Which Airport is this?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To I & B
the info you have been given is correct, it is a breach in relation to the appropriate act and code. Which I can't remember at the moment.
Rather than ask here and get all types of responces, why don't you give Defence PR a call they will give you the good goss.
As for removing the picture that is up to you, but I trust that you will make yourself aware of the consequences. I am not telling or sugesting that you remove it, but it would go along way toward a resonable expalanation IF the matter was followed up on. (which i doubt it would be)
" I am sorry, as soon as I became aware that the photo was of a restricted defence site I removed it, Sorry"
As for Google earth and the like (I am sure that lots of military and sceret types just hate that site), the picture is not of a restricted site. It is a picture of the earths surface, which just happens to be very big and contains some such areas as these, I am sure that the bigwigs would take action if they could or needed too. remember that the military has been dealing with satelite photography and spies in the sky for a long time, I think that they know how to hide things quite well.
PS just had a look at my old Alice Springs VTC, gess what there is pine gap clearly shown.
Defence are'nt stupid (mostly) they know its impossible to prevent photos and the such bieng taken of these sites. The rules are there as the big stick type deterent. BUT every now and then they pull out that big stick just to remind everone.
My sugestion to you, is that you have had your fun, now remove the photo and lets carry on with our lives.
richo
the info you have been given is correct, it is a breach in relation to the appropriate act and code. Which I can't remember at the moment.
Rather than ask here and get all types of responces, why don't you give Defence PR a call they will give you the good goss.
As for removing the picture that is up to you, but I trust that you will make yourself aware of the consequences. I am not telling or sugesting that you remove it, but it would go along way toward a resonable expalanation IF the matter was followed up on. (which i doubt it would be)
" I am sorry, as soon as I became aware that the photo was of a restricted defence site I removed it, Sorry"
As for Google earth and the like (I am sure that lots of military and sceret types just hate that site), the picture is not of a restricted site. It is a picture of the earths surface, which just happens to be very big and contains some such areas as these, I am sure that the bigwigs would take action if they could or needed too. remember that the military has been dealing with satelite photography and spies in the sky for a long time, I think that they know how to hide things quite well.
PS just had a look at my old Alice Springs VTC, gess what there is pine gap clearly shown.
Defence are'nt stupid (mostly) they know its impossible to prevent photos and the such bieng taken of these sites. The rules are there as the big stick type deterent. BUT every now and then they pull out that big stick just to remind everone.
My sugestion to you, is that you have had your fun, now remove the photo and lets carry on with our lives.
richo
Nunc est bibendum
Defence are'nt stupid (mostly)...
Thread Starter
Photo Removed
The purpose of the post was to find out which airport was in the photo and we have done that. To prevent any trouble the photo has been removed.
Ti&b
Ti&b
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence Act 1903
82 Sketching etc. of fortifications prohibited
(1) If:
(a) a person makes a sketch, drawing, photograph, picture or
painting of any defence installation in Australia or of any part
of one; and
(b) the person has no lawful authority to do so;
then:
(c) the person is guilty of an offence; and
(d) all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures, and paintings,
and all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching,
drawing, photographing or painting found in his or her
possession are forfeited and may be destroyed, sold, or
otherwise disposed of, as the Governor-General directs.
(1A) The maximum penalty for an offence under subsection (1) is a fine
of $200, imprisonment for 6 months, or both.
(2) If:
(a) a person enters or approaches any defence installation with
sketching, drawing, photographing, or painting materials or
apparatus in his or her possession; and
(b) the person has no lawful authority for that conduct; and
(c) the person intends to contravene subsection (1);
then:
(d) the person is guilty of an offence; and
(e) all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching,
drawing, photographing or painting found in his or her
possession are forfeited and may be destroyed, sold, or
otherwise disposed of, as the Governor-General directs.
(2A) The maximum penalty for an offence under subsection (2) is a fine
of $100.
(3) A person is guilty of an offence if the person trespasses on:
(a) a defence installation, or on any land reserved for or forming
part of one (whether or not any erection, fort, fortification, or
work of any kind is on the land); or
(b) a building or land reserved or set apart for or used in
connection with the administration, accommodation, or
training of any part of the Defence Force; or
(c) an aircraft.
Penalty: $40.
