Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
said something along the lines of ...
"No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily taken
out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos or used
its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled over the
bridge.
What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with that
friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't see why
this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I could
easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several vantage
points and the authorities would never know.
I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge" but
not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That bridge
spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side of the
bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to me and
asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I have
subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park that's
adjacent to that bridge, no problem.
Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
said something along the lines of ...
"No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily taken
out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos or used
its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled over the
bridge.
What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with that
friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't see why
this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I could
easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several vantage
points and the authorities would never know.
I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge" but
not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That bridge
spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side of the
bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to me and
asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I have
subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park that's
adjacent to that bridge, no problem.
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
Shawn Hirn wrote:
> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
> check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
> said something along the lines of ...
>
> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>
> I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily taken
> out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos or used
> its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled over the
> bridge.
>
> What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
> photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
> weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with that
> friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't see why
> this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I could
> easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several vantage
> points and the authorities would never know.
>
> I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
> weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
> walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
> prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge" but
> not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
>
> I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
> and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
> shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That bridge
> spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side of the
> bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to me and
> asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I have
> subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park that's
> adjacent to that bridge, no problem.
It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I have
seen bridges with similar signs.
PK
Shawn Hirn wrote:
> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
> check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
> said something along the lines of ...
>
> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>
> I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily taken
> out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos or used
> its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled over the
> bridge.
>
> What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
> photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
> weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with that
> friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't see why
> this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I could
> easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several vantage
> points and the authorities would never know.
>
> I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
> weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
> walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
> prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge" but
> not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
>
> I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
> and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
> shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That bridge
> spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side of the
> bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to me and
> asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I have
> subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park that's
> adjacent to that bridge, no problem.
It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I have
seen bridges with similar signs.
PK
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
Penis Kolada wrote:
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just
>> to check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
>> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
>> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The
>> signs said something along the lines of ...
>>
>> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>> I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily
>> taken out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos
>> or used its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled
>> over the bridge.
>> What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
>> photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
>> weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with
>> that friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't
>> see why this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I
>> could easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several
>> vantage points and the authorities would never know.
>> I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
>> weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
>> walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
>> prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge"
>> but not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
>>
>> I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
>> and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
>> shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That
>> bridge spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side
>> of the bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to
>> me and asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I
>> have subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park
>> that's adjacent to that bridge, no problem.
>
>
> It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
> creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I have
> seen bridges with similar signs.
>
> PK
Bull it based on 9/11 period.
Kind of ridiculous seeing as the plans for every bridge in the world are
a matter of public record.
--
*********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
Penis Kolada wrote:
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just
>> to check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
>> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
>> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The
>> signs said something along the lines of ...
>>
>> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>> I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily
>> taken out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos
>> or used its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled
>> over the bridge.
>> What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
>> photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
>> weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with
>> that friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't
>> see why this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I
>> could easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several
>> vantage points and the authorities would never know.
>> I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
>> weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
>> walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
>> prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge"
>> but not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
>>
>> I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
>> and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
>> shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That
>> bridge spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side
>> of the bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to
>> me and asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I
>> have subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park
>> that's adjacent to that bridge, no problem.
>
>
> It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
> creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I have
> seen bridges with similar signs.
>
> PK
Bull it based on 9/11 period.
Kind of ridiculous seeing as the plans for every bridge in the world are
a matter of public record.
--
*********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
In message <4867E18D.4060706@optonline,net >, Vince
<vpilutis@optonline,net > writes
>
>> It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
>>creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I
>>have seen bridges with similar signs.
>> PK
>
>Bull it based on 9/11 period.
The US had gone into panic mode since 9/11
>Kind of ridiculous seeing as the plans for every bridge in the world
>are a matter of public record.
Absolutely not. They are in many countries but not in all.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
In message <4867E18D.4060706@optonline,net >, Vince
<vpilutis@optonline,net > writes
>
>> It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
>>creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I
>>have seen bridges with similar signs.
>> PK
>
>Bull it based on 9/11 period.
The US had gone into panic mode since 9/11
>Kind of ridiculous seeing as the plans for every bridge in the world
>are a matter of public record.
