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