I'm a photographer...
Photography seems to be going through many changes. To repeat an overused phrase, everyone is a photographer now. Cameras are relatively cheap and once you've bought it then that's it, each frame gets cheaper the more you shoot. Take a walk along the pavement in any city and you'll find tourists and keen photographers taking pictures of anything and everything.
Yet conversely, a growing number of photographers feel that it is becoming harder to shoot pictures in public spaces without legal restraint, or suspicion from members of the public.
Stories of photographers being stopped for taking pictures have become a regular feature in recent months ; here are two examples; one in Kent, and another in London.
Much of this seems to stem from the increase in security concerns around photography, which in London at least revolved around a Metropolitan Police campaign in 2008 that asked people to report suspicious activity by photographers. This was highlighted at the time by Amateur Photographer magazine among others.
Earlier this year photographers staged a mass gathering outside Scotland Yard because of a new law - Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act - that means anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could be deemed to have committed a criminal offence.
A growing band of press photographers are now campaigning against what they see as an erosion of press freedom and their rights to take pictures in public. "I'm a Photographer, Not a Terrorist!" aims to help photographers understand and uphold their legal rights. The photographers behind the campaign are Jess Hurd, David Hoffman, Jonathan Warren and Marc Vallee as well as Jeff Moore who heads the British Press Photographers' Association and is a long-time campaigner for photographers' rights.
The idea developed through Photoforum a monthly meeting and online community in which photographers show their work and discuss issues facing them.
Marc Vallee said "the site is designed for photographers by photographers", though it is not only aimed at professionals. The I'm a Photographer, Not a Terrorist website provides information such as a "bust card" that outlines rights and police powers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as well as a map that shows areas in the UK where photography is restricted by law. This map will be updated as reports come in of further incidents and restrictions.
Marc says:
"While we occasionally receive individual reports of photographers being stopped while working through groups such as the NUJ, and stories of often bemused amateurs might make the local or national press, we still have no real idea of the scale of the issue. The aim of this is to map out how photography in public places is being impacted by these laws, to get the real picture."
Being photographers, of course, the site also has a gallery of pictures. The British Journal of Photography is also running a similar campaign.
One recent development is that the Metropolitan Police has issued updated guidelines which have been communicated to its officers (and community support officers) in which it states the Force
"[E]ncourage officers to be vigilant against terrorism but recognise the balance between effective policing and protecting Londoners and respecting the rights of the media and general public to take photographs".
I'm 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~41~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I don't know what I find more scary, the threat of terrorism or the treat of the facist police state that we seem to be heading towards.
Silly me, it is the police state that is more scary!
Complain about this comment
Surely if a terrorist group wants to scope out an area they can just use Google Earth or Street View for a detailed viewing and save themselves travelling cost.
Complain about this comment
As an amateur of many years this campaign by the state is just another case of common sense disappearing from society.I shall continue to take photographs of whatever catches my eye.Common sense and freedom are being extinguished from our lives.Now off to take photographs in Henley ...
Complain about this comment
I've had the wrong end of this before, it's not pleasant as a photographer to be taking a picture and then be stopped by Police.
Complain about this comment
Thanks again for the link. I've been a passive supporter of this (especially after the recent incidents you refer to) that I now run around with paperwork in my backpack that includes the Bust Card, the 'If you waste my time I waste yours' card, and the photographer's rights document.
I'm not having my rights trampled on by the authorities. I left my home country because of that crap, I don't need it here either.
Complain about this comment
These rights have been being eroded for years now, in the interest of protecting private property. The reinforcement of policing under the guise of taking due precaution against terrorism (or anarchy) extends the domination of the public, whose activities are increasingly characterised as those of the mob, bent on causing damage to private property and private interests. It is alarming to understand how extensive the 'space' of this property is, space that is genuinely considered by the public to be public. It is not. The public infringes on that space and must be kettled out of the realm of the public. The state is legislating against the public in order to protect private interests. It is consistent with history of capitalism, and it is very depressing that such legislation has been strengthened under a Labour government.
Complain about this comment
It was a good idea to encourage the public to be vigilant but the over reaction that followed is typical of how this country responds to this sort of thing. The public lack a basic ability to reason it out, they just apply a herd instinct instead, now everyone carrying a camera is to be viewed with suspicion.
For me it ruined a great hobby
Complain about this comment
Most of this restriction, is actually more about everyone wanting to be paid for the right to take a photo, than anything else. There was a time when I could shoot anywhere, without any hassles, for non-commercial work. That means non-advertising, such as model portfolios, or editorials, etc.
