Re: [Leica] FW: X-ray Film Question

[Dave Yoder <leica@home.com>]

Hi there Simon,

I don't think I was clear in the reason for my diatribe about press
difficulties. It was the ""I'm a
professional photographer so the rules don't apply to me."" that inflamed
me. I'd be happy if I got the privileges of the average citizen on many
occasions, much less special treatment. Sure, for many events the needs of
our jobs dictate that we have special access. However, I don't think I
personally know anyone who abuses that to the detriment of the general
public.

At LAX after asking for a hand inspection they've also done some kind of
chemical test on my equipment and film for what I presume is explosive
residue. There are reasonable alternatives to X-Ray. Even if they didn't
allow exceptions to the X-ray for carry-on stuff, there is still the
all-plastic handgun, or carry-on Semtec or a wide variety of weapons that
could rather easily be smuggled onto a jet. Universal strip-searches are
the best way to prevent such things but that's obviously considered too
much. I suggest that preserving irreplaceable film is also worthy of
alternative methods of inspection.


Dave Yoder


Simon Stevens wrote:

> Dave Yoder <leica@home.com> Wrote, (with heavy snipping):
>
> Simon,
>
> Nobody suggested photographers should be excempt from searches (not sure
> why you picked on the "professional" ones).
>
> Hi David,
>
> Unfortunately I did not save the post from the person who compared
> his/her job as a professional photographer, with the need therefore to
> protect the film, with the security guards need to protect the aircraft
> and its passengers lives. I think the argument was something like "You
> wouldn't want me no ask you not to use your wand, so why are you asking
> me to not use my lead lined bag?" If my memory of the comment is correct
> this argument does ask for special treatment for professional
> photographers in a literally life or death matter. Not exemption from
> the search, true, but still it would be an exemption from a normal part
> of security procedures. That's nice for the professionals, and I'm sure
> some amateur would use it if they could.
>
> My concern stems from the fact that apparently all it takes to get some
> kind of exemption from security rules is a convincing enough story.
> Anyone who travels ought to be concerned about that, whether the
> exception made is as minor as a photographer demanding that his property
> not be x-rayed, or as major as the guys in Duesseldorf who let me wander
> around supposedly secure parts of the airport with the loaded gun.. I am
> happy to read these post of people whose pleas were ignored - it sounds
> to me like security is doing what we pay them for.
>
> Now as for the police in the U.S. preventing photographic journalists
> from doing their legitimate job by preventing them access to press areas
> or the like for public events; that is a completely different ball of
> wax. Press freedom is vital. As long as we are always careful to strike
> the right balance with the rights and safety of the rest of society it
> should be respected.
>
> Finally, to all those who had to wade through a page or two of
> alphanumeric garbage (on top of my written garbage) after my last post.
> Please accept my apologies. Hopefully that won't happen again.
>
> Finally, finally: This has nothing to do with Leica - ooops!
>
> Simon Stevens
> Camera Craftsman
> (703) 548-7548
> http://www.camera-craftsman.com
>
> If you'll read the posts, many are critical of the lax security for
> safety reasons, not because it made it hard to get film through (lax
> security usually accomplishes the opposite). In fact, we who are
> concerned for the safety of our property (film) ASK to be inspected, not
> to be waved on through.
>
> Sometimes professional photographers get special access privileges, but
> very often not (writing from the U.S). Very often we are expelled from
> or restrained in areas that are otherwise open to the public, even
> though that's often against the law. I was arrested on the 4th of July
> (freedom day!) for photographing cops throwing kids to the ground in
> Huntington Beach just 'cause they didn't like what I was doing (press
> credentials were clearly displayed). Routinely I'm denied access by the
> cops to areas that are expressly accessible by the media according to
> California code, and when politely informed of the
> particular codes, the cops invariably say it's a gray area or file a
> complaint or something like that and ignore the laws.
> My point is, I've never known a respectable professional photographer
> who thought the rules don't apply to him. In reality, the rules don't
> seem to apply to those enforcing them.
>
> Dave Yoder
>
> Simon Stevens wrote:
>
> > Personally as an occasional flier who prefers some assurance of
> arriving in ONE piece, rather than several scattered pieces, or alive
> but via an unscheduled trip to Tripoli of other sunny locale, I'm quite
> happy to let them search as necessary.
> >
> > Despite the horror stories presented here, I have experienced some
> amazing lack of vigilance. In 1985 (one year after the Brighton Bomb) I
> was allowed past the barriers and into Downing street without being
> searched where I then stood about 15 feet from the Prime Minister and
> took pictures, often digging around inside a rather large camera bag
> that really could have held anything (even a Leica).  All it took was a
> letter and a phone call to the Press Office. Then as now, incidentally,
> I did not have a press pass.
> >
> > Even worse, security at Duesseldorf airport in 1994 allowed me to walk
> all over their airport, including through the checkpoints with a loaded,
> concealed, 9mm pistol. I was carrying the gun as part of my official
> duties in the US Army which is why I was there, but the alarming thing
> is that they never asked to see my permit or my identification, or even
> to look at the weapon - they just took me at my word that it was OK and
> official. This is why I'm happy to hear of security guards who actually
> do their jobs and who aren't swayed by sob stories of "I'm a
> professional photographer so the rules don't apply to me."
> >
> > My 2 cents!
> >
> > Simon Stevens
> > Camera Craftsman
> > (703) 548-7548
> > http://www.camera-craftsman.com
> >