After I landed from this morning's flight, a young guy (maybe 18 or 20 years
old) came over, complimented my airplane and asked if he could take some
pictures. Of course, I was flattered and told him to shoot away. He hung
around and we talked for 20 minutes or more as I wiped down the airplane for
bugs, cleaned the canopy, etc.. Turns out, he has his "ultralight pilot's
license? (???) and is about ready to start training for his PPSEL. Nice
guy.

Once I took care of a few things (and the airplane cooled), I taxied over to
the wash stand and gave the RV a nice bath. - Can't go to Oshkosh with a
dirty airplane. The young guy from before happed to be over by the wash
stand with his camera, so we had another conversation as I was washing the
airplane.

In the middle of this, one of the employees from the FBO came over and asked
the guy to go to the FBO and present his photo ID so the FBO would know who
is making pictures at the airport. I steped in and asked where this
requirement came from, and the FBO guy hemmed and hawed, saying that he
thought it came from the airport authority. I asked if he could show me the
requirement in writing. He hemmed and hawed some more, and never could
answer the question. The FBO guy said that people didn't like having others
make pictures of their airplanes. (Huh??) Like, who? I asked. Again, no
good response.

I'll verify this with the FBO owner and the airport authority on Monday, but
no way, no how, is there a "must present an ID before taking pictures"
policy at my home field. Someone at the FBO didn't have anything to do and
decided to play "big man on campus" for fun.

So, what does this have to do with the slow death of GA? It has to do with
the attitudes around some airports. Today's 20 year old picture taker will
be tomorrow's private pilot who'll be paying for flying lessons, gasoline,
etc. and will eventually rent aircraft or own his own airplane. That is, if
he wasn't put-off by the FBO. In which case, that's one more person who had
his dream squashed, and will never become a pilot. Given the sharp decline
in the number of pilots in the US, it amazes me how unfriendly FBO's can be.
You'd think they would be out begging for business. Naah. It must be far
more productive to run off prospective customers. No wonder there are so few
new pilots.

FYI, my home field is just outside of Atlanta. Go one airport farther away
from Atlanta in any direction and you'll get great service by very friendly
people. Go to any of the airports closer to the city and they will
practically beg you to leave unless your aircraft is turbine powered. I'd
bet those unfriendly airports turn a lot of people from potential pilots to
boat or Harley owners.

By the way, the 20 year old guy did go inside the FBO and present his ID.
His choice, and a nice gesture. I thought a different gesture might have
been appropriate.

KB

Nobody is forcing you to use that FBO. Frankly, I like the idea of
them keeping tabs on people hanging around planes they are responsible
for. If I owned a plane, I might seek out a place like that.


Kyle Boatright wrote:
> After I landed from this morning's flight, a young guy (maybe 18 or 20 years
> old) came over, complimented my airplane and asked if he could take some
> pictures. Of course, I was flattered and told him to shoot away. He hung
> around and we talked for 20 minutes or more as I wiped down the airplane for
> bugs, cleaned the canopy, etc.. Turns out, he has his "ultralight pilot's
> license? (???) and is about ready to start training for his PPSEL. Nice
> guy.
>
> Once I took care of a few things (and the airplane cooled), I taxied over to
> the wash stand and gave the RV a nice bath. - Can't go to Oshkosh with a
> dirty airplane. The young guy from before happed to be over by the wash
> stand with his camera, so we had another conversation as I was washing the
> airplane.
>
> In the middle of this, one of the employees from the FBO came over and asked
> the guy to go to the FBO and present his photo ID so the FBO would know who
> is making pictures at the airport. I steped in and asked where this
> requirement came from, and the FBO guy hemmed and hawed, saying that he
> thought it came from the airport authority. I asked if he could show me the
> requirement in writing. He hemmed and hawed some more, and never could
> answer the question. The FBO guy said that people didn't like having others
> make pictures of their airplanes. (Huh??) Like, who? I asked. Again, no
> good response.
>
> I'll verify this with the FBO owner and the airport authority on Monday, but
> no way, no how, is there a "must present an ID before taking pictures"
> policy at my home field. Someone at the FBO didn't have anything to do and
> decided to play "big man on campus" for fun.
>
> So, what does this have to do with the slow death of GA? It has to do with
> the attitudes around some airports. Today's 20 year old picture taker will
> be tomorrow's private pilot who'll be paying for flying lessons, gasoline,
> etc. and will eventually rent aircraft or own his own airplane. That is, if
> he wasn't put-off by the FBO. In which case, that's one more person who had
> his dream squashed, and will never become a pilot. Given the sharp decline
> in the number of pilots in the US, it amazes me how unfriendly FBO's can be.
> You'd think they would be out begging for business. Naah. It must be far
> more productive to run off prospective customers. No wonder there are so few
> new pilots.
>
> FYI, my home field is just outside of Atlanta. Go one airport farther away
> from Atlanta in any direction and you'll get great service by very friendly
> people. Go to any of the airports closer to the city and they will
> practically beg you to leave unless your aircraft is turbine powered. I'd
> bet those unfriendly airports turn a lot of people from potential pilots to
> boat or Harley owners.
>
> By the way, the 20 year old guy did go inside the FBO and present his ID.
> His choice, and a nice gesture. I thought a different gesture might have
> been appropriate.
>
> KB
>
>
>

"Stubby" > wrote in message
...
> Frankly, I like the idea of
> them keeping tabs on people hanging around planes they are responsible
> for. If I owned a plane, I might seek out a place like that.
>
>
Yup, our FBO requires ID for those that enter the ramp thru the FBO. I
think it's a small inconvenience for the step up in security. If people know
they can walk in off the street without question, that's where some trouble
could start.

This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
respected in that context.
My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
security or you're not..period!
You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you can
complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but the
bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.
9-11 happened. It just "ain't" the same world any more. You can bash
politicians. You can bash political parties. You can holler about the way
its all being done. But the bottom line remains the same. You either have
security or you don't.
Again, personally, if its my airplane that's sitting out there on the line,
or inside that hangar, or even your airplane out there, I damn well want the
FBO involved to take some interest in who's out there taking pictures of
everything.
Just my read on it. Don't mean it to be argumentative :-))
Dudley Henriques

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> After I landed from this morning's flight, a young guy (maybe 18 or 20
> years old) came over, complimented my airplane and asked if he could take
> some pictures. Of course, I was flattered and told him to shoot away. He
> hung around and we talked for 20 minutes or more as I wiped down the
> airplane for bugs, cleaned the canopy, etc.. Turns out, he has his
> "ultralight pilot's license? (???) and is about ready to start training
> for his PPSEL. Nice guy.
>
> Once I took care of a few things (and the airplane cooled), I taxied over
> to the wash stand and gave the RV a nice bath. - Can't go to Oshkosh with
> a dirty airplane. The young guy from before happed to be over by the wash
> stand with his camera, so we had another conversation as I was washing the
> airplane.
>
> In the middle of this, one of the employees from the FBO came over and
> asked the guy to go to the FBO and present his photo ID so the FBO would
> know who is making pictures at the airport. I steped in and asked where
> this requirement came from, and the FBO guy hemmed and hawed, saying that
> he thought it came from the airport authority. I asked if he could show
> me the requirement in writing. He hemmed and hawed some more, and never
> could answer the question. The FBO guy said that people didn't like
> having others make pictures of their airplanes. (Huh??) Like, who? I
> asked. Again, no good response.
>
> I'll verify this with the FBO owner and the airport authority on Monday,
> but no way, no how, is there a "must present an ID before taking pictures"
> policy at my home field. Someone at the FBO didn't have anything to do and
> decided to play "big man on campus" for fun.
>
> So, what does this have to do with the slow death of GA? It has to do
> with the attitudes around some airports. Today's 20 year old picture taker
> will be tomorrow's private pilot who'll be paying for flying lessons,
> gasoline, etc. and will eventually rent aircraft or own his own airplane.
> That is, if he wasn't put-off by the FBO. In which case, that's one more
> person who had his dream squashed, and will never become a pilot. Given
> the sharp decline in the number of pilots in the US, it amazes me how
> unfriendly FBO's can be. You'd think they would be out begging for
> business. Naah. It must be far more productive to run off prospective
> customers. No wonder there are so few new pilots.
>
> FYI, my home field is just outside of Atlanta. Go one airport farther
> away from Atlanta in any direction and you'll get great service by very
> friendly people. Go to any of the airports closer to the city and they
> will practically beg you to leave unless your aircraft is turbine powered.
> I'd bet those unfriendly airports turn a lot of people from potential
> pilots to boat or Harley owners.
>
> By the way, the 20 year old guy did go inside the FBO and present his ID.
> His choice, and a nice gesture. I thought a different gesture might have
> been appropriate.
>
> KB
>
>
>

Kyle Boatright wrote:
<snip>

September 11 or not, customer service at flight schools and FBOs has
gone down the tubes. I can't tell you the number of times I've been
blown off when I go in to rent an airplane. They have no way of knowing
WHO I am, and when I walk in and am just handed a rental sheet and
brushed off, they might have just lost a potential student.

Then there was the guy at one FBO who wouldn't let me back on the ramp
to my plane because I didn't have ID. ID was in the purse, in the
backseat on the airplane. I'm not sure if they wanted the airplane
sitting permanently on their ramp or not.

Anyway, I'm not sure anyone even cares about the survival of general
aviation. I just hope the airlines survive, or I'm out of a job. Ick.

A slightly different context and it's just good airport security.... a
local news outlet decides that they need an airport security story and
sends a reporter out to the local strip to investigate. He walks on the
ramp and starts taking photos and asking questions. This isn't
hypothetical because it happened at my home 'port.

However, before the guy got far, he was challenged by 2 different
resident/pilots. He actually never got a chance to investigate because
he was interrogated first, "so, can anyone just drive up and walk on? I
don't see a fence" says the reporter. "Obviously not, we keep an eye on
things (even though this is just a private grass strip), so what exactly
are you looking for"

But I do know how you feel. I never like to be stopped or questioned
but you have to pick your battles and choose your spots while
maintaining some perspective. I don't think this has anything to do
with GA's problems. I'm not even sure we have problems; this is the
best place on the planet to fly. We may have some challenges and
perhaps this incident addresses a few of them.

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> After I landed from this morning's flight, a young guy (maybe 18 or 20 years
> old) came over, complimented my airplane and asked if he could take some
> pictures. Of course, I was flattered and told him to shoot away. He hung
> around and we talked for 20 minutes or more as I wiped down the airplane for
> bugs, cleaned the canopy, etc.. Turns out, he has his "ultralight pilot's
> license? (???) and is about ready to start training for his PPSEL. Nice
> guy.
>
> Once I took care of a few things (and the airplane cooled), I taxied over to
> the wash stand and gave the RV a nice bath. - Can't go to Oshkosh with a
> dirty airplane. The young guy from before happed to be over by the wash
> stand with his camera, so we had another conversation as I was washing the
> airplane.
>
> In the middle of this, one of the employees from the FBO came over and asked
> the guy to go to the FBO and present his photo ID so the FBO would know who
> is making pictures at the airport. I steped in and asked where this
> requirement came from, and the FBO guy hemmed and hawed, saying that he
> thought it came from the airport authority. I asked if he could show me the
> requirement in writing. He hemmed and hawed some more, and never could
> answer the question. The FBO guy said that people didn't like having others
> make pictures of their airplanes. (Huh??) Like, who? I asked. Again, no
> good response.
>
> I'll verify this with the FBO owner and the airport authority on Monday, but
> no way, no how, is there a "must present an ID before taking pictures"
> policy at my home field. Someone at the FBO didn't have anything to do and
> decided to play "big man on campus" for fun.
>
> So, what does this have to do with the slow death of GA? It has to do with
> the attitudes around some airports. Today's 20 year old picture taker will
> be tomorrow's private pilot who'll be paying for flying lessons, gasoline,
> etc. and will eventually rent aircraft or own his own airplane. That is, if
> he wasn't put-off by the FBO. In which case, that's one more person who had
> his dream squashed, and will never become a pilot. Given the sharp decline
> in the number of pilots in the US, it amazes me how unfriendly FBO's can be.
> You'd think they would be out begging for business. Naah. It must be far
> more productive to run off prospective customers. No wonder there are so few
> new pilots.
>
> FYI, my home field is just outside of Atlanta. Go one airport farther away
> from Atlanta in any direction and you'll get great service by very friendly
> people. Go to any of the airports closer to the city and they will
> practically beg you to leave unless your aircraft is turbine powered. I'd
> bet those unfriendly airports turn a lot of people from potential pilots to
> boat or Harley owners.
>
> By the way, the 20 year old guy did go inside the FBO and present his ID.
> His choice, and a nice gesture. I thought a different gesture might have
> been appropriate.
>
> KB
>
>
>

"Stubby" > wrote in message
...
> Nobody is forcing you to use that FBO. Frankly, I like the idea of them
> keeping tabs on people hanging around planes they are responsible for. If
> I owned a plane, I might seek out a place like that.
>

They are not keeping tabs on people hanging around the airport. There are 2
gates to the ramp and both are wide open all day. The gates are not
monitored. Automobiles are allowed on the ramp. Bikes are allowed on the
ramp. People are allowed on the ramp. No ID, no anything other than an
active GA community to keep an eye on things during the day. At night, one
gate is open and there is a security person around.

I'm fine with that. I don't need/want big brother at the airport. I don't
want to have to sign in or card in or have to meet guests at a security
gate. That kind of security just isn't necessary at a GA field.

The issue today was that the kid was taking pictures instead of just
pointing and talking. Why you'd need to have an ID to take pictures (as
opposed to walking the ramp or driving on the ramp) is unknowable. And, why
someone with the FBO would fabricate a rule about having a photo ID to take
pictures is bizzarre.

KB

Years ago I was talking with Bill Sweet [Air Show America]
and he told me a story about something that happened to him.
He was flying to an air show and stopped for the night and
put his plane in a hanger and the operator, a friend of his
let him stay over-night in the hanger with his airplane.
During the night he said he heard a DC3 taxiing on the
airport and looked to see what was going on. He then went
back to sleep.
The next morning there were more than a dozen airplanes
sitting on the ramp, firewall forward missing and the
avionics were all taken. Later the DC3 was caught and they
had rigged a canvas and chain hoist on a rail out the door.
They'd taxi near a Bonanza or C210 and if the couldn't steal
the airplane, they'd use power saws or cutting torches to
remove the parts they wanted.

Drug smugglers, plain thieves, and terrorists all want your
airplane. But we need to still be able to have airport
kids, lookers, and future students feel welcome.The major
airports have bigger budgets and more threats. Should we
all carry a dozen official government ID cards? I hope not.
But a digital camera [or Polaroid] can take a picture of the
people who are allowed on the ramp. It is just security,
everybody on the ramp needs to be escorted or instructed in
safety around airplanes, prop/jet blast, danger zones for
props and rotors, nothing will get your airport closed
faster than a headline, Toddler Killed by Private Plane's
Propeller.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Stubby" > wrote in
message
| ...
| > Nobody is forcing you to use that FBO. Frankly, I like
the idea of them
| > keeping tabs on people hanging around planes they are
responsible for. If
| > I owned a plane, I might seek out a place like that.
| >
|
| They are not keeping tabs on people hanging around the
airport. There are 2
| gates to the ramp and both are wide open all day. The
gates are not
| monitored. Automobiles are allowed on the ramp. Bikes are
allowed on the
| ramp. People are allowed on the ramp. No ID, no anything
other than an
| active GA community to keep an eye on things during the
day. At night, one
| gate is open and there is a security person around.
|
| I'm fine with that. I don't need/want big brother at the
airport. I don't
| want to have to sign in or card in or have to meet guests
at a security
| gate. That kind of security just isn't necessary at a GA
field.
|
| The issue today was that the kid was taking pictures
instead of just
| pointing and talking. Why you'd need to have an ID to
take pictures (as
| opposed to walking the ramp or driving on the ramp) is
unknowable. And, why
| someone with the FBO would fabricate a rule about having a
photo ID to take
| pictures is bizzarre.
|
| KB
|
|
|
|
|

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
k.net...
> This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
> respected in that context.
> My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
> security or you're not..period!

Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field
has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots or
passengers - even transients. Presumably folks in an airplane are bigger
threats than people taking pictures, so why does the buck stop with a kid
taking pictures?

What I see with most <not all> of the "security" procedures we face today is
that they inconvenience the innocent folks, but would have no impact on an
actual threat. A great example is the TFR around a sporting event. Anything
with wings could penetrate the TFR. Unless it is the Superbowl or World
Series, there won't be anything in place to stop even a C-150 if somebody
wanted to use one to create mayhem. The TFR is eyewash.

Same thing with getting the ID of a kid taking pictures. It doesn't stop
someone from taking pictures. Nor would it stop him if he was up to no-good.

That said, the point I was trying to make is that the FBO employee (or his
boss) pulled this "rule" out of his you-know-what. An excellent example of
how to drive off a prospective client. The kind of client who is sorely
needed by GA if it is going to survive another 50 years.

KB

Dudley


The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
computer for each client who gets on the ramp, including landing
aircraft, which means all pilots and passengers must obtain this
permission ahead of time. As far as I know, there is no such airport. A
terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare
etc..

Airport security is all for show. It targets the legitimate pilot and
his family. At our home airport after 9/11 they installed a perimeter
fence at the cost of several millions. All it did was increase the deer
population inside the fence and screw up the localizer signal which
increased the approach minimums. Even an overweight American can jump
across the fence, let alone a lean and mean middleeastern terrorist.

Now it would be different if the person was loading suspicious looking
objects into a suspicous looking aircraft. But a guy taking pictures of
an airplane? Come on.

I totally agree with the OP. Many eons ago I used to hang out at the
airport taking pictures of airplanes. Even the big jets landing at big
airports. If I had been chased away I very well might have been turned
off from this whole aviation thing.



Dudley Henriques wrote:
> This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
> respected in that context.
> My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
> security or you're not..period!
> You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you can
> complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but the
> bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.
> 9-11 happened. It just "ain't" the same world any more. You can bash
> politicians. You can bash political parties. You can holler about the way
> its all being done. But the bottom line remains the same. You either have
> security or you don't.
> Again, personally, if its my airplane that's sitting out there on the line,
> or inside that hangar, or even your airplane out there, I damn well want the
> FBO involved to take some interest in who's out there taking pictures of
> everything.
> Just my read on it. Don't mean it to be argumentative :-))
> Dudley Henriques
>

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you can
> complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but the
> bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.

But taking pictures isn't illegal. I live right near a large Class B
airport with a great observation area. I also like taking pictures. I
once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and ask why I was
taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and I wasn't under
any obligation to explain myself to him. Yeah, he could have made me
leave, but knowing I was right, he walked off.

My point is, when I get harassed by a cop (and harassed I was, since I
wasn't doing anything wrong), I'll keep on complaining. A 20-something
white girl with a camera and commercial certificate in her purse is as
much a security hazard as a rabbit. And you CAN have it both ways.

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>> This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
>> respected in that context.
>> My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
>> security or you're not..period!
>
> Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field
> has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots or
> passengers - even transients.

Lucky. Back before the mandatory photo ID days, I'd routinely fly
without photo ID. Most because I'd forget and leave it in the car.
Point is, it wasn't required, and I'll ALWAYS get crap for not having ID
as a transient.

I dunno, last I checked, you weren't required to carry ID in the United
States. Still makes me angry.