(4) Any member of the Defence Force, member or special member of
the Australian Federal Police or member of the Police Force of a
State, may, without warrant, arrest any person who he has
reasonable ground to believe has committed an offence against this
section, and take him before a Court of summary jurisdiction to be
dealt with according to law.
(5) In this section:
defence installation means any fort, battery, fieldwork,
fortification, aircraft, air force establishment or aircraft material or
any naval, military or air force work of defence.
You can't really say that this is a sign of the times, since it was written in 1903; thus the wording 'sketch, drawing etc' and the fines that aren't likely to send you bankrupt. Of course, the potentional for arrest and a criminal record (or 6 months jail) may offer some deterrent.
(1) If:
(a) a person makes a sketch, drawing, photograph, picture or
painting of any defence installation in Australia or of any part
of one; and
(b) the person has no lawful authority to do so;
then:
(c) the person is guilty of an offence; and
(d) all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures, and paintings,
and all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching,
drawing, photographing or painting found in his or her
possession are forfeited and may be destroyed, sold, or
otherwise disposed of, as the Governor-General directs.
(1A) The maximum penalty for an offence under subsection (1) is a fine
of $200, imprisonment for 6 months, or both.
(2) If:
(a) a person enters or approaches any defence installation with
sketching, drawing, photographing, or painting materials or
apparatus in his or her possession; and
(b) the person has no lawful authority for that conduct; and
(c) the person intends to contravene subsection (1);
then:
(d) the person is guilty of an offence; and
(e) all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching,
drawing, photographing or painting found in his or her
possession are forfeited and may be destroyed, sold, or
otherwise disposed of, as the Governor-General directs.
(2A) The maximum penalty for an offence under subsection (2) is a fine
of $100.
(3) A person is guilty of an offence if the person trespasses on:
(a) a defence installation, or on any land reserved for or forming
part of one (whether or not any erection, fort, fortification, or
work of any kind is on the land); or
(b) a building or land reserved or set apart for or used in
connection with the administration, accommodation, or
training of any part of the Defence Force; or
(c) an aircraft.
Penalty: $40.
(4) Any member of the Defence Force, member or special member of
the Australian Federal Police or member of the Police Force of a
State, may, without warrant, arrest any person who he has
reasonable ground to believe has committed an offence against this
section, and take him before a Court of summary jurisdiction to be
dealt with according to law.
(5) In this section:
defence installation means any fort, battery, fieldwork,
fortification, aircraft, air force establishment or aircraft material or
any naval, military or air force work of defence.
You can't really say that this is a sign of the times, since it was written in 1903; thus the wording 'sketch, drawing etc' and the fines that aren't likely to send you bankrupt. Of course, the potentional for arrest and a criminal record (or 6 months jail) may offer some deterrent.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
defence installation means any fort, battery, fieldwork,
fortification, aircraft, air force establishment or aircraft material or
any naval, military or air force work of defence.
fortification, aircraft, air force establishment or aircraft material or
any naval, military or air force work of defence.
Originally Posted by Richo
As for Google earth and the like (I am sure that lots of military and sceret types just hate that site), the picture is not of a restricted site. It is a picture of the earths surface, which just happens to be very big and contains some such areas as these, I am sure that the bigwigs would take action if they could or needed too. remember that the military has been dealing with satelite photography and spies in the sky for a long time, I think that they know how to hide things quite well.
PS just had a look at my old Alice Springs VTC, gess what there is pine gap clearly shown.
PS just had a look at my old Alice Springs VTC, gess what there is pine gap clearly shown.
The conspiracy theories on some of the web sites make good entertainment, though.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In a house!
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
our own area 51!
this is fantastic....suddenly through pprune we have created our own AREA 51!!!! awsome! i wonder if i will go to jail as a accessorie!!!
i should be quite i bet my house it bugged!!!!
im not taking the pi'zz' out of anyone! it is all preety sad really, i took a photo of of pine gap on my way to alice springs!!! im having second thoughts!!!
they obviously cant be too worried!!!!
i should be quite i bet my house it bugged!!!!
im not taking the pi'zz' out of anyone! it is all preety sad really, i took a photo of of pine gap on my way to alice springs!!! im having second thoughts!!!
they obviously cant be too worried!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Brian Abraham,
the section mentions 'lawful authority'. I'd suggest that, in the absence of anything expressly in some document related to airshows, that allowing zillions of punters onto a military installation would at least imply the giving of 'lawful authority'; the RAAF would have a hard time arguing that they didn't think that the place would be full of cameras. But then again, the RAAF is unlikely to have its latest gadgetry strapped under the wing at such shows if they were trying to keep it quiet.