Absolutely not. They are in many countries but not in all.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
Chris H wrote:
> In message <4867E18D.4060706@optonline,net >, Vince
> <vpilutis@optonline,net > writes
>
>>
>>> It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
>>> creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I
>>> have seen bridges with similar signs.
>>> PK
>>
>>
>> Bull it based on 9/11 period.
>
>
> The US had gone into panic mode since 9/11
>
>> Kind of ridiculous seeing as the plans for every bridge in the world
>> are a matter of public record.
>
>
> Absolutely not. They are in many countries but not in all.
>
>
Bottom line a terrorist dosn't need photos to blow up a bridge
--
*********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
Chris H wrote:
> In message <4867E18D.4060706@optonline,net >, Vince
> <vpilutis@optonline,net > writes
>
>>
>>> It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
>>> creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I
>>> have seen bridges with similar signs.
>>> PK
>>
>>
>> Bull it based on 9/11 period.
>
>
> The US had gone into panic mode since 9/11
>
>> Kind of ridiculous seeing as the plans for every bridge in the world
>> are a matter of public record.
>
>
> Absolutely not. They are in many countries but not in all.
>
>
Bottom line a terrorist dosn't need photos to blow up a bridge
--
*********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
On Jun 29, 9:47 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
> check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
> said something along the lines of ...
>
> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
You'll see such signs at many area facilites operated by that
authority, such as the Throgs Neck bridge.
The Brooklyn Bridge is under different control, so it doesn't have the
same restrictions.
On Jun 29, 9:47 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
> check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
> said something along the lines of ...
>
> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
You'll see such signs at many area facilites operated by that
authority, such as the Throgs Neck bridge.
The Brooklyn Bridge is under different control, so it doesn't have the
same restrictions.
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
On Jun 29, 10:59 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon,net > wrote:
> > "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>
> You'll see such signs at many area facilites operated by that
> authority, such as the Throgs Neck bridge.
I didn't see any while crossing the Triborough Br (Manh to Queens),
but it's a long ride with construction and perhaps I missed it.
Actually, I was taking pictures of the bridge by its foot and there
were a bunch of regular city cops around for some reason and no one
cared.
On Jun 29, 10:59 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon,net > wrote:
> > "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>
> You'll see such signs at many area facilites operated by that
> authority, such as the Throgs Neck bridge.
I didn't see any while crossing the Triborough Br (Manh to Queens),
but it's a long ride with construction and perhaps I missed it.
Actually, I was taking pictures of the bridge by its foot and there
were a bunch of regular city cops around for some reason and no one
cared.
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
In message <srhi-7085F7.09475629062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >, Shawn
Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > writes
>Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
>check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
>Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
>My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
>the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
>said something along the lines of ...
>
>"No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>
>I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily taken
>out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos or used
>its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled over the
>bridge.
>
>What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
>photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
>weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with that
>friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't see why
>this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I could
>easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several vantage
>points and the authorities would never know.
>
>I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
>weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
>walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
>prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge" but
>not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
>
>I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
>and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
>shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That bridge
>spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side of the
>bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to me and
>asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I have
>subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park that's
>adjacent to that bridge, no problem.
Long time ago before google Earth and many similar systems the only
people in the 1960's to mid 1990's who had access to satellite
photography were a few governments.
Prior to 1960 no one had satellite maps.
So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
been by photography
Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
It was the only way of gathering information. Spys did use cameras a lot
for gathering information. Pre internet days it took a lot of work to
get information on places bridges.
Bridges and railways were (and still are) vulnerable points and quite
strategic. Looking at a good photo will tell a demolition's expert how
to blow it up. How much it can carry, the clearances under/over the
line or road etc
Therefore photographing government/military buildings etc railways and
bridges. (latterly telephone exchanges) tended to be deemed "important"
and had a no photography law in many countries.
Some still hold on to this in the mistaken belief that it can still help
the enemy. However the enemy are not going to play by your rules anyway
so it is pointless putting up signs anyway..
However thank to google Earth (MS earth?) street-map, multi-map et all I
can in seconds get high ress pictures of most places of a quality that
the government spy services could only dream of 30 years ago.
Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
In message <srhi-7085F7.09475629062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >, Shawn
Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > writes
>Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
>check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
>Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
>My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
>the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
>said something along the lines of ...
>
>"No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>
>I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily taken
>out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos or used
>its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled over the
>bridge.
