Re: Photography at airports
- Original Message - From: "Mishka" Subject: Re: Photography at airports this tuesday i was in a traffic court of a small westchester county town, and the first thing the clerk announced was "the new rules in effect after 9/11" (basically, if an the cop who wrote the ticket is not there, the ticket is *not* automatically dismissed anymore -- the cops have more important things than to come to court. like, catch (speeding) terrorists on I95). Kinda takes away your right to face your accuser. William Robb
RE: Photography at airports
I wonder when they'll get round to separate Christian and Muslim drinking fountains. -- Cheers, Bob > -Original Message- > From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 February 2006 06:43 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Photography at airports > > also, in secaucus ups pick-up hall, there used to be a sign > that "because of 9/11, blah blah blah..., the bathrooms are > for employees only". > i am not kidding, it's probably still there. > > best, > mishka > > > >
Re: Photography at airports
also, in secaucus ups pick-up hall, there used to be a sign that "because of 9/11, blah blah blah..., the bathrooms are for employees only". i am not kidding, it's probably still there. best, mishka
Re: Photography at airports
this tuesday i was in a traffic court of a small westchester county town, and the first thing the clerk announced was "the new rules in effect after 9/11" (basically, if an the cop who wrote the ticket is not there, the ticket is *not* automatically dismissed anymore -- the cops have more important things than to come to court. like, catch (speeding) terrorists on I95). we sure live in a different country now. i am wondering what else 9/11 is good for. emission inspections? insurance premiums? and, on a different note, i also agree very much with the author that the parallels with what used to go on on the other side of the curtain a couple of decades ago, become quite striking. best, mishka On 2/10/06, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/10/06, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Patrick writes eloquently about some run-ins with security while taking > > planespotting pics. I'm sure many of us have had the same experience.
Re: Photography at airports
Public Squares and City Sidewalks are definitely public, the flea market depends on location, but most are on private property in my experience. Generally public spaces applies to sidewalks, streets, public parks and public squares. IANAL however. -Adam Lon Williamson wrote: I'd like a nice, expert definition of the difference between public and private in the eyes of US law, where photography is concerned. I've run into people forbiding me to photograph in public squares, flea markets, local parks, and city sidewalks. Adam Maas wrote: Note that Airports, like Malls, are technically private property (Even if Government run) and management can restrict what you photograph while on private property.
Re: Photography at airports
Yep. The printer friendly version is available only after wading through their flash ads. On 2/10/06, David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: > > > Thanks for the link, Derby. Interesting article. I expect > > advertisements when reading this sort of thing, but unfortunately > > Salon has become exceedingly annoying with their method of presenting > > advertisements. I almost didn't read the article. > > A lot of sites have a link to a "printer friendly" page which are > much easier to read. I haven't been to Salon in ages, possibly due > to their advertising. I do remember giving up on Wired several years > ago because of the obnoxious ads. > > - Dave > > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
Re: Photography at airports
On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: Thanks for the link, Derby. Interesting article. I expect advertisements when reading this sort of thing, but unfortunately Salon has become exceedingly annoying with their method of presenting advertisements. I almost didn't read the article. A lot of sites have a link to a "printer friendly" page which are much easier to read. I haven't been to Salon in ages, possibly due to their advertising. I do remember giving up on Wired several years ago because of the obnoxious ads. - Dave
Re: Photography at airports
If you take unintelligent, poorly educated people, and give them the chance to exercise petty authority, guess what? They do. One of the problems with increased security is that most of the time the personnel don't have anything real to do. But they want to prove that they are necessary. So they find things that need their attention. That usually means harassing the public. Joe
Re: Photography at airports
I'd like a nice, expert definition of the difference between public and private in the eyes of US law, where photography is concerned. I've run into people forbiding me to photograph in public squares, flea markets, local parks, and city sidewalks. Adam Maas wrote: Note that Airports, like Malls, are technically private property (Even if Government run) and management can restrict what you photograph while on private property.
