Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

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.
>
>
>>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.
>
>


Different situation












*********************Less than 210 days to go**************************

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:36:30 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>
>> I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
>
> http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...rrows%20Bridge

That is the best reply of *all* the sub-threads!

> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>
Is that really what it said or are you just an illiterate idiot?

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.
>
>
>>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?

Big difference, the famous theater example could get many people hurt
immediately. With camera phones and other small cameras available
today, it's a joke to prevent honest photographers from taking photos.
If a terrorist really needed a picture of their target, they could just
search the net or use a camera phone.

> 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.

That was a long time ago. Not to mention that the Brooklyn Navy Yard
was located upstream of the BB.

> 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.
>

It was more for the Naval security that for the bridges.

Let's face it photography had nothing to do with either WTC attack.

--
-------------------------------------------------
| 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 |
-------------------------------------------------

"Joseph D. Korman" <joekor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4867F1D5.2020002@earthlink.net...
> 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.
>>
>>
>>>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?
>
> Big difference, the famous theater example could get many people hurt
> immediately. With camera phones and other small cameras available today,
> it's a joke to prevent honest photographers from taking photos. If a
> terrorist really needed a picture of their target, they could just search
> the net or use a camera phone.
>
>> 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.
>
> That was a long time ago. Not to mention that the Brooklyn Navy Yard was
> located upstream of the BB.
>
>> 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.
>
> It was more for the Naval security that for the bridges.
>
> Let's face it photography had nothing to do with either WTC attack.
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> | 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 |
> -------------------------------------------------


I was just trying to bring out that just because he is an American citizen
and a taxpayer he does not have the right to do anything he wants to. He has
to follow laws, rules and regulations as we all do.

On Jun 29, 12:53*pm, "Joseph D. Korman" <joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> 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?).

The Waterfall will probably change that figure!

In message <4867E18D.4060706@optonline.net>, Vince
<vpilutis@optonline.net> writes
>
>> 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.

The US had gone into panic mode since 9/11

>Kind of ridiculous seeing as the plans for every bridge in the world
>are a matter of public record.

Absolutely not. They are in many countries but not in all.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message <slrng6frku.1ql1.bit-bucket@shell.config.com>, Allodoxaphobia
<bit-bucket@config.com> writes
>["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:36:30 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
>> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>>
>>> I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
>>
>> http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...rrows%20Bridge
>
>That is the best reply of *all* the sub-threads!

DO we lock up google for aiding the enemy? :-)))


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message <2CR9k.7074$1I.1535@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, sanity
<sanerthanyou@gmail.com> writes
>
>>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.
>
>>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.

Safety maybe.
Security certainly not

> 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.

That was a very different time.
50 years ago the sort of pictures everyone can get on google earth were
not even available to governments

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

> Big difference, the famous theater example [shouting "fire"]
> could get many people hurt immediately. *

True, but I think the larger point of that famous example is that free
speech isn't absolute; that there are certain types of speech that can
get you in legal hot water (defamation, lying under oath, making
threats, etc.).

James