In message <JZednUrFErAsMvrVRVnyuAA@bt.com>, Neil Ellwood
<cral.elllwood2@bt.openworld.com> writes
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
>
>>
>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
>> been by photography
>>
>> Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
>Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
Yes but only on the battle field and was very primitive. Before WW1 it
was very uncommon After WW! people knew how to do it. Then places
started to get photographed from the air.
>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
>Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on flickr - no reason to.
:-)
Me neither but you get the point. In 1930 you had to buy a guide book
with a couple of pictures in and send a spy
now you can probably find three pictures of any building in the world.
And several dozen of any dam, railway bridge, telephone exchange, water
treatment plant, etc.
>> The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
>That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
>to the air around it.
More likely :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:47:56 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
: Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
: check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
: Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
:
: My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
: the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
: said something along the lines of ...
:
: "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
:
: I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily taken
: out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos or used
: its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled over the
: bridge.
When my wife and I drive over the George Washington Bridge on our way to
Philadelphia, I sometimes have her take a picture of the sign prohibiting
photography.
: What's the big deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
: photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
: weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with that
: friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't see why
: this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I could
: easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several vantage
: points and the authorities would never know.
It's not for security. It's for the Bush administration's idea of what
"security" must be. It may even be a relic of the tenure of mayor Julie Annie,
the Foremost Security Expert in the Civilized World.
: I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
: weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
: walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
: prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge" but
: not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
How many of the "security" regulations now operative in this country can you
think of that do make any sense?
: I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
: and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
: shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That bridge
: spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side of the
: bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to me and
: asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I have
: subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park that's
: adjacent to that bridge, no problem.
You can capture the Benjamin Franklin Bridge very nicely from the grounds of
the aquarium in Camden. And on your way you can photograph the
Trenton-to-Camden light rail line; that's probably illegal too.
> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
> check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
> said something along the lines of ...
>
> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>
> I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily taken
>Snip
This is mainly for the non- nyc.transit newsgroups in the thread. It's
interesting that the MTA operates the pay bridges and tunnels within NY
City. See:
It's ironic that Sunday's random photo on the web page is of the V-NB.
On the subway, railroad, and bus side of the MTA, there are no
restrictions, other than staying in public areas.
Here is a page with many subway/rail lines and their rules:
The 'free' bridges in the city are operated by the NYCDOT. There are no
restrictions (how many shots of the underside of the Brooklyn Bridge
have you seen?).
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:reply@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
In article
<0377f2f2-d7b6-4c88-a095-c4e97cd89a37@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
dbd <dbd@ieee.org> wrote:
> In the state of California it is illegal to fish from bridges. That's
> not about endangered species or the historical potential for terrorist
> bait fishermen. It's about keeping people, distracted by pursuing
> their personal activity, from blocking traffic or getting killed by
> it.
Well, that may be one reason. But it's about making sure that virtually
invisible fishing lines (with sharp hooks on the ends) are not dangling
over the side of the bridge into a navigable waterway. Consider what would
happen to you if you were operating a boat and ran into such a line? Not
pretty.
Shawn Hirn wrote:
> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
> check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
> said something along the lines of ...
>
> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
Since there is quite little that can actually be done against asymmetric
warfare (aka "terrorist attacks") the TSA and HS have to do many things
to give the appearance of being effective despite the clear inanity of
what they are doing.
A terrorist bent on casing a bridge for attack can:
-peruse public records and photography
-libraries (books, magazines, newspapers, ...)
-the web
-google maps
-make his own clandestine photography with hidden cameras
-buy same from others
And nobody will ever know about it.
But, if a somewhat distracted guy wandering around in a floppy hat,
laden with cameras, lenses, bags and floppy hat sets up a tripod in
clear daylight where everyone can see him taking ten minutes to compose
his shot, wait for the light and for people to move out of the way, he
is clearly a danger to Mom and apple pie. It would be amusing if it
weren't backed by stupidity protected by the rule of law.
