Guess I won't be going to New York

[Newc]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/nyregion/29camera.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It's all about the Bennies.

[Joe_Steeler]

Wtf!!

[shobet]

HAHAHA pure fucking comedy, which bright bureaucrat came up with this gem? Looking to justify his job I assume.

People should stand up to shit like this.

[Newc]

Well, apparently a public meeting was held, but no one came.

I'm also assuming it wasn't highly publicized, especially so that those who would be affected would attend.

[shreddermon]

It's not about the bennies, and your average tourist will have nothing to worry about. What's not being said is the real reason for the new rules: they were written broadly as an anti-terrorism effort, in response to prior scumbag terrorist wanna-bes who were filming NYC landmarks for possible attack plans. i.e., The rules now allow NYC cops to be able to rope in suspicious filming activities, and have broad lattitutde for whom they choose to enforce it on. You'll never get a NYC official to admit to this, though, as it essentially amounts to giving cops the ability to "profile" whomever they think looks like a terrorist. As long as it's reasonably enforced (i.e., almost never, except when cops really suspect something), more power to it.

[Newc]

Well, seeing as how you can just put it on CNN and get the info straight from them such as security levels, weaknesses, how many tons of explosives it would take, as well as Google Earth photos, what's the harm in filming?

[danastas]

It's not about the bennies, and your average tourist will have nothing to worry about. What's not being said is the real reason for the new rules: they were written broadly as an anti-terrorism effort, in response to prior scumbag terrorist wanna-bes who were filming NYC landmarks for possible attack plans. i.e., The rules now allow NYC cops to be able to rope in suspicious filming activities, and have broad lattitutde for whom they choose to enforce it on. You'll never get a NYC official to admit to this, though, as it essentially amounts to giving cops the ability to "profile" whomever they think looks like a terrorist. As long as it's reasonably enforced (i.e., almost never, except when cops really suspect something), more power to it.

But then legitimate filmakers like the guy in the story were denied permits for filming. I mean, if you're a terrorist, are you going to apply for a specific permit? It does seem aimed at professional photographers and filmmakers. A terrorist would be well within the new rules because he wouldn't be filming for half and hour or hors beyond that. He'd try to seem as inconspicuous as possible.

[danastas]

I also wonder if a guy like Michael Moore filming an expose of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries would have had his permit allowed, especially when so much of Corporate America is headquartered in NYC. I say, NO.

[AK47]

It's not about the bennies, and your average tourist will have nothing to worry about. What's not being said is the real reason for the new rules: they were written broadly as an anti-terrorism effort, in response to prior scumbag terrorist wanna-bes who were filming NYC landmarks for possible attack plans. i.e., The rules now allow NYC cops to be able to rope in suspicious filming activities, and have broad lattitutde for whom they choose to enforce it on. You'll never get a NYC official to admit to this, though, as it essentially amounts to giving cops the ability to "profile" whomever they think looks like a terrorist. As long as it's reasonably enforced (i.e., almost never, except when cops really suspect something), more power to it.

If a cop is not "profiling" he is not doing his job...