NPPA Protests new TSA poster

M

micaelb

Well-known member
Have you seen the poster the TSA wants at every entrance to airports? The NPPA has formally protested to Janet Napolitano about the poster.

The story about the protest:

http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2010/09/poster.html

Has anyone seen one of these posted at an airport? Is it hard enough to get people to talk to you at an airport without being branded as a possible terrorist?
 
You know, I don't have a problem with law enforcement approaching me and asking me what I'm doing when I'm shooting something as long as they leave me alone and let me do my job AFTER I give them identification, a business card, and explanation as to why I'm there. It the cops that somehow think they have to authority to tell me I can't shoot the area, building, etc that I have the problem with. Its a public airport, not area 51.
 
SVP, the point of the protest is that after seeing this poster the cops, the TSA, the general public will all think we can't shoot at an airport.
 
micaelb said:
SVP, the point of the protest is that after seeing this poster the cops, the TSA, the general public will all think we can't shoot at an airport.
Click to expand...

I know. I was a little off subject with my remarks. That being said, I think any alert citizen would call 911 if they saw someone, not driving a marked news vehicle, along the side of the road or at a fence shooting an airport. I can't tell you how many times a cop has pulled in and drove right over to me to ask me what I was doing. I have no doubt it was because someone called it in. I don't think a poster is going to make much difference.

I was shooting airport footage at a park near Reagan and noticed a middle eastern guy in a van with a camera mounted on a homemade tripod mounted to his dash. He was shooting the airport and the fence lines. When he saw me and my camera, he quickly moved to the other side. I pulled out the camera and shot him because he looked suspicous and then emailed the FBI. Two days later, an agent with the FBI counter terrorism task force called me about my email. I agreed to meet him and give him a copy of the video on DVD. Scary thing was I didn't describe myself to him or what I was driving but the moment I pulled in the McDonald's parking lot he knew EXACTLY who I was and what I was driving. That was exactly why I hesitated to contact the FBI in the first place but thought I couldnt' live with myself I something happened at Reagan and I could have stopped it. I have no idea what happened with that investigation. I have not told anyone about it but my wife until now. I still have the video though. My point is, unless you are in a clearly marked news or production unit, people are going to be suspicious of you if you mount a camera on a tripod and point it towards an airport.
 
I was actually at an airport doing a story last week about a guy pointing lasers into the cockpits of a Contenental place as it was approaching...the FBI was going to have a big presser about the crackdown on that sort of thing. Anyway it happened at night so I needed so video of planes landing at night so I took my marked news car and went along a street that runs along the runway. It was a quiet dark street barely 2 lanes and no parking either side so I pull up and park I was there about 10 minutes or so and a local cop pulls up and ask me what I'm doing I explained the laser pointer story and he said he heard about it...told him about the presser and he was like OK I just patrol back here because people come to get stoned. I laughed we talked for a few minutes and he told me to have a good night and drove off. I don't mind them stopping and asking me about what I'm working on....and if your polite to them 90% of the time they are polite back....
 
svp said:
You know, I don't have a problem with law enforcement approaching me and asking me what I'm doing when I'm shooting something as long as they leave me alone and let me do my job AFTER I give them identification, a business card, and explanation as to why I'm there. It the cops that somehow think they have to authority to tell me I can't shoot the area, building, etc that I have the problem with. Its a public airport, not area 51.
Click to expand...
But assuming you are somewhere the public is allowed to go (ie: not on the airport grounds), you shouldn't HAVE to give ID or an explanation. Joe Sixpack is legally allowed (I believe, someone point me to the law if he's not) to stand on public property and take pictures of the airport/airplanes. Unfortunately, that means Joe Terrorist is also legally allowed to stand on public property and take pictures of airport/airplanes.

SVP, do you really feel Joe Sixpack should have to give up his rights in order to "stop" a POSSIBLE "terrorist"?
 
SamG said:
SVP, do you really feel Joe Sixpack should have to give up his rights in order to "stop" a POSSIBLE "terrorist"?
Click to expand...

I think what SVP is trying to say is that showing some effort to cooperate with security or local authorities could actually help you carry on with your job. They're doing their job by questioning why you're there. If they didn't question something they don't see on a daily basis, what's the point in having them there to begin with?

I don't see any harm in offering up a few non-critical pieces of information (name, news outlet, contact number). It might help grease the wheels a little bit. I've been in a few situations where "working" with authorities actually helped me get better access and video. Believe it or not: I ended up winning a couple awards for those stories.

