Security vs Public Freedoms

[Guest ___]

 

Another rule.  Although photography is NOT illegal in the subway, people do get arrested for taking photos.

NYPD issued a directive in April 2009 saying that it is legal to take photographs, but there still are reports of people being arrested for just that. Still lights (that means NO flash!), tripods and reflectors cannot be used under MTA Restricted Areas and Activities rules.

 

http://mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm#restricted

 

DC, Baltimore, and most cities on the eastern seaboard have similar contradictory enforcements of these policies as well. I've had issues in Metro taking pictures even with a copy of their own rules printed out and with direct authorization from WAMATA issues to me at Metro Center. Had WMATA polcie give me hell at Metro Center Station with an ok from the admins five stories above where we were standing. Took the General Manager himself to come down and put the smack on the cops.

[Tenorikuma]

Photography is completely legal in all public places; it's just that some kind of irrational "terror panic" persists in parts of the US (from my understanding), worsened by corrupt cops and security guards who use this climate of fear to take power trips at the public's expense. Obstructing innocent photography is one of the easiest ways to do this, it seems. Some photographers have found they have to carry a copy of the law regarding public photography with them just to show abusive cops as the need arises.

[Guest ___]

Unfortunately that "Photography is legal in public" argument won't fly in DC. And after the security guard shooting we just had at the National Holocaust Museum, you can argue to you're blue in the face, it won't help you when you're taking pictures and a half dozen security guards show up with AR-15s. Having had to cover 9/11 at the Pentagon and with twenty years nearly in the photojournalism field in DC, I can sit here and argue ACLU and legal precedents all I want, it's not going to change the stance the federal government has taken here in DC and it certainly won't win you any fight with any armed law enforcement, corrupt, or clean.

 

I definitively won't say it's a result of corrupt cops on a power trip at all, but rather a very hazy wording of the law. Photography in public places is not an absolute, and constitutional amendments are not absolutes nor are they set in stone and are subject to change, appeal or complete establishment. In DC and a lot of other places there are federal roads and sidewalks which are privately owned or are posted public access, where the federal courts have ruled while the road may be open for public access, they are private property and the property owner or lessee can restrict photography, espeically pertaining to Federal buildings.

 

Carrying a copy of the law seldom helps, they look at  it, and hand it back to you, then tell you to leave or think you're being snarky and take you in. Even if they can't press charges the ordeal is enough that you got your point across. Typically they tell us in the media it's just easier to keep your mouth shut don't argue, thank them for their time, and leave. If you need the pix that bad move to another location or flat out come back later. If you want to or need to feel the urge to shoot in a station, particularity an underground one, run it through with a station master first, especially of you're going to be out there with an SLR or anything that looks remotely bigger than something you'd use to photography uncle Barny at a family reunion.

 

I can also see the other side of the coin, covering transport beat for a few wire services over the years, I can clearly see the other side of the coin as well after a few unpublished major incidents at WMATA are cause for alarm with a no photography ban on the subways. The rules pertaining to photography were not proactive rules, nor or credible proof, but because there had been incidents resulting from the act prior to the rules being implemented.

 

After 9/11, 7/7 and Madrid, people question pretty hard the old "What if" line. What if we did this, what if these steps were taken, what if the guy who looks like an innocent tourist is really... and after the recent terror incidents, the public demands immediate answers and blame. The recent Metro wreck, people went right after the Metro driver who was later shown to have done nothing wrong. When I cover protests for the media, the police can not discern me from any protester or possible trouble marker. they are trained to know that rioters know to blend in with a crowd, same goes for spies, terrorist or anyone else for that matter who wishes to cause harm. Subway police in NYC will not discern a daily passenger, tourist, enthusiasts or terrorist for a reason-because the do harmers won't.

 

Last note, for people who think the constitutional freedoms of the press are absolute, it's not, we in the US rank close to the middle by Reporters without Borders, (the US is 36, the UK is 23th, Aussie, 28th, and Japan is 30th) Media blackouts are not uncommon in the US as with the recent Metro accident being one of them.

 

Sorry for the off-topic rant, I tend to save these for Lightstalkers.org, and my photographer's rights forums on Flickr and Yahoo, but we all go on about this over there.

