May 21, 2004
MTA Considers Ban On Photography
That sound you hear is not the sound of a billion cicadas, but the sound of a thousand photobloggers weeping: The MTA is thinking about banning photography on subways and buses, for security reasons. The MTA says that it's for the safety of passengers and employing, as they worry about terrorists taking pictures of subway train cars and tunnels, and make clear that even cellphone cameras would be found illegal. The Times reports that this will be the first new rule of conduct in ten years, joining, "graffiti, littering, spitting, smoking, panhandling, loud radio playing, drinking alcoholic beverages and going onto subway tracks or into tunnels or other unauthorized areas." Just looking at this list makes Gothamist realize that the rules are rarely enforced. But the old photography ban, which had been in effect until 10 years ago, was dropped when the incident of a woman being fined for taking a picture in the subway got a lot of press attention. Of course, the Straphangers and civil liberties groups are challenging the MTA's proposal, though the MTA says that members of the press and people who get written permission will be allowed to photograph.
Gothamist was talking to Mike from Satan's Laundromat about the matter. He says the police think subway photography is illegal anyway, and Gothamist thinks this is confirmation that the MTA view hipsters, gadget geeks, photobloggers, and tourists as city security threats. At least of Laura Holder's oeuvre is in danger! One critic huffs that if photography is banned, then drawing might be next. Ack - then no cool drawings like these from Danny Gregory.
Some other bans the MTA is thinking about: (1) Walking between subway cars; (2) Placing a foot on a subway seat, bus seat or a platform bench; (3) Wearing skates, standing on a skateboard or riding a scooter. Walking between subway cars not allowed? How else are people going to get away from the smelly homeless (or not!) man in the car? That's always the worst, thinking there's a fairly empty car to sit in for a long subway journey, but then you figure out why it's empty... The MTA is also looking to crack down on people with unlimited Metrocards who jump turnstiles when their cards aren't read, claiming that they did, technically, pay their fare.
As there is a period of 45 days of public comment before the rule changes are voted on by the MTA board, Gothamist says, "LET THE COMMENTING BEGIN!" If there's no photography, then we wouldn't have great pictures like these of the nostalgia train ride from Tien Mao or most of the fabulous NYC Subway page!
Related: NJ Transit is looking to ban photography on their trains as well [via Mike]
|
It's not particularly the rule (photography was illegal to begin with) but the new consequences.
I propose a snap the subway day. One the day that the new rules go into effect, we should go en mass into the subways with our cameras and shoot away...
No, photography was NOT illegal to begin with. (Where does everyone get that impression?!?) Right now it's 100% legal (see 1050.9c).
Yes, clearly John Ashcroft and the vast right-wing conspiracy have once again swooped down and are strangling your civil rights.
As long as the permit system is easy to use (so we can continue to get pictures like the awesome ones Bluejake took of the Smith/9th Street F Station), this seems like it will hardly inconvenience anyone. At worst, it will hopefully deter the increasing number of morons who are using their cell phones to secretly photograph people on the subway.
Find something else to complain about, this one doesn't warrant your time.
I'd say this does warrant Gothamist's time. Any rationale for banning photography in the subway could easily be transferred to taking pictures above ground. The subway system is home to art, commerce, people, and NYC life. One shouldn't need a permit to document any of that. Do we want future Bruce Davidsons being hassled by overzealous cops?
Find something else to complain about, this one doesn't warrant your time.
Okay, then let's complain about the proposed ban on walking between cars.
Since we will all now have no direct escape from the smelly bums that Jen detailed in the article, we will all cram up to the doors so that we may run between cars when we hit the next stop. Running on the platform will lead to more injuries, more people swearing at each other, and more people getting stuck in doors, thus causing more train delays.
Maybe, just maybe, the sensible alternative if they REALLY feel it's a problem is to just lock all of the doors, and not just some. Of course, threatening everyone with fines is a better revenue stream.
But here's a real suggestion: How about the MTA do something constructive, like funding some cops to stop the panhandling, rather than giving fines out to people for goofy crap like this?
