Last Saturday on Halloween I was detained at the Hollywood/Western Metro stop by LA County sheriffs for taking photos of the newly installed turnstiles that were still under construction and decorated with pretty yellow caution tape. During my detainment (which will be address publicly soon), I was told by one of the sheriffs that taking photos was against MTA’s policy. Well, of course I knew this was not true and stated that to the officer, which didn’t curb his aggressiveness towards me or prevent him from threatening to put my name on the FBI’s “hit list.” But that’s not the point; the officer’s behavior doesn’t matter (for now at least) because the focus of this post is the MTA’s contradictory photography guidelines.
After my exciting detainment, I went home and read over the MTA’s photography guidelines, and sure enough, just like I mentioned during my not-so friendly encounter with the sheriff, photography is allowed on the Los Angeles County MTA system. That is — only in public space.
However, as I read through their guidelines I became rather perplexed because the MTA guidelines also state “no photography inside moving trains for privacy and safety reasons.”
What the hell does that mean…“no photography inside moving trains for privacy reasons”?
Whose privacy are they trying to protect? How is there any more privacy on a public train system while it’s moving than when it’s not moving? How can an expectation of privacy even exist inside a public transit car? Does this also mean, according to MTA policies, that a Metro rider can only have an expectation of privacy while riding in one of their moving cars but not anywhere else on Metro property, which is pretty much all public space? Does an expectation of privacy even exist anywhere on Metro property? It’s all public space!
In my personal and non-legal opinion, I would have to say that this specific policy is bogus and designed to protect MTA personnel from any sort of liability. There can’t be an expectation of privacy anywhere on the MTA because the entire system is public. And we should all be able to take photos anywhere on the system, including inside moving train cars. How else will we be able to catch MTA drivers texting on the job?
Just last week I was stopped and asked by a sherrif for the same thing. He simply asked why I was taking pictures of the turnstiles, how it looks like terrorism, blah, blah. Luckily he let me go without any trouble. Also, no pictures on a moving train? Can you provide a link to their guidlines?
Jung-
Was this at the Hollywood/Western station? Did the Sheriff happen to have a moustache? Did you get his name and badge number?
Actually it was just a small incident at Union Station. I was taking pictures of the turnstiles right in front of a group of sherrifs.
“How is there any more privacy on a public train system while it’s moving than when it’s not moving?”
You can get out of the train when it’s not moving.
“How else will we be able to catch MTA drivers texting on the job?”
Is that really all you want to take pictures of? I suggest trying to get a job working in Human Relations if that’s what you’re out to accomplish.
i suggest you visit my website to see the type of work i do. but before you do that, you should take a course on sarcasm and possibly freshen up on currents events regarding metro drivers texting on the job and falling asleep at the wheel while the passengers who can’t get off the moving train have their lives endangered by them.
I’m sorry. I’m sure you understand that sarcasm is more difficult to detect in writing than it is when spoken. Also, I’m still unaware of what you were being sarcastic about. Was it “How else will we be able to catch MTA drivers texting on the job?” If so, please explain why you advised me to brush up on current events. Was that, too, sarcasm? Then again, I still was having trouble telling what you were being sarcastic about, so I could be off entirely.
I would also appreciate it if you could tell me whether or not you agree with my answer to “How is there any more privacy on a public train system while it’s moving than when it’s not moving?”
Silas-
Well, I don’t believe there is any expectation of privacy that exists on any public transit system, and that includes when the machine is running or stopped. You’re in public, so there is absolutely no expectation of privacy which gives business and government agencies the legal right to record us. Which in turn, gives us the same legal rights to videotape and photograph people when they are in public.
The end of the article was a tie-in to recent stories involving train conductors falling asleep on the job as well as texting on the job, which caused the deaths of many people in the Los Angeles area. The texting train conductor slammed head on into an approaching train, killing many passengers. Do you think that conductor’s privacy is more important than the safety of the passengers? Personally, I think that’s why there is a no photography policy on public trains that are moving. It’s meant to protect personnel, not the passengers.
But do you think that we should not be allowed to photograph passengers in a moving car that’s traveling on a public street? Those people can’t get out until the car stops, and they’re in a privately own vehicle, which is not the case with public transit system. Does an expectation of privacy exist in a moving vehicle traveling on a public street even though you can see clearly inside it?
