New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad! - FM Forums
Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              5       6       end
  

Archive 2009 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!

  
 
Ola H.
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


Taking pictures is a natural part of many peoples lifes, not only professional photografers. As described above, laws and regulations are inflicting the area of photography and hence many peoples lifes.

The background for both rules about child photography and this issue above are certain fears, for "perverts" and for terrorists. But by enforcing laws and making this issue much, much bigger than it is, we (or the government) are effectlively adding to the collective fear. If you think about it too much, any photographer that takes a picture of a child will seem like a pervert and any one that takes a picture of a "official building" or similar becomes a terrorist.

Terrorism, byt the very nature of the work, has the purpose of inflicting terror - a form of fear - on a large number of people in a community. But in effect, the laws and regulations discussed here, and the collective thinking that we risk get captured in is actually doing just that.

As commented above, it is easy to fall in the trap of wishing for increased "security" for our society any price, forgetting that the society that this kind of thinking fosters, might not be one we would like to live in.



Mar 24, 2009 at 06:08 AM
n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political ends.

The thing is, terrorism also means an act to keep people living in a state of fear or terror. By this definition, terrorism already won. We are living in fear, well... our government is, but we're paying for it.

A friend of mine with his wife and baby was harassed by airport police because he brought baby food and almost arrested for refusing to budge. It may sound irrelevant but it's the same kind of idiotic legal restriction enforced by police who are equally lacking in common sense.



Mar 24, 2009 at 06:12 AM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


Bad things happen when the government has the right to survalance and private citizens do not. That way the government knows what you do but there is no way to check the power of the government without getting arrested.

It seems the terrorist have won in GB, they certainly are living in terror! If I were a Brittish citizen I'd be more afraid of my government than of terrorsts.



Mar 24, 2009 at 07:49 AM
splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


Similar story here (Massachusetts).

I'm often up to shoot pre-sunrise. A month ago, while walking with my camera on a stony beach near home, I happened on a corpse. Realized I had probably already photographed it from a distance in shots taken with a 24mm. (At a hundred and fifty yards, a body supine on the beach doesn't leap to view in the wide-angle viewfinder.)

Returned to my vehicle and phoned police, who turned out to be already nearby looking for the guy--he had been reported missing during the night.

I'm carrying my camera and getting out of my vehicle when a police officer confronts me. "No cameras," he said.

I'm not sure what I intended, but it probably included taking pictures of the investigation. After time spent as a photojournalist (not now), I learned you always take the pictures; you can decide what to do with them later.

So I asked, "Would you be saying that if I were a press photographer?"

"This is a crime scene. Get back in your car or I'll lock you up for disobeying the orders of a police officer," he said.

This sort of thing shouldn't go unchallenged, but it can be hard not to feel trepidation. "You've got no right to say that to me," I said, "Is your supervisor here?"

"He's right there, and he'll back me up," the officer said.

The supervisor was just arriving. I approached him as he got out of his car. As it happened, he was reasonable. He had some concerns for the feelings of the dead guy's family, who were also just arriving on the scene. He said I could take pictures, "but try to show some respect."

I don't know how to do that exactly, with a camera. I don't think a camera has anything to do with respect, one way or the other, but experience tells me a lot of people see it otherwise. I took a few shots of the police from a distance, clustered around the body, and put it away.

My point is that I think there should always be push-back when police threaten rights. In the USA we've got more legal protections than people elsewhere. I see that as good for us and good for the rest of the world. Formerly, as a journalist and editor, I made it my business to know in some detail what those protections are.

However, the practicalities of the moment can be different than the abstractions. What those practicalities will become for photographers will depend in large measure on how we as a group respond when challenged. If you just put the camera away without protest, everybody's real rights get smaller. Push back.

I walked away feeling I really hadn't done enough, but glad that I had done something. Later I confronted the question of whether to make the officer's conduct an issue with his superiors, or with town government. The officer needed training, but it's a small town. I decided not to pursue the matter.

I think I would choose to be more persistent, and more publicly insistent, if the photography being threatened was more directly linked to notable free-expression issues. This incident turned out to be a purely personal tragedy for the people directly involved. Trying to make a major public case built on facts that aren't really publicly important may not be the best way to go.

That's not to say I would behave much differently on the scene, however. Just keep in mind you can only push so far before you get your head whacked. That's why we all need to push together. The aim should be to make responsible resistance to intimidation so routine that the offending police officers come to seem peculiar--completely irresponsible and acting outside accepted norms. Which is what they are.