However, everyone became mercenary, and wanted a "piece of the action", and even public areas of private property, became "pay for the privilege" places. The amateurs shooting small snapshot cameras, could do as they liked....but if you looked like a pro, equipment-wise, then you would be stopped and questioned, and the subject of "fees" would come up.
Even public parks started to charge annual fees for professional photographers to go there for the purpose of making personal portraits.
Needless to say, I no longer freelance, and indeed, look forward to retiring from the profession in less than 2 years, and I doubt I will ever take a professional photo again, as I have become so turned off by everyone associated with photography, and all the licenses, fees, and restrictions, to making an image.
Frankly, I would like to see everyone leave the profession, and do something else. Perhaps that would put an end to the bombardment of advertising, we are all exposed to, every second of our lives.
Complain about this comment
People have as much right to shoot whatever they want wherever they want, in the same way in which other people are free to run their mouth, drive everybody crazy with their noise and make others uncomfortable with their stares.
If they claim the rights to those rights, why shouldn't others have a right to shoot their arts in public places?
Complain about this comment
People have as much right to shoot their movies, or take pictures or express their artform anywhere they choose. Just as much as others have the right to run their mouths and scream out loud and drive others crazy with their noise pollutions. Or as others will just stare at you endlessly until it makes u totally uncomfortable.
If others reserve those rights why shouldn't people who have other hobbies that are not that intrusive not be allowed to indulge in them?
Complain about this comment
I don't know how applicable these photographer's rights are, but they offer some guidelines for dealing with the situation:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
I usually keep a copy of it in my car and my camera bag.
Complain about this comment
I can see in some locations, the government having an issue with the photographs. However, they are going overboard now.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A couple of years ago I was told by a Sergeant in the Essex Police Force that the rule on photography was that if you could see the picture of whatever you taking in a newspaper you could take. It is a pity that more people don't take that sensible line.
Complain about this comment
I've been attacked by a security guard, while photographing a theatre building in North Wales, the guard claimed I could have been a terrorist photographing the building as part or a bomb plot...I could go on at length about the incident..suffice to say I was and am saddedned by the distorted percpetion of people simply enjoying their art.
Another issue under the banner of distorted perceptions is of photographers being seen as deviants, or perverts. Years ago if I saw a child happily playing in a street, I'd think "Thats a good reportage portrait"..Now if there are children anywhere near me I switch my camera off, put the lense cap on, and put the camera in my bag, because the alternative is being approached by complete strangers demanding to know what you're doing, and why, or shouting the worst verbal abuse you can imagine, and/or using violence.
As well as Photography is not terrorism, the chant should be Photography is not perversion.
Photography is Art.
One last thing, and this is me getting on my soap box, with the proliferation of mobile phone based camera media, I am particulary tired of being approcahed by over zealous officals who see my SLR cameras, and state that I have to get prior permission before I take a single photo, when I know through common sense that the majority of people in a venue can have a mobile phone with significant image recording capabilty and the abilty to send every image taken via text or email anywhere inthe world, when I have to wait to send my film to a processor before I can do anything with it....sorry about the rant..I'm just fed up with it.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
#9 (is it #10?)
What about the rights of individuals to not have people (professionals or otherwise) stick cameras up other people's noses without so much as a 'by your leave'?
I for one am fed up with being subjected to continual monitoring by CCTV, being forcably included in someones group photo in a restaurant whilst trying to eat my meal in peace and being expected to take evasive action just because some tourist wants to take snap shot where I happen to be walking in a public space.
You try to use noise pollution as a justification for your actions, but noise pollution is equally wrong!
Oh and by the way, some people DO think that it is intrusive - me, for example.
If people didn't abuse the privilege I wouldn't mind so much, but why, if someone takes an image of another individual and then uses it in a way which distorts the truth (through software manipulation, for example), should that individual have to spend their time and money proving that the photographer has deliberately projected a false impression? The damage, once done, is not easily undone, even when injustice is proven.
The government is certainly not helping. Their argument is bordering on hypocracy. If the police are allowed to carry weapons and use them, we the public should have the right to ensure that they are not abusing the trust that we give them, and where photographic evidence shows abuse, it serves a very useful purpose.
The issue that is not being tackled is that of ordinary people going about their daily business being photographed without their explicit consent and then being subjected to ridicule just because they look different.
Finally, I would argue that a photographic image taken and used without consent is not art. The photographer cannot be defensive about his/her IPR when the subject matter is a non-consenting human being.
