Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aviation Lovers- We Are Not Terrorists. Speak Out!  
User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7443 posts, RR: 62
Posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5589 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Two weeks ago, I sent the following note to many local political figures as well as to the District Attorney, Police Commissioner, US Senators Clinton, Schumer and I also hand delivered a copy directly to the police office where I was detained on July 4. Below is the final copy that went out.

This week, I got some replies back, most of them saying they do not handle this type of situation BUT that my letter would be forwarded to other people, such as congressmen, and airport directors. I am keeping my hope alive.

I am showing you guys what is going on here in the US. It is my hope that we can one day be embraced by local enforcment and not harassed as we are now.

I urge you all to read through this. If you have found yourself in a similar situation I urge you please to write.
regards, Mirrodie
_________________________________________________________________
Dear Officer,

I am writing to you so that you are aware of my disgust at the events that took place on July 4, 2003. It was my day off from seeing patients and I decided to get my camera out and engage in the hobby of aviation photography.

On the morning of July 4 2003, I left my home, joined a friend and proceeded to MacArthur Islip airport to take aviation photos. We arrived there around 2:05 PM.

We pulled into a public parking lot right near an airport fence. At the time, there were no signs stating that we could not park there. Furthermore, we were not trespassing. Within 10 minutes of standing there, 2 police cars pulled up, demanding my license, registration and insurance. I gave nothing but 100% compliance. One man claiming to work for the FAA was also with them. They asked what we were doing, why we were doing it and told us there was some FAA rule stating we were not allowed within 10 feet of an airport fence.
They then began to ransack and search my car, our backpacks and my friend's video camera. While I did not see this as overkill, they then began to read through my personal journal.

Soon afterwards, an unmarked car arrived with 2 detectives. We were frisked and told, NOT ASKED, to accompany them to the Police station in the airport. We were not handcuffed but detained and taken in separate cars. Once in the station, we were put in separate rooms and questioned by a total of 4 detectives. Many of the questions were legitimate, such as when was I last out of the country (April 2003, to fly on Concorde, simply because I wanted to), where did we meet (on a website called airliners.net, world known for aviation photography), and what schooling I had been through.

My friend was asked many of the same questions. However he noted that a young male detective repetitively asked if he was gay. I was not asked this question once. Perhaps they saw no need to, as they read in my journal that I was recently engaged. I have yet to figure out WHAT his sexuality had to do with the situation. Perhaps the detective was interested for unrelated reasons?

We were finally released at 5:20PM, without any charges or straight answers as to what laws we broke. One of my rolls of film was taken, as was a video of my friend's. One week later, I received a call from a detective, who returned our belongings. The police developed my film into 8x10's to find photos of planes, my godchild and my cat.

I would not be upset had 2 or 3 policemen questioned us, rightfully so, and then stated WHAT LAW we breached.

The truth is NO law was broken and our rights were violated. Six officers, 4 detectives and 1 FAA representative wasted 3 hours questioning a pair of full-blooded 100% cooperative Americans.

This is not Homeland Security. It is violating legitimate people unnecessarily whilst using disproportionate law enforcement resources that I pay for.

Compare that incident to the following two:
-On September 6, 2003, my colleague and I were doing photography in a park across from LaGuardia airport called “Planeview Park.” Within 10 minutes, 2 NYPD officers questioned us, checked our ID, ran us through their system and then finally left us to our business. They came to the same conclusion that the SCPD did but did so within 10 minutes and with two officers.

-On September 9, 2003, a fellow aviation photographer was near MacArthur Islip airport and pulled over on the road. Three SCPD cars detained him and IMPOUNDED his car, telling him it was illegal to park on a road near the airport. Furthermore, he was told by an officer, “People like you are the reason 9/11 took place. People like you only aid the terrorists. You can’t take photos of planes. Go find another hobby.” Wasn't it President Bush who stated that Americans conduct their lives in a normal fashion and enjoy life?

