Taking photos at airports- illegal?

[Toria]

I have my camera out all the time and have taken a plethora of photographs in and around airports in the US and abroad. I have never been told that I cannot take pictures. I was told at a public art exhibit once to delete my Peter Max shots.

[granlistillo]

Originally Posted by USMCmech

Not quite,

National Guard troops are effectively State militias, and therefore under controll of the state governers and therefore CAN enforce state laws.

Regular Army (USAF, USMC, or USN) including reserve units, belong to the federal govenrment, and can't be used to enforce laws inside the state.

not exactly to your not quite.
Until recently I was a Major in the air national guard, before going to the IRR so I am quite familiar the USC title 10 and title 32 requirements. If these troops are under title 10 orders they absolutely can not enforce laws. If they are under title 32 (state orders) in some circumstances they can be called to restore order, but they do not normally engage in law enforcement per se. Without, knowing the full facts, it is speculation, but national guard troops are not police officers.

If a governor tried to use them as cops you would find out real quick who controls the national guard. And it wouldnt be the guv.

That said, I would probably nod politely at the troop, and follow his request. But illegal? lmao, that just shows he isnt a cop...

[coa787]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

The only time I got barked at for taking pictures is when I was in Romania.

I even asked the guy, "So it's illegal to take pictures of the airplane I'm about to fly? Nice."

Wasn't there also that time when you were in BUD and got yelled at by some security ramp guy or something?

[Chief Captain]

I'd actually advise against it. A while back, some idiots at the TSA harassed me for taking pictures from the terminal. They said it was illegal, and went through all my stuff. I had to show them every single picture I took, and explain to them why I was traveling, and what happened in the last year of my life. Set of idiots. I won't get into all the details, because it's still upsetting. Suffice to say I was pretty shaken up for a few weeks after the incident.

Did I mention that they did all this AFTER I showed them my pilot's license?

[cmsuav8r]

"You can't find me responsible for doing something illegal if I've never been told it is illegal."

Ignorance is not a defense. You can plead ignorance all you want, but the fact of the matter is that its your responsibility as a citizen to know and abide by laws. At least thats what my business law professor taught me.

[surreal1221]

You can say something is illegal until you are blue in the face. Until you actually show me the letter of the law, stating that __________ (insert action) has been deemed illegal, I'm going to continue to tell you whatever __________ (insert action) is not illegal.

You may consider that ignorance, but I disagree strongly.

The powers that be could just verbalize some little policy, and call it a law, without it ever going through the proper legislative channels to make such a policy a law.

I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I know better than to trust some 19 year old military guard bum, or a TSA agent when they tell me some "policy" is law.

Show me. . .not too much to ask.

Trouble is. . .they can't, so they shut up, and then they leave you alone.

Now when legal precedence is obvious, and common sense plays a large part in your thought process you will know what things are illegal and what are not. Theft, battery, etc, are obvious things that you can find yourself in legal jeopardy over. Some made up rule by some ignorant guard bum or rent-a-cop is not law, and as such - I can not be found to be doing _________ (insert action) illegally unless it truly is illegal.

I don't trust half the #### any of these TSA numbnuts say anymore.

[MQAAord]

Well, it's "policy" to turn off all electronic devices on airlines once the announcement has been made to turn them off. But, it's law not to interfere with a flight crew. So, enforcement of the policy falls within the law.

I honestly don't know about taking pictures while on airport property, but I would think that the airport authority would have the jurisdiction to disallow photography. But if you're not on airport property, then they're probably not within their jurisdiction.

[granlistillo]

Policies may not be law, but not abiding by authorities policies may lead to a road of trouble. If you are going through immigration and the sign says no cell phones and you disregard the authorities, you could be doing something illegal regardless of whether there is a law against cellphones it ICE facilities.
The initial comment of the troop was silly, but in airport, many people make rules that have to be followed. Even company policies need to be respected, or legal consequences may follow.

For the record flat out banning photos is a pretty silly security measure.

[surreal1221]

I was pretty sure the no electronic device usage was in the FAR 121 though. . .federal regulation, so it's not just a policy, but rather a federal regulation that will be followed. Hell, it's also in FAR 91 - but more specifically towards IFR flight.

We, as crew members, just state it, along with telling the passengers where they can find further guidance on the regulation (back of company sponsored magazine, or safety card).

Originally Posted by granlistillo

If you are going through immigration and the sign says no cell phones and you disregard the authorities, you could be doing something illegal regardless of whether there is a law against cellphones it ICE facilities..

Which is my point.

In your example, there is a clearly marked sign that says "No cell phones," with more than likely very small text at the bottom dictating what regulation / governing authority is directing this policy.

Trouble occurs when there is no sign, and some numbskull power trip individual generates his / her own policies on the spot.

Doesn't, and will never, work that way.

[MQAAord]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

I was pretty sure the no electronic device usage was in the FAR 121 though. . .federal regulation, so it's not just a policy, but rather a federal regulation that will be followed.

