At London trainstations, police asks you to notify them if you're a train spotter. That way they won't bother you (unless you start taking pictures of the infrastructure instead of trains) and you can help them reporting suspicious behaviour (as someone waiting for trains most of the time).
It's all about communication. If people see the police as their partner, they'll be happy to help them do their job (at least in the UK).
> If people see the police as their partner, they'll be happy to help them do their job (at least in the UK).
Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago when the police stopped treating the community as their partner and started treating people with suspicion by default.
I don’t think it’s fair to make a blanket statement like that, at least in the US where the local police system is hyper-fragmented. There more police-community relationships than there are police + communities, so there’s a ton of variation.
Annecdote: I’m very happy with the local police in my community.
There are of course correlations and general trends that can be observed. In recent years there’s been a lot of attention on the disproportionate rate of police shootings involving racial minorities. That’s a problem. But it’s not an all police departments by all communities by all times problem.
>At London trainstations, police asks you to notify them if you're a train spotter
Isn't this solved fairly easily?
"Whatcha upto mate?"
"Photographing the trains. I like trains"
"Oh one of those. Off I go!"
I don't know how that interaction would go in the UK, but I think in the states it would start fairly aggressively (demanding ID/barking orders), which in turn makes people who like to photograph infrastructure for artistic reasons dig their heels in, say they have a right to photograph in public, and refuse additional questions.
In Japan, I took photographs of trains, buses, railway lines with no one on them, and the police just ignored me or smiled and gave me a thumbs up.
Interestingly, if I had to rate the approachability of cops, I'd put Japan > UK >> USA. And tbh, that's far down the list. In America, you try to avoid the police, even if you're law abiding. In the UK, you might have a chat.
After the morons started driving vans into crowds and attacking them with knives they stepped up armed officer patrols at busy times in my local city center.
My stepson was frightened as he'd never seen anyone wandering around with a gun before so I took him over and said hello and he was asking the copper all the awkward questions a young kid would :).
After that he started waving at them (and they have always waved back).
It's sad we have to have heavily armed officers on foot patrol but by and large they are damn good at their job.
Also the criteria for been an armed officer is quite strict, you have to be a full officer after probation (2 years) and a volunteer and physically fit then you get extra training.
If you do have to shoot someone you are automatically took out the field until the IPCC has gone over it in detail.
It's not perfect, nothing human is but it's a good balance.
The police and the citizenry have massively different relationships in the UK and US. UK police appear to be far more trusted and liked by their citizens than American ones are.
Also, they appear to shoot their citizens less often, which probably helps.
Being a cop is a much more dangerous job than being a programmer, but it’s far from the most dangerous job around. Bartenders (1.6x), taxi drivers (1.7x), landscapers (1.5x), miners (2.6x), roofers (4x), fishers (7x), and loggers (9x) are all more likely to die on the job than cops, and none of these professions have developed the siege mentality that cops have.
Furthermore, the public image of patrol officer death typically involves violent shootouts with criminals, but in reality death by homicide only accounts for about half of patrol officer deaths, with death by automobile making up the rest. For 2013 10.8 officers died per 100,000, with 49% dying by car accident, 45% by homicide, and 6% by other causes.
This pales in comparison to the homicide rate for pregnant women, with up to 10.5 women being murdered per 100,000[0]. This means that a pregnant woman is as likely to be murdered as a cop is likely to die on the job from all causes, and said pregnant woman is twice as likely to be murdered than any cop.
I'm not sure that not being armed is that much different. Even if armed, if the principles behind the force are well set and you trust (based on facts and experiences) that that weapon will not leave the holster without need, it makes very little difference.
Just to give an example, I live in Serbia and policemen are armed. Police is far from clean, corruption is present as everywhere and there are obvious ties between crime and police. However, when it comes to the small guy, on the streets, on public events or encounters with an officer I can't say you should be cocerned with your own safety. Sometimes they are armed with rifles, when riskier events take place. Sometimes they are not the most pleasant. But I don't remember the last time I heard an officer discharge a weapon. Funny as it may seem, nobody wants dead bodies in his career. Pieceful de-escalation is a usual crisis outcome. There are a lot of veterans, PTSD sufferers and desperate people around here. Just think of the madness if police charges everywhere guns blazing... This went off topic...