9/11 was due to terrorists, not aviation enthusiasts. For your information, we are not the problem. We are part of the solution. Furthermore, if we employ the above quote, that means I can’t take photos of planes from my front yard too.

We are a nation at war. Our police should be embracing “People like you”, the aviation lovers and photographers, as a resource! It is WE who would be the FIRST to report suspicious activity!

In other major airports, enforcement agents are actively working WITH aviation hobbyists to address the threat of terrorism rather than wasting precious resources detaining innocent people.
I have one cohort in Florida who was approached by a Special Agent of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, Dept of Homeland Security. After being asked a few questions, my colleague was told to contact the agent if he saw anything out of ordinary.

Since SCPD treated me like a bloody terrorist on MY country’s Independence Day, perhaps I should merely contact that Special Agent if I see any problems near the rails, buses and airports? If our police are going to harass the local aviation enthusiasts, you are losing out on the most vigilant set of eyes and ears, who by the way, take PHOTOS! In other words, EVIDENCE!

The anniversary of 9/11 is upon us. We are making headway in Iraq and yet, I feel the terrorists have won! When is our police force going to realize that we have civil liberties AND we are a resource against terrorism?

This situation is a total outrage and completely goes against my civil liberties. This is not an isolated incident at Islip. I've been in contact with other aviation enthusiasts who had similar stories of these verbal strong-arm tactics by airport area police.

Now, let’s be realistic. I know nothing about being a cop. I respect, appreciate and applaud what you do for my community. However I am a doctor who employs logic and feasibility everyday towards solutions to my patient’s problems. Better solutions need to be employed in these scenarios.

For instance, now that the SCPD has verified, over the course of 3 hours, who I am, why not employ me as a set of eyes and ears around the airport instead of chasing me off? Shouldn’t a log of “Clean Aviation Enthusiasts” be kept: people that Police know are not a threat and are simply trying to engage in their American freedom? These would include people that have been verified as safe and can be near the airport.

As a proud American taxpayer, I hope that you will see to it that my rights are protected and my dollars used wisely. I ask that this be looked into and apology from Suffolk County Police and Islip Airport Police be extended to me. More importantly, I ask that the airport area police begin to realize the added asset of vigilance that they are harassing.

I have always been a law abiding respectful citizen of this state.
I hope to continue to follow our Commander-in-Chief’s suggestion that Americans conduct their lives in a normal fashion and enjoy life.

Regards,
_________________________________________________________________



Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5061 times:

Gosh!...I don't get it...all the cops had to do was ask jetBLUE about you and they would had all the info they needed! That woulda saved mucho bucks on manpower!

But seriously, I hear ya'...someone needs to 'wise up' the appropriate agencies on how to 'augment' their security efforts! But on this scale...grassroots efforts won't do it...it's gonna take an aviation enthusiast of John Travolta's weight to get 'security honchos' to take notice! Anything short of this..is gonna wind up in a drawer of a stockroom inside a giant warehouse. Sorry to sound like a sourpuss...but that's bureaucracy at it's...well that's where all gov't agencies are born. And end.

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4994 times:

That's an excellent letter. I would have had it notarized though; the cops would then take you a little more seriously, I think.


Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7443 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4950 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Really? What would notarizing it have done?
Please let me know.

I thought that fact that so many people were getting the letter would have also given it gravity.

I forgot to add the final page in the one letter that I wrote to the police only. As a taxpayer, I hope they continue to do their jobs in the best possible way without further unnecessary cost to me in terms of lawsuits:
_________________________________________________________________
NOTA BENE:

One of the elements of my job is to do no harm. I have always thought that the mantra of the police is “to protect and serve.” However, I see that the SCPD website includes the following in its mission statement:
Every employee of the Department acknowledges his or her obligation to provide professional services in the communities we serve by rendering aid to those in need, providing an environment free from fear, bringing to justice those who violate the law, and protecting all persons and property in accordance with legal, moral and ethical standards.