Hey, I believe in protecting subways from harm as much as the next person, but photographing...if permits are easy to obtain, then why have the ban? Cynically speaking, I'm sure someone could effectively fake an application for a permit, so what's the point of the permit? And I rather police be at the stations, looking for suspicious packages, versus cracking down on photographers or people with skateboards.
James: if you think forcing photographers to get permits to work on public transportation is a good thing you really should stop obsessing over Jake's site and take some time to familiarize yourself with how authoritarian states operate.
FYI: In my 15 years of riding the "T" (Boston's subway system), there has never been *any* walking between cars (those doors are locked).
I can't think of any reason to switch cars on the subway *except* to avoid smelly/harrassing nuisances.
I concede NYC's subway system is much much larger in scale and volume of ridership, of course.
You forgot SCRATCHITTI-- my personal favorite banned behavior.....
I don't see how my post shows that I'm "obsessing over Jake's site." I like his pictures. I'm sorry my opinion is different than yours. And my guess is most of us, fortunately, have no idea what it's like to live in an authoritarian state.
You know, it seems to me that if supposed terrorists were "casing the system" for attack planning, they wouldn't specifically need cameras. What the supposed targets photographing? Exits? Platform length? The homeless dude playing the guitar? These could be easily sketched, reported into a tape recorder, etc. There are other more efficient ways to access track information (there was an article about track info and the web a few weeks ago). Why pick on photographers? It all seems rather lame to me.
JD, I love the "authoritarian state" comment. Put down that tattered copy of "1984" already. We don't live in North Korea. Even if we needed a permit to take photographs of the subway, anything approximating the word "authoritarian" to describe the policy would be a gross misuse of the word.
Oh great, now the cops have REAL reasons to bust me when I take pictures, in the subway.
Mike, everyone gets the impression that it's illegal because the cops regularly tries to stop people from taking pictures. They'll tell you, you are not allowed to take pictures.
James, trying to get a permit to shoot on the subway is a pain in the ass, as with all permits for location shoots. Before it was mostly due to an insurance issue, how much you want to bet now you'll be required to wait for a background check to clear before you can get a permit.
To be honest, who the hell wants to deal with that for a few pictures, plus you can't exactly get a snap shot permit. This whole "because the terrorist will win" rules is a worrying trend that must be addressed before everyone with a camera or caught taking notes, gets harassed by overzealous cops, because they are "collecting information for terrorists."
I'm always troubled about bans based on vague "for security purposes" reasons. What specifically does the MTA not want photographed? How will the subway system be made more secure by banning photography? I'd be inclined to listen to the MTA if they made a reasoned argument for the ban, but using mindless cliches like "it's a different world" isn't convincing.
According to the Times the proposed penalty is a $25 fine and possible confiscation of film (digital media wasn't mentioned). $25 doesn't seem like much of a deterrent.
It seems that the rationale for banning photography in the subway could also be used to ban photos in Times Square or other likely targets of terrorism. Would they ban picture taking from the Empire State building? Seems like a very slippery slope.
Mike, and others - I note your 1050.9(c) with some interest, but I don't believe it binds. I have at various times over the past 25 years been stopped by Transit Police from taking photographs in the subway, and when I protested I was shown in one case an MTA Directive Memo telling officers to enforce the ban, and in other cases regulations from that little pocket code book they carry declaring that "unauthorized" photography is prohibited.
So either there is an alternate superceding code or there is a conflicting one; neither would surprise me.
Interestingly enough, as far back as the late 70's the reasoning behind it was terrorism and security concerns.
a ban on subway photography?? booo!!
that is just wrong.
this makes sense, however:
"Photography, filming, or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors, or tripods may not be used."
http://www.nycsubway.org/faq/photography.html
Linus, the cops are, alas, misinformed. Any tickets they give you won't stand up in court. (I've heard several stories of people who fought their photography tickets and had them immediately dismissed because, guess what, there's no law banning photography.)
And really, if there's anyone who won't be deterred by a $25 fine, it's an actual terrorist.
