British Photog's have frighting experience in US

Not that I totally agree with the law, but I believe that the New Jersey Turnpike is not technically a public place...but is the property of the Turnpike Authority. You have to pay to go on the turnpike.

As much as I'd love to stop on the turnpike (and if you look at my post below you will see I tried!), it is quite dangerous to stop on a highway...between the people who aren't paying attention, to the rubberneckers, to those who don't know how to drive in the first place...hey...they're talking about Jersey here (and I'm from Jersey too!).

I think the enforcement has gotten more rigorous though, although I don't believe they ever allowed anyone to stop and take pictures.

Regards,

Andrew

mrwally said:

Get permission to photograph in a public place? Seems a bit
overboard even given 9/11. As for asking permission, what if the
police had said no? Do I need a permit to be in a public park?
Why? Has the law changed that would require that?

Click to expand...

Andrew,

In the case of NJTP, you're right, it (like most turnpikes/toll roads) are NOT public places and therefore, they can post regulations (not really laws) that prohibit certain activities, usually for the safety of the public at large.

Stopping on the highway to take a pic is risky. Even on the US Interstate systems, most of them are posted that stopping is for emergency only. Yeah, that sunset might seem like an emergency to we photographers, but not to the trooper.

My point was more on those areas that don't have rules/regs/laws posted? Should I check in with the local sherrif before I take pictures of the county courthouse exterior as an example.

Also, I'm not opposed to people being concerned and asking questions. To send a single cop car over to ask what's up and then seeing the amount of equipment and documents and a valid plausible explination, you let them be. Five cop cars (no doubt with lights and sirens) all swarming onto the scene and then being drilled like a criminal for hours at police headquarters, that's what I have an exception to.

Rick

Andrew Gardner said:

As much as I'd love to stop on the turnpike (and if you look at my
post below you will see I tried!), it is quite dangerous to stop on
a highway...between the people who aren't paying attention, to the
rubberneckers, to those who don't know how to drive in the first
place...hey...they're talking about Jersey here (and I'm from
Jersey too!).
I think the enforcement has gotten more rigorous though, although I
don't believe they ever allowed anyone to stop and take pictures.

Regards,

Andrew

mrwally said:

Get permission to photograph in a public place? Seems a bit
overboard even given 9/11. As for asking permission, what if the
police had said no? Do I need a permit to be in a public park?
Why? Has the law changed that would require that?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I agree that they police should have only questioned them, and not take them to the police station. Questioning on the spot should have been sufficient. But there is another thing to remember, with all the misshaps, and did the government know about the terrorist plans (or they really did not know) probably plays into this a little bit. They cannot afford to look bad infront of the public.

Andrew Gardner said:

As someone who has lived on and off in New Jersey for many years,
and as someone who does love to photograph the landscape (no matter
how ugly it might be to some) of the New Jersey Turnpike, I can say
that this regulation has been in effect for at least 25 years.
Similiar regulations are also in effect on the PATH (Port Authority
Trans Hudson) trains, and the New York City Subway.

I was asked not to take photographs on the Turnpike back in the
early 1980's by State Troopers. For what it is worth, here is a
link to the Turnpike Regulations, section 19:9-1.22:

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/regulat.htm

"19:9-1.22 Filming, photographing or videotaping on the Turnpike
prohibited, except as authorized."

I'm sure the post 9/11 atmosphere probably explains the vigorous
reporting and investigation of such "offenses".

I got around the "no shooting from Turnpike" regulations by
actually getting off the Turnpike and driving on the local
streets...there is some pretty incredible (and scary) scenery! I
haven't been stopped (post 9/11) but have gotten some strange looks
due to my subject matter...and I wouldn't be surprised to get
questioned by the authorities someday soon!

Regards,

Andrew

PS: I was in Washington, DC a few months ago...and took many
pictures of the White House (certainly a top terrorist target in
anyone's book) but was not stopped once!!!!

Click to expand...

I agree with you...actually, most people aren't even away that there are rules in many places...eg NYC subway.

