FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Interrogated and Detained at IAH for Photographing
Old Sep 10, 2010 | 1:19 am
  #399  
Custardthecat
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Factory 5th Floor
Posts: 319
Originally Posted by PhoenixRev
I think you are misunderstanding the way that U.S. airports work and how American law affects them.

Most major airports are run by the local municipalities. Therefore, they are public spaces. They have very specific restrictions that mostly affect operations, but, by and large, the American public is free to wander into an airport and shop, grab some food, sit and people watch, take photos, etc. with no expectation that they have to be actually flying or even in possession of a ticket or want to purchase a ticket.

In fact, many airports make big deals about things they have installed at the airport and encourage the public to drop by. PHX has a tiny, but lovely art museum in T4. Several years ago, one of the terminals had a display of Kachinas on loan from the Heard Museum. When T3 was initially opened, it housed an upscale restaurant on the concourse leading to security and the gates, and the City of Phoenix encouraged people to come to eat at the restaurant even if they weren't flying or had any other business at the airport.

Even LAX turned its old Theme Building into a funky restaurant. (Go for the drinks as the food is marginal at best.)

But our public airports are not regulated by laws or rules stating you have to have business to be there. You go if you want and you leave when you want (subject to closures, etc.).

So, now we get to the part where the OP was taking photos inside the terminal. Again, there is no law stating that you have to have business at an airport in order to be at the airport. Wander around all you wish. There is no law against that.

Additionally, there is no law against taking photographs inside an airport terminal. The U.S. Supreme Court has also said very clearly that the minute you step into a public place, you have given up any expectation of privacy. That is completely logical. You cannot be demanding that people avert their eyes when you enter a public space. People will see you and you made the decision to leave the private confines of some private property. So, the OP taking photos did nothing wrong according to the law.

Now, we turn to the issue of suspicion. I had written a long bit about why we shouldn't be automatically suspicious of photographers taking photos of the security area and TSOs, but then I read a quote on another threat and on the TSA blog and saw a reference to a post made by Bruce Schneier, one of the most knowledgeable individuals on security in the U.S. I will quote part of it here and strongly encourage you to read the rest.



So, I ask again: why is taking photos of the security area and TSOs suspicious?
I freely admit that my understanding of exactly how US airports work may not without fault. I would expect the same if the boot was on the other foot. Some UK airports have museums of flight e.g. Manchester but at a remote location, not in the Terminal building and visitors are indeed encoraged but the Terminal building operates outside that scenario. From what I've seen of US landside passenger Terminal concourses I would not want to spend much time there at al anyway.

What I was trying to illustrate was the behavoiral aspect / reason for being at an airport issues perspectives and what concepts are seen as reasonable to enforce. I provided the UK example in order for you to draw perspective as this seems to be devolved from what is considered reasonable behavoir at airports here. The actual laws in UK / US are not the primary point. suspicion is pretty much a universal concept. How the law deals with the outcome is after the fact and will indeed have differences depending where on this Earth we live.

Just because the law appears allow it in isolation does not preclude it from being able to be developed into activity which attracts suspicion. The totality of the activity and circumstances are the issue. This may be too much for you too swallow.

I'm not going to comment on the US examples as I just don't have enough knowledge to do so but as far as the UK examples you have quoted

London - No photo recce would have been required. Trains and Underground run. You buy a ticket and get on. The actual sites were random in that they were simply the next trains that came along apart from one who got on a bus instead, could have been any bus. Dozens of people in close proximity, bad result. Very sad day.

The organisation you mention - False. Suggest you go off and do a bit of research, I'm not keen on educating you in this respect.

Last edited by Custardthecat; Sep 10, 2010 at 1:48 am
Custardthecat is offline