|
Subway Officials Seek Ban on Picture-Taking
May 21, 2004
Subway Officials Seek Ban on Picture-Taking By ROBERT D. McFADDEN http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...1SUBWAY.xl.jpg Philippe Sabathe, a tourist from Paris, taking pictures yesterday, something that, in a year's time, might be forbidden in New York's underground. Citing the security of 7 million daily riders, 48,000 employees and its transportation network, New York City Transit yesterday proposed a ban on unauthorized photography, filming and videotaping on city subways, buses and Staten Island Railway trains. The press and businesses or individuals with permits would be exempt. Transit officials also proposed a tougher rule against turnstile jumping, banning it even if a miscreant has a fare card and acts out of frustration when the card or a turnstile malfunctions, and they suggested new rules against walking between subway cars, putting feet on seats and misusing student or senior reduced-fare cards. If approved by New York City Transit's parent, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, next fall after a public-comment period, the changes would become the system's first new rules of conduct in a decade, joining prohibitions against graffiti, littering, spitting, smoking, panhandling, loud radio playing, drinking alcoholic beverages and going onto subway tracks or into tunnels or other unauthorized areas. "The world we live in has changed dramatically since 1994, so has our operating environment," said Lawrence G. Reuter, president of New York City Transit. "These changes to our rules of conduct are intended to enhance security and safety, not only for our customers but our employees as well." The proposed ban on photography, filming and videotaping drew immediate objections from the New York Public Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign. "We think it's a mistake to turn the subways into a scary underground where you can't take pictures," said Gene Russianoff, a staff lawyer. "We respect the need for security in the transit system but believe that there are important values in having photographers document life and conditions on the subways and buses." He noted that the M.T.A. was sponsoring an exhibition at Grand Central Terminal of photos taken over decades of life in the subways. Mr. Russianoff said the proposed ban on picture-taking could raise First Amendment issues as well. While members of the press with identity cards issued by the police would be exempt, other people and businesses would need written permission. "No standards are detailed in the proposed rules for issuing such authorizations," he said. But Charles F. Seaton, a spokesman for New York City Transit, brushed aside such objections. He said any person or commercial enterprise with legitimate needs, including film and television producers, advertisers, artists and others, "would all be allowed" to take pictures as long as they obtained written permission in advance. While transit officers would make common-sense judgments about issuing summonses to tourists who take pictures without knowing the rules, even visitors would be subject to fines, Mr. Seaton said, although there is no provision for confiscation of cameras. He said taking a picture or filming without authorization would be subject to a relatively low $25 fine. Spitting, smoking and littering carry a $50 fine, he said, while vandalism and other more serious offenses are subject to penalties of $100 or more. The rules of conduct on the transit system are as old as the subways, which mark their centennial this year. Officials acknowledge that enforcement has always been something of a problem, with a few thousand officers responsible for 468 stations, 660 miles of track and a vast network of bus routes. The use of cellphone and other miniature cameras may also complicate enforcement of a photography ban. But Mr. Seaton noted that this would not be the first ban on filming and picture-taking in the city subways. One was imposed in the early 1930's, he said, for reasons that are no longer clear, and was in force until 1994, when transit officials decided to relax it after embarrassing news reports that a woman had been given a summons for taking a picture on a subway in the Bronx. Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the bombing that killed hundreds on a commuter train in Madrid earlier this year, tighter security has been a high priority, Mr. Seaton said. The other proposed rule changes are also needed, he said. After the proposed rules are published in the New York State Register early next month, a 45-day period of public comment would ensue. Modifications might then be offered. Finally, New York City Transit would seek final approval by the board of the M.T.A. The board does not meet in August, but would probably consider the rules in September or October. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
Banning photos on the subway will do nothing. If someone wanted to take photos w/o being seen, there are ways, this is just preventing the casual photographer.
As for Turnstyle Jumpers, there should be a provision in there that anyone caught doing that should be charged double if they cannot prove the machine was not working. If they have no proof of even trying (no card/etc) then it is a deliberate attempt to jump it. the thing is, most people who jump out of frustration do so because there is noone there to help OR because they are late already. Simply stopping them and making them more late is punishment enough..... |
This is giving the terrorists ideas. Ninjahedge you’re so right.
|
When I was in NY lats month me and my father pondered the idea of why they dont have detectors you walk through when you enter the subway? It seems so easy for a "Madrid Scene" to me.
|
In addition to the lack of metal detectors in the subway, there isn't anyone to check the people who would set them off.
|
Thats another thing that would be useful. Not so much of a metal detector but a x-ray screening device. It would screen the whole person, somewhat like what your luggage goes through at an airport. And if anything odd comes through discreetlty pull them aside and check it out. This would in my opinion a good way to avoid a madrid like attack later on. I believe this would be quick and easy too.
|
losing the war on terror
Have the terrorists won? :?