Oddly enough, on July 4 as my car was searched, I was ordered by one officer in particular to stand up against the fence (that I supposedly was not allowed up against in the first place) and face him only.

After I stood there silently for ~7 minutes, he ordered me to remove my sunglasses for no reason at all. There I stood for another ~20 minutes until detectives arrived. I’ll speculate this was done to show me who was in control, but then again, as we were 100% compliant, I didn’t see the reason. It is not as if he did this to check my eye color to my license or anything. He just did it.

I did NOT awake with Solar Keratitis the next morning. However, from a medical standpoint, I must caution you. This action of removing sunglasses on a blistering sunny day puts one at increased acute risk of photophobia and keratitis. Surely you can carry out your jobs without putting someone in this risk.

My point is we both have jobs to do. Mine is patient care. You know yours. I respect and appreciate this. In all jobs, there is always room for improvement. Why put someone in harms way unnecessarily? There is simply no reason for it. I would like to know why this action was done.

Should this officer be reprimanded for putting me at an unnecessary increased risk of eye health problems? No, as he probably did not know any better. Please review this with your officers.

Perhaps the boldface italic type above should be reviewed.

Sincere regards,



Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4502 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4912 times:

An excellent letter, Mirrodie.

I've written similar letters abotu airport security to both of my state congressmen, and both of my senators as well.


Both congressmen wrote back with letters that thanked me for writing, but that their concern was mostly with issues that related to our state specifically. One sentator wrote back and said essentially the same thing. But finally, I got a letter back from the second senator, and I was told that he himself cares a great deal about aviation matters pertaining to the state and to the nation, and that he would take my letter into account and promise me that he would fight as much as he could to protect the rights of all citizens, spotters or not, in washington. This letter was mostly a complaint over the closure of Meigs field, but it contained a very lengthy explanation from me about the non-risk of small GA aircraft, and a further complaint about how we, the spotters, are now seen as terrorist threats. What Richard Daley did, should have woke the entire nation up as to the ridiculousness of some security measures, and it didn't. I can't believe that it didnt.

Whatever the case, at least one of the senators paid attention to my letter. But he is only one man in our senate. It's going to take alot of us to convince the other 100 in the senate, and however many in the house, that things definitely need to change. Because nothing will ever happen unless 2/3 of both houses can agree with US.


User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4877 times:

Mirrodie,

Please let us know what, if any, response you receive. There are some people here in Cleveland trying to stand up for spotters' rights as well.

redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4863 times:

Really? What would notarizing it have done?
Please let me know.


It just makes it more official. According to some legal references on the net, they are more likely to take it seriously. In fact, here in Texas a complaint against an officer is required by law to be sworn to and notarized.



Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently onlineCALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3969 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4830 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

couldn't agree with you more. The problem with the country now is that "security" personnel are taking things too far. I'd like to know why they look in my trunk every time I go to park in the employee lot here in MSP, but at the same time, any Joe Blow can drive right up next to the terminal to pretend to "drop" something off and no one stops him, so why are they searching my car? Same thing with TSA, they always would search employees going through the check points when we are working. Why? Finally a directive was passed where we dont have to be pinpointed out for additional screening. TSA and other airport personnel have taken things too far in this topic, they need to think about things first before acting. Why dont they realize Americans had nothing to do about this, except for the gov't actually having some knowledge, why harass Americans, b/c someone on the other side has to feel important and that they are the savior's of the airline industry.l


okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4737 times:

Mirrodie,

I find that beyond outrage that you and your friend were treated in that way. I really hope something is done. It sounds to me as if those officers were off on a power trip.

To hear this:

"People like you are the reason 9/11 took place. People like you only aid the terrorists. You can’t take photos of planes. Go find another hobby."

'People like you'... how damn right rude, so we are the root cause now?

'You can’t take photos of planes'... Says who?

