"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/s...d/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/columni...era-laws_x.htm
http://www.photopermit.org/