But some clown hiding under a bush, snapping photos of movements at Riccy, who gets to see the noisy end of a german shepherd up close and its associated ADG, might have trouble pushing the same argument before a beak.
Likewise it'd be a bit hard to nail every person who's ever taken a photo on Sydney Harbour which happened to get Garden Island in the background.
But, that section of the Act is a starting point; a big-stick catch-all, as Richo points out.
If nothing else, it allows them to ping a rogue with something - eg. consider two people standing at Mrs Macquarie's chair, snapping photos of a visiting carrier at Garden Island. One is an innocent spotter; the other has a nastier plan in mind. Should the latter get raided at some point and such photos are found, then the boys in dark suits have a charge to start with; the act of taking the photos could then be seen as an act preparatory to other acts, etc thus stripping away any 'lawful purpose' defence.
We're lucky here that we can still take shots of other infrastructure assets eg. the Harbour Bridge. Can't do that in many parts of the world.
the section mentions 'lawful authority'. I'd suggest that, in the absence of anything expressly in some document related to airshows, that allowing zillions of punters onto a military installation would at least imply the giving of 'lawful authority'; the RAAF would have a hard time arguing that they didn't think that the place would be full of cameras. But then again, the RAAF is unlikely to have its latest gadgetry strapped under the wing at such shows if they were trying to keep it quiet.
But some clown hiding under a bush, snapping photos of movements at Riccy, who gets to see the noisy end of a german shepherd up close and its associated ADG, might have trouble pushing the same argument before a beak.
Likewise it'd be a bit hard to nail every person who's ever taken a photo on Sydney Harbour which happened to get Garden Island in the background.
But, that section of the Act is a starting point; a big-stick catch-all, as Richo points out.
If nothing else, it allows them to ping a rogue with something - eg. consider two people standing at Mrs Macquarie's chair, snapping photos of a visiting carrier at Garden Island. One is an innocent spotter; the other has a nastier plan in mind. Should the latter get raided at some point and such photos are found, then the boys in dark suits have a charge to start with; the act of taking the photos could then be seen as an act preparatory to other acts, etc thus stripping away any 'lawful purpose' defence.
We're lucky here that we can still take shots of other infrastructure assets eg. the Harbour Bridge. Can't do that in many parts of the world.
Many countries in what we would largely consider "third world" have prohibitions on photographing transport infrastructures. The following countries actually specify bridges.
http://www.smarttraveller.gov.au/zw-...ew/Advice/Peru
http://www.smarttraveller.gov.au/zw-...w/Advice/Sudan
http://www.smarttraveller.gov.au/zw-...ew/Advice/Peru
http://www.smarttraveller.gov.au/zw-...w/Advice/Sudan
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aaaargh Jeeeez it reminds me of the time when Flight International and Aviation Week and Space Technology used to circulate through the defence asylum with "restricted" and "eyes only" stamped all over them. 
I can still see the look of alarm on my defence bros visage at a casual mention of near neighbours defence capability gleaned from same mags.
We even had an issue of DAP with ALL the facilities, run and taxiways depicted at Tindal. At least until I brought it to the attention of a senior SAS mate of mine who had just done a security recce thru the same place.
Several days later another amendment without and a direction to destroy the previous issue.
Maxwell Smart where are you?
I can still see the look of alarm on my defence bros visage at a casual mention of near neighbours defence capability gleaned from same mags.
We even had an issue of DAP with ALL the facilities, run and taxiways depicted at Tindal. At least until I brought it to the attention of a senior SAS mate of mine who had just done a security recce thru the same place.
Several days later another amendment without and a direction to destroy the previous issue. Maxwell Smart where are you?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Messiah,
Lots.
F'rinstance - in Calcutta - the big affair across the river there; also any stretch across rivers in northern India.
The bridge across the Zambezi at Vic Falls.
