What do you mean I can't take pictures?

[flav8r]

After thirty years of coming out to the airport to watch the planes take off and land and snap off a few pictures, today I was told that it was not permitted.

I have been coming to the St Augustine airport KSGJ to eat at the Fly-By-Cafe because it affords an excellent view of the ramp and runway.

Today the waitress told me that I could not take pictures with my camera because Homeland Security prohibits it.

Since when?!

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Sigh.

 

[nddons]

You vill comply!

 

[AdamZ]

This is the second thread dealing with this issue. My response BS! Are you really going to take the word of a Cafe waitress on this?

 

[flav8r]

This is the second thread dealing with this issue. My response BS! Are you really going to take the word of a Cafe waitress on this?

Apparently it's OK to take pictures with my iPhone but not my camera.

 

[Everskyward]

Today the waitress told me that I could not take pictures with my camera because Homeland Security prohibits it.

Since when?!

Show me where it says so. A couple days ago I walked around the ramp taking pictures of military airplanes which had stopped for lunch. I wasn't the only one doing this either.

 

[gprellwitz]

Just tell her she's misinformed, and if she persists, ask to see her badge.

 

[fgcason]

Bunk.

Until they force control on every image capturing device that is around including cellphones miles from the airport they're just being a pain in the rear busybodies.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Even the TSA indicates picture taking at their checkpoints is ok where the airport itself doesn't prohibit it.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/03/can-i-take-photos-at-checkpoint-and.html

 

[steingar]

Nice airport. When I landed there they had buku cheap gas. In fact, I landed there twice to take advantage of the fact. Wish I had more time then to look around. St. Augustine looked really neat from the air.

Waitress was just repeating something she heard, I bet. I'd stiff her for the tip.

 

[SkyHog]

"Take my camera....go ahead...."

Tell her to FO. She's part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[TMetzinger]

TSA even schools it's folks about planespotters - this is absolutely a permitted activity UNLESS the airport management prohibits it - and if it's a government public-use airport they CANNOT do so without passing appropriate laws.

The same thing comes up about taking pictures of government buildings, monuments, etc.

Now, the restaurant may prohibit photography in their space... But that's a whole different story.

 

[Pilawt]

Maybe she's afraid that photos taken at the restaurant will find their way to the County Health Department ...

 

[Jaybird180]

The same thing comes up about taking pictures of government buildings, monuments, etc.

This misinformation is furthered by government security breifings. Now I'm really kunfuzed.

 

[Dave Theisen]

I was there Saturday in a blue Pilatus PC-12, did you get my picture?

The FBO I worked for twenty five years ago, long before 9/11 and the TSA had a no photo policy claiming it was about customer privacy.

 

[brcase]

Best answer is, "thats an unusual rule, Who's rule is it and who do I talk to about it?"

Brian

 

[Armageddon Aviator]

This is the second thread dealing with this issue. My response BS! Are you really going to take the word of a Cafe waitress on this?

People are so paranoid about cameras and pictures...

During my last trip to the U.S. of A (Borat parlance) I was told several times NOT to take pictures by well-intentioned people...

That included a couple of pilots at the Wings airfield (KLOM) - they freaked out when they noticed my foreign accent...
Obviously, I was doing that on behalf of Al Qaeda...(Ben Laden has been trying to obtain quality pictures of that yellow Piper Cub for quite some time now...)

A security guard in some mall (not far from Paramus, NJ ) told me I couldn't take pictures of my friend in front of the Toys R Us store...
When I asked him why - he replied "it's the law" ...
I politely inquired about that regulation and I was told "in this mall - I'm the law"...

I experienced the same silly behavior in Israel.
Here, anything related to security is considered Top Priority and some folks are really hysterical about that.
That includes 22 years old security officers (fresh out from the army) who are always willing to go the extra mile to harass innocent private pilots like me just to demonstrate how efficient and powerful they are (wankers...)

In this age of Google Earth, internet, smart phones, etc...it really makes no sense to make a fuss about picture taking...

