Photobloggers discuss subway photography ban

June 5, 2004 4:17 PM

Photobloggers discuss subway photography ban to the villiage voice. The proposed ban on photography in NYC subways was previously discussed on metafilter here In response to the ban, photobloggers plan a protest Sunday, June 6 starting at a kiosk for an MTA-sponsored exhibit of photographs celebrating the centennial of the subway, many of which ironically were taken during the previous ban.
posted by KirkJobSluder (8 comments total)

Mayor Bloomberg seems to be against the ban.
posted by Kwantsar at 4:34 PM on June 5, 2004

The more I think about this proposed ban, the more baffling it seems to me. With recent revelations that terrorists may have attempted to target low-security structures such as apartment buildings the problem of controlling intelligence collection by terrorists appears to be impossible to solve without severe restrictions on civil liberties.

In addition, it would seem to me that sharp-eyed amateur and professional photographers who are actively documenting day to day life would be a security asset more likely to notice something strange going on, and more likely to document that strangeness. Amateur photography of the WTC impacts and the Columbia breakup provided evidence that helped to understand the event after the fact.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:36 PM on June 5, 2004

also, some of the nyc.transit regulars questioned whether it might also be for the purpose of covering the mta's ass.
posted by dorian at 4:47 PM on June 5, 2004

What's the name of that disease where the body's self-defence mechanism starts attacking the very body it's trying to protect, destroying it in the process?

It has a "W" somewhere in it, I think.
posted by Blue Stone at 5:02 PM on June 5, 2004

Luwpus?
posted by tss at 10:47 PM on June 5, 2004

Hell, you could take a picture of anything now and call down the wrath of some unknown authority.

I had this perfectly awful idea one day sitting in the gas station near the Jersey City-Hoboken, NJ border that I might like to take a couple of photos of some neat sky/cloud/ sun conditions that were entering my brain at the time. They looked good, so I took out the digital camera and snapped a picture from my taxi. It looked lame on the LCD, so I concentrated harder on an even lamer shot. When I had completed that one, there was a very large guy standing next to my cab. He flashed some ID of what origin I know not. He seemed rather pissed.

'You can get into trouble for that! You know what happened! Why are you taking photos of the [train] tracks?' Oh yeah. The tracks. Hmm. I dunno, they're in the fucking way of this brilliant photo? I guess he wanted an answer...so I said,

'But....this is New Jersey.' Trust me, I tried not to sound like a smart-ass.

He initially seemed confused by my reply, but then walked off after a very long pause for some less-than-intimidating 'I'm standing here because you are a terrorist' posturing. Still. Make sure you don't take pictures. Of anything. It might be a security risk.
posted by attackthetaxi at 8:57 AM on June 6, 2004

Since September 11th, I've been confronted for taking pictures of skylights in a shopping mall (mall cop), on the grounds of the RI Statehouse (groundskeepers -- after I explained I was a hobbyist and showed them my shots, they tried to sell me weed), a maintenance shack at a public park in suburban NJ (groundskeeper again -- I explained myself and showed him my shots, but later that day learned that someone in the course of my photographic expedition had called the local police to report a suspicious photographer driving a car with my license plate), around the edges of a nearly empty pay parking lot (attendant), of the Brown University health services building and ambulance (campus security -- I am a Brown student), and of train tracks near a jewelry store (owner).

With the exception of the jeweler (who asked understandably, "What are you doing taking pictures of my jewelry store?") every time I was confronted there was an air of quite unreasonable suspicion (nay, accusation). It's hard enough to be a photographer/photoblogger these days. We don't need the subways to be added to the list.

Like so many post-September 11th security measures (not to beat the dead horse) it is all about the illusion of security. Do they really expect this law to stop any real terrorists from taking photographs of subways? Those with the most malicious intent are those who are going to put effort into being the most inconspicuous about their actions.

As a lot of the interviewees said, the subway is an essential public place in NYC. For tourists or NYC native photographers alike, what better place to snap a few shots? They may as well institute a photography ban in Central Park.
posted by rafter at 9:33 AM on June 6, 2004

They may as well institute a photography ban in Central Park.

Don't give them any ideas.
posted by oaf at 6:27 PM on June 7, 2004