Hey, there! Log in / Register
The MBTA now allows personal photography without a permit
By Arborway on Mon, 07/16/2007 - 1:22pm
Heard this morning that the MBTA will no longer require permits for those who wish to take photos on their property.
A few things to remember:
- This policy does not apply to video/film recording, or commercial photography - which still requires a special permit.
- You need to carry a valid Photo ID with you at all times and present it upon request.
- Flash photography is still prohibited
- The use of floodlights is still prohibited
- The use of tripods is still prohibited
- Trespassing into restricted areas to take photos is still a really bad idea that will get you arrested (if you don't get yourself killed, first)
The news is going to take some time to filter down to every MBTA employee, so you might want to put off your photo taking for a few days until the word gets out to avoid any unneeded hassles.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Good news! Seems the MBTA
Good news! Seems the MBTA can do something right!
Great news!
But I hope the T will post these rules on their website. All of them are reasonable, except for "carry a valid photo ID". Tripods obstruct pedestrian traffic and can cause a tripping hazard. Floodlights and flashes can distract or even temporarily blind the driver of a train.
I really hope that people
I really hope that people don't abuse the new policy and start using tripods and flash/floodlights, as it will likely push the T to tighten the rules again and ruin things for all of us.
Yup
Same here.
F.Y.I.- Any individual over
F.Y.I.- Any individual over the age of 18 in the state of Massachussetts must carry a picture id. A valid driver's license is the most common form of identification, however individuals without a valid driver's license can obtain an identification card at the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Must Carry?
Must Carry? As in a police officer can arrest you, if you do not carry a photo ID with you?
Could you cite the law, please? I'd like to actually read the text. Thanks!
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Sweet Merciful Jesus...
Blake Zwinggi writes:
"Any individual over the age of 18 in the state of Massachussetts must carry a picture id."
Blake, precisely which law demands that non-minors must carry photo ID? Mass General Laws are all located online so cite it.
Truth is, there isn't any such requirement. It's really annoying when people present as fact things they have no f'ing clue about.
I don't know if its an ego thing but ...whatever it is, please knock it off.
No permit?
What is the difference between a "Photo ID" and a permit? If you must present a photo ID if requested by an MBTA employee, you don't seem to be permitted to take photographs without one.
Photo ID - Driver's License
Photo ID - Driver's License
Photo Permit - Yellow slip of paper issued upon the completion of an application and background check. Valid for 30 Days.
License to Drive A Camera?
That makes a lot of sense.
Have they explained this policy to the police? In slow, simple terms that make it clear they cannot make up their own at a given time?
Have they also explained that employee/student ID, and (gasp) passports are also photo ID? I've seen cops reject passports as "not being ID" before.
What about teenagers?
One reason that requiring a photo ID makes no sense is that teenagers under 16 (and many over 16) are not going to have one. Should they be banned from taking photos?
As long as the photographer is following the other rules, why should anyone care who he/she is?
Photo IDs
Yes, Swirlygrrl is right that cops sometimes don't accept passports as photo ID.
But y'all are just speculating that photo ID = driver's license. It only says people need to have a photo ID on them. The state will issue a photo ID to a non driver. The MBTA requiring ID is a separate issue from cops who don't understand what constitutes a valid ID.
I'm quite an advocate of civil liberties, but expecting people to have ID on them doesn't bother me. It's only an issue when people are doing ID checks for inappropriate reasons. In most of the world, people who are old enough to be out and about by themselves are expected to carry ID with them. I don't see anything wrong with this, and I can see many benefits for public safety. Besides, it's just a good idea to have ID with you in case you end up in an emergency room or something.
Papers, Please.
Being comfortable with the phrase "papers, please" and claiming to be an advocate of civil rights are mutually exclusive.
Saying it's merely the abuse of power that concerns you belies a profound ignorance of why civil liberties are important or the observable fact that arbitrary power is always abused.
The right to not identify yourself upon demand absent articulated and reasonable suspicion of a crime, in terms of civil rights, is second only to something trivial like, oh, habeas corpus.
Stop calling yourself a civil libertarian and listen to some Lenny Bruce. Please.
Jason
“Free movement by the
“Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States.
This freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful—knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer.â€
Justice Douglas
United States Supreme Court, 1964
The thing is, though, SwirlyGrrl,
is that if and when the MBTA starts requiring people to have ID's on them, there is the potential for abuse, very possibly leading to ID checking for totally inappropriate reasons.
Yet, I agree that it's good to have some sort of ID with you in case you're in some sort of emergency situation, and a driver's license suffices just fine, imo.
Funny
I just heard on the Transit Police scanner that they have a boston metro reporter "filming" at park street claiming he doesn't need a permit anymore.
Photography
Photography in public spaces (and yes, the subway is a public place) is protected by both the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as the 16th Amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution.
It isn't "their" property, though they'll tell you otherwise. The MBTA manages it. Period. And believe me, you'll hear some pretty wild stories about how and why it isn't quite public...
So it's nice that the MBTA finally got its head out of its bum but freedom of expression was (and is) available to anyone willing to demand their civil rights.
If the cops show up, what can they arrest you for?
I routinely tell the transit cops to take a hike when they say I can't take pictures. The worst that's happened is being threatened with arrest for loitering. Which was really funny since I was pulled off the train by the cop and if he had left me alone, I wouldn't be loitering...
And for anyone curious, here's a link to their draft policy. I carry it around with me.
As a side note, if the MBTA had a bona fide security concern, something tells me they wouldn't put 3D blueprints of the major stations on their website.
Just a thought.
Jason
this still isn't on the mbta site!
I'm thrilled by this news, but has anyone heard anything more solid announcing this as the new policy - is it more than a rumor? I've seen the "draft policy" on jason's blog for months, but i'm eager to know if its indeed been enacted. The MBTA still hasn't added it to their website - in fact, they have little reference to photography there at all.
Before we get all trigger happy with our cameras, I'd like to know for sure that these are real, official rules.