In the eyes of the law
I recently found an old article in a copy of a delightful magazine entitled The Miniature Camera, dated August 1938, that discusses a photographic club camera outing to a park in Warwick.
While there, the club members - all 54 of them - were approached by a policeman. The text of the article reads as follows:
"A policeman arrived soon after we had settled down, and we thought we were to be turned out; but he proved to be a most good natured representative of the force, and had merely come to remind us to 'be careful about the litter'."After he had been shot 67 times (photographically speaking) he departed wreathed in smiles, quite convinced we were all 'wanting', but quite prepared to believe we were harmless. As to his request, I hope and think it was acted on by all concerned."
It seems that times have changed. Given the years that have passed since that article was published, it is hardly surprising - but could those club photographers have envisaged that, within their lifetime, photographing on the streets of the UK would become such a contentious issue?
There are two areas of concern. One is the use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act by police to stop and question photographers, and the other the public's perception of photographers taking pictures of strangers - though perhaps the two are linked.
In recent months, there has been a number of stories of photographers being stopped by police officers. Andrew White was asked for his name and address while taking pictures of the Christmas lights in Brighton, and then last week my colleague, photographer Jeff Overs, was stopped as he took photographs of the Millennium Bridge and St Paul's Cathedral in London (see the picture at the top of this page). You can watch him talking about it on the Andrew Marr programme here.
Section 44 allows senior police officers to designate sections of their constabulary as stop-and-search areas. The exact location of these areas is not known to anyone but the Home Office, though it does cover all railway stations.
Jeff's picture is pleasant enough, but hardly one that "could be used in connection with terrorism", to quote the guidelines on the Metropolitan Police website.
To take Jeff's picture as an example, a quick internet image search yields more than 800,000 results for "millennium bridge London". A combination of high-resolution satellite images, Google Street View and the above internet search means that virtually everywhere in the country is now visible, and anywhere of any importance is probably viewable from every angle in the comfort of your home, so anyone up to no good has no reason to visit.
Jeff also points out that:
"Most citizens and tourists are carrying a camera phone and can snap anything they wish discretely as they pass. Keen amateurs and professionals need to achieve better quality and so are inevitably going to be standing around for a bit longer with more obvious equipment - that doesn't mean that we are criminals, or planning attacks - it actually implies the exact opposite."
Indeed, the Metropolitan Police told me they are well aware of the issues and in a statement said:
"We encourage officers and the public to be vigilant against terrorism but recognise the balance between effective policing to protect Londoners and respecting the rights of the media and the general public to take photographs. Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications."
The guidelines can be seen on the Metropolitan Police website and clearly state: "Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel."
This was reinforced by Chief Constable Andy Trotter of the Association of Chief Police Officers speaking on BBC Breakfast News this morning who said: "[T]hese powers should be used intelligently by officers... it is not an offence to take pictures in public."
Marc Vallee, one of the photographers who set up the I'm Photographer Not a Terrorist! campaign told me:
"[T]here are occasional discussions between various bodies such as the NUJ with senior police officers to look at these issues - which can be useful. The police and Home Office have issued new guidelines on public photography and the use of anti-terror laws and this is a step forward."But - and it's a big but - it is how the law is interpreted on the ground by officers. It's at street level that things need to change and soon.
"The use of Section 44 leads to the criminalisation of both amateurs enjoying their pastime and professionals like me.
"Does Section 44 stop terrorism? I don't think it does. It needs to go."
But is it this that drives some members of the public to take a poor view of photographers?
To those outside the industry, it must seem that all we do is manipulate reality. For many, their main interaction with pictures is through those that appear in the glossy magazines. Fashion models and film stars edited, slimmed and trimmed to perfection.
Combine that with the message that anyone taking a picture maybe involved in terrorism then maybe it's not surprising that many who see photographers casually snapping on the street are wary of what their aim is, or indeed mindful of where the picture might appear now everyone can publish to the internet.
Photographer Martin Parr told the audience at a recent event organised by the British Journal of Photography (BJP) that he believes it is possible that street photography could be banned in the UK within five years.
He went on to talk to the BJP about the public's misconception about photography, saying: "[Y]ou can't photograph kids on the beach now, even in swim suits". His ground-breaking publication The Last Resort, shot in New Brighton in the 1980s, would be virtually impossible to shoot today.
Anecdotal evidence would suggest that many photographers self-censor and don't capture some of the pictures that street photographers from the last century would have pursued.
Personally, I've not had that many problems on the streets from either side; as long as one is courteous then most people react well, even if it's to tell you to go away, they can still do it politely.
To quote a comment from an earlier post, "[Y]ou do not own the light rays that bounce off your face" - at least, not yet.
I'm 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~30~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It's notable that, while the MPS guidance does say that there is no prohibition on photographing police going about their business, it doesn't do so explicitly under guidance that addresses the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. It was a common perception when this law came into force that this act did outlaw photographing the police, and it seems that many police officers and constables still believe thiss despite statements from Lord Carlile to the contrary. Maybe the MPS should expand their guidance to explicitly cover this act, too.
Complain about this comment
This law should be addressed, the article raised a good point in mentioning the sheer volume of pictures available just by doing a simple web search, many more can be found in any number of tourist guides or any other book that features these landmarks.
What could you possibly snap with a throw away camera or camera phone that isn't already easily accesible through other media forms?
Complain about this comment
Phil, thanks for highlighting this. I'm pleased the media is beginning to make some noise about this abuse of power by some members of our police.
I'm a keen amateur, and I am always wary of how and where I go about my hobby. I do self-censor, and I'm beginning to worry that it's making me too self-conscious to actually enjoy myself any more.
I feel the patrol officers need to think about what they're doing. Would a terrorist use a tripod and expensive camera gear to recce a potential target? Wouldn't they be more likely to use a mobile phone or a camcorder and just "blend into the tourist crowds"?
I hope this adverse publicity sees a review of Section 44, and potentially a review of the whole infringement of civil liberties in the name of "keeping our streets safe from terror".
Complain about this comment
It's also worth pointing out that there are places where photography IS prohibited, even if taken from a public-access place. For instance, I believe the SOCA HQ in London, the MI6 building, places covered by the Official Secrets Act etc are all "off limits" - check out the 'I'm a Photographer, not a Terrorist' website for more info.
Complain about this comment
A good article. I'm always wary about photographing around the public, and try to make sure anyone around knows that I'm really not interested in them, they're just in the way!
There does need to be proper clarification of the law, as if it is allowed to get worse, video or photos of the police (or anyone high up) doing wrong will not be admissible in court, as they were 'illegally' taken.
As you stated, terrorists would find it easier getting the information they need without going to the place (at least not going with camera equipment) and paedophiles (I assume) would rather... well you know what I mean.
There are so many really good photographers (me not included!) that take amazing snaps for us all to enjoy, it would be a shame to loose that kind of talent and our freedom, just because of people's mis-conceptions and a few bad apples.
Just like every other sport/past time that gets bad press. BAN IT!
