Originally Posted by
sbrower
I will answer your question in the next paragraph. But, as a background matter, I want to make sure we aren't getting confused about the significance of suspicious. What I am saying is that the suspicion, or lack thereof, in the person reporting the factual circumstances, are not particulaly important.
I understood and understand.
Now, to answer your question, if someone is seen at five different terminals, at 2 different airports, on the same day, taking over 100 pictures of the screening area, from inside and outside, I would think that is suspicious. Suspicious of breaking a law? Maybe not. Suspicous that the person might have an abnormal mental process? Maybe so. Dangerous mental process? Beyond my personal expertise. Terrorist mental process? I would assume "no" because it stands out too much. But that doesn't mean that it isn't suspicious.
I am not trying to be nit picky here, but you still haven't actually defined what is suspicious other than because you think it might be.
Suspicion, by and large, is based on historical events that have led to some bad act. If you see a guy in a ski mask with a slim jim looking into all sorts of cars, there is a genuine suspicion that he may be planning to break into those cars because in the past guys in ski masks with slim jims looking into cars have broken into them. Etc.
As far as I know, there are no historical events that have demonstrated that people taking photos of the TSA X-ray monitors has led to bad acts within aviation.
Be that as it may, I guess I might be swayed to your understanding of suspicion if I knew exactly what could be gleaned from a photo of a monitor of an x-ray of my shoes that would aid terrorists.