UK anti-terror laws again

John

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/police-delete-tourist-photos

Tallon

What a load of <snip>

CabanSail

Seems that there is a lot of it about in the UK at present

Another one

TheNorthBank

Completely ott.

GhostInTheRuins

Utter nonsense.

Cabaal

feckin hell thats insane, this once again makes me think its worth doing a London Boards.ie Photo Meet weekend.....competition is who gets stopped the most by the police while taking pictures that are perfectly legal :pac:

Doctor Tunes

This is a pretty good story.
http://alexanderbartsch.blogspot.com/2009/03/blog-post_8577.html

GhostInTheRuins

Doctor Tunes wrote: »

This is a pretty good story.
http://alexanderbartsch.blogspot.com/2009/03/blog-post_8577.html

"Photographing under suspicious circumstances" :rolleyes:

I wonder how long until this type of <snip> starts happening over here.

CabanSail

I know this sort of issue can be quite annoying but please keep the language down.

Substitution of characters to get words through the filters is also not acceptable.

I don't want to keep editing posts or have to issue infractions.

Cabaal

Doctor Tunes wrote: »

This is a pretty good story.
http://alexanderbartsch.blogspot.com/2009/03/blog-post_8577.html

Even more insane,

trooney

It doesn't help that in the recent student arrests for alleged terrorist activities in the north of the UK the suspects "had been seen photographing or filming at four possible targets in Manchester - St Ann's Square, the Arndale Centre and Trafford Centre shopping complexes, and the Birdcage nightclub"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168879/Brown-clashes-Pakistan-terror-suspects-handed-student-visas-Home-Office.html

paulusdu

On the "stop and search" record, it states that the grounds for authority are "Sec 44 Powers authorised in City by Home Secretary until 22409".
So does this mean that we will all be safe to take photos in London again after next Wednesday ?
I've read some really ott stuff now about photographers in london now.

Fajitas!

Cabaal wrote: »

feckin hell thats insane, this once again makes me think its worth doing a London Boards.ie Photo Meet weekend.....competition is who gets stopped the most by the police while taking pictures that are perfectly legal :pac:

The funny thing is, I tried that the last time I was over, standing in the oddest of places, with camera gear all out, shooting government buildings, tourist attractions and the like... And noone said a word to me :-/

Cabaal

Fajitas! wrote: »

The funny thing is, I tried that the last time I was over, standing in the oddest of places, with camera gear all out, shooting government buildings, tourist attractions and the like... And noone said a word to me :-/

Perhaps having all the camera gear out like mad was the problem, they may have thought you were a newspaper reporter or something

CabanSail

trooney wrote: »

It doesn't help that in the recent student arrests for alleged terrorist activities in the north of the UK the suspects "had been seen photographing or filming at four possible targets in Manchester - St Ann's Square, the Arndale Centre and Trafford Centre shopping complexes, and the Birdcage nightclub"

I would hazard a guess that they also read books & magazines, travelled by bus, train & car, looked things up on Google & maybe had Corn Flakes. Should all those things be banned too?

Cabaal

CabanSail wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that they also read books & magazines, travelled by bus, train & car, looked things up on Google & maybe had Corn Flakes. Should all those things be banned too?

You read books to?
TERRORIST!!!!!!

one2one

While we are on the topic could I ask what the situation here in Ireland is? Is there any laws that can be enforced against a photographer for taking snaps?

DaireQuinlan

Cabaal wrote: »

You read books to?
TERRORIST!!!!!!

Looks like we got ourselves a READER.
Hey ! Buddy ! Whatcha READIN' FOR ??

CabanSail

one2one wrote: »

While we are on the topic could I ask what the situation here in Ireland is? Is there any laws that can be enforced against a photographer for taking snaps?

I think the consensus is that you are free to take photo's in Public Places as long as it doesn't cross the line into Harrassment, Stalking. You should not photograph things which could, even in public, be considered private. I don't think the Gaurds have a right to make you delete images. This is not a legal opinion, just what has come out of other threads on this subject in the past & from my memory.

If someone does object to being photographed, even if you have the right to do so, then it's probably best to stop.

