JeffM talking out of his rear end about JFK terminal

[NIKV69]

I don't know how they do things in Denver but last I checked you were allowed to take pics in the terminal as long as you were not photographing security checkpoints, but our ever colorful JeffM had to chime in with this nonsense.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/av ... in/271887/ (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/271887/)

I am banned on anet but could someone reply to this person. I mean why should someone not enjoy snapping some pics in NY because of this dumb "lets go ask police to do something that we are perfectly allowed to do" or this persons opinion?

Amazing.

[PhilDernerJr]

Jeff is right. Port Authority officials will tell you that they do not allow photo of airside from inside the terminals.

I knwo there are some inconsistencies there, but he is right.

Either way, he shared oneof his own experiences. He didn't lie and make up a rule. So why are you saiyng he's talking out his ass? And why the angry undertone?

[MarkLawrence]

I took some shots airside in terminal 6 last weekend waiting for my flight back to PBI and had absolutely no problems - in fact one PA policeman walked past, saw me and asked me some info about my camera...it does seem inconsistent.

[NIKV69]

Port Authority officials will tell you that they do not allow photo of airside from inside the terminals.


Is this a written law? Cause I just called PA and the officer told me their position is that you are allowed to take pics as long as you are not violating the TSA rules of aiming your camera at checkpoints. Giving your opinion is fine Phil, but I think fact go a little further when people ask for advice on matters like this.

[PhilDernerJr]

Jeff didn't give an opinion. He told a story of his first hand account. What part of his post are you claiming is bull?

As for the law, there doesn't have to be a "law". Port can institute any rule they want on their property. I spoke to a fairly high up Port official to told me directly that it is not allowed. As I said, there are inconsistencies.

IAT is also very strict about photography. I've seen them approach people with cmaeras that they found while looking at them through their security cameras.

[NIKV69]

What part of his post are you claiming is bull?



Never said any of this story was bull, I mean that when people ask for advice it's better to try to steer them toward something a little more concrete than what they think.


As for the law, there doesn't have to be a "law". Port can institute any rule they want on their property. I spoke to a fairly high up Port official to told me directly that it is not allowed. As I said, there are inconsistencies.



So what you are telling me is that one day someone like Mark can shoot till his heart is content and encounter a PA officer who does nothing and then at their whim they can tell someone else it's now allowed? Scary.. You should tell your high ranking pal that it's complete crap. I am glad people like the NPPA didn't back down when faced with this BS when the MTA tried to ban photography on the transit system. Glad to know there are some people out there that don't want their rights trampled.

[T-Bird76]

I'd like to see this rule in writing, because if you go to JFK's website there's a section that promotes taking pictures of the new and improved JFK. I took pictures inside T7 the night I was stuck there in full view of some PAPD cops and private security and no one said boo to me. Personally I don't believe there is a rule just whatever the person you are speaking to wants to tell you.

[NIKV69]

I'd like to see this rule in writing,

So would I.

I sent this kid on anet an email. I mean now he has two people telling him not to shoot now. Yet someone like Mark can shoot and actually converse with a PA officer with no problem? I thought we were supposed to promote spotting Phil? From what I have seen he or anybody does not need to ask any PA officer to shoot as long as he respects the TSA checkpoints. Yet the PA feels they can just not allow photography?

Also I love how Jeff decided to shoot anyway after the PA told him not too, real smart. First we ask for permission when he don't have to then disobey law enforcement. Outstanding.

[MarkLawrence]

I think the bottom line is that, regardless of where we are in the country, we are all at the mercy of the local law enforcement. It can happen anywhere - at the usually VERY friendly South Florida, I was asked to leave a spot alongside a l now closed restaurant. I was told that there was a place to take pictures further down the road - his exact words were "you are not allow to take pictures here". I didn't question anything as he was airside of the fence- but, on all the other occasions I have been in the same spot - I've had all types of police and people in FAA cars wave and say good afternoon. It takes one person's interpretation and, unfortunately, what side of the bed they woke up on that morning to determine what and where we can shoot.

[Winglets747]

I think said Jeff sharing his experience is fine--but it's that very experience that's causing an issue.