The article linked by SGLA offers up some worthwhile information near the end. If you don't read the entire article, at least read suggestions for dealing with authorities.
 
Chicago Dog said:
I think what SVP is trying to say is that showing some effort to cooperate with security or local authorities could actually help you carry on with your job. They're doing their job by questioning why you're there. If they didn't question something they don't see on a daily basis, what's the point in having them there to begin with?

I don't see any harm in offering up a few non-critical pieces of information (name, news outlet, contact number). It might help grease the wheels a little bit. I've been in a few situations where "working" with authorities actually helped me get better access and video. Believe it or not: I ended up winning a couple awards for those stories.

The article linked by SGLA offers up some worthwhile information near the end. If you don't read the entire article, at least read suggestions for dealing with authorities.
Click to expand...

I agree you should be polite and non confrontational. My problem is police/security shouldn't EXPECT someone to answer. Again, this is assuming the incident is happening on public property.

Let's say I like airplanes (which I do). Let's say I like photography (which I do). So, where's the best place I can go to indulge those two hobbies... the airport. So I take my camera, tripod, assorted lenses, etc to the nearest airport and setup to take pictures. The control tower, the arriving/departing planes, whatever is within reach of my lens. Security comes up and asks me who I am and what I'm doing. As long as I'm on public land, I shouldn't have to answer. Yes, I can be polite, give them my name and say I'm just taking pictures, but we need to make sure it stops there. They have no right to ask for an ID. They have no right to ask me to stop, they have no right to see what pictures I've taken.

I'm guessing even if I'm on airport property and once confronted, calmly put my things away and drive off, they have no authority to stop me.
 
SamG said:
SVP, do you really feel Joe Sixpack should have to give up his rights in order to "stop" a POSSIBLE "terrorist"?
Click to expand...

You're not giving up your rights if you're not stopped from shooting it. I really have no problem with law enforcement being dilligent and asking why I'm shooting the airport. Its no different from being pulled over and the cop asking to see my ID, then running my plates to see if there are any warrants out for my arrest or if the car is stolen. The reality is there are people out there that want to kill Americans so checking on people who arouse suspicion doesn't bother me as long as they are allowed to continue if what they are doing is legal. I personally think its only a matter of time before Homeland Security and the DOD add all airports to the list of buildings that are not permitted to be photographed. You can stand on a public sidewalk in Arlington, VA all you want but you still can't legally shoot the Pentagon. I've tried and had security all over me before I could level the stix and fire off ten seconds of video. I think airports are next and it won't matter if you're on a public sidewalk or not.

SameG said:
They have no right to ask for an ID. They have no right to ask me to stop, they have no right to see what pictures I've taken.
Click to expand...

Sure, they don't have a right but they do have the power to detain ANYONE for 24 hours who doesn't co-operate with law enforcement. I don't have a link but I believe that is a provision of the Patriot Act. Of course, if you're not doing anything wrong and aren't wanted for breaking any laws, is it really a big deal to show ID? I don't think so. I do agree that, unless you are combative and detained, they can't and shouldn't look at your photographs. I have NEVER had a cop or security guard ask to see my video I've shot when asked what I was doing there. They've asked me what I've shot but never asked to see it, even in Washington, DC.
 
SamG said:
I'm guessing even if I'm on airport property and once confronted, calmly put my things away and drive off, they have no authority to stop me.
Click to expand...

Can I ask why you're insistent on pushing the envelope in a situation that doesn't need it?

Yes, actually, they most certainly do have authority to stop you. You're on federal property and they're in-charge of protecting that property. Once you cross over onto federal property, the rules change drastically.

There's a difference between protection under the First Amendment and abusing the protections granted under the First Amendment. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but it irks me when someone in a journalism forum tries to find ways to abuse the First Amendment. When you claim to believe that you can pull off the situation quoted above, that's exactly what you're trying to do.

You're hurting journalists working on legitimate stories for absolutely no reason.
 
SamG said:
But assuming you are somewhere the public is allowed to go (ie: not on the airport grounds), you shouldn't HAVE to give ID or an explanation. Joe Sixpack is legally allowed (I believe, someone point me to the law if he's not) to stand on public property and take pictures of the airport/airplanes. Unfortunately, that means Joe Terrorist is also legally allowed to stand on public property and take pictures of airport/airplanes.

