Looks like T workers need another memo about photography

T workers tell Anthony Tulliani he can't take pictures on the T even though T policy says you can take pictures on the T.

Separately, T workers got a memo this week that they can't sleep on the job.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Hey look at me!

My name is Anthony Tulliani and I have the power to take picures and show everyone on The Internet!

What a fucking clown. You don't have to tell everyone over and over that you are going to file a complaint and ask everyone where that complaint needs to be filed on camera just to get attention.

He was probably trying to look up skirts of little girls and got caught.

up
20

I dunno

Maybe he goes on a bit much, but he wouldn't have done it to begin with if the T worker hadn't tried to make him turn off the camera. T workers keep insisting people stop taking pictures even though T policy has allowed photography for quite awhile now - and you don't even need a permit, like in the old days.

up
40

I never said they didn't have the right....

Just pointing out that this person appears to want attention from people on the Internet. You do the same thing.

And this isn't a cop beating up some poor kid. This is a power tripping black woman telling a white man what to do. The white man doesn't like that, so he is going to make sure the black woman gets punished for it, and the white man is going to show everyone who really has the power, by telling everyone the power he has.

up
12

He's doing a service to others

Not every French or Japanese tourist or resident of Boston has the time to complain about this abuse of government power.

For every video he posts, how many other people have been hassled by these power-mad MBTA staff?

At least 100 to 1.

Who cares if they're white or black? Abuse of government position is wrong.

You can't prohibit something without a law.

up
30

You need to make up your mind Pete

First you insinuate that his true desire was to shot photos up womens skirts.

Then you say he just wants attention from the internet and this has nothing to do with his right to photograph/film in public.

Finally you throw out the race card and clearly know that his true intentions were fueled by racial hatred towards a black woman that dared to challenge him.

Or maybe this just triggered a response from you regarding filming/tracking of public workers in general and you have nothing of substance to argue against that. I know the police aren't too fond of being filmed in public and despite the Simon Glik case, BPD still insist that we don't have a right to film/photograph in public. Nor are they fans of GPS tracking for cruisers.

You're right though, this isn't some cop beating up a poor kid. But why is that ok? I was a young 19 year old once, taking photos from South Station of the Fed tower. I was approached by an officer that insisted that I delete the photos because I was breaking some law he couldn't name. Being young and naive as I was, I didn't question his authority and removed my film from my camera, ruining not only the shots of the Fed building but all the other buildings I had photographed for class that day.

Public workers cannot abuse their authority and in this new digital age where everyone has a cellphone with video capabilities, more of those who abuse authority will get called out in public and I think thats a good thing. I mean you guys already have cameras in public, the subway and police cruisers looking at us, why are you so scared of a lens being pointed back at you?

up
39

Ok...

Filming up skirt comment was to show the power I had on the Internet, and you never know, from what we saw on this film, maybe he was covering his bases when he was doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing.

I do think he wanted attention, and have no idea what triggered this interaction.

The race/power issue could be very true, and may have contributed to his reaction in this situation, in addition to his want of attention. I've worked in IA/HR departments for the city and I see white people complaing about how they are treated/spoken to by black employees at a very high rate. most of it is warranted, but some of it is a race/gender/power issue.

How does the BPD not want you to have the right to film in public? Ad the BPD does want GPS in cruisers, and they want cameras. Defense attorneys and bad/lazy cops do not want these same cameras, and the ACLU isn't to fond of them either. The BPD is the one that is asking for GPS and more cameras.

Again, my main point was about how Anthony went on and on about his right to film, and where he was going to complain. I Think he wanted to provoke more of a reaction from the employee, so he could get more attention on the Internet.

Get over yourself

If you take pictures on the MBTA, then maybe you'd understand. There's a lot of employees who will harass people who take pictures. They will give you as hard a time as possible. This guy probably had run ins before and now he finally has video of some employee who doesn't want to read an official policy and rather just power trip instead.

up
42

"Probably didn't know the rule"

Jesus, you just don't know when to quit. If she doesn't know the rule, then she is the wrong, period. Whether you don't like the guys approach is your problem. Good for him pointing out that she was talking out her ass.

By the way, how'd those charges against Carlos Miller you were defending work out?

up
17

You don't remember correctly

because Miller never made a recording. You can't be bothered to remember the specifics of charges you vehemently defended, yet feel comfortable claiming you know that he broke "a law" (that's real specific) and that justice was served.

You're taking a beating in this thread for a reason. Wake up man.