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>> This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
>> respected in that context.
>> My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
>> security or you're not..period!
>
> Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field
> has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots
> or passengers - even transients. Presumably folks in an airplane are
> bigger threats than people taking pictures, so why does the buck stop with
> a kid taking pictures?
>
> What I see with most <not all> of the "security" procedures we face today
> is that they inconvenience the innocent folks, but would have no impact on
> an actual threat. A great example is the TFR around a sporting event.
> Anything with wings could penetrate the TFR. Unless it is the Superbowl
> or World Series, there won't be anything in place to stop even a C-150 if
> somebody wanted to use one to create mayhem. The TFR is eyewash.
>
> Same thing with getting the ID of a kid taking pictures. It doesn't stop
> someone from taking pictures. Nor would it stop him if he was up to
> no-good.
>
> That said, the point I was trying to make is that the FBO employee (or his
> boss) pulled this "rule" out of his you-know-what. An excellent example
> of how to drive off a prospective client. The kind of client who is sorely
> needed by GA if it is going to survive another 50 years.
>
> KB

Actually, the real threat to general aviation in the United States has been,
is now, and always will be, the American lawyer :-)
I would agree wholeheartedly that the level of security stinks generally in
aviation, as is the way it's being implemented.
Perhaps this specific instance is a prime example of that, perhaps not.
The main point, and the point that you don't want to lose when you start
dealing in these specific cases, is that airport security is something you
need very much in the United States right now.
I couldn't agree with you more that the entire issue needs complete
overhaul.
Dudley Henriques

Hi Andrew;

I totally agree with you on this. Airport security is a mess and needs
reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.
Dudley

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Dudley
>
>
> The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
> computer for each client who gets on the ramp, including landing
> aircraft, which means all pilots and passengers must obtain this
> permission ahead of time. As far as I know, there is no such airport. A
> terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare
> etc..
>
> Airport security is all for show. It targets the legitimate pilot and
> his family. At our home airport after 9/11 they installed a perimeter
> fence at the cost of several millions. All it did was increase the deer
> population inside the fence and screw up the localizer signal which
> increased the approach minimums. Even an overweight American can jump
> across the fence, let alone a lean and mean middleeastern terrorist.
>
> Now it would be different if the person was loading suspicious looking
> objects into a suspicous looking aircraft. But a guy taking pictures of
> an airplane? Come on.
>
> I totally agree with the OP. Many eons ago I used to hang out at the
> airport taking pictures of airplanes. Even the big jets landing at big
> airports. If I had been chased away I very well might have been turned
> off from this whole aviation thing.
>
>
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
>> respected in that context.
>> My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
>> security or you're not..period!
>> You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you
>> can
>> complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but the
>> bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.
>> 9-11 happened. It just "ain't" the same world any more. You can bash
>> politicians. You can bash political parties. You can holler about the way
>> its all being done. But the bottom line remains the same. You either have
>> security or you don't.
>> Again, personally, if its my airplane that's sitting out there on the
>> line,
>> or inside that hangar, or even your airplane out there, I damn well want
>> the
>> FBO involved to take some interest in who's out there taking pictures of
>> everything.
>> Just my read on it. Don't mean it to be argumentative :-))
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>

If you have no security, you don't want a reporter with a camera
working on a "lax security at the airport story."
--
Gene Seibel KB0NNN
http://pad39a.com/gene/broadcast.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
> > respected in that context.
> > My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
> > security or you're not..period!
>
> Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field
> has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots or
> passengers - even transients. Presumably folks in an airplane are bigger
> threats than people taking pictures, so why does the buck stop with a kid
> taking pictures?
>
> What I see with most <not all> of the "security" procedures we face today is
> that they inconvenience the innocent folks, but would have no impact on an
> actual threat. A great example is the TFR around a sporting event. Anything
> with wings could penetrate the TFR. Unless it is the Superbowl or World
> Series, there won't be anything in place to stop even a C-150 if somebody
> wanted to use one to create mayhem. The TFR is eyewash.
>
> Same thing with getting the ID of a kid taking pictures. It doesn't stop
> someone from taking pictures. Nor would it stop him if he was up to no-good.
>
> That said, the point I was trying to make is that the FBO employee (or his
> boss) pulled this "rule" out of his you-know-what. An excellent example of
> how to drive off a prospective client. The kind of client who is sorely
> needed by GA if it is going to survive another 50 years.
>
> KB

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Years ago I was talking with Bill Sweet [Air Show America]
> and he told me a story about something that happened to him.
> He was flying to an air show and stopped for the night and
> put his plane in a hanger and the operator, a friend of his
> let him stay over-night in the hanger with his airplane.
> During the night he said he heard a DC3 taxiing on the
> airport and looked to see what was going on. He then went
> back to sleep.
> The next morning there were more than a dozen airplanes
> sitting on the ramp, firewall forward missing and the
> avionics were all taken. Later the DC3 was caught and they
> had rigged a canvas and chain hoist on a rail out the door.
> They'd taxi near a Bonanza or C210 and if the couldn't steal
> the airplane, they'd use power saws or cutting torches to
> remove the parts they wanted.
>
> Drug smugglers, plain thieves, and terrorists all want your
> airplane. But we need to still be able to have airport
> kids, lookers, and future students feel welcome.The major
> airports have bigger budgets and more threats. Should we
> all carry a dozen official government ID cards? I hope not.
> But a digital camera [or Polaroid] can take a picture of the
> people who are allowed on the ramp. It is just security,
> everybody on the ramp needs to be escorted or instructed in
> safety around airplanes, prop/jet blast, danger zones for
> props and rotors, nothing will get your airport closed
> faster than a headline, Toddler Killed by Private Plane's
> Propeller.
>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
I visited a friend (in New England) at a large county (but uncontroled)
airport, with a small regular commuter airline, and parked my plane on
the ramp. During the visit he gave me one of his old high powered deer
rifles as a present. When I went back to the plane I walked right
through the terminal with it and out to my plane. Started up and left.
No one gave me a second look. I laughed about it most of the way home.

Jim

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> I dunno, last I checked, you weren't required to carry ID in the United
> States. Still makes me angry.

Cannot remember where I have seen it, but, as of sometime ago, post
9/11... if you are flying, you are required by regulation to carry your
pilot's certificate and a government issued photo id.

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you
>> can complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but
>> the bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.
>
> But taking pictures isn't illegal. I live right near a large Class B
> airport with a great observation area. I also like taking pictures. I
> once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and ask why I was
> taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and I wasn't under any
> obligation to explain myself to him. Yeah, he could have made me leave,
> but knowing I was right, he walked off.
>
> My point is, when I get harassed by a cop (and harassed I was, since I
> wasn't doing anything wrong), I'll keep on complaining. A 20-something
> white girl with a camera and commercial certificate in her purse is as
> much a security hazard as a rabbit. And you CAN have it both ways.

No, you can't have it both ways.

People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a security
issue. This doesn't mean the security people have a right to "hassle" you or
push you around, but it does mean that if you are questioned politely in a
non threatening manner you either will respond to this "intrusion" by
recognizing its a security issue until you demonstrate that its not, or you
will stand there and shout like hell that your personal space and rights are
being violated and that taking pictures isn't illegal.
No one says the system is perfect. Actually, it stinks. But complaining
about your right to take pictures in an atmosphere where security is an
issue is not necessarily the best approach.
Hell...you think your case was bad? I have a friend who Captain's a 747. He
and his entire crew were stopped and body searched at a major US hub while
an entire line of civilians went through the gates unhampered. After 20
minutes or so of this, they took his nail clippers. The flight was late
getting off, but those civilians went through just fine.
It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach is one of quiet
cooperation unless there is an actual incident involving your innocent
activity and security people hassling you, and I mean REALLY hassling you!.
Just my opinion mind you :-)))

Dudley Henriques

Emily > wrote:
> I dunno, last I checked, you weren't required to carry ID in the
> United States.

Well - if a police officer has "reasonable suspicion"[1] that you committed
a crime and the jurisdiction has a "stop and identify" statute[2] then you
must present identification or face arrest. That providing identification
is rarely relevant to establishing whether a person has in fact committed a
crime appears itself to be irrelevant as judged by the Supreme Court of the
U.S.[3] Go figure.

There are "stop and identify" statutes in many states, and the
reference in [2] below has a section titled "How to satisfy the minimum
required duties" that provides some suggestions on how one might maximize
ones rights if faced with such a situation.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

My two cents on the issue. There's one problem with taking pictures of
airplanes that I've heard of: I came across this account about a year ago,
a guy would go to a local airport, take pictures of some GA aircraft sitting
on the ramp, and then try and sell some parts from them on e-bay. I haven't
followed up on the case, and on what happened to the guy in the end, but I've
heard from someone who was just taking pictures at one of these airports,
and was approached by the FBO guys who were pretty ****ed, and it turned
out that they've got some FBI investigation going on etc.

Andrey


Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> Dudley
>
>
> The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
> computer for each client who gets on the ramp, including landing
> aircraft, which means all pilots and passengers must obtain this
> permission ahead of time. As far as I know, there is no such airport. A
> terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare
> etc..
>
> Airport security is all for show. It targets the legitimate pilot and
> his family. At our home airport after 9/11 they installed a perimeter
> fence at the cost of several millions. All it did was increase the deer
> population inside the fence and screw up the localizer signal which
> increased the approach minimums. Even an overweight American can jump
> across the fence, let alone a lean and mean middleeastern terrorist.
>
> Now it would be different if the person was loading suspicious looking
> objects into a suspicous looking aircraft. But a guy taking pictures of
> an airplane? Come on.
>
> I totally agree with the OP. Many eons ago I used to hang out at the
> airport taking pictures of airplanes. Even the big jets landing at big
> airports. If I had been chased away I very well might have been turned
> off from this whole aviation thing.
>
>
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
>> respected in that context.
>> My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
>> security or you're not..period!
>> You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you can
>> complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but the
>> bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.
>> 9-11 happened. It just "ain't" the same world any more. You can bash
>> politicians. You can bash political parties. You can holler about the way
>> its all being done. But the bottom line remains the same. You either have
>> security or you don't.
>> Again, personally, if its my airplane that's sitting out there on the line,
>> or inside that hangar, or even your airplane out there, I damn well want the
>> FBO involved to take some interest in who's out there taking pictures of
>> everything.
>> Just my read on it. Don't mean it to be argumentative :-))
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> Airport security is a mess and needs
> reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.

Maybe all airports should emulate the kind of security they have at
AirVenture Oshkosh. ;-)

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> Airport security is a mess and needs
>> reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.
>
> Maybe all airports should emulate the kind of security they have at
> AirVenture Oshkosh. ;-)

I really miss the "old days".

I remember one night at OSH many years ago with Steve Whitman and a whole
gang of us sitting around under the wing of my airplane eating hot dogs;
drinking cold beer; and telling old war stories. No gates; no cops; no
security; only good fellowship and the reflection of happy faces from the
fire a few yards down the line in an empty tiedown spot......YES!!!!!!!!
There actually WAS an empty tiedown spot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:-))
Dudley Henriques

To be fair to the FBO guy, the TSA security training enforces the view
that everyone at the airport should be treated with suspicion. He was
probably following what he was told to do.



Emily wrote:
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
> <snip>
>
> September 11 or not, customer service at flight schools and FBOs has
> gone down the tubes. I can't tell you the number of times I've been
> blown off when I go in to rent an airplane. They have no way of knowing
> WHO I am, and when I walk in and am just handed a rental sheet and
> brushed off, they might have just lost a potential student.
>
> Then there was the guy at one FBO who wouldn't let me back on the ramp
> to my plane because I didn't have ID. ID was in the purse, in the
> backseat on the airplane. I'm not sure if they wanted the airplane
> sitting permanently on their ramp or not.
>
> Anyway, I'm not sure anyone even cares about the survival of general
> aviation. I just hope the airlines survive, or I'm out of a job. Ick.

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If you have no security, you don't want a reporter with a camera
> working on a "lax security at the airport story."

THAT is the best reason I can think of yet, for the whole incident. I know
that is not what was behind it, though.
--
Jim in NC

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> I dunno, last I checked, you weren't required to carry ID in the United
>> States. Still makes me angry.
>
> Cannot remember where I have seen it, but, as of sometime ago, post
> 9/11... if you are flying, you are required by regulation to carry your
> pilot's certificate and a government issued photo id.

I know that. I was talking about pre-now. It was 2000/2001 when I fly
four or five trips a week.

Dudley Henriques wrote:
<snip>
> It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach is one of quiet
> cooperation

The best approach to unfair legislation and scare tactics is NEVER quiet
cooperation.

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> <snip>
>> It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach is one of quiet
>> cooperation
>
> The best approach to unfair legislation and scare tactics is NEVER quiet
> cooperation.

That's true, but this doesn't seem to be what I'm seeing from your posts.
What I'm getting from reading you is that you have a problem on the front
side with authority. Your first example about the cop "hassling you" states
this without question for me anyway.
You state up front the following;
"I once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and ask why I was
taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and I wasn't under
any obligation to explain myself to him."
This in my opinion was an unnecessary and overly agressive response to this
situation. By your own word, he simply asked you why you were taking
pictures. He had every right to do that, and your response, instead of being
cooperative and simply telling him what you were doing, was to "educate him"
and tell him you weren't obligated in any way to explain anything to him".
Then you go on to complain in your next post how "some guy" asked you for ID
before letting you on the ramp to access your plane.
Personally, I think you have a problem understanding that there are security
issues existing in aviation at all, and that even if there are, you don't
want to be bothered with them for whatever personal reasons you might have.
Personally, I would suggest to you that in the future, as a working
commercial pilot, you consider carrying your ID with you when leaving your
airplane on the ramp, and be prepared to produce it to authority when and if
its requested in the proper manner.
All this having been said, I realize you and I are in complete disagreement
on this issue so I'll let you take whatever shot you like at me and simply
move on.
:-))
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
<snip>
> Then you go on to complain in your next post how "some guy" asked you for ID
> before letting you on the ramp to access your plane.
Right. That was a quick trip to Indy Metro to drop off something for a
friend. This was before the pilot ID requirement and I wasn't planning
on driving anywhere once I got to the airport. I simply had NO photo ID
with me and my airman certs were in the plane. So what was I supposed
to do? The FBO wasn't letting me back on the ramp (even though they'd
seen me walk inside) and since it was a rental, I couldn't just leave
the plane there. Do YOU not see the problem with that?

and that even if there are, you don't
> want to be bothered with them for whatever personal reasons you might have.
Basically, yes. And I don't let myself be bothered by it.

> Personally, I would suggest to you that in the future, as a working
> commercial pilot, you consider carrying your ID with you when leaving your
> airplane on the ramp, and be prepared to produce it to authority when and if
> its requested in the proper manner.
I'm not a working commercial pilot. I work in the industry, but not
flying. I think you've misunderstood much of what I'm saying. When the
cop stopped me for taking photos, I wasn't in a restricted area but a
public observation area. I wasn't requested to produce ID (not that I
had any with me) I was asked why I was taking pictures. I am under NO
requirement to explain myself.


> All this having been said, I realize you and I are in complete disagreement
> on this issue so I'll let you take whatever shot you like at me and simply
> move on.
Who says I'm taking shots at you? I don't reply to PEOPLE on a
newsgroup, I reply to posts. Yes, I have problems with authority that
shouldn't be authority in the first place. Rolling over and taking it
is what gets people in trouble and I think a lot of people need to start
learning from history.

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote:
>> The best approach to unfair legislation and scare tactics is NEVER
>> quiet cooperation.
> You state up front the following;
> "I once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and ask why I
> was taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and I wasn't
> under any obligation to explain myself to him."
> This in my opinion was an unnecessary and overly agressive response to
> this situation.

When you consider the location (an observation area), that it was a white
woman, and the question itself, most people would realize the cop was using
the question as a mechanism of intimidation. Under the circumstances the cop
was clearly being overly aggressive himself and Emily's response seems to
have been proportionate. In my humble opinion of course.

> By your own word, he simply asked you why you were
> taking pictures. He had every right to do that,

Personally, I like to avoid arguments with people carrying side-arms. :-)
That said, just because someone has a right to say something doesn't make it
a good idea. Cops probably expect 1 out every N people will fail to be
intimidated by deliberately intimidating questions, but so long as N stays
large, they'll keep using them. As N drops toward 1, they generally stop
using that tactic. Being a policeman is sometimes a thankless and dirty job,
despite being a large value to maintaining a civil society. So there is no
reason cops should be using tools that are actually uncivil toward the
innocent and fundamentally don't accomplish anything of value toward making
our society civil.

(I obviously have no problem with people who have an anti-authority streak.
But I suppose that can sometimes make for a less-than civil society. I guess
I just can't win! :-)

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..

> I'm not a working commercial pilot. I work in the industry, but not
> flying. I think you've misunderstood much of what I'm saying. When the
> cop stopped me for taking photos, I wasn't in a restricted area but a
> public observation area. I wasn't requested to produce ID (not that I had
> any with me) I was asked why I was taking pictures. I am under NO
> requirement to explain myself.

No, I think I understood you perfectly. In fact, you are confirming it with
this post. What you are saying is absolutely clear. You have every right of
course to approach these issues as you see fit, but what I'm seeing is that
because you were approached by a "cop" in a public observation area instead
of a restricted area and asked why you were taking pictures, your immediate
response to this instead of answering the question was to instantly revert
to your conception of your "rights" instead of simply cooperating with the
request.
Even here, in this post, you feel the need to CAPITALIZE the word "NO" in
the sentence stating "I am under NO requirement to explain myself" which is
a clear indication to me at least,that your prime concern during this
incident and indeed even before the incident occurred, wasn't airport
security at all but the fact that you felt you were being "hassled" by this
security person because of your "understanding" concerning an imagined
difference between a public and a restricted area on an airport and how that
difference affects security issues.
Let me advise you right here and now that when it comes to a duly appointed
security officer acting in that capacity anywhere on airport property,
asking you why you are taking pictures on the airport, it doesn't matter
where you are on that airport. That security officer has every right to
approach you in a reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are
doing. At the point you are approached in this reasonable manner, it is
incumbent on you to supply a reasonable answer to that security officer.
Aside from the legalities involved, doing this, rather than doing what you
did, is not only the right response for a person concerned with airport
security, but the prudent response as well.
As I said, from what I have read of your posting here, you and I are natural
adversaries, at least from my point of view anyway :-)). I simply think your
attitude is totally out of line on this issue.
This is of course no big deal at all . Happens all the time on Usenet. Some
people are just better off avoiding each other :-))
Hey......all the very best to you.
Dudley Henriques

Stubby wrote:

> Nobody is forcing you to use that FBO. Frankly, I like the idea of
> them keeping tabs on people hanging around planes they are responsible
> for. If I owned a plane, I might seek out a place like that.

Well, some have more communist tendencies than others. I think Kyle is
right. This behavior was out of bounds and I'm glad he stepped in and
called them on it. If we let this crap continue, then the terrorists
really have won.


Matt

A lot of these requirements are being driven by TSA. Badges for people
employed at the airport. People with their own airplanes may soon need
badges too.

Also, many Airport Authorities, not the FBO, require permits for photo or
video that may be taken at the airport and sold for commercial use. This
does not stop the aircraft owner or CFI taking pictures of his newly solo'd
student.

BT

"Michael Ware" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Stubby" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Frankly, I like the idea of
>> them keeping tabs on people hanging around planes they are responsible
>> for. If I owned a plane, I might seek out a place like that.
>>
>>
> Yup, our FBO requires ID for those that enter the ramp thru the FBO. I
> think it's a small inconvenience for the step up in security. If people
> know
> they can walk in off the street without question, that's where some
> trouble
> could start.
>
>

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>That security officer has every right to
> approach you in a reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are
> doing.

Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> Dudley
>
>
> The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
> computer for each client who gets on the ramp, including landing
> aircraft, which means all pilots and passengers must obtain this
> permission ahead of time. As far as I know, there is no such airport. A
> terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare
> etc..
>
> Airport security is all for show. It targets the legitimate pilot and
> his family. At our home airport after 9/11 they installed a perimeter
> fence at the cost of several millions. All it did was increase the deer
> population inside the fence and screw up the localizer signal which
> increased the approach minimums. Even an overweight American can jump
> across the fence, let alone a lean and mean middleeastern terrorist.
>
> Now it would be different if the person was loading suspicious looking
> objects into a suspicous looking aircraft. But a guy taking pictures of
> an airplane? Come on.
>
> I totally agree with the OP. Many eons ago I used to hang out at the
> airport taking pictures of airplanes. Even the big jets landing at big
> airports. If I had been chased away I very well might have been turned
> off from this whole aviation thing.

Yes, pretty soon we'll have no GA airports to protect. I guess that is
the ultimate in GA security. Sigh...


Matt

It's airports like this and people with free access that have no business or
experience on an airport that are always leaving my canopy unlatched for the
wind to fling open. I'm glad someone is looking out.

BT


"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Stubby" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nobody is forcing you to use that FBO. Frankly, I like the idea of them
>> keeping tabs on people hanging around planes they are responsible for.
>> If I owned a plane, I might seek out a place like that.
>>
>
> They are not keeping tabs on people hanging around the airport. There are
> 2 gates to the ramp and both are wide open all day. The gates are not
> monitored. Automobiles are allowed on the ramp. Bikes are allowed on the
> ramp. People are allowed on the ramp. No ID, no anything other than an
> active GA community to keep an eye on things during the day. At night, one
> gate is open and there is a security person around.
>
> I'm fine with that. I don't need/want big brother at the airport. I
> don't want to have to sign in or card in or have to meet guests at a
> security gate. That kind of security just isn't necessary at a GA field.
>
> The issue today was that the kid was taking pictures instead of just
> pointing and talking. Why you'd need to have an ID to take pictures (as
> opposed to walking the ramp or driving on the ramp) is unknowable. And,
> why someone with the FBO would fabricate a rule about having a photo ID to
> take pictures is bizzarre.
>
> KB
>
>
>
>
>

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>
>>>Airport security is a mess and needs
>>>reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.
>>
>>Maybe all airports should emulate the kind of security they have at
>>AirVenture Oshkosh. ;-)
>
>
> I really miss the "old days".
>
> I remember one night at OSH many years ago with Steve Whitman and a whole
> gang of us sitting around under the wing of my airplane eating hot dogs;
> drinking cold beer; and telling old war stories. No gates; no cops; no
> security; only good fellowship and the reflection of happy faces from the
> fire a few yards down the line in an empty tiedown spot......YES!!!!!!!!
> There actually WAS an empty tiedown spot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No way. I was actually believing your story until you got to the empty
tiedown statement... :-)

Matt

Emily wrote:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>> That security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
>> manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.
>
>
> Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.
>
> You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
> officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
> about it really mean nothing.

You really should move out and learn to live on your own.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Airport security is a mess and needs
>>>>reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.
>>>
>>>Maybe all airports should emulate the kind of security they have at
>>>AirVenture Oshkosh. ;-)
>>
>>
>> I really miss the "old days".
>>
>> I remember one night at OSH many years ago with Steve Whitman and a whole
>> gang of us sitting around under the wing of my airplane eating hot dogs;
>> drinking cold beer; and telling old war stories. No gates; no cops; no
>> security; only good fellowship and the reflection of happy faces from the
>> fire a few yards down the line in an empty tiedown spot......YES!!!!!!!!
>> There actually WAS an empty tiedown spot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> No way. I was actually believing your story until you got to the empty
> tiedown statement... :-)

No kidding. Its the truth. Bonzo was in the hangar :-)))))
Dudley Henriques

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> That security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
>> manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.
>
> Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

Of couse you do; and that is exactly what you did :-)
>
> You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
> officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
> about it really mean nothing.