SVP, do you really feel Joe Sixpack should have to give up his rights in order to "stop" a POSSIBLE "terrorist"?
Click to expand...

I've seen others say this in different threads and perhaps I'm missing something. But what's the big deal about telling some security schmoe who you are and who you work for?

I've had plenty of run-ins with all sorts of security schmoes throughout my short career. Others have had exponentially more I'm sure. But each time that I do (I make sure I'm on public property) and they ask "What're you doing?" I simply say that "I'm with K*** and am just getting a few shots of this for a story we're doing later." They talk to their superiors for a few minutes, and while they do I continue to shoot. Usually, by the time they get some response, I've gotten all the video I need and am packing up when they tell me "Oh, OK, you're clear to shoot then." or "Well, we'd rather you didn't shoot." or "You can't shoot this."

Usually.

I can count on one hand the number of times security has stonewalled me.

But my point is, is that after I tell 'em that I'm with the news, they're usually cool about it. Hell, sometimes we end up chatting for 10 minutes or so after about Transformers or soccer!
 
SamG said:
I'm guessing even if I'm on airport property and once confronted, calmly put my things away and drive off, they have no authority to stop me.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, the FAA has the authority to stop you, and fine the hell out of you, and it has nothing to do with your camera. You have no business being on airport property unless you're there with the permission of the airport. It's a safety thing. They don't want people wandering around and getting hit by planes, and that would be surprisingly easy to have happen. I have a friend who worked at an international airport and would get me tours of maintenance hangars, etc while crews were moving planes around and tearing them apart to fix them. It's amazing how you can't hear a 757 heading your way until it's almost right on top of you. It's not a place that people should be unless they're being escorted by someone who knows what they're doing.


Back to the photography issue, I take issue with the whole idea that the "terrists" are going to be taking pictures of airplanes. What possible reason would they have to do it? The 9/11 hijackers didn't need to. Who cares what the outside of the plane looks like. They needed to know how to drive it into a building. Taking pics of airplanes landing wouldn't have helped them in the least.

The objection I have to the security theater we've engaged in since 2001 in this country is that it wrongfully persecutes people who are engaged in innocent and lawful activities, while not actually targeting the terrorists. If a terrorist is not going to do something, then why hammer people who are doing it?

If I wanted to hijack an airplane, I would find out how to break through the cockpit door, and how to fly the plane once I'd neutralized the crew. I wouldn't care about how to land it, or where to land it, or what other planes do when they land, or what the tower looks like. Hell, even if I wanted to blow up the tower, I wouldn't need pictures of it. Google Earth would give me all the positional information I'd need to plan the attack.

So what this poster is really doing is saying "Even though there's practically no chance that an actual terrorist will be doing this, if you see a photographer taking pictures of something, you should immediately assume he's a bad guy." Meanwhile the real bad guys are chuckling at all this crap which is directing attention away from what they're really up to. There's no other way to describe it but "wholly stupid."
 
Tom Servo said:
Back to the photography issue, I take issue with the whole idea that the "terrists" are going to be taking pictures of airplanes. What possible reason would they have to do it? The 9/11 hijackers didn't need to. Who cares what the outside of the plane looks like. They needed to know how to drive it into a building. Taking pics of airplanes landing wouldn't have helped them in the least.
Click to expand...

I don't think the issue is terrorist photographing planes. The issue is terrorist photographing fencing, security, airport/terminal access points, patrols, worker routines, etc. No terrorist just wakes up and decides to blow something up. They all plan their attacks and, sometimes, catching in the act of planning is the only way you can catch wind of their intentions and stop the threat. If you see a guy taking pictures, you really have no idea what he's taking pictures of. That is the security concern, not the planes themselves. If it upsets you that you're being asked for ID, blame the terrorist, not the cops.
 
The point of the protest is not about being asked a few questions about who you are and what you are doing.

The point is the TSA is putting up posters that indicate taking pictures is suspicious activity, maybe even terrorist activity. The poster says, visually, "Hey, there's someone with a camera. He must be up to no good. Call the police before he kills us all!"

Is that ok with any of you? For a government agency to cast what you do for a living in that light? I know I don't like it.

Some satire on this subject:

http://newsarse.com/2010/08/06/terrorists-sick-of-being-treated-like-photographers/
 
Have there been any documented cases where a terrorist act was facilitated at some point in the process by photography? Did it play a major role in the plans? If so, is that common? I just wonder if the paranoia is based on actual, repeated cases, or just a hypothetical situation.

