word choice of ‘minatory’. Such a good word.
knoxblox

News Flash: A local group of retirees, who claimed to be “plein-air” painters were handcuffed and hauled off to jail today…
donniebnyc

They forgot this:

No Remembering – All Unauthorized Memories will be Confiscated!
Ugly Canuck

Hey you! Yeah, you!

Put that information back where it was! Right now!
Don’t you make me use this!
niro5

They cite statutes, and they don’t seem to be over stating them either:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/793.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000794—-000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000795—-000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000797—-000-.html
Matt Staggs

“By knowingly or unknowingly viewing this sign or installation, unauthorized individuals hereby imply consent for the application of surgery for the purpose of removing contraband neurodata, up to but not limited to immediate memories of said installation and any schematically linked semantic associations. Homeland Security mandate #25812-AAA”
niro5

I don’t get it, are people saying spying should be legal?
- delt664
  
  No, they are saying that photography of things that are out in the open, viewable from public places is not spying.
  - Anonymous
    
    What exactly makes you think it’s out in the open and viewable from a public place?
- Ugly Canuck
  
  It could be that the only way to make spying truly obsolete and useless would be to abolish all secrecy, everywhere.
  
  http://www.cryptome.org/
  
  True enough: if it’s all in the open, who needs to spy?
  - niro5
    
    Good point, can I have your ATM Pin and mother’s maiden name? I would hate to have to look for it.
    
    Sure, I would love to live in a world where we didn’t need secrets, or armies for that matter. But we do not live in that world yet, and pretending we do won’t get us there any faster.
    - Ugly Canuck
      
      Ah, but those are recent innovations. I sign my name on my cheques, every one.
    - Ugly Canuck
      
      Nor will not even trying to get there “help”.
    - Ugly Canuck
      
      Finally: gov or corp secrecy does not equal nor equate to individual privacy.
      My privacy depends upon the discretion of those I deal with.
      As it ever has, and ever will.
ill lich

Just by posting this photo you have made all of us who view it lawbreakers. Thanks, thanks a lot.
sapere_aude

Um … Cory, do you realize that you just posted evidence of a crime for the whole world to see? The sign says that taking unauthorized photos is a crime. Therefore, I would have to assume that taking unauthorized photos of the sign is also a crime. So, you just fingered Mr. Pozkanzer for committing a crime which, if we are to believe the sign, will be prosecuted. And your post has provided the prosecution with enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps you should have thought this through before posting this; or at least before publicly identifying who broke the law in order to take this photo.
Ugly Canuck

These laws actually all try to regulate and control not the information per se, but people’s conduct with respect to the information: specifically, deceptive conduct with an intent to harm another, or the State.
Deceptive conduct; either in the obtaining of the info itself, or ( usually punished even more severely) the putting to such use of any information so obtained.

Where the information itself covers up a deception with intent to harm others or the State, or if the release of the information itself is incapable of harming anybody’s interests, I cannot see why liability ought to result – even if deception was used in its obtainment. But perhaps the Law may not be capable of discerning such cases in advance, and prefers to err on the side of those who have legitimate secrets to keep.

The law must aim at p0rohibiting or discouraging actually, or at least potentially, harmful conduct. And by and large, in the US and Canada, these “information” laws seem to. IMHO.
Anonymous

You can read the cited portions of U.S. code here:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC793
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC794
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC795
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC797

None of them say “you can’t photograph this,” unless: it is a government-owned facility and you have intent to harm the United States, or: it is a facility specially-designated by the President, like the Pentagon.
Chris Tucker

I am thinking that this particular installation is a defense plant.

And as such, yes, it really IS a federal crime to photograph, sketch or otherwise “gather information” about anything inside the fenceline.

The close up image of the warning sign that is outside the fenceline is permissible, and as there is nothing visible in that particular image other than a corner of a building, a road trees and grass, there has been no transmission of sensitive information to a foreign power.
Anonymous

“Gathering of information”: please turn your brain off and don’t think of anything, don’t remember anything. If we find out that you have remembered anything, this is punishable by law.
delt664

ANAL, but lets look at 18 USC.

793 –
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation…….

794-
Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be
used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a
foreign nation

795-
Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto…..