To be fair, HS is very effective in the unseen areas of surveillance and
investigation resulting in prevention and deterrence. But the
congo-lines in airports and photography restrictions are a total and
absolute farce.
Between the grey lines is the absolute fact that the US government has
seized upon fear to excuse all manner of abuse of liberties.
***** Kolada wrote:
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just
>> to check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
>> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
>> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The
>> signs said something along the lines of ...
>>
>> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>> I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily
>> taken out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos
>> or used its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled
>> over the bridge.
>> What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
>> photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
>> weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with
>> that friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't
>> see why this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I
>> could easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several
>> vantage points and the authorities would never know.
>> I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
>> weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
>> walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
>> prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge"
>> but not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
>>
>> I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
>> and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
>> shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That
>> bridge spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side
>> of the bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to
>> me and asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I
>> have subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park
>> that's adjacent to that bridge, no problem.
>
>
> It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
> creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I have
> seen bridges with similar signs.
>
> PK
Bull it based on 9/11 period.
Kind of ridiculous seeing as the plans for every bridge in the world are
a matter of public record.
--
*********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
Cynicor wrote:
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just
>> to check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
>> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
>> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The
>> signs said something along the lines of ...
>>
>> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>
>
> First of all, the signs probably said "strictly," not "strickly." But be
> that as it may...
>
> It's a pure post-9/11 terror scare play. There is no justifiable reason
> for it, and it is not consistent across NYC or elsewhere. It may not
> even be illegal to take pictures of the bridge from a moving car,
> despite the signs.
>
> If you really want a picture of the bridge, head south on the Belt and
> pull off into the parking areas immediately south of it. You can do
> pretty good panos from there.
>
You know as a wedding photogpher many times over the years we go to
Cannon Ball Park and take shots in front of the bridge and now based on
this we can't?
*********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
>But on the whole, as a tax-paying legal citizen of the United States
>of America I have the right to take photos of anything, from anywhere,
>as long as I am still on PUBLICally accessible property that MY TAXES
>- and OUR taxes - pay to upkeep.
>9/11 is OVER. The circumstances dictating events that terrible day
>will NEVER EXIST A***NE!!!! Because such circumstances were not
>dictated by desert dwellers or millionaires in Saudi outposts.
>Time to move on . . .
>-CC
And as an American and a taxpayer does that give you the right to shout
'fire' in a public theater?
There are safety or security reasons for these signs. During World War 2
they had police stationed
on the Brooklyn Bridge and 'no cameras allowed' signs all over the bridge.
US Navy ships used to pass
under that bridge to get to the Brooklyn Navy yard and they didn't want
anyone recording movements of the ships.
sanity wrote:
>> snip<
>
>> But on the whole, as a tax-paying legal citizen of the United States
>> of America I have the right to take photos of anything, from anywhere,
>> as long as I am still on PUBLICally accessible property that MY TAXES
>> - and OUR taxes - pay to upkeep.
The bridge is probably paid for by tolls.
>> 9/11 is OVER. The circumstances dictating events that terrible day
>> will NEVER EXIST A***NE!!!! Because such circumstances were not
>> dictated by desert dwellers or millionaires in Saudi outposts.
>
>> Time to move on . . .
>
>> -CC
>
> And as an American and a taxpayer does that give you the right to shout
> 'fire' in a public theater?
> There are safety or security reasons for these signs. During World War 2
> they had police stationed
> on the Brooklyn Bridge and 'no cameras allowed' signs all over the bridge.
> US Navy ships used to pass
> under that bridge to get to the Brooklyn Navy yard and they didn't want
> anyone recording movements of the ships.
There's a balance maybe, but once people are off the bridges, it's
nobody's business who photographs. If you're *on* the bridge, then
whatever authority controlling the bridge arguably has authority to
regulate.
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge 
Linear Mode