If a terrorist blows up a supermarket, will we all clamor for metal detectors in supermarkets? What about a Zoo; "Photos of the animals will no longer be allowed." ABSURD! Will there be a moratorium on pictures of the Brooklyn Bridge? People using the transit system as a sightseeing mechanism, can no loger take photos from bus and train windows?!!!! The terrorists have won! |
Yet another case of the good guys being punished in the name of stopping the bad guys. Banning photos? It's getting out of hand. Our subways are really a tourist attraction in themselves. Jasonik is exactly right---what's next, no photos of bridges? Or Broadway? Besides, terrorists could easily search on the internet without even leaving their hideouts for subway pictures, maps, structural info, etc.
|
Quote:
Besides X-rays are a health hazard, much worse than second-hand smoke. :P |
Pictures have no impact. Plans and pictures are widely available online. The proposal is pointless.
|
It's already been implemented in Boston. I was taking pictures in the Kendall Square station and before I even got a shot off the woman came out of the toll booth and started yelling at me. I told her it was a ridiculous policy. I mean, a sixteen year old kid dressed in a v-neck and khakis (for a college visit... ugh) is a terrorist? She threatened to call the police (yes, that's right), so I put the camera away, walked a few yards down the platform, and resumed photographing. F*** them. I'm not going to be a slave to fear-mongering.
|
May 22, 2004
Police Waste No Time in Disallowing Subway Photos By SHERRI DAY Seconds after Stephen McCurry hoisted his video camera onto his shoulder yesterday afternoon in the Times Square subway station, two police officers rushed to his side and sternly told him to stop filming. Mr. McCurry, it seems, was nearly breaking the law. The police officers, who would not give their names, said they had been ordered to enforce a spate of proposed changes to subway rules, which include no turnstile jumping, riding between subway cars or taking pictures with still or video cameras. This even though the proposals, announced on Thursday, will not be voted on by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority until the fall. Mr. McCurry, 33, an independent filmmaker from Los Angeles who heard about New York City Transit's proposed rule changes earlier in the day, said he was unfazed. "I'm just going to go elsewhere in the city," he said. "You just get chased out of one place, and you go to the next." Police officers at subway stations around the city said yesterday that they had been closely monitoring shutterbugs since Sept. 11, 2001. A police spokesman said last night that officers have the right to stop people "impeding the flow of the transit system"; for example, taking a flash photograph of an incoming train or setting up a tripod in a station. Sometimes, the officers said, they ask picture takers and home videographers to stop, particularly if they appeared to be photographing subway tunnels or other infrastructure. But if the subject of the photo is a group of tourists or a smiling police officer, "it's no big deal," an officer at Grand Central said. Unlike Mr. McCurry, many tourists seeking a photographic keepsake of New York City's subways yesterday afternoon were unaware that the price of taking pictures on the city's trains and buses might soon include a $25 fine. Few tourists said they would be willing to break the law to take home photographs of New York City's transportation system. "If it's for safety reasons, I would not object too much even though it may sound a bit silly," said Jack Melcher-Claesson, 33, an online sales manager from Sweden. His girlfriend, Cilla Holm, stood nearby and eagerly snapped pictures of Julio Diaz and Lupita, his mannequin, doing their salsa dance routine in the Times Square station. "Typical America," Ms. Holm said when she heard that she had nearly committed a violation. "We're from Sweden, where everything is allowed." Cory Cisler, a professional drummer, vowed to stop taking pictures in the subway if it meant that he would be breaking the law. But, he said, the police would probably have a difficult time enforcing the rule. "I don't think it's going to stop all these people," he said. "Aren't there more important things to keep an eye on?" For Robert and Lilian Chambers, natives of Dublin who have spent much of the week photographing popular tourist attractions, a signpost in the Chambers Street subway station was their brass ring. The station, after all, shares their name. But the couple, who had just finished taking pictures inside the station when told of the proposed changes, said they felt entitled to take the photographs. "I own the name anyway," said Mr. Chambers, 55, a hairstylist. http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...gion/rules.gif Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
nycsubway.org Without Photos?