Justice was served....

You are correct, Hardy was charged with the wiretapping, and Miller was charged with Witness Intimidation after he encouraged people to call a person to drop charges that were pending in a criminal case. That is witness intimidation, and he had a pretty good chance of losing if he didn't remove the post from the internet (which he did). So I stand by what I said, the charges would be correct under the law, and the BPD gave him a chance to stop the criminal act, and he did. Justice served.

No, you don't

Because those bogus charges lasted all of a week before the BPD dropped them. You know why? Because the police attorney knew they were going to get their asses handed to them if they pursued it. In fact, the BPD's attorney reached out to Millers legal counsel requesting mediation before the first hearing. The only "justice" was the BPD making a fool of themselves.

Not true...

But go ahead and think what you want. If they were bogus, Carlos Miller could have had an easy lawsuit don't you think? Instead he backed down and took down his statements like the police told him to. Civil rights attorneys love to jump over easy cases like this. But knew they didn't have one here with a defendant on an already existing court complaint For an intimidation charge.

And good luck to Carlos miller and other Alex Jones guys, they have a good business going for themselves. Miller obviously couldn't make any money on this one though, seeing that he knew he was wrong.

What?

Rule says photos are allowed on MBTA property.

MBTA worker does not know that rule.

Patron takes photo on MBTA property.

MBTA worker tells patron not to take photos because MBTA worker does not know the rule about letting people take photos!

up
10

Logic

So in your world, photos are not allowed anywhere until somebody makes a rule that they are?

Photos are allowed in public locations unless the state or controlling authority for that space makes a law/rule otherwise. If you don't know about the rule, that means they are allowed, ergo you keep your mouth shut.

The MBTA worker didn't "not know about the rule." She made up her own rule and then commenced enforcing it. That's a completely different thing.

Everything not forbidden is mandatory?

It's not like there is "a rule allowing photography," it's that there is no rule forbidding photography. Huge difference. So it's not that the MBTA worker doesn't know the rule, it's that she's making up a rule that doesn't exist, and using that to annoy people.

Consider this: What if she were going around telling people that there was a rule against reading the newspaper?

up
17

Almost....

Non-commercial photographers are prohibited from using tripods, monopods, wiring or any like equipment that may have an impact on the safety of customers or employees and are prohibited from interfering with the free flow of passengers, disrupting service in any manner or interfering with any transportation activity.

There are clearly restrictions.

Losers love the constitution....

I can shoot my gun because the constitution says so.....

I can yell fire in a crowded theater because the constitution says I have freedom of speech....

I understand the constitution, just don't use it as a defense in court when you get arrested because there is more to criminal law and criminal procedure than what's in the Constitutuion.

I will use the Constitution as a defense in court

in the same way that Simon Glik did: to defend myself when I am arrested or harassed by police who are either breaking the law or who are applying a law that is unconstitutional.

It seems pretty obvious that, while the Constitution does not allow shouting "fire" in a public theater or firing your gun wherever you want, it does forbid the government from preventing you from taking pictures someplace where you are legally allowed to be.

I don't think photography is anywhere in the constitution....

And up why can't I take commercial photos in a public place like MBTA property? If I have the right to be there, and my tripod isn't in the way of anyone, why can't I use it? Why do I have to get a permit to use a flash if I'm not pointing that flash at a person or train? Can I take upskirt pics? Can I take pics of computer screens in MBTA offices that have open doors?

We are getting off track here, but I don't think the constitution gives you all the help you need. I wouldn't tell the police they need a warrant to search your car if it is unregistered and the inventory policy says they can search it under the automobile exception rule, even though the 4th amendment says you might need a warrant (which it doesn't)

Strawman anyone?

Complaining that constitutions (state and federal) do not address specifics simply avoids addressing the issue of actions and behaviors are legal or illegal. Constitutions are not to address the vast majority of the details of every day life. The essence of constitutions is to provide broad outlines (at least in the U.S.). For that matter anything not proscribed is automatically legal. Our legal system of based on the assumption that everything is legal unless it is specifically declared illegal. Then the law proscribing a behavior itself has to comply with the governing constitutions.

Why is banning yelling fire (when there is none) in a crowded auditorium Constitutional? Because free speech is not absolute and a false alarm could cause a stampede resulting in harm. Not even the current Supreme Court in its gun loving reasoning declared that gun ownership is an absolute (pseudo) right. The Court still left plenty of room for regulation.