Hypothetically a terrorist could use Google to research a target. By the same logic, anyone using Google could be questioned and detained. They could make a poster showing someone typing something in a Google search.

Seems like these days a terrorist can just use Google Earth/Street View/Panoramio and never have to actually visit their targets.
 
Speed Graphic said:
The other issue with this poster is the fact its giving the public the image in their minds that if you are a photographer, you are probably up to no good.
Click to expand...

I see the argument with the poster but, personally, if I see someone taking pictures of an airport and it isn't clear to me who they are working for or why they're taking them, I'm going to notify airport police to go check it out to be on the safe side. As for video, I don't think a terrorist is going to show up with a F800 XDCAM to shoot the airport. He's probably going to have a little $300 Best Buy special. That's the person I'm going to report, not the professionals. You still have to use a little common sense.
 
svp said:
I don't think the issue is terrorist photographing planes. The issue is terrorist photographing fencing, security, airport/terminal access points, patrols, worker routines, etc. No terrorist just wakes up and decides to blow something up. They all plan their attacks and, sometimes, catching in the act of planning is the only way you can catch wind of their intentions and stop the threat. If you see a guy taking pictures, you really have no idea what he's taking pictures of. That is the security concern, not the planes themselves. If it upsets you that you're being asked for ID, blame the terrorist, not the cops.
Click to expand...

I'm going to tell you what I tell the people who come running out of businesses shouting at me that I can't take pictures of their property because they don't want me to.

"I have the right to take pictures from public places. If you don't want people taking pictures of your property, build a wall around it that I can't see through."

The point is that there is no security hazard with people taking pictures of an airport. Assuming a terrorist for some reason needs pictures of a fence in order to figure out how to get through it (rather than just walking up to it and saying "Yep. Chainlink. Gonna need a bolt cutter.") he's not going to be obvious about it. He's not going to carry a DSLR with a giant lens up to the fence, which is what the poster shows. In fact, he's probably not going to have a visible camera at all. Or he'll shoot it on a telephoto lens from far away. He's certainly not going to march right up to the airport and start snapping away. That would be really stupid. And again, that's assuming the terrorist is too dumb to visually look at the fence and remember it when he gets to his "hideout."

In short, this is not a terrorism problem. The government is whipping up yet another frenzy about being vigilant because security theater makes it look like they're doing something about those dangerous terrorists, and what they're actually doing about the terrorists isn't visible and therefore doesn't get press. In short: This poster and everything surrounding it is a PR campaign to convince the uneducated mouthbreathing morons out there "Yup! We're lookin' out fer terrists!"

There is no justifiable reason to tell the public to view photographers with suspicion, and there is frankly no justifiable reason for you to call the cops when you see people taking pictures.
 
A federal case? Not...

Chicago Dog said:
Yes, actually, they most certainly do have authority to stop you. You're on federal property and they're in-charge of protecting that property. Once you cross over onto federal property, the rules change drastically.
Click to expand...

Huh? Federal property? Maybe an Air Force or Navy base...but airports are typically the property of local government agencies or private parties.
 
Chicago Dog said:
Can I ask why you're insistent on pushing the envelope in a situation that doesn't need it?

Yes, actually, they most certainly do have authority to stop you. You're on federal property and they're in-charge of protecting that property. Once you cross over onto federal property, the rules change drastically.

There's a difference between protection under the First Amendment and abusing the protections granted under the First Amendment. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but it irks me when someone in a journalism forum tries to find ways to abuse the First Amendment. When you claim to believe that you can pull off the situation quoted above, that's exactly what you're trying to do.

You're hurting journalists working on legitimate stories for absolutely no reason.
Click to expand...
Let's see... A) In my post, I'm not taking pictures as a journalist, I'm taking pictures as someone who likes airplanes and photography.
B) I said "I guess". I said that specifically to allow for the possibility I could be wrong.
C) How am I "abusing" the First Amendment?

And I love Tom Servo making like I've gone through the fence and am sitting on a taxiway waiting to take pictures. So not the case. I pull up in my car and park... possibly on top of the parking garage. I set up my camera and tripod and take some pictures. Again, NOT as a journalist. Now, airport security can come ask me to stop, which I would. They can ask me my name, which I don't have to give. You say they can detain me, I ask for what... last time I checked, taking pictures is still legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top