Actually Emily, you being anti-authority or not is your business really, and
the fact that your parents, military or not, "agree with your anti-authority
streak" actually would have no effect on my opinion one way or the other, as
that opinion and/or any meaning that opinion might have are totally
unrelated to your parents.
Dudley Henriques

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>
>>> That security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
>>> manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.
>>
>>
>> Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.
>>
>> You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
>> officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
>> about it really mean nothing.
>
> You really should move out and learn to live on your own.

Move out where? Out of my house? No thanks, if I pay a mortgage on
property, I'd like to enjoy living there.

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> Let me advise you right here and now that when it
> comes to a duly appointed security officer acting in that capacity
> anywhere on airport property, asking you why you are taking pictures
> on the airport, it doesn't matter where you are on that airport. That
> security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
> manner and ask you to explain what you are doing. At the point you are
> approached in this reasonable manner, it is incumbent on you to supply
> a reasonable answer to that security officer.

I'm not sure what your meaning of "incumbent" is - but there are so many
variables involved (private or public airport? rent-a-cop or real cop?
etc.) that I'd have to argue that your advise covers too broad an area to
be correct. In fact in some cases it is clearly incorrect.

If a statute exists that prohibits photography or cameras in certain areas,
and you clearly are using a camera there, a cop isn't going to ask you what
you are doing with it - he or she is going to arrest you. The cops question
was silly and if it had been anyone else, an impolite don't-suffer-fools-
gladly reply would be "What the hell does it look like I'm doing!?"

Furthermore, even with regard to private property, if something is clearly
in public view, the public has a right to take photos of it. Barbra
Streisand lost a suit over this very issue:

http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html

Ignorance of the law is a great excuse - for cops it seems. But the law
doesn't seem to back up what Emily's cop did or you think they can do; see
for example:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
http://www.photopermit.org/

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Actually Emily, you being anti-authority or not is your business really, and
> the fact that your parents, military or not, "agree with your anti-authority
> streak" actually would have no effect on my opinion one way or the other, as
> that opinion and/or any meaning that opinion might have are totally
> unrelated to your parents.

I wasn't writing that for your benefit, I was writing it for anyone else
that might be reading along. I don't want other people getting the
mistaken idea that I'm a complete anarchist with no sense of when to
back down. You, on the other hand, have already made up your mind (with
an incorrect conclusion)

No problem at all.
All the best to you as before,
DH

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Actually Emily, you being anti-authority or not is your business really,
>> and the fact that your parents, military or not, "agree with your
>> anti-authority streak" actually would have no effect on my opinion one
>> way or the other, as that opinion and/or any meaning that opinion might
>> have are totally unrelated to your parents.
>
> I wasn't writing that for your benefit, I was writing it for anyone else
> that might be reading along. I don't want other people getting the
> mistaken idea that I'm a complete anarchist with no sense of when to back
> down. You, on the other hand, have already made up your mind (with an
> incorrect conclusion)

No problem at all.
All the best to you
DH

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> Let me advise you right here and now that when it
>> comes to a duly appointed security officer acting in that capacity
>> anywhere on airport property, asking you why you are taking pictures
>> on the airport, it doesn't matter where you are on that airport. That
>> security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
>> manner and ask you to explain what you are doing. At the point you are
>> approached in this reasonable manner, it is incumbent on you to supply
>> a reasonable answer to that security officer.
>
> I'm not sure what your meaning of "incumbent" is - but there are so many
> variables involved (private or public airport? rent-a-cop or real cop?
> etc.) that I'd have to argue that your advise covers too broad an area to
> be correct. In fact in some cases it is clearly incorrect.
>
> If a statute exists that prohibits photography or cameras in certain
> areas,
> and you clearly are using a camera there, a cop isn't going to ask you
> what
> you are doing with it - he or she is going to arrest you. The cops
> question
> was silly and if it had been anyone else, an impolite don't-suffer-fools-
> gladly reply would be "What the hell does it look like I'm doing!?"
>
> Furthermore, even with regard to private property, if something is clearly
> in public view, the public has a right to take photos of it. Barbra
> Streisand lost a suit over this very issue:
>
> http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html
>
> Ignorance of the law is a great excuse - for cops it seems. But the law
> doesn't seem to back up what Emily's cop did or you think they can do; see
> for example:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
> http://www.photopermit.org/

Morgans wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote

> There you go, with your adversarial tactics. Mellow out. Keep your views,
> but be pleasant about the whole thing. Honey attracts more bears than dog
> sh*t.
When you're told over and over by lovers of the current regime that
you're a libertarian anarchist freak, you tend to get defensive after a
while. And besides that, I'm not here to impress anyone.

> Or when the cop said something in the airport., instead of attacking, you
> could have said, "I love airplanes, and am a pilot, and think that airplanes
> are the most beautiful things in the world, so I just need to capture the
> beauty." I'll bet he would have said, "Oh, OK."and walked onward.
This was outside at the airport, actually. My point is, I'm not going
to explain myself when I'm not required to. I want the government out
of my life, and yes, that includes a random cop at the airport. I live
my life on the right side of the law, and I get rather annoyed when
someone suggests that I'm not.

> People react to attack by asserting their own authority. He had to make a
> stand against you. You gave him absolutely no way out of the corner.
I don't know about that, since he just drove off without saying anything
else. And since no one's come knocking at my door, I'm going to say
that's the end of the story.

"Emily" > wrote
>
> You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
> officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
> about it really mean nothing.

There you go, with your adversarial tactics. Mellow out. Keep your views,
but be pleasant about the whole thing. Honey attracts more bears than dog
sh*t.

Instead, you could have said something like, "my military parents think I'm
right in my views, and I'll just keep on expressing them like I have.
Instead, you had to make an attacking, last shot, put down.

Or when the cop said something in the airport., instead of attacking, you
could have said, "I love airplanes, and am a pilot, and think that airplanes
are the most beautiful things in the world, so I just need to capture the
beauty." I'll bet he would have said, "Oh, OK."and walked onward.

People react to attack by asserting their own authority. He had to make a
stand against you. You gave him absolutely no way out of the corner.
--
Jim in NC

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> No problem at all.
> All the best to you

And to you.

> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
[ Elided for brevity. ]

When post 9/11 checks started, a friend of mine, an airline
pilot, was on the road. They took his nail clippers too and
then he went to the cockpit and checked to see that the
crash axe was stowed. It would make Buffy a good vampire
killer.

There was also the case of a federal marshal who had
paperwork to carry his gun on the flight and TSA cleared him
to board with his loaded pistol, but they took his nail
clippers since they were not on the paperwork.

TSA---Too Stupid for Arby's




--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
|
| "Emily" > wrote in message
| . ..
| > Dudley Henriques wrote:
| >
| >> You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing
to death, and you
| >> can complain about the inconvenience till you're blue
in the face, but
| >> the bottom line is simply that you can't have it both
ways.
| >
| > But taking pictures isn't illegal. I live right near a
large Class B
| > airport with a great observation area. I also like
taking pictures. I
| > once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and
ask why I was
| > taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and
I wasn't under any
| > obligation to explain myself to him. Yeah, he could
have made me leave,
| > but knowing I was right, he walked off.
| >
| > My point is, when I get harassed by a cop (and harassed
I was, since I
| > wasn't doing anything wrong), I'll keep on complaining.
A 20-something
| > white girl with a camera and commercial certificate in
her purse is as
| > much a security hazard as a rabbit. And you CAN have it
both ways.
|
| No, you can't have it both ways.
|
| People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately
are now a security
| issue. This doesn't mean the security people have a right
to "hassle" you or
| push you around, but it does mean that if you are
questioned politely in a
| non threatening manner you either will respond to this
"intrusion" by
| recognizing its a security issue until you demonstrate
that its not, or you
| will stand there and shout like hell that your personal
space and rights are
| being violated and that taking pictures isn't illegal.
| No one says the system is perfect. Actually, it stinks.
But complaining
| about your right to take pictures in an atmosphere where
security is an
| issue is not necessarily the best approach.
| Hell...you think your case was bad? I have a friend who
Captain's a 747. He
| and his entire crew were stopped and body searched at a
major US hub while
| an entire line of civilians went through the gates
unhampered. After 20
| minutes or so of this, they took his nail clippers. The
flight was late
| getting off, but those civilians went through just fine.
| It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach is
one of quiet
| cooperation unless there is an actual incident involving
your innocent
| activity and security people hassling you, and I mean
REALLY hassling you!.
| Just my opinion mind you :-)))
|
| Dudley Henriques
|
|
|

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Dudley Henriques wrote:
| <snip>
| > It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach
is one of quiet
| > cooperation
|
| The best approach to unfair legislation and scare tactics
is NEVER quiet
| cooperation.

The proper answer is always simple, "I like airplanes, I fly
them for a living, I teach people to fly and I'm trying to
promote aviation."

Cops always respond better to a polite answer. If you are
asked for ID, the law in most places requires that you
identify yourself in a secure area and often in any public
setting. If you are with your car or have bags, and are
asked if they can look inside, the proper answer is, 'My
lawyer has advised me to always decline, on principle."
That goes over better than , "Do you have a warrant
[challenge to authority]." If I had a rental car, I would
NEVER volunteer for a search because you don't know what is
hidden in the wheels, fenders and under the seats.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Dudley Henriques wrote:
| > "Emily" > wrote in message
| > . ..
| >
| >That security officer has every right to
| > approach you in a reasonable manner and ask you to
explain what you are
| > doing.
|
| Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to
explain myself.
|
| You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my
retired military
| officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so
your opinions
| about it really mean nothing.

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> Actually, the real threat to general aviation in the United States has been,
> is now, and always will be, the American lawyer :-)
> Dudley Henriques
>
>

I dont blame the lawyer.. I blame the folks who HIRE the lawyer.

Interesting take on this thread... How many would have thought a more
"friendly" approach would have been to simply go out to the ramp (FBO
employee, or whomever was tasked to be ramp nazi that day) and socialize
with the photographer?

Ask him nicely about what he's doing.. comment on the nice weather...
ask him where he's from.. shake his hand.. get his name.. Ask him if he
wants to get flying lessons, maybe point out a place down the road that
does discovery flights, and offer to forward his name and phone number
to them.. Invite him to come sign a visitor's log in the lobby, which
your FBO keeps there for that purpose.. look at this ID there..

If the "visitor" gets evasive or otherwise suspicious, then play "bad
cop" and switch gears.. until then, with the friendly approach, you have
made the visitor aware that he IS being watched, while at the same time
being accomodating and promoting GA. Remember.. just about all of us
started off by going to the local field and hanging around for a bit
(unless you were born into aviation, or a product of the military).

If we keep turning small airports in to private clubs with barbed wire
and keypad entries, they will soon become OLD FARTS private clubs with
rusting fences and declining membership.

Dave

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:38:07 GMT, Michael Ware wrote:

>Yup, our FBO requires ID for those that enter the ramp thru the FBO. I
>think it's a small inconvenience for the step up in security.

A gain in security because you produced some form of ID? ridiculous.
And producing it for some college guy working the desk at an FBO? even more
ridiculous.

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

On 22 Jul 2006 15:08:54 -0700, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

>A terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare etc..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

not only terrorists can do that :-)

well, consequence will be that every flight must be on a flight plan. (and
maybe charge 10 bucks per flight plan to pay for the system).

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 01:52:11 GMT, Dudley Henriques wrote:

>At the point you are approached in this reasonable manner, it is
>incumbent on you to supply a reasonable answer to that security officer.

Emily, next time you should answer "I am taking pictures." (this ansewr
should be reasonable enough). And smile! He has the power and you're only a
citizen. And never speak up.

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 01:48:26 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

>When you consider the location (an observation area), that it was a white
>woman, and the question itself, most people would realize the cop was using
>the question as a mechanism of intimidation.

Profiling at its best. What about a black or oriental looking guy in his
twenties?

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

yep.
"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
| Dudley Henriques wrote:
|
| >
| > Actually, the real threat to general aviation in the
United States has been,
| > is now, and always will be, the American lawyer :-)
| > Dudley Henriques
| >
| >
|
| I dont blame the lawyer.. I blame the folks who HIRE the
lawyer.
|
| Interesting take on this thread... How many would have
thought a more
| "friendly" approach would have been to simply go out to
the ramp (FBO
| employee, or whomever was tasked to be ramp nazi that day)
and socialize
| with the photographer?
|
| Ask him nicely about what he's doing.. comment on the nice
weather...
| ask him where he's from.. shake his hand.. get his name..
Ask him if he
| wants to get flying lessons, maybe point out a place down
the road that
| does discovery flights, and offer to forward his name and
phone number
| to them.. Invite him to come sign a visitor's log in the
lobby, which
| your FBO keeps there for that purpose.. look at this ID
there..
|
| If the "visitor" gets evasive or otherwise suspicious,
then play "bad
| cop" and switch gears.. until then, with the friendly
approach, you have
| made the visitor aware that he IS being watched, while at
the same time
| being accomodating and promoting GA. Remember.. just about
all of us
| started off by going to the local field and hanging around
for a bit
| (unless you were born into aviation, or a product of the
military).
|
| If we keep turning small airports in to private clubs with
barbed wire
| and keypad entries, they will soon become OLD FARTS
private clubs with
| rusting fences and declining membership.
|
| Dave

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, the real threat to general aviation in the United States has
>> been, is now, and always will be, the American lawyer :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I dont blame the lawyer.. I blame the folks who HIRE the lawyer.

Although its true you need a plaintiff to file a lawsuit, before lawyers
were allowed to advertise, that plaintiff had to seek out the lawyer and
initiate the proceedings.
Today, lawyers freely advertise, fishing the population for potential
lawsuits, not in the interest of justice, but completely in the interest of
filling their pockets. People who would never have sued anyone or sued a
major company for something happening that was the result of their own
carelessness and/or bad judgment have been "educated" by lawyers into
believing that there is gold at the end of every rainbow.......as long as
the lawyer gets their commission for showing the way.
Remember, you can have a greedy person wanting a lawsuit and nothing
happens, but put that greedy person in contact with a greedy lawyer, and the
lawsuits begin to flow. In today's legal world, this pairing is usually the
result of the lawyer initiating the contact!
Dudley Henriques

Jim Macklin wrote:

> The next morning there were more than a dozen airplanes sitting on the ramp, firewall
> forward missing and the avionics were all taken. Later the DC3 was caught and they
> had rigged a canvas and chain hoist on a rail out the door. They'd taxi near a Bonanza or
> C210 and if the couldn't steal the airplane, they'd use power saws or cutting torches to
> remove the parts they wanted.
>
> Drug smugglers, plain thieves, and terrorists all want your airplane.


If they were wealthy enough to have learnt flying and owning a plane,
why would they be stealing? Have I missed a tongue-in-cheek thing here,
Jim? :))

Ramapriya

Emily wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Emily wrote:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>> That security officer has every right to approach you in a
>>>> reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.
>>>
>>> You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
>>> officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
>>> about it really mean nothing.
>>
>>
>> You really should move out and learn to live on your own.
>
>
> Move out where? Out of my house? No thanks, if I pay a mortgage on
> property, I'd like to enjoy living there.

It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
probably are still living with your parents.

Matt

Emily wrote:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Actually Emily, you being anti-authority or not is your business
>> really, and the fact that your parents, military or not, "agree with
>> your anti-authority streak" actually would have no effect on my
>> opinion one way or the other, as that opinion and/or any meaning that
>> opinion might have are totally unrelated to your parents.
>
>
> I wasn't writing that for your benefit, I was writing it for anyone else
> that might be reading along. I don't want other people getting the
> mistaken idea that I'm a complete anarchist with no sense of when to
> back down. You, on the other hand, have already made up your mind (with
> an incorrect conclusion)

You certainly come across as an anarchist, or a juvenile, I'm not sure
which not knowing your age.

Matt

Emily wrote:

> Morgans wrote:
>
>> "Emily" > wrote
>
>
>> There you go, with your adversarial tactics. Mellow out. Keep your
>> views,
>> but be pleasant about the whole thing. Honey attracts more bears than
>> dog
>> sh*t.
>
> When you're told over and over by lovers of the current regime that
> you're a libertarian anarchist freak, you tend to get defensive after a
> while. And besides that, I'm not here to impress anyone.

And when you describe the current administration as a "regime" you
cement that you are an anarchist freak. You can't have it both ways.
If you are going to act like one, you will be characterized as one.


>> Or when the cop said something in the airport., instead of attacking, you
>> could have said, "I love airplanes, and am a pilot, and think that
>> airplanes
>> are the most beautiful things in the world, so I just need to capture the
>> beauty." I'll bet he would have said, "Oh, OK."and walked onward.
>
> This was outside at the airport, actually. My point is, I'm not going
> to explain myself when I'm not required to. I want the government out
> of my life, and yes, that includes a random cop at the airport. I live
> my life on the right side of the law, and I get rather annoyed when
> someone suggests that I'm not.

Unfortunately, unless you go buy your own island, you will have some
government in your life no matter where in the world you go.

Matt

Dave S wrote:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, the real threat to general aviation in the United States has
>> been, is now, and always will be, the American lawyer :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>
> I dont blame the lawyer.. I blame the folks who HIRE the lawyer.
>
> Interesting take on this thread... How many would have thought a more
> "friendly" approach would have been to simply go out to the ramp (FBO
> employee, or whomever was tasked to be ramp nazi that day) and socialize
> with the photographer?
>
> Ask him nicely about what he's doing.. comment on the nice weather...
> ask him where he's from.. shake his hand.. get his name.. Ask him if he
> wants to get flying lessons, maybe point out a place down the road that
> does discovery flights, and offer to forward his name and phone number
> to them.. Invite him to come sign a visitor's log in the lobby, which
> your FBO keeps there for that purpose.. look at this ID there..

Yes, a much better approach. Accomplishes the same thing from a
security perspective and maybe even gets a new student if the person
isn't there for nefarious purposes.

Matt

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 01:52:11 GMT, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>
>>At the point you are approached in this reasonable manner, it is
>>incumbent on you to supply a reasonable answer to that security officer.
>
>
> Emily, next time you should answer "I am taking pictures." (this ansewr
> should be reasonable enough). And smile! He has the power and you're only a
> citizen. And never speak up.

That is the nice thing about the US, the citizens have the ultimate
power at the end of the day. Maybe not any one citizen in an encounter
such as this, but we can vote the rascals out. Unfortunately, as one of
our early statesman said, and I'm paraphrasing, one of the problems with
democracy is that people will vote for things that in the end will
bankrupt the government. We all hate other people's pork, but vote for
representatives who will get us our fair share. Unfortunately, everyone
gets more than their fair share and we're going bankrupt because of it.

Matt

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Actually, the real threat to general aviation in the United States has
>>>been, is now, and always will be, the American lawyer :-)
>>>Dudley Henriques
>>
>>I dont blame the lawyer.. I blame the folks who HIRE the lawyer.
>
>
> Although its true you need a plaintiff to file a lawsuit, before lawyers
> were allowed to advertise, that plaintiff had to seek out the lawyer and
> initiate the proceedings.
> Today, lawyers freely advertise, fishing the population for potential
> lawsuits, not in the interest of justice, but completely in the interest of
> filling their pockets. People who would never have sued anyone or sued a
> major company for something happening that was the result of their own
> carelessness and/or bad judgment have been "educated" by lawyers into
> believing that there is gold at the end of every rainbow.......as long as
> the lawyer gets their commission for showing the way.
> Remember, you can have a greedy person wanting a lawsuit and nothing
> happens, but put that greedy person in contact with a greedy lawyer, and the
> lawsuits begin to flow. In today's legal world, this pairing is usually the
> result of the lawyer initiating the contact!

Personally, I have no problem with lawyers advertising, but I think we
also should have a loser pays system like at least parts of Europe
enjoy. The losing lawyer should pay the winning lawyer's fee and the
court costs and the plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs if the
plaintiff loses.

Matt

Security doesn't just have to be about preventing terrorism or a reaction to
terrorism. Plenty of airplanes have very expensive and very easy to remove
avionics and parts.



I find it strange that so many people will defend the right for people to
walk around an airport un hindered taking pictures or just looking around..

Yet I would guess that if the same person were walking around the marina or
the RV storage yard or your house taking pictures or writing down your
license plates, boat registration numbers you just might consider it
suspicious and challenge the person yourself. ( a picture is the same as
writing it down, it can be reviewed later)



And let's not forget that it is only the aircraft tail number that anyone
can go to the internet and lookup the owners name and address on the
internet..



I have a feeling that the people who complain the most about the fences or
the locks on the doors are the ones who don't own an aircraft that they want
protected from any kind of harm..

> My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
> security or you're not..period!

I don't know what this means. There is no such thing as security - only
illusion - if we wish to preserve our basic freedoms. If you are
willing to give up your basic freedoms, then the security you end up
with will prevent you from flying in the first place. There are in fact
gradations in the effectiveness of security, and of the illusions it
presents to the public.

> People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a security
> issue.

In what way are they a "security issue"?

In what way does showing an ID make the "security issue" go away?

> ...recognizing its a security issue until you demonstrate that its not...

Proving your innocence? That's not the way it works in a free society.

> By [the OP's] own word, he simply asked you why you were taking
> pictures.

No, he was doing so in uniform. That makes all the difference.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> ...plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs if the plaintiff loses.

