Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > What's up with Federal Plaza in NYC?

Reply
Thread Tools

What's up with Federal Plaza in NYC?

 
 
asdf@no.spam.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
I was in NYC a few weeks ago, and walking around in Federal Plaza. There's
that tall courthouse, and I tried to take a picture of it a few times. But
every time I pulled out my camera, a security guard told me that taking
pictures wasn't allowed there. And they've got several security booths set up
in that area, so there's just about no area that can't be seen by a guard!
Why don't they allow you to take pictures of public buildings there? Do they
think I'm going to show my pics to Al Queda? Like you can't find pictures of
the buildings on the 'net anyways. (And the security guards did nothing to
stop the people on those open-top sightseeing buses from taking pictures as
they drove by!)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
R. Makul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 20:12:28 -0400, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>I was in NYC a few weeks ago, and walking around in Federal Plaza. There's
>that tall courthouse, and I tried to take a picture of it a few times. But
>every time I pulled out my camera, a security guard told me that taking
>pictures wasn't allowed there. And they've got several security booths set up
>in that area, so there's just about no area that can't be seen by a guard!
>Why don't they allow you to take pictures of public buildings there? Do they
>think I'm going to show my pics to Al Queda? Like you can't find pictures of
>the buildings on the 'net anyways. (And the security guards did nothing to
>stop the people on those open-top sightseeing buses from taking pictures as
>they drove by!)


===============
For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
countries.

Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
USA.

You can draw your own inferences. Hope you weren't carrying a GPS.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ryan Robbins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004

"R. Makul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> ===============
> For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
> buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
> countries.
>
> Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
> USA.


I haven't heard of any such restrictions. Even if there were such
restrictions, they would be unconstitutional without question.

> You can draw your own inferences. Hope you weren't carrying a GPS.


This is funny, because I do a lot of night photography and sometimes I carry
my GPS receiver to record where I took photos. No police car that has gone
by me has so much as slowed down for a closer look at what I was doing.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul J Gans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
In rec.photo.digital (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>I was in NYC a few weeks ago, and walking around in Federal Plaza. There's
>that tall courthouse, and I tried to take a picture of it a few times. But
>every time I pulled out my camera, a security guard told me that taking
>pictures wasn't allowed there. And they've got several security booths set up
>in that area, so there's just about no area that can't be seen by a guard!
>Why don't they allow you to take pictures of public buildings there? Do they
>think I'm going to show my pics to Al Queda? Like you can't find pictures of
>the buildings on the 'net anyways. (And the security guards did nothing to
>stop the people on those open-top sightseeing buses from taking pictures as
>they drove by!)


I live in New York not far from Federal Plaza. The city has
gotten a bit paranoid about terrorists. I think it is
very overdone, but it is hard to argue with that hole
in the ground a few blocks away.

One hopes that in time we will relax some of the silly
restrictions like this one when we realize that it is
trivial to sneak a picture with for example, a cell phone
camera or to take on with a digital camera while screened
from the guards by a confederate or two.

Crap like this (including the ban on taking photos on
subway cars) only makes life difficult for honest folks.
It does nothing to inhibit terrorists who will find a
simple way to cheat if they want the picture.

Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it.

----- Paul J. Gans
 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
Paul J Gans wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> I was in NYC a few weeks ago, and walking around in Federal Plaza.
>> There's that tall courthouse, and I tried to take a picture of it a
>> few times. But every time I pulled out my camera, a security guard
>> told me that taking pictures wasn't allowed there. And they've got
>> several security booths set up in that area, so there's just about
>> no area that can't be seen by a guard! Why don't they allow you to
>> take pictures of public buildings there? Do they think I'm going to
>> show my pics to Al Queda? Like you can't find pictures of the
>> buildings on the 'net anyways. (And the security guards did nothing
>> to stop the people on those open-top sightseeing buses from taking
>> pictures as they drove by!)

>
> I live in New York not far from Federal Plaza. The city has
> gotten a bit paranoid about terrorists. I think it is
> very overdone, but it is hard to argue with that hole
> in the ground a few blocks away.
>
> One hopes that in time we will relax some of the silly
> restrictions like this one when we realize that it is
> trivial to sneak a picture with for example, a cell phone
> camera or to take on with a digital camera while screened
> from the guards by a confederate or two.
>
> Crap like this (including the ban on taking photos on
> subway cars) only makes life difficult for honest folks.
> It does nothing to inhibit terrorists who will find a
> simple way to cheat if they want the picture.
>
> Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans


I disagree: your opinion is likely correct, right, and righteous.

