Proposed MTA photo ban

Anybody notice that MTA wants to prohibit photography on any subway or MTA property....I know, most of you are saying "so what?". But what if this is just the first few stones that cause the avalanche.....suddenly we are all criminals for photographing trains. I've already had a North Salt Lake City officer tell me that railroad photography any where in Utah is illegal....In the overall scheme of things our photgraphic efforts are of little importance to society, but having the right to pursue our hobby taken away is a very big deal.....I'll shutup now.

(My thanks to the moderator for taking up the defense in the NYC papers, by the way)

There is nobody that can stop photos of take trains, planes and Automobiles if are constatution is going to be run by big bussiness and controled under Bush's NAZI Rule and the SS (Local, State, and County Police) then I would take my chances and get the hell out of this country befor we all lose are rights!!

Next thing you know we'll have to have papers just to cross state lines just like in Soviet Russia. I remember at the time when I was over there I recall doing a contract job me and the small crew I was with had been stoped by guards with AK-47's being asked not niceley but being demaded to see my papers being asked are they in order?! where are you going?! what are you doing?! who are you?! What are you going?! all this just to move about 1 country in and out of every city, town and village just to move about the country geting out of the country was harder becuse they would rip the car a part if you looked the officer in the eye wrong. I Watched people get the crap beaten out of them for not have the right papers or takeing photos of things people being loaded up on trucks with blind folds lord know if there alive to day. This is where were going if this pupit government is going to lead to next with Bush and all of there big businesses telling us what we can and can not do!

DId I miss something? How is this Bush's fault? Let's stick to the issue at hand.

It is the MTA board not Pres Bushes fault. If you read the news story it spells it nicely. The MTA wants a nice feel good law to make things feel that everything is good with the world.

http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/ ... laces.html

Because we know that when the trains in Spain were blown up they took hundreds of pictures and if they had this law in place it would stop it all from happening.

(Wrong dumd a.. try again, MTA board)

Chris

The public comment period ends Monday. I would hope that all fans take a few moments to register your opposition to this ban - today it's the New York subways, tomorrow it will be the Long Island RR and Metro-North (and don't doubt for a second that those agencies will piggyback onto the TA's policy with ones of their own). Who will it be next?

Stand up for our rights. You can send a comment online at http://mta.info/nyct/rules/proposed.htm .

JD

Aji-tater wrote:DId I miss something? How is this Bush's fault? Let's stick to the issue at hand.

Bush's "homeland security" has everything to do with it. This is where we are loosing rights. But im going to stop there, i dont want a political debate.

What they are doing is wrong and they need to know that, even if they pass it anyway.

When will the loss of our rights stop? First its not being able to take photos on Subway lines, next its not being able to even buy film, then it might be illegal to own a video camera.

Heck I was stopped by a New York State Trooper for illegal tint. One of the reasons he gave me was SEPT 11!!! Um excuse me!, but I dont think cars with tinted windows were flown into the WTC!

The fact is that fear works and terrorism works, sorry to say it. The terrorists want us to lose our freedoms and our nation's leaders are falling right into it.

A great man once said "Those who would give up freedom for temporary security deserve neither security or freedom". That man would be Ben Franklin, one of our founding fathers.

The fact is we need to cut out this politcal correctness CRAP and profile Muslims. Make them register, tap their phones, bug their Mosques. Sure the DHS, FBI and all the other big brother agencies will point to McViegh and Nichols, my gut tells me those two goofs had some middle eastern help as well. That style attack is not the way US militias operate. Most US militias sit around and talk tough, the dont actually do anything.

Believe me, terrorists are not going to stand out in the open like railfans do with cameras, with the advent of camera phones these days they could use those. Should we ban camera phones too?

Sorry to get all upset but things like this burn me up.

***update****
I just filled out the web form voicing my opposition, you may want to consider doing the same.

Freedom!

Dave

Let's try to keep emotion out of this- regardless of your political alignment, the truth of the matter is that the MTA does not know how to secure our transit system. Banning photography "sounds right" and most likely this regulation will pass into the books, and we lose another freedom. I continue to invite MTA management and law enforcement to contact me and explain how a ban on amateur photography will increase security in the subways.

Currently the ban will extend to the Subway and to the Staten Island Railway (both rapid transit operations). Could banning photography on the MTA-controlled Metro-North and Long Island rail lines be far behind? And the rest of the state? the nation? It sounds alarmist, but in today's climate of fear and paranoia, anything can happen.

Your best defense is to write a polite, emotion-free letter of protest to the MTA regarding this ban. Allowing your emotions to take over only lessens our argument against the ban. Let's put our best foot forward.

You can submit your protest here: http://mta.info/nyct/rules/proposed.htm

As always- continue to cooperate with law enforcement. They have a job to do. And you can always come back tomorrow to take your picture again.

-otto-

Dave, I certainly hope you can recognize the security issues with a car with illegal tint. I won't even explain that. But when in Afghanistan they get into a cave, find a computer and on it are hundreds or even thousands of images of American skyscrapers, or American tunnels, or American chemical complexes, it's clear someone was casing something at some point. How to stop it? Stop photography.