Complain about this comment
Its not even just photography these days. I got shouted at by some chavvy teenager sunning herself next to the river and called a pervert as I rode past her. She was in my line of vision! Luckily she was a larger lass and I made some crack about getting harpooned. Ahhhh, the power of words.
Complain about this comment
This law that criminalises "possession of an item that may be of use to a terrorist" is ripe for abuse. Taking a photo of a famous landmark? Terrorist! Bombers blow up a london bus? Then a bus pass is a terrorist item. Arrest all pensioners. Just so long as we're not letting the "terrorists" change our way of life, then they'll have won, right?
Complain about this comment
I started off self-censoring over ten years ago making sure children were not prominently in-shot. I have even been questioned by a member of the public or should I say my daughter was, she was about 12 at the time, on if she knew who the man was that was taking a picture of her we were on holiday at the time. I found this quite annoying and to be fair I have never taken a picture in the UK of my childeren since in public without my wife either in the frame or next to me at the time. I loved street photography, have done since a kid, unfortunately I have also been asked the reasons behind photographing street scenes, am I a council inspector, a private eye, a member of the press and yes where is my ID and my permit? To be fair the hassle has now become too much the cameras live in their cases, the tripod gathers dust. If I feel the urge the cameraphone gets used now as it does not seem to attracted the 'what are you up to cocksparrow?' approach.
Complain about this comment
We seem to be becoming more and more like the communist states - can't do anything without someone keeping an eye on us. At least here its police asking you to move on. I was shouted at by an armed soldier in Beijing for taking a picture of a lake! Maybe thats the next step here.
Complain about this comment
The terrorists haven't won. Bullying the citizen has won, leaving the terrorist unscathed. Makes you wonder about the authorities in this country. If they're not on our side, should we be on theirs?
Complain about this comment
The point about the equipment we serious amateurs and professionals use is always the thing that makes me think what the police do is purely security theatre - looking as though they are doing something for the benefit of Joe Public looking on.
As mentioned in the article any terrorist is not going to draw attention to themselves by loitering around with large expensive cameras, lenses and tripods. They are going to pretend to be on the phone and take a shot of whatever it is they want with their mobile. Surely the police are intelligent enough to realise this.
But perhaps not, as every single reported instance of police stopping a photographer seems to be when they are obviously either serious amatuers, professionals, or tourists obviously taking a "snap".
Complain about this comment
An excellent article, I'm glad to see to see this issue getting more mainstream media attention. I think a key problem with Section 44 is that it's very difficult to challenge it's use by the police out on the street.
Authorisations allowing the use of Section 44 powers were only ever intended as temporary measures (not lasting more than 28 days) for specific places / times / threats. And yet I believe that such an authorisation has been in force for the entire Greater London area continuously for years now (being renewed each month). I say believe, because the government consistently refuses to make public when / where they are in force (and Freedom of Information so far seems to have yielded little).
Thus, the police can use these powers whenever and wherever they like, and the public cannot stop them. If one adds in Section 45, which specifies not only that Section 44 is for searching for articles connected with terrorism, but more importantly that it can be used regardless of whether the officer actually has grounds for suspecting a person of carrying such items (and thus no 'reasonable suspicion' is needed), then it's clear that Britain is now effectively a Police State.
Complain about this comment
Thank you for highlighting this, but I'd like to add a couple of points. As a person with a Masters in International Relations: specifically Terrorism Studies at St.Andrews, I can understand the concern that the forces of law and order have with unknown people photographing scenes, especially in today's terrorism climate. They're doing their best to protect us, and every little helps. As a citizen, I'd far rather that they err on the side of caution.
Furthermore, the argument that things are available on the internet isn't a valid one. You can also find child porn on the internet and the police do everything they do to eliminate that: imagine if they said 'it's already there so let's not care'?! Two rigns never made a right - I'd rather that there was far LESS stuff available online (ie google streetview is the perfect robbery tool!)
Here's the rub though. As a photography hobbyist myself, accounts such as these do make me feel like a dodgy citizen, like I'm doing something dirty or naughty which I shouldn't be doing. I can't take pictures of my kid playing rugby or of my daughter doing ballet because there are other kids in it... I'm left wondering, what happened to make people think taking piccies of your kids makes you a perv?
Now... when and if I go and do some photoshoots in London, and if I'm stopped or approached by a copper, I have absolutely nothing to hide so I really don't mind answering their questions if it's in the public interest. But it does remind me of some of the great lectures given by Prof. Wilkinson talking about the effects of Terrorism on the liberal stats, how it leads to an undermining of civil liberties. And clearly, that's happened.
Surely the coppers just need to be a little bit sensible about this and have some common sense guidelines applied. The people standing about unashamed with their tripods, lenses and camera bags arn't being secretive about what they do - by all means take down their name but let's leave it at that rather than destroying pictures or confiscating their gear. If I wanted to make surveillance pictures I'd use a mobile phone and be secretive about it. If I remember rightly that's what the 7/7 people used, no? The photogeeks might make an easy target, but it looks to me like ineffective policing.
Thankyou
Complain about this comment
You say you could not take pictures like in the 'last ressort' today, why do you say that?
It is not a criminal offence to photgraph anyone in this country it is only a offence to record their voice without consent.
So it is perfectly legal to take photos on the beach, the public may not like it but you are not breaking the law.
And section 44 is a very poorly written peice of legislation, if a policeman told me to stop taking pictures i would refuse, he can arrest me if he wants but the case would never get to court.
Complain about this comment
"...he can arrest me if he wants but the case would never get to court."
In the meantime however, a lot of fuss would have been created, they would have taken down your personal details and even fingerprinted and taken your DNA (no doubt). Try getting them to delete those records. Which leads on to other debates.
It's all about scaring people into submission and not deviating from the norm (whatever that may be).
Complain about this comment
The first thing I'd stress is that Britain is still a lot more relaxed about this sort of thing than many other European countries. Take 'snaps' of Greek airforce planes (even at an airshow) or Swiss border checkpoints and things get very unfunny, very quickly. There's a 'no photography' rule INSIDE the Greek national military museum and the terms and conditions you have to apply with to visit the Russian tank museum:
http://www.tankmuseum.ru/inf.html
Have to be read to be believed:
As with many anti-terror laws there's a nugget of common sense here thats been completely blown out of all proportion. A long range photo of the houses of Parliament is useless to a terrorist, but frankly If I saw someone taking close ups of dustbins in a station or photos of the concrete barriers outside parliament you'd have to question what on earth they were up to.
#2 raises a good point about google earth / streetview being more useful but its worth remembering that these images can be years old. Any competent terrorist would check the target days or even hours before to make sure. Fortunately we've been lucky and had very few competent terrorists to worry about and a lot of incompetent clowns who haven't planned at all.
Complain about this comment
"Follow the money."
What motivation, really, so the PCSOs (the plastic police) have ? It's obvious to most that they have targets to meet even if ACPO strenuously deny it. They have to be seen to measure up to their colleagues in issuing stop and search tickets etc. else they will look bad.
