Jump to content

New York Port Authority Bus Terminal


gsphotoguy

Recommended Posts

While waiting for my bus home last night an announcement was made,

several times, that use of cameras and video recording equipment in

the Port Authority Bus Terminal are prohibited. After the New York

City Transit people realized that it was silly to institute such a

ban I figured this kind of thing was over. Add this one to the signs

at the Lincoln Tunnel entrance that camera use is not allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes Mark ... I took this pic yesterday, July 25, 2005 at Port Authority and never got a chance to bracket or get a better view because of the gentle tapping on my shoulder. The officer told that due to the 'security issues' I am not allowed to take pics inside the Port Authority terminal -- btw, he quoted the city regulations, not the law. We had a nice talk once he was assured I'm not the press or ACLU.

<p>Oh boy, I better dig out that old copy of Orwell's <i>1984</i> for further instructions on how to proceed with my life -- wait a second I don't need Orwell to tell me how be afraid, I came here from behind the Iron Curtain in a pursuit of ultimate freedom & I've seen it all before.</p>

 

<center><img src="http://mariaszulc.net/storageroom/seccheck2.jpg"></center>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This does not create "greater security." It's just suppression. Suicide bombers don't need to carry cameras and photographing a target location beforehand can be done surreptitiously. It's just a distraction from the need to change US/UK foreign policy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a bad experience yesterday at the Hoboken Lackawanna rail terminal. You might be familiar with it Maria, it has some great oxidized copper facade work. I got snapped one shot with my digital and a cop literally came out of nowhere screaming at me. Very aggressive and unsettling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's just a distraction from the need to change US/UK foreign policy."

 

More like a distraction from the mess they're making of dealing with the results. Just don't wear a bulky jacket in London if you don't fancy five bullets in the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday I was told by security it was illegal for me to shoot at the downtown ABQ bus station despite shooting there dozens of times in the last year. Ironically when security was talking to me (I was a bit defiant) a guy with a camera phone was snapping shots ten feet away from us. Security didn't even approach him. I think paranoia is on the rise again after the London bombimgs. This is the first time in a long while that security or police have questioned me. I definitely plan on shooting at the bus station again as I don't have a wealth of good areas to shoot in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

he he he ... luv ya Jenna but the fact is we are a public nuissance & source of potential embarassment to these guys even if we are inconspicous. I mean, I did not stand in their way while they busied themselves rummaging through people's underware ( and I don't think the cops checking passengers were very happy doing it). For sure they dont' want the press around in case they make another booboo and arrest another innocent Britons, as it happened on Sunday on the double decker in the Times Square. The officer that stopped me asked me several times if I have a press ID or if I work for American Civil Liberties Union. He was nice until he asked me for an ID -- I only had credit card (with a big bill to be paid) -- he asked, "that's all you have?" I said, I had no idea now I have to have an ID on me each time I leave my home - after that he gave up cause I was trying to invite him for a beer at my place where we could look at my ID and discuss US security, lol. I liked most the Orwellian lingo he was using, not the usual cop slang -- I'm scared one day I will wake up in the Soviet Union of the United States.

The first person who says we should forgo and our stupid photography hobby, our stupid love for backpacks, our stupid need to wear a winter coat in the summer, in the name of nationl security will be the next president of the SUUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Maria,

 

Public nuisance? Only when confronted!!!! Looking at your photos the security is obviously much tighter in NYC, but the issues are the same all over this country. Any time something happens (like in London) and the terrorist alert jumps, people feel a need to show their authority. It gives the paranoid public the impression they are doing something positive to combat terrorism. Truth is, a terrorist would be much more clever than a street photographer. And in my case a terrorist would not need to even walk on the bus station's grounds to get a decent shot of the building. ABQ is the 75th largest metropolitan area in the US for goodness sakes!!!

 

You're mistaken as press too? That's happened to me several times and I always find it amusing as I don't carry much gear. In fact if I'm shooting downtown I have nothing but my camera. I drive and park, locking my wallet/ID in my glove box. Don't usually carry an extra lens and since I usually shoot digital an extra FC fits into my jean pocket.

 

Oh and I agree with everything you said. I think it's going to get worse, especially since GWB was re-elected and he will get to put two new judges on the Supreme Court. I'm concerned that civil liberties will be jeopardized under the disguise of National Security. The government will put security cameras in public areas (already happening in some places) while passing laws that make street photography more difficult, or even illegal. We are an easy group to target.

