Bostonist: Photographer NOT Terrorist

p0larbare

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:12:58 -0500

Lance, good point. Luckily the MBTA has spelled out the conditions: 1) the person provides proper identification: Not an unreasonable request in my opinion. 2) the circumstances indicate that the subject(s) of the picture(s) does/do not pose a security or safety threat or in any way cause disruption of service or operations of the MBTA: If you can see it, it isn't a security risk. The station platforms, etc are all publicly accessible and are therefore not secured locations. 3) the picture(s) is/are for personal or educational use only (e.g., tourist, railroad buff, student, artist, etc.): It's very clear that commercial photographers need permits so this only applies to them. In my opinion the MBTA policy, as written, is a reasonable viewpoint between security and the public's 1st amendment rights.

Lance Keimig

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:27:00 -0500

After reading the MBTA policy, one word troubles me: MAY. "The MBTA Transit Police Officer or other MBTA Official may allow the person to take pictures at the specific location under the following conditions" This implies that they police may or may not allow picture taking, a huge loophole for them. As someone who photographs mainly at night, I run into police and security all the time who say that I'm not allowed to take pictures. It does help to carry some prints and a student id in your camera bag. I've also found that simply stating, "I'm an artist." often goes a long way with them. They nod with the sudden rationalization that I am not a terrorist, just a wierdo.

Mike G

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:04:13 -0500

I think the best approach to something like this is to cooperate. Really cooperate. As in, start calling the police every two minutes and describe, in copious detail, the picture you intend to take next. And encourage all your photographer friends to do the same. I have a feeling they'll back way off once they've spent a few days yakking non-stop with insanely chatty photographers. (I actually had a situation like this recently where a guy came out of a business next to the one I was getting some shots of prior to an interview. Chatting the guy's ear off, well beyond his boredom threshhold, about what I do helped drive him away.)

bob krispen

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:04:39 -0500

@tuscadero There is a difference between dociley surrendering your rights and cooperating with officers who are doing their best to protect us. I found that if I responded with respect and a sense of humor, so did they. But, YOU actually ARE dociley [sic] giving up your rights by answering questions that they don't have a right to ask. You have the right: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" You could posit the argument that such questioning is within reason, but is photography such a criminal act? It's obvious you're taking pictures. There's nothing that gives any reason for a reasonable person to assume you are doing something nefarious. Your docile supplication to the various agents and answering their interrogation questions is surrendering your rights and providing a basis on which the police will expect people to surrender those rights in the future. I'm sorry you are so naive to not understand this basic right.

checkerspot

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:43:45 -0500

p0larbare

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:13:08 -0500

Chelsea PD did not return our attempts to contact them. If you're upset by events like these please contact your state representatives and let them know how you feel. Unfortunately this is an issue that will only change at the upper levels. Let your elected officials know that you're a photographer and you vote.

badgertime

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:33:46 -0500

Thanks for calling attention to this, Bostonist. Do you perhaps have the contact information of someone at the PD and/or city hall we could write to express our frustration with this clear violation of constitutional rights?

penniless_bison

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:16:59 -0500

ugh! This has been a problem for years at Union Station in DC for years. Amtrak officials and the station management were dragged before congress for a hearing by Rep. Norton, but really nothing has been done since. There seems to be this universal denial of knowledge about who is telling security personnel to hassle photographers. Also, isn't this a little ironic given how paparazzi literally harangue "celebrities" to death/insanity? Just sayin...

Fletch

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:59:21 -0500

Thanks for the article from me as well. I appreciate that you're taking the time to publicize this for everyone.

JHarrington

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:33:17 -0500

Thanks for the story! Small steps to make big changes...

tuscadero

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:34:55 -0500

I've been stopped while taking pictures out on Fan Pier and also near the Federal Bank. At the Fed, I was approached by two SWAT-looking agents with some serious guns. I saw them coming and snapped off a few pictures of them. When they asked to see my photos, I showed them the photos of them advancing toward me with guns. The officer laughed and commented on how good lookin' he was. At Fan Pier, at night, a boat came up to the shore where I was taking pictures, he asked me a few questions, asked me to flash him my ID and was on his way. He also mentioned the LNG tanks, but not in a way that suggested I was up to no good, just to explain himself and why he had to stop and talk to me. Both times, my impression was they were asking questions to get a feel for me, was I nervous? was I forthcoming? They didn't ask me to delete pictures or call first next time. They seemed pretty reasonable. Of course, I'm a girl, I'm white, and I was cooperative. There is a difference between dociley surrendering your rights and cooperating with officers who are doing their best to protect us. I found that if I responded with respect and a sense of humor, so did they. That said, I carry the Photographers' Rights Card in my wallet.

Nathan Tia

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:31:35 -0500

Thanks for the article. I am glad we are making noise about this issue, hopefully others will step forward and perhaps we can gain some mass media attention.

p0larbare

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:43:54 -0500

Adding that I carry a copy of the MBTA .PDF in my bag at all times, and you'll often have to ask for a supervisor to not get hassled. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

p0larbare

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:33:58 -0500

Who loves their readers? We do! Ask and you shall receive.. The MBTA's photo policy in .PDF form: http://transitpolice.us/Photo%20Policy/Photo%20Policy%201.pdf

rcolonna

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:30:00 -0500

Four years ago, i got the same treatment from Massport cops while photographing planes landing at Logan. My aviation nerdery was apparently rather threatening, enough so that the cop sped up to me, skidded to a halt, and bolted out of his car. The conversation went something like "You can't do this blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah everything changed blah 9/11." i know i feel safer.

Viracocha

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:09:54 -0500

After reading this entry I used the MBTA's comment form to ask for clarification on what their photography policy is. I suggest that everyone that cares about this issue does the same and maybe they will decide to post it online too. http://www.mbta.com/customer%5Fsupport/