Basically, any place which has a 'president for life' or one who has twisted parliamentary arms to get another term in office or has been 'elected' with a curiously high vote (especially where turnout exceeds 100%...
), or has on-going conflicts with a neighbour is likely to take a dim view of photographing military posts/installations, airports, bridges, public buildings & palaces, border posts... in short, anything which could be deemed a strategic asset in time of conflict.
In 2001, there were twleve Brit and two Dutch spotters who were in Greece for an airshow - at an air force base - and took a few photos. This didn't go down down well with the locals, who accused them of spying and flung them into the clink with Bubba-lopoulos
- all this in a 'first-world' fellow EU country . Strong representations by UK gov't officials - at very high levels - had little effect. They eventually got acquitted and released but not before spending some time as guests of the Hellenic Government.
We are fortunate to be citizens of a country where paranoia hasn't yet taken complete hold.
Lots.
F'rinstance - in Calcutta - the big affair across the river there; also any stretch across rivers in northern India.
The bridge across the Zambezi at Vic Falls.
Basically, any place which has a 'president for life' or one who has twisted parliamentary arms to get another term in office or has been 'elected' with a curiously high vote (especially where turnout exceeds 100%...
), or has on-going conflicts with a neighbour is likely to take a dim view of photographing military posts/installations, airports, bridges, public buildings & palaces, border posts... in short, anything which could be deemed a strategic asset in time of conflict.In 2001, there were twleve Brit and two Dutch spotters who were in Greece for an airshow - at an air force base - and took a few photos. This didn't go down down well with the locals, who accused them of spying and flung them into the clink with Bubba-lopoulos
- all this in a 'first-world' fellow EU country . Strong representations by UK gov't officials - at very high levels - had little effect. They eventually got acquitted and released but not before spending some time as guests of the Hellenic Government.We are fortunate to be citizens of a country where paranoia hasn't yet taken complete hold.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 11th May 2007 at 11:42.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taildragger, I'm sorry if you didn't pick up on the irony in my post. I don't know what all the fuss is about frankly. Since you can fly over the place with gay abandon (above the restricted area) it's obvious defence has no issue, particularly when my copy of the Sydney UBD has a map so when I drive in there I don't get lost. 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a lot of ****. Who gives a fig if someone photographs Australian military installations. There is so little military for anyone to worry about.
Next time I fly over Pearce I will take a few pics and post them.
Come and get me Agent K, Agent J.
Z.
Next time I fly over Pearce I will take a few pics and post them.
Come and get me Agent K, Agent J.
Z.
.Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 6 years ago I did a BFR for the CO of a major defence installation in country NSW.
As we flew over the top of it (through the restricted area associated with it
) he told me that he had recently completed planning for some capital works and had required an aerial or satellite photo of the site.
He scoured the Australian and US defence mapping/intel agencies with no real success, but he DID find exactly the high-res photo he needed... and he bought it ...from the Russians
...This was only the largest munitions depot in the southern hemisphere, mind you...
As we flew over the top of it (through the restricted area associated with it
) he told me that he had recently completed planning for some capital works and had required an aerial or satellite photo of the site.He scoured the Australian and US defence mapping/intel agencies with no real success, but he DID find exactly the high-res photo he needed... and he bought it ...from the Russians
...This was only the largest munitions depot in the southern hemisphere, mind you...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there you go. I know of a country where sex is illegal unless it leads to full intercourse, which is probably broken as often as someone might photograph a bridge.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi sir keg
What CRP's, I don't know nothing about any CRP's honestly!!!
I know nothing, nothing (in a german accent)
F&^%$G overreaction, and some posting here think this is stupid, Boy do we have a story for them!!.
richo
What CRP's, I don't know nothing about any CRP's honestly!!!
I know nothing, nothing (in a german accent)
F&^%$G overreaction, and some posting here think this is stupid, Boy do we have a story for them!!.
richo
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overaction!! Been there. A friend and I were photographing a couple of aircraft at Sharjah that we had never seen before (those big Antonovs that lowers the body of the aircraft)... cost us 3 hours with airport security. We had to hand over the camera film, then allowed to leave.
PS. We were outside the airport whilst taking the photographs.
PS. We were outside the airport whilst taking the photographs.