It’s important that we’re able to photograph and videotape things that occur in public.
I understand your view on being in public, and taking pictures of people on the street, in cars, etc. but you’re missing the big difference between being in a car and a moving train. In a moving train, you’re literally trapped until the train reaches the next station. I’ll give you an example that makes this easier for you to understand. Let’s imagine that I take the train from home to work and back. Today I wake up and have a giant pimple on my forehead. Now I’m not really a fan of pimples, and I don’t want anyone seeing me with this pimple, let alone have my picture taken. Now I enter the train at the station and see someone walk in with a DSLR with a fancy L series lens who starts taking pictures of people. Now I can leave this train, catch another one, or switch train cars so I don’t have to worry about my picture being taken (which is being taken within legal bounds). Now lets say, instead of me seeing this photographer walk in with the camera, he walks in with it in his backpack, the doors close, and we’re off. Then sometime within the duration of the trip, he pulls out his camera and starts taking pictures of people. Where can I go? I can’t direct the train away from the photographer, I can’t get out and wait for a different train, I can’t switch cars. Where’s MY freedom? In a car I can stop and go somewhere else away from the photographer, on the street I can find a different route around them. This is a huge difference.
I am fully aware of what happened with the trains. Do I think this rule has to do with the conductors? Absolutely not. I also can not believe you think this rule is to protect the personnel. Are you saying that they would go out of their way to endanger passengers just to let an engineer text, which is in fact against one of their own rules? That’s absurd.
Hey Discarted, NBC covered your story.
http://m.nbclosangeles.com/m/device/article.php?CALL_URL=http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/MTA-Thinks-Blogger-Works-with-Al-Qaeda-69599217.html
Silas-
Well, if you had a big ugly pimple that you didn’t want anybody to see (which is a great example to use) I would tell you not to go into public spaces until it goes away. Maybe you shouldn’t use public transportation and drive your own vehicle to work. If you’re on a public train and don’t want your photo taken then you can turn around, or cover up your pimply face up with your hand. Also, a wide shot is not going to pick up your ugly pimple that you don’t want the world to see. Try another scenario.
The rule is designed to protect all personnel from liability, not just conductors.
However, did you hear the latest headlines from two weeks ago. The train conductors union filed a lawsuit to stop the installation of cameras that would monitor conductors.
So are they really out for the safety of the passengers by filing frivolous lawsuits that will actually hinder public safety?
Ok, well if you’re really expect someone who relies *entirely* on public transportation (Believe it or not, these people do exist)to not go to work because you want to be able to take pictures of them, or to walk to work (Pasadena to Union Station?)Then I’m not going to argue about that. It’s my opinion that photographers don’t really deserve that privilege.
Also, a close in shot would pick up that ugly pimple. How am I supposed to tell the difference between a wide shot and a close in shot when I don’t know what lens you’re using? (Most people can’t tell)
I will, however take you up on trying another scenario. This doesn’t involve trains. But it does involve banning photography for the reasonable privacy of the average person. I’m sure as a Photographer’s Rights activist you’re aware of CPC 647 (j) [more specifically (j)(2)]. Now, as a photographer, I should have the right to photograph everything that’s in public. (According to what I’ve been told by you) Therefore, I should be able to take pictures up the skirts of women. (and men, I guess) If they really expected privacy, they would have worn jeans, right? It’s their fault I can take pictures up their skirt. I’m just asserting my rights to as a photographer.
That scenario would be ridiculous, and that’s why there’s a law against it. This is also why I think people shouldn’t *always* have to go out of their way to accommodate photographers.
I guess all I’m trying to say is that, although not required by law, it should be expected that as a photographer, and a human being, that you would apply some, for lack of a better word(s) common courtesy. Some people don’t like having their picture taken. What can we gain by taking pictures of them opposed to someone that doesn’t mind?
Finally, no I didn’t hear about the Union filing those lawsuits. Sounds like MTA is on your side though. They were planning on putting in cameras, and the Train Conductors Union filed a lawsuit against them. Take up your problem with them, not MTA. I think you’re imagining this to be like those Coke zero commercials where Coke zero tries to sue Coke for taste infringement. MTA isn’t suing themselves to keep from having to put in cameras. They *do* want cameras to protect the safety of passengers.