Do you lose some short term liberties? Of course. Might it make a difference? Perhaps. Look at it this way: the terrorists that took down four planes had to have done their homework...whether learning to fly, casing an airport to see security measures, or simply taking pictures of a building to see where to strike. It was such a deeply-coordinated attack that any one part of the plan missing might have caused it all to fail. Can you honestly say that if stopping picture taking would have prevented 9/11, you would be against it? Now, to bring this back to railroads, would you say the same to those people in Spain who lost loved ones? The terrorists invloved there had obviously cased that location to see when an explosion would have the most impact. Would a ban on photography have stopped THAT incident?

The thing is, I don't think the matter is really about photography of subways. And neither do most of you. Will we be able to shoot pictures of the trains we love, the railroads we love, the architecture we love as we have for years? Sometimes, I think. We all have to suck it up and realize that the world has changed, and we do not have a right to take our pictures when IT MIGHT POSSIBLY be construed to be a threat to national security. We can all argue this point at length.

I will tell you all this, however: railroad photography as we know it will be finished forever the first time a train on US soil is the victim of a terrorist attack, and there's nothing any of us will be able to do about it.

Dave Becker

BS.

If anyone wants to stop me from taking photographs of trains, they'll have to take my camera from my cold dead hands.

Terrorists can get all the information they need online, in libraries and just by looking around.

What's next? Book burnings? Banning websites like this one?

Does anyone seriously believe the threat of a 25 dollar fine will stop a terrorist?

Wake up and smell it.

Dave I understand the point of your previous post, but I would like to expand on one of your thoughts. Your point on railroad photography going away the first time a train is derailed by terrorists may be valid. But at what point does it end? No photography of airports and airlines? I read an editorial by a woman who takes a picture of the baggage claim at every airport she arrives at with her cell phone to send back to her loved ones to verify her safe arrival. What about casually getting a bus or fuel truck in the background of a picture of your family in a major metropolitan area...would that be illegal? If I as a tourist want to photograph the Statue of Liberty, the Capitol Building, a stadium full of screaming Bills fans, etc. would that be illegal? By the proposed logic it should be, only because each is potential terrorist target. My fear lies deeper, in the concept of the erosion of our freedoms in the honorable pursuit of national security. To the bulk of America my railroad photography is inconsequential , my right to openly pursue the hobby is not.

I thought American law and justice was based on the principal of innocent until proven guilty? Policies like this slowly erode the freedoms our fathers (perhaps those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today), grandfathers, and great grandfathers faught for. I think policies like the MTA photo ban consider all people guilty until proven innocent.

It starts with simple things like this, then it moves to security check points on our roads, bans of "potential" risks like police scanners, video cameras, our right to know what our government is doing. These closed door congressional hearings. Terror suspects being detained indefinitely without access to legal council or charged with anything. Thats frightening. Maybe one day some bureaucrat decides railfan message boards are a threat to national security?

Pablo you are much more trusting of your goverment than I am. The government does a lot of good things but it is up to us as citizens to make sure they do not get out of control. I prefer not to risk letting things get out of hand.

However don't ever believe that regimes like the Nazi Party, Sadaam's Baathist Party, The communist party in China, etc, Don't EVER believe that something like that could NEVER happen in America. When we relax our vigilance over our governement we risk losing all we work for and our way of life.

Maybe you are content to lose your freedoms, I am not. Will I photograph an MTA train?, probably not, but if I ever wanted to I should be able to.

Don't confuse my statements with disrespect for law and government, but the government must know it's boundaries and not overstep them. I view this MTA photo ban as an overstepping of those boundaries.

It is the government's job to determine who is a threat to our safety, bans such as this most likely will not stop attacks like those in Spain from happening. My last post explains my view on what should be done, sadly the politically correct society that we live in will quash those methods.

Thats the way I see it, perhaps you agree, maybe you disagree

Thank you, pablo, for the best written justification I've yet seen for banning photography, not just in the subways but everywhere. It illustrates perfectly a correct and thoughtful analysis of the problem. Unfortunately, it also illustrates a perfectly wrong solution.

There is indeed something here we need to suck up and accept. And that is this:

There is no way to stop terrorist surveillance of potential targets.

Give it up. Ain't gonna happen. Even the Spanish, in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings, haven't tried.

The potential targets are so numerous, and the means of conducting photography are so readily concealed, that this is a battle that is lost before it begins. We might as well try to prevent 9/11 hijackings by banning the manufacture, sale, and posession of boxcutters.

Remember, the bad guys don't need high-resolution images to conduct photosurveillance. Go into any Walmart with 200 bucks, and you can buy a 2 meg digital camera, a briefcase, and a drill. Drill a small hole in the briefcase, tape the camera securely behind the hole, and you can document any public space in America to your heart's content.