Complain about this comment
Alas, some organisations are applying "restrictions" too rigidly. A couple of years ago I had a business meeting in an office that had a commemorative write-up on the side of the building recalling a world-renowned event and a mark in the plaza noting the place where a modern legend occurred. Naturally after the meeting I whipped my small camera out to take some snaps to show my children when I was jumped on by a security guard who wouldn't let me take them.
The event? The London Olympics of 1908 at White City
The legend? The placement of the winning line (which resulted in the Marathon now being 26 miles 385 yards)
The organisation restricting my photography? The BBC...
Complain about this comment
What I find most ridiculous is the way that anyone using an SLR camera is more likely to have questions asked of them. If I were a terrorist, I would carry out my reconnaissance using a mobile phone camera to take shots as quickly and discretely as possible, not stand in a prominent position and take some time to frame the shot perfectly. Not only are they unfairly harassing people going about their lawful business, by not paying attention to mobile phone cameras they are not actually achieving their stated aim of protecting people from terrorism. But of course, this has nothing to do with terrorism, but more of the feeling or power and importance it gives a security guard (in, let's face it, a job with fairly low status) to stop someone taking a photo, thinking they are saving people's lives - and the bigger the camera, but more significant a threat they have eliminated, and so the more important they feel.
Complain about this comment
Buildings is one thing but people are another.
As usual you have another group of people going on about their rights and ignoring responsibilities. They seldom ask permission of people they photograph because they want 'natural' poses. What about the right not to have my image captured without my consent or knowledge. How rude is that? Personally, I think it's the height of rudeness.
Comparing it to noise pollution inadvertently makes my point. It is another public nuisance and should be treated as such. Having the right to do something doesn't mean you should exercise it.
Words said, noise, stares are transient but images can be stored, copied and transmitted.
Photographers are naive to wonder why they are treated with suspicion, when you see the sneaky way they go about getting their pictures. It is selfish, cowardly and intrusive. It's just another form of anti-social behaviour masquerading as art. Perhaps if you asked permission before snapping away you might find yourself a bit more popular.
Complain about this comment
How ridiculous. The last time I was reprimanded for apparently "illegal" photographs was during a protest/riot in Bogota, Colombia, after taking shots of policeman and army ready to leap into action. A lenghthy protest and explanation later I was let go with no problems.
Am I legally more vunerable back in the UK?
Complain about this comment
@super_critical: I really must protest this characterization of photographers as rude, sneaky, selfish, cowardly, and by implication, thieves.
First of all, your image is captured constantly by everyone around you--eyes are cameras and brains are storage media. Everyone who sees you walks away with an image of you in their brain. They can do whatever they like with that image, including rendering it in another medium either by their own hand or with the help of an artist. Protesting simply because a camera is involved sounds a little ridiculous to me.
Secondly, you *don't* have a right not to have "your image captured" without your consent or knowledge if you are in a public place. Imagine for a moment a journalist has been assigned to take photos of a footrace. 1000 runners at the starting line and the photojournalist takes his best shot. Hundreds of recognizable faces are visible in the crowd of runners, and in the crowds by the sides of the road--including children and babies. It's the height of naivete to think that the photographer must then halt the race so he can interview each person and make sure it is okay with them that a picture be taken of them, or ask everyone ahead of time.
Thirdly, asking permission before taking a picture frequently ruins the shot. When someone knows they are being photographed, they cease to behave naturally and instead they "pose"--which is shorthand for standing stiffly with a fake smile plastered on their face. There are two ways to deal with this--either hang around for hours with the person until they relax and begin to ignore the camera (which is what I do), or simply take the shot when they are unaware. This isn't an act of cowardice, it's necessary to produce a photograph of a REAL person, as opposed to a caricature.
Fourthly, you only think it's rude because you are laboring under the misconception that if I photograph you, I'm taking "your picture". I'm not. I'm taking *my* picture--it belongs to me, not you. It's only an invasion of privacy if you are in a location where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy--such as your home, a public bathroom, etc. Any expectation of visual privacy you have while wandering about in a public park exists entirely in your imagination. If you can be seen in a public place, you can be photographed.
Fifthly, it might be an act of foolhardiness, but it certainly isn't an act of cowardice. Personally I'm not brave enough to do street photography, because I know there are hotheads out there who imagine they have a right not to be photographed. The annals of street photography are replete with assaulted photographers. The law never sides with the hotheads, but that is little solace.