Re: Photography at airports
Note that Airports, like Malls, are technically private property (Even if Government run) and management can restrict what you photograph while on private property. -Adam Scott Loveless wrote: On 2/10/06, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Patrick writes eloquently about some run-ins with security while taking planespotting pics. I'm sure many of us have had the same experience. http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/02/10/askthepilot173/ Thanks for the link, Derby. Interesting article. I expect advertisements when reading this sort of thing, but unfortunately Salon has become exceedingly annoying with their method of presenting advertisements. I almost didn't read the article. In an effort to simplify it for the rest of us, the entire article follows. Feel free to flame me to a crisp for copyright violations, turn me over to INTERPOL, etc. Ask the pilot I took some pictures at the airport -- and fell into the clutches of bureaucrats mouthing the cheap prose of patriotic convenience. By Patrick Smith Feb. 10, 2006 | It was 1986, as our Finnair DC-9 descended through the midwinter overcast above Moscow. The captain came on to make the usual pre-landing announcement, this time with an addition: "Ladies and gentlemen, photography through the aircraft windows, or anywhere at the Moscow airport once we land, is forbidden." A stewardess then walked down the aisle, making sure we all had our cameras put away. From 10,000 feet, the landscape below was hardly photogenic -- sky, clouds and terrain merging in a featureless curtain of gunmetal gray. But the captain's warning wasn't a surprise, flavoring our arrival with a little Cold War excitement. This was, after all, communist Russia, and photography at public installations was, everyone knew, strictly off limits. As tourists from the so-called free world, we expected some firsthand experience with the constraints of Soviet society. But while the rules made good stories for friends back home, for an airplane buff they were highly vexing; I so badly wanted a picture of the Tupolev jet we'd later ride to Leningrad -- the terminal guard waving his finger as I gestured hopefully with my dad's old Minolta. It all seemed excessive, really. Skip forward 20 years. It's January 2006, and I'm at the airport in Manchester, N.H. This is a state, mind you, famous for its fiery brand of New England individualism -- a haven for refugees from big-government tyrannies, like that sweltering welfare state to the south, Massachusetts. Here, license plates cry liberty in no uncertain terms: "Live Free or Die." There's a shiny new airport in Manchester, and I'm there to take pictures as part of an article I'm working on for that mouthpiece of liberal fascism, the Boston Globe. I've shot about six digital pictures, and I'm working on the seventh -- a nicely framed view of the terminal façade -- when I hear the stern "Excuse me." A young guy in a navy windbreaker steps toward me. It says AIRPORT SECURITY in block letters across his back. "You can't do that. You need to put the camera away." "I do? Why?" "Pictures aren't allowed." "They're not?" "Sorry." "Sorry what? I don't think that's true, actually. I'm pretty sure that it isn't illegal to take pictures at an airport." "You'll need to talk to a deputy, sir." I slip the camera into a pocket as the guard, who despite his crested cap and cocksure understanding of the rules, is a private security guard and not a law enforcement official, quickly summons over two members of the Rockingham County sheriff's department, which administers the Manchester airport. The deputies -- a woman and a man -- are polite but stern, and they'd like to know exactly what I'm doing. "You need to have a permit to take photographs," one of them says. "Maybe we can call and see if they'll give you clearance." I'm not sure I believe it. "What do I need a permit for? Is there a rule here against taking pictures? Is it illegal?" "I don't know," she replies, crossly, as if the question somehow isn't relevant. "I don't think so, technically." "So, if not, why would I need a permit?" "That's what the airport wants. You'll have to ask the airport manager." They ask to see press credentials. When I explain that I'm a freelancer they demand a driver's license. The woman deputy takes it and disappears for several minutes. While waiting for my license to return from its secret mission, I tell the other officer how this is the same airport where, in 1986, I received my private pilot's license. From runway 35, four years later, I made my first takeoff as a cockpit crewmember. It's all very different now, in more ways than one. And I tell him how, as adolescent planespotters in the late '70s, my friends and I would scour the terminals at Boston-Logan every weekend, armed with cameras, notebooks and binoculars, taking pictures and logging tail numbers, fully aware that in many countries, hobbies like ours were essentially i