All the questions about commercial photos, tripods on platforms, flash permits, violations of privacy (even in public) by taking pictures up women's skirts and photos of monitors in T rooms with open doors are red herrings. When there is a ban there needs to be a rational for it. No rational? Ban has no reason to exist.

We are talking about the law here...

And how there are exceptions and why they're written certain ways.

Constitutions do not protect you from most things, and that is why we have state governments and case laws to make sure they are protected. Just don't use the constitution as your defense in court, that was the point I was referring to.

Your right to photography cannot infringe on my property rights, that's why the rule is written the way it is.

Well…yes and no.

Again in the United States law is based upon presiding Constitutions. If a law or policy contradicts the presiding constitution then it goes. State and federal governments all ultimately derive authority from their respective constitutions. I agree that arguing a defense on the basis of a constitution will go nowhere when determining guilt or innocence. But once a case moves to the appellate level the constitutional issues do provide the protection, especially it is turns out that a given state law is considered unconstitutional.

Do constitutions provide the kind of protection that state governments or case law do? Of course not. Constitutions are designed to address the broad issues of governance and government. Mistakes are made when constitutions are used to dictate particular things such as producing alcoholic beverages or defining marriage. Even the Bill of Right was an add on. The federal Constitution was not intended to be that specific but that was the price for getting enough support from the original colonies.

On the other hand what prevents the T from banning all photography? I do not know the particulars of the history. But I would not be surprised if it was a realization that they could not defend a blanket policy in court because the policy would not stand up to a constitutional challenge.

How do you enforce a rule that doesn't exist?

I had a Massport cop do the same thing to me once, its a little more intimidating when you yourself didn't know the rule *because it doesn't exist* when the person telling you has a gun, a badge and handcuffs. There's a difference between not knowing a rule, and enforcing a rule that does not exist.

I certainly wouldn't have gone about this the same way if the issue arose, but I'm also not walking away anymore when someone tells me I can't do something I know damn well I have the right to do.

She has no power.....

She didn't even know the rule. Anthony had the power, because he knew the rule, and wanted to tell her about it. In fact he told her over and over again about the rule. He has the power to complain, and maybe get some fired or disciplined.

If hundreds of people are getting their cameras taken away every day by MBTA employees, we might have a serious problem. I don't think it is as big as people make it out to be.

Too bad ignorance is no excuse

Full disclosure, I didn't watch the video as I don't have that at work.

Isn't there a saying in your field that ignorance of the law is no excuse? If the T worker truly is ignorant of some aspect of her job what else does she conveniently not know about? Or is she operating under her own rules and reacts badly when someone who does know the rules calls her on it?

It's not like this is a new rule. It's not like they don't periodically remind people of it.

I watched the video, too.

I thought the kid was polite, did not raise his voice, did not threaten, and generally did not act obnoxiously.

What if a T employee started pestering people who were, say, reading the newspaper, or carrying umbrellas, and saying it was forbidden. Don't you think that would warrant some disciplinary action against the employee? Or do you think people should just let that kind of stuff slide?

up
12

How to deal with this...

I've been harassed three times by T employees for taking pictures. This has worked every time:

1) pull out cell phone, say you are calling the transit police
2) ask for their ID number
3) pretend to cycle through contacts

I've never had to get to a step four. First time I did it, there wasn't even cell phone service in the tunnels yet.

Waste of time

She's not law enforcement and cannot detain him. So why's he wasting his time arguing with her?

If she touches him or tries to yank away the camera, he has the assault captured on film. If she calls a transit cop who insists he cannot take photos, then we have an issue, but at least the whole incident is still recorded on tape.

So, yes, I do agree that this guy's just making himself look foolish, when the proper thing to do would have been to just ignore the T worker.

up
16

Sorta...

Inspectors, Chief Inspectors, and Instructors may issue citations for fare evasion but lack the authority to detain people (i.e. physically preventing them from leaving) or make someone produce valid ID. If someone becomes combative/uncooperative, they must request assistance from the dispatcher and Transit Police.

face mask on very cold days

I had just got on a bus, literally swiping my card, when the bus driver rudely demanded I immediately take off he neoprene half face mask I had covering my mouth and nose. This was on probably oldest day of the year, ambient temp. around 0 degrees, wind chill well below 0 F. She had also stopped the bus further away from usual spot people get on. Gave me a really hard time, very arrogant. When I politely asked if it was MBTA policy, she swore that it was. She spent the next 10 minutes until I got off the bus with a self satisfied, smug smirk on her face. Power trip indeed. And I had intended to take the mask off anyway, but she couldn't help herself. Yes, people need to make a stink when bulshit occurs, or they won',t stop engaging in bullshit power trips.

up
15

Or …

Yes, people need to make a stink when bulshit occurs, or they won',t stop engaging in bullshit power trips.

