Same Story @ LAX Airport

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Once these sorts of things get presented to your psyche they're hard to put away. I will now and forever be twice as nervous about flying as I used to be.

 

Ray's story has a humourous aspect. I can see him bringing in an album for the cops to look at, and waiting, while they peruse it for "artistic merit". A peeved look on his face; a thought bubble over him would read: "Everybody's a critic!".

 

It's a far fetched scenario from taking pix at a public, commercial airport, to plotting and carrying out a terrorist act; in fact a terrorist in an airport should be leerier of picture-takers; but this is the one of the routes the U.S. authorities have chosen. Lowers the rate of unemployment slightly.

[octavio bustard]

Airports are PRIVATE PROPERTY. They have a right to bar you from taking photos FOR WHATEVER REASON. Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

When you are stopped from photographing in a PUBLIC SPACE, then complain.

[jsbc]

Actually Ray consider the humourous aspects:

 

That fact that it is now so hard to take photographs in airports means that your portfolio now has authentic artistic merit. People despise easy cheap shots. Now that you have to brave the police to take your shots mean they are a cut above the ordinary.

 

But you are right, the point is (and what Grant perhaps misses) is the fact most Americans are giving up personal liberty for a fictitious peace of mind. I think the Bush administration is deliberately propagating this fear and panic because it helps his re-election.

 

The likelihood of being hit by a car is much higher than the risk of being on a hijacked plane. Yet would you freeze up and hit the ground whenever you see a turbaned driver?

[ray .]

It's funny that when security saw me at earlier times there seemed to be no issue at all. It was when they were under the eye of someone else expecting some reaction that they did something. Not to say they weren't correct in some respects protecting the employee's comfort level. But it appeared to me that they themselves didn't see anything that suspicious in what I was doing.

 

I told the policeman when asked that I wasn't waiting for a plane or someone arriving, that I was simply there to photograph. That then put me in the category in their eyes as being a loiterer. They told me that they dealt with people like that all the time, people who had "no business" at the airport. I said, "Well what if I had just told you I was waiting for someone, then that would be different?" "Then you'd be lying" was the reply.

 

I might understand the current level of security measures, but I'm afraid of the possibility it could get worse. There's no either/or to this question. I just think we have to watch it... both for security and for our freedoms. It's a difficult situation we've gotten into. Majority rules, yes... but majority can make grievous mistakes. Once mob mentality takes hold, it can be an overwhelming force of nature, like a tidal wave or a wildfire.

[james_.1]

Aren't there more interesting places to photograph than an airport? I've been through a few in my time, and they're b-o-r-i-n-g. As for having the privilege to photograph in them, I think it should be preserved. We are customers and taxpayers living in the US after all, BOTTOMLINE.

[jorn ake]

from _Austerlitz_ by W.G. Sebald [seemed appropriate perhaps]

 

"In the practice of warfare, however, the star-shaped fortresses which were being built and improved everywhere during the eighteenth century did not answer their purpose, for intent as everyone was on that pattern, it had been forgotten that the largest fortifications will naturally attract the largest enemy forces, and that the more you entrench yourself the more you must remain on the defensive, so that in the end you might find yourself in a place fortified in every possible way, watching helplessly while the enemy troops, moving on to their own choice of terrain elsewhere, simply ignored their adversaries' fortifications, which had become positive arsenals of weaponry, bristling with cannon and overcrowded with men. The frequent result, said Austerlitz, of resorting to measures of fortifications marked in general by a tendency towards paranoid elaboration was that you drew attention to your weakest point, practically inviting the enemy to attack it...."

 

All of the things that the Bush administration (and Grant above) is saying right now about national security, the war on terrorism, etc. yadda yadda, are so similar to the things the Communists said about the threat from the other side of the Iron Curtain (i.e. America & capitalism) and how that threat must be dealt with through secret police, informants, arrests without trial, that my Czech friends get chills down their spines every time they hear Bush speak.

[ike k]

BTW there's still no weapon of mass destruction in Iraq! so at least one major US suspect and threat is out from the list (except Saddam and his country oil treasure), please next country to be occupied!...Thank you Mr.Bush and thank you Mr. cheney to make USA be the second largest oil reserved country!

