Jump to content

How do we stop this??


Recommended Posts

From the May 20, 2004 edition of the NY Times:

 

"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."

 

Why oh why do officials continue to equate photography with terrorism??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

the actual article actually makes no sense of the reasoning:

 

Banning photogorpahy will somehow help prevent Madrid type bombing...? When anyone with a celphone will snap pix and nobody will know? Futile window dressing BS

 

Maybe photographers in NYC should make use of the 45 days to comment?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-BRF-Subway-Photo-Ban.html

 

NYC Officials Propose Subway Photo Ban

 

NEW YORK (AP) -- Transit officials on Thursday proposed banning photography on New York City's subways and buses to deter surveillance by terrorists of the nation's largest mass transit system.

 

City officials have paid increasing attention to transit security in advance of this summer's Republican National Convention and following the Madrid commuter train bombings in March.

 

NYC Transit, the division of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that runs the subways, the buses and the Staten Island Railway, said the ban on photography and videotaping would not apply to journalists with valid ID cards or to people with written permission.

 

The change needs MTA board approval after a 45-day period of public comment. Violators would be subject to fines.

 

The transit system has more than 7 million daily riders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proposing silly laws is easier than doing something useful.

 

It's not just government officials who have been associating photography with terrorism; the news media have chimed right along with the party line.

 

One reason for that is because the news media are arrogant and believe that only they should have special access to events worthy of photography or videography. The news media interpret the 1st Amendment very literally: that the phrase regarding the free press applies *only* to the news media and not to ordinary individuals. Therefore we mere folk have no Constitutionally protected right to making photographic images in public places.

 

There is a concerted attrition in the requirement to obtain a "permit" in order to carry a piece of equipment (for example, a concealed firearm), or to use a camera or even be present at a newsworthy event to witness the proceedings. The permit process instills in the public a sense that what once were Constitutionally protected liberties are now priveleges, given or taken at the whim of the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can ban photography all they like - it won't stop terrorists letting off bombs and the like, it'll just irritate a lot of bona fide photographers. In any event since many mobile phones now have cameras, why would terrorists both with conventional cameras? Just one more example of the staggering stupidity of officialdom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may be so bold, (and I have not read the article to see why they claim they need this ban) it has been my experince that government likes to wrap one thing within another. If claiming security they would find legitimacy in creating "revenue" through this license. Big government feeds upon the fears of the weak. Has everone been keeping count of the numbers of people and corps getting rich off of this "war"? Your local governments do it too.

The only thing local officials equate(generally speaking)is; "how I grow my city = more money in my coffers". ....;)....J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...nah, this is NOT going to happen!

 

I just read this, so I still have to think on it, but let's all start hitting the transit system in mass. For the next 45 day...guess it's 43 now...every photographer in the NYC area should get on the subways, trains, and busses as much as they possibly can........with Mr. Krages's downloadable "Photographer's Rights" (do a photo.net search...it's in here somewhere....it where I got it)......and their camera's visibly displayed, and start shooting.

 

And start w/nw ing them to here............hmmm....and linking them to MTA (why not?) so they can see exactly what they are going to ban.

 

That's it for now....on my way to NYC ;o)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I used the email comment address above to send this message:

 

"Terrorists use bombs and poisons, not cameras. Banning photography will have no effect on a terrorist - in the VERY dubious circumstance that a terrorist absolutely needs a photo to carry out their work, they either have it already or could take it secretly with a cellphone. All those Madrid bombers needed was a backpack with a cellphone connected to a bomb in a backpack. This had nothing to do with a camera. A photographer might have actually got a picture of the terrorist.

 

Taking pictures on public transportation is a long-standing tradition in the legitimate practice of "street photography", an art that began on the subways of New York City in the 30's by Walker Evans.

 

This proposed regulation would be totally ineffectual in increasing security - if anything, it reduces security.

 

See http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008JYc for some reactions and arguments by street photographers. (or http://www.photo.net/community/forums, street photography, "how do we stop this?" topic of 2004-05-21)

 

Please pass this comment on to the MTA Board."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this happens (which I doubt it will), may we propose a National Street Photography Day; a day publicized over newsgroups and forums like this one where all photographers, pro to amateur, get out in their towns or areas and take pictures--with emphsis, of course, on government facilities! Make a statement that we won't have our right to practice our craft interfered with!

 

Here's a photo I took earlier this month. I'd sure like to know how this couild possibly make me a terrorist...<div>008JhU-18077184.jpg.ec0e6f49de794a6510f68d91e4fdd460.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Writing to the comittee and telling them your views is a good way to let them know what you think. As a Canadian currently living in Japan, I won't be writing in myself, but for those who do, I'd reccomend that you also send a carbon copy of your letter/e-mail to any local press - magazines, newspapers, tv stations, etc... in the area. In my experience, this has worked very well - I've been quoted & occasionally called for interviews, and in some cases told that my letter sparked interest in the newspaper doing a story at all. This is a great way to get the word out & promote public debate.

If anyone living in new york has a list of editorial e-mails for NY media, maybe you could post it on this list.