 

[denverpilot]

Best answer is, "thats an unusual rule, Who's rule is it and who do I talk to about it?"

More fun if you're up for it: "My co-worker wrote that rule, and that's not what it says. My boss will be interested in this." If they ask for clarification, ask who they are and if you can see photo ID. Add in, "We really need to figure out who's spreading all this bad information."

LOL! There's so many fun ways to mess with people.

 

[Bravo3]

More fun if you're up for it: "My co-worker wrote that rule, and that's not what it says. My boss will be interested in this." If they ask for clarification, ask who they are and if you can see photo ID. Add in, "We really need to figure out who's spreading all this bad information."

LOL! There's so many fun ways to mess with people.

Too funny!! Never miss the opportunity to mess with the heads of these self-appointed Commissars of the Motherland.

Like Lenin once said, "Advance with bayonet. When you encounter mush--proceed. If you encounter steel--retreat."

These know-nothings aren't used to encountering "steel" apparently.

 

[weilke]

Somewhere on these sites, the issue of who is making this crap up was dealt with. Don't have the time to look it up right now:

http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law.html

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248

 

[wsuffa]

If you think that's bad, this is even worse:

Woman sues Southampton, NY for $70 million after being arrested for taking pictures of display helicopter at Gabreski Airport

You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.

 

[Palmpilot]

Sounds like we have a government of men, and not of laws.

 

[jhausch]

If you think that's bad, this is even worse:

Woman sues Southampton, NY for $70 million after being arrested for taking pictures of display helicopter at Gabreski Airport

You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.

Wow - The update at the bottom of that link leads to more info and video dated just 2-8-2011. This is very interesting. . .

 

[ClimbnSink]

The Town of Southampton has failed to timely file an answer to the Nancy Genovese lawsuit, possibly leaving the taxpayers of the town on the hook for $70 million dollars. A motion for a default judgment has been filed against the Town of Southampton and Town of Southampton Police Officer Robert Iberger, and we are awaiting a decision by the court.

Awesome. Unfortunately the only way to end these abuses is to make the taxpayers squeal loudly.

 

[gprellwitz]

The Town of Southampton has failed to timely file an answer to the Nancy Genovese lawsuit, possibly leaving the taxpayers of the town on the hook for $70 million dollars. A motion for a default judgment has been filed against the Town of Southampton and Town of Southampton Police Officer Robert Iberger, and we are awaiting a decision by the court.

Awesome. Unfortunately the only way to end these abuses is to make the taxpayers squeal loudly.

And one of the councilmen on the town board characterized her suit as "frivolous."

 

[SCCutler]

And one of the councilmen on the town board characterized her suit as "frivolous."

Yeah.

Let's put him through the same treatment, see how "frivolous" he thinks it is.

 

[weilke]

The Town of Southampton has failed to timely file an answer to the Nancy Genovese lawsuit, possibly leaving the taxpayers of the town on the hook for $70 million dollars. A motion for a default judgment has been filed against the Town of Southampton and Town of Southampton Police Officer Robert Iberger, and we are awaiting a decision by the court.

Awesome. Unfortunately the only way to end these abuses is to make the taxpayers squeal loudly.

For the town of Southampton, 70mil is pocket lint.

 

[SCCutler]

I love the way the Town Council members won't accept a brush-off answer.

Also, shameful and pathetic that the Town Supervisor tries to minimize the substance of the issue by simply calling the lawsuit "frivolous."

 

[gprellwitz]

I love the way the Town Council members won't accept a brush-off answer.

Also, shameful and pathetic that the Town Supervisor tries to minimize the substance of the issue by simply calling the lawsuit "frivolous."

I agree. Playing Devil's Advocate, however, what we saw reported in the earlier article is based entirely on the complaint in the lawsuit, is it not?? So it would be expected to be slanted. Even given that, though, I'll grant you that my initial response is nothing short of outrage at the way she was treated.

