Same Story @ LAX Airport

[blakley]

LAWA is a branch of the government of the City of Los Angeles, as the web site referenced makes perfectly clear:

 

"Los Angeles World Airports is a self-supporting branch of the City of Los Angeles, governed by a seven-member Board of Airport Commissioners. The Board is composed of public-spirited business and civic leaders who are appointed by the mayor and approved by the City Council. Policies of the commission are carried out by a professional administrative staff and nearly 2,500 employees who operate and maintain four airports in the system:"

 

Regarding whether there's any good reason to be photographing in an airport - there is. Pure and simple. Forget art. Let's talk about security. Airport security is still allowing various dangerous items to pass undetected; airport security personnel may be profiling in ways which are not permitted by law; dangerous persons may be lurking in airports for purposes other than art; a large variety of other things of direct interest to the public - or even of direct consequence to the lives and safety of individual members of the public - are taking place in airports daily.

 

Does Grant's and Tom's argument against photographing in airports extend to the press, or is it just the citizens whose freedoms ought to be curtailed?

[michael s.]

Some of the comments here are disturbing -- for their inaccuracy, their lack of historical context, their willingness (even eagerness) to abandon civil rights and civil liberties, or all of the above.

 

One contributor declares (in all CAPS, as though that makes it true beyond question) that airports are privately owned. Some are, but many aren't. LAX, for instance, is operated by LAWA (Los Angeles World Airports), whose website discloses that LAWA is a Department of (take a guess?) the City of Los Angeles.

 

Several others seem to argue, in one way or another, that since airport photography makes folks uncomfortable, it can or should be forbidden. If people are against it, or bothered by it, you're out of luck. Period.

 

Not so fast.

 

Freedom of speech and assembly, religious freedom, freedom of the press -- all these constant sources of discomfort! What kind of country would choose these liberties to be at the core of its existence? What kind of place would boast about these sources of squeamishness and urge nations around the world to follow its example? The answer is this place -- the United States.

 

It's disturbing to think that some of us are so ready to abandon these freedoms in the name of improved security.

 

Having said that, airport security is no trivial matter. A person who comes to an airport for no reason other than to take pictures is bound to attract attention, and initially, suspicion. (Indeed, a security document that's part of the LAWA site has a specific caution about photography. The risk, of course, is that someone could be "casing" the joint, so to speak.)

 

There is no easy answer to the tension between security and liberty. People who claim this is a snap may one day awake to find that we've "secured" ourselves to the point where we have far fewer freedoms than our Constitution purports to guarantee.

 

As a practical matter, I suspect that the airport visitor who openly strolls around with a couple Leicas hanging from his neck and shoulders, a camera bag, etc., is far less likely to pose a genuine security threat than many other visitors -- or as you'll recall, passengers -- whose m.o. will be more subtle.

 

To those who think that each time Ray and his cameras are tossed out of an airport, our county becomes a better, more secure place, I'm afraid you may be mistaken.

 

Ray, I admire and respect your determination (and your photography), and I respect the care with which you've explained these encounters and raised questions for this group. A question for you: did the officer who told you you'd be "cited" explain what you'd be "cited" for? I'm curious.

 

Oh, and Ray: better take care of those parking tickets!

[thomas_sullivan]

sorry...........my mistake...LAX is publicly owned............although there is nothing in bold letters in my statement

[michael s.]

Wasn't referring to you, Tom. Another poster, also mistaken, was far more vehement.

[ray .]

M Sandberg: One of the cops at my request was going to show me some sort of Municipal code he said I was violating, but he didn't get to it and I forgot about it until after I left them. On the way out, I tracked down another policeman to see if I could find out where to go for a permit. He told me he didn't know specifically of a municipal code, but that the authority was from Homeland Security.

 

Another little anecdote:

At this airport there are a few teenagers soliciting funds for a teen anti-drug program. They have a permit to do it. Over the PA a recording comes on periodically saying "You are not obligated to give money to people soliciting in the airport."

[ray .]

Frank, thanks for the encouragement. Believe me, it means very much coming from you and others here.

 

Now, just to get you riled up a bit: I haven't really paid much attention to the presidential candidates... as you know, in general, politicians aren't my favorite people. I haven't seen Dean that much, but I was impressed by his comment yesterday that he'd tend toward the civil liberties side of these discussions.. I'm sorry that he looks as if he won't get the nomination because I really think it would be better for the country if we had a choice of clearly opposing viewpoints on these issues. I think it unfortunate that his speech after losing Iowa has been unfairly lampooned and cartooned...

[ray .]

I can't help but think everytime I see Bush talking that his facial expressions look like he's telling an awfully large tale of pure lies and crap. I figured Clinton was a snake but there was at bottom a true concern for the welfare of the country and people. I guess it's just what act convinces you, who knows? It's weird how people take in candidates close to their heart and others think the same guy is a level below a used car salesman.

 

I didn't necessarily agree with Barry Goldwater, but the guy rang true. I'm not so sure Bush isn't a full on crook with the interest of the oil business first, and doesn't give a shit what kid he sends to die for it.

[skeeter]

marc williams --> "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."

 

my god marc, i can't believe you actually wrote that. if it's such a crime, why don't they disallow ALL CAMERAS IN ALL AIRPORTS?

 

the fact is, it is not a security risk at all, or they would. a fact everyone (well, most) on this thread is choosing to ignore. instead, we have paranoid rants about how we'll give anything to prevent another act of terrorism. a photo, or lots of photos of an airport poses no risk. the reaction ray got was a misdirected one because people are scared of things they don't understand (ray at the airport, the passenger on grant's flight with leg cramps).

too much paranoia. too little common sense.

[ray .]

Maybe that guy on Grant's plane was up because he was nervous about flying too. How many people have a drink to get over the anxiety of flight, well before 9-11? And, leg cramps are certainly normal on an airplane... I used to go to the back of the plane and stand near the kitchen for awhile.. Standing for periods of time is common I think.

 

Grant's views on this thread seem reasonable to me, but Tom Chandler, I think you and I in many ways think alike...

[mike_moss]

I realize this topic is really old but I have experienced things just like it in other "secured" places. What I take away from this is not that they allowed or forbid you from you from taking pictures but that they didn't seem to know the protocol either. It seems like a lack of clarity is more frightening. Do the police know what the rules are? Do the administrators. It seems like this flaw is one that could be easily exploited. How many resources could someone tie up by doing something benign like taking pictures while the thing they really want to accomplish would have an easier time.