It used to be everything is allowed unless it's expressly prohibited, but we are very rapidly going towards it's prohibited unless it's explicity allowed.
Complain about this comment
On Radio 4 this morning, Chief constable Andy Trotter was saying that the police are misusing their powers. Sorry, but I don't believe a word he says. We have been here before. Many photographers have been stopped, often by police who quickly get aggressive, and every time we hear how the police will reform and listen to the public, yet they never do. This latest promise will have been forgotten about the minute the microphone was turned off. Right now, somewhere in Britain, some unfortunate guy or gal with a camera is having to account for their actions to a busybody, whether that be a police officer, a council official or a private security guard.
The busybodies have been given a licence to interfere even more and, boy, are they going to milk the new laws for all they are worth. I expect jobsworths and busybodies everywhere will now get up each morning with a spring in their step as they go out and harass people and get paid for getting a kick out of it. It's one of the many prices we British have to pay for tolerating the authoritarians in New Labour to rule over us for 13 years.
Complain about this comment
Johan: "As a person with a Masters in International Relations: specifically Terrorism Studies at St.Andrews, I can understand the concern that the forces of law and order have with unknown people photographing scenes, especially in today's terrorism climate. They're doing their best to protect us, and every little helps. As a citizen, I'd far rather that they err on the side of caution."
Well, then we should ALL be locked up, shouldn't we? Then the government would know that every single criminal is behind bars. I suppose I shouldn't expect too much from someone that's just read a few books on the issue for a few months ("Masters degree" sounds so much more impressive than "two academic semesters with a ten page essay"), but common sense and experience should surely have hammered out this ridiculous idea that the police are just doing their best to protect us. The police are doing what they think they need to do in order to have a job that pays the rent. If that means artificially increasing the number of people they question, then that's what they'll do.
Complain about this comment
This is not just about the terrorism laws. The problem with photographing children dates back to the tabloid inspired hysteria over paedophiles in the early 2000s. Before that, taking photos of children was considered normal (kids can be cute, eh). Now taking photos of children is considered sinister. So I strenuously avoid taking any photos where there is any child anywhere in sight, unless in a big crowd, because of this. And I think the recent problem of photographing street scenes is also partly down to the middle class inspired hysteria over Google StreetView. So someone recently contacted me complaining that I have a photo of their house on my website (which is mainly a catalogue of buildings).
Complain about this comment
#19. Thats a massive over-reaction to a sensible point. I would rather have the 100% guaranteed inconvenience of a metal detector and pat-down at airport security followed by having to buy a new bottle of water than the very small chance of my plane being blown out of the sky by some nut with nitroglycerine in his water bottle and a box cutter in his hand luggage.
Incidentally can I presume from your total dismissal of a master degree from one of the worlds oldest universities that you don't have one. MY masters degree qualified me to make life and death decisions (MSc Clinical Biochemistry). As bits of paper go it carries a reasonable bit of power and isn't normally handed out free.
What really annoys me is that this is all blamed on 'New Labour' and 'busy body police' when our attitude to taking photographs is much more relaxed than most other european nations. I know most of the British public have memories of goldfish like proportions but we all seem to forgotten the 'Greek Planespotters'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1955470.stm
3 years in jail for taking snaps at a public airshow. This from a 'socialist', anti-US, anti-gulf war nation that prides itself on being the birthplace of democracy. As far as I know no-one has been arrested in the UK for taking pics in central london, much less jailed for espionage!
Complain about this comment
"I'm a tourist, not a terrorist". I know they sound similar but they are completely different.
Complain about this comment
@7 "This law that criminalises "possession of an item that may be of use to a terrorist" is ripe for abuse."
Look at the Liberty website for the story of a man who had a marker pen confiscated because it could be used to deface government signs.
When the police try to arrest a photographer, or confiscate their equipment, they may just be enjoying the fact that they have the power to do so. The more sinister purpose is to exploit a (largely unnecessary) "climate of fear" to create a (really sinister) climate of obedience. As someone else pointed out, you may be correct that what you're doing is legal, but if a police officer thinks that it *might* be illegal then they can arrest you anyway - even if they're quite wrong. They have the badges, they have the power.
Complain about this comment
i note that there has not been a single case of a member of officer being disciplined for misusing the terrorism act: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/misuse_of_the_terrorism_act_2000#incoming-34230
Complain about this comment
As an art student in Belfast in the 1980's we were advised to take a letter from the university advising that we were photographing as part of your course. We were also advised not to photograph the police or any members of the security service. We fully understood the last point, however we were often stopped and asked what we were doing. On one occasion I was doing a reportage project in my village when I was stopped by the police on the basis that I was photographing the street and they had not seen me before. After a very long conversation in which I explained that I had lived in the same area and house for nearly twenty years the fact that the did not know me was no bases in which to stop me. It is a worrying trend that elements of terrorist legalization that was applied to Northern Ireland is now applied nationally and will effect how we mediate with our environment through photograph and react to each other. Martin Parr's comment may become true.
Complain about this comment
As a member of one of the photography organisations in the UK, I happen to mainly focus on architectural photography.
This Stalinist cult of paranoia, in the name of the so-called Terrorism Act, has affected and is affecting me & others.
In our Newsletter, one finds out about countless cases every month - some are tragicomic, others extremely serious in terms of what happens to the innocent photographer. So the scale of the problem is truly remarkable, ranging from absolute innocent amateurs being clamped down on for taking a picture which happens to be on myriad postcards (security risk then??) to people losing their equipment while arrested for trying to infuse some sanity... just because the person attempted to point out basic legal aspect that the police can't confiscate even his memory card without a warrant...
As a person who formally lived in a dictatorship, it is remarkable on just how many points things match those former Orwellian aspects of a world I thought I left behind.
What doesn't help is also the paranoia-inducing poster campaigns, for example (when members of the public are asked to watch out for 'suspicious photographers').
There were petitions filed. There were various declarations by Home Office officials and police. The essence has not and is not changing - from police to 'Joe Public', there is extremely vague legislation (and propaganda around it) at work... There is nothing worse than a vague all-encompassing legislation which gives uninformed, overzealous, misinformed etc. members of law enforcement bodies and, even worse, members of the public apparent 'powers' that can be abused in breathtaking ways.
Even when trying to present to a police officer the fundamentals of what they can and can not do under this legislation, one (as some found) is at risk of being even arrested.
The list of cases is growing every day - and it is good now that also the BBC has picked up on this, the many action groups and initiatives have been trying for many months to infuse some sanity into this whole matter... but the blatantly Stalinist subtext is unchanged unfortunately.. only specific context and keywords differ from such examples of former or current other totalitarian 'legislation'.
Complain about this comment
I was stopped some time ago while taking photos on Paddington station at the start of a photographic trip abroad. Since then I have been through China, Tibet, Chile, Peru, Equador, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and hardly ever had a problem. I don't take photos of military or police subjects becuase that would be silly, but London landmarks! Tourism can help people understand other nation's ways of thinking but if tourists get stopped talking photos what will they think of our political system?
