Massachusetts Boston T Photo Party as protest of MBTA Photo Policy

[SDK]

As some of you may have heard the ACLU of Massachusetts has sent a letter to the MBTA demanding that T police and employees stop the arbitrary enforcement of their photo permit policy. The policy is not publicized anywhere on the MBTA Website, except for information about permits for commercial film& video shoots. The arbitrariness makes the policy unfair to documentary/artistic photographers because MBTA employees allow tourists to take snapshots of each other in MBTA stations, but have stopped serious photographers from taking pictures of stations, trains and busses, demanding that they go though a permit process that includes a criminal background check.

After being stopped by an angry toll taker from taking pictures of the Boylston Station stairway last year, I inquired about this unpublicized policy via The "T" website and some anonymous MBTA official sent me this e-mail:

Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:24:25 -0400
From: "Feedback"
Subject: Re: Fwd: 050922543 Inquiry

Dear Mr. Keirstead:

This is the MBTA's Photo Policy:

All applicants for a photo permit must be 18 years of age or older. Two forms of identification must be submitted and a CORI check will be performed on all applicants.

Further, all applicants must appear in person at Marketing Communications, 10 Park Plaza, Boston or MBTA Police Headquarters, 240 Southampton Street, Boston, to obtain the photo permit. Applicants must acknowledge and accept the disclaimer found on the back of the photo permit. The applicant's signature is required for validation.

The primary mission of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is to provide safe, convenient, and reliable public transportation services to over 1 million people daily. Any activity that interferes with service delivery shall not be allowed.

An individual who violates the terms of the Photo Permit agreement will have said permit revoked.

Please be advised that all individuals who have been granted a photo permit are required to display it on their person at all times when taking photographs while on MBTA property.

The policy apparently is over ten years old.

I have not bothered to get a permit, and I think now I won't because I agree with ACLUM that this policy is not legal. The restriction on photography in public areas violates documentary photographer's First Amendment rights, there is no statute behind the policy, the existence and details of the policy are not publicly disseminated, the enforcement is arbitrary, at the whim of T employees and police.

I plan to write a letter to the MBTA in support of the ACLU's position on the policy, but I also think some direct action of protest should be done. Are there other area photographers who want to get together and have a Photo Party on the MBTA? Perhaps the Harvard Square T Stop would be a good location? The Boston Globe has recently run a story on this issue , and it would be good to follow up on it with some kind of civil disobedience. I am not advocating anything that would disrupt MBTA operations, just showing up taking pictures in and around the station, and handing out literature near the entrance criticizing the policy.

 

[SDK]

So I guess no one here cares that the "T" violates the 1st and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution with this secret permit policy. How sad. I am going to stand against it on my own, if need be.

 

[Ken Ford]

Hey, some of are only here once a day.

You may want to research what happened here in Chicago with Metra, our heavy commuter rail public agency. We won.

 

[kully]

Is the railway state owned? If not, then it's private property and you have no rights.

Having said that, this kind of thing really annoys me. The local shopping centre where I live has the same policy (albeit with no known way of getting a permit) and so does the new Bullring in Birmingham...

Why? Are they afraid we're going to snap someone falling over a loose tile and see that photo being used in the lawsuit?

 

[SDK]

Is the railway state owned? If not, then it's private property and you have no rights.

Having said that, this kind of thing really annoys me. The local shopping centre where I live has the same policy (albeit with no known way of getting a permit) and so does the new Bullring in Birmingham...

Why? Are they afraid we're going to snap someone falling over a loose tile and see that photo being used in the lawsuit?

The MBTA is a public authority, run entirely with government money and passenger fees. It was the first public transport system in the US. The authority has its own MBTA Police, a public law enforcement entity. So it seems to me there is no privacy issue and photographers should have the (1st amendment) right to take pictures in any publicly accessible areas (provided you pay your entry fee to stations or on board busses).