When I've asked security guards at some places I wanted to photograph...they've almost always erred on the side of caution and said no...a couple of times (once at a really wild scrapyard on Doremus Avenue in Newark, NJ) I was invited in to wander the place at my leisure! Usually if someone says no, I'll respect that rather than get into an argument. Sometimes I'll find other ways of getting the shot I want. Usually not looking like a professional helps...but usually tourists don't take pictures of scrapyards, oil refineries, etc. I think its a fine line between freedom and safety, and I don't know how to fix that problem, other than to be honest and trustworthy myself.

Andrew

mrwally said:

In the case of NJTP, you're right, it (like most turnpikes/toll
roads) are NOT public places and therefore, they can post
regulations (not really laws) that prohibit certain activities,
usually for the safety of the public at large.

Stopping on the highway to take a pic is risky. Even on the US
Interstate systems, most of them are posted that stopping is for
emergency only. Yeah, that sunset might seem like an emergency to
we photographers, but not to the trooper.

My point was more on those areas that don't have rules/regs/laws
posted? Should I check in with the local sherrif before I take
pictures of the county courthouse exterior as an example.

Also, I'm not opposed to people being concerned and asking
questions. To send a single cop car over to ask what's up and then
seeing the amount of equipment and documents and a valid plausible
explination, you let them be. Five cop cars (no doubt with lights
and sirens) all swarming onto the scene and then being drilled like
a criminal for hours at police headquarters, that's what I have an
exception to.

Rick

Andrew Gardner said:

As much as I'd love to stop on the turnpike (and if you look at my
post below you will see I tried!), it is quite dangerous to stop on
a highway...between the people who aren't paying attention, to the
rubberneckers, to those who don't know how to drive in the first
place...hey...they're talking about Jersey here (and I'm from
Jersey too!).
I think the enforcement has gotten more rigorous though, although I
don't believe they ever allowed anyone to stop and take pictures.

Regards,

Andrew

mrwally said:

Get permission to photograph in a public place? Seems a bit
overboard even given 9/11. As for asking permission, what if the
police had said no? Do I need a permit to be in a public park?
Why? Has the law changed that would require that?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

mrwally said:

Get permission to photograph in a public place? Seems a bit
overboard even given 9/11. As for asking permission, what if the
police had said no? Do I need a permit to be in a public park?
Why? Has the law changed that would require that?

Click to expand...

You haven't read all of the posts on this topic (see Andrew's posts for example) and you fail to realize that the NJ Turnpike is NOT a public place.

If people paid more attention to the warning signs prior to 9/11, maybe that could have been prevented or reduced. I'm all for giving up what you refer to as "rights" if it means the further prevention of the loss of additional men/women/children.

I have no problem seeking prior permission to photograph someplace. What's the big deal? The big benefit is that the authorities will know I have the "right" to do so and can therefore aviod harassment.
If they refuse permission then so be it. Maybe they have good reason.

Anyone that travels internationally or inter-state or even locally should be aware of the local laws and restrictions. If you don't check first, then you should expect potential problems.

Hi All

There's no doubt that the Bush administration is creating an atmosphere of fear. Is the existence of our country in danger?

In World War Two, when our country was faced by mortal enemies there was a long detailed investigation of the intelligence lapses. The Bush administration is terrified of such a thing happening. We are being asked to give up our freedoms in the name of security. Over and over, whenever there are criticisms it's announced that "there's a war on."

Absolute nonsense. We are being menaced by a relative handful of clever but stupid fanatics.

"On May 15, Robinson was on an overpass of the New Jersey turnpike near Linden, "

So these guys were shooting off the turnpike. Were they going to suicide themselves and cause a traffic jam? Yes, it's ok that the police responded to suspicious neighbors - It's kind of scarry they they took these people in for further questioning.

As someone who watched the World Trade Center burn, as someone who burns with anger at these stupid evil people who did this act, I am also ashamed of the terror running rampant over America. Many people are ready to abandon the freedoms so so many died for just for an illusion of security.

As it becomes more and more clear that 9/11 could have been prevented just by using the laws already on the book, we are being told that we need a semi-police state to save all of us from death.

Well it's to bad, but we will all be in a lot more danger if debate is stiffled and if security is being run by the same people who already blew it.

