p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
Mike Farren wrote:
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.
They didn't quite stick to that assurance though did they:
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
David Baldwin wrote:
The big problem is that terror legislation is being abused,
<SNIP>
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.
David,
the problem here is bad policing, not inherently bad law: we've always had plenty of examples of each, but this thread is an example of someone (presumably not the OP) trying to suggest that they're the same thing, for whatever agenda they're promulgating.
They are not the same, even though on the face of it the end result can be similar.
By way of further example, I read in a paper today that three anglers were arrested after having been seen using low-powered laser pens to harmlessly scare waterfowl away from their hooks.
They were arrested - under existing anti-terrorism law - because someone thought they might use the laser pens to blind a passing pilot and bring a plane down!
Ten police officers, overnight detention, DNA testing and fingerprinting!
They've been released without charge - of course.
So again, a perfectly reasonable law, badly exercised...
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
redal wrote:
I wonder if the powers at be, have heard of google earth and street view. I can view pretty much any building, port, airport from my home. and get a pretty good layout of the building with little difficulty.
You see the big problem is that most police are not very smart, The other part of it is, if you don't follow procedures then you are in trouble. That makes any intelligent free thinking police officer a rare thing indeed.
The Levi shooting in Bondi, Sydney is a perfect example.
I said to a police officer they could have shot him in the leg. She said, they get trained to shoot at the largest body mass, the torso. Because if they miss they could hit someone else. I said, what, hit the sand?
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
keithreeder wrote:
David,
the problem here is bad policing, not inherently bad law: we've always had plenty of examples of each, but this thread is an example of someone (presumably not the OP) trying to suggest that they're the same thing, for whatever agenda they're promulgating.
They are not the same, even though on the face of it the end result can be similar.
By way of further example, I read in a paper today that three anglers were arrested after having been seen using low-powered laser pens to harmlessly scare waterfowl away from their hooks.
They were arrested - under existing anti-terrorism law - because someone thought they might use the laser pens to blind a passing pilot and bring a plane down!
Ten police officers, overnight detention, DNA testing and fingerprinting!
They've been released without charge - of course.
So again, a perfectly reasonable law, badly exercised...
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
Tim Ashton wrote:
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...Show more →
Competent enforcement official? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Mar 25, 2009 at 08:42 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · 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.
Last time I did a job in Israel the authorities confiscated my laptop as I was about to get on the plane to leave. It was the sole repository of the 5000 photos I had just taken. I was not allowed to touch it after it was taken. They told me it would be sent on to me after a few days. I was due to fly from London to New York for a job a couple of days later, so I opted to stay in Israel and wait for the nice man to deliver the laptop back to my hotel once the Israeli authorities had done whatever they wished to it. Did they copy and analyse all my data? Who knows. No compensation for the missed flight and hotel bill. And it's too big and OT a discussion for this forum but Israel can't exactly gloat about its own human rights record.
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
craig_oz_land wrote:
What ever happened to prima facie and suing for wrongful arrest.
Preeecisely, Craig - it hardly matters what law you've got, it's how the law is applied that matters.
I think the quote in the original post is deeply disingenuous, in that it tries to link a piddling change in legislation with mistakes already made under existing law, when in fact one has nothing to do with the other, in order to bang the drum again for an issue that - really - doesn't affect most photographers.
Me? I can't stand street/candid photography, partly because its a cliched, over-rated and banal genre, and partly because my day job is Privacy law and confidentiality.
While I think that the privacy "issues" around Google Street are overblown, I can completely understand why some folk consider a camera pointed at them by a "street" 'tog to be obtrusive and an invasion of their privacy, because the purpose is entirely different: Hell, I'd have a problem with it myself.
So I welcome any law that makes life harder for candid and street photographers (and that certainly included Paps).
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
keithreeder wrote:
Me? I can't stand street/candid photography, partly because its a cliched, over-rated and banal genre, and partly because my day job is Privacy law and confidentiality.