Martin Perrett
Supply Imaging Limited
Complain about this comment
Jeez... its like the 'have you stopped beating your wife?' question here. Maybe no police office has been disciplined for abusing the terror acts because no police officer has been proven to have abused the terror acts? Innocent until proven guilty applies to cops as much as the rest of us.
This is like Walter Wolfgangs much exagerated claims of being 'detained under terror legislation' which sound so much better than 'stopped for 20 minutes while cops try to find out why the wild eyed man with no ID is trying to get into a room with the PM' . The fact that mandelson was stopped by anti-terror cops for the same reason at this years labour party conference doesn't seem to get nearly the same air-time.
As far as I know NO photographer has had his equipment confiscated or been arrested after taking pics of tourist sites. If anyone can actually find a real case I'll be interested but from what I've seen we're all just making up cases of abuse to have something to rant about.
#25 I don't understand your point. You say that you realise that it was reasonable not to photograph cops and soldiers when the IRA was targetting them but that its worrying when its applied here. Why? Did you not see this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7250697.stm
I've got access to all sorts of 'interesting' stuff at work.... I damned well don't want any stranger taking my picture in the street either. Why is it that its 'an abuse of civil liberties' for the govt to film me with CCTV but apparently some sort of human right for a total stranger to take pics of me in the street? The double standards regarding 'civil liberties' is incredible.
Complain about this comment
The cops in London have run something called Project Griffin over the last few years which teaches private security officers to be 'terrorist aware' and part of that 'training' includes being aware of people taking photographs and calling the cops in.
So it's not just the cops that need to be aware and use discretion it's the lower tier that call them in every time they see a 'suspicious looking' johnny tourist taking a picture of something in London.
Complain about this comment
I find the whole tone of this article and most of the comments deeply unfortunate. The misinterpretation of section 44 - a stop and search power - aside, why must every approach by a police officer be seen as hostile or criminalising?
This defensiveness obscures the real issue, which is that hostile reconnaissance - including the taking of pictures and video by terrorists - is a reality. It is being used by terrorists now.
At the risk of sounding melodramatic, the terrorist is not interested in your right to take photos unmolested. The terrorist wants you dead.
The police should be talking to the public, asking questions, using their powers where necessary and appropriate. It's a positive thing. It makes the work of the terrorist - trying to kill you - harder.
The police and the public are on the same side in this. Enjoy the debate by all means, but don't get so hung up on this false police/public confrontation that you lose sight altogether of the very real confrontation with terror that the police and public should be - and are - working together to overcome.
Complain about this comment
About making up cases... unfortunately not the case. But it's a catch-22 issue as clearly copying here all the details of last 2 years of cases documented by organisations at least can not be done.
Also about abuse of power... there was even small claims court case won against the police, who had to pay back the equipment cost and issued a formal apology letter... Others have received 'guidance' after certain events. Etc.
But there is a vast number of cases where private security personnel and just 'Joe Public' go overboard... I would like to think the actual law enforcement cases of abuse are very rare, although no full statistics at my fingertips.
Certainly the number of abuse cases from zealots is vastly superior, though and it's a direct result of paranoia cult around the legislation.
My absolute favourite is a concrete documented case that happened in front of a doze witnesses: the person taking landscape photo was challenged - he asked whether it would be OK to take same picture with his small digicam or mobile phone... the answer was that yes, that would be OK.
So the logic, seen in many other documented cases, is that if somebody is there with a tripod and/or a serious camera, then he/she is a security risk. Otherwise a small easily pocketed device taking same picture is OK.
This is one of the most hilarious failures of fundamental logic from some who thought they were 'enforcing' anti-terror legislation.
Complain about this comment
"Enjoy the debate by all means, but don't get so hung up on this false police/public confrontation that you lose sight altogether of the very real confrontation with terror that the police and public should be - and are - working together to overcome."
It seems to me that people are engaging in the debate because it is NOT merely an intellectual exercise and your average joe non terrorist is being approached more and more by Police and all sorts of other 'authorities' using anti-terror legislation.
If you want to big picture it then let's go back to the broadness of legislation that makes a mockery of what was our 'freedom' and big the picture up even more to a Foreign Policy based on hanging on to the coat-tails of a broadly hostile and Imperalistic US Foreign approach in recent years that has dragged us into this particular mess in the first place.
Complain about this comment
@30: Fair point, however the way the spirit of that law is applied has been blown out of proportion.
The argument has been made in many forums by many, but to this day, the explanations on the exact mechanism by which stopping amateur or any photographers in public places, while taking pictures of landmarks, is having a positive effect on reducing terrorism has been fundamentally logically and statistically flawed.
The effects of mis-interpreting paranoia campaign material have been seen for years now, which is inevitable - Joe Public can not have neither the training nor the ability to assess a situation and make a valid challenge. So the only thing that happens countless times is vast overreactions, this is natural consequence.
Machiavelli wrote in a very astute way to the Medicis: be very careful when you ignite the streets, because any ruler who thinks he/she has any control over what happens next is deluding him/herself.
This goes to any overblown campaign stemming from so-called legislation, when public is given 'powers' (and delusions) about things they can not understand nor differentiate.
Complain about this comment
#30 The police officer on Radio 4's Today programme this morning was saying that the coppers on the beat should be talking to people more rather than resorting immediately to exercising powers under anti-terrorism legislation, and that he would be encouraging them to do so - he pointed out that their current immediate recourse to "powers" was creating a hostile response to them and that they should be less formal right away.
That approach would be beneficial both to the police and to the recipients of their enquiries, whether photographers or not.
Complain about this comment
Johan,
Your argument.
The Police are not doing their best to protect us, they are doing their best to control us, like the current government.
You say "As a citizen, I'd far rather that they err on the side of caution."
I would rather they concentrated on catching criminals and terrorists. There is a difference Tourist / Terrorist. Visitor, harmless / Crazy killer
You also say
"Furthermore, the argument that things are available on the internet isn't a valid one. You can also find child porn on the internet and the police do everything they do to eliminate that: imagine if they said 'it's already there so let's not care'?!"
There are photgraphs of everything on the internet, that does not make (most of) them wrong.
I do not have to go the the Houses of Parliament or Downing St to see what it looks like. However I would like to visit London, and take a photograph of the Mother of Parliaments - without having to justify myself to an authoritarian tool of a repressive state.
An ology in terror should not make you sit sheep like, accepting the removal of freedoms hard fought for, that I for one want to excercise, without being harassed either by the state, or busybodies who have been cowed by the same state into thinking photography is a crime.
If your ology showed anything it would be that terrorists do their best not to stand out. Annonying 'harmless' hobbyists and tourists is counterproductive.
Complain about this comment
By the way, the Today programme clip is online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8394000/8394501.stm - scroll down to the item at 0850.
Complain about this comment
Obviously there's been a mishearing somewhere. Someone in the Met thinks we're in the middle of a "War on Tourism".