I would be willing to endure restrictions on some of my freedoms if I thought they had a chance of being effective in combatting terrorism. This isn't a theoretical statement, by the way--my business travel has been greatly complicated by the new rules on what can be carried in either checked or carry on baggage. I now must ship much of the gear that I used to carry by UPS in advance--the logistics of doing that lengthen most of my business trips now by two days (one extra going out, one coming back). But I suck it up, because it makes sense.

But this does not make sense. It is a feel good exercise, the sort of legislative "show we care" crap that true conservatives should be revolted by. It's the same logic that bans assault weapons, despite the fact that they're not a real factor in urban violence. It's the same logic that bans a host of useful consumer products because somebody, somewhere, might conceivably be injured if they ate the product instead of using it as directed.

This country is worth bragging about, worth defending, worth dying for, precisely because you can do pretty much anything you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else in the process. Implicit in that freedom is that once in a while, somebody will figure out a way to turn that freedom to his own illicit advantage. THAT is what we need to suck up and accept. Not invasive, obnoxious, and comically ineffective restrictions on the lives of ordinary law-abiding people.

BTW, your response on window tints was right on target. The restrictions have nothing to do with 9/11 despite what the cop may have said. Those restrictions have been on the books for years, and are intended to keep police officers from getting blindsided during traffic stops. But the fact that the cop used that as an excuse illustrates just how pervasive and perverse this anti-terrorism campaign has become.

march hare: You Nailed it 100%, right on. Bravo!!!!!! The number of people
on this site and in the general population that willingly give up their rights
because the very government that failed them but now promises to protect them is truly astonishing. CLICK away I say.

STEAMED ON
/--OOO-;-oo--oo-

Had to work a bit this weekend. I won't let it happen again!

And thanks to all for an intelligent thread about a very important and emotional subject. And now, to the fun...

I am somewhat trusting of the government...I recognize that there are things that are done that are absolute violations of our freedoms, and we should work to ensure our freedoms are not taken away...but I do not think that taking photographs of trains and associated equipment qualifies as one of our inalienable rights the forefathers had in mind.

First off, of course, there is no such mention of photography in the Bill of Rights, and naturally this is the case since it hadn't been invented. One of the best things about this document is the fact that it can be applied to so much of our lives today, hundreds of years after the time of its writing. The government has largely been consistent with allowing us to do our thing as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. (Yes, there are easy and notable cases against this, but let me make my point, please.) So, since it already states that we have the right to bear arms, we may have guns. While I disagree with the necessity to own an AK-47 to hunt Bambi, I can acknowledge that the law exists allowing it. Are there circumstances where gun ownership is not allowed because it would cause problems for the rights of others? Absolutely. Felons can't buy one. In some states, people with mental disabilities can't buy them. In most states, you need to be trained before being licensed for one. All of this is designed to not infringe on others' rights, most notable the right to breathe and live.

What does any of this have to do with photography? Well, a few things. Pointing a camera is nowhere near as dangerous as pointing a gun. In the year 2005, however, knowledge is power (thank you, Schoolhouse Rock) to an extent we've never seen before. So while pointing that camera at a subway car or a hazmat shipment may not have the same immediate consequences as pulling the trigger of a loaded gun pointed in the same direction, the effect later could be just as bad...or worse.

Of course, you can't stop an inventive person from solving the problem their own way, as in one or more of the aforementioned examples: putting a camera inside a briefcase, for example. I wonder if any of you saw those MP-5's that the US military found in Iraq that were called assassin briefcases, or something like that...a fully concealed automatic weapon within a standard briefcase. Yes, they exist. No one is advocating banning briefcases, naturally, but the point is that such people exist and would be able to circumvent any ban on photography eventually anyhow.

So where are we? I'm sure you all agree that there are lots of photogs that know each other. At an event, for instance, you'll run into a few people you know and have shot pics with before. I can say that the few times I've shot the WNYP on one or two significant events, I've run into the same few people more than once. Friendly bunch, all of them. I know you'll all love this, but perhaps some type of licensing system is what's needed. Before you all yell at me, consider these things: first, press passes exist now. Without them, you can't get into many places containing newsworthy events. Why not for taking pictures? Second, pay attention to Trains and Railfan. They are becoming very good at saying where they had to get permission for their shots, and again, these are professionals. Wouldn't you like to be able to get access easier by saying and proving that you had a pass given from the railroad to take pictures? Third, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the railroads to know who's out there anyway, to be able to say they could or could not take pictures of the railroads? They are close to doing things like this now: Larger railroads are becoming strict on what models can even carry the logos and whatnot. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the railroads to be sure that their best face is put forward? So don't let gomer A or gomer B take pictures, but rather someone who already knows what to do and what not to do. I remember hearing a story about some guy shooting pics or video someplace where he laid down next to the rails to get a shot of an oncoming train. (Somebody help me out with this one?) The railroad would be in a much better position if they could revoke that genius' license to shoot pictures.

We may all disagree, and you may all disagree with me, but the simple fact of the matter is that the railroads' and the country's right to move freight safely supercedes anyone's right to take pictures.

Dave Becker