Well the US citizens also carry guns a lot more often than the UK citizens.
So there’s your answer. But then constitutional rights yada yada. Just the idea that the other party had a deadly weapon, escalates things really fast.
In many countries the advice is not to photograph infrastructure (bridges, dams, etc.), as it is illegal.
Examples:
> Photography: Taking photographs of UAE military facilities, sensitive civilian sites, airports, some beaches, or foreign diplomatic missions – including the U.S. Embassy or Consulate General – may result in arrest, detention, and/or prosecution by local authorities. Travelers should be aware of signs which indicate where photography is prohibited. Note that it is illegal to take photographs of other people without their consent. In addition, engaging in mapping activities, especially mapping that includes the use of GPS equipment, without coordination with UAE authorities, may have the same consequences.
> Photography: Photographing military installations is forbidden. Individuals have been detained and/or had their cameras and film confiscated for taking pictures of hospitals, schools, bridges, industrial sites, and airports. Sites where photography is prohibited are not always marked.
After the 2005 bombings in London, which targeted public transport networks and the people on them, the security services are understandably concerned about similar attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
It’s why we can’t have good things. Someone will abuse the privilege.
Just earlier we had a post about people pulling the emergency brakes on NYC subway cars. For decades it was fine. Suddenly people are causing some chaos.
That’s about it. People will exploit weaknesses and we all lose.
In the article I read, the suspect exited the carriage and went down an employees only tunnel. Those sorts of tunnels seem like a place it's OK to put CCTV, since the general public doesn't even use them.
My city has a beautiful courthouse. You'll be detained and questioned for taking pictures of it. It's not technically illegal, but they'll ruin your day, strongly discouraging you from doing it again.
Terrorist are usually not devious smooth talkers like in the movies. Most will be too nervous to talk to the police naturally, or too frightened to attract police attention by self-reporting their activities, etc. That's the reason why one of the backbones of Israel flight security is just a brief chat with the passengers. In real life, there's no rehearsal, and no director to order a second take if you fail to play it cool.
There's lots of nervous/stressed looking people in airports, at least here in the US. How does the natural state of being stressed/tired from travel or being nervous about dealing with the horrendous TSA/CBP allow an officer to reliably distinguish regular citizens from terrorists?
Some people are naturally anxious/nervous in public and a place like airports with TSA agents strip searching you and ordering you around like cattle can appear to be "suspicious" behavior.
Israeli security isn't like TSA. Everyone gets a short interview with a professional (not some minimum wage worker) where obvious red flags are spotted like a story that sounds rehearsed. If you pass you are assigned a security level based on the interview and other factors that affects how thoroughly you are checked in the remaining procedure.
We found a compromise in our city where plane spotters register with the local police and can be in certain areas outside the airport boundaries.
The program labels itself an "Airport Watch" like a community watch but, really, it's just so everyone is less suspicious of each other. But I suppose if we actually saw something odd we would phone it in between swapping our lenses.
Those sorts of schemes alao exist in the UK even though it's prefectly legal to spot from public land outside an airport.
But there is a disturbing flipside to such groups; I was once 'questioned' by police outside London Gatwick because some members of London Airport Watch had reported me due to my 'Irish' accent. But they gave the impression that such reports were more to harrass and deter non-local enthusiasts. You'd think that airline enthusiasts of all people would be open and inclusive, but sadly not.
I've encountered the same thing. I'm standing on public ground but was continually asked why I didn't join the program. I eventually bought the lanyard so they would leave me alone.
I think it's more about some random outsider going somewhere they shouldn't and wrecking the program for the ones that want it to stay around. It's self-protection.
Ironically it's probably good to have these folks around. If someone breached the perimeter, they might be the ones to raise the alarm - you can't patrol the entire fence.
I knew people who did urban exploration in undergrad, and there were a few times they picked up a payphone to alert about things like water leaks, termites, or when they once ran into someone they suspected was burgling.
Smart institutions know that respecting harmless folks can pay dividends.