Complain about this comment
#31. I'm not asking for ALL the alleged cases. Just one, hard, verified case of someone taking a photograph of a major tourist attraction being arrested. Surely as the BBC are taking such an interest in this story there should be one news report on their website. I specify 'reliable' website... I could find online links 'proving' elvis still lives or the loch ness monster planned 9/11 if I looked hard enough.
Regarding this (and I note you don't say he was arrested or anything confiscated) "My absolute favourite is a concrete documented case that happened in front of a doze witnesses: the person taking landscape photo was challenged - he asked whether it would be OK to take same picture with his small digicam or mobile phone... the answer was that yes, that would be OK. So the logic, seen in many other documented cases, is that if somebody is there with a tripod and/or a serious camera, then he/she is a security risk. Otherwise a small easily pocketed device taking same picture is OK."
The logic is quite logical. A pocket cam / digi phone pic of the houses of Parliament taken from a distance will show no more than you'd see on a postcard bought outside parliament. A tripod shot using a big lens will allow extreme close ups using a photoshop package that may be clear enough to show individual cops faces, security systems around doors etc. Its the difference between 'google earth' and a US Spy satellite picture.
The fact that I can't imagine any serious terrorist setting up a big camera and tripod makes the whole thing a bit ridiculous but frankly a lot of the recent genuine terror attacks have been ridiculous (such as Richard Reid only taking a single match to light his shoe bomb) and high definition pictures posted on the website of a genuine photographer could be quite useful to anyone planning anything naughty.
Its worth remembering that the D-Day landings were part-planned using pre-war holiday snaps of the northern French coast. The govt appealed for them to be sent in and we got hundreds of thousands, some rather useful.
Complain about this comment
Regarding Andrew White - He was actually taken aside by two PCSO's in Burgess Hill, not Brighton. One would wonder what the strategic value of Burgess Hill is?
My other concern is that the fact PCSO's were exercising Section 44 legislation when according to the Home Office Website:
"Section 44 powers, which can also be exercised by PCSOs in the presence of a constable, only apply in areas where an “authorisation” has been given."
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym (#38), just because most people are too rattled to be enraged enough to go to the papers or the BBC does not mean it does not happen. How many tourists visit London every day? How many visit other towns/cities? Millions.
How many Brits just grumble under their collective breaths about how Britain is getting worse, but won't say anything because that's now how us Brits do it? Millions.
But we're starting to get fed up with this. That's why photographers, media people and civil rights campaigners are getting restless and cross and go to the press with this.
Tourists, and people on the street should not stand for being told that they can't do what they are clearly allowed to do. If they want you to go to their local station, do. Make sure you print off articles that clearly state the position of the Metropolitan Police Authority (from their website as well as the Home Office), and show it to the police when you DO get to the station. Make sure you get identification of the officers who got you to go to the station so you can raise an IPCC complaint if necessary.
Yes, it's a hassle, but it's a hassle that will show the police that you value your civil rights, and that you will stand up for them
Complain about this comment
Maybe some threads got bit mixed now - some precision, as mentioned, the case was an event, not a tourist attraction, although there was a non-attractive bridge involved. If we think the organisation made up the case that was also in the local press a lot... then well, it's a comfortable viewpoint certainly.
The funny case was a landscape photographer and it was challenged, as mentioned, by a private jobsmith under delusions of power under Terrorism Act.
Then about long lens: again, it was landscape in the middle of nowhere. And happened to be anyway wide angle lens... So it is not an accidental example, as it works on many levels.
We are somehow going towards a point here that everything that was reported (just in the last 2 years) in media and professional (and other) organisation's fori has been made up and there is no abuse of the powers by anybody (from police down to the average Joe Public.
It really is a comfortable parallel Universe then and I would truly like to be part of it. Which then means that the vast press and actions taken by several professional organisations/bodies over last few years have been triggered by vast number of imaginary cases.
It goes back to: where is the delimitation line between a valid legislation and abuse of it (by enforcement down to average Joe Public).
It is not different problem in any way from e.g. McCarthy era paranoia.
The enemy, in many societies and regimes, was said, throughout history, that is among us.
How this denaturated into deplorable, wide-scale paranoia and abuse in past & present is a very good lesson.
This is in no way different - it's not saying the threat is unreal, but the extremes of applying any dogma system against it can have very negative consequences.
To which the eternal point comes: what is worse... sure, everything is relative, but one has to ask where does a free society end and totalitarianism (under the umbrella of benevolent-sounding legislation) starts.
Complain about this comment
Footnote is that if we take @40 literally, then the resulting point is: ANY photography ANYWHERE with ANY equipment has to be banned as it's a security risk.
Surely this is not a version of reality that one can contemplate?
Complain about this comment
#40. So you can't produce one single case of someone being arrested for taking a picture of big ben then? Lots of people claim to be molested by aliens online. Do you believe them?
You don't even need to ask for ID.. it has to be shown as part of an arrest and if you've ever been stopped and searched (I have.. I used to live in Glasgow and the cops 'Operation Spotlight' to get knives out of pubs was a great success) the officer gives his name as part of the procedure. They have numbers on their shoulder tabs that identify them.
As I said earlier there is a clear double standard here. I do not want some total stranger to take my picture. Because of my job I consider it a potential security risk to me. I think my right to privacy and security outweighs someone elses right to take snaps. How many bank robberies, cash depot heists, supermarket robberies etc have started with the managers family being taken hostage? A few pics of the wife and kids make it much easier to do this sort of thing. I can see exactly why a cop on security duty at no 10 or westminster doesn't want his picture taken. If you can't then a lust for 'civil liberties' is bypassing common sense.
Complain about this comment
As golden rule of any forum, things slide towards a personal tone.
Well, it's not about a parallel with made-up abduction cases and UFOs :-)
And the example from the start wasn't a Big Ben or tourist landmark, it went to the point of public spaces, public events and very negative consequences to an average photographer. If it hasn't happened at all, once has to question admittedly the organisation's newsletter and other reports.
Overall, as per the difficult dilemma / double standard, it is a very difficult one indeed - yes. As pointed out, where is the line between clampdown on any photographic activity at random and ensuring public safety.
The danger is that crossing that line into all-out paranoia (hence Stalinism and McCarthy-ism parallels) has immense consequences to the entire society.
But fully agree that it's not miraculously solvable, not even fully debatable on a blog.
Complain about this comment
Just to emphasise what I posted earlier: in designated sensitive locations there *are* restrictions on photography, both on photographing the site and on photographing the people who work there.
But from a legal point of view, no matter what we may personally feel about the rights and wrongs of it and our own personal wishes, there is nothing to stop any of us being photographed if we're in a public place (unless our image is to be sold, in which case permission has to be obtained, but that permission may only be sought at the time of the sale, rather than at the time the image is taken).
Complain about this comment
@Phil Coomes: Thank you for taking up this decidedly sore topic again. I know all of us in the business have the same problem, and when the quintessential icon of media in this country (i.e. the Beeb) runs into the same problem, you know that this is much larger than people realise.
Yes, we laugh at the absurdity of someone being 'arrested' for supposedly intimidating a PCSO while taking a photograph of a chippy in Medway, we shake our heads at the absurdity of someone being asked to stop taking photos of Christmas lights in Brighton, but we all know that it's a bitter laugh, an exasperated headshake.
When someone like Lord Carlile points out that the police is overstepping their bounds, why does Parliament not do anything about it? Is it because they are so desperate not to let common sense win? Because it would mean that they would have to make a U-turn on their 'we're stamping down on terrorism' stance?
They can do it better... perhaps they should learn from their French compatriots. The DGSE is ruthless when it comes to terrorism (the Algerian situation taught them well), but I don't see the French police telling tourists that they can't take photographs of La Défense, the Arc de Triomphe, the Louvre or the Eiffel Tower because of terrorism laws.
Complain about this comment
#45 that sounds more of less like a correct assessment of the law, but as I'm bored on a Friday afternoon what (or more specifically who decides) what is a "public space"?
Is it O.K to set up a camera in a swimming pool and take photos of kids in swimming pools.... the changing rooms are technically 'public' too. Likewise I work in a hospital... by definition a 'public space' but also my workplace. I work in a secure unit but the corridor (giving a nice clear view of the security in place) is 'public'
The reason I say 'more or less' is that it would appear to be very legally iffy to publish pictures of know offenders (not for commercial gain) yet fine to publish pictures of members of the public. If human rights laws are giving convicted criminals more rights than regular guys out in the street then our 'civil rights laws' are seriously screwed up.
I think Palmyra is right and this is a serious problem and not easily solved completely, but its one we should at least attempt to resolve with some better thought out legislation... it'll save a lot of problems long term if everyone fully understands what they are allowed to do and what (or where) they can't.
Complain about this comment
#46. I'd rather be moved on by a community support office than fall into the hands of the DGSE or the French legal system. We object to 40 day detention but the french can put you away for years with the signature of a magistrate. The DGSE are more than happy to use car batteries when it comes to interogation too.
Believe me our rather confused and contradictory terror legislation is soft and fuzzy compared to most other european nations. No one can find me a single story about an actual arrest for taking pics of public spaces in the UK but I found one of 14 tourists facing 20 years in a Greek jail for taking snaps at one of their public events.
'The land of the free' (the USA) has had a serious sense of humour bypass too. My sister was detained for 14 hours, questioned by a rotation of security staff and refused food, drink or toilet breaks because they didn't believe a 26 year old could be a doctor and because the mild eczema on her hands looked (allegedly) as if she had attempted to remove her fingerprints. It puts our gripes into some context.
Complain about this comment
@Peter_Sym (#43): The fact that you don't want your photo taken is irrelevant to Anti-Terorism laws. That's a privacy concern, and you're perfectly entitled to ask the photographer to desist. If they don't, you can go to a police officer and ask them to intervene, but the PC or PCSO cannot quote Section 44 for that; it would be as much abuse of the situation as incorrectly quoting it for taking a photograph of a striking building (like St Paul's or the Gherkin or Canary Wharf). If anything the Public Disturbance thing would be more appropriate (but I'm not a lawyer). Personally I'm happy to not snap someone if they ask me not to.
There is no double standard. There are existing laws that protect the public from intrusion. What the supposed anti-terror laws are supposed to do is protect the country. But that's not what's happening here.
Complain about this comment
@Rob (#35)
Yes, it's mostly counterproductive... as I said... but where there's a grey area, I'd still far rather we erred on the side of caution. I love photography, but I love life more. I can live without a few pictures of a few places - I'd rather be restricted in what I can photograph and free to walk the streets in safety than free to photograph but afraid to live. We're lucky enough to live in a country free of fear, but if that means there's a small price to pay, so be it.
@U2125265 (#19)
We'll have to agree to disagree. Most coppers I know are good men and women, committed to public safety. They do what they're told to do because nobody else does it. They make life better for us. They arn't out there just to increase their numbers.
Complain about this comment
Although inherent problem of going into examples maybe clouded it, but my starting and continued point was exactly that: a foggy legislation that is mis-interpreted, abused etc. - so I totally agree.
Something with this level of impact on social scale must not be left so open, unless it's intentionally leaving the door open for paranoia cult.
With the current law, it allows all the amazing abuses and mis-interpretations to take place, as pointed out, especially in the heads of average people who feel empowered by it BUT have no way of knowing how to correctly apply its elements.
After all, what is a 'suspicious' photographer... for example. Surely Joe Public has zero ways of deducing anything and has zero training to assess a situation.
Also we can't have an vague law paired with apparent desires for *absolute* enforcement of it.
So we either have a specific law or we have a cult of paranoia which is helped by a vague law that leaves so countless doors open for overzealous and misguided ways of 'applying' it.
Even if it is just a challenge, and takes 20 minutes of desperate explanations by perfectly innocent amateurs in perfectly innocent settings, it is a serious nuisance in the fundamental civil liberties department. As photographer this morning on BBC News pointed out, how come he ends up with his personal details not kept on file for a while, because he was demanded to supply address etc. details.
Surely then every person everywhere has to be banned from any photos to be taken... of any kind... otherwise we just have *arbitrary* and random victimisation.
Complain about this comment
#38
"The logic is quite logical. A pocket cam / digi phone pic of the houses of Parliament taken from a distance will show no more than you'd see on a postcard bought outside parliament. A tripod shot using a big lens will allow extreme close ups using a photoshop package that may be clear enough to show individual cops faces, security systems around doors etc. Its the difference between 'google earth' and a US Spy satellite picture."
The "logic" is only logical if a) what you say is true and b) people are only being hassled for taking photographs with a "big lens" (do you mean a telephoto lens?) on a tripod mounted camera.
Firstly, some "pocket" cameras have quite remarkable specifications. A popular digital photography review site lists 10 compact cameras with photo-sensors of 20 million pixels or more, telephoto zoom lenses of 320mm or more and image stabilisation, allowing the longest zoom setting to be used hand-held. I have a digital SLR which is about seven years old, its photo sensor has 3.1 million pixels, my longest zoom lens is 200mm and the camera has no image stabiliser. Any of those modern "pocket" cameras would give far more detailed images hand-held than my old DSLR would if tripod-mounted, yet my equipment matches that which you seem to find so threatening .
I should also point out that "a photoshop package" (do you mean the software called Photoshop or are you using the term to refer to photo-editing software in general?) will do nothing to increase the detail in a photograph. Either the detail is captured by the camera or it isn't. You can't add it later.
Secondly, there are plenty of documented cases of people being hassled when using quite ordinary cameras, with standard or even wide-angle lenses, hand-held. Particularly if they should have the temerity, for example, to point them at police officers at demonstrations. Should you doubt this, you could contact the National Union of Journalists or the British Journal of Photography, both of which are active in opposing the suppression of photographers rights. Both of which, I'm sure, would be happy to point you towards said documentation.
