You obviously feel passionately that you are correct. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean you are correct. In fact, this whole point is flawed from the beginning. Nobody is suggesting harassing random photographers is a good idea, therefore the rest of your point is moot.
But harassment of random photographers is
exactly what's happening! Just read the numerous accounts of perfectly ordinary photographers, tourists and photography students who are hounded by power-tripping renta-cops or assorted "security" thugs who accost them in blatant ignorance of the relevant laws. Meanwhile somehow there are no reports of terrorists being arrested because they were caught photographing "X".
Yeah, I agree. Pointless harassment is a bad thing. Reasonable concern about someone taking quick snapshots of the local nuclear plant is another thing entirely.
There is NO "reasonable concern" - there is only reasonable suspicion of a law being violated. If the photographer is taking "quick snapshots" or "slow snapshots" or "medium speed snapshots" of a nuclear plant, the
only question is whether he's violating a law or not. If the area is restricted, or photography is forbidden - no question, yes, confront/arrest the photog. However, if he/she not violating any law, then no, the police have NO right to question, stop or otherwise interfere with the photographer. The exact reason why we have laws restricting the powers of the police is because of that - you CANNOT simply stop someone, unless you can demonstrate a REASONABLE suspicion that a
crime is being committed (and a judge will have to vet the "reasonableness" of that should it come to that, and you'll have to present
evidence of it, not mere "suspicion"). You cannot stop a photog merely because the snapshots he took of the nuclear plant were "kinda quick" or whatever rubbish... taking pictures - fast or slow - of a nuclear plant is not a crime (if it doesn't happen in restricted areas, of course). Only suspicion of
crime counts.
To the other poster who mentioned road blocks - this is utterly irrelevant, for multiple reasons. First, being in a vehicle, you voluntarily give up a measure of privacy and agree to be stopped by relevant authorities. Merely being in public space that doesn't have restricted use provisions (which roadways and cars do), you are NOT giving up privacy to any random cop. Second, and most importantly, you can show a direct empirical relationship between drinking and driving and accidents. That makes it a public interest issue in THAT respect - note, by the way, that when a cop stops you in a blockade, he can only ascertain your sobriety status (and driving right - license), it doesn't give him the right to ask for anything else not related to the roadblock. In the case of a photography and terrorism we have ZERO documented evidence of a photographer link to terrorism (unlike the richly documented link between drunk driving and accidents). Thus you cannot make it a public interest issue which allows a measure like roadblocks (in this case "questioning a photographer"). Again, this is pure idiocy. There is no comparison.