Why GA is Dying

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)

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.

"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

"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

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)

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.

"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

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)

"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

In article et,
"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