Complain about this comment
this is nothing new as back in 1974 when i was at the wigan school of photograpy we were sent out and told to try and capture a unique picture of the town, well i had heard about a unique building the local telephone exchange, it was unique as when we saw it it looked like a upside down pyramid, and no sooner had we got our cameras out of our bags than a security man came out of the building and demanded all the film that we had used to take any pictures of the building even thoe we were on the public highway when we took them and remember this was in 1974 so life has not progessed far as it
Complain about this comment
Phil,
Very good article! I live in the U.S. and can't say I've had too many problems with the law. I live in Shrewsbury, New Jersey not too far from New York City and I can honestly say that in NYC I've never had anyone question me taking pictures with my "big ass" camera [Nikon D700 and usually a fat 12-24mm lens]. I've taken pictures of many buildings, bridges, fire brigades, etc... Never once has anyone approached me about taking pictures. Often times, the police will pose and smile or wave when I'm taking their photos.
I have the pleasure of doing business with a company in Manchester (the one in the UK, not the USA) quite frequently. I was there last Sept. and over a 3 or 4 day period shot a couple of thousand photos (I'm not a professional, just an amateur who spends too much on cameras). I never once had anyone stop me or give any indication that they weren't pleased at my taking their photo. Perhaps this might because I was in the north of England and all of the Britishers I know tell me that the good people of the North are a kinder, more friendlier sort than those in the South of England.
I must say that whilst I was on my last trip, I spent several days in London and took quite a few photos there and I didn't have any problems while taking pictures of buildings, streets, British Army Barracks (I learned from a Brit Army doctor in a pub that the British Army is the one military service in the UK that is NOT a Royal service like the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy!). I even was carrying a GPS device so I could GeoTag all of my photos. I can only imagine what I looked like in London while I was holding up the GPS to try to catch a signal between all of the buildings while trying to take a photo. Still, no problems...
Perhaps I was given a "pass" because it was obvious I was a tourist??? I had no problems taking pictures of children either.
Still, I suppose some folks are going to run into the occasional law enforcement officer who has an ax to grind and decides to mess with you...
Cheers!
Here's a link to the photos I took in beautiful England!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/flickr4jazz/sets/72157607587883179/detail/
Complain about this comment
@roahaoar (#13)
I find it astonishing that someone who claims "a Masters in International Relations: specifically Terrorism Studies" can blithely trot out the tired old "I have nothing to hide" rhetoric, let alone approving of the precautionary principle of "they should err on the side of caution".
When you studied your Masters, did you never look at the number of people who have been arrested, interrogated, and interned without trial simply on suspicion of "being a terrorist"? (Hint: Guantanamo Bay is a good place to start looking)
Have you not considered the number of people who have been harassed by the US or even barred from travelling there because they have a name like one on their No-Fly list (one "suspect" was a 4 year old child!)
Most importantly, have you never heard of the principle of Presumption of Innocence? You seem to be willing to throw one of our most precious liberties into the dustbin just so Police can "err on the side of caution"
You also say "The people standing about unashamed with their tripods [...] by all means take down their name", but it's clear that you don't even *know* what the law is in this country. If you are not committing or are suspected of a criminal offence and you are not in a vehicle you are *NOT* obliged to give your name and address (even though the Police may demand it as if you are).
And talking of that "erring", does the name Jean Charles de Menezes ring any bells? Was that the Police being "cautious"??
In your second post you say "I'd rather be restricted in what I can photograph and free to walk the streets in safety than free to photograph but afraid to live. We're lucky enough to live in a country free of fear" which is equally mind-boggling.
Under English Common Law you have the Right to go about your lawful business without let or hindrence. Again, however, you wish to throw that away in the ridiculous belief that it will make us "Free of fear".
I suggest you ask the former residents of East Germany whether they felt "Free of fear" when the Stasi could demand "Ihre Papier!", spy on you, bug your calls, monitor your mail, take you in for questioning without any reason, due process or right of appeal...
Once again in a discussion of this sort, the words of Benjamin Franklin are so apposite: "Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security". You may not deserve it, but *we* certainly do!
Complain about this comment
@Peter_Sym
I'd suggest doing a little research into what the law actually says before posting...
> I do not want some total stranger to take my picture.
Tough. If you are in a public place you do not have a right of privacy and nobody needs to ask your permission to take your picture. You may be able to make a claim of harassment if they keep doing it, but not otherwise.
> Is it O.K to set up a camera in a swimming pool and take photos of kids in swimming pools.... the changing rooms are technically 'public' too
Whilst the public have access to a swimming pool, a "no photography" stipulation is a legitimate requirement as a condition of entry, just as museums etc can say the same thing.
As for the changing rooms, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 Section 67 covers Voyeurism and Section 68 explains "For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy", so clearly taking such photographs would be illegal.
Regarding "No one can find me a single story about an actual arrest for taking pics of public spaces in the UK", you've obviously not heard of Alex Turner who was arrested in Chatham High Street for, amongst other things apparently "being too tall"! See:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26/kent_police_tall_explanation/
Finally as to "Why is it that its 'an abuse of civil liberties' for the govt to film me with CCTV but apparently some sort of human right for a total stranger to take pics of me in the street?", you are conflating two entirely separate issues.
The Government is filming you with CCTV "just in case" you might be a terrorist or a thief or some such. They can use those images and information from ANPR cameras to track your movements and activities and, if they get their way, link it with loads of other data too, again "just in case" you do something wrong, this is an abuse of the basic Right of Presumption of Innocence.
A random person taking your picture in the street (unless they happen to be a stalker or a private detective) is doing nothing like this and for you to claim otherwise is a ridiculous Straw Man argument.
Complain about this comment
@Jazz Guy
I'm pleased to hear that you had such a good time in the UK but, given the number of photographs of urinals your flickr pictures of the trip contains, I'm amazed that you weren't asked what you were doing even once!
Complain about this comment
At 00:48am on 05 Dec 2009, JonOapostropheBrien wrote:
@Jazz Guy
I'm pleased to hear that you had such a good time in the UK but, given the number of photographs of urinals your flickr pictures of the trip contains, I'm amazed that you weren't asked what you were doing even once!
----------
Well... John O'Brien... Aren't you the clever one and quite a hater! We've a number of photo groups of urinals on flickr.com (see below). Even Adam Ant came up with the original name for his band "Adam and the Ants" while reading "Adamant" on a urinal in the UK.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/pee/pool/
Complain about this comment
@Jazz Guy
"Aren't you the clever one and quite a hater!"
Err, not so clever. I just followed the link you included in your post. And why a hater?
But to return to the topic of this blog, your experience does show, I think, that photographers are perhaps more likely to encounter problems in some parts of the country than in others. It may be that population density plays a part but there do seem to be a disproportionate number of reports of people having problems in the London Metropolitan region.
Complain about this comment
Ironic that elsewhere in "In Pictures" there is a Featured Gallery of "London then and now". It seems that in a few years it will simply be "London then" - what a pity.