Fighting these madmen means a great number of inconviences. Security checks at airports, tunnels, etc. It does not mean we have to give up our freedom in the name of freedom. I really have a hard time picturing Franklyn and Jefferson and Washington running for cover over such nonsense.

Step back, take a look - Just what is this country all about?

Dave

When I was in London I really didn't expect anyone harrass me for shooting big ben or the tower bridge and the like. The same goes for the US- I'm guessing no one is going to jump you for taking pictures at the grand canyon or even the empire states building in new york.

Shooting hundreds of pictures of a city's water supply fo no apparent reason, every angle of a police or military installation or bank may raise the interst of passerbys and the authorities. Professional equipment with long reach zooms around stuff that really isn't on the list of the world's top 10 million most photographed places in the middle of an urban setting may draw the attention of police. Most of the time you're not going to get dragged into the station, but I'm pretty happy with their concern.

I used to go to the nearby airport and take a little gravel access road that wasn't restricted, but ended up just past the fence at the end of a runway. The pictures I used to take with my SLR there were awsome- DC10s and airbusses coming right at you and on cloudy days you would get that cool swirly jetwash coming off the engines as they broke the clouds. My D7i comes in next week so I took my little S404 to scout my old place out and try to figure which way the wind has to be blowing for the planes to land on that runway-- after sitting for 30 seconds just outside the fence there- I noticed I was 50 yeards from a radar installation and 20 yards from the end of the runway. Common sense kicked in and I realized just because the road wasn't restricted, I should probably ask someone's permission before I parked just outside the razorwire fence and set up tripods.

Bob,

Actually, I have read all the posts and if you read them all, you'll see that I agree with Andrew about private property such as the NJTP. What I didn't clarify, was the second time the photogs were taking a picture of a water tower which is pretty much viewable from any public area. Also, Andrew posted his comment while I was typing mine.

So if the police tell you to give up your camera and all of your gear because photographs of the WTC and Pentagon were found to be used by the terrorist on 9/11 and therefore ALL photography is terroist activity, would you do that? If the asked you that would you still agree that they must have a "good reason" and simply comply?

The point here is where do we draw the line between what is REASONABLE and what is UNREASONABLE. Stopping two guys taking pics on the NJTP and telling them, hey, that's not allowed, please get in your car and move along is one thing. Dragging them to the police station and interviewing them for 2 1/2 hours is another.

I often ask permission to photograph places I know to (or even believe might) be private property. As for open public places, no, I don't ask. I have traveled all over the world (except Antartica) and only once have I been asked not to take pictures in a public place. Turned out the guy who asked was semi-famous and didn't want pics of his kids to show up anywhere. I respected his wishes.

I do check the local laws and respect them when I travel. So far, I've not encountered ANY local law that says you can't take pictures in a PUBLIC place. I'm willing to learn, so if you know of such a law, send me a reference to it so I don't violate it. Actually, I would just avoid going there if I knew.

Bob, you miss a basic point of terrorism. You can give up all the rights you want for safety and you still won't be safe. Even to the point of being irrationally paranoid, you won't be safe. That's the way terrorism works. Besides, if you do give up all your rights, what are you fighting for?

If you want to give up YOUR rights, you have that choice. Don't expect me to simply roll over and give my rights up simply because 5000 people died on one day. Tragic as it may be, it pales in comparison to the millions that have died in wars to defend many of the rights you so freely give up.

Rick

Bob said:

mrwally said:

Get permission to photograph in a public place? Seems a bit
overboard even given 9/11. As for asking permission, what if the
police had said no? Do I need a permit to be in a public park?
Why? Has the law changed that would require that?

Click to expand...

You haven't read all of the posts on this topic (see Andrew's posts
for example) and you fail to realize that the NJ Turnpike is NOT a
public place.
If people paid more attention to the warning signs prior to 9/11,
maybe that could have been prevented or reduced. I'm all for
giving up what you refer to as "rights" if it means the further
prevention of the loss of additional men/women/children.
I have no problem seeking prior permission to photograph someplace.
What's the big deal? The big benefit is that the authorities will
know I have the "right" to do so and can therefore aviod harassment.
If they refuse permission then so be it. Maybe they have good reason.
Anyone that travels internationally or inter-state or even locally
should be aware of the local laws and restrictions. If you don't
check first, then you should expect potential problems.