Re: Photography at airports
On 2/10/06, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Patrick writes eloquently about some run-ins with security while taking > planespotting pics. I'm sure many of us have had the same experience. > > http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/02/10/askthepilot173/ > Thanks for the link, Derby. Interesting article. I expect advertisements when reading this sort of thing, but unfortunately Salon has become exceedingly annoying with their method of presenting advertisements. I almost didn't read the article. In an effort to simplify it for the rest of us, the entire article follows. Feel free to flame me to a crisp for copyright violations, turn me over to INTERPOL, etc. Ask the pilot I took some pictures at the airport -- and fell into the clutches of bureaucrats mouthing the cheap prose of patriotic convenience. By Patrick Smith Feb. 10, 2006 | It was 1986, as our Finnair DC-9 descended through the midwinter overcast above Moscow. The captain came on to make the usual pre-landing announcement, this time with an addition: "Ladies and gentlemen, photography through the aircraft windows, or anywhere at the Moscow airport once we land, is forbidden." A stewardess then walked down the aisle, making sure we all had our cameras put away. >From 10,000 feet, the landscape below was hardly photogenic -- sky, clouds and terrain merging in a featureless curtain of gunmetal gray. But the captain's warning wasn't a surprise, flavoring our arrival with a little Cold War excitement. This was, after all, communist Russia, and photography at public installations was, everyone knew, strictly off limits. As tourists from the so-called free world, we expected some firsthand experience with the constraints of Soviet society. But while the rules made good stories for friends back home, for an airplane buff they were highly vexing; I so badly wanted a picture of the Tupolev jet we'd later ride to Leningrad -- the terminal guard waving his finger as I gestured hopefully with my dad's old Minolta. It all seemed excessive, really. Skip forward 20 years. It's January 2006, and I'm at the airport in Manchester, N.H. This is a state, mind you, famous for its fiery brand of New England individualism -- a haven for refugees from big-government tyrannies, like that sweltering welfare state to the south, Massachusetts. Here, license plates cry liberty in no uncertain terms: "Live Free or Die." There's a shiny new airport in Manchester, and I'm there to take pictures as part of an article I'm working on for that mouthpiece of liberal fascism, the Boston Globe. I've shot about six digital pictures, and I'm working on the seventh -- a nicely framed view of the terminal façade -- when I hear the stern "Excuse me." A young guy in a navy windbreaker steps toward me. It says AIRPORT SECURITY in block letters across his back. "You can't do that. You need to put the camera away." "I do? Why?" "Pictures aren't allowed." "They're not?" "Sorry." "Sorry what? I don't think that's true, actually. I'm pretty sure that it isn't illegal to take pictures at an airport." "You'll need to talk to a deputy, sir." I slip the camera into a pocket as the guard, who despite his crested cap and cocksure understanding of the rules, is a private security guard and not a law enforcement official, quickly summons over two members of the Rockingham County sheriff's department, which administers the Manchester airport. The deputies -- a woman and a man -- are polite but stern, and they'd like to know exactly what I'm doing. "You need to have a permit to take photographs," one of them says. "Maybe we can call and see if they'll give you clearance." I'm not sure I believe it. "What do I need a permit for? Is there a rule here against taking pictures? Is it illegal?" "I don't know," she replies, crossly, as if the question somehow isn't relevant. "I don't think so, technically." "So, if not, why would I need a permit?" "That's what the airport wants. You'll have to ask the airport manager." They ask to see press credentials. When I explain that I'm a freelancer they demand a driver's license. The woman deputy takes it and disappears for several minutes. While waiting for my license to return from its secret mission, I tell the other officer how this is the same airport where, in 1986, I received my private pilot's license. From runway 35, four years later, I made my first takeoff as a cockpit crewmember. It's all very different now, in more ways than one. And I tell him how, as adolescent planespotters in the late '70s, my friends and I would scour the terminals at Boston-Logan every weekend, armed with cameras, notebooks and binoculars, taking pictures and logging tail numbers, fully aware that in many countries, hobbies like ours were essentially illegal. The cop shakes his head. He's an older guy, who probably remembers when MHT had two flights a day with 15-seaters, before Southwest came in with seven gates and nonstops to Vegas. "I know," he sa