So I welcome any law that makes life harder for candid and street photographers (and that certainly included Paps).
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · New 'anti-photography' laws. Sad!
As a UK citizen I am appauled at the gradual 'mission creep' of our government with more and more laws brought in justifed by the so called 'war on terror'.
Just today the government announced it is looking into logging everyones Facebook, Bebo, etc activity into a giant 'uber database' to protect us from ourselves.
what a bunch of f$#%# bull$#$, people really need to take their heads out of their asses.
soon the only thing that will be allowed is going to work and working in a cubicle for a big corp.
It would be reasonable if the law stated it was illegal to take pictures for the purposes of terrorism, but it is the content they are outlawing...not the intent. If the content is the type that could be used for terrorism, you would be breaking the law...very dangerous difference.
splathrop wrote:
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."
Guess that's why he's the supervisor ... maybe intelligent life exists after all?
It makes me angry that government and private agencies have obliterated people's rights to privacy with one hand and taken away much of a photographer's right to enjoy public spaces with the other.
I'm outraged that they would have the gall to pass such a law in a nation where their major city has the highest density of surveillance cameras in the world. Terrorism is being used as an excuse and tool much the way witchcraft, religion, Communism, etc. have been used to justify power grabs though out history.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
The UK is very anti-photography these days. If you photograph children you're a pervert. If you photograph police you're a terrorist. Ironic that a nation so pro-surveillance can be so anti-photography. I'm not saying this to disparage UK or to brag about the US (clearly things aren't so rosy here either); just statement of fact.
Hang in there, fellas. There are a lot of activists trying to get this ridiculous trend reversed and these types of vague, power-trip laws revoked. If you're in the UK and feel strongly about this definitely seek out similar-minded folks and do what you can.
pookipichu wrote:
It makes me angry that government and private agencies have obliterated people's rights to privacy with one hand and taken away much of a photographer's right to enjoy public spaces with the other.
I'm outraged that they would have the gall to pass such a law in a nation where their major city has the highest density of surveillance cameras in the world. Terrorism is being used as an excuse and tool much the way witchcraft, religion, Communism, etc. have been used to justify power grabs though out history.
nathanlake wrote:
Send your thank you cards to "W"....
Again, can someone please tell me specific examples of "rights" in the US that are different than they were pre-9/11? I'm referring to laws, not some anecdote about how someone's cousin's babysitter got pulled over by a cop because they looked suspicious.
Everybody should see V for Vendetta and you'll get a clear picture where Britain in particular is heading. Every British photo magazine usually has a story about yet another heavy handed police attack on some poor schmuck photographer. The government said they would do something about the situation that is getting out of control - most expected something positive not this load of horse shit. It will be good to see that 4-eyed twit Gordon Brown thrashed in the next election.
brainiac wrote:
Last time I did a job in Israel the authorities confiscated my laptop as I was about to get on the plane to leave. It was the sole repository of the 5000 photos I had just taken. I was not allowed to touch it after it was taken. They told me it would be sent on to me after a few days. I was due to fly from London to New York for a job a couple of days later, so I opted to stay in Israel and wait for the nice man to deliver the laptop back to my hotel once the Israeli authorities had done whatever they wished to it. Did they copy and analyse all my data? Who knows. No compensation for the missed flight and hotel bill. And it's too big and OT a discussion for this forum but Israel can't exactly gloat about its own human rights record....Show more →
It's a bit tiring to quote myself and I feel a bit silly doing so but it seems I have no other choice.
1.
Yakim Peled wrote:
And just for the record, I do not think that anything Israel do is justified.
2.
Yakim Peled wrote:
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.
3.
Yakim Peled wrote:
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.
1. I stand behind every word I wrote. Please read carefully.
2. I will NOT stand by when my country is being attacked. Would you?
3. Think about your own country's history. Aren't there parts of it which you are not particularly proud of?
Now, can we please stop this thread becoming an Israeli punch-bag thread? I promise to keep my big mouth shut if you promise to stop here and now.