It doesn't matter how real a risk it is. It's "suspicious" and that's plenty enough cause to harass people in the post-9/11 security theatre. Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM, and [almost] nobody ever got fired for being "too cautious".
At this point my baseline assumption is that anything that receives TSA attention is not a real risk. What this is is a concrete thing that they can point to to justify their existence, even if the thing isn't a real threat and shouldn't actually help to justify their existence.
> you know he's a terrorist because he is pointing a telephoto lens at an airplane
I picked up my brother at SFO a few years ago, and walked around outside the airport terminal building to get a good view of the runway and take a picture of the Lufthansa A380 my brother was landing in, when an SUV pulled up with security and asked me what I was doing and told me to go away. Not a restricted area or anything. Maybe I got the benefit of the doubt (not being detained and all) because I just had a smartphone, no telephoto lens.
You can't expect logic from people all the time. Why both making it restricted area if they can have some schmuck in a SUV pull up every time someone enters?
Shady people do wear hoodies. Sometimes non-shady people do, too. But imagine you're a convenience store clerk, are you going to be more suspicious of the person with a hoodie or a person without, all else being equal?
Sometimes people wear hoodies just because they feel self-conscious or don't want to feel exposed or vulnerable. No coincidence that it's mostly teenagers and young people who wear hoodies. That's understandable. But it's also fair for people to be suspicious of people not willing to expose themselves to public scrutiny.
There's a correlation between diverse societies and smiling. Why? Because smiling is a compensatory signal in environments prone to heightened suspicion or stress. Hoodies disrupt this and other social signaling mechanisms. Humans evolved extremely expressive facial signaling mechanisms, afterall, many of which are subconscious.
This really goes to show that 90% of the state security operation is about expanding state power, harassing minorities and setting up a social construction of "good" behavior, and not actually improving public safety.
Thus the word "stereotypical" and the sarcasm quotes around "Arab/Muslim terrorist." That's what people think a terrorist looks like. Of course an actual terrorist would try to blend in as much as possible.
>Shady people do wear hoodies. Sometimes non-shady people do, too.
Hoodies in the UK are more of a class signifier than the US. Some people use them to hide from CCTV (usually young, poor people).
Interestingly I learned this stereotype when I went to go into pub, got told no hoodies, asked why, and then was told oh never mind when they heard my American accent.
I wish hoodies were more accepted for not so young people because they warm my sensitive ears and you can't lose 'em. The latter is very hard on a long enough travel :/
I'm 40+ and I wear hoodies for the same reason as OP - my ears are sensitive to cold, as is the rest of my neck and head. If the temperature starts with a 6 or less, I look like Kenny from South Park while walking down the street. I also work in an office, but I never post on HN, especially while at work. ;-)
Or, you know, it's cold out and the hood keeps their head warm. The fact that there's a great debate over wearing hoodies in a comment section on 'hacker' 'news' for an article about Canadian airports accomidating people taking photos of planes is mildly entertaining though.
Hardly conclusive, but I think the general principle that hoodies disrupt facial signaling and identification is hard to dispute. Also I think it's self-evident that disruption and anonymity is a primary reason (absent weather) they're worn in the first place. That doesn't imply nefarious motivations, but it does correlate with some kinds of nefarious behavior.
Walking into a bank with a ski mask/balaclava isn't a great idea, even if you just came off the slopes. Why deny that? Same basic logic applies to hoodies, notwithstanding that they're much more common and give less reason to be suspicious in most circumstances. That doesn't mean they don't warrant any heightened suspicion whatsoever.
None of this justifies accosting and shooting unarmed people, especially unarmed children, any place. OTOH, telling people, especially kids, that there's nothing wrong with hoodies whatsoever sends the wrong signals about how people should socially engage in their communities and in public; it excuses withdrawal.
Even though I live in California where almost nobody takes off their hat when walking indoors, I've taught my 4-year-old kid to do so and he does so instinctively. (I grew up in the Deep South where it was expected, though I never actually wore hats as a kid.) I did this not because I think anybody else cares or because it intrinsically matters, but because it helps teach him to be comfortably conscientious about how he presents himself in different contexts. I also discourage him from using the hood of a hoodie unless he has good reason to; especially for kids the act of wearing the hood is an act of withdrawal, which is not a good habit to get into, especially in American culture. He won't grow up poor like I did so none of this may ever matter for him--he'll likely always travel in privileged circles. But that's not guaranteed. These life skills might prove to be useful some day.
