CTA Tattler

This is what I got after I emailed the CTA a while ago. I asked again after the London bombings and they said these rules still apply. I took plenty of pictures that day and had no problem with any CTA folks, fake cops or real cops.

"It is ok if confined to public areas and there is no accessory equipment
such as lights, tripods, etc. We also would take action if any person
complained about having his or her picture taken against their will. You
should ask any employee unclear on the policy to check with the CTA Control Center for clarification."

Star Security doesn't work for the CTA, so I have no idea what that woman was doing. It is, however, illegal to take pictures without permission...

I am more surprised that the security guard actually got off her feet and turned off her cell phone than anything else in this story.

If Star Security doesn't work for the CTA, shouldn't the CTA be concerned about one of their employees acting as if she works there when she does not? Or am I missing something about that line?

My understanding was that CTA banned all photography after 9/11 thinking terrorists were plotting to bomb the el (not like the Secuitas or Star Security folks would hinder them...unless they wanted before and after pictures) There are however a few pesky consitutional issues at play here, so I'd love to hear what out CTAInsider knows about this. Also, how do we compare to places like London, DC, SF, NYC and Paris in terms of this?

they think it's a counterterrorism measure. i was on the chicago red line platform and some cops told tourists to put their camera away. but they were taking pictures of the tunnels, not their friends. and they were polite about it.

Well, we haven't had a terrorist attack since the no photography rule went into effect, so it must be working. I am all for it.

Here's some information on taking pictures:

http://www.chicago-l.org/FAQ.html#1.4

I was told about a year ago that I couldn't take pictures. I was with a friend and we were waiting to transfer from the Brown line to the Red line and were on the overhead walkway with some pretty nice photo equipment. An employee came out of the little room up there and asked us nicely to not take pictures. We started to pack up and then I asked "WHY?". She then claimed to have a recent memo that said photography was prohibitted without permission. Being in no hurry, I asked if she could let me know who to contact for permission. She had the memo on her clipboard and then read something to the effect of commercial photography was prohibitted without express permission from the CTA. At which point she was happy to let us continue snapping photos as long as we didn't later publish them.

Re: Star Security. At the Grand Red Line station, at least, they do work for the CTA. There's usually one guard posted at the south end of both the north- and south-bound platform (usually sitting on a milk crate).

Incidentally, the question of WHO does work for the CTA is another area where the CTA could communicate better. It was literally years before I figured out those Securitas folks with the dogs were actually working for the CTA and not just transporting the dogs to their real job -- presumably with CTA permission. (And now that I think of it, I still don't think I've ever seen anything official saying the Securitas people work for the CTA, though it's clear from context.)

Working for a company that's contracted by the CTA is different than working for the CTA.

The CTA could choose to have it's oursourcered employees appear to be CTA employees. That is, wear CTA uniforms, and act as CTA employees. But when they choose to have the outsourced employees wear the uniform of their actual employer, that indicates that the CTA does not want those people to appear to be CTA employees for some reason.

In a better world, the reason would be because it would give the customer a second path to complain. In reality, it's more likely that the CTA needs plausable deniabilty if an employee of a contracter does something stupid -- even if the stupid thing they were doing was at the direction of the CTA.

The other problem is that the outsourced employee doesn't have to follow direct orders from anyone at the CTA unless their own employer has approved. If Carole Brown or Frank Kruesi ever actually found their way to a CTA station, they could not tell an outsourcer's employee to do anything. The would need to contact the outsourcing company, and if the request falls outside of the contract, the outsourcing company could turn them down.

As much as many of us no longer have any faith in the CTA's organization, it would be more desirable to have CTA employees doing these jobs than outsourcing the jobs.

The outsourced security guard doesn't necessarily have to follow CTA Rail Service Bulletin R146-03, unless their supervisors have instructed them to do so.

So even though personal photography is allowed, the private security guard can enforce whatever they want until their supervisors tell them otherwise.

Ian said, "It is, however, illegal to take pictures without permission..."

That is totally false. In public, one has no expectation of privacy. You can take pictures of whomever you want. If you don't want your picture taken, don't go out in public.

Speedy: You must have missed the bombings in London.

Sorry for the comment spam here, but here's a reference supporting my first comment:

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

You can look up case law too, if you are really concerned. I think I'm right here, but taking the legal advice of random people on the Internet is naive at best. (But a great start for your own research.)

Regards :)

I was at a health fair where the Securitas people put on a show of their dog's talents for the little kids. The trainer said they are contracted out by many places and their biggest client was the CTA. I have to say, those dogs had more energy than the does I see on the platforms.

I'll add to this discussion.

There are some conflicting internal policies about photography on CTA.

Issued by CTA Rail Operations management a few years back, however, there is Rail Service Bulletin R146-03 that addresses it and includes this text:

"Personal photographers are permitted on CTA property if their activity is incidental, does not pose a distraction to others and does not affect any customer's or employee's safety.

"Individuals in this category may be identified by the use of simple cameras. Personal photographers generally spend little time in one location and take pictures while waiting for a train."

If someone stops you, politely explain that you've double-checked CTA policy, and that there is a rail service bulletin you've been made aware of that explicity states that non-commercial photography is permitted on the system.

If they are insistent, however, you do need to stop, since you're required to follow their directions as far as I know. As soon as you're in violation of something, they can boot you, and if you don't leave, you can be arrested for trespassing.

Do NOT use flash when a train is pulling in though, since that can create an obvious danger. That would be something that interferes with transit operations and people's safety, which could get you screamed at (rightfully).

But now I'm curious. I think some day I'm going to wander over and ask that security guard what the policy is on personal snapshots. If she tells me it's not allowed, I'm calling rail ops. lol

To add to Tony's post. I was at the Chicago redline stop when somebody took a pic with a flash right when the conductor was stopping the train in the station. Right before she opened the door, she said on her intercom "Don't use flash when taking a picture in the subway. Have some sense!"

I hope others read the cmama and Tony Capoleta's post. Good job, others here are only argument. If you are a train driver and some body flash his camera in your face U MOST NOKW THAT IT'S OBVIUS u can past the station and put one door out of the station, or if some one it's placing a tripod it's putting in danger other passenger while walking on the plattform. So stop argument use comon sense.

Is anyone arguing that it's acceptable to use flash photography while a train is approaching? Or using equipment that interferes with safe movement of other passengers? I don't think so. Those clueless enough to disregard other people's safety and comfort should be dealt with, especially if they persist.

However, I don't see how there is any justification for denying photographers access to transit if they are not disturbing passengers or making vehicle operation difficult. For the most part, the overzealous security personnel are just itching to exercise the tiny "authority" they have.

It's not as if giving responsible photographers a lot of latitude is going encourage throngs of would be imagesmiths to crowd every train station, looking for their perfect photo op. It'll just allow the few that are inclined to operate without feeling as if they are taking illicit snaps of sensitive military secrets, looking over both shoulders and intently listening for the turn of a doorknob, ready to flee.