Reservoirs, airports off limits for photos? Infrastructure security bill too restrictive, critics say Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/10/06 BY NICHOLAS CLUNN STAFF WRITER=20 A state Senate bill that would make it illegal to collect information about= security and procedures at airports and other critical infrastructure thro= ugh observation could encroach on the freedoms of reporters and concerned c= itizens, journalism advocates say.=20 Unauthorized surveillance around power plants and facilities that deal with= sewage, water and flammable liquid over an extended period also would beco= me a fourth-degree crime, punishable by imprisonment for up to 18 months an= d a fine of up to $10,000, under the proposed legislation, sponsored by sta= te Sens. Fred H. Madden Jr. and Stephen M. Sweeney, both D-Gloucester.=20 In the Shore area, the bill =E2=80=94 S-330 =E2=80=94 would likely change t= he way journalists working in every medium would cover the Oyster Creek nuc= lear power plant in Lacey, several general aviation airports and dozens of = facilities that provide necessary services.=20 "It would basically make our job a criminal offense," said Thomas P. Costel= lo, regional director of the National Press Photographers Association and a= staff photographer for the Asbury Park Press.=20 Theoretically, the bill would empower police to arrest a photographer for t= aking pictures of people walking the pedestrian path that circles the reser= voir in Brick =E2=80=94 even if the pictures were meant to complement a sto= ry about a stretch of warm weather.=20 The bill does not specify that authorities would need to show that violator= s had intended to perform a terrorist act. The proposal's only exemption is= for people who obtain permission from the owner or manager of a facility.= =20 Neither Madden nor Sweeney could be reached for comment late Tuesday.=20 A hearing on the proposed measure is scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday before = the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee in the Statehouse Annex in Trent= on.=20 Critics of the bill are most concerned about the limitations it would put o= n journalists and concerned citizens who want to make sure that places in t= heir coverage areas or neighborhoods are well-protected and safe.=20 "I am not saying that there shouldn't be a concern for security post-9/11, = but this bill seems to strike a balance on the wrong side of the ledger," s= aid Thomas J. Cafferty, lawyer for the New Jersey Press Association and Gan= nett New Jersey newspapers.=20 John J. O'Brien, executive director of the press association, said the bill= 's broad wording makes it troublesome. An amendment could exempt journalist= s, but O'Brien said such a change would not help the average citizen.=20 "It's the public's right to know, not just the press' right to know," he sa= id.=20 Nicholas Clunn: (732) 643-4072 or nclunn@xxxxxxx =20 Roger & Amanda La France