Why GA is Dying

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

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
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?

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

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.

"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

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)

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 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

"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