daveleo
what?
That is the truth right there.
We (Americans) are surrendering to fear. We are afraid
within our own borders and will give up (in small small steps) our rights
and freedoms to feel safe again. Who expected it would come to this, huh ?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The terrorists have won. That's all there is to it. For most people in most countries, life now is safer and longer than ever before. But the perception in those same countries is that the world is a more dangerous place: cf http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280
Of course the terrorists have had help. The gutter press loves scare stories. So do governments, regardless of political kidney: authoritarianism comes naturally to all too many politicians, even (or perhaps especially) those who profess themselves against government intervention. Common sense, and a refusal to be intimidated, are our only defences.
Cheers,
R.
Of course the terrorists have had help. The gutter press loves scare stories. So do governments, regardless of political kidney: authoritarianism comes naturally to all too many politicians, even (or perhaps especially) those who profess themselves against government intervention. Common sense, and a refusal to be intimidated, are our only defences.
Cheers,
R.
anjoca76
Well-known
I think we are missing the point. This isn't all about terrorism, despite whatever they tell us. It has to do with money. As I've noticed walking around Boston the past week, it's not just the pros who have huge dslr cameras with a bag full of big lenses, flashes, etc. Plenty of average joes do too. And these places don't want to put up with the bag checks as well as worry that people will take photos of high enough quality to sell.
But I see this as more of an opportunity for rangefinders. Isn't one of the biggest reasons why we all love rangefinders so much is because they are small and discreet? So then take advantage of that. Yes, I am sure there are some places that may not even let through an X100, but those are the exception. In the past year I have brought my Leicas to concerts, plays, a ballet, an opera, numerous museums in both the US and Europe, and other places I can't think of off the top of my head. Just don't bring 3 bodies and 5 lenses and you should be OK. Yes, even at the Kentucky Derby.
Plus, remember, the power is always with the people. If the KD ends of truly cracking down on everyone with a camera, then if everyone who wants to bring a camera (which would be most) stays home, I guarantee they will change their policy quickly.
But I see this as more of an opportunity for rangefinders. Isn't one of the biggest reasons why we all love rangefinders so much is because they are small and discreet? So then take advantage of that. Yes, I am sure there are some places that may not even let through an X100, but those are the exception. In the past year I have brought my Leicas to concerts, plays, a ballet, an opera, numerous museums in both the US and Europe, and other places I can't think of off the top of my head. Just don't bring 3 bodies and 5 lenses and you should be OK. Yes, even at the Kentucky Derby.
Plus, remember, the power is always with the people. If the KD ends of truly cracking down on everyone with a camera, then if everyone who wants to bring a camera (which would be most) stays home, I guarantee they will change their policy quickly.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Except that it is, in the sense that they can use terrorism as a (semi-) plausible excuse. Certainly, it's far easier for anyone to invoke terrorist threats than to say "We're greedy bar stewards wallowing in complete contempt for those who pour money into our pockets."
Cheers,
R.
JonWNC
Established
If I TIG weld my Summitar to my IIIf, does it make it a non-interchangeable lens / camera, and therefore passable through security?
L Collins
Well-known
Given its a private venue, the owners can impose whatever rules they want. It really has nothing to do with the erosion of our rights. It is symptomatic, however, of the irrationality surrounding photography 'in public' these days.
It sounds to me that they believe that a bomb can put be put into interchangable lens cameras...or large lenses since they state:
"Churchill Grounds says that the measures were developed after consulting with several law enforcement authorities following the Boston Marathon bombings last week."
Seems to me to have nothing to do with photographers. I think everyone has seen why public photography is important after the Boston situation.
"Churchill Grounds says that the measures were developed after consulting with several law enforcement authorities following the Boston Marathon bombings last week."
Seems to me to have nothing to do with photographers. I think everyone has seen why public photography is important after the Boston situation.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
As a matter of fact, they can't. A public event is a public event, even in a private location, and you don't leave all your civil rights at the gates.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
And
(a) You sincerely believe them
(b) These 'several law enforcement authorities' (if they exist, and if it isn't just 'my cousin's brother in law who happens to be a cop') have REALLY thought everything through.
Cheers,
R.
L Collins
Well-known
At least as far as American law is concerned, you are incorrect.
Not sure what I believe since I do not have enough facts...but I believe some people at RFF are just as paranoid regarding their view of the matter as the people at Churchill Downs.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
'All' is a very big word, so I think that strictly, you are the one who is incorrect. Carrying a camera: yes, they can ban that. Telling you what colour your skin has to be...
Cheers,
R.
daveleo
what?
You're right to some extent. A few of us (me too) have used the story to make speeches about freedom, etc. I personally don't care anything about this horse race or whatever rules they make up.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Fair enough, but on the balance of probabilities I believe it's to protect concession and 'authorized' photographers, plus the usual "Well, no-one will really mind anyway." Paranoid? No, I don't think so. Inclined to put money in the pockets of those who make up arbitrary and poorly thought out bans? No to that too.
Cheers,
R.
L Collins
Well-known
Well, yes. They can't say "no blacks allowed in my private event." but there is no specific constitutional protection for carrying a camera, hence my response. but I suspect you know that and are just being provocative.
The point is this: Churchhill Downs can make a law saying that nobody wearing yellow socks, or wearing hats, or chewing gum, or shooting Nikons as opposed to Canons, Re allowed into their facility...and it's all perfectly legal. Just as I can tell you you can't take pictures on my property.
This is opposed to the town of Lexington KY passing a law saying you can't take pictures on PUBLIC property.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
That's why I said 'strictly' -- which I think may have been what Sevo meant.
Cheers,
R.
edge100
Well-known
I'm not sure it is, but I take your point.
L Collins
Well-known
To be more specific: According to American law, You DO leave all your rights to photograph anything once you enter a private location. Even when it's hosting a "public event."
furcafe
Veteran
I have to agree w/Mr. Hicks & others who are calling BS on the security rationale as it applies to cameras. The "new" rule against interchangeable lens cameras & lenses over 6" in length have long been in effect at many venues, particularly sports stadiums and concert halls, at least from my experience in the DC, Baltimore, NYC, & LA areas. The rationale has always been image management, not security or safety (though there are safety concerns w/tripods, etc.). Having never shot the Derby before, I have no idea of whether there has always been a "pro" camera ban or whether it's normally enforced; I know the ban exists at Nationals Park, for example, but is rarely enforced, whereas it is strictly enforced at music venues like the 9:30 club.
The folks running the Derby likely have legitimate security concerns after Boston, but those would seem to logically be more relevant to the new restrictions on bags, etc.
The folks running the Derby likely have legitimate security concerns after Boston, but those would seem to logically be more relevant to the new restrictions on bags, etc.
Well, that may be true too... that is not paranoid though. Some other comments were.