Yes, if a ban on subway photography as proposed by the MTA is enacted. The current rule, if not always properly enforced, is that amateur photography without lights and ancillary equipment, is permitted under New York State Compilation Codes, Rules and Regulations section 1050.9(c). However, on May 20th, 2004, New York City Transit proposed a ban on amateur photography and videotaping, citing "security concerns". In the New York Times on May 21st, NYCT spokesman Charles F. Seaton was quick to point out that press card holders are exempt, and "commercial enterprises" with "legitimate needs" would be allowed to take pictures with permission obtained in advance. But that's the same as the CURRENT policy for press and commercial enterprises. Given that the MTA charges for commercial photo and film shoots, they want to make it clear that they are not going to sacrifice a revenue stream in the name of enhanced security. We can all see what that means: "Individuals don't have big business to support them. We can hassle them with impunity!" A secondary reason for such a ban which is mentioned frequently is that they are trying to prevent documentation of real security risks, shoddy working conditions, safety hazards, lazy workers, and other more serious rules violations. This may be a minor side effect but one must consider possible hidden agendas. The madness doesn't just extend to New York City. New Jersey Transit has also enacted such a ban, even so far as having police detain and question people taking photos of NJT trains from PUBLIC STREETS. No trespassing was involved, no laws were broken. This has affected regular users of this very web site. Was their camera taken? No. Were they arrested? No. Charged? No. So, no harm no foul right? Well, if you consider being taken into custody, deprived due process and Miranda rights, interviewed by local terrorism agents, "all right". One person's story is here. Speaking of due process rights violations, how is such a ban going to be enforced? It is impossible to detect every single camera without a physical search -- small camera phones aren't even near to what is on the cutting edge commercially. If you're a bad guy, won't you have such a camera, which no one will notice anyway? Only honest people will be stopped. An interesting unanswered question is: "Why prevent only NEW photography?" Is this a prelude to even more bans, this time on web sites? nycsubway.org includes over 11,000 photos of the subway lines, past and present, and over 17,000 more of transit systems worldwide. Should these be considered historical documents or a source of information to terrorists? Webmasters and contributors could even be labeled terrorist facilitators. Even the Library of Congress has close up, detailed photos of key structures and bridges, "soft targets". Will the government aim to censor the Library of Congress? It doesn't even have to be the government. Any legal action by MTA lawyers to "encourage" rail fan web sites to shut down in the name of security will cost a fortune to defend against. Short of support from an organization like the ACLU, many sites will fold. Permitting a ban on NEW photography is another step toward removal of ALL of these websites, in the name of "security". Special events like the New York Transit Museum and the NYCT Subdivision C nostalgia train excursions for charity are at risk. Of course, not all riders of such trains are photographers, but these trips often include scheduled "photo stops", run-by's, yard visits, and other things specifically aimed at allowing photographers good views. The thought is, why go if photography will all of a sudden be illegal? The New York Transit Museum, the New York Public Library, and the Library of Congress have the means and need to SPEAK OUT, now. But what, then, can individual railfans do to support the cause? Watch this space as options are considered. www.nycsubway.org |
Righto, today or tomorrow when I'm on the Q I'll take as many shots as I like.
|
Who's come out against it?
Mayor Bloomberg. 1010-WINS radio reports he "blasted" the proposed ban, but quoted him as saying merely "...if there are some tourists and they want to take pictures of each other on the subway train -- come on, get real." Not much of a blast, but at least he's publically against the ban. The New York Civil Liberties Union. As quoted in the New York Daily News, May 22nd. "Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the photo ban 'grossly excessive.' 'There is no reason a tourist taking a snapshot in a subway car should be interrogated by the police or face the prospect of being taken into custody,' he added." New York Newsday. Editorial on May 22nd: "Security issues didn't stop NYC Transit from shuttering some of its subway token booths last year and removing the clerks who help keep an eye on the system. But now officials, claiming security reasons, want to restrict photography on subways and buses. However admirable their concern for public safety, the proposal would serve no purpose other than to deprive locals and tourists of the chance to capture an irreplaceable New York City experience.... preventing [terrorists] from photographing or filming subway images won't keep them from plying their trade." www.nycsubway.org |
Quote:
The Subway, and indeed all of New York, is JUST TOO BIG to put in measures like metal detectors. If you want to pay $5 per ride for the subway, i am sure we could have an armed guard on most, if not all the major lines, but until then we have to find a way to minimize risk without eliminating our own freedoms. |
Subway stations are not difficult targets to do this on. It is very easy to do a blasting of one of these things without exact photos, this is another attempt at "duck and cover" with alternate purposes.
They are trying to give a false sense of security to people riding while at the same time hide their own shortcomings. In addition to that, the rules are getting a bit mother-smother. Also, having someone come out and say that doing something as simple as taking pictures is now illegal where they want ot to be is more than a little sickening. America, land of the sort-of-free, home of the brave? |
First the smoking ban in bars and restaurants, and now this :evil: . Behavior restrictions in NYC may have worked with Giuliani and Bratton to crack down on crime, but now they're getting a little too stringent for their own good. There has to be a fine line drawn here. Next thing you know we may have metal detectors at all shopping centers and department stores...ugh.
I know Bloomberg's not supporting this photo ban, but exactly whose idea was this? Please tell me. |
Obviously, it's fearmongers.