This gives a huge advantage to the rich and the corporate, who can
afford the risk of losing a suit, especially one of high stakes.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Emily wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>
>>>>> That security officer has every right to approach you in a
>>>>> reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.
>>>>
>>>> You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired
>>>> military officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so
>>>> your opinions about it really mean nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>> You really should move out and learn to live on your own.
>>
>>
>> Move out where? Out of my house? No thanks, if I pay a mortgage on
>> property, I'd like to enjoy living there.
>
> It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
> probably are still living with your parents.
>
> Matt
Obvious?

Hmmm....I wonder where they are? Maybe upstairs? Maybe in the garage?
Um, no, how odd, I can't find them. Maybe because they live 1000
miles away and I own this house that I live in ALONE.

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> You certainly come across as an anarchist, or a juvenile, I'm not sure
> which not knowing your age.
>
> Matt

No, I come across as someone who is terrified about the state of our
current government. At least one person has picked up on that. I can't
help your lack of reading comprehension. Are you American?

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 01:52:11 GMT, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> At the point you are approached in this reasonable manner, it is
>> incumbent on you to supply a reasonable answer to that security officer.
>
> Emily, next time you should answer "I am taking pictures." (this ansewr
> should be reasonable enough). And smile! He has the power and you're only a
> citizen. And never speak up.

Like someone else said, that's the great thing about the United States.
I'm not "only" a citizen.

Emily wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> You certainly come across as an anarchist, or a juvenile, I'm not sure
>> which not knowing your age.
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> No, I come across as someone who is terrified about the state of our
> current government. At least one person has picked up on that. I can't
> help your lack of reading comprehension. Are you American?

100%. However, I'm not a paranoid American.

Matt

In article >, "me" > wrote:

> I have a feeling that the people who complain the most about the fences or
> the locks on the doors are the ones who don't own an aircraft that they want
> protected from any kind of harm..

I'm an aircraft owner. The fences and locks are idiotic. Anyone who thinks
that they actually enhance security is an idiot.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You certainly come across as an anarchist, or a juvenile, I'm not
>>> sure which not knowing your age.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>> No, I come across as someone who is terrified about the state of our
>> current government. At least one person has picked up on that. I
>> can't help your lack of reading comprehension. Are you American?
>
> 100%. However, I'm not a paranoid American.
>
> Matt

Then you're part of the problem. History has shown what happens when
the people just roll over for the government.

Emily wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Emily wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You certainly come across as an anarchist, or a juvenile, I'm not
>>>> sure which not knowing your age.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I come across as someone who is terrified about the state of our
>>> current government. At least one person has picked up on that. I
>>> can't help your lack of reading comprehension. Are you American?
>>
>>
>> 100%. However, I'm not a paranoid American.
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> Then you're part of the problem. History has shown what happens when
> the people just roll over for the government.

Only to the paranoid.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Emily wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You certainly come across as an anarchist, or a juvenile, I'm not
>>>>> sure which not knowing your age.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, I come across as someone who is terrified about the state of our
>>>> current government. At least one person has picked up on that. I
>>>> can't help your lack of reading comprehension. Are you American?
>>>
>>>
>>> 100%. However, I'm not a paranoid American.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>> Then you're part of the problem. History has shown what happens when
>> the people just roll over for the government.
>
> Only to the paranoid.
>
> Matt

Obviously we disagree on this. Keep your head in the sand, it seems to
have worked for you so far.

Emily wrote:

>> 100%. However, I'm not a paranoid American.
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> Then you're part of the problem. History has shown what happens when
> the people just roll over for the government.

So those are my two choices? Paranoid or a push over? I think not.

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
> probably are still living with your parents.

You've now posted several personal attacks against Emily. She correctly
understood the law in one of her anecdotes and yet was attacked for
defending her rightful actions. I've posted elsewhere information that
supports her position. Your attack posts are self-referentially absurd and
I'm surprised you don't realize how this comes across.

Security at airports is a tightrope walk. If you're on some rural
airfield, security is really just a matter of knowing who your neighbors
are and who should or shouldn't be entering their airplane.

At larger municipal airports, the key concern is that you may not be
able to know who the folks around you are, so some form of fence and
perhaps a combination lock system is probably appropriate.

I've always been of the opinion that the best security one could buy at
an airport is a regular picnic or cookout where the folks can socialize
and meet the other folks at the airport. Then you're all looking out
for each other because that's what you'd do anyway.

Being anonymous in a very public major city airport can lead to
draconian measures for security because nobody knows you, yet you may
have every reason for being there.

I would never introduce a newcomer to aviation by taking them to an
international airport.

Meanwhile, small private fields are disappearing day by day as the land
around them gets developed for more exurban sprawl. The reason aviation
is dying is the same reason that farming is disappearing. It's gotten
too efficient at what it does and now there are all sorts of regulations
and restrictions as fewer and fewer people are graduating with technical
aspirations in mind. We're becoming victims of our own success.

It's basically a war of mediocrity against those with smarts. And the
moguls of mediocrity are winning. Sigh.

Jake Brodsky

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Emily wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Emily wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You certainly come across as an anarchist, or a juvenile, I'm not sure
>>>>> which not knowing your age.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, I come across as someone who is terrified about the state of our
>>>> current government. At least one person has picked up on that. I
>>>> can't help your lack of reading comprehension. Are you American?
>>>
>>>
>>> 100%. However, I'm not a paranoid American.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>> Then you're part of the problem. History has shown what happens when the
>> people just roll over for the government.
>
> Only to the paranoid.
>
> Matt

There was a time when people who thought that they were being watched by
government were dismissed and called paranoid.

What do you call those people who KNOW that they are being watched?
What do you call the watchers?

The threats to our freedoms do NOT come from outside our borders.

I have a friend who is a lawyer [not a sue the rich whore]
and now a state Senator. His favorite saying is, "Just
because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching
you."

Everywhere you go, there are recording video cameras. The
corner store has cameras aimed the doors and each cash
register. The clerks think this is their security, it is
just so they can a. keep the clerks from stealing and 2.
catch the robber who killed the clerk.
On the street they have cameras at intersections, to
identify speeders, stop light running, and track movements
by terrorists. It also raises revenue for those stop lights
run, since the get the driver's face and the vehicle make,
model, color and tag number.

Security on an airport means you check everybody without
insulting or offending anybody "differently" from anybody
else. So you can't profile Arab young men in groups, but
you just randomly search everybody, the wounded vet, the
Congressman, the pilots [airline crew], the baby in
diapers.Just don't allow the screeners to be accused of
discrimination.

What about a van or truck two miles from the airport, with a
shoulder launched missile? What about the unexpected attack
on a small town, that only has two part-time policemen.
Terror is about making every place seem too dangerous and
you can't protect everywhere with official police and
guards.

That's where citizens come in, report, approach and ask "Can
I help you?" Would you like to learn to fly, I've got an
application, here's a pen. You should be friendly and catch
hints wile they're off guard.

Obvious bomb making stuff does not look like sticks of
dynamite, lots of things explode, burn or poison. Get some
training from your police on what to look for and what is
proper near any important area. A car or truck parked in a
no parking zone, or abandoned in a tunnel or under a bridge.

There is no Jack Bauer or Casey Ryback and Columbo and The
Lone Ranger are fiction too.

Be polite works both ways, a cop who is polite can detect
evasion and motives, a polite person will get help and not a
roust.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.



"Private" > wrote in message
news:FIPwg.222575$Mn5.24708@pd7tw3no...
|
| "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Emily wrote:
| >
| >> Matt Whiting wrote:
| >>
| >>> Emily wrote:
| >>>
| >>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
| >>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>> You certainly come across as an anarchist, or a
juvenile, I'm not sure
| >>>>> which not knowing your age.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Matt
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>> No, I come across as someone who is terrified about
the state of our
| >>>> current government. At least one person has picked
up on that. I
| >>>> can't help your lack of reading comprehension. Are
you American?
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> 100%. However, I'm not a paranoid American.
| >>>
| >>> Matt
| >>
| >>
| >> Then you're part of the problem. History has shown
what happens when the
| >> people just roll over for the government.
| >
| > Only to the paranoid.
| >
| > Matt
|
| There was a time when people who thought that they were
being watched by
| government were dismissed and called paranoid.
|
| What do you call those people who KNOW that they are being
watched?
| What do you call the watchers?
|
| The threats to our freedoms do NOT come from outside our
borders.
|
|

Private wrote:

>
> The threats to our freedoms do NOT come from outside our borders.

At all? Really?

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:54:35 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

>> Emily, next time you should answer "I am taking pictures." (this ansewr
>> should be reasonable enough). And smile! He has the power and you're only a
>> citizen. And never speak up.
>
>That is the nice thing about the US, the citizens have the ultimate
>power at the end of the day.


this is nothing special. Many countries on our planet work this way - in
theory - just like it is in the USA.

> Maybe not any one citizen in an encounter
>such as this, but we can vote the rascals out.

see above.

> Unfortunately, as one of
>our early statesman said, and I'm paraphrasing, one of the problems with
>democracy is that people will vote for things that in the end will
>bankrupt the government. We all hate other people's pork, but vote for
>representatives who will get us our fair share. Unfortunately, everyone
>gets more than their fair share and we're going bankrupt because of it.

see above.

>Matt

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Private wrote:
>
>>
>> The threats to our freedoms do NOT come from outside our borders.
>
> At all? Really?

External forces may threaten many things, but we ourselves are the greatest
threat to our own freedom.

I think Ben Franklin's (attributed) words said it best "Those who would
give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."

Some other thoughts on the matter,

John Adams
Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of
your
liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
These, as
they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy,
chicanery and cowardice.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect
liberty
when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom
are
naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
encroachment
by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

Samuel Adams
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution,
are
worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them
against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance
from
our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and
danger
and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with
care
and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the
present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them
to be
wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out
of
them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Lyn Nofziger
One of the things that bothers me most is the growing belief in the
country that security is more important than freedom. It ain't.

Thomas Jefferson
Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it?
Or
will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom?
Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.

Vance Packard
The most common characteristic of all police states is intimidation
by
surveillance. Citizens know they are being watched and overheard.
Their
mail is being examined. Their homes can be invaded.

"Necessity" is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt, 1783

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where
the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act
only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human
history, the stage of rule by brute force. Ayn Ran

Edmund Burke
"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by
parts."

"Liberty has never come from the government.... The history of liberty is
the history of resistance...a history of the limitation of governmental
power, not the increase of it." --Woodrow Wilson

'Eternal Vigilance Is The Price of Liberty' used to mean we watched the
government - not the other way around.

"A conservative is a liberal that's been mugged.
A libertarian is a conservative that's been mugged by his government."

"There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people
by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by
violent
and sudden usurpation." James Madison

Private wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>>Private wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The threats to our freedoms do NOT come from outside our borders.
>>
>>At all? Really?
>
>
> External forces may threaten many things, but we ourselves are the greatest
> threat to our own freedom.


There you go, backing off already. As you should have. I have much
more freedom today than 50 years ago.

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Private wrote:
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>
>>> Private wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The threats to our freedoms do NOT come from outside our borders.
>>>
>>> At all? Really?
>>
>>
>> External forces may threaten many things, but we ourselves are the
>> greatest threat to our own freedom.
>
>
> There you go, backing off already. As you should have. I have much
> more freedom today than 50 years ago.

Well, I'm not 50 years old, but I have less freedom than I did 10 years
ago. Actually, I was a minor 10 years ago, so let's see I have less
freedom than I did five years ago.

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
>> probably are still living with your parents.
>
> You've now posted several personal attacks against Emily. She correctly
> understood the law in one of her anecdotes and yet was attacked for
> defending her rightful actions. I've posted elsewhere information that
> supports her position. Your attack posts are self-referentially absurd and
> I'm surprised you don't realize how this comes across.


First of all, "Emily" didn't in any shape or form correctly understand the
law in her self explained antics dealing with airport security. You are
completely wrong if you believe this.
Quite frankly, you "legal hair splitters" make my hair hurt! :-)
Secondly, duly appointed and authorized airport security has legal authority
to approach anyone at anytime, anywhere on the airport property.....period!
The manner of this approach is of course always subject to "hair splitting"
interpretation by people like you and Emily, but make no mistake about it ,
if you are on an airport property that is protected under law by an acting
authorized security agency, you have no "free or public zone" where your
"rights" of privacy take precedent over this authority. You may not like it,
and the security approach might not meet with your "delicate interpretation
"of your "rights", but like it or not, its perfectly legal.
As I said before, the system stinks , and there are good cops and there are
bad cops out there. But the fact remains; they are still duly authorized
cops, on their own duly authorized ground, and only people more concerned
with themselves than they are with security, start the type of idiotic
response to being approached that you and Emily are endorsing.
Dudley Henriques

If in 6 weeks time, that aircraft is stolen, and ends up getting loaded with
C4 or some nerve gas, and then crashed into downtown metropolis somewhere,
they'll be glad that security officer took the trouble to find out exactly
who had been hanging around the aircraft in the weeks before the event.
If nothing happens, the security guard can sleep well, knowing he's at least
done his job.
I don't own an a/c or even have a licence to fly one (yet!) but if I did, I
think I'd welcome the checks. If the kid had nothing to hide, what's the
problem with a quick 5 minute visit to the office to show an ID?
Crash Lander

--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>> This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
>> respected in that context.
>> My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
>> security or you're not..period!
>
> Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field
> has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots
> or passengers - even transients. Presumably folks in an airplane are
> bigger threats than people taking pictures, so why does the buck stop with
> a kid taking pictures?
>
> What I see with most <not all> of the "security" procedures we face today
> is that they inconvenience the innocent folks, but would have no impact on
> an actual threat. A great example is the TFR around a sporting event.
> Anything with wings could penetrate the TFR. Unless it is the Superbowl
> or World Series, there won't be anything in place to stop even a C-150 if
> somebody wanted to use one to create mayhem. The TFR is eyewash.
>
> Same thing with getting the ID of a kid taking pictures. It doesn't stop
> someone from taking pictures. Nor would it stop him if he was up to
> no-good.
>
> That said, the point I was trying to make is that the FBO employee (or his
> boss) pulled this "rule" out of his you-know-what. An excellent example
> of how to drive off a prospective client. The kind of client who is sorely
> needed by GA if it is going to survive another 50 years.
>
> KB
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
> Interesting take on this thread... How many would have thought a more
> "friendly" approach would have been to simply go out to the ramp (FBO
> employee, or whomever was tasked to be ramp nazi that day) and socialize
> with the photographer?
>
> Ask him nicely about what he's doing.. comment on the nice weather... ask
> him where he's from.. shake his hand.. get his name.. Ask him if he wants
> to get flying lessons, maybe point out a place down the road that does
> discovery flights, and offer to forward his name and phone number to
> them.. Invite him to come sign a visitor's log in the lobby, which your
> FBO keeps there for that purpose.. look at this ID there..
>
> If the "visitor" gets evasive or otherwise suspicious, then play "bad cop"
> and switch gears.. until then, with the friendly approach, you have made
> the visitor aware that he IS being watched, while at the same time being
> accomodating and promoting GA. Remember.. just about all of us started off
> by going to the local field and hanging around for a bit (unless you were
> born into aviation, or a product of the military).

> Dave

Interesting suggestion Dave, and very valid, but I don't know many security
officers that possess the 'salesman type' persona to be able to carry that
off too well. True, that's a generalisation, but you must admit, a lot of
security guards might struggle with it.
Not saying sec guards are dumb or meat heads or anything, don't get me
wrong, just saying that they are generally or the thought that something is
always not right, and it's their job to make it right. Sort of guilty until
proven innocent.
Crash Lander

No tie down spots left tells me GA is not dying.
Crash Lander

--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Airport security is a mess and needs
>>>>>reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe all airports should emulate the kind of security they have at
>>>>AirVenture Oshkosh. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> I really miss the "old days".
>>>
>>> I remember one night at OSH many years ago with Steve Whitman and a
>>> whole gang of us sitting around under the wing of my airplane eating hot
>>> dogs; drinking cold beer; and telling old war stories. No gates; no
>>> cops; no security; only good fellowship and the reflection of happy
>>> faces from the fire a few yards down the line in an empty tiedown
>>> spot......YES!!!!!!!! There actually WAS an empty tiedown
>>> spot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> No way. I was actually believing your story until you got to the empty
>> tiedown statement... :-)
>
> No kidding. Its the truth. Bonzo was in the hangar :-)))))
> Dudley Henriques
>

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> No tie down spots left tells me GA is not dying.
> Crash Lander

Could be :-)
DH

Dudley Henriques wrote:


> Secondly, duly appointed and authorized airport security has legal authority
> to approach anyone at anytime, anywhere on the airport property.....period!

And always have had.

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>
>> Secondly, duly appointed and authorized airport security has legal
>> authority to approach anyone at anytime, anywhere on the airport
>> property.....period!
>
> And always have had.

Amen!
DH

> If the kid had nothing to hide, what's the
> problem with a quick 5 minute visit to the office to show an ID?

The problems is the =idea= that "if you have nothing to hide...". I
should not have to prove that I have nothing to hide by not hiding it.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Or it means the other airports have been forced to close and
the airplanes are crowded in fewer places.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
| No tie down spots left tells me GA is not dying.
| Crash Lander
|
| --
| I'm not always right,
| But I'm never wrong!
| "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
message
|
nk.net...
| >
| >snip

>>In what way are they a "security issue"?
>>
>>In what way does showing an ID make the "security issue" go away?
>
> Last year security people at a large commercial aircraft plant (which
> shall go unnamed) noticed 2 men videotaping the plant. [...]
> They were approached by security and asked to identify themselves.
> They did so - they were Syrian nationals, on student visas. [...]
> The security people found that suspicious and that gave them cause to
> search the car. There they found photos and videotapes of commercial
> airports, chemical plants, sports venues, shopping centers, theme
> parks and trains. They also found a haz-mat manual, which decoded the
> signs you see on chemical tank trucks and trains saying what they're
> carrying...

We are not talking about a large commercial aircraft plant. We are
talking about a person at an (unnamed but presumed small) airport who
was taking pictures of a (presmuably small) airplane WITH the pilot's
permssion. (True, I don't know whether he took any other pictures:
> I taxied over to the wash stand...
> The young guy from before happed to be over by the wash
> stand with his camera, so we had another conversation as I was washing the
> airplane.
) but he was chatting with a pilot who had flown in (presumably)
legitimately. There is a world of difference between the two.

I do agree that photography and note-taking can be used for illicit
purposes. So can mere observation and dicatation into a tape recorder.
Knowledge can be used illicitly - knowing the haz-mat symbols is
useful to terrorists, and not very useful to the average citizen. Is
this however really sufficient to restrict the knowledge? Would
restricting the knowledge really be possible, or even help?

Every independent terrorist act involves the use of basic freedoms.
However, if you restrict these basic freedoms inappropriately, we will
end up with government sponsored terrorist acts against its own citizens
instead, and these are far scarier.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dudley,

> People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a security
> issue.
>

One example where the taking of pictures led directly to a security breach.
Just one. Thanks.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

It only has to happen once for a tragedy to occur. No-one checked the soles
of your shoes for explosives until someone tried to blow up something with
explosives in their shoes either. A perfect example of not bothering with it
until a tragedy occurs. When someone takes some pics of a plane, and those
pics are found in the apartment of someone who's just blown themselves and
your best mate up with that same plane somewhere down your street, will you
be complaining why nobody did anything when they saw him taking the pictures
at your local aerodrome?
I'm with Dudley on this one.
Crash Lander

--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley,
>
>> People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a
>> security
>> issue.
>>
>
> One example where the taking of pictures led directly to a security
> breach.
> Just one. Thanks.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Crash,

> If in 6 weeks time, that aircraft is stolen, and ends up getting loaded with
> C4 or some nerve gas, and then crashed into downtown metropolis somewhere,
>

You should try some other channels than Fox.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Emily,

> No, I come across as someone who is terrified about the state of our
> current government. At least one person has picked up on that. I can't
> help your lack of reading comprehension. Are you American?
>

Google posts from Matt, it'll help you understand...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> It only has to happen once for a tragedy to occur. No-one
> checked the soles of your shoes for explosives until someone
> tried to blow up something with explosives in their shoes
> either. A perfect example of not bothering with it until a
> tragedy occurs. When someone takes some pics of a plane, and
> those pics are found in the apartment of someone who's just
> blown themselves and your best mate up with that same plane
> somewhere down your street, will you be complaining why nobody
> did anything when they saw him taking the pictures at your
> local aerodrome? I'm with Dudley on this one.
> Crash Lander
>
> --
> I'm not always right,
> But I'm never wrong!

First, don't top post. It screws up the readability of the thread. Second,
your logic is some of the worst ever posted on Usenet, so it is pretty bad.
Just because something has not happened is not an excuse to have
over-the-top, ridiculous, paranoid, government-is-always-right security
procedures. If that is what you want then move to some authoritarian
country. Quit trying to turn this country into some slave state.
Personally, I am fed up with the current culture of stupidity that has taken
over this country. It doesn't matter whether it is global warming,
religion, Iraq, taxes, security or stem cells. The stupidity has to stop.


> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dudley,
> >
> >> People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a
> >> security
> >> issue.
> >>
> >
> > One example where the taking of pictures led directly to a security
> > breach.
> > Just one. Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> >
>
>

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> First, don't top post. It screws up the readability of the thread.

See, now you're trying to assert authority over me by telling me not to top
post. Hmmm. A bit of contradiction is sneaking into this discussion.

>Second, your logic is some of the worst ever posted on Usenet, so it is
>pretty bad.