797-
Defines the penalty for section 795

So the question is if the location in question is covered by section 795, and it looks like it is:

(f) Any commercial establishment engaged in the development or manufacture of classified military or naval arms, munitions, equipment, designs, ships, aircraft, or vessels for the United States Army, Navy, or Air Force.
- Ugly Canuck
  
  So..it seems to me that it is not the simple or mere possession of information which is forbidden: but an intent concerning its use is required before such possession (or obtainment) of information becomes liable to punishment.
  Unless the mere possession of the information can ground a reasonable inference as to the possessor’s intent, there can be no offense in merely possessing that info – in your mind, at any rate.
  Not a “thought crime’ – quite, or yet, it seems to me.
- Church
  
  “with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States”
  
  Yeah, I’m going to assume anything *in plain sight* isn’t all that super sekrit.
DreadJester

I agree Niro5. It’s not as though this is any new item or practice. For decades military bases have had these exact same worded signs all around areas they house equipment in. Why are they there?? Because we have military secrets inside those areas that we don’t want to leak out to the other countries or peoples that might use it against us. What military secrets you ask?? Well just about every piece of military equipment has some parts and configurations that are considered classified or more within the military.

Just as a for instance, if a tank was all that stood between you and an enemy would you want the enemy to know all they had to do was shove a banana in the tailpipe to shut down the tank? Now granted, I’m exaggerating there but experts in nearly any field can look and something and figure out what does what. This is why the sign is there. Granted, this is at Lockheed-Martin but they do create many things for the military.

So yes, it may seem crazy but there is a reason for it and it’s not something that’s just started up after 9-11. This has been standard practice for decades.
Anonymous

I am sure glad that so many people here have no problem with this sign. It means there is still common sense in this country. Lockheed-Martain is a defense contractor, and makes stuff for the military of this country and several of its allies. Of course it is illegal to Photograph, sketch, or gather information. I’ll tell you this, even for employees, it is illegal to photograph inside the premesis. No, you cannot take a picture of a plant you think is neat, a co-worker for your cell phone picture contact, or whatever. No photography inside of the fences. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.
DreadJester

Also note that the sign says absolutely nothing about video. Most likely because when the signs wording was drafted video cameras were not in widespread public use due to cost and size. Further proof that this is a decades old sign. Wonder if you could take video of the site and argue that it’s not mentioned on the sign. lol Anyone wanna give it a try??
DreadJester

Well I guess your bank account number will have to do then……..
- Ugly Canuck
  
  Threatening me with crime does not help your case.
  - Ugly Canuck
    
    Criminals like secrecy, don’t they?
BookGuy

That sign doesn’t say anything about sculpture or interpretive burlesque. Loophole!
jimkirk

You Can Tell They’re Serious By All The Capital Letters They Use.

It Would Convey Even More Emphasis If They “Quoted” Some Of The Words.
DreadJester

Ahh, but you see it does equate. Just as trade secrets in any business equate. Every person, group, business, and country has the right to privacy and the discretion to decide what they tell those they deal with and do not deal with.

Many businesses are only one person such as the case of a friend of mine who creates pistol grips. Are you saying he has no right to keep his trade secrets as private as he would like just because he has a business?? Are you implying that your individual right to privacy is greater than others just because they are part of a group, business, or government??
- Ugly Canuck
  
  They must, as do I, rely upon the discretion of those with whom they deal to keep their “secrets”: the question is, to what extent the Law ought to assist them in keeping those secrets. For Govs, that’s a different question, than with the private orgs and individuals, whom I generally think ought to be left by the Law to fend off those who wish to know their “secrets” as best they can.
  If you are partially or wholly a gov agent or contractor, that complicates things further, I guess: for the Gov only acts by rules and regs: and they do have to take steps to prevent unauthorized (therefore “unofficial”) use of individuals’ private data, arising from tax forms, for eg., AND with respect to the information relating to secret military capabilities and such.
  Speaking for myself, the US gov seems to have its “heart” in the right place, and limits their Laws IMHO in the proper way: the intent of the possessor of the info remains the key to liability.
  As indeed intent is the key as to who ought to be able to access my personal data. And other than my physicians, lawyers, bankers, and tax assessors, what other people could possibly have any beneficial or indeed any other legitimate intent in accessing any of my personal private data without my prior knowledge and consent, at all?
DreadJester

Not totaly true Church. From a distance of 200′ or more it can be hard to make out some of the finer details of something. Pop on a zoom lens and you can make out all the tiny details you want. Also some things are out in the open and secret. At casual glance that row of trash cans could hide one in the middle that’s actually an Autobot that you wouldn’t have seen without careful inspection.
shadowfirebird

I like that it just says “gathering of information” and doesn’t say what about.

