General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKentucky Derby Bans Interchangeable Lens Cameras in Name of Security
In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, security is on the rise at most public events. Many of the new rules make some degree of sense, like banning coolers and purses larger than 12-inches, and increased electronic wand checks at gates to the venue. But one new regulation seems to make no sense at all. As reported by USA Today
While some cameras and phones with cameras will still be allowed, camcorders, tripods and other video equipment will be banned along with cameras that have detachable lenses or cameras equipped with lenses more than 6 inches.
That's right, no camcorders, no tripods, and no cameras that have detachable lenses. The Kentucky Derby website confirms this, along with grills, thermoses, duffel bags, wagons, and more.
Most of these bans are on objects that could either be used to carry an explosive device, would interfere with other patrons (like umbrellas) or that the Derby wants to control (like alcohol). So why in the world are cameras banned?
This seems particularly bizarre given that the reason why law enforcement officials were able to identify the suspects in the Boston Bombings so quickly was because of the huge number of cameras that recorded so much of what happened on that day.
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2013/04/kentucky-derby-bans-interchangeable-lens-cameras-name-security
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)As reuters and ap refuse to cover the derby with i-phones
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)In fact, I think the terrorists win when we come up with these idiotic, senseless rules. It is all an illusion.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm sure that explosives or whatever could be put inside a point-and-shoot if they could be placed in an SLR. This is nothing more than an attempt to make sure you don't get good shots at the Derby if you're not credentialed.
malaise
(268,724 posts)He asked a very legitimate question - why were the police watching the race and not the spectators?
That is standard procedure at international sporting events.
In reality people were off guard.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,158 posts)Well, that tears it for me. I always used to attend the Kentucky Derby (as I do at all sporting events) with my trusty Flexible Flyer strapped to my back.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)pushed? I don't like the message these restrictions are taking.
It's fine if most disagree with me...it's my honest opinion and
a hunch sense I've developed having lived on this planet as
long as I have.
I visited the Kentucky Derby website this afternoon. These
restrictions were posted on April 18th...3 days post bombings.
Sort of reminded me of the speedy appearance of the 1st
Patriot Act after 9/11. Hope the Derby committee at least
enjoyed themselves while coming up with the list with a
few mint juleps!
just imho.
edit: also on a local Louisville teevee interview I saw a Derby
official claiming that bringing in cameras would slow down the
"airport" like nature of entry to the 2013 Derby. Also noted that
anything conviscated would not be kept for later retrieval. Nice.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,158 posts)Last year I took a bus to Florida, since I didn't want to put up with their BS by flying there.
Guess who was waiting at the Orlando bus terminal, screening everyone who was going to Tampa/St. Petersburg?
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)check-in lanes, or whatever. People should be allowed to
take pics and bring a purse larger than 12 inches! IT's all
garbage. I think I'd take a qt. zip loc with 3 oz. shampoos
for them to wade through.
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)And America is sick.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)we're kept in a constant state of fear and panic. Naomi Klein
and her book, "The Shock Doctrine", comes to mind.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)damn chicken dinner in there.