>
>What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
>photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
>weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with that
>friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't see why
>this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I could
>easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several vantage
>points and the authorities would never know.
>
>I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
>weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
>walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
>prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge" but
>not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
>
>I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
>and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
>shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That bridge
>spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side of the
>bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to me and
>asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I have
>subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park that's
>adjacent to that bridge, no problem.
Long time ago before google Earth and many similar systems the only
people in the 1960's to mid 1990's who had access to satellite
photography were a few governments.
Prior to 1960 no one had satellite maps.
So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
been by photography
Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
It was the only way of gathering information. Spys did use cameras a lot
for gathering information. Pre internet days it took a lot of work to
get information on places bridges.
Bridges and railways were (and still are) vulnerable points and quite
strategic. Looking at a good photo will tell a demolition's expert how
to blow it up. How much it can carry, the clearances under/over the
line or road etc
Therefore photographing government/military buildings etc railways and
bridges. (latterly telephone exchanges) tended to be deemed "important"
and had a no photography law in many countries.
Some still hold on to this in the mistaken belief that it can still help
the enemy. However the enemy are not going to play by your rules anyway
so it is pointless putting up signs anyway..
However thank to google Earth (MS earth?) street-map, multi-map et all I
can in seconds get high ress pictures of most places of a quality that
the government spy services could only dream of 30 years ago.
Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
>
> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
> been by photography
>
> Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
>
> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on flickr - no reason to.
>
> The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
to the air around it.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
>
> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
> been by photography
>
> Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
>
> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on flickr - no reason to.
>
> The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
to the air around it.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
In message <JZednUrFErAsMvrVRVnyuAA@bt,com >, Neil Ellwood
<cral.elllwood2@bt.openworld,com > writes
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
>
>>
>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
>> been by photography
>>
>> Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
>Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
Yes but only on the battle field and was very primitive. Before WW1 it
was very uncommon After WW! people knew how to do it. Then places
started to get photographed from the air.
>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
>Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on flickr - no reason to.
:-)
Me neither but you get the point. In 1930 you had to buy a guide book
with a couple of pictures in and send a spy
now you can probably find three pictures of any building in the world.
And several dozen of any dam, railway bridge, telephone exchange, water
treatment plant, etc.
>> The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
>That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
>to the air around it.
More likely :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
In message <JZednUrFErAsMvrVRVnyuAA@bt,com >, Neil Ellwood
<cral.elllwood2@bt.openworld,com > writes
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
>
>>
>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
>> been by photography
>>
>> Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
>Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
Yes but only on the battle field and was very primitive. Before WW1 it
was very uncommon After WW! people knew how to do it. Then places
started to get photographed from the air.
>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
>Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on flickr - no reason to.
:-)
Me neither but you get the point. In 1930 you had to buy a guide book
with a couple of pictures in and send a spy
now you can probably find three pictures of any building in the world.
And several dozen of any dam, railway bridge, telephone exchange, water
treatment plant, etc.
>> The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
>That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
>to the air around it.
More likely :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
In article <RNtSF2TFt7ZIFAxI@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>In message <JZednUrFErAsMvrVRVnyuAA@bt,com >, Neil Ellwood
><cral.elllwood2@bt.openworld,com > writes
>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
>>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
>>> been by photography
>>>
>>> Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
>>Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
>
>Yes but only on the battle field and was very primitive. Before WW1 it
>was very uncommon After WW! people knew how to do it. Then places
>started to get photographed from the air.
Aerial surveillance started with balloons (American Civil War) and pigeons
(WWI). But the problem is that few people think in 3-D. This is why camo
works. Other tricks of the trade exist (like IR) to defeat those measures.
The Smithsonian produced a fine book titled:
To Fool A Glass Eye
Stereo to resolve ambiguities is also an important key (most people
again have no concept why you want to do this). There's professions and
professional societies, but they are far from entirely military (the
ASP&RS in the USA).
>>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
>>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
>>Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on flickr - no reason to.
>:-)
>
>Me neither but you get the point. In 1930 you had to buy a guide book
>with a couple of pictures in and send a spy
Modern espionage changed radically at GC&CS to a game of signals from
linguists to mathematicians (this of course depressed the linguists).
This is both the strength of collection as well as a weakness.
>now you can probably find three pictures of any building in the world.
>And several dozen of any dam, railway bridge, telephone exchange, water
>treatment plant, etc.
As a generalization.
>>> The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
>>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
>>That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
>>to the air around it.
>
>More likely :-)
Public works project. ;^)
--
In article <RNtSF2TFt7ZIFAxI@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>In message <JZednUrFErAsMvrVRVnyuAA@bt,com >, Neil Ellwood
><cral.elllwood2@bt.openworld,com > writes
>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
>>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
>>> been by photography
>>>
>>> Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
>>Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
>
>Yes but only on the battle field and was very primitive. Before WW1 it
>was very uncommon After WW! people knew how to do it. Then places
>started to get photographed from the air.
Aerial surveillance started with balloons (American Civil War) and pigeons
(WWI). But the problem is that few people think in 3-D. This is why camo
works. Other tricks of the trade exist (like IR) to defeat those measures.
The Smithsonian produced a fine book titled:
To Fool A Glass Eye
Stereo to resolve ambiguities is also an important key (most people
again have no concept why you want to do this). There's professions and
professional societies, but they are far from entirely military (the
ASP&RS in the USA).
>>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
>>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
>>Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on flickr - no reason to.
>:-)
>
>Me neither but you get the point. In 1930 you had to buy a guide book
>with a couple of pictures in and send a spy
Modern espionage changed radically at GC&CS to a game of signals from
linguists to mathematicians (this of course depressed the linguists).
This is both the strength of collection as well as a weakness.
>now you can probably find three pictures of any building in the world.
>And several dozen of any dam, railway bridge, telephone exchange, water
>treatment plant, etc.
As a generalization.
>>> The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
>>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
>>That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
>>to the air around it.
>
>More likely :-)
Public works project. ;^)
--
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
> some idiot in the company that owns the
> bridges thinks they can make some money
> out of the photography rights.
The bridge isn't owned by a corporation; it's owned by New York City
and operated by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority.
A number of New York bridges have signs prohibiting photography, and I
believe officials have said that it's due to security concerns after
9/11.
I agree that it seems pointless since so many photos are already
available via Google.
James
> some idiot in the company that owns the
> bridges thinks they can make some money
> out of the photography rights.
The bridge isn't owned by a corporation; it's owned by New York City
and operated by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority.
A number of New York bridges have signs prohibiting photography, and I
believe officials have said that it's due to security concerns after
9/11.
I agree that it seems pointless since so many photos are already
available via Google.
James
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
In article <fMFBFMQld6ZIFAhu@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>Long time ago before google Earth and many similar systems the only
>people in the 1960's to mid 1990's who had access to satellite
>photography were a few governments.
>
>Prior to 1960 no one had satellite maps.
No, not really.
Go find a US Yellow-Pages(tm) and look up "Aerial Surveys" or
"Surveys/Surveying".
It's how topographic maps are made.
Satellites in large part aren't used to make maps.
>So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
>been by photography
>
>Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
Well Baden-Powell, who founded the Boy Scouts had examples of maps
sketched as patterns on what appeared to be butterflies.
>It was the only way of gathering information. Spys did use cameras a lot
>for gathering information. Pre internet days it took a lot of work to
>get information on places bridges.
>
>Bridges and railways were (and still are) vulnerable points and quite
>strategic. Looking at a good photo will tell a demolition's expert how
>to blow it up. How much it can carry, the clearances under/over the
>line or road etc
>
>Therefore photographing government/military buildings etc railways and
>bridges. (latterly telephone exchanges) tended to be deemed "important"
>and had a no photography law in many countries.
>
>Some still hold on to this in the mistaken belief that it can still help
>the enemy. However the enemy are not going to play by your rules anyway
>so it is pointless putting up signs anyway..
Ask in Iraq.
The above is laden with a mix os truth and partial truth and BS.
>However thank to google Earth (MS earth?) street-map, multi-map et all I
MS TerraServer {I have the golf shirt}
>can in seconds get high ress pictures of most places of a quality that
>the government spy services could only dream of 30 years ago.
Google is merely an index to preexisting commercial source matter
(marginal quality at that).
>Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
>put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
8^)
>The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
>bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
Ask Bill Gates about his share of stock photo companies.
>\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
Ah Ordinance Survey mapping country eh.
Things are different in the USA.
--
In article <fMFBFMQld6ZIFAhu@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>Long time ago before google Earth and many similar systems the only
>people in the 1960's to mid 1990's who had access to satellite
>photography were a few governments.
>
>Prior to 1960 no one had satellite maps.
No, not really.
Go find a US Yellow-Pages(tm) and look up "Aerial Surveys" or
"Surveys/Surveying".
It's how topographic maps are made.
Satellites in large part aren't used to make maps.
>So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
>been by photography
>
>Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
Well Baden-Powell, who founded the Boy Scouts had examples of maps
sketched as patterns on what appeared to be butterflies.
>It was the only way of gathering information. Spys did use cameras a lot
>for gathering information. Pre internet days it took a lot of work to
>get information on places bridges.
>
>Bridges and railways were (and still are) vulnerable points and quite
>strategic. Looking at a good photo will tell a demolition's expert how
>to blow it up. How much it can carry, the clearances under/over the
>line or road etc
>
>Therefore photographing government/military buildings etc railways and
>bridges. (latterly telephone exchanges) tended to be deemed "important"
>and had a no photography law in many countries.
>
>Some still hold on to this in the mistaken belief that it can still help
>the enemy. However the enemy are not going to play by your rules anyway
>so it is pointless putting up signs anyway..
Ask in Iraq.
The above is laden with a mix os truth and partial truth and BS.
>However thank to google Earth (MS earth?) street-map, multi-map et all I
MS TerraServer {I have the golf shirt}
>can in seconds get high ress pictures of most places of a quality that
>the government spy services could only dream of 30 years ago.
Google is merely an index to preexisting commercial source matter
(marginal quality at that).
>Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
>put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
8^)
>The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
>bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
Ask Bill Gates about his share of stock photo companies.
>\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
Ah Ordinance Survey mapping country eh.
Things are different in the USA.
--
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
In message <48697ac5$1@darkstar>, Eugene Miya <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu>
writes
>In article <fMFBFMQld6ZIFAhu@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>Long time ago before google Earth and many similar systems the only
>>people in the 1960's to mid 1990's who had access to satellite
>>photography were a few governments.
>>
>>Prior to 1960 no one had satellite maps.
>
>No, not really.
>
>Go find a US Yellow-Pages(tm) and look up "Aerial Surveys" or
>"Surveys/Surveying".
>It's how topographic maps are made.
>Satellites in large part aren't used to make maps.
Fair enough. Though it does mean flying over some one else's air space.
>>Some still hold on to this in the mistaken belief that it can still help
>>the enemy. However the enemy are not going to play by your rules anyway
>>so it is pointless putting up signs anyway..
>
>Ask in Iraq.
I have.
>>can in seconds get high ress pictures of most places of a quality that
>>the government spy services could only dream of 30 years ago.
>
>Google is merely an index to preexisting commercial source matter
>(marginal quality at that).
And that changes what I have said? I said google, streetmap, multi map
and others several times. I just wrote google because it is pointless
writing the list every time
>Ah Ordinance Survey mapping country eh.
>Things are different in the USA.
Every thing is different in the USA. (usually from the rest of the
world)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
In message <48697ac5$1@darkstar>, Eugene Miya <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu>
writes
>In article <fMFBFMQld6ZIFAhu@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>Long time ago before google Earth and many similar systems the only
>>people in the 1960's to mid 1990's who had access to satellite
>>photography were a few governments.
>>
>>Prior to 1960 no one had satellite maps.
>
>No, not really.
>
>Go find a US Yellow-Pages(tm) and look up "Aerial Surveys" or
>"Surveys/Surveying".
>It's how topographic maps are made.
>Satellites in large part aren't used to make maps.
Fair enough. Though it does mean flying over some one else's air space.
>>Some still hold on to this in the mistaken belief that it can still help
>>the enemy. However the enemy are not going to play by your rules anyway
>>so it is pointless putting up signs anyway..
>
>Ask in Iraq.
I have.
>>can in seconds get high ress pictures of most places of a quality that
>>the government spy services could only dream of 30 years ago.
>
>Google is merely an index to preexisting commercial source matter
>(marginal quality at that).
And that changes what I have said? I said google, streetmap, multi map
and others several times. I just wrote google because it is pointless
writing the list every time
>Ah Ordinance Survey mapping country eh.
>Things are different in the USA.
Every thing is different in the USA. (usually from the rest of the
world)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
In article <WuZjNbDZhcaIFAaf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>In message <48697ac5$1@darkstar>, Eugene Miya <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu>
>writes
>>In article <fMFBFMQld6ZIFAhu@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
>>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>Long time ago before google Earth and many similar systems the only
>>>people in the 1960's to mid 1990's who had access to satellite
>>>photography were a few governments.
>>>
>>>Prior to 1960 no one had satellite maps.
>>
>>No, not really.
>>
>>Go find a US Yellow-Pages(tm) and look up "Aerial Surveys" or
>>"Surveys/Surveying".
>>It's how topographic maps are made.
>>Satellites in large part aren't used to make maps.
>
>Fair enough. Though it does mean flying over some one else's air space.
Find "Eisenhower 'Open Skies'". The idea goes back decades.
Every country has cartographic interests. Every country has to learn to
balance its civilian needs from its military needs.
>>>Some still hold on to this in the mistaken belief that it can still help
>>>the enemy. However the enemy are not going to play by your rules anyway
>>>so it is pointless putting up signs anyway..
>>
>>Ask in Iraq.
>
>I have.
Then you should realize as Google has pointed out that all these sources
already exist independent of them. The risks exist else where on the
net and if you are really concern, security through obscurity isn't
going to help you.
>>>can in seconds get high ress pictures of most places of a quality that
>>>the government spy services could only dream of 30 years ago.
>>
>>Google is merely an index to preexisting commercial source matter
>>(marginal quality at that).
>
>And that changes what I have said? I said google, streetmap, multi map
>and others several times. I just wrote google because it is pointless
>writing the list every time
Having data vs. pointing to data:
The people who point are less invested in data quality than the people
who stewart that data. When you have data, you can cut it off.
If you want to turn every country into military states, close and
compartmentalize data and information, shut down libraries because they
have books on basic chemistry which write about poisons, explosives,
economic manufacturing processes, etc., then you can express your
Orwellian opinions.
>>Ah Ordinance Survey mapping country eh.
>>Things are different in the USA.
>
>Every thing is different in the USA. (usually from the rest of the
>world)
Yep.
--
In article <WuZjNbDZhcaIFAaf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>In message <48697ac5$1@darkstar>, Eugene Miya <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu>
>writes
>>In article <fMFBFMQld6ZIFAhu@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
>>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>Long time ago before google Earth and many similar systems the only
>>>people in the 1960's to mid 1990's who had access to satellite
>>>photography were a few governments.
>>>
>>>Prior to 1960 no one had satellite maps.
>>
>>No, not really.
>>
>>Go find a US Yellow-Pages(tm) and look up "Aerial Surveys" or
>>"Surveys/Surveying".
>>It's how topographic maps are made.
>>Satellites in large part aren't used to make maps.
>
>Fair enough. Though it does mean flying over some one else's air space.
Find "Eisenhower 'Open Skies'". The idea goes back decades.
Every country has cartographic interests. Every country has to learn to
balance its civilian needs from its military needs.
>>>Some still hold on to this in the mistaken belief that it can still help
>>>the enemy. However the enemy are not going to play by your rules anyway
>>>so it is pointless putting up signs anyway..
>>
>>Ask in Iraq.
>
>I have.
Then you should realize as Google has pointed out that all these sources
already exist independent of them. The risks exist else where on the
net and if you are really concern, security through obscurity isn't
going to help you.
>>>can in seconds get high ress pictures of most places of a quality that
>>>the government spy services could only dream of 30 years ago.
>>
>>Google is merely an index to preexisting commercial source matter
>>(marginal quality at that).
>
>And that changes what I have said? I said google, streetmap, multi map
>and others several times. I just wrote google because it is pointless
>writing the list every time
Having data vs. pointing to data:
The people who point are less invested in data quality than the people
who stewart that data. When you have data, you can cut it off.
If you want to turn every country into military states, close and
compartmentalize data and information, shut down libraries because they
have books on basic chemistry which write about poisons, explosives,
economic manufacturing processes, etc., then you can express your
Orwellian opinions.
>>Ah Ordinance Survey mapping country eh.
>>Things are different in the USA.
>
>Every thing is different in the USA. (usually from the rest of the
>world)
Yep.
--
Next: Cruise Opportunities
Previous: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?SG90IG1hbmdhcxskQiEnGyhCTmFydXRvIDQwNiwgT25lIFBpZWNlIDUwNSw...
