Unclear on his job description

In the March 2008 issue of Popular Mechanics magazine, a reader has a letter published in response to an excellent January opinion article on fighting back against surveillance in society, "Watching the Watchers", by Glenn Reynolds. Here is part of that reader's letter (emphases mine):

"As a security officer in downtown Akron, Ohio, one of my duties is to shoo away would-be photographers. Chances are no harm can come from photos taken with innocent objectives, but even these may fall into the wrong hands. Such photos can document things like the position of security cameras or security personnel. There needs to be more public discussion of these topics in order to find solutions that don't compromise our freedom, safety, or privacy, but not necessarily in that order."

How distasteful. One imagines this "operator" wannabe stalking around his "objectives" in the high-value target of Akron, bothering grandparents who want to take pics of the family in front of a fountain, or hassling architecture students working on a class project.

As far as I know, visitors to Akron, the taking of a photograph in and of a public place is still perfectly legal in this country, regardless of what this boob goes around telling you. Feel free to tell him to go pound sand if he disrupts your day. Since there are more and more cameras on every corner watching one's every move, as Reynolds correctly writes, it's only fair to be able to photograph the watchers, including this guard, right back.

What's even more disheartening to me about the reader's letter is the fact that this apparently literate "guard" can't see fit to automatically rate freedom and privacy over safety, but instead needs more "public discussion" in order to talk about how to finally finish installing the perfect nanny state, ensuring perpetual job security for him and his buddies.