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.

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

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?

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.

No Remembering – All Unauthorized Memories will be Confiscated!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.cryptome.org/

True enough: if it’s all in the open, who needs to spy?

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.