Mar 24, 2009 at 08:53 AM
Tom_W
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


Sounds downright oppressive to me. "The man" loves to film his own activities, as long as he holds the rights to the recording. But "the man" surely doesn't like it when the public films his activities, particularly when those activities are questionable. They'll use any approach that they can to widdle away freedom, and right now, the anti-terrorism approach still works well.


Mar 24, 2009 at 12:36 PM
keithreeder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


A complete non issue - more mindless internet hysteria and knee-jerk overreaction.

Look at this phrase:

when new laws are introduced that allow for the arrest - and imprisonment - of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

The important bit is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism": well, unless this law is also sneaking in arrest without due cause and detention without trial, then as long as you're not photographing the Boys In Blue for that specific purpose (and you wouldn't be doing it overtly anyway) then none of this matters a damn!

The burden of proof is entirely on Plod here.

Now that's not to say that some overly enthusiastic coppers won't try it on, but that happens now.

As an aside, it might be of interest that in UK law there is no right to privacy - not for you, not for me, and not for the police: the Human Rights Act introduced a right to a private life, but that's something entirely different to what's being talked about here.

The ability to restrict photography in public places in certain circumstances has existed for ages - not on a privacy basis, I hasten to add - and this "new" amendment will neither increase nor diminish the ability of the police to do so.

This latest is simply a device to ensure that - where a clear need exists to protect police officers, members of the armed forces and others from the risk of terrorist threat directed at them specifically because of the job they do - mechanisms are available to protect their identity, and by extension their vulnerability to terrorist action.

Nothing wrong with that, and indeed nowt in the OP's post suggests anything else: it's the folk with the agendas that are trying to whip up a frenzy by linking this change in law with unrelated bad policing directed at 'togs.

Did anyone actually read what was written in the original post?




Mar 24, 2009 at 02:43 PM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


It would be nice to think it was internet hysteria but I've seen people get stopped in a town center (kingston) for taking pics of the local shopping center, it took 4 officers (2 PCSO's and 2 proper police). And there has also been a case in the news a while back about an Artist that was scetching his local area that got arrested (he had a pocket knife in his art gear) and it took the local MP to get him released over 5 hours later.

This Law in itself while basicly over the top would not be such a worry if was enforced with a bit of thought. But its not we now have a police force that dont seam to be well veresed in the laws they are there to enforce and also a group of officals be it council or private security that think THEY are the law.



Mar 24, 2009 at 03:02 PM
David Baldwin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


Dear Keith,

I suggest you keep up with the quality press:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/photographers-criminalised-as-police-abuse-antiterror-laws-1228149.html

Wake up



Mar 24, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Michael White
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


We will see what rights we have left after the next 4-8 years. Not to be political. but a fact. We lost some of our rights under the last 8 years since 9-11 and they want more of them still.


Mar 24, 2009 at 04:46 PM
form
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


Don't worry, it'll get worse here in the USA. Books and stories like 1984 and V for Vendetta (not the character but the mode of government) didn't come out of an unrealistic imagination; it's always been a gradual result when people continuously give up rights and freedoms in the name of safety. Always, no exceptions. Before you know it, a few generations have passed and you really don't own your own thoughts anymore because there's too much regulation and too many grey areas that can be abused by authority figures.


Mar 24, 2009 at 05:15 PM
Gordon walker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


I was in the UK a year ago and walked all over London with my 40D/grip and 17-55. It is large enough that it drew lots of comments from people. I took pictures of everything, including police and was never hassled. I took pictures of bridges and active military vessels.

I have been stopped once in the US taking pictures of a construction site that was right next to a rail line. I was trying to show the difficulty of access to the site. However, the officer simply asked what I was doing, took my name and driver's license number and I was on my way. Had I given him grief, I'm sure the outcome would have been very different.

That's not to say there aren't abuses, but to call it rampant and trampling our rights seems a little extreme to me. That's not to say the government and big business aren't all in the "scare 'em and save 'em" mode. What we tolerate at the airport is ridiculous and was an excuse for Bush to create a whole new branch of government for his friends to have something to do. Homeland security is a huge waste of money.



Mar 24, 2009 at 05:45 PM
EyeBrock
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


I'd echo what Gordon says.
There are ill-informed cops just like there are ill-informed forum members.
Using a respectfully firm approach to the ill-informed works way better than a hysterical "I know my rights!" alternative.