[joshroot]

<i>"Why is this so difficult to understand?"</i>

<P>

Well one thing that makes it hard to understand is that what you said isn't exactly

true. While there may be some 100% privately owned airports in the USA, I would

wager that 98% of the major ones are public or public/private mix owned.

<P>

For example, SeaTac in Seattle is owned by the Port of Seattle. A public, taxpayer

funded, entitity. As far as I know, the Port also owns the buildings etc. But there may

be some sort of operator/lease agreement with a private company that would muddy

the water as far as it being "public property". But to say that all airports are private

property is pretty far off the mark.

[thomas_sullivan]

first - lets forget the Homeland Security Issue. LAX is a privately owned airport. Because it allows the public to freely enter and purchase the product(s) that are being sold there, it falls into that area inbetween Public and Private. If there are signs stating "no photography"..........don't. If there are no signs regarding this, then you may take photos all you want, until the owner, or a representative of that owner, comes up to you and tells you to stop. Then you stop and go on your way. Period! Those are your rights in the US.

 

Now the Homeland Security Issue............I agree with Mr. Ben Franklin. However, the proper place to fight for this issue is not at the scene of the incident. It is in the courts and/or any other means of changing wrongs available to US citizens. Simply stated................you follow the law until you can cause the law to be changed......that is how it is suppose to be done in the US. If the powers to be have overstepped their boundaries in this issue, and you feel that an injustice is being perpetrated on the citizens of the United States, then get your asses down to Congress and get it changed.

 

I don't know, maybe im nieve in thinking that this very well planned system of a checks and balances that are in place in this country can actually work. But it is the correct place to start. Yeah, its gonna be a long battle to get it corrected, if indeed something is wrong, but its a much more proper and constructive method than mob, or majority, rule in the streets. Dont ya think?!

[richard_milner2]

In 1979 I visited the Soviet Union in an officially guided group. We were informed right from the start that all airports, railway stations, tracks and bridges were rated as military secrets and photography was forbidden. Perhaps the USA should introduce such a law.

[thomas_sullivan]

oh....regarding my <a href="http://www.lawa.org/lax/laxframe.html">Privately Owned Statement</a><br><br>then pick Traveler info and FAQs, then pick FAQs..............first paragraph under that.

[ray .]

I can't find a link but here's a tiny portion of the article on camera cell phones in schools. Writer Cara Branigan, in eSchool News:

<p>

...<i>Last November, Elk Grove, Ill., a Chicago suburb, banned all cell phones in public locker rooms, whether they could take photos or not. "There is no reason to have a cell phone while you're changing and showering," Elk Grove Commisioner Ron Nunes told the New York Times. "I'd rather protect the children and the public more than someone who wants to call home and see what's for dinner."

[fotografz]

Sorry, I'm with Grant on this. Flying ain't my favorite pastime. And I ain't all that

enthused about becoming a human bomb. I wouldn't mind it if half the passengers on

every flight were US Marshals handcuffed the other 50% of the passengers. It wouldn't

tweak me one nanosecond if they banned any photo gear being used with-in 1/2 mile

of an airport. IMO, shooting a photo in an airport should be a capital crime that takes

the perp to the express lane on death row.

 

Or in other words, use a little common sense.

[watts]

I think there have been some misconceptions here about the

idea of public v. private property. That something (a building or

whatever) is paid for out of public funds doesn't necessary mean

that the public have any rights of access. I would guess the

Pentagon is funded through taxation but I don't think many

people would expect to be able to gain access to take

photographs whenever they pleased. Similarly, my local leisure

centre is funded through a complex combination of local and

national taxes but I don't expect to be able to just walk in

whenever I please nor do I expect to be able to stay if asked to

leave. There is a big difference in terms of freedom to do as you

please between what we might call public space - roads,

pavements (sidewalks), public parks (though even here there

are often specific rules and restricted rights of access) - and

what we might better term as publicly owned 'private' space such

as airports and railway stations.

[kevin m.]

I'm only surprised it took three visits before you were stopped.

 

Cops are patrolling airports looking for what seems out of the ordinary, and a lone male taking pictures of strangers certainly is that. Since what you are doing -innocent or not- is so uncommon, you are going to draw attention; it's just human nature to be curious of the unfamiliar. And from a law-enforcement standpoint, you don't fit within any traditionally accepted airport activity: greeting loved ones; killing time; waiting for luggage, etc.