'Go find another hobby'... What like putting the doughnut shop in profit?

I am absolutely disgusted,

Best Regards,

JKW.



User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1872 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4667 times:

Maybe it is the good time for a refresher here that can be added to next letters:
If our hobby is so developped, and especially in the UK, it is not only because planes are beautiful. It is also an heritage from WWII, when spotting has been developped and encouraged by the Brittish government as part of the defense activities.
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

::Applause:: Three Cheers for Mirrodie. Wonderful letter. I doubt that you will get any action, but for you to even attempt this letter goes beyond it all.

User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4615 times:

It's pretty weird. You and your friend got detained for hours and they didn't even tell you what law you breached. A ten minutes check of your ID would be appropriate - but being detained and questioned about sexuality certainly is not.

As for your letter: It's well written, but I would refrain from using capital or bold characters. Furthermore, I would not have mentioned minor details like your flight on the Concorde. Otherwise: Nice letter.

BTW: Reading press releases is good a practice for writing letters to governmental authorities.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineJmets18 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 178 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4581 times:

couldn't agree with you more Mirrodie! howver, I do have a question. Is it illegal to take pictures on airport property? Say from an outdoor parking garage like in ATL? This is the best spot I have found to take pictures. From the top of the south terminal parking garage. What's the consensus?

User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4544 times:

You all want to whine about this. Things have changed, so you'll have to get over it. Why not just call the airport manager and ask permission? Then you won't get hassled.

Oh, that's right... You have a right. Never mind. But think about this. If you showed up at my back fence and started taking pictures, how long do you think it would last?

Not very long. Ask permission. It's that simple. If they say no, then they have a reason for it and you'll just have to get over it.


User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1872 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4501 times:

BoingGoingGone
Do you know the name or all the airport managers?
Do you think they will even read this letter?
In addition to that , if your are not on an airport property, but next to an airport, what is the validity of this authorisation?
A public parking is a public parking. As far as I know, I can stay as long as I want on a public place.
If there is no sign telling you not to take pictures, you can take pictures.
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineUTA_flyinghigh From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4490 times:

Well said Teva, I'll even go one better, if it's on public land, even a sign isn't worth s##t as there is no law to back it up.
BTW, r u still around ? got the big bird from last WE accepted  Big thumbs up :

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Ronciere


Will



Fly to live, live to fly - Air France/KLM Flying Blue Platinum, BMI Diamond Club Gold, Emirates Skywards
User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4406 times:

Do you know the name or all the airport managers?

Actually yes. I have a directory from AAAE.

Do you think they will even read this letter?

If you send it to them with a simple request rather than whinning, yes. And they will respond.

In addition to that , if your are not on an airport property, but next to an airport, what is the validity of this authorisation?

It's not where you are that is the problem, it's what you are doing and how that can be misconstrued in todays world. Furthermore, did you get permission from the airline to take a picture and display it globally, using their trademark??? Don't get me wrong, I love this site, but the airlines could have a field day with this site if they wanted to crack down on terms of use and sale of images.

A public parking is a public parking. As far as I know, I can stay as long as I want on a public place.

Public parking simply means the public can park there. Not that they can set up camp and do what they choose. If it's a parking lot, you can be sure someone (private or government) owns it and has the right to enforce their own policies.

If there is no sign telling you not to take pictures, you can take pictures.

Not necessarily true. There's no sign on my backyard fence, but you can bet that if you're taking snap shots into my yard without my permission and I see you doing it, I'm going to do something about it. It's that simple. Your logic says that because my fence doesn't have a sign that says "Don't take pictures of my home" means that you can slap on a zoom lense and see what you can find.


User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4399 times:

UTA_flyinghigh:

Nice shot Big grin


User currently offlineCitationX From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4341 times:

About a year ago, in a knee-jerk reaction to the terrorist attempt to shoot down a 757 in Africa, the local authorities in Orlando decided to close a popular spotting area near MCO, just north of the Bee Line Expressway off of Frontage Road. Not only did spotters get run off, but several roadside vendors lost access to a profitable location. The excuse for closing the area was fear that terrorists would use the (very public) spot to fire shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles at landing aircraft.