Burnt

As a point of interest anyone who does head of to London on a photo expedition should be aware that setting up tripods on the foot path or
the road; can be classified as "Obstruction of the Highway" which, is an arrestable offence. This usually an unlikely scenario but if you get too
bolshie with them it becomes a distinct possibility.

Certain building and installations are of limits by earlier laws like the Official Secrets Act. Also it was recently made an offence to photograph a
member of the police armed forces or security services.

DaireQuinlan

Burnt wrote: »

Certain building and installations are of limits by earlier laws like the Official
Secrets Act. Also it was recently made an offence to photograph member of
the police armed forces or security services.

So far as I remember its actually illegal here to publish photographs of the Garda Siochana whilst they are lawfully engaged in their duty if the picture enables him/her to be identified. I don't think its an offence to actually TAKE the picture.

Fajitas!

I don't think it is Daire, as far as I know, it only covers the CAB, rather than your day to day Gardai.

LaurenHayes

Yeah, Google can send a car around and film ever street in Europe, no problem.

They can film my house and property without my permission.

What contacts have they got??

Burnt

I can't comment on this juristriction; in the UK the actual offense is gathering
of personal/personnel infromation (Section 76 Counter Tourism Terrorism Act),
which includes taking their picture and stealing their soul.

DaireQuinlan

LaurenHayes wrote: »

Yeah, Google can send a car around and film ever street in Europe, no problem.

They can film my house and property without my permission.

What contacts have they got??

Don't need contacts for that, I can film your house without your permission so long as I do it from the street outside .

Burnt wrote: »

(Section 76 Counter Tourism Terrorism Act),

Cosmo K

I was thrown out of Blanchardstown shopping center last week, for taking pictures inside the shopping center.

Picked up my new 35mm 1.8 Nikon lens from the camera shop there, and naturally, I wanted to try it straight away. So I took some shots of a flower stand, ideal low light conditions, when a security guard approached me, and asked me to leave.

DaireQuinlan

Cosmo K wrote: »

I was thrown out of Blanchardstown shopping center last week, for taking pictures inside the shopping center.
...

This thread is beginning to meander down an all-too familiar path.
Most of the above has been discussed exhaustively in the following thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055421017

robinph

Burnt wrote: »

Also it was recently made an offence to photograph a
member of the police armed forces or security services.

So no more pictures of the changing of the guard at Buck Palace then I guess, and that must make all the postcards of the same highly illegal as well. I hope they are going round and shutting down all these terrorist suppliers that you see on every street corner of London?

Anouilh

Cosmo K wrote: »

I was thrown out of Blanchardstown shopping center last week, for taking pictures inside the shopping center.

Picked up my new 35mm 1.8 Nikon lens from the camera shop there, and naturally, I wanted to try it straight away. So I took some shots of a flower stand, ideal low light conditions, when a security guard approached me, and asked me to leave.

This problem is not going to go away. The only time I have been approached in a "private in a public space" was in my local shopping centre.

The experience encouraged me to start this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055473788

Rather than bemoan the lack of photo opportunities in some locations, I now actively seek places that encourage photography. Powerscourt Town Centre is one and I have some neat shots of cupcakes taken just before Easter. It's not the sort of subject that invites investigation from the anti-terrorist squad and I try not to think of all the nasty things that could happen when I practice street photography.

The Public/Private debate is very central in Britain because of the vast number of laws that control public life. I recently learned that under French law a person "owns" their own image, so street photography is governed by very different laws there.

The trick is to follow the laws in whatevery country ones visits and mostly there is no problem. I had a film to use up outside Beauty World in Singapore and did notice some people looking with interest, rather than with dismay, as I recorded some banal street scenes.

Perhaps drawing up a list of pleasant places could save us all time and emotion?

Cabaal

Cosmo K wrote: »

I was thrown out of Blanchardstown shopping center last week, for taking pictures inside the shopping center.

Picked up my new 35mm 1.8 Nikon lens from the camera shop there, and naturally, I wanted to try it straight away. So I took some shots of a flower stand, ideal low light conditions, when a security guard approached me, and asked me to leave.

As much as it sucks you were on private property so they were well within their rights to tell you to get out and stop

trooney

CabanSail wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that they also read books & magazines, travelled by bus, train & car, looked things up on Google & maybe had Corn Flakes. Should all those things be banned too?

Totally agree. But that there was some element of photography involved only goes to re-enforce the dopey arguments of the, even dopier, police...

Cosmo K

Cabaal wrote: »

As much as it sucks you were on private property so they were well within their rights to tell you to get out and stop

Yes, I know. I actually laughed about it......I have been thrown out of night clubs and pubs, but a shopping center......that was a first:D

still like the pic....somehow

Cabaal

Anouilh wrote: »

The trick is to follow the laws in whatevery country ones visits and mostly there is no problem.

I'd agree, HOWEVER the laws in the UK are so vague that you can be stopped and searched for taking photos of almost anything

Anouilh

Cosmo K wrote: »

Yes, I know. I actually laughed about it......I have been thrown out of night clubs and pubs, but a shopping center......that was a first:D

still like the pic....somehow

Nice photo.

However, when a young man comes up behind one in the almost pitch dark and whispers "Madam", a lady of a certain age is likely to have a heart attack...

I laugh about my experience at the fountain in Dundrum Centre now, but it gave me quite a start at the time.

It's worth mentioning that photographers can ask for permission to take photos at the Information Desk in any shopping centre, but then the whole security system would have to be alerted that one is not a bogus intruder.

I asked for permission in an art gallery in Tasmania, which was granted.
However, a very nervous attendant approached me and I had to spend a lot of time reassuring her that I had permission and we got quite friendly.

Really, contemporary life is full of territories.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article3574763.ece

I'm beginning to have nostalgic memories of life in the past when people just chatted and dragged one another home for tea.

Cosmo K

Maybe one should simply buy a smaller camera? Seriously ,a medium size DSLR with battery grip and a big zoom lens can look a bit scary for some poeple. I'm really thinking about, buying a small, compact film camera, like a Contax G2, or a decent digital compact.

Anouilh

Cosmo K wrote: »

Maybe one should simply buy a smaller camera? Seriously ,a medium size DSLR with battery grip and a big zoom lens can look a bit scary for some poeple. I'm really thinking about, buying a small, compact film camera, like a Contax G2, or a decent digital compact.

I don't think that size is the real question.

I once spent an odd moment being photographed by an energetic child with a 'phone camera that was no more than the size of a small hand. He was at a neighbouring table in a youth hostel and I just resorted to making faces in order to amuse him.

Really I think the whole subject is a bit out of proportion these days.

af_thefragile

How is taking photos of a place terrorism??
If you go to google earth, you can get panoramic street views of the place... wouldn't that be handier for terrorists than taking the effort of going out there and taking pictures?

Thirdfox

Cosmo K wrote: »

Maybe one should simply buy a smaller camera? Seriously ,a medium size DSLR with battery grip and a big zoom lens can look a bit scary for some poeple. I'm really thinking about, buying a small, compact film camera, like a Contax G2, or a decent digital compact.

Anouilh wrote: »

I don't think that size is the real question.

I once spent an odd moment being photographed by an energetic child with a 'phone camera that was no more than the size of a small hand. He was at a neighbouring table in a youth hostel and I just resorted to making faces in order to amuse him.

Really I think the whole subject is a bit out of proportion these days.

And really - are the terrorists/paedophiles etc. going to be using big, black, conspicuous dSLRs or tiny cameras that won't be noticed on CCTV (irony?)

I don't think terrorists or paedophiles are that stupid - they're probably more budget conscious too and will spring for the camera that gets the job done...any budget 70 euro camera will do a good enough job (or better yet, just go to flickr/pix.ie :P )

I do remember the Gardai in one instance questioning me as to what I was doing with a dSLR (a baby one even ) - replied I was with the university newspaper and they let me get on with taking photos... but even if I wasn't they don't really have any power to prevent people from standing on the public footpath and take photos (as long as they're not causing an obstruction to others).

AF: as for google earth/street view - see here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=31515700
also, the Indian government protested when Google Earth displayed their military missile silos etc. on the internet - I think those maps have been taken down.

spav

The most absurd thing is that if a potential terrorist wanted to take images of CCTV camera locations, access routes and the likes, they could do this covertly. Mobile phone cameras would make this a cinch.