Or they could just ignore such power trips, especially when the power tripper has no real power to do anything about it.

How about this?

How about a flash mob of actual camera flashes in T stations now and then until they get it? It's a little provocative, but if MBTA management can't school their employees, maybe the public can. (Cameras without flashes also welcome)

I stand corrected

So.. the same thing, without camera flashes and tripods.

Serious question, though - As a sometime videographer, what if I had to carry my tripod on the T? One of my tripods has a bag, the other is older and does not. I think it probably looks more frightening in the bag because then people can't tell what it is.

2nd T employee said something important

The T employee in the booth at the end of the video said, "technically they don't want you to take pictures?" Does that mean that while there is no policy barring photographs (in this setting) that T management is sending double messages? To the public they say that they will respect citizens taking photographs in stations. But to staff they provide either disinformation or actually tell staff to harass people taking photographs anyway?

That sounds far fetched and yet it is hard to believe that at this point anyone working for the T and directly dealing with the public would not know what is the policy regarding photography. To me that is the piece in the puzzle that does not fit. How can she not know the policy? Does the T provide no training to staff relating with the public? Photography in stations is not an obscure issue that arises once every 10 years. I would think it the issue would receive some attention while a person is trained for working at a station.

While that sounds a bit far fetched it might not when compared to past shenanigans such as pulling trains and busses out of the schedule as done in the past.

For the record the policy

For the record the policy States that any professional photographer needs a permit. Any touristy or regular person in their travels can take a photo without the need as long as there flash doesn't interfere. This guy identified himself as a photographer so I would classify him in the needs a permit. Also for the record tripods aren't allowed and this guy is fishing for something to show online. Nice try

For the record, you are wrong

For the record, you are wrong.

The distinction is between personal use and commercial use.

Going to plaster your images all over Facebook and Flickr and train buff sites? No problem.

Going to be using those shots in a commercial or on a billboard selling a product? You'll need a permit.

t photo

Anthony, you are a commercial photographer in which case you are required to get a permit prior to taking pictures on the MBTA. If you read the policy instead of cherry picking information from it you would have realized this.

Commercial use

Commercial use is just that. How one plans to use the images, not who you are and how you make a living.

Steven Spielberg could walk into Park Street with his camera and take some shots for his own personal use, and no permit would be needed.

Get it?

So, you are mistaken, unless you can tell me how Anthony was going to use his footage in a commercial manner.

Saul common sense.. If Steven

Saul common sense.. If Steven Spielberg walked into the t and wanted to take pictures id ask him for a permit. How do you know if someone is going to sell a picture? You don't. You have to assume. If someone says I'm a photographer then I assume they are commercial. If someone is taking pictures for fun the first thing they say is that and not I'm a photographer and nothing else.

99% sure a train called in

99% sure a train called in someone taking pictures or security dispatched the inspector to inquire what they were taking photos of. I'm also sure the inspector would rather take her train numbers and finish her day without having any incident. If she was having a power trip she would've called for the police. She walked away where this guy came back for more, recorded the whole thing and I have to question his motives for that.

Common sense again, plus reading comprehension

The policy does not say that professional photographers require a permit. They say that commercial photography requires a permit. The MBTA has a right to regulate business activity on the property it controls: It can require you to get a permit to setup a shoe shine stand, to sell hot dogs, or to take wedding portraits. It does not have a right to regulate photography that is not a business activity, i.e, taking of pictures, whether by an amateur or a professional photographer.

Why did she refuse to read the policy?

A lot of excess hyperbole about power trips and dinkish behavior IMO.

If you actually watch the vid, it's pretty clear that she had all the power that was needed to move this encounter from contentious to informed and courteous simply by taking the kid up on his offer to read the damn policy he kept repeatedly offering to her. She wasted an opportunity to actually learn what the policy states, and to then maybe say something like "...that's news to me, I'll talk with my boss about this and get it straightened out...thanks" and then walk away after completely defusing a situation she created in error.

The lack of interest in learning more information about or correcting one's assumptions or beliefs more often than not lies at the heart of almost all avoidable conflict--presented in an insistent or self-righteous manner or not.