Since he asked whether it was okay to take pictures or not, he should have been willing to accept yes or no. But that was clearly not his intention since he took photos when told no. That type of behavior only creates more problems that could affect all of us (e.g. photography becomes much stricter).

Jeff should have either not asked or not taken photos when told no.

Since there is no consistent "rule" about terminal spotting, what I do when at JFK terminals is to just take photos as I please while keeping somewhat of a low profile with security agents.

On a related note, what, exactly, is IAT's issue with photography?

[T-Bird76]

I think said Jeff sharing his experience is fine--but it's that very experience that's causing an issue.

Since he asked whether it was okay to take pictures or not, he should have been willing to accept yes or no. But that was clearly not his intention since he took photos when told no. That type of behavior only creates more problems that could affect all of us (e.g. photography becomes much stricter).

Jeff should have either not asked or not taken photos when told no.

Since there is no consistent "rule" about terminal spotting, what I do when at JFK terminals is to just take photos as I please while keeping somewhat of a low profile with security agents.

On a related note, what, exactly, is IAT's issue with photography?

Exactly! Jeff was stupid to disobey an order from a uniformed police officer. I was told at ISP once I couldn't but pushed a bit and then was told yes I could. If the answer was still no I wouldn't have taken any shots. That kind of behavior is stupid.

[PhilDernerJr]

Never said any of this story was bull, I mean that when people ask for advice it's better to try to steer them toward something a little more concrete than what they think.

Seriously, do you read? Jeff didn't say ANY thoughts. There was no "what he thinks". All he did was share his actual account. Just because you think that what he says is inconsistent with the reality (even though it isn't) doesn't mean that you should sya he's talking out of his ass.


I mean now he has two people telling him not to shoot now. Yet someone like Mark can shoot and actually converse with a PA officer with no problem?

The guy asked a question and him and I answered it based on our experiences. What's wrong with that? What do you expect?


I thought we were supposed to promote spotting Phil?

Wow. He asked a question and we answered it with the knowledge that we have. It's not not promoting. It's letting the kid know what the situation.

Don't patronize me, either. You're the one that says you don't think the hobby needs promoting.


Also I love how Jeff decided to shoot anyway after the PA told him not too, real smart. First we ask for permission when he don't have to then disobey law enforcement. Outstanding.

I agree that disobeying an order from law enforcement is wrong, but I think that going by your views about the rule, that you would have shot there anyway.


I am banned on anet .....

Big shock.

[NIKV69]

Seriously, do you read? Jeff didn't say ANY thoughts. There was no "what he thinks". All he did was share his actual account. Just because you think that what he says is inconsistent with the reality (even though it isn't) doesn't mean that you should sya he's talking out of his ass.



Well I kind of don't understand any of this but I will say that I meant that his ignorance of the actual rules (ones you say has inconsistenties) was not what he should have been telling this new spotter to the area.


What do you expect

I expect someone to get a little more information. The fact remains that this kid was basically told you can't shoot in the terminal and that is complete BS.


Wow. He asked a question and we answered it with the knowledge that we have

You sure you gave him all the info Phil? I would say not.


Don't patronize me, either. You're the one that says you don't think the hobby needs promoting

I am not patronizing you and the hobby does not need any promoting at all.


I agree that disobeying an order from law enforcement is wrong, but I think that going by your views about the rule, that you would have shot there anyway

Jeff is a complete fool, first why he asked before is beyond me, that is something advocated here and I think it's crap. There is no law against shooting in the terminal as long as you don't point the camera toward a TSA checkpoint. For the PA to have "selected laws" they choose to somehow enforce (which I think is BS anyway) is beyond me. Jeff clearly had no intention to listening to anyone, which he proved. My only regret is that he didn't get thrown in jail, which is what should have happened. As far as me, I have shot in the terminal Phil and I did not ask, I don't have to, I am doing nothing wrong.


Big shock

Low blows now Phil? I'll play, I am banned because I refuse to listen to people post inaccurate stuff and continue to talk out of their asses. Which happens quite a bit, even here.

[FlightShadow]

Hey everyone, it's "The Kid" from A.net. (Thanks for the quick account activation, btw)

As of right now I'm thoroughly confused. Phil says it's illegal, Mark says he had no problems, Nik says Jeff Miller talks out of his butt and it's perfectly fine.

Taking all these into consideration, my plan is: Pull out my camera (I have a high-end P&S, not too suspiscious) if I see something cool (like a Thai A340!), snap a few pics, put it away, and try and keep somewhat of a low profile in the process.

What is the worst that can happen - will I be detained (fingerprinted, interviewed,?) or will they just say "stop and/or delete them," in which case I would cheerfullly comply and be able to go on my way?

Thanks for all the help :)

-Jeff

[MarkLawrence]

Welcome Jeff

My personal feeling - go for it - if PA don't like it - they will tell you to stop - that's all - that's my feeling.

[NIKV69]

Welcome Jeff,

I whould shoot away Jeff, just stay away from the TSA checkpoints and don't try to hide anything. Your doing nothing wrong. Also don't feel the need to be like Jeff and ask permission beforehand, it is not necessary. Just act like you normally would and I doubt you will have any problems.

[PhilDernerJr]

Well I kind of don't understand any of this but I will say that I meant that his ignorance of the actual rules (ones you say has inconsistenties) was not what he should have been telling this new spotter to the area.

If it's the rules as he knows it, then that's fine. If you feel there's more, you can get unbanned and contribute instead of calling Jeff names and cursing about it on another site.


I expect someone to get a little more information. The fact remains that this kid was basically told you can't shoot in the terminal and that is complete BS.

No, it's not BS. It's what they say the rule is. If you have a problem with the rule or the inconsistency with Port, that's fine, but it's not Jeff's fault that Port Police is inconsistent.


You sure you gave him all the info Phil? I would say not.

I gave him all the info as I know it. I'd rather someone go in knowing of the potential risks instead of being told everything is fine and dandy and he ends up in a bad situation because he thought it was all ok.


Jeff is a complete fool, first why he asked before is beyond me, that is something advocated here and I think it's crap. There is no law against shooting in the terminal as long as you don't point the camera toward a TSA checkpoint. For the PA to have "selected laws" they choose to somehow enforce (which I think is BS anyway) is beyond me. ....I have shot in the terminal Phil and I did not ask, I don't have to, I am doing nothing wrong.

If a rule exists or not, Port does have the ability to make a rule banning photography if they want. It doesn't have to be a "law" either.

I agree, as I siad, there are inconsistencies, but some Port officials say that there is a rule prohibitng photography.

I don't know of any Port rulebook to check this in, but I'm just saying what we've experienced.


Low blows now Phil? I'll play, I am banned because I refuse to listen to people post inaccurate stuff and continue to talk out of their asses.

Emphasis on "refusing to listen". I think you have a tendency to not consider what other people are telling you.

A guy shares a story and you attack him, saying he gave wrong information. He didn't give out any "information". He told a story. So unless he's lying about the story, it sin't evne possible for him to be talking out his ass. Do you understand that? I explained it three times and you're not really acknowledging or even trying to comprehend what I'm saying.

If you think he's a fool for disobeying the cops, that's one thing, and your right to an opinion. But there'ws no informaiton in his post that could be misinformation.


Which happens quite a bit, even here.

Happens everywhere, my friend.

[mirrodie]

well.

I don't know the gentlemen to call him a fool. But I must say he was foolish to ask for permission and then disobey after being told no. I think that type of behavior gives photographers a bad name in general.

[T-Bird76]

As of right now I'm thoroughly confused. Phil says it's illegal, Mark says he had no problems, Nik says Jeff Miller talks out of his butt and it's perfectly fine.

Its not illegal at all. There is no law what so ever saying you can't take pictures in a terminal. Whether or not there's some Port rule about it is to be seen as well. However Jeff it was a stupid decision to disobey an order from a uniformed police officer in a secured location. The worst that can happen is you get arrested for disobeying a police order, you get booked, your camera gets taken away and you have to appear in-front of a judge. If you don't believe me ask John Toomey if he ever got his camera back.

[FlightShadow]

Thanks for the replies everyone :) - Like I said before I think I'm just going to take pictures anyway, and stop if the police ask me to, regardless of whether there's a law or not (we have that problem here in SLC every now and then, SLPD Cops citing fake laws).


However Jeff it was a stupid decision to disobey an order from a uniformed police officer in a secured location.
I can't tell what you mean by this but just for the record, me and the Jeff that disobeyed the cop are different people - that Jeff is JeffM from A.net, who allegedly talks out of his butt. I have this weird fear of being arrested and usually obey cops :)

And another question, what's my best chance at getting a Thai A340 - will it be there in the morning (between 0600 and 0900?) - I just love their color scheme.

[T-Bird76]

Thanks for the replies everyone :) - Like I said before I think I'm just going to take pictures anyway, and stop if the police ask me to, regardless of whether there's a law or not (we have that problem here in SLC every now and then, SLPD Cops citing fake laws).


However Jeff it was a stupid decision to disobey an order from a uniformed police officer in a secured location.
I can't tell what you mean by this but just for the record, me and the Jeff that disobeyed the cop are different people - that Jeff is JeffM from A.net, who allegedly talks out of his butt. I have this weird fear of being arrested and usually obey cops :)

And another question, what's my best chance at getting a Thai A340 - will it be there in the morning (between 0600 and 0900?) - I just love their color scheme.

Ok now I'm confused, LOL The Thai should be there during that time period.

[FlightShadow]

Ok here goes :P

This thread involves 2 "Jeff"s. One of them is me, FlightShadow, the kid who wants to know if it's ok to take pics in JFK, one of them is "JeffM" from A.net.

I started this (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/271887/) thread on A.net, after reading some stories about problems taking pictures in JFK, as I'll be there in a week and a half and would love to snap some shots of planes we'll never have the chance of seeing out here in SLC.

Now, in that thread, JeffM, posted this:

Last time I was there, I asked security, they said NO. I opted to shoot anyway.....the police arrived, needless to say I stopped.

That is where most of the discussion is from, and that is the Jeff that Nik says has his head up his butt.

That's probably just more confusing...but it might help a little :)

[NIKV69]

If a rule exists or not, Port does have the ability to make a rule banning photography if they want. It doesn't have to be a "law" either.

I agree, as I siad, there are inconsistencies, but some Port officials say that there is a rule prohibitng photography.

I don't know of any Port rulebook to check this in, but I'm just saying what we've experienced


Phil any Law enforcement can do anything at any time. That is a given but when a person asks about something I feel it is better to give him the facts, which is what we have discussed. That there is no law on the books prohibiting photography in the terminals but PA can at any time tell you not too. Not even getting into that I would say that the way you and Jeff approached it totally put this person off even taking out his camera and I feel that is wrong. Whatever Jeff did is neither here nor there. Personally I think his story is a little weird but I will take it at face value. I personally feel many encounter stories are not totally true and lack certain facts. The encounters I have had and the one tonight when I called were totally different. I would also hope that the PA would have a very good reason to arbitrarily ban picture taking in a said spot but that is something they could only answer. There has to be a balance between our rights and the safety of air travel. I just don't want to see it tip against us.

[Winglets747]

Thanks for the replies everyone :) - Like I said before I think I'm just going to take pictures anyway, and stop if the police ask me to, regardless of whether there's a law or not (we have that problem here in SLC every now and then, SLPD Cops citing fake laws).
Good plan. It may also help to stay under the radar.


And another question, what's my best chance at getting a Thai A340 - will it be there in the morning (between 0600 and 0900?) - I just love their color scheme.
Thai is there in the morning, but I'm not sure of the exact time (there was a thread recently in one of the other forums).

I've found that Thai usually parks at gate B20 or B22 (http://www.jfk-airport.org/images/jfktermmap.gif) at T4. You can get a nice view of those gates on the AirTrain between terminals 2/3 and 4. The AirTrain between terminals is free, by the way. A lot of times there are security agents on the AirTrain, so if you want to take photos but you see a security agent, you may want to hold off until the next AirTrain just to be safe.

[Matt Molnar]

Terminals = private property = there doesn't need to be any law or a "rule on the books."

[T-Bird76]

Terminals = private property = there doesn't need to be any law or a "rule on the books."

Matt entirely not true, not all terminals are private property. Many airports around the country that are owned and operated by the township they reside in are considered "Public Property." Whether or not you want to consider Port a private organization is up for debate, they do receive public funds.

[hiss srq]

I was about to mention that Tommy. In Sarasota they kicked friends of mine out spotting once and they were on the perimiter of the airport behind a fence next to a road. I thought that was pretty stupid. I have also found that offering an 8x10 print to the airport in question or somthing does alot to help the issue. SRQ has several to speak of in the Suncom room.

[Matt Molnar]

Terminals = private property = there doesn't need to be any law or a "rule on the books."

Matt entirely not true, not all terminals are private property. Many airports around the country that are owned and operated by the township they reside in are considered "Public Property." Whether or not you want to consider Port a private organization is up for debate, they do receive public funds.

I meant Port Authority terminals. The PA is entirely self-sufficient and does not receive any government funding.

[T-Bird76]

Terminals = private property = there doesn't need to be any law or a "rule on the books."

Matt entirely not true, not all terminals are private property. Many airports around the country that are owned and operated by the township they reside in are considered "Public Property." Whether or not you want to consider Port a private organization is up for debate, they do receive public funds.

I meant Port Authority terminals. The PA is entirely self-sufficient and does not receive any government funding.

I'm not sure that is accurate, funds for the improvements to handle the A380 were supported with pubic funds.

[moose135]

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/Governance/


The Port Authority is a financially self-supporting public agency that receives no tax revenues from any state or local jurisdiction and has no power to tax. It relies almost entirely on revenues generated by facility users, tolls, fees, and rents. The Governor of each state appoints six members to the Board of Commissioners, subject to state senate approval. Board Members serve as public officials without pay for overlapping six-year terms. The Governors retain the right to veto the actions of Commissioners from his or her own state. Board meetings are public.

[kc2aqg]

I'm with you on this one Mark - go for it. If the PA says nothing, end the day happy. If the PA tells you to stop, then stop and go on your way. I've been approached by PAPD in T4 about photographing airside and they just told me (perhaps in a not so nice manner) to stop. So I did and went on my way. They can't arrest you for something that isn't illegal. That said, stay away from TSA, security checkpoints, and customs/immigration facilities; those I have heard are quite stringent about cameras.

[Matt Molnar]

NEENER NEENER, Tom! :)

Adding to the fun...JFK and LGA sit on city-owned land (not sure who owns EWR) which the PA leases from NYC. I don't think that matters too much though.

Ultimately, shooting through windows sucks anyway, so I don't know why this is such a big deal. Unless you happen to be at the airport waiting for a flight and you want to play with your camera to kill time, there's no good reason to be shooting in a terminal. :)

[Tom_Turner]

The Port Authority does not own the airports.

They work on a lease From the city of New York.

The Port Authority has a de facto "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

So, when you start "asking" to take pictures at terminals, that might work for you or against you personally. I can 100% understand people asking if they are getting positive reinforcement. Overall though it is weakening everyoness' hand. (probably).

It is hard to maintain that the Port Authority has a "no photography" policy if it only written on the wind.

My opinion is the Port Authority generally prefers to discourage photography. I doubt they see anything in it for them to have spotters crawling around the airports.

Port Authoritiy is rather shrewd.

New Jersey Transit lost their silly "No Photography" rules in court.

MTA was going to lose their case and caved.

For the Port Authority to be successful in "banning" photography, they pretty much count on folks flushing their rights down the toilet and having you buy into the security nonsense.

[No, I am not saying we have an absolute "Right" to photograph on airport property, but I am saying we have every right to question the wisdom of any rules set forth by the Port Authority. Its not simply their way or the highway.]

Now, Terminal 4 for example at JFK is admiistered by a private firm that is a bit more explicit in banning photography. Slightly different issue here, but clearly they need to tolerate all the passengers taking their snapshots of course. What is their alternative? Arrest passengers? At the end of the day, it makes *their* rule quite silly, becasue clearly it either IS or IS NOT a security issue.

Feel free to disagree... :)

Tom

[mirrodie]

It is hard to maintain that the Port Authority has a "no photography" policy if it only written on the wind.


Dude, few can emulate such poetic prowess. 8) 8)