p.2 #1 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
On a similar theme, just as it seems in the US photographers are seen as potential terrorists, in the UK photographers are seen as potential paedophiles. What you need to know if you visit the UK is that there are plain clothed policemen in many places now, e.g. Trafalgar Square, or beaches where there are lots of people, and these policemen watch photographers for periods of time to see if they are taking photos with children in the frame. Once they feel they have seen enough, the photographer is arrested on suspicion of taking indecent photos of children, and taken to the police station. A warrant is issued to search their home, and the police will examine every photo in their camera and in their home, to see if there are any "indecent" photos of children. Apparently there is no definition of what "indecent" means, it is simply for a jury to decide whether photos are indecent or not. There has been quite a bit of coverage of this problem in the UK magazine Amateur Photographer the last few weeks.
Personally I have no desire to take photos specifically of other people's children, but in many places it's somewhat tricky to avoid having any person under the age of 18 in the frame. So, you have been warned, if you visit the UK be very wary if you have aspirations of HCB-style capturing of decisive moments with other people's children as part of the main subject of the picture.
p.2 #2 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
stevei wrote:
....So, you have been warned, if you visit the UK be very wary if you have aspirations of HCB-style capturing of decisive moments with other people's children as part of the main subject of the picture.
Steve
so, there must be lots of landscape photographers in the UK?
p.2 #3 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
wcbert wrote:
Can I ask a question.
Just because someone posts something on the web, does this make the "story" true? .....
Bill
Bill, i think the same can be said for: my camera was locking up....i paid xxx for a camera... i had a bad experience with canon service....i had a good experience with canon service...ad nauseum.
with any of this, there is always an element first trusting the individual, and then reading the story/getting the info. with that in mind, has this person said anything that you would think (from his perspective) false? I think he has done a pretty good job documenting his case - getting people's names, etc.
p.2 #4 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
Seems like a lot of over-reacting here. We are at war. Show your ID and move on!
Oct 04, 2004 at 03:20 PM
blues44fan Offline • • [X]
p.2 #5 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
It is a shame that he would have to go through this ... not once, but twice. And I doubt if I would show my ID to a rent-a-cop security guard myself. The city police on the other hand you have no choice. You have to provide ID to a law enforcement officer upon request. All it takes is one nosey ass person to ruin a nice day of photography for someone. I work for the railroad as a locomotive engineer, and the whole railroad security thing is a damn joke. Every weekend several people congregate around key junctions along my route to watch and photograph trains, and NOTHING is said to them. The railroad special agents wont even respond, so nobody ever reports them for being there. We pass the outer perimeter of chemical plant and during their "terrorist training" someone left three pieces of PVC pipe with wires and electrical tape laying between their fence and our mainline. The crew on an evening local saw this and reported it ...... SIX hours later our so called "homeland security" showed up and then wanted to interegate the train crew after the plant staff and FBI had everything resolved. I love our country but it is on the slide .......... all our priorities are in the wrong place. Maybe the goverment will freak out, round up all of us photogs, and put us in camps. My point being that a precisely planned and executed "terrorist" attack is not going to be avoided, something we all have to live with I guess.
p.2 #7 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
While no one likes to be hassled by the police, I think it's important to note that this gentleman was not accused of anything in a legal sense. This visit was strictly a follow up on some suspicious activity reported, as the police report (included in the article) clearly indicates.
When you are innocent and have nothing to hide, it can be distressing to be treated like a criminal who might try to escape, but this incident hardly indicates that our society is headed toward a police state. The gentleman kept his film, and after a few questions, the officers left. His home was not unlawfully searched, he was not wiretapped (to his knowledge), and his rights were clearly not violated. Now, if other police activities that violated specific rights, it would be another story.
I imagine it's not uncommon to be told that specific types of photography are wrong or illegal, but I for one have been surprised at the professionalism and flexibility most law enforcement personnel employ when dealing with photographers. I was told that I was not allowed to use a tripod in Grand Central Terminal in NYC, not because of terrorist threats, but because they pose a hazard to people wandering through the terminal. One brief conversation with the station superintendent, and I was able to secure a permit to use the tripod; it's purely a matter of controlling the total number or people who can or cannot use a tripod at any given time.
I am of South Asian descent, and have at times been pulled aside at airports for reasons I can only assume involved racial profiling. It's inconveniencing, but I was never treated with any disrespect, and I never missed a flight. To my mind, so long as law enforcement remains flexible and willing to understand the motivations of photographers, we are in little danger of becoming a police state. There will always be power-tripping egomaniacs in law enforcement, but I have been quite impressed overall with the degree of intelligence and discretion law enforcement officials within US borders have used, at least with respect to the encounters I have had with them.
p.2 #10 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
EGrav wrote:
Seems like a lot of over-reacting here. We are at war. Show your ID and move on!
He showed his ID to every law enforcement official who asked for it. It's against the law for ordinary citizens who aren't legal authorities to demand to see your ID (ie: security guards). He did exactly the right thing, legally and morally.
p.2 #11 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
lordarka wrote:
While no one likes to be hassled by the police, I think it's important to note that this gentleman was not accused of anything in a legal sense.
Whether it's truth or not, the story mentions the federal agent telling him he had broken laws by photographing the bridge and refusing to give his ID to the security officer. Those sound like accusations to me. I'd also be very upset at the officer's suggesting I was somehow involved with terrorism or past terrorist events in any way. I see your points but I just wanted to say I believe he actually was accused of wrongdoing.