Click to expand...

Whittonj,

Why? Are you anymore of a threat with a digital camera than you were with a 35mm SLR?

I think to be aware that the possibility of the local airport security types paying a visit might be in order and a phone call to ask what the restricted areas are would be in order. I will say that if you call them up and make a note of how close you are to some of the radars and communication systems, they will probably close the area vice simply giving you the nod to go take pictures.

If you do take pics, I recommend a nice short 50mm lens and not the 300/2.8 cannon. Given the current state of paranoia, "shooting" planes may take a new meaning.

Your call, but I'd hate to see an area closed that can provide some really good photographs.

Rick

whittonj said:

When I was in London I really didn't expect anyone harrass me for
shooting big ben or the tower bridge and the like. The same goes
for the US- I'm guessing no one is going to jump you for taking
pictures at the grand canyon or even the empire states building in
new york.

Shooting hundreds of pictures of a city's water supply fo no
apparent reason, every angle of a police or military installation
or bank may raise the interst of passerbys and the authorities.
Professional equipment with long reach zooms around stuff that
really isn't on the list of the world's top 10 million most
photographed places in the middle of an urban setting may draw the
attention of police. Most of the time you're not going to get
dragged into the station, but I'm pretty happy with their concern.

I used to go to the nearby airport and take a little gravel access
road that wasn't restricted, but ended up just past the fence at
the end of a runway. The pictures I used to take with my SLR there
were awsome- DC10s and airbusses coming right at you and on cloudy
days you would get that cool swirly jetwash coming off the engines
as they broke the clouds. My D7i comes in next week so I took my
little S404 to scout my old place out and try to figure which way
the wind has to be blowing for the planes to land on that runway--
after sitting for 30 seconds just outside the fence there- I
noticed I was 50 yeards from a radar installation and 20 yards from
the end of the runway. Common sense kicked in and I realized just
because the road wasn't restricted, I should probably ask someone's
permission before I parked just outside the razorwire fence and set
up tripods.

Click to expand...

quote......
Needless to say, 9/11 would never have succeeded if

mrwally said:

mrwally said:

mrwally said:

London had been the target.

Michael.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

unquote......

sounds pretty self-righteous to me...... as James Bond(a brit) once said.. NEVER SAY NEVER......

The "success" the terrorist had on 9/11 had much less to do with the destruction of WTC and Pentagon than with instilling unbridled fear and almost paranoia in many US citizens.

London (and much of UK) suffers the ravages of terrorism all the time. Try checking out what the IRA has done over the years among other terrorist groups.

I think (and only Michael can verify) that his comment had to do with the terrorist being successful in instilling fear, not the destruction of property.

Rick

Texas said:

Texas said:

Texas said:

Texas said:

London had been the target.

Michael.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

unquote......

sounds pretty self-righteous to me...... as James Bond(a brit) once
said.. NEVER SAY NEVER......

Click to expand...

mrwally said:

So if the police tell you to give up your camera and all of your
gear because photographs of the WTC and Pentagon were found to be
used by the terrorist on 9/11 and therefore ALL photography is
terroist activity, would you do that? If the asked you that would
you still agree that they must have a "good reason" and simply
comply?

Click to expand...

No one was asked to give any equipment and neither would I. You never stated that stipulation before. This is a change to the story.

mrwally said:

The point here is where do we draw the line between what is
REASONABLE and what is UNREASONABLE. Stopping two guys taking pics
on the NJTP and telling them, hey, that's not allowed, please get
in your car and move along is one thing. Dragging them to the
police station and interviewing them for 2 1/2 hours is another.

Click to expand...

I think the authorities were just trying to be sure what was going on. If they let them go but later they did something someplace else, then what was the proper course of action? People will argue and argue about rights until something happens and then people want an explanantion or will file a lawsuit. Can you blame the authorities for being overly cautious?

mrwally said:

Bob, you miss a basic point of terrorism. You can give up all the
rights you want for safety and you still won't be safe. Even to
the point of being irrationally paranoid, you won't be safe.
That's the way terrorism works. Besides, if you do give up all
your rights, what are you fighting for?