It's not up yet, but the actual proposal will be posted here early next month, says the Times: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/tocmain.html. The "nice" lady from MTA customer service said nothing has been written yet. "They are just ideas at this point."
I would really like to see the results of a "Snap the Subway Day."
totally- we should stage an act of civil disobediance if this goes through. all laws like this do is waste police time and lead to the harassment of innocent artists and tourists. as many people have noted above, terrorists can collect their information in many ways, so all this does is erode the civil liberties of innocent people. in other words, it's fucking bullshit.
i've been stopped many times for rocking out with my tripod and camera on the subway- but i'll never stop. never! it's my right as an artist, and as an american.
I would think that the NYPD would want these rules official by the end of August, as the RNC will be elephanting into town. The civil disobedience might make more impact earlier, rather than later-- particularly if the laws do go into effect in the late summer. There will be so much protesting about so many things that the message is bound to get lost.
The trick is to stage an act of pre-emptive civil disobedience. It doesn't do much good to do something the day the rule goes into effect. It should be done beforehand. With signs and t-shirts and all that jazz that say, "this could be forbidden" or "don't say cheese" or whatever. Attention should be drawn to the issue during the 45 day period for public comment, not once the rule is put in place.
Jake, we should hold an act of civil disobediance BEFORE this gets passed, to showcase the fact that this is crazy. How about a bunch of people go and photograph the subways on the same day, and then collect and put up a gallery show. I would donate money for gallery space. Oh, and what Matt said.
ccol. now if they would just ban selling duracells for $1, selling M&Ms to raise money for basketball teams, drumming & breakdancing troupes, generic panhandling, and pissing off the platform onto the tracks, the subway would only be unbearably hot and rat-infested...
I brought my cameras out to the subway this morning after hearing the news on WNYC. I agree with those who think snap-the-subway day should occur *during* the comment period.
We could always hold another one if the law actually takes place.
"...if the law takes effect", that is.
>>but I don't believe it binds. I have at various times over the past 25 years been stopped by Transit Police...
Subway photography *was* banned until 1994 when the MTA was embarrassed into changing the rule. See the Times article today.
I say let's also have all NYC photobloggers devote one week to their best subway photos -- or put together an actual, physical gallery. That'll show New Yorkers what they have to lose.
-=-Joe
yeah, that'll show those new yorkers. it's going to be interesting to see how this city functions without a constant supply of amateur photographs of subway cars and the people who ride them.
I can't help believeing that this proposed policy is a fig leaf for the MTA. They can claim to be doing something to make us safer in the subways without actually doing some of the concrete things that really could make us safer.
What about better training for conductors and motorwo/men on preventing and responding to terrorism? What about really fixing the public address system so that it will be able to be used to guide riders to safety during an attack or even just a dangerous smoke condition?
Aha, Joe, thank you. That makes much more sense. As I said before, I was shown the rules book where it said you couldn't take pictures without a permit. Banned until 1994, then. That works.
Lock the doors between cars?? WTF? Hello, if you are stopped in a tunnel, to exit the train you can only go out the front or end of the train. I was going to move away from all the hipsters in the front car ;), but now I want to stay near that door just in case some anti-terror idiot forgets that fact and we get trapped in a minor track fire. And die. Actually, I think I've noticed more locked door recently- hopeing they keep at least one route open to the tracks.
Another reason to walk between cars:
Some stations (like South Ferry, and possibly only South Ferry) require you to be in the very front of the subway to get off. Say you're coming from 116th St station, where the stairs are towards the back of the train, and you get to the station just in time. You don't have a chance to run all the way down the platform to the first five cars before you board, so walking between cars is a good way to make sure you're in the right section of the train.
Actually, Jake, tripods and flashes are currently illegal in the subway. Seems reasonable to me, because there are actual safety implications to tripods and flashes.
yup- that's why i make sure to always rock the 6' tripod when i'm out on the trains. fight the power!
I'm glad there's going to be a photography ban. Photographers can simply go outside to take photos. The effects of secondhand flash can cause others to go blind.
I heard that they may allow one separate photography car where photogs can shoot photos, given that it's properly lined with non-reflective surfaces to minimize the harmful effects of secondhand flash. But this may eventually be superceded by a state law.
