PhoenixRev

Thanks! I will!

Louie_LI

Wait, so it's not a law, but violating their policy can get one arrested?

CMK10

Could you repeat your question that you would like me, the OP, to clarify?

mikeef

Well, they couldn't say, "We'll never let you fly United again" because that would lead to thousands of people running to the airport with their cameras.

Mike

bocastephen

^

SDF_Traveler

So this would be a verboten picture under 'policy' ?



This bird has bit of a chapped nose.

dan1431

I have taken pictures at EWR/JFK and at JFK I was stopped by the PANYNJ Police and asked why I was taking pictures of certain aircraft.

When I explained that I am documenting my trip and that the plane I was taking pictures of is the plane that I am going to be flying in a little bit, the officer relaxed and wished me a pleasant journey.

I did ask if I was breaking any rules and his answer was that, no not technically but that the PANYNJ does discourage photography (unless you are with the press/etc.) and that I should not be surprised if other officers notice what I am doing and stop me for questioning.

In the end, nobody else questioned nor stopped me and I did have a great trip, just a little annoyance at the start.

Should it be discouraged? No, it should not, but I was lucky to have dealt with an officer who was honest and realized that I was not a threat.

Dan

BadgerBoi

Thanks but no need, I've closed the conversation with the other poster by using the ignore function on him/her/it.

S/he was coming up with a whole series of hypotheticals involving the scenario of you taking the pictures, I was suggesting that he didn't know what he was talking about and he got a little heated.

The way the discussion was going I think the next step would have been to suggest that you may have actually been standing on the moon with a version of the Hubble telescope and therefore the airline wouldn't have had any say in whether you could take pictures or not.

PhoenixRev

Badger's question was simple: would you like someone coming into your place of work and taking photos? You can see the original question here.

I am not sure what there is to clarify anyway? It doesn't matter if one likes having their photo taken in a public space or not. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue: you have no expectation of privacy when in public. Yet it never ceases to amaze me how people think that the law is a helpful suggestion and can be mitigated by personal preference.

While the PA may try to circumvent that ruling by giving the impression that they have the power to ignore the SCOTUS, we now have two reports that the PA, when directly asked, admits they have no authority to stop people from taking photos in the terminals, but would prefer people didn't.

And, for that, I was accused of creating "hypotheticals."

C'est la vie, I guess.

SDF_Traveler

I've spoken with the PA about their photography 'practices' and what happened to you seems inline with what they explained to me as their policy.

I was told, technically we can't stop you from taking photos, but we train our officers, guards, etc. to stop and confront those taking pictures. PA went on to say we want to know who these people are.

Yusef

I have some pictures just like that, at the same gate!

I guess the picture of myself in the co-pilot's seat (still same gate) taken by one of the crew is OK, unless that particular crewmember is not authorised under the United Airlines Criminal Code to waive the no-photography policy.

GUWonder

As always ought to be the case, welcome to FT.

United Airlines Criminal Code enforcer has warned some passengers that joking about UA behaving like a shared taxi is a violation too.

RichardKenner

Yes, for tresspassing. If a private property owner puts conditions on your using their property and you don't adhere to those conditions, tresspassing is a possibility (though the situation is quite complex in a quasi-public space like a privately-owned airport).

bdschobel

I think the time has come -- perhaps it's long overdue -- to distinguish the interests of the airline itself (United, in this case) from those of its employees. Sure, employees don't really enjoy being photographed. We all get that. And they'll pull out all kinds of excuses to stop passengers (and even non-passengers) from taking photographs of them. In this case, the airline has even written a rule that conveniently serves the interests of its employees, though it does little or nothing that I can discern to serve the airline's own interests. In this case, the Port Authority also wants to discourage photography, so all the interests are neatly aligned -- except those of the photographers, of course.

Having said all that, does anyone really believe that the airline would cite a photographer for trespassing because he or she failed to follow a meaningless and likely illegal rule? And endure all the attendant bad publicity? Personally, I find that very hard to believe. If pushed to the wall on this, any sensible airline -- and United is in that category -- will back down. So will the Port Authority, as experience has shown. And the employees will be peeved, but that's just too bad for them.

Bruce

jkhuggins

Because, of course, someone with nefarious intent would never lie to the port authority.

I mean, c'mon. Even with my limited intelligence, if I wanted to do photo surveillance of JFK, it'd be easy to do. All I need to do is get several other members of my resistance cell improv club to come along with me, pretend to be my wife & kids on vacation, and as I have them pose for pictures to commemorate our trip, use my camera to take pictures of items right next to where they're standing.

I'm sure it'd work. After all, it worked on Hogan's Heroes.