Complain about this comment
The ACPO has written to all Chief Constables reminding them not to overuse anti-terror legislation, particularly against photographers. Am I allowed to post a link to a private media organisation? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-told-stop-this-abuse-of-terror-law-1834626.html
The Independent tries to claim a lot of the credit, but I do find this illustrative of how the media works. This has been a major issue for a good year or so, and a minor issue even before then, but it was only once a BBC guy got stopped and publicised the fact that it finally broke through into the mainstream media and they all followed up each other's stories.
Complain about this comment
A few years ago I was out in London trying to recreat a favorite image that had earlier seen in a magazine. Its an imagine thats based in the Canary Warf area, a slow shutter speed picture with the world time clocks in the backgroud. Unfortunately I never got to take the snap as two special officers came towards me and read me my rights in accordance with then the new terror legislation. I was inteviewed and was given some form that was filled out by one of the officers and told to move on. Much to the amusment of some local builders who had broke early for lunch. I never got to take that imagine. Will I ever get to take that imagine for my own private collection? Who knows. I didn't think I was being suspicious. I was just trying to take a picture that had been taken before. The officer suggested that it was the fact of having a tripod that had created the alert. I didn't realise havinga tripod was a crime either. I had the same problems when I wanted to take a snap of the London Eye. I was moved on by security. Not a good week really!
Complain about this comment
#56 "The Government is filming you with CCTV "just in case" you might be a terrorist or a thief or some such. They can use those images and information from ANPR cameras to track your movements and activities and, if they get their way, link it with loads of other data too, again "just in case" you do something wrong, this is an abuse of the basic Right of Presumption of Innocence.
A random person taking your picture in the street (unless they happen to be a stalker or a private detective) is doing nothing like this and for you to claim otherwise is a ridiculous Straw Man argument."
Why would a total stranger WANT to take my picture? I'd suggest that very few people do things for no reason whatsover. If someone starts taking random snaps of me I'd presume that they WERE a stalker, Private detective, or my likely someone who doesn't like the medical research I do. I don't work with animals but its often been asumed I do and after what happened to some of the people at Huntingdon Life Science I'd rather not have my photo on some animal rights website. As I don't have ESP how am I meant to know the motives of the photographer?
As I stated several times it would appear that other peoples rights to take pics are being given greater respect than my right to privacy or my right to personal safety. As I'm not a thief or a terrorist the govt watching me go about my shopping really isn't a great concern.
Complain about this comment
#63
"Why would a total stranger WANT to take my picture?"
It may be that you just happen to be in the place at which the camera's pointing at the moment the shutter's released. I often end up with people in my photographs when I'd actually prefer there to be none. When you're photographing a location that has a constant stream of people passing through it you don't get a choice.
Another possibility is that they don't want to take *your* photograph, particularly. They may just want a figure in the picture and you happen to be a convenient assemblage of body parts which fits the bill and happens along at the right moment.
All of this assumes that there isn't something about you that a photographer might find irresistably appealing, of course.
"...it would appear that other peoples rights to take pics are being given greater respect than my right to privacy...".
As Graham pointed out, there is no right to privacy when you're in a public place. Consequently, you're complaining about a right which does exist being given more respect than one which doesn't. Doesn't that strike you as being a rather illogical thing to do?
Complain about this comment
@Peter_Sym Your comments are a perfect illustration of the paranoia and ignorance surrounding the issue. For example re your comment #47 not one of the instances you mention is actually public place, therefore no-one other than those who own and manage the place will have the right to record images there. And you can be absolutely sure that both in the hospital where you work you image is recorded daily by security cameras and, outwith the changing rooms, every time you visit the swimming pool. Following your logic one has to question the motivation of those who work in monitoring those feeds... which, I think, brings us right back to the problem with those who are abusing the regulations.
Complain about this comment
Indeed. And as in some previous posts where tried a reductio ad absurdum, it would mean that ALL photography by ANYBODY and absolutely ANYWHERE would have to be banned.
Plus the fact that as pointe out we live in the country with the highest number and density of CCTV cameras, so then to have issue with random touristy photography that may capture somebody in the frame is quite absurd and ironic. The same Government that talks about safer society by huge number of cameras (including also tracking of vehicles in future systems based on GPS and image recognition systems) also at the same time, under the same name of 'safer society' introduces Stalinist and perfect paranoia-inducing stupendous laws that ultimately end up clamping down on even innocent causl photography.
It is fantastically self-contradicting.
Also we started out this mainly about the issue of terrorism legislation going overboard and prohibiting, also via a cult of paranoia, perfectly normal photography... not someone's issue with accidentally being in the frame of some casual photo...
Also, as per a case in Portsmouth, even a picture of a deserted beach in a public place (not even private section of beach) was stopped by jobsworths demanding fellow member of BFP to get a special permit.
So let's see some sense please :-)
Complain about this comment
And fresh news, as reported in the Guardian: one of the country's leading architectural photographers was stopped by police, who arrived in 3 cars (a total of seven officers), his bag was searched for "terrorist-related paraphernalia". Even when he pointed out he doesn't have to tell them personal details, he was threatened of being physically searched.
It was caused by his refusal to provide personal details to a security guard (!!) from a nearby bank building.
So 1. one has an overzealous jobsworth who thinks he's saving the world under the terrorism act, 2. police who react with an army of officers to this jobsworth's phone call.
The most revolting perhaps is that the police declared that as soon as the person explained he's a photographer taking pictures for personal use of a church, there was no need of any further action and everything was fine.
Really?
Complain about this comment
IMO, this is all getting beyond a joke now. I've never been stopped photographing all but once in the North East. The only time I did, was when I was photographing near a nuclear power plant which I didn't even know was there. I was arrested and released.
Nothing ever came of it.
Complain about this comment
Mass gathering of photographers, both professional and amateur, in Trafalgar Square tomorrow, 12 December: http://photographernotaterrorist.org
Trafalgar Square is one area where commercial photography is banned without a licence - the security guards have been known to be a bit random in their decision-making when it comes to deciding whether someone is amateur or not.
Complain about this comment
I would like to add that not only is there a discriminatory attitude to photographers but also where that photographer is from. I live in Workington and was running about taking photos for a local paper during the recent floods, I was stopped and threatened with arrest by a police woman for attempting to go down a public footpath towards a bridge, and I have to say in a very antagonistic fashion, later that night on the news Sky, ITV, and the BBC were all there with there kit doing live broadcasts. A colleague who is a staff photographer for the same paper was threatened by a different officer, who said that if he tried to walk down a public road he would be pinned down and his camera removed, which is very very bad, but at the same time an old noy cycled down the road on his pushbike and the officer didn't do a thing, his statement was well we can't stop everybody. So beware if you work as a freelance as well, the local police in Cumbria were coming down very very hard on anyone who didn't work for a National or International news agency.
Complain about this comment
Italian student videoing in London arrested and fined.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/italian-student-police-arrest-filming
From the story as told on the Guardian's web site, her "crime" seems to have been failing to be subservient and standing up for her rights.
Complain about this comment
Sums up not the problems with the law completely, more the state of mind of many police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas&feature=player_embedded
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS