Why GA is Dying

"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

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.

"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

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:

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.

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.

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

"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

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.

"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