bdo
Loc: Colorado
Just another anti-freedon act...............
no different than going to a concert or most sporting events...
Nothing political involved - just common sense security as an SLR may contain something nefarious, can be swung from its strap and is heavy enough to be a threat, and a large telephoto lens just compounds these concerns.
Yes they can be inspected to make sure it is just a camera, but this poses a delay and does not address the "weight on a cord" weapon potential.
It makes sense, albeit frustratingly so.
bdo
Loc: Colorado
Festina Lente wrote:
Nothing political involved - just common sense security as an SLR may contain something nefarious, can be swung from its strap and is heavy enough to be a threat, and a large telephoto lens just compounds these concerns.
Yes they can be inspected to make sure it is just a camera, but this poses a delay and does not address the "weight on a cord" weapon potential.
It makes sense, albeit frustratingly so.
quote=bdo From our local newspaper, regarding a v... (
show quote)
I'm not a concert-goer (slightly claustrophobic, and don't like large crowds), so I was not aware that this was common policy at large events, not just POTUS security.
I suppose it is just a reflection of the world we live in now... Still, it surprised me that even SLRs were banned.
donrent wrote:
Just another anti-freedon act...............
Seems kind of restrictive and makes me think
"What's he afraid of ? "
Guess my Nikon and Canon would be considered a threat because of the telephoto lenghts
:thumbdown: :twisted: :thumbdown:
Maybe the secret service is worried that someone with a huge Sigma 150-500mm lens might actually be concealing a bazooka or grenade launcher inside it.
They do this at concerts because the people we pay to see perform and their agents want to have total control of all images of the performers. They want all the money from possible sales. It has nothing to do with security!
As for the POTUS, ths was set up a couple of years ago for supposed security reasons. Can someone actually recall a case at a Presidental address in which a camera was a security threat? The real fact is, all our politicians are afraid of the very people that pay their checks!
There was a discussion here a month ago about cameras at ball games - same rules applied. In this case, it's probably both federal and campus rules. How would you like to be the head of a university when a public figure was assassinated?
Standard fare from the Secret. Members of the news media that have been pre-screened will be allowed to use long lens from a stand. The university is simply following requests from the Secret Service. I have encountered similar actions in the past. One hint: No jokes. The agents are trained not to have a sense of humor.
Laws are strange. I saw this on TV news, so I know it happened. Obama was speaking somewhere, I believe after he was elected President, rather than campaigning, and dozens of people were listening to him while carrying rifles. It was their Constitutional right, so the Secret Service let them stay. At the other extreme, George Bush appeared at a mall somewhere, and the SS made a man leave because he was wearing an anti-war T-shirt. Go figure.
I did a career in television news / sports as a videographer and having done three presidential visits in different parts of the country it has nothing to do with freedom or politics.
This, for many reasons that you can guess, is the most highly protected president this country has ever seen. The SS will make all the rules they want to protect POTUS, even if it's about cameras. In fact, they could have said no cameras at all but generally they won't do that.
What they will do however is keep any long lenses out because there's so many ways to cover a weapon and, for obvious reasons, they have the call on what will be allowed and what won't.
Good luck anyway.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.