So I can’t measure the sign. Or check my tire pressures in front of it. Or see if my shoelaces are untied…
DreadJester

Oh, one last thing Canuck, most criminals want everything to be as open and exposed as possible, not secret. Please do let us know which train car all the gold will be in to save us the trouble of searching the whole train for it….. Please do let us know the exact route your taking that prized painting though town so we can steal it…. Can you please share with me what your company is about to do so I know how to play the stock market?…. How about you let me take a look at your company’s financial records so I can pad them and steal some money….. Where does your business get these parts from so cheap so I can get them too and try to out-sell you……. Oh, hey look, someone left their keys in an unlocked car…… Hey the new grocery store isn’t putting any theft detection in their meats, how about steak tonight????

There’s just a few examples for you.
- Church
  
  “… most criminals want everything to be as open and exposed as possible, not secret.”
  
  Yeah, and most companies want security via obscurity to work, too.
  
  It doesn’t work, and is even counter-productive since it leads to a false sense of security. Of course, the plus is that when it is inevitably penetrated, it’s easier to cover up.
- Ugly Canuck
  
  The enthusiasm of criminals for “openness” ends when the information under discussion turns to them, and is about themselves and their activities.
  But if the laws are just, and if those charged with their enforcement are also just, then what reason could a citizen in a free republic have against having every circumstance of her conduct open to question by those authorities? Other than perhaps embarrassment.
  But those “ifs” are very large “ifs”, are they not? But not insuperably so, IMHO.
- delt664
  
  “most criminals want everything to be as open and exposed as possible, not secret.”
  
  I disagree –
  
  Criminals want everything to appear to be secure, when it is actually not. With the illusion of security, people let their guard down.
  
  Example – You are out and about town riding your bicycle. If you did not have a security system, you would probably only park it where you can keep an eye on it. If you had one of those Kryptonite locks, you would feel comfortable enough to leave the bike. And then a criminal would have an opportunity to easily steal your bike that would otherwise not have existed. As it turns out, those Kryptonite locks are easily defeated by a Bic pen in about 2 seconds, and thus only give the illusion of security.
- Ugly Canuck
  
  Of course, if you live in a society of thieves, then nothing is ever safe from theft.
  
  Laws may serve to maintain the level of virtue in a society: but they cannot, alone, raise it.
Anonymous

Of all the no photography areas, this one.. not that bad. I work near here. This is the famed Skunk Works where all the cool classified toys come out of. Its not an airport, mall or other public place where I detest this whole gustopo thing. The photographer probably shot and walked or drove away quickly. Stand at any Lockeed fence for more than a few minutes with a camera and you will meet some very polite security officers with small guns, argue and you will meet Mlitary personal with bigger guns. They don’t screw around there, some of that property is Military and even more classified, or at least used to be some of the shinier stuff and uses have moved to other locations as silicon valley has grown and top secret planes and other things aren’t appropriete to fly out or haul out of there.
sapere_aude

@DreadJester, BookGuy, & shadowfirebird:

The actual wording of the sign is irrelevant. The only thing on the sign that is relevant to what specific actions are allowed or prohibited is what you see written in the lower right-hand corner: the citations of the relevant sections of the federal and state criminal codes.
- shadowfirebird
  
  Then why not just have a notice that stated the relevant codes? Because it wouldn’t mean anything.
  
  The rest of the text may not have a meaning in law, but it is an instruction to us – a comically vague, overblown, bureaucratic one.
  - sapere_aude
    
    Gets the point across, doesn’t it?
Anonymous

When the Iranians want to hide their nuke-building facilities, they don’t put up signs…

…at least, I don’t think they do….
rebus

From the So Ironic it Hurts Dept.:
Lockheed-Martin was in charge of the last census collection. Gathering of information indeed!