Having been in aerospace anti-aircraft missile development, I had to laugh at this premise.

First, a terrorist would have a hard time setting up to fire one of these weapons in such a public place (which had regular police patrols, by the way).

Second, being so close to the airport, it would be very difficult to lock onto low-flying airliners. The closer to the ground (and other heat sources), the more "clutter", making the missile go ballistic for a few seconds, then fly into the ground (as happened in African incident). The missile's seeker is designed to look for the hotter exhaust gas temperatures of high performance military aircraft, hence their ineffectiveness against "stealthy" aircraft such as the F-117 and Apache. Higher bypass airliner engines run much cooler than military jets and make for weak target signatures.

As the saying goes (credited to Ben Franklin), "Those who give up freedom in exchange for security will have neither freedom or security."


User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6436 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4308 times:

I miss that MCO spot.  Sad It was there for over 30 years.


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineBeltwaybandit From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4270 times:

Nobody can fault law enforcement for being zealous. But obviously, they have to learn how to apply that zeal effectively. Ironically, this kind of impingement on your liberty and privacy would actually be reduced if we were willing to give up a smaller bit of our privacy. A national ID-card system or the infamous CAPPS II system could verify your good standing would eliminate this sort of detention. Are we willing to give up a little liberty to gain some security?

Keep in mind, though, that the behavior of an aircraft photography enthusiast is unfortunately very similar to that of someone with ill intent. It's just a reality, and you will simply have to live with it. It's like someone who just likes to dress up slutty and hang around on street corners. You're going to draw police attention!


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4242 times:

BoingGoingGone wrote:

'In addition to that , if your are not on an airport property, but next to an airport, what is the validity of this authorisation?'

"It's not where you are that is the problem, it's what you are doing and how that can be misconstrued in todays world. Furthermore, did you get permission from the airline to take a picture and display it globally, using their trademark??? Don't get me wrong, I love this site, but the airlines could have a field day with this site if they wanted to crack down on terms of use and sale of images."

*Sorry BGG, wrong! Yes people are jittery about photographers at airports today..they're also jittery of guys wearing turbans anywhere! Secondly, the airport is 'public' property...the airline's ship there makes it a fair target for photography..it (the plane) does not have individual rights. It's aircraft are like a celebrity, fair game when sitting -in a private restaurant- on a patio having lunch, you can photograph all day long and publish it. Because that 'celebrity' is of interest to the public and that is to be expected.*

'A public parking is a public parking. As far as I know, I can stay as long as I want on a public place.'

"Public parking simply means the public can park there. Not that they can set up camp and do what they choose. If it's a parking lot, you can be sure someone (private or government) owns it and has the right to enforce their own policies."

*This is no different than parking (publicly) at a marina and watching yachts and boating activity and eating lunch. So now you have a camera..big deal..no one's setting up a tent and making campfires. Parking at a 'public park' and lounging all day....with a camera instead of a picnic basket.*

'If there is no sign telling you not to take pictures, you can take pictures.'

"Not necessarily true. There's no sign on my backyard fence, but you can bet that if you're taking snap shots into my yard without my permission and I see you doing it, I'm going to do something about it. It's that simple. Your logic says that because my fence doesn't have a sign that says "Don't take pictures of my home" means that you can slap on a zoom lense and see what you can find."


*Your backyard is NOT public property..so yes that would be an intrusion. But if someone locks on a telephoto from across the way....then it's up to you to close the curtains..or build a higher fence. So as for taking pictures at an public airport...it's like taking pictures of your local city skyline, freeways, libraries and any other public turf. Totally Legal*


BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4206 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In contrast to the US experience, I have just come back from the end of 28L at LHR where there were about 70 cars and about 200 people to watch one of the final Concorde departures. Not one Airport Security official or police patrol were seen.