Who knows what the "T" officials are afraid of? Now they are quoting the shibboleth of terrorism, from the Boston Globe Story:

MBTA General Manager Daniel A. Grabauskas said the ACLU letter was "insulting and naive" to the T's security concerns, citing the terrorist bombings in London and Madrid as examples of the agency's need to be vigilant.

"We need to consider ourselves as prime targets for terrorism," he said. "One of the things that has been abundantly clear in all of these attacks is that the terrorists have been meticulous . . . and cased the joint in just about every case."

Frankly, I think it's Mr. Grabauskas who is being naive to think stopping some photographers (documentary and artistic) but allowing others (tourists) is somehow going to discourage terrorist planning. It seems to me that would be terrorists could easily photograph the MBTA with cell phone cameras without being obvious, make mental notes of station layouts, etc. They would probably not be toting a Leica or SLR around to take pictures openly. I think amateur photographers might also be able to help catch criminals or terrorists if they see an obvious case of wrongdoing, and can record it on film or pixels.

The funny thing is this policy is an old one in Boston, so I don't think that terrorism fears were the main motivation at the time they formulated it. My guess is they did want to control photographers to prevent images that make the MBTA look unsafe or unclean, that they wanted to keep photographers from getting in the way of commuters or disturbing them, and to keep tripods out of the stations. Keeping photographers from interfering with the smooth flow of passengers is perfectly legitimate concern, but controlling their image is not, since they are a public institution, and have to live with the reality that they are accountable for their own actions and the condition of their facilities. If a photograph is truthful it can't libel the MBTA's good name.

But my main objection is that this policy, where "some people need a permit" while others don't, is just unconstitutional for a government entity running a public transport system. It is also insulting to require non-tourist photographers submit to a CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information) check in order to get a permit for a constitutionally protected activity in a public place. This is the kind of check that the state and its agencies do hiring employees, like bureaucrats, police officers, teachers, etc., which seems inappropriate for issuing permits to independent artists who do not work for the MBTA. Since they don't do this to tourist snap-shooters, this violates the 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

 

[dmr]

Hmmmm ... I can't view that ACLU letter. Wants a login and password. Can you or somebody copy it here please?

You may want to research what happened here in Chicago with Metra, our heavy commuter rail public agency. We won.

Care to elaborate? I wasn't aware of any Metra ban.

I was, however, once told to put my camera away by a CTA maintenance worker when I was taking some casual shots in the subway.

 

[SDK]

I had no trouble with the ACLUM Letter download, and still don't get asked for a password. Let me see, I'll post it as GIFs converted from the PDF. I hope this helps!

 

[Ken Ford]

Care to elaborate? I wasn't aware of any Metra ban.

I was, however, once told to put my camera away by a CTA maintenance worker when I was taking some casual shots in the subway.

Metra has been having problems with overenthusiastic officers causing problems with us railfans to the extent that it's made the Tribune once or twice. Each time we have an incident, Metra goes on record stating that photography from public areas is definitely permitted and that the police officers have been retrained. Six months later, we go through it all again.

It's bad enough that most of us railfans carry copies of the official letter in our camerabags!

 

[OlProfBear]

Anything new on this?

Incidentally, about a year and a half ago some functionary at South Station, an MBTA facility, prevented me from taking photos of an arriving friend there. I'd heard of these ridiculous permits before then, but didn't pay much attention, since I'd often taken photos at the station in the past.

 

[David Murphy]

I think the MTA will have to be sued a few times and make some payouts before they get the message.

 

[OlProfBear]

One wonders how the ACLU would feel about a "shoot-in" (not the best term in these paranoid times) at an appropriate T station. State comes to mind. as the site of the Boston Massacre, but many others might be equally or more suitable.

I guess South Station is nearest to the Boston Tea Party site ... that sounds like a good one, and it's large ...

(One envisions hundreds of photographers ... perhaps in 1770s costume ... clicking madly away (preferably with expendable cameras) ... )


The eroding of our hard-won rights is terrifying.