|
May 25, 2004
NYC It's Written on the Subway Walls By CLYDE HABERMAN HERE'S the thing about making a rule: you have to be careful how you word it, or you will have to keep writing and rewriting until you get it right. That thought arose yesterday in connection with a batch of new regulations proposed last week by New York City Transit. You may have read about those pronunciamentos. They contain at least as many thou-shalt-nots as the Ten Commandments. No unauthorized picture-taking on trains and buses, they say. No putting feet on benches and seats. No riding between subway cars. No walking from car to car. No preventing others from sitting by putting packages on seats. No skating. And no jumping the turnstile, even if your valid unlimited-ride MetroCard fails to work. It would seem hard to say no to most of these nos. We might even toss in one more: no sitting piggishly with your legs spread so wide that you take up two or three seats. But the proposed photography ban, ostensibly a security measure, has drawn objections from some who have trouble believing that New Yorkers' collective safety will be imperiled by a tourist taking a picture of Aunt Gertie next to the break dancers in the Times Square station. The prohibition against moving between subway cars may also raise eyebrows. Such mobility has long been an underground right of passage. Attention here, however, focused keenly on the turnstile-jumping provision. By coincidence or not (we suspect not), it follows a recent NYC column on this issue, which is somewhat muddled in the age of prepaid MetroCards. That column, in February, told the tale of a Manhattan man named Jeremy Boyd. Mr. Boyd's 30-day MetroCard, bought for $70 only a week earlier, kept lighting up the "please swipe again" signal when he used it at the 86th Street station on the Lexington Avenue line. This was at 8:40 a.m., an hour when the overburdened station is more crowded than the Yankee Stadium stop after a ballgame has ended. Adjoining turnstiles had the same trouble, Mr. Boyd said. And taking the problem to the fare-booth clerk, besieged in the morning rush, seemed a nonstarter. Late for work, he and others chose to jump the turnstiles. That landed him in the hands of a police officer who gave him a summons carrying a $60 fine. "Fare evasion," it said. Mr. Boyd's reaction was, Huh? How could he be charged with ducking the fare when he had already handed the subwaymeisters $70 up front. It seemed a fair question. Turnstile jumping as a virtual synonym for fare evasion may have made perfect sense in the days of the subway token, but prepaid MetroCards complicate matters. Several subway-riding readers who had had similar brushes with the law - and who ultimately had their tickets tossed out - agreed. One problem is that the old regulations said merely that you may not board buses or subway trains without paying the fare. They said nothing about turnstile jumping. The proposed new rule aims to eliminate all doubts. Going under or over the turnstile is an absolute no-no, it says, and a malfunctioning card "shall be no defense." That's clear enough. Or is it? The reason for wondering is that transit officials said yesterday, in response to a question, that violators would continue to be charged with fare evasion. Not disorderly conduct or something similar, but fare evasion. As fate would have it, Mr. Boyd appeared yesterday in transit court, formally known as the Transit Adjudication Bureau, on Fulton Street in Brooklyn. His case had been postponed several times. He was in and out of the hearing room within three minutes. Case dismissed. "That was a slam dunk," he said. HE did not catch the hearing officer's name, and the man's signature on a written decision was so illegible he should have been a doctor. But his findings were easy to read. Mr. Boyd, he wrote, "had little incentive to evade the fare if he had an unlimited MetroCard." As a result, the officer said, "I find he validly tendered a fare and hold him not in violation." So here was someone charged with enforcing the rules who felt, whatever they may say at subway headquarters, that jumping a turnstile does not automatically equal fare evasion. That was Mr. Boyd's conclusion, too. "Technically, it's still not evading the fare," he said. He also assumed it was his case that led to the regulations being rethought. "I fought the law, and the law changed," he said. Up to a point it did. Some more tweaking may be needed before the rules makers really get it right. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
Quote:
Don't try to associate totally unrelated subjects. |
Apparently we're not the only people who think this is dumb. The same agency that imposed the photo ban also raised our fares to $2.00 per bus & subway ride! God this MTA is really pissing me off! :evil: (sorry I had to let loose steam)
Feel free to read this powerful petition at http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/notransitpicban and sign it if you want. There are lots of comments on the signature list by people protesting the MTA's cowardice. |
When I clicked that link, I got a window saying that bandwidth had been exceeded. If anything, that's a good sign that people are responding to this silly idea.
|
Screw the MTA :!:
http://www.pbase.com/image/29549575.jpg IRT 1/9 86 St station. I'll be updating this regularly, until I'm arrested. |
:evil: Yeah! My friends came this weekend from philly and we took pictures everywhere as well as in the subways.
|
Nobody stopped me today in the Sheepshead Bay station, even with a maintenance worker literally right next to me.
|
Recently I've been finding it hard to take pictures of anything in NYC. I've been stopped from taking pictures on Park Ave. Then been stopped from using tripod at WFC. I really don't see where they are going w/ this. I've seen hundreds of tourists posing before speeding trains. Subway is famous all over the world, esp NYC's
|
Like I said, it is the same thing that they did when they told everyone to have duct tape and saran wrap at home in case there is a chemical attack on NYC.
I am sure any poisonous gas or biotoxin would just wait patiently outside until you covered up all the windows. I am also sure, by the lack of mice and roaches in the city, that all the apartments are hermetically sealed and are an absolute biological barrier against any contaminants... :P Authorities are at a loss for any real way of preventing anything from happening, so whether it is the authorities themselves trying to do something to make themselves FEEL like they are doing something, or an attempt to make the people feel somehow safer through totally ineffective means (like soldiers in the airport) I am not sure. I am just growing more than a bit tired of it already. |
Well, obviously, I'm not from New York. However, I just returned from visiting there for a week (loved it, BTW). We took numerous trips on the subway, and encountered this "rule" one time. We were awaiting the train, the only people on the platform, and I looked down the tunnel to see the train coming. I told my wife to grab her video and record the train coming down the track and into the station. So, she recorded the train coming, then drawing alongside. However, the conductor gave a very dirty look as she passed. Being that this was the wrong train, we did not get on. However, the train just sat there. About 3 minutes after the train arrived, a police officer approached and asked if we had been the ones taking video. We replied that we were. He pulled my wife and I aside, and asked us who we were, why we were taking pictures, and where we were from. We just said that we thought it would be a good video (which it is!). He informed us of the "law" and told us not to take any more pictures. After he left, the train then went ahead and left.
Now, my problem is not "Should it be legal to take pictures" (although i agree with most of you that it will only inhibit tourists and innocents, not terrorists). Obviously, we were doing exactly what the law is meant to prohibit - taking pictures/video of tunnel entrances. We were not even trying to get anyone "in the shot". My problem is, "Since when has it become legal to enforce 'proposed laws'?" I was under the impression that, in our country, a law had to be proposed, then voted on by the legislative branch of government. Then, and only then, would the executive branch be responsible for enforcement of said law. Then, should some individual or group think the law is "unconstitutional", the judicial branch will be come involved. Am I right? How can the police enforce a "ban on photography" when it is simply a "proposed ban"? One last problem. On our last day, we were taking another subway ride, and waiting on the train. As we were standing there, sure enough, a guy swipes his card, gets no response from the machine, and jumps the turnstile. As expected, he is called out by a MTA authority (not a police officer, though) behind the glass. He yells back and forth with the guy for about 2 minutes about how the "machine didn't accept his card" and "he jumped after swiping". He then continued to be loud and boisterous in front of all of his friends about how the whole thing was "racism" and "just bull$h!t" and other vulgarities. Now, after about five minutes of this episode, no police officer came to question him about his behavior in the midst of a large, rush-hour crowd. Why were we (three young ladies, one young man, dressed in regular shorts and t-shirts) subjected to enforcement of the proposed law, while a group of half-dozen young men were allowed to get away with breaking the proposed law? Again, nothing against your city - we loved it. I just find it odd. |
USA Today
June 3, 2004 Transit agency wants to ban subway photos By Martha T. Moore http://images.usatoday.com/news/_pho...de1-subway.jpg Citing security concerns, New York City Transit has proposed banning photography on city subways. NEW YORK — Take the A train. Just don't take its picture. In the name of security, the agency that runs New York's mass transit wants to prohibit shooting photos or video in the subway and on city buses. The New York subway carries 4.5 million riders a day, including plenty of tourists with cameras slung around their necks. That, plus the size of the subway system, with 468 stations, make the rule "unnecessary and unenforceable," says Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign, a rider advocacy group. Even Mayor Michael Bloomberg questions whether a sweeping ban is needed. "Get real," he said recently in his weekly radio address. Despite heightened guard against a terrorist attack, "we still have to go about our lives here." Snapping a family photo on the express train platform seems harmless, says Martin Schnabel, general counsel for the city transit authority. But "move your lens a few inches and (you can) take a photo of something we really don't want people taking photos of." Police cite an incident in November when two employees of the Iranian mission to the United Nations were stopped for videotaping subway tracks. While existing laws make it possible to question people using cameras, "a regulation makes it clearer for all concerned," says New York police spokesman Paul Browne. Police patrolling the Times Square subway station say they'd be unlikely to ticket a tourist but would look closely at someone videotaping the entrance to a subway tunnel. But cell phone cameras make tracking shutterbugs difficult. "You don't know if they're talking into the Nextel or taking a picture," says officer James Riley, who patrols the Times Square station. The regulation could be adopted in September after a public comment period. The ban would carry a $25 fine. In the Times Square station, tourists often take pictures of musicians or the Roy Lichtenstein mural, says B.J. Davis, who works in the station for the Times Square Alliance. "A tourist attraction without cameras doesn't seem right," he says. Copyright 2004 USA TODAY |
http://www.spyworld.com/images/Video...nglass_Gif.gif
If they wanted to, they could take pictures anywhere they wanted. All it takes is $$. |
With each passing day, we're hearing more examples of "we must restrict your freedom for your own good" politically correct attitude taking hold in the city and state governments. :roll: Call me paranoid, but I'm starting to see a fortress mentality taking hold, and I don't like it one bit. I could give a million more examples, but this photo ban is clearly one of them (the smoking ban is also a good example).
|
In case I forgot, here's what one photo website (It's one of my favorite ones) had to say about this disgusting proposal:
http://www.NYCSubway.org/ Without Photos? Yes, if a ban on subway photography as proposed by the MTA is enacted. The current rule, if not always properly enforced, is that amateur photography without lights and ancillary equipment, is permitted under New York State Compilation Codes, Rules and Regulations section 1050.9(c). However, on May 20th, 2004, New York City Transit proposed a ban on amateur photography and videotaping, citing "security concerns". In the New York Times on May 21st, NYCT spokesman Charles F. Seaton was quick to point out that press card holders are exempt, and "commercial enterprises" with "legitimate needs" would be allowed to take pictures with permission obtained in advance. But that's the same as the CURRENT policy for press and commercial enterprises. Given that the MTA charges for commercial photo and film shoots, they want to make it clear that they are not going to sacrifice a revenue stream in the name of enhanced security. We can all see what that means: "Individuals don't have big business to support them. We can hassle them with impunity!" The madness doesn't just extend to New York City. New Jersey Transit has also enacted such a ban, even so far as having police detain and question people taking photos of NJT trains from PUBLIC STREETS. No trespassing was involved, no laws were broken. This has affected regular users of this very web site. Was their camera taken? No. Were they arrested? No. Charged? No. So, no harm no foul right? Well, if you consider being taken into custody, deprived due process and Miranda rights, interviewed by local terrorism agents, "all right". One person's story is here. An interesting unanswered question is: "Why prevent only NEW photography?" Is this a prelude to even more bans, this time on web sites? nycsubway.org includes over 11,000 photos of the subway lines, past and present, and over 17,000 more of transit systems worldwide. Should these be considered historical documents or a source of information to terrorists? Webmasters and contributors could even be labeled terrorist facilitators. Even the Library of Congress has close up, detailed photos of key structures and bridges, "soft targets". Will there be attempts to censor the Library of Congress? Permitting a ban on NEW photography is another step toward removal of ALL of these websites, in the name of "security". Who's come out against it? Mayor Bloomberg. 