Sixthly, and most importantly, within 50 years, photography will officially be dead as a profession. The means will exist to record an image using only the human eye as the camera, and download it directly from the brain to external storage. There's no way to regulate what people look at. Which gets back to the essential truth that the images captured by your own eyes belong to YOU, not the people you are looking at, and the camera is merely an extension of the eye.
Complain about this comment
Thank goodness for the voise of common sense (21: PlasteredDragon). The law in the UK has always been quite simple - you do not own the light rays that bounce off your face - anyone can take your picture as long as they are not obtrusive about it (i.e. they do not invade your privacy by sticking the lens in your face, or using a long telephoto to reach you in a place you should reasonably be able to consider as private.) The same applies, of course, to both public and private property. So-called celebrities need to familiarise themselves with this concept (and so do their minders) as much as anyone else.
Once other little detail which so often seems to get forgotten nowadays - a picture of a child is just a picture of a child. If I were a paedophile I would not be taking pictures of a child happily playing in the street fully clothed - they would be far less pleasant. Now get a life, please.
Complain about this comment
So conflicted.
We should take photographs, they're nice. Sometimes we refuse permission, as I did when someone was videoing my children in Devon on Holiday and WOULD NOT STOP when I specifically asked them to. The police were no support AT ALL and said that people had a right to photograph anything they want, (with exceptions).
I feel that if I have specifically refused permission about my children in particular, but for myself as well, that this should be respected, and I am willing to cause trouble for it, but this case was one where someone was specifically targeting my children with their camera. I did cause quite a lot of trouble.
BUT, many people photographed my children as part of a crowd, or background or just as a part of our group, that is ok. What wasn't was the further person who photographed my children and RAN AWAY.
Are we seeing the differences? General photography is not an invasion of privacy, though CCTV clearly is. Photographing my children is not an invasion, (they are in any case grown now), but specifically targeting them is, when permission is withdrawn, or when people are not prepared to engage.
General photography is not theft, terrorism, potential paedophilia, or any of those other things. Yes, we can ask people not to photograph us, and that should be respected, but the comment about what can be seen in a newspaper is salient and sensible. The government do not seem to be sensible any more about this, and neither do the Police, I wonder why.
We must must must take a balanced view. Stop over-reacting people, police and government, or it really will be a police-state, and one of our own making.
Complain about this comment
I agree with kodachromick7 and others about mobile phones. Train stations and other big tourist (and terrorist) attractions are full of people with cameraphones, all happily snapping away. But what happens as soon as a professional photographer comes along?
One trick I use, when confronted by a bunch of uniforms looking for entertainment is to show them a few postcards I bought of the location we are in. They usually show all the famous places like, for instance, Big Ben, the Houses of Parliament etc. All free to buy on a stand, right opposite the building. I have had people try to confiscate them too.
My whole career has been one long story after another of bored uniforms (cops, wannabee cops and other frustrated types) upping their arrest rate at my expense. I could write a series of books with all the stories.
I know my rights as a journalist and there have been times when I quoted, verbatim, whole sentences of the various laws, to the cops, who then shouted me down, or later to discover I was totally correct, but gave no apology for their aggressive behaviour.
I would say that nothing changes.
It does. It gets worse.
Complain about this comment
A society which give up a little freedom in the name of security deserves neither.
The anti terrorism legislation is being mis-used in many ways to curb our freedom and rights. Photography is just one of those areas.
I will keep taking photographs but just be a bit more prepared for the hassle when it occurs.
Complain about this comment
"I've been attacked by a security guard, while photographing a theatre building in North Wales, the guard claimed I could have been a terrorist photographing the building as part or a bomb plot."
"Who would want to bomb North Wales?" would be the obvious response.
It's unfortunate that Britain's coppers are using the veneer of suspected terrorism to allow them liberty of twisting the laws. We're becoming more and more like China by the day.
Complain about this comment
I've had a bad experience with this as well. I was stopped by the police in Canary Wharf while taking pictures of the Thomson Reuters building.
I work for Thomson Reuters in the US, so it was pretty amusing to have the cops think that I was trying to obtain information about my own company.
They were polite and didn't arrest me or harass me, but I found it pretty scary and unsettling nevertheless. There is something about being thought a criminal when you are doing something as innocent as taking a picture.
I don't consider myself a paranoid person, but this truly made me think about the threat of a police state, and how the freedoms that we take for granted might not be as safe as we think they are.
Complain about this comment
oh mai. It seems Britain's government only cares about persecuting terrorists and consequentially, it's residents.