I remember when I lived in Manchester, shortly after the 7/7 bombings there was a strong feeling that we could be the next target - England's second city and all that. I remember seeing a young Asian chap (unfortunately, that means that he fits the profile of a modern terrorist) taking pictures in St Anne's Square of very nondescript buildings. It struck me that he could be taking pictures of CCTV cameras, etc. I agonized for a while whether to call it in, but decided in the end that I'd leave it alone and that I was being a little paranoid. I was also uncomfortable with the idea that in reporting it, I'd have essentially concluded that Asian man with camera = terrorist.

I suspect that many of these instances that are reported are simply a case of over-zealous officers misinterpreting their orders. Hope so anyway, because the alternative is worrying.

As a footnote, I was in London not so long ago and had no problems at all when shooting away. That was with a entry level consumer SLR too, no danger of me being mistaken for a professional.

spav

Cabaal wrote: »

I'd agree, HOWEVER the laws in the UK are so vague that you can be stopped and searched for taking photos of almost anything

Under the Terrorism Act you can be stopped and searched for literally anything - you certainly don't need a camera to be detained.

I'm torn on this one tbh. It's an infringement of Civil Liberties, no question, but on the other hand counter terrorism measures have had several key successes since 7/7, saving many lives in theory. Of course there are many, many instances of them getting it wrong too (De Meneses for instance), but I'm still unsure if the ends justify the means.

The laws can be more lax here as Ireland isn't as much a terrorism target as the UK.

Thirdfox

spav wrote: »

The most absurd thing is that if a potential terrorist wanted to take images of CCTV camera locations, access routes and the likes, they could do this covertly. Mobile phone cameras would make this a cinch.

I remember when I lived in Manchester, shortly after the 7/7 bombings there was a strong feeling that we could be the next target - England's second city and all that. I remember seeing a young Asian chap (unfortunately, that means that he fits the profile of a modern terrorist) taking pictures in St Anne's Square of very nondescript buildings. It struck me that he could be taking pictures of CCTV cameras, etc. I agonized for a while whether to call it in, but decided in the end that I'd leave it alone and that I was being a little paranoid. I was also uncomfortable with the idea that in reporting it, I'd have essentially concluded that Asian man with camera = terrorist.

I suspect that many of these instances that are reported are simply a case of over-zealous officers misinterpreting their orders. Hope so anyway, because the alternative is worrying.

As a footnote, I was in London not so long ago and had no problems at all when shooting away. That was with a entry level consumer SLR too, no danger of me being mistaken for a professional.

Very irresponsible of you spav, did you not see the new ad the Met has put out?



Oh and by Asian do you mean the sub-continent (Iranian/Indian/Pakistani) or does that include the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and Asian Pacific countries? I'd suspect that most people wouldn't bat an eyelid at Japanese tourists taking photos anywhere (which I as a Chinese take advantage of :P )

spav

Thirdfox wrote: »

Very irresponsible of you spav, did you not see the new ad the Met has put out?

Oh and by Asian do you mean the sub-continent (Iranian/Indian/Pakistani) or does that include the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and Asian Pacific countries? I'd suspect that most people wouldn't bat an eyelid at Japanese tourists taking photos anywhere (which I as a Chinese take advantage of :P )

Sorry - lazy use of language by me there. The guy looked Pakistani / Bangladeshi - Manchester has a huge Bangladeshi community, Pakistani families tended to settle over the Pennines in West Yorkshire, so I'd assume that he was the latter.

That ad is shocking. Something very 1984 about it. It's also counterintuitive. The aim of terrorists isn't just to kill some people - it's to put everyone in fear that they could be caught up in the next attack. Ads like that create paranoia, playing right into the hands of terrorists.

Thirdfox

It's kinda like the WWII posters "loose lips sink ships"/"the walls have ears"...only this time we're not just fighting the German speaking Nazis but the "war on terror" - so constantly in a state of "war"...

And the funny/ironic thing is - the camera used in the ad isn't even a long zoom dSLR but a dinky little compact :P and they should have killed two birds with one stone and made the public aware about paedophiles using cameras too