Found it, 121.306. Poor specific example on my part.

Trouble occurs when there is no sign, and some numbskull power trip individual generates his / her own policies on the spot.

Agreed.

[Teller1900]

All I can say is, if it actually is illegal, I'm going to be in jail for a long long long time!

[Always Moving]

Did you fill a report or a complaint against the policy and the guys?
if the answer is NO stop bitching!
if the answer is yes KUDOS! you need to start taking your country back!

Also, and airport can NOT do what ever they want since they are accepting FEDERAL money (most do) they have to comply with federal law. (I know of a city bulling a guy because he wanted to sell gas at the airport, he took them to court and just before going, they settle, good for you Mcgreer!)

Do not even get me started in the TSA thing (yes I call it a thing because I do not know what it is)

There is loads of documents that are illegal and just because you sign them (bank, phone company, car lease, etc) that does not mean you have to obey them or are legal. You can get sue and at the end the judge will figure. An example of that is the BS with the return tickets with stays over Saturdays, etc. Every airline has settle before going to court! cuz if they do go to court, they will loose and then everyone will do it for now only a few with time and money did take them to court and they WILL SETTLE)

If I have time, I do not comply with any of the BS measurements. What it needs to happen is a load of people do not comply with TSA and the moment the airlines start loosing money you will see how mysteriously all of that goes away.

YOU ARE LIVING IN A POLICE STATE, by the way, the land of freedom is gone, in a few 100's of years everything will be illegal at the rate they are going.

[tonyw]

Bottom line is it's not illegal to take pictures at airports. If someone gives you a hard time about it, POLITELY ask them what law you are violating and ask to speak with their supervisor.

There's no rule that says you can't do it.

Here's a great column on it.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...tech/col/smith
There's a shiny new airport in Manchester, and I'm there to take pictures as part of an article I'm working on for that mouthpiece of liberal fascism, the Boston Globe. I've shot about six digital pictures, and I'm working on the seventh -- a nicely framed view of the terminal façade -- when I hear the stern "Excuse me." A young guy in a navy windbreaker steps toward me. It says AIRPORT SECURITY in block letters across his back. "You can't do that. You need to put the camera away."

"I do? Why?"

"Pictures aren't allowed."

"They're not?"

"Sorry."

"Sorry what? I don't think that's true, actually. I'm pretty sure that it isn't illegal to take pictures at an airport."

"You'll need to talk to a deputy, sir."

I slip the camera into a pocket as the guard, who despite his crested cap and cocksure understanding of the rules, is a private security guard and not a law enforcement official, quickly summons over two members of the Rockingham County sheriff's department, which administers the Manchester airport.

The deputies -- a woman and a man -- are polite but stern, and they'd like to know exactly what I'm doing. "You need to have a permit to take photographs," one of them says. "Maybe we can call and see if they'll give you clearance."

I'm not sure I believe it. "What do I need a permit for? Is there a rule here against taking pictures? Is it illegal?"

"I don't know," she replies, crossly, as if the question somehow isn't relevant. "I don't think so, technically."

"So, if not, why would I need a permit?"

"That's what the airport wants. You'll have to ask the airport manager."

They ask to see press credentials. When I explain that I'm a freelancer they demand a driver's license. The woman deputy takes it and disappears for several minutes.

While waiting for my license to return from its secret mission, I tell the other officer how this is the same airport where, in 1986, I received my private pilot's license. From runway 35, four years later, I made my first takeoff as a cockpit crewmember. It's all very different now, in more ways than one. And I tell him how, as adolescent planespotters in the late '70s, my friends and I would scour the terminals at Boston-Logan every weekend, armed with cameras, notebooks and binoculars, taking pictures and logging tail numbers, fully aware that in many countries, hobbies like ours were essentially illegal.

The cop shakes his head. He's an older guy, who probably remembers when MHT had two flights a day with 15-seaters, before Southwest came in with seven gates and nonstops to Vegas. "I know," he says. "It's too bad. But we live in a different world now."

Soon thereafter my license reappears and I'm free to go.

"May I use my camera?"

"Yes," is the answer, so long as I don't take any photos inside the terminal. And next time, it would behoove me to receive permission before arriving.

All of this is complete and utter BS if you ask me. We aren't taking pictures of top secret super duper black book programs. We're taking pictures of airplanes and public facilities.

Terrorists don't want to take pictures of airplanes. They want to blow them up.

Besides, if the department of homeland (in)security would take their collective heads out of their butts for two seconds, they'd realize that having people around the airport who enjoy taking pictures of the facilities and airplanes would be BENEFICIAL to security. You'd have extra eyes on the premises and if they hang out at the airport enough, they'd be able to know what to expect and something unusual could be reported.

And the thing that steams me the most is the response of the cop. She's acting as if it's not relevant that there is no law against taking pictures at airports. She's there to enforce the law, not her whim.