What about improving the immense FAIL Britain is becoming? instead of focusing on PARANOIA.
I mean, maybe the terrorists would leave us alone if we were less inclined to jump at our own shadows.
Why am I not allowed to take photos to better myself and my works of art because it is against someones rights? as if installing nation wide 24 hr surveillance networks isn't against our privacy rights... AT ALL
Why is it that when I want to use something beautiful in my work, i'm not allowed, because of "respecting people's privacy", when my so called privacy get's invaded every day, numerous times?
oh big brother! if you're watching this, you can see my "archers fingers"
bull... it's one rule for one, one for another.
I'm an artist and I need to get reference photos of stupid insignificant things to be able to draw while i'm at home because i get told to "move on" by security guards when I'M DRAWING. and getting told to put my camera away because I sometimes take stock images of people walking away from me to use in comics,
and oh how i'm sick of having to try to avoid people's faces in shots... HOW IMPOSSIBLE!
have you ever managed to walk down the road without looking at someone else? NO
so what is different about harmless old me taking a photo in comparison to someone who is walking down the street, just looking where they were going? or even someone who works controlling street cameras?
ONE difference...
the government believes ONE of them is doing some good for society...
the rest like me and you mr resident. you're under suspicion of being a terrorist, not because we have any REAL evidence, but, mainly because you have a device that captures light... In which case you must be a witch!
we photographers are FORCED to break laws
I'm sorry if i detracted from the point, but seriously...
they don't want art admiring, creative citizens, they want mindless thoughtless idiots
without art or photography I might also have to resort to smashing phoneboxes for fun or beating people. As they seem to want to take everything fun away from life!
if you're SO paranoid about national security, so much so you'd clamp down on citizens taking photo keepsakes outside government buildings... then why would you let google create streetview one of the biggest dangers to national security?
if you don't want someone to see something, why put it in a public place to start with... common sense here PLEASE?!
Complain about this comment
@super_critical,
are you a photographer?
if you were you'd know how tediously HARD it is to work with people who know they're being photographed, you cannot get a 'natural' pose if someone is conscious of the camera... you FAIL in this argument. proving you're nothing but outraged about someone who might have a photo of you out there, well guess what, you're NOT the focal point. we don't care about your face... we care abut the overall image...
YES i agree I like to get people's concent before photographing them
but sometimes i prefer to ask afterwards as it ruins portraits or photojournalism if the person has a stupid grin on their face...
and when i was taking photos of famine, i didn't just grab a few kids and say "hey look hungry now!" did I? no. I waited until the kids showed a true emotion... as that is the skill of the photographer. posing isnt what makes a good photojournalist image... it's showing the truth, unedited.
this is showing life as it is... not posing which is what you're suggesting.
and if you have such a issue with being photographed, why don't you stay inside? as we already know, to live in britain you're always on CCTV
so i don't see why you can have an issue with photographers *who i'd like to remind you, are just doing their JOB, like you do yours* but are not willing to stand up and fight for what little human rights we have elsewhere!
stop having a b@$ch at people who are trying to make something of their visions. and start directing that anger of yours to the people who deserve it... at the government who ARE taking your photo without your concent and they ARE invading your privacy. daily... thank you please
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
27. At 6:22pm on 12 Aug 2009, caseoane wrote:
I've had a bad experience with this as well. I was stopped by the police in Canary Wharf while taking pictures of the Thomson Reuters building.
.
The Canary Wharf Estate is private property. Does this make a difference? I guess my main question is, with all the blogs and advice on photos in public places, is what if any photographing rights do I have in an area of private property, even one like Canary Wharf with unrestricted public access?
Complain about this comment
@16 (downhome):
If you feel your rights have been trampled on by a photographer, you can always ask them if they took a photo of you, and if they did, to please delete it. Photographers worth their salt usually are happy to do so.
You do get some who refuse to, claiming the usual privilege (i.e. I can photograph what I want, where I want, when I want), but when that occurs, ask them for their card if they have one, and then again officially (in writing where possible) request the non-publication/non-use of the image. If that doesn't help, you have the courts.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As a dual citizen (UK and Canada), I'm always amazed and so incredibly disappointed when I visit the UK to see that Britain, where many would say democracy was really established, has condemned photographers to the status of terrorists. (This may sound strong but it's anti-terrorism laws that police invoke to prevent us from taking photographs in public).