Your opinion, which you are entitled to, is not the be all and end all of
anything.


> Just because something has not happened is not an excuse to have
> over-the-top, ridiculous, paranoid, government-is-always-right security
> procedures.

If you see a child running towards a pool, do you stop it? It probably will
stop. 99.999999% of the time they do! It only takes you not being interested
or active enough to stop and talk to that child that perhaps causes it to
fall in and drown.

> If that is what you want then move to some authoritarian
> country. Quit trying to turn this country into some slave state.

You are assuming that everyone here is from the USA? You are naive. There
are more countries in the world than the one you are whinging about.

> Personally, I am fed up with the current culture of stupidity that has
> taken
> over this country. It doesn't matter whether it is global warming,
> religion, Iraq, taxes, security or stem cells. The stupidity has to stop.

Sounds like you don't like it there. Perhaps you should move?

PS. I was going to top post this, as most people don't have a drama with it,
but decided not to because I thought you might struggle.

Good luck to you.
Crash Lander

Crash,

> It only has to happen once for a tragedy to occur. No-one checked the soles
> of your shoes for explosives until someone tried to blow up something with
> explosives in their shoes either. A perfect example of not bothering with it
> until a tragedy occurs.

Nope. A perfect example for understanding that there will always be a risk.
There is no total security. The question is: How much freedom do you give up
hunting the elusive "minimal risk".

> When someone takes some pics of a plane, and those
> pics are found in the apartment of someone who's just blown themselves and
> your best mate up with that same plane somewhere down your street, will you
> be complaining why nobody did anything when they saw him taking the pictures
> at your local aerodrome?

No. Why would I? There is always risk in life.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I like to top post, it is called


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
ink.net...
|
| "Crash Lander" > wrote in message
| ...
| > It only has to happen once for a tragedy to occur.
No-one
| > checked the soles of your shoes for explosives until
someone
| > tried to blow up something with explosives in their
shoes
| > either. A perfect example of not bothering with it until
a
| > tragedy occurs. When someone takes some pics of a plane,
and
| > those pics are found in the apartment of someone who's
just
| > blown themselves and your best mate up with that same
plane
| > somewhere down your street, will you be complaining why
nobody
| > did anything when they saw him taking the pictures at
your
| > local aerodrome? I'm with Dudley on this one.
| > Crash Lander
| >
| > --
| > I'm not always right,
| > But I'm never wrong!
|
| First, don't top post. It screws up the readability of
the thread. Second,
| your logic is some of the worst ever posted on Usenet, so
it is pretty bad.
| Just because something has not happened is not an excuse
to have
| over-the-top, ridiculous, paranoid,
government-is-always-right security
| procedures. If that is what you want then move to some
authoritarian
| country. Quit trying to turn this country into some slave
state.
| Personally, I am fed up with the current culture of
stupidity that has taken
| over this country. It doesn't matter whether it is global
warming,
| religion, Iraq, taxes, security or stem cells. The
stupidity has to stop.
|
|
| > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message
| > ...
| > > Dudley,
| > >
| > >> People who are taking pictures at airports
unfortunately are now a
| > >> security
| > >> issue.
| > >>
| > >
| > > One example where the taking of pictures led directly
to a security
| > > breach.
| > > Just one. Thanks.
| > >
| > > --
| > > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
| > >
| >
| >
|
|

Some top posting and some bottom, enjoy scrolling.


"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:O23xg.84029$ZW3.46325@dukeread04...
|I like to top post, it is called
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| --
| The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| some support
| http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
| See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and
duties.
|
|
| "Tom Conner" > wrote in message
|
ink.net...
||
|| "Crash Lander" > wrote in message
|| ...
|| > It only has to happen once for a tragedy to occur.
| No-one
|| > checked the soles of your shoes for explosives until
| someone
|| > tried to blow up something with explosives in their
| shoes
|| > either. A perfect example of not bothering with it
until
| a
|| > tragedy occurs. When someone takes some pics of a
plane,
| and
|| > those pics are found in the apartment of someone who's
| just
|| > blown themselves and your best mate up with that same
| plane
|| > somewhere down your street, will you be complaining why
| nobody
|| > did anything when they saw him taking the pictures at
| your
|| > local aerodrome? I'm with Dudley on this one.
|| > Crash Lander
|| >
|| > --
|| > I'm not always right,
|| > But I'm never wrong!
||
|| First, don't top post. It screws up the readability of
| the thread. Second,
|| your logic is some of the worst ever posted on Usenet, so
| it is pretty bad.
|| Just because something has not happened is not an excuse
| to have
|| over-the-top, ridiculous, paranoid,
| government-is-always-right security
|| procedures. If that is what you want then move to some
| authoritarian
|| country. Quit trying to turn this country into some
slave
| state.
|| Personally, I am fed up with the current culture of
| stupidity that has taken
|| over this country. It doesn't matter whether it is
global
| warming,
|| religion, Iraq, taxes, security or stem cells. The
| stupidity has to stop.
||
||
|| > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote
in
| message
|| > ...
|| > > Dudley,
|| > >
|| > >> People who are taking pictures at airports
| unfortunately are now a
|| > >> security
|| > >> issue.
|| > >>
|| > >
|| > > One example where the taking of pictures led directly
| to a security
|| > > breach.
|| > > Just one. Thanks.
|| > >
|| > > --
|| > > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|| > >
|| >
|| >
||
||
|
|


freedom. Besides, If I open a post I want to see the latest
answer if I've been following the issue. If not, I could
start at the bottom of the tree.

The cop was just trying to make conversation. Some of them routinely find
reasons to talk with young women.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley,
>
>> People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a
>> security
>> issue.
>>
>
> One example where the taking of pictures led directly to a security
> breach.
> Just one. Thanks.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

You seem to be missing the point.
Even if one assumes there has never been a single incident of someone taking
a picture at an airport that has led directly to a security issue, which may
or may not be the case BTW ; the fact remains that taking pictures at
airports has now been placed within the realm of a possible security issue,
and as such, those taking these pictures at airports are well advised to
conduct themselves accordingly while on airport property.
The fact that this "disturbs" you as an individual, or that some person you
challenge on Usenet to produce examples has absolutely nothing at all to do
with the simple fact that taking pictures at airports falls directly into a
security issue category for those entrusted with these issues.
Your argument is weak and flawed. The statement that "people taking pictures
at airports are a security issue" is correct. You are attempting to disprove
that statement by inserting your opinion on the necessity for the issue,
which of course is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
It's an old dodge really; changing the premise to present a new result. You
should consider a career in politics :-))
Dudley Henriques

Tom Conner wrote:



>
>
> First, don't top post. It screws up the readability of the thread.

Get over it.


Second,
> your logic is some of the worst ever posted on Usenet, so it is pretty bad.
> Just because something has not happened is not an excuse to have
> over-the-top, ridiculous, paranoid, government-is-always-right security
> procedures.

They asked for ID. That's it. If that's over the top and ridiculous
life must really suck for you. How is that any different than your
neighbors setting up a neighborhood watch program? When you notice
something or someone out of the ordinary some action is taken. Myself
and everybody else out there have a lot invested in our toys in those
hangars and on the ramp. Plus it's a safety issue. Because someone who
was supposed to be on the ramp last month saw someone who wasn't and
called the tower a drunk guy was removed from a taxiway at midnight,
stumbling around. What if he decides to pass out on the runway and gets
run over? Sorry, we saw him but we have some idiots in society here who
think you shouldn't be asked who you are and what you're doing if you
look a little(or a lot) out of the ordinary. Too police state for them.

Dudley,

> You seem to be missing the point.
> Even if one assumes there has never been a single incident of someone taking
> a picture at an airport that has led directly to a security issue, which may
> or may not be the case BTW ; the fact remains that taking pictures at
> airports has now been placed within the realm of a possible security issue,
> and as such, those taking these pictures at airports are well advised to
> conduct themselves accordingly while on airport property.
> The fact that this "disturbs" you as an individual, or that some person you
> challenge on Usenet to produce examples has absolutely nothing at all to do
> with the simple fact that taking pictures at airports falls directly into a
> security issue category for those entrusted with these issues.
> Your argument is weak and flawed.

Hoho, talk about a dodge! Look, this is simple. You stated:

> >> People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a
> >> security
> >> issue.

I asked you to back that statement up with fact. You can't. Nowhere in your
statement do you qualify that "some people" perceive photography at airports as
an issue. You simply state that it is. Well, it isn't. Not until you prove
otherwise.

See, that wasn't so hard, now, was it?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Newps,

> How is that any different than your
> neighbors setting up a neighborhood watch program? When you notice
> something or someone out of the ordinary some action is taken.
>

Yep. The Nazis in my country called that "Blockwart". Nice concept.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> the fact remains that taking pictures at
> airports has now been placed within the realm of a possible security issue

So is wearing shoes, taking notes, walking around, and sneezing. It's
all within the realm of a possible security issue. In fact posting on
Usenet is most certainly a security issue, so anybody who posts on
Usenet should accept that they may be accosted at any time for any
reason by security should they wish to be at an airport.

So tell me, what =is= it that makes taking pictures a "security issue"
while your likely response to my prior paragraph would be ridicule?

Something doesn't become a security issue simply because a security
person says so.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> If you see a child running towards a pool, do you stop it?

Children run towards pools all the time. They even jump in. That's
what pools are for.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> No-one checked the soles
> of your shoes for explosives until someone
> tried to blow up something with
> explosives in their shoes either.

And now we all have to take our shoes off, which has added nothing to
the security of air travel. Nobody has examined my reading matter or my
carry-on food however. Do we have to wait for another tragedy when
somebody carries a book bomb on the airplane, or hides poison in a Big
Mac he's carried on board?

I can think of a hundred ways to cause mayhem on an airplane which do
not require explosives in shoes. You can too, I'm sure. Shouldn't we
be "protecting" the public?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> How is that any different than your neighbors setting up a neighborhood watch program?

When I get accosted by a cop because I took a picture in somebody else's
neighborhood, it is no different. Perhaps cameras should be registered
weapons.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley,
>
>> You seem to be missing the point.
>> Even if one assumes there has never been a single incident of someone
>> taking
>> a picture at an airport that has led directly to a security issue, which
>> may
>> or may not be the case BTW ; the fact remains that taking pictures at
>> airports has now been placed within the realm of a possible security
>> issue,
>> and as such, those taking these pictures at airports are well advised to
>> conduct themselves accordingly while on airport property.
>> The fact that this "disturbs" you as an individual, or that some person
>> you
>> challenge on Usenet to produce examples has absolutely nothing at all to
>> do
>> with the simple fact that taking pictures at airports falls directly into
>> a
>> security issue category for those entrusted with these issues.
>> Your argument is weak and flawed.
>
> Hoho, talk about a dodge! Look, this is simple. You stated:
>
>> >> People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a
>> >> security
>> >> issue.
>
> I asked you to back that statement up with fact. You can't. Nowhere in
> your
> statement do you qualify that "some people" perceive photography at
> airports as
> an issue. You simply state that it is. Well, it isn't. Not until you prove
> otherwise.
>
> See, that wasn't so hard, now, was it?

All right, let's "prove" the obvious for you.

Let me explain for you what's REALLY easy.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Why don't you stop this useless back and forth here with me and others where
it doesn't matter, and write a simple email to TSA where it does matter, and
ask THEM if the taking of photographs at major airports is, or is not, one
of the issues their security people are specifically trained to consider in
the airport security equation.
If their answer is no, then taking photographs at airports is not a security
issue as you have suggested. If the answer is yes, the issue of photography
at airports can indeed be a security issue as I have stated.

I don't know about the rest of the group, but I'll go with what TSA has to
say on this, as actually, I already know what they will say.
What TSA is going to tell you, just so we all have it straight beforehand,
is that people taking pictures at airports is one of many potential security
issues included on the airport security watch list. This doesn't mean that
all people taking pictures at airports should be or will be approached. It
means that the decision to approach someone taking pictures at airports is
left to the observing officer or officers and is based on criteria
concerning the taking of the pictures.

Now try and digest this if possible .
The MANNER in which a
security officer approaches someone taking pictures at an airport has
absolutely nothing to do with that fact that the taking of pictures can be a
security issue. That is another issue entirely, and I would be in agreement
with you that the system isn't all it could be personnel wise :-) Bit this
has nothing to do with photography being a security issue at airports. You
have to learn to differentiate between the two issues to be accurate, and
you are not being accurate with your argument.
Again, coming back to what we have been discussing here, the correct
response if approached by airport security while taking pictures is one of
polite and immediate cooperation with the approaching officer. Unless there
are extenuating circumstances as observed by the approaching officer, the
result of these "confrontations" is usually positive for the photographer. I
will add however, that responding as Emily and you are endorsing, by railing
on about your "rights", and the fact that you're not in a "restricted area"
is dangerous and can lead to unnecessary peripheral issues that could easily
have been avoided through prudent behavior.
I'll look for your posted answer from TSA.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...

> Something doesn't become a security issue simply because a security person
> says so.

In fact, this is the exact process used for determining what constitutes a
security issue.
:-)

Dudley Henriques

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> How is that any different than your neighbors setting up a neighborhood
>> watch program?
>
> When I get accosted by a cop because I took a picture in somebody else's
> neighborhood, it is no different. Perhaps cameras should be registered
> weapons.
>
> Jose

Your choice of the word "accosted" rather than the word approached is quite
interesting; revealing one might say :-))
Dudley Henriques

>>Something doesn't become a security issue simply because a security person
>> says so.
>
> In fact, this is the exact process used for determining what constitutes a
> security issue.
> :-)

Then we are no longer a free country, and should export our freedom to
other nations, since we are no longer using them. :)

Seriously, to allow the police to say what it is that consititutes a
police matter is =extremely= dangerous. We might as well let the TSA
decide whether little airplanes consititue a risk around big cities, and
politely accept their dictates there too.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> People have been detained, all across the country, for taking suspicious
> amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were arrested
> and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken. Sounds like
> there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.

Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as
American Citizens when on American soil.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>>Something doesn't become a security issue simply because a security
>>>person says so.
>>
>> In fact, this is the exact process used for determining what constitutes
>> a security issue.
>> :-)
>
> Then we are no longer a free country, and should export our freedom to
> other nations, since we are no longer using them. :)
>
> Seriously, to allow the police to say what it is that consititutes a
> police matter is =extremely= dangerous. We might as well let the TSA
> decide whether little airplanes consititue a risk around big cities, and
> politely accept their dictates there too.

This is correct, and it's also the reason why the people deciding what
constitutes a security issue are indeed civilian and not police. Police are
simply the tool that implements these decisions.

Dudley Henriques

> This is correct, and it's also the reason why the people deciding what
> constitutes a security issue are indeed civilian and not police. Police are
> simply the tool that implements these decisions.

The people who decide what consititues a security issue should not =be=
security people, civilian or not. Security peopls should =advise= our
leaders, but should not make the decisions, since it is in their best
interests that everything be a security issue.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> > the fact remains that taking pictures at
> > airports has now been placed within the realm of a possible security
issue
>
> So is wearing shoes, taking notes, walking around, and sneezing. It's
> all within the realm of a possible security issue. In fact posting on
> Usenet is most certainly a security issue, so anybody who posts on
> Usenet should accept that they may be accosted at any time for any
> reason by security should they wish to be at an airport.
>
Most medium sized airports do not allow free access to the ramp, and have
not, for years before 911.

People have been detained, all across the country, for taking suspicious
amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were arrested
and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken. Sounds like
there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.
--
Jim in NC

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> This is correct, and it's also the reason why the people deciding what
>> constitutes a security issue are indeed civilian and not police. Police
>> are simply the tool that implements these decisions.
>
> The people who decide what consititues a security issue should not =be=
> security people, civilian or not. Security peopls should =advise= our
> leaders, but should not make the decisions, since it is in their best
> interests that everything be a security issue.
>

Perhaps I need to be a bit clearer on this for certain people.

When I say "civilian", I mean the following; which should be obvious to a
teacher :-)
These decisions ARE made by civilian leaders at the highest level of ELECTED
GOVERNMENT. These leaders consult with ALL the necessary specialists in the
field, both civilian and military when making these decisions, then the
decisions are made at the highest level, which is the elected civilian
government.
Police....and indeed ALL those directed by this top leadership authority,
are then DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT the decisions that have been made.
Is this clear enough?
Dudley Henriques

Jose schrieb:

> Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as
> American Citizens when on American soil.

Yes. Oh, and Blacks shouldn't be granted the same rights as whites and
women shouldn't be ganted the same rights as men and ... geeezz.

Stefan

> You just proved the point in this original case. The person taking the
> pictures was asked to have his ID examined. Is that not the first step in
> determining if he was an US citizen?

I was about to reply under the assumption that it was the police doing
the asking, but I checked the OP and found I was confusing two different
posts. From the OP (Kyle's):

> In the middle of this, one of the employees from the FBO came over and asked
> the guy to go to the FBO and present his photo ID so the FBO would know who
> is making pictures at the airport.

From the one I was conflating (Emily's):

> I once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and ask why I was taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and I wasn't under any obligation to explain myself to him.

I still don't know whether this was a small airport or a large one (it
would make a little difference). It would also make a difference if the
photo taking looked suspicious or innocouous. My impression from the OP
is that it was innocuous, and the FBO was overreacting. And being
foreign or not is a bit of a red herring, (despite the fact that I
brought it up) inasmuch as nobody knows whether somebody is a citizen or
not before checking ID (and with lots of fake ID out there, a real
foreigner intent on harm is likely to be able to fool an FBO if he
doens't push too hard).

Whether action should be taken (checking ID, calling the cops...)
depends on the suspiciousness of the activity in context. Simply taking
pictures at an airport with the pilot present does not strike me as
suspicious. Perhaps there were other circumstances.

> If you can argue back against this point, it will only show that you are
> _only_ out to continue an argument.

If I =can= (successfully) argue back, it would show no such thing.

Security and freedom are a balancing act. There is a heavy hand on the
security side. The only thing on the freedom side are individuals like
you, me, Emily, and Kyle. If people like us don't speak up, whether on
Usenet or otherwise, we'll end up with things like a flight restriction
zone around the capital, where (dangerous) little airplanes can't go and
(politically connected) big airplanes can.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>> Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as American Citizens when on American soil.
>
> Yes. Oh, and Blacks shouldn't be granted the same rights as whites and women shouldn't be ganted the same rights as men and ... geeezz.

What problem do you have with my statement? There is no parallel
between yours and mine.

Jews are not entitled to the same rights to Holy Communion as Catholics.

This is nothing against Jews, it is simply that =members= (of anything)
hold greater rights (=within= that something). It is what "membership"
means. I even qualified my original statement with "when on American
Soil", though I thought it would be obvious.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Voting. Work. Carrying a gun. Buying certain businesses
or getting a business license. Running for President.
These are just a few of the many legal reasons and areas
when citizens and non-citizens are treated differently.


Yet non-citizens can get a pilot's certificate, get a green
card and work, buy a hunting license and carry a gun with
certain restrictions.



"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
| >> Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same
freedoms as American Citizens when on American soil.
| >
| > Yes. Oh, and Blacks shouldn't be granted the same rights
as whites and women shouldn't be ganted the same rights as
men and ... geeezz.
|
| What problem do you have with my statement? There is no
parallel
| between yours and mine.
|
| Jews are not entitled to the same rights to Holy Communion
as Catholics.
|
| This is nothing against Jews, it is simply that =members=
(of anything)
| hold greater rights (=within= that something). It is what
"membership"
| means. I even qualified my original statement with "when
on American
| Soil", though I thought it would be obvious.
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> > People have been detained, all across the country, for taking suspicious
> > amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were
arrested
> > and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken. Sounds
like
> > there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.
>
> Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as
> American Citizens when on American soil.

You just proved the point in this original case. The person taking the
pictures was asked to have his ID examined. Is that not the first step in
determining if he was an US citizen?

If you can argue back against this point, it will only show that you are
_only_ out to continue an argument.
--
Jim in NC

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...

> Security and freedom are a balancing act. There is a heavy hand on the
> security side. The only thing on the freedom side are individuals like
> you, me, Emily, and Kyle. If people like us don't speak up, whether on
> Usenet or otherwise, we'll end up with things like a flight restriction
> zone around the capital, where (dangerous) little airplanes can't go and
> (politically connected) big airplanes can.
>
> Jose

You are correct that freedom and security are a balancing act, and you are
also correct that the bias at this point in time favors security.

You are wrong however, that the only people on the freedom side of this
equation are people like you, and the people you have mentioned. There are
many people out here on the security side of the coin deeply involved with
getting the security issue as under control as possible with a minimal loss
of individual freedoms. This is no easy task, and mistakes have and will be
made. The system always needs improvement.
You do a dis-service to the people in security trying to make it better when
you assume that the only ones who understand the freedom issue are those
like you who endorse those who immediately "take on" security people and
rail on about their "rights" when approached while taking pictures at an
airport rather than responding in a spirit of cooperation.
The sad part of your line of reasoning is that its actually people arguing
your position who make the situation worse instead of better. You seem to
believe that authority means loss of freedom. Its responses like Emily's
misguided antics at the airport that make the security issue all that much
harder to implement and as a result of that, possibly even more restrictive
measures must be put in place.
You people are defeating your own agenda!
Dudley Henriques

Jose > wrote:
> Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as
> American Citizens when on American soil.

Does that mean they have no right to life or liberty? If they are murdered
does that mean the murderer need not be prosecuted? If they are robbed,
does that mean they can't bring charges? If you contract to buy products,
raw material, or services from foreigners (or they from you), how do you
think they can enforce your contractual obligation if they have no
recognized freedoms? If the above questions give you pause to realize
foreigners may have need for some rights and freedoms, how are you going to
pick-and-choose which rights freedoms they should be granted? What would
you like to see if you travel to other countries?

Are you perhaps confusing _services_ with _rights_? After all, the
statement "Foreigners who have not paid taxes should not be granted any
government services not needed to defend or maintain their rights," might
be what some are really intending to say, but may be conflating rights and
freedoms with government provided services.

> There are
> many people out here on the security side of the coin deeply involved with
> getting the security issue as under control as possible with a minimal loss
> of individual freedoms.

I hope so, and it is not an easy task. But on my end I see things like
the DC ADIZ, shoe removal, metal detectors in schools, and broad wiretap
authority being accepted as a matter of course. It only needs to be in
place for five or ten years for our children, who grow up with it as a
natural part of the landscape, to consider it normal.

> You do a dis-service to the people in security trying to make it better when
> you assume that the only ones who understand the freedom issue are those
> like you who endorse those who immediately "take on" security people and
> rail on about their "rights" when approached while taking pictures at an
> airport rather than responding in a spirit of cooperation.

I understand those who bristle when approached in a spirit of authority
rather than a spirit of cooperation.

> You seem to believe that authority means loss of freedom.

It needen't (and authority is important for the preservation of
freedom). I am however =extremely= concerned about the unchecked spread
of authority, especially inasmuch as it impacts aviation, which it is
doing. I am also concerned when it makes unrelated impingement (such as
the demolition of Jay's runway) easier by eroding opposition in general.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> So, if it is a small airport, with no permanent TSA personnel, or security
> guards in place, according to the airport watch program, it is up to the
> citizen to question people's presence on the airport.

Yes. But in a manner that does not imply that people's presence on the
airport is unwelcome. I think that was the OP's point.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> There are many people out here on the security side of the coin deeply
>> involved with getting the security issue as under control as possible
>> with a minimal loss of individual freedoms.
>
> I hope so, and it is not an easy task. But on my end I see things like
> the DC ADIZ, shoe removal, metal detectors in schools, and broad wiretap
> authority being accepted as a matter of course. It only needs to be in
> place for five or ten years for our children, who grow up with it as a
> natural part of the landscape, to consider it normal.
>
>> You do a dis-service to the people in security trying to make it better
>> when you assume that the only ones who understand the freedom issue are
>> those like you who endorse those who immediately "take on" security
>> people and rail on about their "rights" when approached while taking
>> pictures at an airport rather than responding in a spirit of cooperation.
>
> I understand those who bristle when approached in a spirit of authority
> rather than a spirit of cooperation.
>
>> You seem to believe that authority means loss of freedom.
>
> It needen't (and authority is important for the preservation of freedom).
> I am however =extremely= concerned about the unchecked spread of
> authority, especially inasmuch as it impacts aviation, which it is doing.
> I am also concerned when it makes unrelated impingement (such as the
> demolition of Jay's runway) easier by eroding opposition in general.
>
> Jose

You and I share more than you realize :-))
Dudley Henriques

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> Well, some have more communist tendencies than others. I think Kyle is
> right. This behavior was out of bounds and I'm glad he stepped in >and
> called them on it. If we let this crap continue, then the terrorists
> really have won.

So this probably isn't the forum to mention that one sultry night when I was
in college, my girlfriend and I snuck out to the local podunk uncontrolled
airport and "borrowed" the cockpit of an old, mostly-dismantled Soviet
helicopter for about half an hour, is it?

Sometimes I wonder about myself in my younger years, but it usually ends up
being pointless and self-congratulatory.

If it's any consolation to the gods of aviation, there was no door, the
panel was mostly removed, we left no trace, and she was a stripper with a
mile-high fantasy and thing for aviation in general... After she graduated
from college she moved to Louisiana and went to work at an FBO to pay for
flying lessons, so, it all came around in its own time I suppose.

-c

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Interesting take on this thread... How many would have thought a more
> "friendly" approach would have been to simply go out to the ramp (FBO
> employee, or whomever was tasked to be ramp nazi that day) and socialize
> with the photographer?
>
> Ask him nicely...

Good stuff, Dave!

-c

Jim Logajan wrote:

> Jose > wrote:
>
>>Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as
>>American Citizens when on American soil.
>
>
> Does that mean they have no right to life or liberty?

Nice interpretation. He said the same freedoms, he didn't say they had
no freedoms.

Jose wrote:

>> So, if it is a small airport, with no permanent TSA personnel, or
>> security
>> guards in place, according to the airport watch program, it is up to the
>> citizen to question people's presence on the airport.
>
>
> Yes. But in a manner that does not imply that people's presence on the
> airport is unwelcome. I think that was the OP's point.

Yes, we wouldn't want you to feel bad. That would be terrible.

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> > You just proved the point in this original case. The person taking the
> > pictures was asked to have his ID examined. Is that not the first step
in
> > determining if he was an US citizen?
>
> I was about to reply under the assumption that it was the police doing
> the asking, but I checked the OP and found I was confusing two different
> posts. From the OP (Kyle's):

So, if it is a small airport, with no permanent TSA personnel, or security
guards in place, according to the airport watch program, it is up to the
citizen to question people's presence on the airport.
--
Jim in NC

Jose schrieb:

> What problem do you have with my statement? There is no parallel
> between yours and mine.

Yes, there's a lot of parallels. But if you don't see this yourself,
there's no use to try to explain it.

Stefan

>> Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as
>> American Citizens when on American soil.
>
> Does that mean they have no right to life or liberty? If they are murdered
> does that mean the murderer need not be prosecuted?

No.

> Are you perhaps confusing _services_ with _rights_?

No.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> You and I share more than you realize :-))

Actually, I think I realize it.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Yes, we wouldn't want you to feel bad. That would be terrible.

We wouldn't want you to feel unwelcome. That woudl be bad for GA.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> How is that any different than your neighbors setting up a neighborhood
>> watch program?
>
> When I get accosted by a cop because I took a picture in somebody else's
> neighborhood, it is no different. Perhaps cameras should be registered
> weapons.

Had you a journalist with you, he or she might have reminded the officer
that -anything that is in plain public view- is legal, fair game for both
photography and publication.

For example, if instead of driving through the neighborhood you'd have flown
over it, who knows what you might see in people's backyards, but, guess
what: They can't stop you from photographing it. The paparazzi, Google
Earth, news helicopters, etc prove this daily.

The benchmark cases for this, by the way, include a photo somebody shot of a
dead fish in a window fishbowl where there had been a housefire, and another
photo of the "shadow" of where a woman had died and the fire burned around
her. The fire investigators left the front door open, and the photographer
was able to shoot the image from a public sidewalk.

A third case had to do with a Chicago streetcar fire in which many people
perished trying to escape. Utterly horrific photograph that had no place in
general news photography, but a local newspaper showed the photo the next
day. Can't find the case on the internet, though. Wouldn't want to see the
photo again.


-c

Let's not lose perspective here. As far back as I can remember, which
is close to 40 years, it has been far easier for a newbie to get a
cold shoulder or worse at an airport than for him/her to get a warm
welcome. (Yes, I can think of counter examples. Too few, though.)

The guy from the FBO that Kyle described just seems like more of the
same old same old.

Don

Emily wrote:
> Well, I'm not 50 years old, but I have less freedom than I did 10 years
> ago. Actually, I was a minor 10 years ago, so let's see I have less
> freedom than I did five years ago.

Give an example of a freedom you had 10 years ago that you do not have now.

Hear, Hear.

Al G


"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, the real threat to general aviation in the United States has
>> been, is now, and always will be, the American lawyer :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I dont blame the lawyer.. I blame the folks who HIRE the lawyer.
>
> Interesting take on this thread... How many would have thought a more
> "friendly" approach would have been to simply go out to the ramp (FBO
> employee, or whomever was tasked to be ramp nazi that day) and socialize
> with the photographer?
>
> Ask him nicely about what he's doing.. comment on the nice weather... ask
> him where he's from.. shake his hand.. get his name.. Ask him if he wants
> to get flying lessons, maybe point out a place down the road that does
> discovery flights, and offer to forward his name and phone number to
> them.. Invite him to come sign a visitor's log in the lobby, which your
> FBO keeps there for that purpose.. look at this ID there..
>
> If the "visitor" gets evasive or otherwise suspicious, then play "bad cop"
> and switch gears.. until then, with the friendly approach, you have made
> the visitor aware that he IS being watched, while at the same time being
> accomodating and promoting GA. Remember.. just about all of us started off
> by going to the local field and hanging around for a bit (unless you were
> born into aviation, or a product of the military).
>
> If we keep turning small airports in to private clubs with barbed wire and
> keypad entries, they will soon become OLD FARTS private clubs with rusting
> fences and declining membership.
>
> Dave

> Give an example of a freedom you had 10 years ago that you do not have now.

The freedom to fly myself into an airport near DC to visit a friend who
lives there. The freedom to carry a thin, large diameter steel disk
onto an airliner as hand luggage. The freedom to carry a swiss army
knife onto an airliner (and with it, the freedom to carry it routinely
without having to think "am I going to fly today?"). The freedom to
leave a book I'm shipping through the mail in my mailbox for pickup.
The freedom to borrow a book from the library and not have it tracked by
the government.

The freedom to say this and not be labeled a "tin hat".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:43:07 -0700, jfleisc wrote:

> During the visit he gave me one of his old high powered deer rifles
> as a present. When I went back to the plane I walked right through the
> terminal with it and out to my plane. Started up and left. No one gave me
> a second look. I laughed about it most of the way home.

But did you see a lot of deer around the FBO as you walked through? I
didn't think so. You'd obviously scared them all away.

Now, don't you feel guilty?

- Andrew

kontiki > wrote in news:6Faxg.6297$Oh1.5537
@news01.roc.ny:

> Emily wrote:
>> Well, I'm not 50 years old, but I have less freedom than I did 10 years
>> ago. Actually, I was a minor 10 years ago, so let's see I have less
>> freedom than I did five years ago.
>
> Give an example of a freedom you had 10 years ago that you do not have now.

Can't smoke on a public beach.

Brian - who does not smoke except when thinking too hard ;)
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

kontiki > wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> Well, I'm not 50 years old, but I have less freedom than I did 10
>> years ago. Actually, I was a minor 10 years ago, so let's see I have
>> less freedom than I did five years ago.
>
> Give an example of a freedom you had 10 years ago that you do not have
> now.

Hmmm, here's a few I think may qualify...

I was free to board a plane without being forced to take my shoes off. Or
pulled to one side to be searched - not for probable cause, but simply at
random.

I'm not on the "do not fly" list, but some people have been put on it and
have indeed had their freedom to travel by air denied.

I didn't always have to pay for meals on long flights - oh wait, that's a
"freebie," not a freedom. ;-)

In Oregon, I am no longer free to buy cold medicines containing
pseudoephedrine without a prescription (a law passed not because the
product per se was judged dangerous enough to require a doctor's order, but
as an attempt to starve the meth epidemic of a key raw ingredient).

> Yes, there's a lot of parallels. But if you don't see this yourself, there's no use to try to explain it.

The parallels diverge before meaningful comparison. My examples are of
=membership= in an =artificially created= group conferring rights
=granted= =by= that group. Your examples are all of =natural=
properties (sex, race...). If you really want to stretch the parallel
to fit, and are willing to be theistic, then the "groups" that you refer
to (men, women, blacks, whites...geez) are created by God, and
memebership is conferred by God. So, they have different "God-Given"
(and "God-enforced") rights, such as the right to become pregnant, the
right to tight curly hair... but this gets pretty silly and has nothing
to do with rights granted by man to other people.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article t>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

[snip]
> I don't know about the rest of the group, but I'll go with what TSA has to
> say on this, as actually, I already know what they will say.

Asking TSA would be fine except that the TSA has demonstrated fundemental
flaws wrt understanding security. The TSA has approved "security" measures
which don't do anything to enhance security. (and let's not get started on
the complete nonsense airline passengers have to deal with)

I would like to give specific examples from my home airport, but technically
I'm not allowed to discuss the specifics of the "security" measures in place.
Indeed, it would be inappropriate to openly discuss the numerous flaws and
vulnerabilities left exposed by the "security" measures.

Can you think of the flaws in a requirement to chain an aircraft to
a tie-down? How hard is it to defeat a proplock? While biometrics might
be required for access to the airport from the street, what security is
in place controlling access from the air?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> I don't know about the rest of the group, but I'll go with what TSA has
>> to
>> say on this, as actually, I already know what they will say.
>
> Asking TSA would be fine except that the TSA has demonstrated fundemental
> flaws wrt understanding security. The TSA has approved "security"
> measures
> which don't do anything to enhance security. (and let's not get started
> on
> the complete nonsense airline passengers have to deal with)
>
> I would like to give specific examples from my home airport, but
> technically
> I'm not allowed to discuss the specifics of the "security" measures in
> place.
> Indeed, it would be inappropriate to openly discuss the numerous flaws and
> vulnerabilities left exposed by the "security" measures.
>
> Can you think of the flaws in a requirement to chain an aircraft to
> a tie-down? How hard is it to defeat a proplock? While biometrics might
> be required for access to the airport from the street, what security is
> in place controlling access from the air?

All this is fine, and probably very true, but the quality of airport
security isn't the issue being discussed here. I think we all agree that the
system is not what it should be.The issue here is whether or not taking
photographs at major airports is on the security watch list which some have
indicated it isn't. It is of course. Personal opinions on how this policy is
carried out, or what you or I happen to like or dislike about the system is
not the issue.
Dudley Henriques

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Newps,
>
>> How is that any different than your
>> neighbors setting up a neighborhood watch program? When you notice
>> something or someone out of the ordinary some action is taken.
>>
>
> Yep. The Nazis in my country called that "Blockwart". Nice concept.
>
Damn, and here I thought I was going to be the first.

Personally, I think neighborhood watches are creepy.

Jose wrote:
>>> Something doesn't become a security issue simply because a security
>>> person says so.
>>
>> In fact, this is the exact process used for determining what
>> constitutes a security issue.
>> :-)
>
> Then we are no longer a free country, and should export our freedom to
> other nations, since we are no longer using them. :)
>
> Seriously, to allow the police to say what it is that consititutes a
> police matter is =extremely= dangerous. We might as well let the TSA
> decide whether little airplanes consititue a risk around big cities, and
> politely accept their dictates there too.

Um....haven't we?

Martin Hotze wrote:
> "Crash Lander" > wrote:
>
>> If the kid had nothing to hide, [...]
>
> *woahhhh*
>
> #m
I thought I was the only person who was annoyed by that concept.

kontiki wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> Well, I'm not 50 years old, but I have less freedom than I did 10
>> years ago. Actually, I was a minor 10 years ago, so let's see I have
>> less freedom than I did five years ago.
>
> Give an example of a freedom you had 10 years ago that you do not have now.

Like I'm stupid enough to post any here. But the Sudafed example
someone gives later is a good one.

> The issue here is whether or not taking
> photographs at major airports is on the security watch list

No, the issue is whether taking photographs at an airport (it wasn't
disclosed that it was a major airport, by the OP I assumed it was a
minor airport and hold to that pending clarification) is a security
risk. There is a difference between =being= a security risk, and being
on the security watch list.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

You are easily annoyed.
Crash Lander

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> "Crash Lander" > wrote:
>>
>>> If the kid had nothing to hide, [...]
>>
>> *woahhhh*
>>
>> #m
> I thought I was the only person who was annoyed by that concept.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> The issue here is whether or not taking photographs at major airports is
>> on the security watch list
>
> No, the issue is whether taking photographs at an airport (it wasn't
> disclosed that it was a major airport, by the OP I assumed it was a minor
> airport and hold to that pending clarification) is a security risk. There
> is a difference between =being= a security risk, and being on the security
> watch list.

Semantics.

Being on the security watch list establishes any item as a security MATTER,
which is what has been discussed. You can parse this till doomsday, but the
fact still remains, people taking photographs at airports....any airport,
are POTENTIAL security risks, and this is the context in which we have been
discussing these people as relates to the term "security risk".
Naturally, no one is a bonafide confirmed security risk unless that has been
established by the process we're discussing.
This tactic is beneath you. :-)
Dudley

Hi Dudley!
This is fun innit! :-)

The funny thing is that you guys and girls that are complaining about
unnecessary security measures actually actively engage in them every day!
For example. You lock your doors and windows at night. Now, chances are,
you'll never get broken into and robbed, but you lock up anyway! Why? If
someone wants to get in, do you really think a little window lock or a
deadbolt on a door will stop them?
I suppose you refuse to show your passport when you go overseas, because
it's none of their buisness who you are or what you're planning on doing in
that other country? Of course you don't! How about a little consistency in
your arguments people!
Crash Lander

Crash Lander wrote:
> You are easily annoyed.
> Crash Lander

And you're an child.

Hey, give up your rights! What do I care?

Oh, wait, I care because if the sheep keep doing it, sooner or later we
end up with none.

Plonk.

I think the cup is way in the hell overdesigned {;-)

Jim



> If you must continue to think that your cup is half empty, that is up to
> you. My cup is half full.

That would be "You're A child" but this is not an English lesson.
I find it funny how people can't engage in a little light discussion without
having to "plonk" someone just because their opinions differ.

You think I'm giving up my rights. Your opinion.
If you must continue to think that your cup is half empty, that is up to
you. My cup is half full.
Good luck to you.
Crash Lander

--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Crash Lander wrote:
>> You are easily annoyed.
>> Crash Lander
>
> And you're an child.
>
> Hey, give up your rights! What do I care?
>
> Oh, wait, I care because if the sheep keep doing it, sooner or later we
> end up with none.
>
> Plonk.

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Dudley!
> This is fun innit! :-)
>
> The funny thing is that you guys and girls that are complaining about
> unnecessary security measures actually actively engage in them every day!
> For example. You lock your doors and windows at night. Now, chances are,
> you'll never get broken into and robbed, but you lock up anyway! Why? If
> someone wants to get in, do you really think a little window lock or a
> deadbolt on a door will stop them?
> I suppose you refuse to show your passport when you go overseas, because
> it's none of their buisness who you are or what you're planning on doing
> in that other country? Of course you don't! How about a little consistency
> in your arguments people!
> Crash Lander

You have to admit Crash........it beats mowin the lawn :-)))))))))))))))
Dudley

By Engineers! LOL!
I think you may be right there Jim! :-)
Crash Lander

--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>I think the cup is way in the hell overdesigned {;-)
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>> If you must continue to think that your cup is half empty, that is up to
>> you. My cup is half full.
>
>

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Dudley!
> This is fun innit! :-)
>
> The funny thing is that you guys and girls that are complaining about
> unnecessary security measures actually actively engage in them every day!
> For example. You lock your doors and windows at night. Now, chances are,
> you'll never get broken into and robbed, but you lock up anyway! Why? If
> someone wants to get in, do you really think a little window lock or a
> deadbolt on a door will stop them?

The difference is that I choose to lock my doors (or not). Nobody makes me
follow their idea of security measures.

> I suppose you refuse to show your passport when you go overseas, because
> it's none of their buisness who you are or what you're planning on doing
> in that other country? Of course you don't! How about a little consistency
> in your arguments people!
> Crash Lander

Apples and oranges. Passports are flagged, etc and there are real time
systems to address people with the wrong name or number on their passport.

At my local airport, they want to take down your name if you're taking
pictures. Let's say you produce an ID for the 18 year old who runs the fuel
pump. Is it fake? He can't tell. Is he gonna run the name through the FBI
database? Naah. Most likely, he's not even going to write it down, and
even if he does, the list of names will go in the dead letter file.

The whole thing is/was pointless and has no impact other than to hassle some
kid with a camera.

KB

Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> Apples and oranges. Passports are flagged, etc and there are real time
> systems to address people with the wrong name or number on their passport.

Not to mention there's a law that you must show a passport. There's not
law about showing ID at a small airport if you're just hanging around.
Yes, the current regime is a problem, but so are people making up
authority that they just don't have.

Hi Kyle!
In this case, I agree it's possible it may not have been necessary, as the
kid with the camera was clearly talking to you and was acting with your
permission, but this discussion has developed past your original incident.
Now we have posters going on about having the right to refuse to produce ID
and explain why they are in a certain place if they are citizens, and not
foreigners and aren't doing anything suspicious etc. Going to another
country is not suspicious, however, each and every person is required to
produce a passport, and explain their reasons for entering that country. I
don't see them being so high and mighty and enforcing their 'rights' in that
circumstance.
As I said, the incident you posted about may have had an un-necessary
outcome, but what actual damage did it do? If it scared the young lad away
from learning to fly, then I'd suggest he is pretty thin skinned, and not at
all dedicated to his implied interest in aviation.
Crash Lander

--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Crash Lander" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi Dudley!
>> This is fun innit! :-)
>>
>> The funny thing is that you guys and girls that are complaining about
>> unnecessary security measures actually actively engage in them every day!
>> For example. You lock your doors and windows at night. Now, chances are,
>> you'll never get broken into and robbed, but you lock up anyway! Why? If
>> someone wants to get in, do you really think a little window lock or a
>> deadbolt on a door will stop them?
>
> The difference is that I choose to lock my doors (or not). Nobody makes
> me follow their idea of security measures.
>
>> I suppose you refuse to show your passport when you go overseas, because
>> it's none of their buisness who you are or what you're planning on doing
>> in that other country? Of course you don't! How about a little
>> consistency in your arguments people!
>> Crash Lander
>
> Apples and oranges. Passports are flagged, etc and there are real time
> systems to address people with the wrong name or number on their passport.
>
> At my local airport, they want to take down your name if you're taking
> pictures. Let's say you produce an ID for the 18 year old who runs the
> fuel pump. Is it fake? He can't tell. Is he gonna run the name through
> the FBI database? Naah. Most likely, he's not even going to write it
> down, and even if he does, the list of names will go in the dead letter
> file.
>
> The whole thing is/was pointless and has no impact other than to hassle
> some kid with a camera.
>
> KB
>
>

True Emily, but is there not a law that says you must produce ID to a Police
Officer if requested to do so? A police Officer must show you his ID if you
ask him to, so surely it works the other way too?
Whilst a Security Guard is not a Police Officer, and I suspect this is the
point where a lot of the comments are coming from, they are generally all
police cleared and given limited 'policing' abilities and permissions, as
the actual Police Department cannot be everywhere at the same time.
Crash Lander

--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>
>> Apples and oranges. Passports are flagged, etc and there are real time
>> systems to address people with the wrong name or number on their
>> passport.
>
> Not to mention there's a law that you must show a passport. There's not
> law about showing ID at a small airport if you're just hanging around.
> Yes, the current regime is a problem, but so are people making up
> authority that they just don't have.

PS: Not expecting a reply as I've apparently been 'plonked'!
Crash Lander

--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> True Emily, but is there not a law that says you must produce ID to a
> Police Officer if requested to do so? A police Officer must show you his
> ID if you ask him to, so surely it works the other way too?
> Whilst a Security Guard is not a Police Officer, and I suspect this is the
> point where a lot of the comments are coming from, they are generally all
> police cleared and given limited 'policing' abilities and permissions, as
> the actual Police Department cannot be everywhere at the same time.
> Crash Lander
>
> --
> I'm not always right,
> But I'm never wrong!
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>>
>>> Apples and oranges. Passports are flagged, etc and there are real time
>>> systems to address people with the wrong name or number on their
>>> passport.
>>
>> Not to mention there's a law that you must show a passport. There's not
>> law about showing ID at a small airport if you're just hanging around.
>> Yes, the current regime is a problem, but so are people making up
>> authority that they just don't have.
>
>

> Going to another
> country is not suspicious, however, each and every person is required to
> produce a passport, and explain their reasons for entering that country. I
> don't see them being so high and mighty and enforcing their 'rights' in that
> circumstance.

Going to another country, you don't have the "rights" you have here.
You have whatever rights and privilages the other country (your host)
grants you. You are not a member of their club.

> If it scared the young lad away
> from learning to fly, then I'd suggest he is pretty thin skinned, and not at
> all dedicated to his implied interest in aviation.

He may not have =been= "dedicated". (if he were, he'd be flying
already). But, we may have lost somebody who may have become dedicated
in the future.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> I dont blame the lawyer.. I blame the folks who HIRE the lawyer.
>
> Interesting take on this thread... How many would have thought a more
> "friendly" approach would have been to simply go out to the ramp (FBO
> employee, or whomever was tasked to be ramp nazi that day) and socialize
> with the photographer?
>
> Ask him nicely about what he's doing.. comment on the nice weather... ask
> him where he's from.. shake his hand.. get his name.. Ask him if he wants
> to get flying lessons, maybe point out a place down the road that does
> discovery flights, and offer to forward his name and phone number to
> them.. Invite him to come sign a visitor's log in the lobby, which your
> FBO keeps there for that purpose.. look at this ID there..
>
> If the "visitor" gets evasive or otherwise suspicious, then play "bad cop"
> and switch gears.. until then, with the friendly approach, you have made
> the visitor aware that he IS being watched, while at the same time being
> accomodating and promoting GA. Remember.. just about all of us started off
> by going to the local field and hanging around for a bit (unless you were
> born into aviation, or a product of the military).
>
> If we keep turning small airports in to private clubs with barbed wire and
> keypad entries, they will soon become OLD FARTS private clubs with rusting
> fences and declining membership.
>
> Dave

Well said...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> the fact remains that taking pictures at airports has now been placed
>> within the realm of a possible security issue
>
> So is wearing shoes, taking notes, walking around, and sneezing. It's all
> within the realm of a possible security issue. In fact posting on Usenet
> is most certainly a security issue, so anybody who posts on Usenet should
> accept that they may be accosted at any time for any reason by security
> should they wish to be at an airport.
>
> So tell me, what =is= it that makes taking pictures a "security issue"
> while your likely response to my prior paragraph would be ridicule?
>
> Something doesn't become a security issue simply because a security person
> says so.
>
> Jose

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the airlines had strictures against
photographing personell, procedures, etc... for quite some time (going back
well before 9/11?)

Jay B

Dudley,

> These decisions ARE made by civilian leaders at the highest level of ELECTED
> GOVERNMENT. These leaders consult with ALL the necessary specialists in the
> field, both civilian and military when making these decisions, then the
> decisions are made at the highest level, which is the elected civilian
> government.
>

And you actually believe that your (or any) government works that way? Wow,
that's beyond naive, IMHO. It's also not at all born out in everyday
experience. Not even remotely.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Emily,

> Personally, I think neighborhood watches are creepy.
>

Especially in a country with, well, lose gun laws. But let's not go
there, the thread is bad enough as it is.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dudley,

> write a simple email to TSA where it does matter, and
> ask THEM if the taking of photographs at major airports is, or is not, one
> of the issues their security people are specifically trained to consider in
> the airport security equation
>

What's that got to do with the question whether it's a security issue or not?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jose,

> There is a difference between =being= a security risk, and being
> on the security watch list.
>

Thanks! It really IS that easy.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Not enough guns in use by honest citizens.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message ...
| Emily,
|
| > Personally, I think neighborhood watches are creepy.
| >
|
| Especially in a country with, well, lose gun laws. But
let's not go
| there, the thread is bad enough as it is.
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

"Jim Macklin" > wrote

> Not enough guns in use by honest citizens.

What do you expect? Thomas says we have laws where we have to "lose" our
guns. ;-)

Thomas wrote:
> | Especially in a country with, well, lose gun laws.

Morgans,

> What do you expect? Thomas says we have laws where we have to "lose" our
> guns. ;-)
>

Ops ;-)

My supply of o's is dwindling.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > What do you expect? Thomas says we have laws where we have to "lose" our
> > guns. ;-)
>
> Ops ;-)
>
> My supply of o's is dwindling.

You were merely trying to balance the extra o's wasted when people
type loose instead of lose.

:-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article et>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> >> I don't know about the rest of the group, but I'll go with what TSA has
> >> to
> >> say on this, as actually, I already know what they will say.
> >
> > Asking TSA would be fine except that the TSA has demonstrated fundemental
> > flaws wrt understanding security.
[snip]

>
> All this is fine, and probably very true, but the quality of airport
> security isn't the issue being discussed here.

true. But, you, in effect, claimed that the TSA would be an appropriate
authority on what constitutes a security problem. I was pointing out the
problem with that position.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> > My supply of o's is dwindling.
>
> You were merely trying to balance the extra o's wasted when people type loose instead of lose.
>
> :-)
>
> --
> Bob Noel


Don't know how it is in the west, but the most frequent typo I've seen
among my countrymen is their use of 'few' when they mean 'a few',
turning the effing meaning on its head :)

Ramapriya

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote\\

> Ops ;-)
>
> My supply of o's is dwindling.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

S are mine! God excuse, by the way. Very creative! <g>
--
Jim in NC

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley,
>
>> These decisions ARE made by civilian leaders at the highest level of
>> ELECTED
>> GOVERNMENT. These leaders consult with ALL the necessary specialists in
>> the
>> field, both civilian and military when making these decisions, then the
>> decisions are made at the highest level, which is the elected civilian
>> government.
>>
>
> And you actually believe that your (or any) government works that way?
> Wow,
> that's beyond naive, IMHO. It's also not at all born out in everyday
> experience. Not even remotely.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I learned a long time ago on Usenet that people who think like you are
simply people who think like you, and nothing in the world anyone can say
will change this. I'm quite sure you would be totally unimpressed by the
fact that I deal with people directly involved in this area daily and am
quite familiar with how it works. As they say, "it ain't perfect", but its
nowhere near the unadulterated bull crap you are spewing on this newsgroup.
So if you don't mind, I'll let you have the answering post and not engage
you on this issue any further.
Best to you and so long.
Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

> but its
> nowhere near the unadulterated bull crap you are spewing on this newsgroup.
>

You show quite nicely that you have no facts to offer. You made my point.
Thanks.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley,
>
>> These decisions ARE made by civilian leaders at the highest level of
>> ELECTED
>> GOVERNMENT. These leaders consult with ALL the necessary specialists in
>> the
>> field, both civilian and military when making these decisions, then the
>> decisions are made at the highest level, which is the elected civilian
>> government.
>>
>
> And you actually believe that your (or any) government works that way?
> Wow,
> that's beyond naive, IMHO. It's also not at all born out in everyday
> experience. Not even remotely.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas,

Rather than sit there and just yell "WRONG!!!", could you please explain to
the group how it really does work?

Thank You,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

>>It is what "membership"
>> means. I even qualified my original statement with "when on American
>> Soil", though I thought it would be obvious.
>
> So we here do something wrong when granting the same rights to _everybody_
> as long as they are legally in the country? We even protect the minorities.

Yes.

Were we to grant general voting rights to non-citizens, that would be
wrong. (However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the airlines had strictures against
> photographing personell, procedures, etc... for quite some time (going back
> well before 9/11?)

I don't know.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I was trying to be kind about a possible typo.

For fun, read the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court listed
what were considered "the rights of a citizen" and then said
blacks were not citizens because they could not do those
things.

The Supreme Court is very good at dodging an issue and
newspapers are good at taking things out of context and
spinning the facts.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
|
| > Not enough guns in use by honest citizens.
|
| What do you expect? Thomas says we have laws where we
have to "lose" our
| guns. ;-)
|
| Thomas wrote:
| > | Especially in a country with, well, lose gun laws.
|

It is very hard to proofread your own writing. You know
what you meant to say and that is what you see. If your
native language is something other than English, you must
read the words on the paper, but native English speakers
only see every half dozen words and the mind fills in the
blanks.

BTW, this is a problem for pilots get their ATC clearance,
you hear what you expect to hear.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P


> wrote in message
ups.com...
| Bob Noel wrote:
| >
| > > My supply of o's is dwindling.
| >
| > You were merely trying to balance the extra o's wasted
when people type loose instead of lose.
| >
| > :-)
| >
| > --
| > Bob Noel
|
|
| Don't know how it is in the west, but the most frequent
typo I've seen
| among my countrymen is their use of 'few' when they mean
'a few',
| turning the effing meaning on its head :)
|
| Ramapriya
|

Jay Beckman wrote
> Rather than sit there and just yell "WRONG!!!", could you please
> explain to the group how it really does work?

Just ask Duke Cunningham of California and Thomas Jefferson of Louisiana
how it really works. They are just the two most recent who have been
caught doing business as usual.

Bob Moore

Jay,

We're discussing this statement:

"These decisions ARE made by civilian leaders at the highest level of
ELECTED GOVERNMENT. These leaders consult with ALL the necessary
specialists in the field, both civilian and military when making these
decisions, then the decisions are made at the highest level, which is
the elected civilian government."

Specifically, we're discussing the way the TSA determines that taking
photos at an airfield is a security risk. Dudley claimed the process
above would apply. Do you believe the President or someone at cabinet
level ("highest level of elected goverment") has consulted "ALL the
necessary specialists" and then the President or a cabinet level member
of the government ("the decisions are made at the highest level") had
anything to do with whether photography should be classified as a
security issue? (We still haven't determined that it is deemed so by
the TSA) To put it mildly, I have a hard time believing that. I would
hope the highest level of the elected government has more important
things to decide.

As an aside which also came up in the thread, look at the "security
measures" employed by the TSA and other authorities. Some are just
ineffective, others ridiculous, still others an insult to democracy. Do
you believe the real process of coming up with these is as perfect as
described in the statement above? I don't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jose schrieb:

> The parallels diverge before meaningful comparison. My examples are of
> =membership= in an =artificially created= group conferring rights
> =granted= =by= that group. Your examples are all of =natural=
> properties (sex, race...).

And the natural property to have been borne in some random place I
didn't choose myself.

Stefan

> And the natural property to have been borne in some random place I didn't choose myself.

First, that's not a natural property.

Second, the consequences (in terms of "membership") are artificial,
related to governing bodies created by people. The only natural
consequences would have to do with being born in the mountains, near the
sea, near natural resources, stuff like that. And related to that, one
does not gain (or lose) "rights" on that basis. One does gain (or lose)
rights based on membership in artificial organizations like countries,
whether one elected to be a member or not.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Skylune wrote:
> The cop was just trying to make conversation. Some of them routinely find
> reasons to talk with young women.
>
You sound jealous SkyDip****, can't you get women?

"Jose" > wrote in message
y.com...
(However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
> relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).
>
> Jose

No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to vote
so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?

Actually, in some very specific instances, land ownership IS a requirement
to vote. Specifically, if forming a road maintenance association sanctioned
by the local governement agency, you have to be a land owner along that road
in order to vote whether or not to form the association. Other "homeowner"
associations (water, electricity, sewer, etc.) require a vote of the
landowners involved in order to form.

Jim




"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> y.com...
> (However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
>> relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).
>>
>> Jose
>
> No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to
> vote so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?
>

>> (However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
>> relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).
>
> No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to vote
> so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?

Local zoning issues come to mind.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>>> (However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
>>> relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).
>>
>>
>> No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to
>> vote so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?
>
>
> Local zoning issues come to mind.

That may be particular to where you live. Here if there's a zoning
issue and I would like to have my say I simply show up at the city
council meeting.

> Here if there's a zoning issue and I would like to have my say I simply show up at the city council meeting.

Can you vote? If I came from out of town, could I vote on your zoning
issues?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> Here if there's a zoning issue and I would like to have my say I simply
>> show up at the city council meeting.
>
> Can you vote? If I came from out of town, could I vote on your zoning
> issues?
>
> Jose

Can't say I'ver ever heard of a municipality handling zoning issues via an
election.

Aren't they usually handled by a Zoning Board or Commssion who hold hearings
where the public is welcome to come and voice their view on a proposed
change?

Here in Chandler, AZ, they are even televised on the local government-access
cable channel.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

The homeowner association is not a government body and not really what we
are talking about. I'm not familiar with road maintenance associations
either sanctioned by the local government or not.


"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, in some very specific instances, land ownership IS a requirement
> to vote. Specifically, if forming a road maintenance association
> sanctioned by the local governement agency, you have to be a land owner
> along that road in order to vote whether or not to form the association.
> Other "homeowner" associations (water, electricity, sewer, etc.) require a
> vote of the landowners involved in order to form.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jose" > wrote in message
>> y.com...
>> (However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
>>> relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).
>>>
>>> Jose
>>
>> No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to
>> vote so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?
>>
>
>

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>>> (However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
>>> relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).
>>
>> No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to
>> vote so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?
>
> Local zoning issues come to mind.
>
> Jose
> --

Are you saying that in your local you have to be a land owner in order to
vote on zoning issues that have to do with zoning? If so what local is that?

> Can't say I'ver ever heard of a municipality handling zoning issues via an
> election.

Usually it's a zoning board, but sometimes a referendum is called for.
Actually, when I mentioned zoning, I meant to refer to the larger set of
land use questions, including tax and school issues (paid out of the
property tax).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Are you saying that in your local you have to be a land owner in order to
> vote on zoning issues that have to do with zoning? If so what local is that?

I am in Ridgefield, Connecticut. I was also mistaken - checking with
town hall, voting on all issues is open only to US citizens.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2006-07-23, BTIZ > wrote:
> A lot of these requirements are being driven by TSA. Badges for people
> employed at the airport. People with their own airplanes may soon need
> badges too.

I find it amazing that if I wait 5 years, flying in Britain will be more
free than flying in the United States. We USED to really look up to the
US system.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"BTIZ" > wrote:
> People with their own airplanes may soon need
> badges too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_badges

Emily wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Emily wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> Emily wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You certainly come across as an anarchist, or a juvenile, I'm not
>>>>>> sure which not knowing your age.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I come across as someone who is terrified about the state of
>>>>> our current government. At least one person has picked up on
>>>>> that. I can't help your lack of reading comprehension. Are you
>>>>> American?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 100%. However, I'm not a paranoid American.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you're part of the problem. History has shown what happens when
>>> the people just roll over for the government.
>>
>>
>> Only to the paranoid.
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> Obviously we disagree on this. Keep your head in the sand, it seems to
> have worked for you so far.

Likewise, although it doesn't seem to be working as well for you.

Matt

Jim Logajan wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
>>probably are still living with your parents.
>
>
> You've now posted several personal attacks against Emily. She correctly
> understood the law in one of her anecdotes and yet was attacked for
> defending her rightful actions. I've posted elsewhere information that
> supports her position. Your attack posts are self-referentially absurd and
> I'm surprised you don't realize how this comes across.

I've not posted a single personal attack. Just making some observations
that are consistent with the posts being made. I never questions her
understanding of the law. I question her ability to conduct herself as
an adult.

Matt

Private wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Emily wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Emily wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You certainly come across as an anarchist, or a juvenile, I'm not sure
>>>>>>which not knowing your age.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Matt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I come across as someone who is terrified about the state of our
>>>>>current government. At least one person has picked up on that. I
>>>>>can't help your lack of reading comprehension. Are you American?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>100%. However, I'm not a paranoid American.
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>Then you're part of the problem. History has shown what happens when the
>>>people just roll over for the government.
>>
>>Only to the paranoid.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> There was a time when people who thought that they were being watched by
> government were dismissed and called paranoid.
>
> What do you call those people who KNOW that they are being watched?

Potential terrorists.

Matt

Private wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>>Private wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The threats to our freedoms do NOT come from outside our borders.
>>
>>At all? Really?
>
>
> External forces may threaten many things, but we ourselves are the greatest
> threat to our own freedom.
>
> I think Ben Franklin's (attributed) words said it best "Those who would
> give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
> neither Liberty nor Safety."
>
> Some other thoughts on the matter,
>
> John Adams
> Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of
> your
> liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
> These, as
> they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy,
> chicanery and cowardice.

Yes, and these men had the guts to put their names behind their words.
Unlike some who post here.

Matt

Stefan wrote:

> Jose schrieb:
>
>> Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as
>> American Citizens when on American soil.
>
>
> Yes. Oh, and Blacks shouldn't be granted the same rights as whites and
> women shouldn't be ganted the same rights as men and ... geeezz.

This gets my vote for dumbest post of the week. Any other votes?

Matt

Emily wrote:

> Crash Lander wrote:
>
>> You are easily annoyed.
>> Crash Lander
>
>
> And you're an child.

Pot, please meet kettle.

Matt

Emily wrote:

> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>>
>> Apples and oranges. Passports are flagged, etc and there are real
>> time systems to address people with the wrong name or number on their
>> passport.
>
>
> Not to mention there's a law that you must show a passport. There's not
> law about showing ID at a small airport if you're just hanging around.
> Yes, the current regime is a problem, but so are people making up
> authority that they just don't have.

Much less of a problem than the prior regime which largely ignored
terrorists and let them get strong and well organized. Almost all of
the planning and preparation for 9/11 occurred during the Clinton
regime. Then again, you are too young to remember that.

Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Emily,
>
>
>>Personally, I think neighborhood watches are creepy.
>>
>
>
> Especially in a country with, well, lose gun laws. But let's not go
> there, the thread is bad enough as it is.
>

Fortunately, we haven't lost all of our gun laws yet. We're lost way
too many, but we can still possess firearms largely unrestricted in most
states (the safe states statistically, by the way).

Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Dudley,
>
>
>>but its
>>nowhere near the unadulterated bull crap you are spewing on this newsgroup.
>>
>
>
> You show quite nicely that you have no facts to offer. You made my point.
> Thanks.
>

And you, in contrast, are just a fountain of facts. Not.

Matt

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:49:43 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:

> maybe even gets a new student

Ah ha. *Now* we get to a real problem with GA today: FBOs that do a
lousy job of creating clients.

This photographer wasn't a security problem; he was a sales opportunity.

- Andrew

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:25:56 +0000, Crash Lander wrote:

> If in 6 weeks time, that aircraft is stolen, and ends up getting loaded
> with C4 or some nerve gas, and then crashed into downtown metropolis
> somewhere, they'll be glad that security officer took the trouble to find
> out exactly who had been hanging around the aircraft in the weeks before
> the event.

Yes, because then they'd know the name of the person that killed himself.
That would be so helpful.

Of course, it would be nice to name the person in the article that
describes how a small GA plane managed to get off the ground with a
significant amount of cargo. I can manage a few hundred pounds at best.
Your average Hyundai makes a better delivery vehicle.

- Andrew

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Emily,
>
>> Personally, I think neighborhood watches are creepy.
>>
>
> Especially in a country with, well, lose gun laws. But let's not go
> there, the thread is bad enough as it is.
>
Loose gun laws? I dunno. I don't own a gun because someone in my state
filed a FOIA request to get a list of all gun owners. I would not want
to own a gun knowing that anyone who wanted to could find out I own one.

But you're right, it's bad enough as it is.