1010-WINS radio reports he "blasted" the proposed ban, but quoted him as saying merely "...if there are some tourists and they want to take pictures of each other on the subway train -- come on, get real." Not much of a blast, but at least he's publically against the ban. Later, a spokesperson claimed the Mayor "had formed no opinion on the matter" so it's likely we cannot count on his support come the vote. The New York Civil Liberties Union. As quoted in the New York Daily News, May 22nd. "Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the photo ban 'grossly excessive.' 'There is no reason a tourist taking a snapshot in a subway car should be interrogated by the police or face the prospect of being taken into custody,' he added." New York Newsday. Editorial on May 22nd: "Security issues didn't stop NYC Transit from shuttering some of its subway token booths last year and removing the clerks who help keep an eye on the the system. But now officials, claiming security reasons, want to restrict photography on subways and buses. However admirable their concern for public safety, the proposal would serve no purpose other than to deprive locals and tourists of the chance to capture an irreplaceable New York City experience.... preventing [terrorists] from photographing or filming subway images won't keep them from plying their trade." The New York Times, although they don't appear to have published an editorial, or even any Letters to the Editor, about the proposed ban, ran an article on June 2, 2004 ("Fixing Problems in Tunnels, but Keeping Trains Running"), describing in fair detail the decrepit conditions of escape routes, fire safety and prevention, and communications systems in the Penn Station tunnels. A terrorist wouldn't even NEED photos with articles like that. I hope it is safe to assume that the Times would oppose the ban if they feel it is safe to publish articles like the one mentioned. Edited June 2, 2004 |
Quote:
Although I agree that the restrictions in the name of "Freedom" are getting scary, I fail to see any connection WHATSOEVER to the smoking ban. Keep your arguments seperate Agglom, or you make it both hard to defend, and even harder for anyone to support. |
Limiting rights is limiting rights. You can't fight to defend only the rights you like and fight to curb the ones you don't.
There's a protest about the photo ban on Sunday, if anyone is interested: http://photographersrights.mtude.com/ |
Quote:
Allowing Abortion does not mean you are allowed to smoke. Forbidding car theft does not mean you are forbidding driving. You combine your fronts like this, you will lose your support. |
Or you could just lose the less sophisticated thinkers out there.
|
Quote:
The irony and outright doublespeak of that sentance alone should be message enough. Stop combining arguments, the one has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER! |
I agree with Ninjahedge argument as well. There is no comparison at all. :roll:
|
Let's focus on the photo ban from this point on OK gentlemen?. The point is, this proposed subway photo ban is more about political grandstanding tainted by fear than security from terrorism attacks. And this is the same transportation agency whose board voted to impose a fare hike up to $2.00. Big companies will still be able to pay a fee for photo shoots, leaving the little guys in the lurch, and that simply isn't fair. Is it just me or have the MTA board members (the MTA is run by a board of political appointees) chosen to cower in fear?
People have to recognize that terrorists are interested in blowing up trains and killing people, not taking photos of them. |
It's CYA, for a post-event investigation.
|
|
The Village Voice:
Subway shooters to set their sights on underground camera ban Forbidden Photos, Anyone? by Matt Haber June 4th, 2004 1:00 PM Mike Epstein is not a terrorist, but if a proposed ban on photography on New York trains and buses goes into effect, he might very well find himself treated like one. "How can they ban photographing unusual sights aboard trains and in stations?" wonders Epstein, who operates Satan's Laundromat, a website dedicated to "urban decay, strange signage, and general weirdness." "What about when someone boards the 1 train with bags full of fully inflated orange and red balloons that almost exactly match the colors of the seats: Do they really expect me to keep my camera in my pocket?" You bet. The MTA's move to stop the shooting of unauthorized pictures or video has pissed-off everyone from photobloggers to subway advocates and free-speech activists. To show their opposition to the ban, a group of photographers plan to gather at the main information kiosk in Grand Central station this Sunday, June 6, at 1 p.m. They'll fan out across several train lines, shooting photos throughout the system in a peaceful demonstration. The demonstration will start mere yards from an MTA-sponsored photography show called "The New York Subway: A Centennial Celebration." Most of the 16 subway-themed prints were taken during an earlier photo ban, which was taken off the books in 1994. The work includes work from such giants of the form as Bruce Davidson and Henri Cartier-Bresson. The MTA isn't slated to vote on the measure until at least mid June, when a 45-day public comment period ends. Also included in regulation 21 NYCRR 1050.9c are stiffer penalties for hopping turnstiles, walking between cars, and using seats as footrests. Ostensibly designed to counter terrorist attacks, the new rules clearly extend to ordinary—and artistic—activity. For New York City photobloggers like Epstein—amateur photographers who post digital images on their own sites—the proposed ban makes little sense. "It's utterly the wrong way to protect the subway," he says. "If there's anyone who won't be deterred by a $25 fine, it's an actual terrorist." Others, like Jake Dobkin (bluejake.com), raise concerns about the ban's impact on civil rights. "First they cracked down on immigrants," he says, "then on people who were protesting the war in Iraq, and now they seem to be coming after artists." What follows is a sampling of some of the imagery that would be lost if the ban went into effect, and e-mail interviews with the people who will be affected most: the artists. Article continues here Copyright © 2004 Village Voice Media, Inc. |
