roger krueger Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 According to the letter posted on this site: <br><br><a href="http://www.thejoekorner.com/njt-photo-ok-letter.shtm">www.thejoekorner.com/njt-photo-ok-letter.shtm</a><br><br>NJT has received enough input from photographers to change their mind about their draconian photo policy.<br><br>It doesn't effect me directly because I live on the other side of the continent, but if this and the NY subway ban had stuck I can't imagine it would've been long before this sort of ban was standard. Now it's looking like a dead idea. AND it's pointed out to photographers that if we squeak loud enough, sometimes those in power do see the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_conrad Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 And we got similar results with the 2004 proposed photography ban by theNYC MTA and the December 2004 proposed rule for the U.S. NationalArboretum.<p>The message should be clear: when a draconian proposal is open to publiccomment, submit comments. It's a lot more effective than bitching aboutthe restrictions once they have been adopted.<p>Most of the folks who propose photography restrictions haven't reallythought through the implications, and when the implications are pointedout, many of these folks prove to be pretty reasonable. When we fail tosubmit comments, they assume that we don't care. In a sense, I can'treally blame them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 This is good news. But the powers-that-be should have understood that it isn't people with clearly visible cameras that are the problem. Somebody lugging a 14x11 Deardorff is pretty obvious. Just about every mobile phone has a camera in it now that can be used without its being noticed. And in any event, if you want to cause havoc with a bomb, why would you want a photograph? These bans were nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction and the desire by the PTB 'to be seen to be doing something'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwenting Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 The people planning where to place the bomb may want to have target information (thickness and material of walls and support beams, location of emergency exits (so nice to place boobytraps near those), etc.). Photos can provide that. While I agree such bans are rather useless (such information can be gained using other ways like textual description or public sources) there is a certain logic to it that a paranoid person can understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_degroot Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 it makes as much sense as banning a 4 year old kid " allen williams?) because he is on a terrorist watch list and does not have 3 forms of id drivers licence, ss card? the airport inspectors should be given shovels or picks and sent for hard labor for 7 years! there is no shortage or feally stupid people. I don't fault or blame folks who ask where the battery goes on a 50 year old box camera. they just are conditioned my recent cameras, but there has to be a limit somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_perlis Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 "there is a certain logic to it that a paranoid person can understand" Yeah, but running the asylum according to the logic of the nuttiest person in it probably isn't a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 You sure ? Seems to work in politics ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 You can always check out the airport lobby cams in Providence, Rhode Island, switch between cams, pan, zoom, while at home using your computer! http://www.pvdairport.com/audio_video/popup.htm Why bother buying your own camera or driving to the airport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_gainer Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 This question seems somewhat appropriate for this thread: Today I was taking photos of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge which spans the Delaware River connecting Philadelphia to Camden. I hadn't been there 10 minutes before I was aggressively confronted by DRPA (Delaware River Port Authority) Sergeant. He was livid that I would be taking photographs of the bridge, and I was certainly upset as he was threatening arrest and confiscation of my equipment. Has anyone had any direct experience with the goverment regulations on photographing architechture (bridges, buildings, terminals, and what is and is not permitted? I would like to avoid another incident like the one I experienced today. Thanks for any input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 David...having riden extensively most of the public transportation in south jersey and philly (and NYC), the DRPA cops are the worse I have seen. And trying to find their rules on the internet is next to impossible. I tend to "yes" them to death and then when they leave, do as I would on any other mass transit system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_gainer Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Thomas, thanks for your response. I was standing in Franklin Square under the kite & key sculpture, at least 100 yards from the bridge when the officer brought his car to a screeching halt at the base of the stairs. I am glad to hear that I am not alone in feeling a little surprised at his behavior. I think I will avoid photographing the bridge, and stick to other historical landmarks in the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 a little Off Topic (photography wise, anyhow), but.....you might be interested in <a href="http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/archive/index.php/t-9172.html"><u>this blog</u></a>...now mind you, the info is just between a bunch of people relating 3rd party info...but, the actual case they are talking about appears to exist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now