Cape Liberty Cruise Port: Screening of Photographic Film

[GTJ]

Has anyone had experience in dealing with security officials at Cape Liberty Cruise Port and their screening of photography equipment and film? Federal law requires that the owner or operator of a cruise ship terminal "[a]dvise individuals that they may request screening of their photographic equipment and film packages be done without exposure to an x-ray system." 33 C.F.R. § 105.545(b)(6)(ii). My prior experience at Cape Liberty Cruise Port suggests that it does not adhere to federal law, having heard one security official at the port explaining that: "We don't care what the law is; we do whatever we want." (Please don't respond with a claim that x-ray systems are "safe" for film, or that I "should" shoot digital pictures; even if correct those matters are beside the point here.)

Edited January 15, 2022 by GTJ
Correction

[1025cruise]

What is this thing called "film"?

[GTJ]

21 hours ago, 1025cruise said:

What is this thing called "film"?

"Film" is a transparent substrate coated with a photosensitive emulsion, and is used for capturing visual images. It is placed inside a camera and exposed to images desired to be recorded. After development of the film, a chemical process, either positive transparencies ("diapositives") or negative transparencies result, the former used for slide presentations and the latter used for printing. "Film" was first produced in 1885 (originally using a paper base), as an alternative to the copper sheets, and later glass plates, in common use earlier. Sale of "film" peaked in the year 2000, but with the increasing use of digital photography, film sales declined, and a decade later were only 10 percent of peak year sales. Since that low point, however, film sales have been increasing, doubling in the following decade. Many photographers prefer film over digital because of the distinctive look of filmed images (e.g., differences in spectral and tonal sensitivity, resolution, continuity of tone) as well as concerns over continuity of digital image standards versus actual analog images. There are several online resources that more fully describe "film," but hopefully this short explanation of the matter will answer most of your questions regarding this medium.

[chengkp75]

The security at all ports must meet the conditions of Federal law, and "do whatever we want" doesn't cut it.  Each terminal is under USCG jurisdiction, and the terminal must have a USCG approved ISPS (International Ship and Port Security) Plan, which tells the rent a cops what they must do, and what they can't do.  If you have problems with security at Cape Liberty, escalate to the terminal manager, and mention that you will be calling the USCG Captain of the Port at (718) 354-4353.

[GTJ]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

"[T]he terminal must have a USCG approved ISPS (International Ship and Port Security) Plan . . . ."

The codified regulation refers to a Facility Security Plan, or FSP. Is this the is same plan to which you're referring? The FSP must include, as a portion therein, a Terminal Screening Plan, or TSP, which would include the details of what is done. The problem, of course, is that "[t]he FSP is sensitive security information and must be protected in accordance with 49 CFR part 1520," 33 C.F.R. § 105.400(c)," meaning, it can be disclosed only on a need-to-know basis, see 49 C.F.R. § 1520.9(a)(2), so you and I are not allowed to know its contents. So the only recourse, as you suggest, is to contact the terminal manager and USCG. On the other side, their leverage is that escalation will lead to delay, and possibly denial of, embarkation, given the time required for escalation and the urgency of the vessel captain to depart the port timely. Thus, the attitude, "we do whatever we want." But with your most practical advice, I do feel more comfortable now, even if remaining a bit disillusioned with the tendency of some people in the security industry to get excessive power in their head.

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, GTJ said:

The codified regulation refers to a Facility Security Plan, or FSP. Is this the is same plan to which you're referring? The FSP must include, as a portion therein, a Terminal Screening Plan, or TSP, which would include the details of what is done. The problem, of course, is that "[t]he FSP is sensitive security information and must be protected in accordance with 49 CFR part 1520," 33 C.F.R. § 105.400(c)," meaning, it can be disclosed only on a need-to-know basis, see 49 C.F.R. § 1520.9(a)(2), so you and I are not allowed to know its contents. So the only recourse, as you suggest, is to contact the terminal manager and USCG. On the other side, their leverage is that escalation will lead to delay, and possibly denial of, embarkation, given the time required for escalation and the urgency of the vessel captain to depart the port timely. Thus, the attitude, "we do whatever we want." But with your most practical advice, I do feel more comfortable now, even if remaining a bit disillusioned with the tendency of some people in the security industry to get excessive power in their head.

Under the ISPS, ships have Ship's Security Plans (SSP), and terminals have FSP.  As you say, the SSP or FSP are controlled documents, but if the CFR states that non-xray screening must be provided, that will be a part of the FSP.  Ship's Security Plans are not known to even the crew, only their part of the plan.  The only one who knows the SSP in its entirety are the Captain and Staff Captain.

 

Your leverage is that if you contact the COTP regarding a security violation, then the ship can be delayed, and the Captain will be most unhappy with terminal operations at that point.

[GTJ]

16 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Your leverage is that if you contact the COTP regarding a security violation, then the ship can be delayed, and the Captain will be most unhappy with terminal operations at that point.

After responding, I was pondering that very possibility of the vessel's departure being delayed by USCG. Not something to be taken lightly, of course, but there needs to be some discipline among those who are charged with following federal law and the FSP. Hopefully those on duty at Bayonne on the day of my scheduled departure will be well-versed in their FSP (which, presumably, is reviewed by the terminal operator's attorneys to ensure compliance with federal law), that all will go well, and I will be pleased with the professionalism of their performance! But helpful to be prepared in the event that something goes awry.

 

(I don't think that they--the "rent-a-cops" and others actually on the scene--are seeking to do harm, but instead are doing what they believe is "best." I sense that there is an attitude among at least some security people that they know better than the bureaucrats who write the regulations, and on that basis feel empowered to disregard those regulation they do not like, and supplant them with their own personal rules. Coupled with this are large parts of the general population who (1) do not know the rules, (2) are intimidated by exhibition of authority by those in a security uniform, and (3) are willing to trade away liberty for the perception of security, all parts acquiescing without protest to whatever is demanded from those charged with maintaining security. Periodic supervision, from USCG or otherwise, is, I believe, helpful to keeping everybody in check.)