 

[SCCutler]

I agree. Playing Devil's Advocate, however, what we saw reported in the earlier article is based entirely on the complaint in the lawsuit, is it not?? So it would be expected to be slanted. Even given that, though, I'll grant you that my initial response is nothing short of outrage at the way she was treated.

I am no fan of strike suits, God knows, but sometimes, you read a set of facts that is so far "out there" that it cannot in rational thought be reconciled with reasonable actions, and I believe this circumstance fits.

And it all started witha sworn peace officer enforcing a non-existent law.

 

[jhausch]

For the town of Southampton, 70mil is pocket lint.

According to one of the town council members in the video (the one who is the most upset at the oversight), it's nearly the whole budget.

I wonder if the town carries errors and omissions insurance on their legal council? Could/would that kick in here?

 

[alaskaflyer]

If she'd only been a mother of two would it have been less egregious?

 

[denverpilot]

How can we work, "If it would only save one child!" into this? That always makes things, no matter how expensive or unlikely to happen, get paid for by well-meaning people who can't and won't ever become good at assessing real risk.

 

[flav8r]

UPDATE: After checking with a high level DHS representative I was told that there is no rule that specifically prohibits photography.

BUT if the waitress reports me to the local authorities as acting suspicious in nature then I can be apprehended and held without bail or trial until it is determined if I am truly a credible threat to national security (which may take weeks or decades).

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

UPDATE: After checking with a high level DHS representative I was told that there is no rule that specifically prohibits photography.

BUT if the waitress reports me to the local authorities as acting suspicious in nature then I can be apprehended and held without bail or trial until it is determined if I am truly a credible threat to national security (which may take weeks or decades).

I don't think not leaving a tip would be a good idea.

 

[RJM62]

This is only peripherally related to the topic, but some "concerned citizen" reported me for taking the pic below of my goddaughter a couple of years ago with the crappy cell phone camera I was using back then.

The problem? The bridge in the background.

The cop basically yawned. There's no law against taking pictures of bridges owned by the city of New York, he explained, but he had to follow up anyway. My impression was that he basically wanted the "concerned citizen" see that he was following up on the report.

Paranoia is such a sad, sad thing.

-Rich

 

[PilotAlan]

UPDATE: After checking with a high level DHS representative I was told that there is no rule that specifically prohibits photography.

BUT if the waitress reports me to the local authorities as acting suspicious in nature then I can be apprehended and held without bail or trial until it is determined if I am truly a credible threat to national security (which may take weeks or decades).

I hope that was an attempt at humor.
Because that's not even remotely correct.

Unless there is a LOCAL law restricting photography (which usually requires posting of notice, and not being in a public areas, and then must also pass constitutional muster), there is *nothing* wrong with taking photos.

 

[Jaybird180]

This is only peripherally related to the topic, but some "concerned citizen" reported me for taking the pic below of my goddaughter a couple of years ago with the crappy cell phone camera I was using back then.

The problem? The bridge in the background.

The cop basically yawned. There's no law against taking pictures of bridges owned by the city of New York, he explained, but he had to follow up anyway. My impression was that he basically wanted the "concerned citizen" see that he was following up on the report.

Paranoia is such a sad, sad thing.

-Rich

OMG, I can't believe that no-one locked you up for that apparent kiddie-pron j/k (but things are really getting that ridiculous).

 

[Jaybird180]

BUT if the waitress reports me to the local authorities as acting suspicious in nature then I can be apprehended and held without bail or trial until it is determined if I am truly a credible threat to national security (which may take weeks or decades).

No, he's not joking. This is the reality of the post 9/11 world we live in. Albeit, a case of extremism but it has happened before (WWII Japanese internment & the legal quagmire that is Pres GW Bush v Jose Padilla).

 

[wsuffa]

I hope that was an attempt at humor.
Because that's not even remotely correct.

Unless there is a LOCAL law restricting photography (which usually requires posting of notice, and not being in a public areas, and then must also pass constitutional muster), there is *nothing* wrong with taking photos.

Think "Patriot Act". Yes, they can do this andd find a way to justify it.