User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4174 times:

In the US, there is no public parking that is not controlled by the City or other agency. Public parking is a place for the public to park. Period. End of story. That City or other agency has the right to tell you what to do on that property. Bumbs sleep in a public park, yet are removed by the Police. Why? Because the City has authority to control the property and enforce ordinances. The same is true of a public parking area at a Marina, Airport or Park or even on the street for that matter. If you are at that Marina, and drunk and disorderly, the Police have the right to remove you. Get it?

Sorry BGG, wrong! Yes people are jittery about photographers at airports today..they're also jittery of guys wearing turbans anywhere! Secondly, the airport is 'public' property...the airline's ship there makes it a fair target for photography..it (the plane) does not have individual rights. It's aircraft are like a celebrity, fair game when sitting -in a private restaurant- on a patio having lunch, you can photograph all day long and publish it. Because that 'celebrity' is of interest to the public and that is to be expected.

Is that why when an airport takes a picture of an aircraft it has to ask permission from the airline? Hmmmm.... A corporate entity has rights that they "choose" not to enforce, see Napster.

[Edited 2003-09-30 20:43:26]

User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12466 posts, RR: 37
Reply 24, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4106 times:

I think what you need to do is to show
(a) that logically, aviation enthusiasts pose no threat to aviation and indeed, can assist in security,
(b) that suppressing an interest in aviation will never work; people will always be passionate about it and victimising those who do or discouraging an interest in aviation is not in the US's long term interests
(c) that attempting to harass aviation enthusiasts is proof that security at that airport is unfocused; that is, by all means ask, but attempting to confiscate film or arrest people is not just heavy handed, but suggests that there isn't a sufficient focus on what actually poses a threat to security. There will always be limited resources devoted to security and it's vitally important that they are directed in the right way. The fight against terrorism needs to be intellectual and if it were seen at that level, lashing out at what people regard as "unusual" or harassing people just to show something is being done DOES NOT WASH.

The TSA needs to be appraised of the realities; work with us, but don't try to work against us; we're there and we want to co-operate, BUT YOU WILL NOT SUPPRESS AN INTEREST IN AVIATION.

I suggest a letter that could be included in the form of a survey, which people could sign up to. With some publicity, it could get some consideration. The TSA has never said photography is illegal (which you think it would do if it REALLY saw it as a threat!), but it's always tried to leave it in a legal limbo; it needs to be forced to say, one way or another, what it's position is, but a fundamental aspect of a free society is that "frowned on" is not a legal term and should not empower security thugs to harass enthusiasts.


