p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
What's so silly about all of this is if a person were actually up to no good photographically, they'd use the smallest point and shoot available or a cell phone and blend in. Yet the authorities would probably ignore this person.
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
It's not the law, it's the law enforcer that I'm scared of. Some of them seem to have the mentality of a rent-a-cop, with similar lack of common sense.
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
I may be living under a rock, but in the US what rights did we lose in the last 8 years? Sure we have stricter air travel and a bit more aggressive bag checking at public events, but those are hardly "rights".
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
i was working on a photo assignment for class the other day and i asked an officer parked outside of my apartment complex if i could take a photo of the car with the street as a background and he said that i would have to go to the precinct, get permission, and was only allowed to then take pictures at the station. strange times indeed. i live in chicago by the way.
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
joepotter111 wrote:
i was working on a photo assignment for class the other day and i asked an officer parked outside of my apartment complex if i could take a photo of the car with the street as a background and he said that i would have to go to the precinct, get permission, and was only allowed to then take pictures at the station. strange times indeed. i live in chicago by the way.
He was full of crap. You can photograph police cars from public property.
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Do any of you nice countries want to someone on a very long visit?
Norway is working well for me, and a photog friend of mine is now in Finland enjoying himself there. If you really are unhappy in blighty i'd definitely recommend upping sticks and moving if you can. I don't know a single person who regretted leaving the UK.
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
I respect you for standing up to for your freedoms.
I would also say, after watching COPS, that you are lucky you didn't get tasered or something!
Sadly, the Canada, the UK, and the USA are becoming extremely authoritarian. Conservatives, Liberals, Socialists... it doesn't matter, they are all authoritarian! All this, when both the founding fathers who wrote the constitution, and the brits who came up with the magna carta, were rather libertarian, regardless of their left or right-wingism...
Next thing you know, police and security will be asking us for our "papers" every time we are out and about...
And now with the new laws being passed in Austrailia and New Zealand (mandatory internet censorship and guilty-by-accusation copyright laws), and security theatre at every airport and public building, it seems the whole world is turning into an Orwellian paradise!
The terrorists are winning... everyone is living in fear...
splathrop wrote:
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.
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
I am stunned and bewildered. I live in Israel which is under constant attack from nearby Arab countries, far away Arab countries and many Arab terrorist groups. In the 61 years Israel exists we had 7 official wars, 7 unofficial wars and numerous of terrorist attacks. Nevertheless we don't have such laws. I guess it's just a matter of time.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Mar 25, 2009 at 04:37 AM
Andi Dietrich Offline [X]
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
Yakim Peled wrote:
I am stunned and bewildered. I live in Israel which is under constant attack from nearby Arab countries, far away Arab countries and many Arab terrorist groups. In the 61 years Israel exists we had 7 official wars, 7 unofficial wars and numerous of terrorist attacks. Nevertheless we don't have such laws. I guess it's just a matter of time.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Please dont say this on a gear forum. Isreal never respected international law and has it's own responsibiltiy in the warfare
Reported
Andi Dietrich wrote:
Please dont say this on a gear forum. Isreal never respected international law and has it's own responsibiltiy in the warfare
Reported
Please don't say this on a gear forum. I am living here while you are just listening to the media. And just for the record, I do not think that anything Israel do is justified. Nevertheless, one has to live here in order to understand why some things are done.
But again, please don't say this on a gear forum. What I said in the beginning was an epilogue to the last sentence.
The big problem is that terror legislation is being abused, it is being applied to situations which BLATANTLY have nothing to do with terror. Our judicial systems are not ensuring that the laws are being applied rationally, and the result is tyranny. The police are ceasing to be the guardians of the peace, but arbitrary enforcers of whatever subjective whim takes them at the time. In that sense the rule of law in its purest sense is being destroyed.
Two examples where terror laws have not been applied to terrorists, but quite arbitrarily and against the spirit of the rule of law:
"Tony Blair this morning apologised to the 82-year-old, a Jewish refugee from the Nazis, who was physically ejected from the conference hall yesterday and refused readmission under the prevention of terrorism act."
"Thousands of Icelanders are sending a message to Gordon Brown that they are not terrorists after the UK used terror laws to freeze their assets.
An online petition was launched this week following the UK government's attempt to protect British savings in Iceland's failed Landsbanki."
The point for photographers is that any police officer, for no reason that can be reasonably assessed independently by a judge or magistrate, can stop and arrest you just for taking photographs. The law degenerates merely to whether or not a policeman likes your face, or feels photogenic that day.
It appears that being polite and reasonable is no defence:
Arbitrary and unaccountable power terrifies me, ironically most of my countries recent wars have been justified on the grounds of "freedom". I would quite like to live in a free country myself.
You may want to look at The history of Isarel in Wikipedia, look again in my post and see if I was not accurate in any way. Please note that I made no allegations and did not take sides. Just stating the facts.
Yakim
History is always written by the victors
My son was working for Medicins sans Frontieres in Southern Lebanon through the last external conflict (I am not counting the recent Gaza situation).
His take on what he saw would not endear anyone to your homeland
We should keep politics out of this forum please
Tim
Yakim Peled wrote:
And just for the record, I do not think that anything Israel do is justified.
2. You will be hard pressed to find any country on the globe which does not have some parts of its history which fill the hearts and minds of it's citizens with discomfort and even shame.
I think it might be best to leave the israel debate to another day - as stated earlier we a probably only just keeping this thread out of the misc forum where it will die an un-read death. I think the issues we're discussing are important and should be seen, and keeping on topic enhances our chances of staying in a better populated forum.
I know this topic gets heated, and I'm thankful that under the stress, we are able to have a vigorous debate without it spilling too much into other politics.
I don't feel I was being "mindless" when posting this. Quite the contrary, and David's examples above illustrate how important it is to try and keep things in check. Unquestioned, laws like this erode fundamental freedoms and rights we've been fighting for.
For the most part, police forces do a great job, and this isn't as much attacking them, though they are the one's 'enforcing' laws. This is about the stupid laws in the first place.
Again I agree with what David said. Legislation is being abused. Slowly, slowly. Scope creep. All under the guise of protecting us against terrorism.
I think people should really keep up with what legislation is being introduced in their state. It could effect the way you do business, and you should know what you are and are not entitled to do.
I think it might be best to leave the israel debate to another day - as stated earlier we a probably only just keeping this thread out of the misc forum where it will die an un-read death. I think the issues we're discussing are important and should be seen, and keeping on topic enhances our chances of staying in a better populated forum.
jools
that is why I reported it in the first place and hope the guardian is deleting posts which suggest that a specific group of people are all "bad and guilty".
So how about google earth does the UK censor them too?
They did struggle to get Google Street View implemented here (It finally went online this week) due to privacy issues. They had to assure the government that all faces and car number plates will be blurred.
Andi Dietrich wrote:
that is why I reported it in the first place and hope the guardian is deleting posts which suggest that a specific group of people are all "bad and guilty".
So how about google earth does the UK censor them too?