Click to expand...

I think you missed my whole point entirely. I never stated I would be safe. However if the authorities are being extra careful, I should be SAFER.

mrwally said:

If you want to give up YOUR rights, you have that choice.

Click to expand...

What you consider "rights" is not necessarily what I consider "rights". I don't have the right to go where I want and photograph anything I want.

... Ref this thread and the 9/11

America, your own CIA LIED to you - you ignored or USED warnings from the Israelis to your advantage – you ignored or used warnings from MI6 to your advantage. You ignored information that would have had a half assed regime arrest the culprits by accident – never mind the abysmal excuse about agencies not talking to each other – BS.

Some eerily common threads surround the bombing of the WTC and Pearl Harbour – ignored warning – dammit even the invading Japanese planes we spotted on US radar and instructed to be ignored.

In both cases I think your government wanted to be attacked so as they could rally the nation and declare war against an enemy who had perpetrated such a dastardly act.

But, the day to day living in your country seems to have gone totally bananas. Get a grip, USA – spies can use your own satellites to download anything they want, buy tourist videos and interactive maps – there is no intelligence that can be usefully gathered by a tourist’s snapshot – unlike Pearl pre 1941 where tourist’s photographs were in reality espionage – we all have moved on from that a bit – don’t you think?

Have a nice day and please – cool down – the USA is a lovely place.

In December of 1941 we experienced the same kind of paranoia. citizens were uprooted from their homes and farms, sent to detention centers (prison camps by any other name). Others horded goods that were bound to become scarce, destroyed pieces of art because of country of origin, and plain just acted like idiots. Again in the 1950's people were tried by non-legal courts, and committes. Jobs were lost and lives were affected by the self-serving scare tactics of a minority.

But the one thing I've learned is "don't become a martyr because of the fear of others". Pay attention, show your credentials, and get permissions from those who wear guns and are suspicious of everybody.

Bob,

Sorry, I did not intend to imply a change to the news story, but just wanted to provide an extreme example of what (IMHO) the erosion of freedoms can lead to. I don't base this on my own speculation, but on history.

Bob said:

mrwally said:

So if the police tell you to give up your camera and all of your
gear because photographs of the WTC and Pentagon were found to be
used by the terrorist on 9/11 and therefore ALL photography is
terroist activity, would you do that? If the asked you that would
you still agree that they must have a "good reason" and simply
comply?

Click to expand...

No one was asked to give any equipment and neither would I. You
never stated that stipulation before. This is a change to the
story.

Click to expand...

I'm glad to see that you do think the removal of equipment would have been overboard. My point wasn't to change the story, but to ask you if there were boundaries to what the police could ask you to do and you would simply comply.

Bob44240 said:

Bob44240 said:

The point here is where do we draw the line between what is
REASONABLE and what is UNREASONABLE. Stopping two guys taking pics
on the NJTP and telling them, hey, that's not allowed, please get
in your car and move along is one thing. Dragging them to the
police station and interviewing them for 2 1/2 hours is another.

Click to expand...

I think the authorities were just trying to be sure what was going
on. If they let them go but later they did something someplace
else, then what was the proper course of action? People will argue
and argue about rights until something happens and then people want
an explanantion or will file a lawsuit. Can you blame the
authorities for being overly cautious?

Click to expand...

In our society (US) where any perceived wrong leads to million dollar lawsuits, yeah, I can understand why the cops did what they did. Doesn't mean I have to think it was right. Obviously what we disagree on is the amount of time the police used to determine if the two photogs were doing something nefarious. As for the pics on the NJTP, a simple "move along please" would have been in order. For the water tower, a simple explaination of how the tower's shape is interesting to a photographer should have sufficed.

In both cases, I think the police were over zealous in their acts. I am just concerned that in the near future we'll start hearing stories of photogs and others arrested and jailed for taking "sensitive" pics. Sure would make life tough on PJs and other pros if every picture they took they had to consider if they could be either at a minimum, harrassed by the cops or at worse, sued or jailed.