We all have to remember the thousands of dead from 911 and the fact that most of us come from countries that have troops fighting and dying against those who would like to kill and maim our families again.



Mar 24, 2009 at 06:28 PM
Jonathan Wong
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


EyeBrock wrote:
I'd echo what Gordon says.
There are ill-informed cops just like there are ill-informed forum members.
Using a respectfully firm approach to the ill-informed works way better than a hysterical "I know my rights!" alternative.

We all have to remember the thousands of dead from 911 and the fact that most of us come from countries that have troops fighting and dying against those who would like to kill and maim our families again.


Yea... Because Iraq and 911 are related. And terrorists love photography...

WHAT!!?

Edited on Mar 24, 2009 at 06:56 PM · View previous versions



Mar 24, 2009 at 06:55 PM
Jonathan Wong
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


This is getting stupid:

http://www.out-law.com/page-9897



Mar 24, 2009 at 06:55 PM
Tom_W
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


keithreeder wrote:
The important bit is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism":



The other important bit is who gets to determine whether something is "likely to be useful" to such a person. My guess is that the government gets to make that determination, which is probably why this clause is written in a vague fashion.



Mar 24, 2009 at 07:14 PM
n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


Gordon walker wrote:
What we tolerate at the airport is ridiculous


Read my story about the airport police harassment on page #1.

I think the ones who suffer the most are photographers of Middle Eastern descent.



Mar 24, 2009 at 07:32 PM
rocketpop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


The spirit of the law makes sense. It is meant to stop surveillance on police activities and behavior, which would be very useful when planning an attack.

The problem is that it is vague, and officers are basically free to interpret it as they wish, when they wish. It might not hold up in a court, but it'll likely ruin your day--and worse, they can and will use it to cover up their own actions.

That's the problem with vague laws, especially all of the new antiterrorism laws. They allow for interpretation, and subsequently allows governments and officials to tailor it to their current needs and desires.



Mar 24, 2009 at 07:35 PM
Tim Ashton
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


The problem is with enforcement and the powers behind the enforcement. Should you get an agent of an enforcement agency who is clearly out of his depth and he chooses to charge you under some of the more draconian pieces of legislation that are every where, you are literally "Bugg$rrEd". Under these laws you can be held indefinitely and even if your family knows where you are they are not even permitted to tell anyone, let alone call your lawyer!!
For those of you who believe it cant happen just look what happened at Sydney airport last Sunday.
The security and its management were so incompetent that for fifteen minutes push and shove developed into a few punches which developed into a full on brawl in which some one was beaten to death with a bollard.
If we are talking about people who are so incompetent they cannot press the button, call the reserves and get rid of twenty bikies having a barney in what is meant to be a security area does any one really believe that these laws will be enforced with any better judgement.
Just pray that when it happens to you there is a competent enforcement official nearby, because if there isnt, we may never hear from you again. (in your case Keith I cant wait)
tim



Mar 24, 2009 at 07:38 PM
Jonathan Wong
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


rocketpop wrote:
The spirit of the law makes sense. It is meant to stop surveillance on police activities and behavior, which would be very useful when planning an attack.

The problem is that it is vague, and officers are basically free to interpret it as they wish, when they wish. It might not hold up in a court, but it'll likely ruin your day--and worse, they can and will use it to cover up their own actions.

That's the problem with vague laws, especially all of the new antiterrorism laws. They allow for interpretation, and subsequently allows governments and officials to tailor it to
...Show more

Ironic considering the amount of surveillance imposed on the public for the most trivial of matters.

Photography is hardly an effective surveillance tool. Radio video camera transmitter hello?

The main issue is that cannot allow the enforcers to be unmonitored by the public. There is a need for mutually moderation in conduct. The elimination of the public's right to photograph enforcers tips the balance of power. The enforcers no longer have to worry about any consequences of inappropriate conduct.



Mar 24, 2009 at 07:45 PM
Sam tran
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!


What if I photographed a crowd in London and there is an undercover police among them. How would I know if he/she came over and arrested me? What the heck on earth that they turn into? It's totally madness, and even more madness if the citizen of UK does nothing but drink kool-aid from their own government!


Mar 24, 2009 at 08:10 PM
1      
2
       3              5       6       end




FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              5       6       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.