[Fly4Pay]

Originally Posted by mtsu_av8er

It's the National Guard . . . kinda like being yelled at by The Air Force . . . almost make-believe. Just tell them there's a monster coming and that their per diem will be canceled. . . that'll keep 'em occupied for hours.

That's a bunch of crap!

(wait... seriously? My per diem? Ahhh crap... gotta call Finance....)

[mtsu_av8er]

Haven't you guys learned anything?

Shut up and comply!!!

[Fly4Pay]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

You can't find me responsible for doing something illegal if I've never been told it is illegal.

While I sympathize with the stupidity of this particular rule, I wouldn't use this as a defense in court.

In most crimes, an intent is required to prove guilt. In other words, you have to a)know something is illegal, and b)intend to do it anyway. SOME crimes, however, are classified as "no intent" crimes. Probably the most common one you come across is speeding. In other words, it doesn't matter if you didn't see the last speed limit change and you therefore didn't know you were speeding--you're still guilty if they catch you speeding.

Again I wouldn't expect that this instance would fall in that category--just commenting on the general "you can't hold me responsible if I didn't know" thing, which can get folks in trouble.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Originally Posted by Fly4Pay

In most crimes, an intent is required to prove guilt. In other words, you have to a)know something is illegal, and b)intend to do it anyway. SOME crimes, however, are classified as "no intent" crimes. Probably the most common one you come across is speeding. In other words, it doesn't matter if you didn't see the last speed limit change and you therefore didn't know you were speeding--you're still guilty if they catch you speeding.

Actually, no. The "intent" requirement requires only that the state prove that a defendant had knowledge that he/she was doing the things that make up the elements of the crime. It is not generally necessary that a defendant have been aware that the doing of those things was a crime. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[Sisson2011]

My friend and I have been all over the DFW, DAL and IAH airport taking pictures. We know every service road around the entire fenced parameter. Most of the time we never get spoken to once. We usually take the car just in the back of the truck with the scanner and take pictures. There have been like two or three times where we have been ran off. All three times we got ran off because we were somewhere were are aren't suppose to be (side of the road under the approach lights). So we say yes sir and move on. We have never been bother by that.

When I am flying I always have a camera in hand and if I have time I walk to terminal looking out the window and taking pictures. I have never been bother in the terminal once at all.

O, and the 3 times we've been ran off we were at DFW and have never been ran off at IAH or DAL

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by Minnesota_Flyer

Actually, no. The "intent" requirement requires only that the state prove that a defendant had knowledge that he/she was doing the things that make up the elements of the crime. It is not generally necessary that a defendant have been aware that the doing of those things was a crime. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

So I guess the question to ask is the same one that Patrick Smith asked.

Is it illegal to take pictures of an airport?

If so, then Google's in a lot of trouble. They've got pictures of every single airport in the world on there!

[saxman66]

Besides, if the department of homeland (in)security would take their collective heads out of their butts for two seconds, they'd realize that having people around the airport who enjoy taking pictures of the facilities and airplanes would be BENEFICIAL to security. You'd have extra eyes on the premises and if they hang out at the airport enough, they'd be able to know what to expect and something unusual could be reported.

That's exactly what the BNSF Railroad does. They started a camiagn of their photographers to look out for anything. Then later UP Railroad came a policy stating the opposite, banning photography of their trains. So it makes no difference which mode of transportation we are taking pictures of. We will get heckled. I read a story of a guy going to jail for taking pictures of trains on public property, and the police deleted all his pictures and pretty much ruined his whole vacation.

So we can argue about it being illegal or not all we want. But when the TSA has us detained and strip searches us, is it really worth it?

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by saxman66

So we can argue about it being illegal or not all we want. But when the TSA has us detained and strip searches us, is it really worth it?

I highly doubt it would get that far. I'm sure some supervisor would say, nope, he can go ahead and do it because there's nothing prohibiting him from doing so.

If they do detain you and there is no law on the books prohibiting people from taking pictures of planes on public grounds, then I think you would have grounds for the mother of all lawsuits for false imprisonment.

Of course, filing that lawsuit would put you at risk of getting sent to Gitmo without charges ever being filed against you so....

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Originally Posted by tonyw

So I guess the question to ask is the same one that Patrick Smith asked.

Is it illegal to take pictures of an airport?

If so, then Google's in a lot of trouble. They've got pictures of every single airport in the world on there!

I doubt it is illegal anywhere as long as you're not disruptive, and the constitutionality of laws banning airport photography, if anywhere they exist, would be seriously questionable.

[mtsu_av8er]

Originally Posted by Fly4Pay

That's a bunch of crap!

(wait... seriously? My per diem? Ahhh crap... gotta call Finance....)

See how easily I distracted you?

[warp core breach]

Originally Posted by Nick

We don't live in a police state, yet.

You don't say!.... We are living in the mother of all police states, it's just not as obvious yet.

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I know alot of people get upset about this country and there are alot of things that can be improved upon...but this is no North Korea or China. Have pride...take steps to improve, though.