Bob44240 said:

Bob44240 said:

Bob, you miss a basic point of terrorism. You can give up all the
rights you want for safety and you still won't be safe. Even to
the point of being irrationally paranoid, you won't be safe.
That's the way terrorism works. Besides, if you do give up all
your rights, what are you fighting for?

Click to expand...

I think you missed my whole point entirely. I never stated I would
be safe. However if the authorities are being extra careful, I
should be SAFER.

Click to expand...

and you miss my point. No matter how careful you, the authorities or society as a whole try to be, you will NEVER actually be safer. In the world of terrorism, it just does not work that way. Terror will strike when you feel the safest.

Bob44240 said:

Bob44240 said:

If you want to give up YOUR rights, you have that choice.

Click to expand...

What you consider "rights" is not necessarily what I consider
"rights". I don't have the right to go where I want and photograph
anything I want.

Click to expand...

Actually Bob, I think you do have the right to go to any PUBLIC place and photograph any PUBLIC scene you want and even if you and others choose not to exercise that right, I will defend your right to do so. Just don't ask me and others to give up our rights without being able to PROVE that giving them up will benefit me and everybody.

No hard feelings ok? I'm just expressing my concerns and stand. I appreciate yours and will try to respect them to the best of my ability. I think that's the mark of intelligent, responsible people in that we can agree to disagree and still be civil towards one another.

So back to photography, what kind of digital camera do you use? Me, I'm waiting on the D100 with MUCH anticipation.

Rick

mrwally said:

So back to photography, what kind of digital camera do you use?
Me, I'm waiting on the D100 with MUCH anticipation.

Click to expand...

The D100 will be my third Digital. I started with an early Olympus, then got the Nikon 990 and now I'm also awaiting the D100.

BTW - I gave away the Olympus (I think it was the CL-2500?) but I'll never part with my 990.

Cool. I had an Olympus D-360L a while back, but lost it to the kids. For now, I shoot with a N80 and scan on a Coolscan IV. It takes lots of time to do that, so I'm really looking forward to the D100. I'd rather be taking pics than scanning them.

Now if Nikon would just post the darn price and start shipping to the US, I'd be a really happy camper.

Rick

Bob said:

mrwally said:

So back to photography, what kind of digital camera do you use?
Me, I'm waiting on the D100 with MUCH anticipation.

Click to expand...

The D100 will be my third Digital. I started with an early
Olympus, then got the Nikon 990 and now I'm also awaiting the D100.
BTW - I gave away the Olympus (I think it was the CL-2500?) but
I'll never part with my 990.

Click to expand...

Bob,

Bob said:

mrwally said:

So back to photography, what kind of digital camera do you use?
Me, I'm waiting on the D100 with MUCH anticipation.

Click to expand...

The D100 will be my third Digital. I started with an early
Olympus, then got the Nikon 990 and now I'm also awaiting the D100.
BTW - I gave away the Olympus (I think it was the CL-2500?) but
I'll never part with my 990.

Click to expand...

Here, here ....My 990 will probably be passed on to my first child (if and when I have one) but never sold. Also interested in the D100 but still debating the other choices.

Regards,

--

Well, I actually meant success in both senses. I'm pretty sure that any terrorist group planning an attack of the magnitude of 9/11 on London would be thwarted. Specifically in the case of 9/11 because of much better airport security (before 9/11) and also generally because of better coordinated security services (MI5 & MI6). The FBI and the CIA between them had enough information to stop 9/11 - but no one put the pieces together in time.

In addition as mrwally mentioned, no matter how terrible the IRA bombing attacks there's never the fear and paranoia that has gripped the US and as long as a people don't feel terrorised then terrorism isn't working.

I would suggest to everyone that they get the film "The Seige" (Denzel Washington, Annete Bening, Bruce Willis) out on tape and watch it. It's frightening how close NYC came to what happens in the film immediately after 9/11. Also, having been made in 1998 it's amazing how accurate some of the film's 'predictions' turned out to be.