The problem at one level is that lawmakers and law enforcers do not want
to be perceived as doing nothing in response to significat events (of
any kind), so they choose some relatively inocuous but visible aspect to
manipulate. Voila! Reelection.

Frank ess


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul H.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I was in NYC a few weeks ago, and walking around in Federal Plaza.

There's
> that tall courthouse, and I tried to take a picture of it a few times.

But
> every time I pulled out my camera, a security guard told me that taking
> pictures wasn't allowed there. And they've got several security booths

set up
> in that area, so there's just about no area that can't be seen by a guard!
> Why don't they allow you to take pictures of public buildings there? Do

they
> think I'm going to show my pics to Al Queda? Like you can't find pictures

of
> the buildings on the 'net anyways. (And the security guards did nothing

to
> stop the people on those open-top sightseeing buses from taking pictures

as
> they drove by!)



Two quotes from a founding father:

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged
to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

&

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the
instruments of tyranny at home."

--James Madison

I think that just about sums it up.
================================================== ==================

I recently had to go to a local Superior Court for jury duty and made the
mistake wearing my hiking boots with metal eyelets which, of course, caused
the metal detector to go nuts. Fine-- I had to take of my shoes and run
them through the x-ray machine along with my backpack. No problem, my socks
were clean and didn't have any holes in them. The trouble is, had I been a
suicide bomber, I could have just stepped through the courthouse door on the
street side of the security devices, detonated my bomb and killed about 150
people who were milling about in the lobby. Or three or four terrorists
could have stepped in from the street, lobbed hand grenades or Sarin gas
cannisters over the heads of the bored security crew and achieved the same
result.

Now none of this is giving anything away to terrorists who are a lot more
clever than I am when it comes to figuring out how to kill people, but it
does point up the real reason for such "security" measures: to make people
feel better, to make them think the government has really done something to
protect them; sadly, people are indeed that stupid and many even want to be
fooled. That's OK, I suppose, but it means the rest of us are having to
give up essential freedoms and are getting nothing in return for the loss.
I'm also still trying to figure out how anyone makes sense of the refrain,
"Quick, terrorists want to take away our freedom, so let's fight them by
surrendering our freedom!"

And it isn't George Bush or John Ashcroft or Director Tom-- had a Democratic
administration been in power, the result would have been the same, only the
names would have been changed to protect the bureaucrats. So for now I'll
just keep taking pictures of ducks in the park until a terrorist straps a
bomb on a duck's back and blows something up. Then I'll be arrested for my
duck photos and sent to Guantanamo Bay, charged with aiding and abetting
international terror. Quack.







 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter A. Stavrakoglou
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
"Frank ess" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:mXuAc.27837$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> I disagree: your opinion is likely correct, right, and righteous.
>
> The problem at one level is that lawmakers and law enforcers do not

want
> to be perceived as doing nothing in response to significat events

(of
> any kind), so they choose some relatively inocuous but visible

aspect to
> manipulate. Voila! Reelection.


You sound quite pessimistic - but you're right


 
Reply With Quote
 
Big Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:11:47 GMT, "Ryan Robbins"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"R. Makul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>
>> ===============
>> For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
>> buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
>> countries.
>>
>> Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
>> USA.

>
>I haven't heard of any such restrictions. Even if there were such
>restrictions, they would be unconstitutional without question.


I simply can't find any referrrences to photographing public buildings
in the US Constitution, one way or the other.
Could you provide a cite for this?
Or at least a legal theory?
>
>> You can draw your own inferences. Hope you weren't carrying a GPS.

>
>This is funny, because I do a lot of night photography and sometimes I carry
>my GPS receiver to record where I took photos. No police car that has gone
>by me has so much as slowed down for a closer look at what I was doing.
>
>


Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matt Silberstein
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:00:15 -0700, Big Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:11:47 GMT, "Ryan Robbins"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"R. Makul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>
>>> ===============
>>> For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
>>> buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
>>> countries.
>>>
>>> Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
>>> USA.

>>
>>I haven't heard of any such restrictions. Even if there were such
>>restrictions, they would be unconstitutional without question.

>
>I simply can't find any referrrences to photographing public buildings
>in the US Constitution, one way or the other.
>Could you provide a cite for this?
>Or at least a legal theory?


I would suspect it comes under the 1st. It is a government prior
restriction of communication absent a compelling state need.