They built a little hill so spotters can overlook the runway and fences from a higher position. There‘s also an old MI-8 next to it that was converted to a snack bar, it‘s pretty sweet to hang out for the day.
Yeah, I don't know. Krakow had one huge observation deck, now it's all gone and there isn't a single area of the airport which would have the view of the runway(not without going through security first).
Not a new idea, Tokyo Narita has had holes, benches, vending machines etc for ages https://www.narita-airport.jp/en/fun/view/ The only thing they could possibly do more are cabins for the cold in winter. Still low cost and makes the airport's position on photography clear, friendly...
I was just thinking about Narita and then I saw your post come up. I've spent a lot of time there, I used to fly through Narita and I had to wait six or seven hours for my next flight. My body was at night time biologically, and after a long flight it was a very hard wait. Until the time I found that open air view deck. Fresh air, daylight, all of it made it easier. And I noticed the photo-friendly fence too. Gave me something to do.
In my hometown we actually put a park on airport property with a great view of both of our runways. It has a raised "tower" that streams a live feed of the local ATC. Benches, picnic tables, shaded areas, it's honestly one of my favorite spots locally.
Also an example of design for safety or prevention through design. It is much easier for them to monitor 10 whitelisted spots and mark everything else as a blacklist.
Actually the design of the fence is wrong, every gap should be big enough for a camera lens. If they don't want people in some areas they need a solid wall or dense vegetation.
A few decades ago someone decided chain link fences should be at a 2" hole size which worked well for keeping tennis and other balls going astray. In other applications they just use the standard stuff. Nobody had cameras in 1941 or whenever it was this fencing became popular, so 2" holes have persisted, QWERTY style.
You would need a different machine for making a 10cm hole size but it would be cheaper.
True, that is probably the reason why 2" is the hole size. It has been a while since I have bypassed a fence and it would be negligent to have something that worked as good as a ladder!
Normally you find an area that can be lifted up and you can expect barbed wire at the top, climbing is out the question though.
I would go for the bigger holes if it was my fence just so people don't vandalise it by lifting it or cutting the wire.
> What gave you the idea that other places would not be allowed anymore?
Well, that's similar to crowd control. They can't block other areas. But there will be less traffic and different monitoring and control requirements for those areas.
> How would safety be impaired by photographers outside fences?
You could use photography as a good cover to do other stuff. For instance, controlling an amateur drone or collecting intel for airport robbery.
I assume it would make sense to monitor activities around the airport fences.
I wish more airports embraced planespotting! I enjoy planespotting at SFO regularly- I go to Bayfront park and get decent views of traffic departing/arriving the 28s (longest runways).
The best is Frankfurt, where you can actually go out onto the roof of the terminal without needing a ticket. It costs a small fee and you need to pass through a metal detector, but it beats sitting in a parking lot trying to get a view of the traffic.
At Pearson (Toronto) there is a bike trail that goes through multiple layers of barbed wire fences, and right by the end of some runways. I estimate you are within 50 feet of the landing planes (straight underneath them).
It doesn't have a great view other then that really, but I think that's a pretty cool unique view.
Additionally, the Autobahn is next to the airport, and planespotters also occupy the dirt just beside that.
And since the main approach is from the east, you have kilometers of fields with small dirt paths in that direction where you can watch airplanes very low and directly overhead.
The best is a house near an airport. I just look out my back window. So far the interesting ones have been the An-225, the Piaggio P.180 Avanti, the E-4B, the F-35A, the F-22, the V-22, the CH-47, the A-10, the B-25, the B-2, powered parachutes, Air Force One, Trump Force One, and all the teen series fighters. We didn't see it fly, but the YAL-1 also seems to have visited.
When I lived in previous houses: the Goodyear blimp, the Space Shuttle (up and down)
I bet you never get the Space Shuttle in Frankfurt.