There was an earlier comment about "if they can learn to fly planes, they can learn to use cameras" which is very true. They can also learn to buy toilet paper, write on paper, eat noodles, drive cars, ties shoes and dress themselves. That doesn't mean we should interrogate everyone doing those things. I fail to see the ties to any of those things, including taking photographs in a park, with a terrorist act.
p.2 #12 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
EGrav wrote:
Seems like a lot of over-reacting here. We are at war. Show your ID and move on!
Yes, but what kind of war? Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace to use Vidal's phrase. War has historically been the greatest pretense for temporary suspension of civil rights (think Lincoln). Of course, Bush is no Honest Abe--when you have the administration essentially indicating that this will be a war without end, well... I hope I'm not the only one who sees the problem.
p.2 #13 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
xichlo wrote:
I was so upset and asked him when it became the law for not using tripod around Capital hill , he said 2001. I know it's not true because since 2001, I got so many photos taken aournd Capital building. But I know there is no way to discuss with him. So I left , felt very bad.
I can't find any law prohibiting tripods, but I believe the practice of prohibiting tripods has been in place for a long time.
From what I've read (which means it isn't necessarily true), the prohibition was originally targeted at professional photography where it was determined that if you were using a tripod, you must be a professional.
I've also seen other "reasons":
pedestrian hazard
spiked feet potentially damaging
security risk
The security risk has only become more important since 9/11. All is not lost, however. Many of the areas, including the Mall, where the prohibitions are enforced are governed by the National Park Service. Free permits are available for many places, although I don't know about the Capitol. I found this helpful web page on Still Photography permits on public land. If you read the actual NPS policies, I don't think you'll find any specific language prohibiting tripods.
p.2 #14 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
Gerry Kerr wrote:
As an outsider (to the US) who has lived in a state where terrorism was prevalent (Northern Ireland) you guys are on a slippery slope where rights are ever so slowly eroded until you wake up one day and find that the cure is far far worse that the original disease
TRUE
EGrav wrote:
Seems like a lot of over-reacting here.
I don't think so
There is a time between dusk and darkness, where the change seems insignificant. This is called twilight, followed by darkness. We are in that twilight.
A para phrase form Justice Earl Warren............I couldn't find the direct quote.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.
Will "IT" ever get to:
Your car license number and description up on the amber alert signs because someone saw you get into your car with specious looooong lens camera..
Don't know, certianly not tomorrow or the next day, but in my view of the past 50 years or so is, that we are heading down wind in that direction, at an accelerated pace.
p.2 #15 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
I have mixed feelings on this - leaning more towards the "just show your damn ID and move on" than the "Orwellian big brother is watching - we will all be communists soon" crowd.
If I was in the situation I probably would have just handed over my ID and been as cooperative as possible. Even the overzealous security guard could have be thwarted with an ID. The way the writer of the "story" tells it, he seems a little too defensive to me, which may have set off the police or security guard's suspicions. He claims he was not confrontational but by the sounds of his emotional state (overly sensitive, defensive, untrusting of authority etc...) I am sure he seemed way too nervous or anxious to the police and the feds who are trained to watch for that type of body language. There also may have been more in the tone of his voice (Is it against the law to not show you my ID?) than he was willing to explain in his story. I am sure there is some embellishment going on here to stir emotions which is exactly what he and the poster have accomplished..
I can't speak from experience because this has never happened to me. Until it does and I reserve the right to change my mind, I personally am glad there is more security in these places. I wonder if all the "poor guy" posters here would have the same outlook on this if it is annouced tomorrow that the same security guard in the story nabbed a couple of terrorists at the Ballard Locks. A couple of terrorist with bomb making material, clear Al-Queda links, some good info for the feds etc...
p.2 #16 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
Yeah, I'd have the same outlook if they found a thousand terrorists... probably because I doubt Al Qaeda will be nailed taking pics of a Nathan Hale statue or the Capitol steps.
p.2 #17 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
Civil rights and liberties are headed down the tubes in this country. All in the name of "national security". Isn't that the way it always happens? How many times have we seen this repeated throughout history. There are still hundreds, if not thousands of people detained without representation from 9/11. This is not mere speculation on my part, believe me.
The Irish chap has it right.... we are headed down a slippery slope very quickly. And once at the bottom it is damned near impossible to reclimb the hill. This is not the America I know/knew. OTHER countries always did these things.
It's breaking my heart.
I will not be back to the thread to read the responses, as I'm sure they will break my heart as well.
p.2 #18 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
I can't understand how people feel they should have that same freedom after that day. I certainly don't expect it and realize it is for mine and my families benefit.
p.2 #19 · Please read this photographer's horrible story:
ent2b wrote:
so, there must be lots of landscape photographers in the UK?
Yep, and I wish I was one of 'em, because the landscape guys there have LOTS to work with..
all the same, it would be annoying to photograph (inadvertently) a child out in PUBLIC and have the photo called INDECENT. That would seem to reflect more on a parent's inability to properly dress the child than on one's Aqualung-style intentions.
And btw, what exactly is a dog-end?
I give the US cops and security guards the benefit of the doubt, though. Never have they been asked (or paid properly) to work with such high stakes. The least of their problems is that if they let one terrorist get away, their careers are over. I'd hand over my ID if it would give them peace of mind and a good reason to move along to the next guy. Cops don't, as a rule, wish for trouble. They just want to be able to write down logical explanations of what happens so they can file them and go home.