 

And yes some idiot will probably post on this forum supporting tighter controls. They will suggest we shoot landscapes instead ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the funny thing was that this officer agreed with me on one point: if i were up to something bad, i would've used a cellphone camera or a hidden camera. Then he asked for my ID. sigh ... i hope Jeff won't nuke this thread cause i am happy i'm not alone in all that paranoid mess. i do worry that ganja supply to the city will be cut off because of the security checks (just kidding, heh).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, same thing here. I told him if I were an actual terrorist would I be taking photos right in front of him? People hang out at this bus stop a lot, so I figured security was there to break up fights, curtail gang activity, etc. I've shot there so much that most of the security guards recognize me. I mean this isn't a large place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy this type of nonsense just ticks me off to no end! It's all just smoke and mirriors. The mayor of NY gives a speech about how there won't be any racial profiling. So if a 20-35 year old man of middle eastern decent walks onto the subway platform with a backpack or briefcase the cops will leave him alone but they'll check the backpack of the 16 year old schoolgirl next to him. Oh yeah and we still have open borders to the north and south and nobody knows who's just walking in. Just how many more attacks on the scale of 9/11 will it take to finally do away with all this politically correct b.s.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

they are checking every 5th to be passanger so cops will actually let four 25-30 yrs old, Middle-Eastern looking man with big bagpacks in, if that's your concern. Don't forget that your Middle-Eastern typoglogy might be wrong -- they might have blue eyes and blond hair. My concern is, political corectness or overt racial profiling, if they want to kill us, they will do it when we sleep. And they certainly won't go to Port Authority to take a pic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was questioned by a government employee Tuesday morning and had my car license tag number taken and reported to "Homeland Security" ... all for taking a photo of a bridge that has been photographed a million times ... I called the local director and we had a nice little chat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too often, people in power fail to see the obvious and they jump to some ridiculous and not-too-bright conclusions. The ban on photography exemplifies this.

 

When is a description as accurate as a photo? The banning of camera use is one of the best examples of how even those considered very savvy in crime prevention and anti-terrorism have mistakenly overlooked the potential of cameras by people out in public and it underminds the citizenry's intelligence and sense of responsibility!

 

The more cameras you have at any given crime scene, the more opportunities the authorities have to see what happened from the point of view of those caught in the heat of action within the scene. For instance, the bombing in England, if not for the many good people with cell 'phone cameras we would not have seen what happened immediately after the bombings. What better tool do we have today than cameras to look back and see what happened? If this is not true, how about the surveillance cameras that caught the images of the suspected bombers? Citizens taking photos with cameras represents more cameras on "duty."

 

I would imagine that would-be bombers/terrorists or anyone in the midst of performing covert activities would want to remain unseen or hidden within the crowds at all times; but with people carrying cameras and freely taking photos in public, the chances that their images MIGHT be caught by someone would increase. In other words, cameras could or might fortuitously capture images of some who otherwise might remain inconspicuous and concealed from anti-terrorist personnel's vigilence since the anti-terrorist personnel can only see but so much. Private citizens taking photos can and have assisted the authorities on many occasions.

 

How many times haven't private citizens captured images of on-going crimes and/or other similar incidents with cameras, camcorders, and cell 'phone cameras? Those images might not have been caught if there had been a ban on the use of these image recording devices.

 

Personally, I feel that the only personnel that wouldn't want to have citizens taking photos are those that are are deliquent in their duties, or acting in some inept or malfeasant manner, and their supervisors and government SHOULD want to have private citizens taking photos in order to get the "goods" on those and remove them (as with employees that claim infirmities/injuries and are photographed performing heavy lifting or other activities that require the health they allege not to have).

 

Really, if someone wanted to cause harm, that person could easily obtain blueprints and other vital information from a quick visit to a library or via the Internet; the information is free and readily available to the public. I honestly don't think that those determined to cause harm would necessarily be caught taking photos in public. Cameras attract attention and would-be terrorists/bombers and/or criminals don't want to attract public attention to themselves by taking photos in public.

 

Photography bans? Not only is it unconstitutional but it's a step in the wrong direction. Once again, ignorance and power win the day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see I set off quite a discussion.

 

Last night they made no announcements about this ban. They, of course, won't say that it's now OK or that they were wrong to ban photography in the first place. I'll let you know if they say any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photography bans smack of kneejerk, 'let's do -something-' groupthink by

authorities. And their enforcement smacks of 'I'm sitting around all day passively

scanning minutiae, so I may as well look/feel like I'm doing something active (and

easy) in this struggle against terrorism'.

 

As some have pointed out, the average finished photograph may be more likely to -

implicate- someone (unknown to the photographer) in a crime than to facilitate a

crime. The chances of either are miniscule, though. So, without ancillary clues, I'd

bet the shooting of photographs in public is a pretty low-power indicator of potential

terrorist intent. Nonetheless, if, while on public property, I'm shooting something

considered to be a likely target, I'm happy to answer a question or two from police, A

ban though? That's an outright waste of public resources and a needless stressor for

cop and photographer alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...