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.
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.
On Jun 29, 9:47*am, Shawn Hirn <s...@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."
You'll see such signs at many area facilites operated by that
authority, such as the Throgs Neck bridge.
The Brooklyn Bridge is under different control, so it doesn't have the
same restrictions.
In message <srhi-7085F7.09475629062008@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Shawn
Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> writes
>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.
Long time ago before google Earth and many similar systems the only
people in the 1960's to mid 1990's who had access to satellite
photography were a few governments.
Prior to 1960 no one had satellite maps.
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.
It was the only way of gathering information. Spys did use cameras a lot
for gathering information. Pre internet days it took a lot of work to
get information on places bridges.
Bridges and railways were (and still are) vulnerable points and quite
strategic. Looking at a good photo will tell a demolition's expert how
to blow it up. How much it can carry, the clearances under/over the
line or road etc
Therefore photographing government/military buildings etc railways and
bridges. (latterly telephone exchanges) tended to be deemed "important"
and had a no photography law in many countries.
Some still hold on to this in the mistaken belief that it can still help
the enemy. However the enemy are not going to play by your rules anyway
so it is pointless putting up signs anyway..
However thank to google Earth (MS earth?) street-map, multi-map et all I
can in seconds get high ress pictures of most places of a quality that
the government spy services could only dream of 30 years ago.
Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
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.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
On Jun 29, 6:47 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
> 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."
> ...
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.
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.
On Jun 29, 12:02*pm, Cynicor <truuu...@opt.i.m.um.net> 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.
_________________
Cynicor gets a "golden star"!(remember those in the 2nd, 3rd grades?)
Yes, I do buy it in certain circumstances for safety or traffic flow
reasons(imagine some goober setting up his Hasselblad up on a 40lb
tripod in the right lane of the Narrows or someplace & causing six
cars to accordian and take his *** out in addition??).
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.
If you ever fly again out of a U.S. airport and see toddlers and
grandmothers being pulled out of line for random searches you will have
great insight into the oxymoron that is "national intelligence services."
Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge 
Linear Mode