[Darren Jeffries]

Unfortunately Aaron is correct on this. Legalitly has nothing to do with this anymore. It is perfectly legal to sit on the London underground with a backpack, but after 7/7 people get very nervous. Jean Charles de Menezes found out just how paranoid the UK armed law inforcement are to his cost, over this whole situation. For those that dont know, he was perfectly innocent, if not a bid paranoid himself, but he still ended up with several bullets to his head.

 

The world we live in now, cares less about what is legal and more what is going to keep the general public feeling safe from terrorism, and celebrities free from privacy invasion. Photographers "rights" have seriously gone down the tube (pardon the pun) since the death of princess diana, and at lease here, in the UK, there is little to zero tolerance for it. Case in point.... Google maps row that broke out here regarding the streetview photography.

[Welshbloke]

I remember a debate about photography on public transport shortly after the 7/7 bombings in London. My point was this:

 

The 7/7 attackers took no more interest in trains than any other tourist. They took no photos, recorded no numbers, and paid the same attention to maps as any other visitor to a big city would. We know this as the CCTV footage of their test run was dug up during the investigation. Hassling people for taking photos does nothing apart from contributing to the fear that terrorists want us to live in.

 

Railfans tend to know what is normal for their patch and are likely to spot anything odd. For this reason we should be encouraging them, even if the results do include the odd call about how the 9am freight has a different type of loco!

[Guest ___]

I'm playing a bit of devils advocate on this thread becasue there's the half of me that's spent nearly 20 years as a photojournalist in DC, and there's things with the media blackouts that take place are there for a good reason.

 

I can tell you right now, that's not the same for here in the states, and that there was more than credible proof of photographs taken had contributed to terror plots. Note just because a railfan sees something unusual, that does not mean he is going to call the police espeically since a lot of times railfans tend to trespass to begin with to take pictures. Anyone who thinks terrorists do not spot, scope out or take recordings of targets before gathering intelligence has little to no experience whatsoever in information gathering. If we do it in the media to report a story, and our military does it before an operation, you better beleive that terrorists gather intel before attempts their own form of mayhem.

 

And if under 7/7 photos of underground structures and substructures turned up, the public would demand a hell of a lot of policies including a ban on photography anywhere. Of course, jsut because the media didn't report that there were photos found, doesn't mean there weren't. The government(s) are much better at keeping secrets than the public things, and better than we in the media want to admit. If there' one thing that can be said for the events of 9/11 it's that people are pretty damn willing to give up their rights and freedoms in a heartbeat for safety and security. And lord forbid another event happens again, people will gladly throw more rights away in a minute.

[marknewton]

The trouble with playing devil's advocate is that you end up arguing from some very illogical positions, which is where you seem to be headed. And talk of media blackouts are irrelevant to us, we're railfans not journalists.

 

The point being made was that in the two terrorism incidents that involved trains, there was NO evidence that the terrorists photographed the trains in the manner that a railfan would, or took any interest in them in the manner that a railfan would. So why spend so much time and effort hassling railfans?

 

And no, I'm not just relying on media reports. My railway has been conducting emergency exercises under the guidance of LT and RENFE personnel who were involved in the post-bombing investigations. We've had some long discussions on this very topic, and to me it's very telling that none of them advocate further restrictions or blanket bans on photography based on their experience.

 

Your claim that railfans are reluctant to report suspicious activity to the police as they are trespassing a lot of the time - do you have any credible proof of that? Sounds more like a convenient justification to me. Our experience is that railfans are very quick to contact either the transit or civil police to report trespassers or suspicious activity. If they can't do that, they'll often let train crew know directly.

 

In the end, if your fellow Americans are willing to sacrifice their rights and freedoms for the illusion of safety and security as you claim, then you've given your enemies everything they wanted to achieve.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark.

[Tenorikuma]

Why don't you just ban people in public places? I hear most terrorists are people, that should solve your problem.

[marknewton]

Why don't you just ban people in public places? I hear most terrorists are people, that should solve your problem.

 

  Good one!

 

Cheers,

 

Mark.