Michael.

mrwally said:

London (and much of UK) suffers the ravages of terrorism all the
time. Try checking out what the IRA has done over the years among
other terrorist groups.

I think (and only Michael can verify) that his comment had to do
with the terrorist being successful in instilling fear, not the
destruction of property.

Rick

Texas said:

mrwally said:

mrwally said:

mrwally said:

London had been the target.

Michael.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

unquote......

sounds pretty self-righteous to me...... as James Bond(a brit) once
said.. NEVER SAY NEVER......

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.amarelo.jazznet.pt/photos/

Your logic is wandering all over the place. You've created strawman hypothetical aruments and drawn conclusions based on what appears is the most pessimestic situation (and of course, suits your argument).

The melodrama about "rights" is mis placed. My wife's best friend lost her eldest son, Lcdr Otis Tolbert in the Pentagon. Otis left three children, one with Cerebral Palsy. My wife used to help his mother out by taking him to and from school as a child in California. My wife could see the smoke from the Pentagon as it happened; little did she know this young man died in those flames.

If a terrorist is successful again the press, and all the bleeding heart liberals will be all over our nation's leaders for letting them get by again. We live in trying times and patience and restraint is called for by everyone.

Next time why not simply ask if it would all right to take a picture?

Rich

mrwally said:

Actually, I have read all the posts and if you read them all,
you'll see that I agree with Andrew about private property such as
the NJTP. What I didn't clarify, was the second time the photogs
were taking a picture of a water tower which is pretty much
viewable from any public area. Also, Andrew posted his comment
while I was typing mine.

So if the police tell you to give up your camera and all of your
gear because photographs of the WTC and Pentagon were found to be
used by the terrorist on 9/11 and therefore ALL photography is
terroist activity, would you do that? If the asked you that would
you still agree that they must have a "good reason" and simply
comply?

The point here is where do we draw the line between what is
REASONABLE and what is UNREASONABLE. Stopping two guys taking pics
on the NJTP and telling them, hey, that's not allowed, please get
in your car and move along is one thing. Dragging them to the
police station and interviewing them for 2 1/2 hours is another.

I often ask permission to photograph places I know to (or even
believe might) be private property. As for open public places, no,
I don't ask. I have traveled all over the world (except Antartica)
and only once have I been asked not to take pictures in a public
place. Turned out the guy who asked was semi-famous and didn't
want pics of his kids to show up anywhere. I respected his wishes.

I do check the local laws and respect them when I travel. So far,
I've not encountered ANY local law that says you can't take
pictures in a PUBLIC place. I'm willing to learn, so if you know
of such a law, send me a reference to it so I don't violate it.
Actually, I would just avoid going there if I knew.

Bob, you miss a basic point of terrorism. You can give up all the
rights you want for safety and you still won't be safe. Even to
the point of being irrationally paranoid, you won't be safe.
That's the way terrorism works. Besides, if you do give up all
your rights, what are you fighting for?

If you want to give up YOUR rights, you have that choice. Don't
expect me to simply roll over and give my rights up simply because
5000 people died on one day. Tragic as it may be, it pales in
comparison to the millions that have died in wars to defend many of
the rights you so freely give up.

Rick

Bob said:

mrwally said:

Get permission to photograph in a public place? Seems a bit
overboard even given 9/11. As for asking permission, what if the
police had said no? Do I need a permit to be in a public park?
Why? Has the law changed that would require that?

Click to expand...

You haven't read all of the posts on this topic (see Andrew's posts
for example) and you fail to realize that the NJ Turnpike is NOT a
public place.
If people paid more attention to the warning signs prior to 9/11,
maybe that could have been prevented or reduced. I'm all for
giving up what you refer to as "rights" if it means the further
prevention of the loss of additional men/women/children.
I have no problem seeking prior permission to photograph someplace.
What's the big deal? The big benefit is that the authorities will
know I have the "right" to do so and can therefore aviod harassment.
If they refuse permission then so be it. Maybe they have good reason.
Anyone that travels internationally or inter-state or even locally
should be aware of the local laws and restrictions. If you don't
check first, then you should expect potential problems.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...