Enter the villagevoice.com Forbidden Photos Contest
Submit your own digital photos of the New York City subway for a chance to win a $100 gift certificate to the New York Transit Museum Store Online or five $20 Metrocards. Email digital photos in jpeg format, no wider than 620 pixels and no larger than 100k to subwayphotos@villagevoice.com by July 9, 2004 for a chance to win. Official Rules - No Purchase Necessary 1. To enter, please submit your photograph with your name, address, city, state, zip code, day phone number, and e-mail address, and a title or description of your photograph. Email your entry to: Villagevoice.com Forbidden Photos Contest, subwayphotos@villagevoice.com. Required format: digital only; jpeg; no wider than 600 pixels, no larger than 100k. ALL ENTRIES MUST BE RECEIVED BY 5 pm on July 9, 2004. Not responsible for lost, late, misdirected, or illegible images. No correspondence can be answered. By entering, you agree to grant Village Voice Media, Inc. a non-exclusive, royalty free license to publish and display your photograph in both the print and electronic versions of The Village Voice, and in related products in any and all media, whether now known or thereafter devised, without compensation and for the purposes of trade or promotion. 2. Contest open is to legal residents of the U.S. (excluding Puerto Rico). Employees of Village Voice Media, Inc. are not eligible. 3. Two prizes will be awarded, a Grand Prize and a Runner-Up Prize. The Grand Prize of $100 Gift Certificate for the New York Transit Museum Store Online will be awarded to the top winner of the Photography contest. The Runner Up Prize of Five $20 Metrocards will be awarded to the runner-up. 4. Winners will be selected on or about July 16, 2004 by The Village Voice Online editorial department on the basis of talent, originality, style and creativity. Limit of one winner per household. The decision of The Village Voice Online judges is final. Winners will be notified by phone and e-mail and will be required to complete an Affidavit of Eligibility and Liability/Publicity/Materials Release which must be returned within 3 days of receipt of the notification letter or alternate winners will be selected. Winners under the age of eighteen {18} must have the written consent of their parent or legal guardian. Taxes are the winner's responsibility. Prize winners (or their parent or legal guardian, if applicable) shall agree in writing that Village Voice Media, Inc. and anyone they may authorize may without compensation use winner's name, photograph or other likeness, biographical information and statements concerning the Contest or Village Voice Media, Inc. for purposes of advertising and promotion without additional compensation. For a list of prize winners, see villagevoice.com or send a self-addressed stamped envelope before August 31, 2004 to: Villagevoice.com Forbidden Photos Contest, 36 Cooper Square, New York, NY 10003. All federal, state, and local laws and regulations apply. Void where prohibited by law. NO PURCHASE REQUIRED. By submitting, I hereby certify that the photo I am submitting to the Villagevoice.com Forbidden Photos Contest is original with me, and that I have all necessary rights and authority to submit the photo and grant to Village Voice Media, Inc. the rights purported to be granted, including third party rights. |
June 7, 2004
Ban on Subway Photography Prompts Underground Protest By ALAN FEUER At a protest by photographers, you see things like a guy taking pictures of a guy taking pictures of a few more guys taking pictures of one another. There was such a protest yesterday, but it might take hundreds of pages to describe it, given all the pictures that were taken, each one worth at least a thousand words. The photographers - about 100 of them - gathered to express their outrage at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's proposed ban on taking pictures in the subway system. Meeting at Grand Central Terminal, they rode the trains for upward of an hour, shutters clicking, flashes popping, in a filmed rebuke to the idea that photography is somehow a national security threat. "The point is really to make everyday people wake up and realize that photographers are not terrorists," said Joe Anastasio, who organized the event. "In the last few years, photographers near anything vaguely important have been getting harassed." Mr. Anastasio went on to tell the story of a friend who took his wife's picture near the Whitestone Bridge, only to be called in for questioning by the police. He told another of a man caught snapping pictures at a Metro-North station who was interrogated for nearly two hours by authorities at the scene. "The paranoia," he said, "has gone a little too far." The transit authority's proposal, posted on its Web site, says the agency is planning to adopt "a general prohibition against photography and videotaping in the system." The agency is soliciting public comment on the ban and plans to vote on the proposal in the next few months. "It's a security measure," said a spokeswoman for the agency, Deirdre Parker. "It was suggested by the N.Y.P.D." Mr. Anastasio and his fellow photographers said it was ridiculous that pictures of the subway might somehow make the trains unsafe. After all, they said, there are thousands of subway photographs already on the Internet. "The subway is so well documented that what's the point?" asked Jean Miele, a fine art and commercial photographer. "This sort of thing makes us less free, not safer." Infuriated that his photographic rights might in fact be curtailed, Mr. Anastasio sent messages to several friends, asking them to show up yesterday to photograph the subway. They did - with Nikons, Leicas, Canons and such. There were an $8,000 digital job and a cheap mini that showed