Jose wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the airlines had strictures
>> against photographing personell, procedures, etc... for quite some
>> time (going back well before 9/11?)
>
> I don't know.
>
> Jose

Yes, there have been rules against photographing procedures, personnel
and such for a while. Aircraft, no.

Ok, except at my work. We can't photograph anything there. But again,
that's not a new thing.

Stefan wrote:
> Jose schrieb:
>
>> The parallels diverge before meaningful comparison. My examples are
>> of =membership= in an =artificially created= group conferring rights
>> =granted= =by= that group. Your examples are all of =natural=
>> properties (sex, race...).
>
> And the natural property to have been borne in some random place I
> didn't choose myself.

Compared to changing sex and race, you can very easily choose to change
citizenship.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:08:54 -0700, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
> computer for each client who gets on the ramp

My only problem with your post is that this presumes that any potential
terrorist or criminal (recall: security is also to protect us against
trivial things like theft of our avionics!) will be in the DB. There's no
reason to believe so, if the terrorist or criminal is at all careful.

- Andrew

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Jose wrote:
>>>> (However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
>>>> relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).
>>>
>>>
>>> No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership
>>> to vote so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?
>>
>>
>> Local zoning issues come to mind.
>
> That may be particular to where you live. Here if there's a zoning
> issue and I would like to have my say I simply show up at the city
> council meeting.

Here too.
Hell, we have people show up at HOA meetings who aren't land owners.
Figure that one out.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:45:01 -0400, Morgans wrote:

> People have been detained, all across the country, for taking
> amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were
> arrested and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken.
> Sounds like there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.

Can you cite a case for this? I'm aware of people being arrested and
deported for various crimes (or violations; a subtle and annoying
difference) like overstaying a visa. But I've completely missed a case
where some has been deported merely for taking "suspicious amounts of
pictures".

- Andrew

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Stefan wrote:
>
> > Jose schrieb:
> >
> >> Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as
> >> American Citizens when on American soil.
> >
> >
> > Yes. Oh, and Blacks shouldn't be granted the same rights as whites and
> > women shouldn't be ganted the same rights as men and ... geeezz.
>
> This gets my vote for dumbest post of the week. Any other votes?

any post from the long island looney bird.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> Loose gun laws? I dunno. I don't own a gun because someone in my state
> filed a FOIA request to get a list of all gun owners. I would not want
> to own a gun knowing that anyone who wanted to could find out I own one.

how about filing a FOIA to find out who has filed a FOIA?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:40:33 +0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

> If a statute exists that prohibits photography or cameras in certain
> areas, and you clearly are using a camera there, a cop isn't going to ask
> you what you are doing with it - he or she is going to arrest you.

This isn't necessarily true. A good cop with a ridiculous law can choose
whether to arrest or merely warn.

However, why has nobody considered the possibility that the cop (or
security officer; this wasn't completely clear) might have been a photo
buff. Just as some of us thought the FBO should have treated the
photographer as a potential client, Emily had the option of treating the
copy as a fellow shutterbug.

Or perhaps he'd his own interest in aircraft.

Yes, I think that our freedoms are under attack by potentially
well-meaning (but potentially not!) people in government today. But when
faced with an individual, it doesn't hurt to start with the assumption
that this is a person instead of an institution.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:49:43 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>maybe even gets a new student
>
>
> Ah ha. *Now* we get to a real problem with GA today: FBOs that do a
> lousy job of creating clients.
>
> This photographer wasn't a security problem; he was a sales opportunity.

He may well have been either, I have no way to know. However, to
automatically assume he was a security problem was wrong, IMO. I like
the approach that someone suggested (I can't remember who at the moment)
that would have tactfully made this determination and then addressed
appropriately whichever was the case.


Matt

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:18:23 -0500, Emily >
wrote:

>Hell, we have people show up at HOA meetings who aren't land owners.
>Figure that one out.

Developers?

Don

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:40:33 +0000, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> If a statute exists that prohibits photography or cameras in certain
>> areas, and you clearly are using a camera there, a cop isn't going to ask
>> you what you are doing with it - he or she is going to arrest you.
>
> This isn't necessarily true. A good cop with a ridiculous law can choose
> whether to arrest or merely warn.
>
> However, why has nobody considered the possibility that the cop (or
> security officer; this wasn't completely clear) might have been a photo
> buff.

Judging by his tone, that wasn't the case.

Don Tuite wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:18:23 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>
>> Hell, we have people show up at HOA meetings who aren't land owners.
>> Figure that one out.
>
> Developers?
>
> Don

The last meeting I was at, some delinquents showed up to cause trouble
because we'd be calling the cops on them for trespassing. They sat
through the entire meeting before making a scene.

At least, that's what I heard. I got bored and left after three hours.

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Interesting take on this thread... How many would have thought a more
> "friendly" approach would have been to simply go out to the ramp (FBO
> employee, or whomever was tasked to be ramp nazi that day) and socialize
> with the photographer?
>
> Ask him nicely about what he's doing.. comment on the nice weather... ask
> him where he's from.. shake his hand.. get his name.. Ask him if he wants
> to get flying lessons, maybe point out a place down the road that does
> discovery flights, and offer to forward his name and phone number to
> them.. Invite him to come sign a visitor's log in the lobby, which your
> FBO keeps there for that purpose.. look at this ID there..
>
> If the "visitor" gets evasive or otherwise suspicious, then play "bad cop"
> and switch gears.. until then, with the friendly approach, you have made
> the visitor aware that he IS being watched, while at the same time being
> accomodating and promoting GA. Remember.. just about all of us started off
> by going to the local field and hanging around for a bit (unless you were
> born into aviation, or a product of the military).

Why is this all on the security guy anyway? Yes, the security bloke could
have used a more friendly, sales type approach, but the camera guy could
have also arrived at the field, and gone into the office and said:
Camera Dude: "Hi! I'm John! Any problems if I take a few snaps of some
planes coming in? I'm really into small aircraft, and I'd love to get some
action shots!"
Security Guy: "No problem mate! If you like, I have some old mags and charts
here you might like to have a look at! If you have any questions, just ask
away!"

Very friendly, permission given, and our camera guy may have even struck up
a relationship or conversation with a pilot in the office, and maybe scored
some info he may never have gotten.
The airfield IS after all, private property, and if anyone came onto my
property, and started snapping shots without my permission, I'd be pretty
****ed.
Crash Lander

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> Interesting take on this thread... How many would have thought a more
>> "friendly" approach would have been to simply go out to the ramp (FBO
>> employee, or whomever was tasked to be ramp nazi that day) and socialize
>> with the photographer?
>>
>> Ask him nicely about what he's doing.. comment on the nice weather... ask
>> him where he's from.. shake his hand.. get his name.. Ask him if he wants
>> to get flying lessons, maybe point out a place down the road that does
>> discovery flights, and offer to forward his name and phone number to
>> them.. Invite him to come sign a visitor's log in the lobby, which your
>> FBO keeps there for that purpose.. look at this ID there..
>>
>> If the "visitor" gets evasive or otherwise suspicious, then play "bad
>> cop" and switch gears.. until then, with the friendly approach, you have
>> made the visitor aware that he IS being watched, while at the same time
>> being accomodating and promoting GA. Remember.. just about all of us
>> started off by going to the local field and hanging around for a bit
>> (unless you were born into aviation, or a product of the military).
>
> Why is this all on the security guy anyway? Yes, the security bloke could
> have used a more friendly, sales type approach, but the camera guy could
> have also arrived at the field, and gone into the office and said:
> Camera Dude: "Hi! I'm John! Any problems if I take a few snaps of some
> planes coming in? I'm really into small aircraft, and I'd love to get some
> action shots!"
> Security Guy: "No problem mate! If you like, I have some old mags and
> charts here you might like to have a look at! If you have any questions,
> just ask away!"
>
> Very friendly, permission given, and our camera guy may have even struck
> up a relationship or conversation with a pilot in the office, and maybe
> scored some info he may never have gotten.
> The airfield IS after all, private property, and if anyone came onto my
> property, and started snapping shots without my permission, I'd be pretty
> ****ed.
> Crash Lander

The airport in question most certainly is not private property, and there
are no signs posted on the field or even notices posted in the FBO directing
visitors, ramp walkers, or picture takers to check-in, show ID, or anything
else.

KB

Morgans wrote:
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:45:01 -0400, Morgans wrote:
>>
>>> People have been detained, all across the country, for taking
>>> amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were
>>> arrested and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken.
>>> Sounds like there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.
>> Can you cite a case for this? I'm aware of people being arrested and
>> deported for various crimes (or violations; a subtle and annoying
>> difference) like overstaying a visa. But I've completely missed a case
>> where some has been deported merely for taking "suspicious amounts of
>> pictures".
>>
> It happened in Charlotte a couple years ago. You can look it up, if you
> wish.

That's pretty sad. I take pictures like crazy, usually of buildings
(daughter of a civil engineer, it's in my genes). I'd spend hours
wandering around downtown with my camera pointed up. It's unfortunate
that makes someone suspicious.

Emily wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>
>> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:45:01 -0400, Morgans wrote:
>>>
>>>> People have been detained, all across the country, for taking
>>>> amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were
>>>> arrested and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken.
>>>> Sounds like there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.
>>>
>>> Can you cite a case for this? I'm aware of people being arrested and
>>> deported for various crimes (or violations; a subtle and annoying
>>> difference) like overstaying a visa. But I've completely missed a case
>>> where some has been deported merely for taking "suspicious amounts of
>>> pictures".
>>>
>> It happened in Charlotte a couple years ago. You can look it up, if you
>> wish.
>
>
> That's pretty sad. I take pictures like crazy, usually of buildings
> (daughter of a civil engineer, it's in my genes). I'd spend hours
> wandering around downtown with my camera pointed up. It's unfortunate
> that makes someone suspicious.

Yes, and it is unfortunate that when someone is asked about it they get
combative and further raise suspicion beyond the ridiculous levels it is
already at.

Matt

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Emily,
>>
>>> Personally, I think neighborhood watches are creepy.
>>>
>>
>> Especially in a country with, well, lose gun laws. But let's not go
>> there, the thread is bad enough as it is.
>>
> Loose gun laws? I dunno. I don't own a gun because someone in my state
> filed a FOIA request to get a list of all gun owners. I would not want to
> own a gun knowing that anyone who wanted to could find out I own one.
>
> But you're right, it's bad enough as it is.

Where do you live and how does a FOIA request turn up who owns a gun? There
isn't supposed to be a database of gun owners unless you are in one of the
few states that has manditory gun registration.

In my state (GA) the only FOIA request that would get you any meaningful
information would be a request for a list of people who have concealed carry
permits.

KB

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:45:01 -0400, Morgans wrote:
>
> > People have been detained, all across the country, for taking
> > amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were
> > arrested and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken.
> > Sounds like there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.
>
> Can you cite a case for this? I'm aware of people being arrested and
> deported for various crimes (or violations; a subtle and annoying
> difference) like overstaying a visa. But I've completely missed a case
> where some has been deported merely for taking "suspicious amounts of
> pictures".
>
It happened in Charlotte a couple years ago. You can look it up, if you
wish.
--
Jim in NC

Kansas just passed a new CCW law and it will begin issuing
permit in January. They have already revised the law so
that the lists are only available to law enforcement, not
subject to FOIA requests.

Here in Kansas more than 50% of the homes have one or more
guns, but until next January, only police, PIs and criminals
on the prowl are carrying. There are even a few lawyers,
pharmacists, and taxi drivers who carry now. But soon, any
honest citizen will be able to legally carry. The state
will also soon approve out of state permits, so travel will
be safer.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Emily" > wrote in message
| . ..
| > Thomas Borchert wrote:
| >> Emily,
| >>
| >>> Personally, I think neighborhood watches are creepy.
| >>>
| >>
| >> Especially in a country with, well, lose gun laws. But
let's not go
| >> there, the thread is bad enough as it is.
| >>
| > Loose gun laws? I dunno. I don't own a gun because
someone in my state
| > filed a FOIA request to get a list of all gun owners. I
would not want to
| > own a gun knowing that anyone who wanted to could find
out I own one.
| >
| > But you're right, it's bad enough as it is.
|
| Where do you live and how does a FOIA request turn up who
owns a gun? There
| isn't supposed to be a database of gun owners unless you
are in one of the
| few states that has manditory gun registration.
|
| In my state (GA) the only FOIA request that would get you
any meaningful
| information would be a request for a list of people who
have concealed carry
| permits.
|
| KB
|
|

Jose wrote:

>> Here if there's a zoning issue and I would like to have my say I
>> simply show up at the city council meeting.
>
>
> Can you vote? If I came from out of town, could I vote on your zoning
> issues?

Zoning issues aren't something the public votes on. The city council
votes on it. You may also show up and have your say at the meeting.

Emily wrote:


>>
> Loose gun laws? I dunno. I don't own a gun because someone in my state
> filed a FOIA request to get a list of all gun owners. I would not want
> to own a gun knowing that anyone who wanted to could find out I own one.

??? Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>> Emily,
>>>
>>>> Personally, I think neighborhood watches are creepy.
>>>>
>>> Especially in a country with, well, lose gun laws. But let's not go
>>> there, the thread is bad enough as it is.
>>>
>> Loose gun laws? I dunno. I don't own a gun because someone in my state
>> filed a FOIA request to get a list of all gun owners. I would not want to
>> own a gun knowing that anyone who wanted to could find out I own one.
>>
>> But you're right, it's bad enough as it is.
>
> Where do you live and how does a FOIA request turn up who owns a gun? There
> isn't supposed to be a database of gun owners unless you are in one of the
> few states that has manditory gun registration.
>
> In my state (GA) the only FOIA request that would get you any meaningful
> information would be a request for a list of people who have concealed carry
> permits.
>
> KB
>
>
Actually, I mistype. It was a request for conceal carry permit holders.
No idea why I wrote that. In any case, I don't know anyone in my
state who owns a gun and *doesn't* cc.

And still...if I own a gun, I don't want criminals knowing. That makes
you a target.

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Emily wrote:
>
>
>>>
>> Loose gun laws? I dunno. I don't own a gun because someone in my
>> state filed a FOIA request to get a list of all gun owners. I would
>> not want to own a gun knowing that anyone who wanted to could find out
>> I own one.
>
> ??? Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

That's nice for you. I don't want criminals knowing that I keep a gun
in my car, in my house, or on my body. Then they know they have a
weapon to use against you. Not a tough concept.

Criminals expect that their victims will be unarmed.
Workplace rules, gun free zones and in Wisconsin and
Illinois, a general law against carrying weapons in public.
In states that allow concealed carry by qualified person who
have had some training, passed a background check, criminals
don't know who is carrying and who isn't. That bystander or
the old woman in a wheelchair [could be a man] can carry and
shoot. Criminals have never been shy about shooting people,
but they have been loath to get shot. CCW laws make the
criminal less safe since now any person might be a police
officer, an armed citizen or even, another criminal. It is
called deterrence and it works. Person on person crime goes
down very soon after a CCW law is in effect. Property crime
goes up, which shows that the criminal is looking for safer
crimes to commit.

Anyone who doesn't want to carry a gun is free to do so, the
armed citizen will protect you. But the other way around,
you don't have a right to tell us that we can't protect
ourselves and our families.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Newps wrote:
| >
| >
| > Emily wrote:
| >
| >
| >>>
| >> Loose gun laws? I dunno. I don't own a gun because
someone in my
| >> state filed a FOIA request to get a list of all gun
owners. I would
| >> not want to own a gun knowing that anyone who wanted to
could find out
| >> I own one.
| >
| > ??? Dumbest thing I've ever heard.
|
| That's nice for you. I don't want criminals knowing that
I keep a gun
| in my car, in my house, or on my body. Then they know
they have a
| weapon to use against you. Not a tough concept.

Very wrong, you just need to dress properly for CCW. The
are many fine handguns that can be effective for defense and
are small enough to carry hidden in any number of holsters,
bras, fanny-packs, purses, brief cases, garter belts, boots,
headset bags, computer cases, PDA cases. I agree about
people knowing who owns guns, since the American Revolution
started because the British decided to confiscate the arms
the colonists had in the keeping. That event was the spark
that started the war and resulted in the Second Amendment.

But if you go into any home in Texas, the odds are you'll
find a gun are better than 50-50. If you have a gun, keep
it close at hand, if you leave it home it can be stolen or
found by a child, carried securely on your person and it is
safe and so are you.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| <snip>
| >
| > Anyone who doesn't want to carry a gun is free to do so,
the
| > armed citizen will protect you. But the other way
around,
| > you don't have a right to tell us that we can't protect
| > ourselves and our families.
|
| Hey, I'm *totally* fine with people owning guns. I'd own
one myself if
| I hadn't just bought a house, car, and checkout in a
Seneca. What I'm
| not ok with is someone *knowing* that I own a gun. That
makes me feel
| LESS safe. I don't want to be killed in my house by my
own gun. Don't
| get me wrong, I'd use it, but I don't need someone
breaking in, finding
| it, and using it on me when I get home. And with cc
permit info out
| there for everyone, it would be very easy to find those
people.
|
| Because let's face it, it's hard for a woman to conceal a
firearm in
| Texas in the summer. It's got to stay in the house.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Very wrong, you just need to dress properly for CCW. The
> are many fine handguns that can be effective for defense and
> are small enough to carry hidden in any number of holsters,
> bras, fanny-packs, purses, brief cases, garter belts, boots,
> headset bags, computer cases, PDA cases.

Ok, I wear/carry one of the above, and a gun would never fit in it! I
suppose an ankle holster would work. Of course, I work at an airport,
and no guns allowed, even in the car in the parking lot.

>I agree about
> people knowing who owns guns, since the American Revolution
> started because the British decided to confiscate the arms
> the colonists had in the keeping. That event was the spark
> that started the war and resulted in the Second Amendment.

NOW you started it! Didn't anyone tell you it's politically incorrect
to talk about the Bill of Rights?

> the ramp. During the visit he gave me one of his old high powered deer
> rifles as a present. When I went back to the plane I walked right
> through the terminal with it and out to my plane. Started up and left.
> No one gave me a second look. I laughed about it most of the way home.

Jokes on you; there are no more high-powered deer anymore.

> Didn't anyone tell you it's politically incorrect to talk about the Bill of Rights?

It's ok if you use the POL tag. We're far enough off topic. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> Didn't anyone tell you it's politically incorrect to talk about the
>> Bill of Rights?
>
> It's ok if you use the POL tag. We're far enough off topic. :)
>
> Jose
I think I stopped reading the thread where that was discussed.

Parking lots are not sterile areas and guns are allowed,
even in the checked baggage on the airlines. I carried a
gun regularly in my flight bag on charter flights. Some of
my passengers did too, on part 91 flights. We also carried
hunters and target shooters on 135, and their unloaded guns
went in the airplane. If we had a nose baggage, they went
there, but in the King Air, it was all in the cabin.

Look for small 32 and 38 caliber revolvers and small auto
pistols, some are powerful enough and will fit in places you
would find handier than 40 miles away in a drawer.

You might look better in a pair of tight jeans and a man's
white shirt tied above the waist, but if the shirt is
bloused and tied below the waist and the jeans have a little
slack and you use a stiff belt, you can carry a small 45
automatic pistol just over the hip behind you and a spare
magazine on the other hip. Maybe you can't carry on the
airplane or into the workplace, but you can get a CCW in
Texas and carry to the pizza parlor or Circle K.

Packing.org | Texas: Laws and Summaries 98-001 by Executive
Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Andrew Sansom
stating that CCW holders can carry in Texas Parks. ...
www.packing.org/state/texas/ - 68k - Cached - Similar
pages


Report on Texas CCW permits - bad background checks |
Texas ... Texas: Report on Texas CCW permits - bad
background checks. Anti CCW News Posted 2000-10-10 @
11:04:35 by private reader ( Read 1563 times with 2 comments
....
www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/2469 - 19k -
Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.packing.org ]


Firearms--Fantasy and Fact. Debunking the myths surrounding
the ... Texas CCW is actually very liberal. About the only
places you can't really carry are in Bars, hospitals and
governement buildings. ...
www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a77bd7a2537.htm - 53k -
Cached - Similar pages


SB 60: Text of the Texas CCW Law. SB 60: Text of the Texas
CCW Law. ... state treasurer, tax collector of a political
subdivision of the state, Texas Alcoholic Beverage
Commission, ...
www.texas-on-line.com/graphic/txccw.htm - 79k -
Cached - Similar pages


Of Arms and the Law: FAQ on Texas CCW permits FAQ on Texas
CCW permits. Posted by David Hardy · 12 October 2005 03:38
PM. Here's a FAQ on Texas CCW permits. UPDATE: Rudy sent the
following comment, ...
armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/10/faq_on_texas_cc.php
- 16k - Cached - Similar pages

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.






"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Very wrong, you just need to dress properly for CCW.
The
| > are many fine handguns that can be effective for defense
and
| > are small enough to carry hidden in any number of
holsters,
| > bras, fanny-packs, purses, brief cases, garter belts,
boots,
| > headset bags, computer cases, PDA cases.
|
| Ok, I wear/carry one of the above, and a gun would never
fit in it! I
| suppose an ankle holster would work. Of course, I work at
an airport,
| and no guns allowed, even in the car in the parking lot.
|
| >I agree about
| > people knowing who owns guns, since the American
Revolution
| > started because the British decided to confiscate the
arms
| > the colonists had in the keeping. That event was the
spark
| > that started the war and resulted in the Second
Amendment.
|
| NOW you started it! Didn't anyone tell you it's
politically incorrect
| to talk about the Bill of Rights?