Isn't that brutally loud? I used to have relatives living in the flight path of Frankfurt airport and for a little while it was fun to watch the planes but the noise got old very quickly.
The Goodyear blimp was a weird buzzing noise, not that loud.
The Space Shuttle launch was at some distance, otherwise the brutally loud noise would have killed me by ripping my internal organs loose. I had about 30 miles of safety margin, giving a house-shaking rumble. Landings were quiet except for a BOOM BOOM as the shockwave passed over. That would rattle the windows.
The An-225's six engines got me running to the window, though more for the oddity of the sound. At the time, that was the world's largest operational aircraft.
The V-22 is another one that sounds really weird, but it isn't actually loud.
All the fighter jets are loud. We get lots of them for about 3 days per year, during an airshow. Four or even six of the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds making a turn around my house is quite noisy. Otherwise, the rare fighter jet flies through maybe once or twice a year.
The most awful noise was actually not on my list, because it isn't interesting. Delta likes to fly a decently large jet (probably 737-NG, 717, MD-80, or MD-90) at around 6:55 AM.
Go to flightaware if you want to figure out the plane type.
https://flightaware.com/live/airport/KBOS (for Boston; replace with your local airport) and you can see the scheduled IFR departures listed, with their abbreviated callsigns and aircraft type.
> The An-225's six engines got me running to the window, though more for the oddity of the sound. At the time, that was the world's largest operational aircraft.
So jealous. I'd love to see one of these things in the metal, let alone see / hear it taking off and landing.
I'm about 2.8 miles (4.5 km) off the end of the runway, and about 1000 feet (300 m) off the centerline. Arrivals usually have gear down, while departures usually do not.
I saw the An-225 departing. I heard it, felt that the sound wasn't typical, and ran to the window. I spotted the six engines and the distinctive H-tail just in time. That was a jolt. I see that and, well, there can be only one plane. It's that one, unique in the world.
It turns out that my local airport (MLB) sometimes does maintenance for the An-225. I'm not sure why this would be done in the USA at all, but we do have a 10,000-foot runway and huge hangars that I suspect were built for the Convair B-36 Peacemaker. The An-225 has probably been here more times than I know. Maybe I could see it often if there were some way to get notified in advance. Maybe there is even a predictable schedule.
I live right next to Bruntingthorpe in the UK, which was a WWII and cold war airbase. They have shows there a few times per year where they fire up the old jets and blast them up and down the runway. Very cool.
Anyway, until recently the last airworthy Vulcan bomber would fly very low over our house when these shows were taking place. Ridiculously loud thing and absolutely awe-inspiring. Sadly it's not flying anymore due to lack of spares and too many accumulated hours on the airframe.
Pretty much. The demo team requires a runway that is 7,000 by 75 feet. They also demand single-wheel weight bearing of 65,000 pounds, parking spaces that are 75 feet wide, security fencing, and various other junk like hotels and a gym. I'm sure they'd settle for less in an emergency, perhaps even a wide highway.
I don't think it is all that much compared to the Boeing VC-25 (with Trump) or Antonov An-225 Mriya, both of which landed at the airport.
Have you tried from the top of the San Mateo BART parking structure? The BART structure has a killer view straight up Runway 1. I am no planespotter, but I used to wander up there just to enjoy the view and clear my head.
Minneapolis (MSP) has a decent viewing area. No holes in the fence, but most spotters just stand on the tables or benches. The location is the best part since it is essentially in the center of the airfield.
I recently discovered jetphotos.com and I have to wonder if airports doing things like this help that and similar sites due to convenient positioning, or if it makes all the photos 'the same' and thus quickly loses most of it's usefulness?
Not a plane spotter myself... My 18-55mm Nikon lense can barely see straight.
We don't have holes at ours (BNE/YBBN) but there is an area with free car parking and a concrete pad on a raised area where you get a pretty good view, and can put a ladder to get an unobstructed view. If there's a really interesting aircraft movement you often get six or seven people with ladders and a whole bunch of others around.
Don't let our planes get into the wrong hands. If you question it, report it. Call local law enforcement. Report to your airport manager.
And you know he's a terrorist because he is pointing a telephoto lens at an airplane!