European tourists may scoff at New Yorkers because it's legal to shoot subway photos in Europe, but at least we'll all be safer.
And the best part is that my clothes won't smell like cameras when I go home after a night out on the town.
With technology, the stupid would-be law is unenforceable. Tiny tiny tiny cameras, 4 am (or high noon), any terrorist --or artist-- would probably be able to shoot whatever they want without being caught. Unless they start recording our every move with tiny tiny tiny hidden "security" cameras. To protect us you know. Seems law-proposers consider the loss of rights and freedom (to make photographic art or even tourist documentation) no loss at all if it prevents one would-be terrorist from taking the photos they need to conduct harm. It won't prevent any such thing. Mmm... false sense of security. Won't keep anybody any safer. Just gives us one more thing to mistrust our fellow citizens over. How soon until it becomes actually imposible not to break the law by walking out our front door?
It would be an insane policy, contact your representatives and have them put as much pressure as they can on the MTA to drop this ridiculous idea.
It's really directed at hobyists and railfans, which the MTA would rather be without; they call them "foamers."
Much of Transit Museum paraphernalia consists of station photography, mosaics, etc. I will boycott the Transit Museum and drop my membership if this ban takes effect.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Bloomberg has spoken against this ban. There's absolutely nothing that could be done to make the subway 100% safe (short of closing it), but politics require that they act like they're trying.
Not more than a month and a half ago, I was "busted" by two (and later four) officers for allegedly taking photos in the subway when in fact all I was doing was ajusting my focal length before putting my lens cap back on. I even showed the officers that there were no shots of the subway on my digital camera. They also took down information wrong and or made up answers to questions they didn't even ask me.
...and this is all before the latest news of a ban.
~why ban photography? paranoia runs wild?~
It's a slippery slope we're heading into ladies and gentlemen. I know I may sound like a fearmonger, but with each day the Big Apple become less and less free. First the smoking ban, and now this, if this keeps up, metal detectors in front of Macy's Herald Square may not be far behind.
Okay, so I'm a member of the press and I can shoot without fear. As long as photographers aren't doing up-skirt stuff, it can't possibly be a security threat (not that up-skirting is, either, it's just a violation of someon's privacy).
And for all you numbskulls who thing it's no bid deal to ban photography, what's next? Using negative language about the President? Scoffing at people you disagree with if they're right-wing? Where does it end? That slippery slope Jason refers to is very real.
Oh, and confiscating one's film is a no-go. They must have a warrent to deprive you of your personal property. But be prepared to challenge them if they do take your film to not destory it or process it by threatening a civil lawsuit. But do not physically challenge Barney Fife. He's got a big stick and can give you lumps on the head. And you probalby won't win if you started the phsical altercation, no matter how righteous your cause.
This is fucking outrageous and exactly in the direction the paranoid USA is going -- if you have a camera in public you are now considered either 1) A Terrorist 2) a Peadeophile. No one ever stops to think -0- um maybe he/she is a photographer??? Or Tourist??? FUCKING PISSES ME OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyways that is my input -- i mena seriously -- for security??? Dudes if the terrorists want to blow shit up banning photography isnt goign to stop them. DUD.. americans... I weep.
Boston's MBTA already prohibits photography without a permit (which is easy to get - you go to their marketing department, show some ID and five minutes later, you have a permit). Last time I went subway photographing, the conductor saw me with my camera out as the train pulled in - she shrieked at me to put my camera away, then, just in case I was deaf, as the train started, she got on the PA system: "No filming in stations without a permit! Put that camera away!" When the train got to my stop, boy did it feel good to wave that damn permit in her face.
you're anti-terrorism 'thinkers' in the states are crazy. how is that going to stop terrorists? are they seriously suggesting the terrorist will give up on their evil plan because they don't want to risk the $25 fine. and didn't the terrorists make a film in disneyland? so no cameras in there too? if they start prohibiting you from photographing i feel sorry for you. i only hope we have voted out tony blair by then or else we'll follow suit.