[kevin m.]

...and if I had been in Grant's shoes, I would have asked that guy what he was doing. In a friendly manner, but still...

[thomas_sullivan]

...you guys make this public/private thing seem so complex. It aint....95% of the scenarios are very distinctly seperate.

 

As for the rest.........Military installations come under other rules also. If a private place is partially funded by public money, there are probably also rules in place for that....you dont get money for nothing. Quit making this stuff up, and do a little internet research on the place you want to shoot at..............so far I have not failed at having it sufficiently explained just by Google type search methods.

[thomas_sullivan]

<i>puff </i>italics begone

[thomas_sullivan]

</i></i></i>how about now?

[vic_.]

The closest airport to my home is in Warwick, Rhode Island, (the Providence Airport). They are the ones with the live webcam. One can change the direction and zoom in on anything. It's great fun for perverts:

<P>http://www.pvdairport.com/audio_video/webcams.htm

<P>Given my heritage, I should be wearing a turban, so I'm a bit perturbed about this situation, to say the least. In fact a few of my brethren have been mistakenly killed for this since 9/11. What if Ray was a turbaned individual, a US Citizen, or better still, a tourist. He'd be in Guantanamo right now, enjoying the hospitality of US taxpayers. I think twice (sometimes three times) before taking my camera out in public places (let alone private places), and it's amazing how people's mindsets have changed since 9/11. <B>Before then, it really was the land of the free, now it's the land of the paranoid!</B> As the crazy mailroom employee in an old job used to tell me: <B>"Paranoia will destroya!"</B> Obviously I'm not going to test the limits of the law, but it's so Orwellian to even be thinking this way.

[vic_.]

This news story is so appropriate to Ray's experience, and by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg no less:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=558&u=/ap/20040130/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_ginsburg_2&printer=1

[fotografz]

Vic, personally I don't subscribe to any sort of profiling aspect. There are more than

enough home-grown nuts to go around. The zealots who blew up the Federal Bldg. in

Oklahoma were from right here in Michigan. Seems terrorism is an equal opportunity

employer. So, I don't mind limiting their "opportunities" in the least.

[stephen_w.]

I work in industrial sites: power, refining, petrochemical, etc. It is "generally" forbidden to take pictures in these places:

 

1. Most cameras that take batteries are not intrinsically safe (not explosion proof).

 

2. Propriety information/layout

 

3. Terrorist (Algeria) scouting

 

4. Safety violation/pollution recording is the biggest reason, by far

 

I had at least two incidences:

 

I was taking pictures at a Thai refinery (allowed). The safety guy rode up on his bike and said my M4 was not allowed because it was not intrinsically safe. I replied that it did not contain a battery. He replied: what if you dropped it. I said it was made out of brass, a non-sparking material (we use copper hammers when purging is not an option), what if you fell off your bike (steel)? He quietly rode away.

 

Now in Algeria, they take things pretty seriously, even today. I was there in 1992-1993, just after the army cancelled the election that did not result in their favor. It was a weekend (Fri-Sat) and I went to a nearby roman ruin with a 'blad and an M6. The refinery, to this day (my current project), has a big sooty flare polluting 24/7 (probably visible from space; the wall is not the only man made object visible). Since the way to my trailer runs through the refinery, I decided to take a picture of the flare. Well, the Gendarmarie caught me, and I was dragged to the "station". They wanted to have the film developed to see what I had. They tried to open the M6 without success. I told them the M6 was borrowed and didn't know how to open it either. After "fiddling" with it a while I managed to get the bottom off. Then, the back flipped open exposing the frame. I hurriedly replaced the back and bottom, looking confused and worried about my day's shoot. Four hours later they let me go after looking at a bunch of "approved" ruin shots and one completely white photo. I never did that again...common sense.

 

Here's one from that day:<div></div>

[jay bee]

Was the point really to take pictures of just to see how long you could do it before getting stopped by the police? Certainly seems like more of a civil liberties litmus test of sorts than anything else.

 

I'd suspect that there are far worse injustices to wring our collective hands over...

[ray .]

Pictures.