It is also really stupid. It is illegal to take a picture of the
Brooklyn Bridge (or from the bridge, the reports have been unclear).
Think of that? Somehow there is some special dangerous information I
can get from a photo now that is not available to my eye or the tens
of thousands of photos of the bridge.

The MTA wants to make it illegal to take pictures in the subway
system. This is also to stop terrorists. It will be a $20 fine. (I
think $20 for a first.) I gather they imagine this scenario. I am a
terrorist planning on blowing up Time Square. I need a photo of the 2
train so I take my camera. But I suddenly realize that it might cost
me $20 if I get caught. So I abandon the entire plan and take up dog
grooming.

I mean really. If I wanted to do this I could come up with hundreds of
ways of getting what I want. It will not do a thing to any potential
terrorist, it will just annoy the tourists. (Not that I have anything
against annoying tourists.) Now if they made it a Class B felony
(whatever that means, they use that kind of language on _Law and
Order_ all the time and they all seem to understand) and put people
away for years, then it could affect the plans. But not a $20 fine.

(Oh, I forgot the <vent></vent> tags, sorry. Or would <rant></rant>
work better?)

>>> You can draw your own inferences. Hope you weren't carrying a GPS.

>>
>>This is funny, because I do a lot of night photography and sometimes I carry
>>my GPS receiver to record where I took photos. No police car that has gone
>>by me has so much as slowed down for a closer look at what I was doing.
>>
>>

>
>Bill Funk
>Change "g" to "a"



--
Matt Silberstein

Do in order to understand.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ESmith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
It's really sad, but it can be summed up in 2 words Patriot Act.

--
Ed Smith
"Matt Silberstein" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:00:15 -0700, Big Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:11:47 GMT, "Ryan Robbins"
> ><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"R. Makul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> >>
> >>> ===============
> >>> For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
> >>> buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
> >>> countries.
> >>>
> >>> Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
> >>> USA.
> >>
> >>I haven't heard of any such restrictions. Even if there were such
> >>restrictions, they would be unconstitutional without question.

> >
> >I simply can't find any referrrences to photographing public buildings
> >in the US Constitution, one way or the other.
> >Could you provide a cite for this?
> >Or at least a legal theory?

>
> I would suspect it comes under the 1st. It is a government prior
> restriction of communication absent a compelling state need.
>
> It is also really stupid. It is illegal to take a picture of the
> Brooklyn Bridge (or from the bridge, the reports have been unclear).
> Think of that? Somehow there is some special dangerous information I
> can get from a photo now that is not available to my eye or the tens
> of thousands of photos of the bridge.
>
> The MTA wants to make it illegal to take pictures in the subway
> system. This is also to stop terrorists. It will be a $20 fine. (I
> think $20 for a first.) I gather they imagine this scenario. I am a
> terrorist planning on blowing up Time Square. I need a photo of the 2
> train so I take my camera. But I suddenly realize that it might cost
> me $20 if I get caught. So I abandon the entire plan and take up dog
> grooming.
>
> I mean really. If I wanted to do this I could come up with hundreds of
> ways of getting what I want. It will not do a thing to any potential
> terrorist, it will just annoy the tourists. (Not that I have anything
> against annoying tourists.) Now if they made it a Class B felony
> (whatever that means, they use that kind of language on _Law and
> Order_ all the time and they all seem to understand) and put people
> away for years, then it could affect the plans. But not a $20 fine.
>
> (Oh, I forgot the <vent></vent> tags, sorry. Or would <rant></rant>
> work better?)
>
> >>> You can draw your own inferences. Hope you weren't carrying a GPS.
> >>
> >>This is funny, because I do a lot of night photography and sometimes I

carry
> >>my GPS receiver to record where I took photos. No police car that has

gone
> >>by me has so much as slowed down for a closer look at what I was doing.
> >>
> >>

> >
> >Bill Funk
> >Change "g" to "a"

>
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do in order to understand.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TV News cameraman attacked by mall security guards at Valley Plaza in Bakersfield,CA JohnCM Digital Photography 65 11-06-2004 04:49 AM
Bugged by security at Westfield Garden State Plaza for taking photos JohnCM Digital Photography 57 06-15-2004 11:42 PM
Eloise at the Plaza: DVD offers pleasant technical surprise Ted Miller DVD Video 0 02-25-2004 09:32 PM
JFK: Tales From Dealey Plaza. Scot Gardner DVD Video 7 11-19-2003 06:01 AM



Advertisments