25 GSPSPOT : Here's the OBVIOUS and SIMPLE solution..... American airports should build (and charge admission for) proper observation decks and spotting areas that
26 Neilalp : Most airports don't have spotting areas or observation decks. But you could say I pay to park in the parking deck at DTW isn't that my admission, so t
27 BN747 : BoingGoingGone wrote: 'If you are at that Marina, and drunk and disorderly, the Police have the right to remove you. Get it?' *Ahhh...No I don't....I'
28 Startvalve : It was a great letter, brilliantly worded, clear, to the point. Sadly though with security being the priority common sense seems to be failing our pub
29 Beltwaybandit : The TSA needs to be appraised of the realities; work with us, but don't try to work against us; we're there and we want to co-operate, BUT YOU WILL NO
30 BoingGoingGone : BN747... You're missing the point. If you are in a public parking area, the city or agency responsible for that area has every right to ask you to lea
31 Standby87 : Mirrodie, cancel your engagement, find a Swiss woman, marry her, leave your shoes at the security checkpoint in the US and emigrate to Switzerland. Th
32 BN747 : BoingGoingGone wrote: "If you are in a public parking area, the city or agency responsible for that area has every right to ask you to leave. Drunk or
33 Usairways85 : This whole issue is becoming rediculas. As time goes on our rights are being taken away from us. The TSA is looking for potential terrorist activity a
34 Futureualpilot : Excellent letter, Im 100% begind spotters rights, and its amazing security personnel cant tell the diff. between a camera and a bazooka! Oh well, wond
35 Jeffrey1970 : Futureualpilot, I too am 100% behind spotter's rights. However, someone on here said the TSA needs to work with spotters and not against them. I think
36 BN747 : Hmmm..I wonder if O.J. can sue because news cameras, without his permission, broadcast 'his 'private' Ford Bronco on a 'public freeway'..to television
37 Post contains images Mirrodie : Standby87, Hmmm, I never checked out swiss women bofore but fell in love with Geneva, so Zurich is sounding promising! GoingBoeing, to say, "You all w
38 Post contains images Aloha717200 : Well, I've done my part, I sent a letter to my state senators and congressmen. Now if all of you who are speaking passionately on this thread, can wri
39 IMissPiedmont : I too have been harassed at an airport, in my case TUS. The officer and I went to the airport manager together where I explained the truth. I have bee
40 BN747 : I'm steamed about this 'all are terrorist-until proven otherwise' security mentality too...But on a serious note, I want to share that similar and bro
41 Post contains links Jhooper : ...a related thread about spotting in Houston http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1211062/
42 Post contains images Aloha717200 : I'll be the first to sign up for a "Friendly spotters of SLC" roster, if it'll keep me from being harrassed.
43 Skymonster : A few observations about photographing airplanes: the airlines could have a field day with this site if they wanted to crack down on terms of use and
44 HlywdCatft : I tell you what, I think you have a court case against those cops. First of all they did an unlawful search of your vehicle. Did they have a warrant o
45 Mirrodie : I am not a lawyer so I do not know. Things at the fence occurred so quickly, with 3 cop cars surrounding us, that we did say, YES, look through the ca
46 Mirrodie : OH, and one more thing. I got another letter back today from the office of the airport Security. An investigation is being made. I just got off the ph
47 Post contains images Skymonster : what are my rights if I buy a piece of land across the street? Way things are going some places, if you do that some a**-hole in enforcement will prob
48 Mirrodie : Guan bay, eh?? LOL WEll, let's put it this way... if I buy that land and law enforcement shows up once and sees I am clean, that is A-OK. If it happen
49 Mirrodie : Got a call from my Legislator's office today and hte matter is under investigation. I also got a call from Sen. Hilary Clinton's office this morning.
50 Dinker225 : Great letter Mirrodie. Good luck with it. The way you were treated was uncalled for. Thanks for the updates. I'll be checking back to see the progress
51 HlywdCatft : i dont let the cops search my car unless they have probable cause or they have a warrant. A friend of mine had his car damaged when the cops searched
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
We Are Told Not To Book With Delta posted Wed Dec 7 2005 01:05:59 by Flybynight
Aviation Lovers Back Where We Belong posted Thu May 13 2004 22:00:29 by 7574EVER
Are Not All Cockpit Controls Duplicated? posted Tue Oct 10 2006 10:31:22 by NEMA
Pilots Who Are Not From The Country They Fly For! posted Mon Sep 11 2006 10:57:23 by Cumulus
Emirates: "We Do Not Rape And Pillage Markets" posted Tue Jul 11 2006 14:46:46 by Singapore_Air
IAG Blog On Aviation, Accepting Comments Or Not? posted Thu Jun 22 2006 20:00:31 by Keesje
The Father Of Aviation As We Know It? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 02:23:56 by Darrenthe747
Today (7/11) We Are Exactly 4 Years Without Sabena posted Mon Nov 7 2005 03:21:34 by SWISSER
MEA: Sorry Sir We Are Busy Call Another Time posted Sat Oct 8 2005 11:16:52 by Soups
We Are Restless! posted Thu Sep 29 2005 08:22:31 by 777Purser