I was stopped by police in central London in 2008 near St Paul's Cathedral. (Clearly not a major tourist attraction). The FIRST question they asked me - I have pro-level gear - was [verbatim] "Excuse me sir, are you a photojournalist?" After many questions about what I was doing, requests for ID and to inspect my camera (the latter politely refused), it was only the production of my Canadian passport and the prospect of Embassy involvement (and mountains of paperwork) that backed these two officers off.
I then walked around the corner to read a sign that said (sic) "Police in this area use helmet-cams". Talk about double standards!!
I wish all UK photographers the very best with this action and we can only hope that the EU overuling of this draconian and ILLEGAL law is swiftly complied with.
Brian
Vancouver, Canada
Complain about this comment
This is one of a host of very dubious legislation that Labour has brought in to combat "crime" and "terrorism" that has ended up being used as some sort of cattle-prod to stop perfectly legal and acceptable behaviour.
Hopefully the EU ruling will change things, although much like the EU DNA ruling I suspect the UK Government will drag its feet and try to still get away with as much as technically possible.
It's strange that there's a vast number of people that oppose/opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet very few seem to realise just how much our own Government is curtailing our own freedoms here in the UK.
It may not really matter to many (including myself) directly if they can or cannot take a photo somewhere.... but it actually represents a vast shift in freedoms in the UK, which when taken with other supposed "terror" laws, DNA databases, biometric ID cards actually add up to something much more frightening and destructive to the British way of life than any terrorist could ever be.
Complain about this comment
To cover some of the situations people have mentioned in previous comments I put together a short, simple explanatory card covering rights.
Unfortunately I don't see the situation improving for photographers so it's more about how best to manage these situations when they occur.
The link to the template of it is below.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/montys_snaps/3887261172/sizes/l/
I print it on 6x4 photo paper and carry a few around in my camera bag.
Complain about this comment
While the protest was taking place today I was fending off police in Brixham, Devon. I'm an amateur transport photographer and had been taking photos of buses in Torquay and Brixham. Okay, it's not the most commonplace hobby but there's quite a few of us and it's been going on since they built the first bus. In my case I've had 30 previously trouble-free years.
Some kind soul had reported me to the police for allegedly photographing children. Even if Section 44 is resolved this other problem is probably harder to deal with.
Instead of having a pleasant day by the seaside I was having to prove that I wasn't a paedophile to the police. Lovely day, eh?
Complain about this comment
"21. At 05:10am on 12 Aug 2009, PlasteredDragon wrote:
Sixthly, and most importantly, within 50 years, photography will officially be dead as a profession. The means will exist to record an image using only the human eye as the camera, and download it directly from the brain to external storage. There's no way to regulate what people look at. Which gets back to the essential truth that the images captured by your own eyes belong to YOU, not the people you are looking at, and the camera is merely an extension of the eye."
___________________________________________________________________
I'm willing to bet that as things are currently proceeding within 50 years they will have worked out a way to regulate what people look at.
All it would take is decent face recognition, linked CCTV systems and laser distancing technology.
Today's Sci-fi is tomorrows "anti-terror" legislation.
"37. At 7:42pm on 23 Jan 2010, Rob McCaffery wrote:
Instead of having a pleasant day by the seaside I was having to prove that I wasn't a paedophile to the police. Lovely day, eh?"
___________________________________________________________________
This unfortunately seems to be the UK's future - guilty until proven innocent.
With a ridiculous and bizarre "burden of proof" being that you have to prove you are not doing...... something that you are not doing, and are probably made to stop anyway. Madness.
Complain about this comment
This is an important issue. Have a look at these films which also highlight the problems faced with filming in public.
http://www.worldbytes.org/programmes/013/013_003.html
http://www.worldbytes.org/programmes/013/013_004.html
Complain about this comment
I've been aware for a long time of varied reactions when doing photography in public, but the suspicion that you're up to no good when photographing totally unrelateable things seems like state control gone into overdrive. I am currently studying and want to do a project on this subject, as I think it's important right now. I would have like to have come to the demo but was away so wonder if any of you would be very kind and help me? I'd like to interview/note comments and opinions and take photos of respondants with their cameras raised over their faces (therefore anonymous, unless you want otherwise). The material will only be used for the project and not displayed publicly or published, only viewed in college by examiners so no need to worry about infringement of privacy. Please help me to realise this project, as Princess L said to OB1-you are my only hope..! If you're interested, please email me on [Personal details removed by Moderator], cheers Becky
Complain about this comment
Hello, I didn't realise I'd contravened by putting my email on, so if anyone is interested in helping, please visit the Facebook site for I'm a Photographer, not a Terrorist, many thanks! Becky
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS