Here's an article that Jason tweeted out. Only one side of the story, but I don't see much that cold offer gaps in the story. I wonder. If true, pretty pathetic.
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/20...ewark-airport/
Here's an article that Jason tweeted out. Only one side of the story, but I don't see much that cold offer gaps in the story. I wonder. If true, pretty pathetic.
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/20...ewark-airport/
Well, if indeed a picture of the Kiosk was taken, that is clearly a violation of sorts. We can split hairs but I am willing to bet that would be considered privileged and disallowed. Definitely arguable in court with the outcome likely being the company was correct and the photographer not! We should use common sense and this does not indicate common sense in the part of the photographer.
He is in a private place of business with only one clear right: The right to free and clear passage, not the right to photograph the behind the scenes aspects.
Now, to the business of deleting. Only a Judge has the right to order pictures deleted. And officer can make an arrest, charge the individual, voucher the evidence (camera, cards, etc.) and hand it all over to a District Attorney for the jurisdiction of Newark Airport. Then let the court decide what the outcome should be. I say if he consented to have the pictures deleted, he is screwed. If it was done forcibly, he may have a big case against Air Canada and PANYNJ perhaps.
As for the kiosk, Air Canada doesn't own the property to be able to have any authority to stop him.
I bet that computer screen he photographed did belong to Air Canada or someone other than "the public" and could definitely be concluded it is privileged information and could stand up in court as suspicious. Why the heck would anyone want to take a picture of a private screen? It as not intended to be publicly displayed, I am certain of that ...
From what I read, it was the screen on the kiosk used by the public to check in for flights, so yes, it most certainly is intended to be publicly displayed.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
The kiosk photos aside, there were other photos deleted that were apparently not of anything but airplanes and were not even taken at the airport. Sounds to me like somebody took a serious power trip and far exceeded their authority.
It had to be Newark, didn't it?
Maybe not that much related to OP, but about viewing and deleting or directing to delete photos(see paragraph # 2) as in New York City Police Operations Order.
Who knows, maybe similar in NJ?
http://craphound.com/images/operatio...rveillance.jpg
Ah, that changes things a bit ... now, could it be considered "sensitive" by "security" ? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
The screen was showing a Windows error. I think they just didn't want that posted with their logo attached.
Most likely, and a complete overreaction by the CSR.Quote:
Originally Posted by lijk604
Overreaction, for sure.
As far as deleting photos, they can be recovered, as long as you possess the memory card. I still don't get why you would carry any important photos (or any at all) in the camera. I always switch to clean cards when entering the airport (mostly to avoid having to explain my hobby to some overzealous TSA clerk), and used cards are with me at all times.
Now, I keep hearing both that PAPD are an absolute pain to deal with, and that they are the nicest people around. I'd say that depending on the airport, dealing with the police could be better or worse.
That story seems entirely made up. I don't believe a word of it. Half the crap you read on the net is fake