 

keep up the good fight :-)

- ERic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Peter. You can plan what foliage can give you cover, weak points in the structure, where guards are are posted, and the best route or parking place for your truck bomb. All this can`t be detirmed from simple observation or a sketch or a quick snap from the waist b/4 the police can catch you. Maybe I better not post this or they will want to confiscate paper and pencils and rip all the pictures from the library books! Big brother gone nuts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an ordinary citizen does not have the same right to photograph as the press then what you have is not freedom of the press - it is collusion between the government and "big media" to maintain a choke hold on information flow.

 

I cannot think offhand of a SINGLE incident in which a camera was directly used in a terrorist assault. What, are they going to ban LUGGAGE next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that emails to a customer hotline are not going to do the trip. When a regulation is proposed, formal notice is published in some official register and a particular address for comments is usually published with that notice. I am looking for the published notice but have not yet found it online (but then I am not familiar with New York's particular procedures or publications). Folks might want to keep an eye out for the formal notice and submit comments according to the process outlined there.

 

Also, New Yorkers might want to contact their city council representatives....a bit of political muscle never hurts.

 

Regards

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Officials are not equating photography with terrorism. Here's the issue. Homeland Security, rightly or wrongly, is more concerned than ever that rail systems and public transportation are terror targets...(see, Europe). Recently, there have been reports that people have been sighted on the east coast engaged in surveillance of rail systems. Could it have been an innocent photographer out with his or her camera taking snaps? Sure. But if you don't think people are more nervous than ever, then you're just not paying attention. The only way the authorities can get a handle on things (assuming they can get a handle on anything) is to stop all photography (video or still).

 

I think the notion that issuing photography permits so the city can make money is wrongheaded. Again, people are nervous. As I reported a couple of months ago, I was questioned by a security guard for taking a picture of an empty parking lot. Sadly, this is our life in the 21st century. Get used to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They gotta look like they're doing something, and this is a LOT cheaper than real security.

 

I don't know about the pricing on NYC film permits, but in L.A. lone still photographer

permits are pretty cheap--$40 a year. But the $500,000 general liability insurance they

require is thousands.

 

Which makes sense, if you think about it--you're a bureaucrat--would you rather make

money for the city, or for a group of organizations that can maybe "show their

appreciation" now and again?

 

What's really scary is that this may be the tip of the iceberg. What if a real terrorist actually

does leave evidence of significant photo-recon? Will the law in 5 years end up on the side

of the arrogant security guards forbidding photography of their property from public

spaces?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<Officials are not equating photography with terrorism.>>

 

Jake you said this and then told us how they ARE making that equation.

 

<<"Recently, there have been reports that people have been sighted...">>

 

<<... if you don't think people are more nervous than ever, then you're just not paying attention.>>

 

I do pay attention. Not only to that but also why they are becoming nervous.

 

<<The only way the authorities can get a handle on things (assuming they can get a handle on anything) is to stop all photography (video or still). >>

 

This makes my point exactly. Government knows that they can't stop photography from happening. So why the ban? 1)Make it legal for authorities to stop and detain anyone with a camera and no permit. If you have a permit cool they already have your name and prints. 2)Political: the "look at us we are doing something" Lie. 3)Money. Always money. They get to make it either way.

 

If either of the first two cost more than the gain it would not be implemented.

 

 

Jake, why do you think the guard is nervous about you taking a picture of an emty parking lot? In his mind do you think he thinks this is a soft target? Did you tell him to kiss your ass? Or did you acquiesce? Did you fear that you would be arrested if you didn't? Are you used to it? Do you mind?

 

 

Personally I choose not to live in fear. And I pity those who do.

Sincerily, Jay B. Stevens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jay,

 

Of course, I mind. I hate all of this. I can't stand that our freedoms are being eroded. It's the worst. But, I'm pragmatic and understand that governments, local and national, are flailing around trying to figure out what to do. They don't know where to turn next. And they continue to make silly choices.

 

I travel around the world for a living. Security runs the gamet from good to abusurd to non-existant. Security at US airports, for example, seems more for show than anything else. But, I still travel because, like you, I refuse to live my life in fear. That doesn't mean I can't understand the mindset of the people whose job it is to protect the population. Go to Israel, if you want to see security. There, before you can walk into a mall, you have to go through metal detectors. Or how about going to a resturant and getting searched before entering. That sets the tone for a nice evening. But, the people accept it as necessary.

 

I still don't think officials are equating photography and terrorism per se. I think they are worried that some average looking person could be recording on film or tape something that might give the bad guys an opportunity. So, the typical reaction is to ban the activity. Yeah, it's an overreaction, but what should they do?

 

In my mind, a dusty and crowded place, the notion that there is a profit motive just doesn't make sense. Sorry.

 

I don't have the answers and clearly you and everyone else are within your rights to push back as you see fit. I think everyone shares the frustration.

 

BTW, I got my picture of the parking lot after a bit of polite conversation, which in my experience goes a long way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polite conversation aint gonna get it in many of these situations,

Jake. An isolated parking lot with a security guard is different

than the high alert areas guarded by people whose job it is to

carry out orders from higher-ups.

 

In spite of my lack of confidence in government's ability to handle

security effectively, and while I certainly agree with you that much

of it is for show, I've also seen some pretty good work being

done... scanning process at Newark Airport comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...