a nudie picture through its viewfinder. When a downtown No. 6 train arrived, the photographers began to cheer. They boarded in a herd and held their cameras up, taking pictures of other hands holding cameras up. At the 14th Street station, they split into two groups, stood against the walls and photographed each other across a corridor. This had varying effects on the people passing by. One woman fixed her hair before she ran the gantlet; another covered her face. One guy said to his buddy, "Hey, what's with all the paparazzi?" His buddy said, "Dunno, I think it must be you." There was a tense moment when the crowd decided it would photograph a transit police dispatch station at 14th Street. A startled officer came out and suggested that they leave. "You didn't say 'Cheese!' " one of the cheekier photographers said. When an L train finally arrived, they tried taking pictures of the motorman. He was not keen on this idea, however, and blocked his window with an advertising circular. Many of the photographers said they planned to post their pictures on the Internet - Jared Skolnick, for example, who takes pictures of the subway on his cellphone and then displays them online. "I've learned that so many crazy things can happen on the subway," said Mr. Skolnick, who paused and then added, "including this." Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
Quote:
|
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...subw.1.650.jpg
In a solo act of civil disobedience, Kenneth Nelson took camera in hand and chose a perspective alongside the tracks on the L line at 14th Street. http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...subw.2.650.jpg Photographers boarded the L train yesterday and focused lenses on one another to protest a proposed ban on photography in the subway. |
Ironically, the authorities will have alot of photographs about the suspects. :?
|
Picture-Takers, Noisemakers and Evil-Doers
By CLYDE HABERMAN Published: June 11, 2004 Saw two foreigners the other day taking pictures of a building in Times Square. Don't know what country they were from. Their language was not recognizable. It certainly was not one you see in those "Learn English" subway advertisements. In truth, the two men seemed to be innocently taking pictures of each other, with the building used only as a backdrop. But who knows? All those smiles for the camera may have been a ruse to deflect suspicion. What if their real intention was to help some terrorist group locate the deadliest spot in that building to plant a bomb? Far-fetched? Maybe. But you can't be too careful these days. You have to wonder why the police do not require a special photography permit, so they can have a measure of control over who snaps away in a place as crowded, and possibly terror-prone, as Times Square. The same goes for St. Patrick's Cathedral, the Empire State Building, Yankee Stadium, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty and any number of other New York attractions that, for all we know, may be in the evil-doers' sights. By closely studying photographs, terrorists could improve their chances of finding vulnerable points. Prohibiting unauthorized photography in such prominent locations would seem a logical next step if the Metropolitan Transportation Authority carries out its proposed ban on picture-taking in the subway system. But let's not get carried away. Perhaps the ban is not a done deal. The transportation authority says it wants to hear public comment before making a final decision. It has already heard some loud Bronx cheers. Cameras in hand, dozens of photographers descended on the subways the other day to make the point that taking pictures on platforms or trains - something that has been done for 100 years - is not of itself a security threat. The subway-riding mayor has added his own skepticism. "If somebody's there with a high-powered camera at the front of the train trying to photograph switches and signal boxes, maybe there is something going on," Michael R. Bloomberg said recently. "But if there are some tourists and they want to take pictures of each other on the subway train - c'mon, get real." O.K., we'll get real. One predictable result of a photography ban, in the subways or elsewhere by logical extension, would be new possibilities for friction between the police and the public. Just what the city needs in a jittery age. Arguably, a similar point could be made about the mayor's proposed crackdown on noise offenders, a plan with broad appeal among New Yorkers who have long suffered the aural depredations of boom boxes, jackhammers, barking dogs, air conditioners, motorcycles and car stereos with a pounding bass that can scramble the brain. It would be left to police officers and other enforcement agents to judge for themselves whether Mister Softee has gone too far with that maddening jingle. One can already imagine the harmony that will flow once cops start writing those summonses. Are the police concerned? "The problem is when they're told, 'You fine this, you summons that,' " said Al O'Leary, a spokesman for the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. "The best set of circumstances is when police officers have the discretion to take action that their professional experience or common sense dictates to them." Got it. To repeat, one can already imagine the harmony that will flow. EVEN though noise has long been the top complaint to reach the authorities' ears, it may not actually be the main worry for many New Yorkers. Citizens for NYC, a venerable civic group that until recently called itself the Citizens Committee for New York City, issued a report yesterday on quality-of-life headaches, as seen by 125 leaders of community associations. "Dangerous intersections" headed a list of 27 concerns. "Too much street noise" was only third, behind "vandalism or graffiti." (Interestingly, violent crime was far down, in 21st place.) Besides, New Yorkers seem unable to agree which noisy irritant should be conquered first. Forget ice cream trucks, some say; go after horn-honking cabbies. No, others say, get movie crews off the streets. Still others hate dump trucks. Our favorite villains include the Gene Krupa imitators who bang on plastic buckets in subway stations, creating a racket that could strip enamel off teeth. We'd show you a picture of what we mean, but who wants to break the rules and risk abetting terrorism? Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.