U.K. Photo Catch-22

Slidinginfinity

Given the state of thing these days, I can only see this being the standard of the future.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/12/british-cops-deliver.html

GhostInTheRuins

What a joke.

ThOnda

Similar problems were in communist Russia not so long ago. The only response is - what I cannot photograph? And if the police officer (hopefully sexless and respectful word) gives you such information, you can reply - "So you showed me (pointed) at restricted, prohibited or even protected building?"
Put the guilt on them.
What's next? They forbid taking pictures of railway stations, bridges, city halls...?

We have a written constitution. they don't in the UK which makes it easier to conduct such actions.

Fionn

paronoia rules in jolly old england eh?

Tallon

Thats just crazy

getz

Fionn wrote: »

paronoia rules in jolly old england eh?

imagine a bomb went off in the centre of dublin and killed 52 people ,injured over 700 people of all ages including babies , dont you think the irish goverment wouldent do its best to try and stop this happening again ? terrorists these days are known to take photo,s and stake out the targets ,the UK is still a high terrorist target today.during the july 2005 bombings i worked in security for a large american firm in manchester ,part of my job was to stop people taking photos of the plant, unless you live in a country where you are a target you just would not understand. -as for a consitution in the UK,if you ever check it out on the net ,you will find experts on both side of the argument,from britains point of view it would interfere with the doctrine of the legislative supremacy of parliment ,so far lack of it has never been a problem [for one of the oldest democracies in the world] if it aint broke ,dont fix if.

getz

getz wrote: »

-as for a consitution in the UK,if you ever check it out on the net ,you will find experts on both side of the argument,from britains point of view it would interfere with the doctrine of the legislative supremacy of parliment ,so far lack of it has never been a problem [for one of the oldest democracies in the world] if it aint broke ,dont fix if.

The UK has one of the lowest levels of personal rights for its citizens in Europe and in the OECD, as a direct result of the lack of a written constitution.

getz

yes i forgot how poor the uk is on human rights we are, after all we[untill 1996] used to imprison young girls for being ,to pretty,too ugly,or clever or being a victim of rape and talking about it, and for their sins ,we made them work 364 days a year, unpaid,they were half starved beaten, humilated, raped, their children forcibly removed from them,their sentence indefinite ,thousends of women lived and died there and we allowed it to happen,, and most importantly we can stop people from taking photos of buildings if a officer thinks it may be a security risk

Burnt

getz wrote: »

imagine a bomb went off in the centre of dublin ..., dont you think the irish goverment wouldent do its best to try and stop this happening again ... unless you live in a country where you are a target you just would not understand.

We have had to deal with home grown terrorism in this country for a long time (e.g. Dublin/Monaghan); as have the UK, and there wasn't a need to harass photographers then, when photographic reconnaissance was a worthwhile activity.

getz wrote: »

terrorists these days are known to take photo,s and stake out the targets ,

google maps, google earth, street level, google image search, flickr, GIS from various planning authorities, OS photographic maps, etc... the amount of freely available information , you could find pretty much anything you wanted to know with out leaving the house.

Burnt

getz wrote: »

yes i forgot how poor the uk is on human rights we are, after all we[untill 1996] used to imprison young girls for being....

Doesn't change anything that zaraba said though; does it?

AnCatDubh

getz wrote: »

terrorists these days are known to take photo,s and stake out the targets

I'm not sure how well researched the article is but it suggests to the contrary;

There's no evidence that terrorists use photographs to plan attacks. Indeed, if disclosing the visible features of notable, iconic buildings puts them in danger, we may as well tear them all down now and get it over with, since the whole point of a notable, iconic building is that everybody knows what they look like.

I understand what you are saying and it is the bureaucratic answer to an intractable problem. I think that we already see it in Dublin as the recent thread on the IFSC (similar only smaller to the 'City of London' financial district referred to in the article) demonstrates.

Here's what I don't get - I walk down the street point my camera at some random building which I think has an interesting aesthetic quality and Segway man arrives and moves me on leaving me feeling humiliated and embarrassed or frustrated and angry,

BUT,

if I get caught up with some militant "save the shamrock" type group and plan an infestation of shamrock on the window boxes of the good folk of the IFSC and in preparation I drive through in my car with my camera set on shutter priority taking burst mode images and get fantastic 20 megapixel detail to enable me to pin point the exact location of the window boxes, there is nothing anyone will do about it.

(ps - i'm not really part of the "save the shamrock - infest window boxes with it" campaign :rolleyes:)

If you replace 'shamrock' with 'bomb' in the example you will see what I mean.

The problem with this kind of security is that in reality it is based on optics (pardon the photography pun). The human condition (you, me) needs to feel it is secure to be able to function correctly. Note - it doesn't need to be one bit secure at all, but it needs to think that it is secure.

If we didn't feel secure, we'd never drive to work in the mornings yet that 40-60min commute is probably the most risky part of your day. Those of you that don't drive are equally exposed (sorry :pac:)

Security needs to be based on appropriate risk assessment. To achieve this feeling of security we try to stop people from taking babies bottles onto aeroplanes - in this case because the risk is high and the impact is also very high. There is some rationale to this and it can be easily comprehended. Does it mean we are any safer? (shhhhhhh..... probably not - someone who gets allowed onboard having tasted the baby's bottle in front of security aren't going to care if they've just drank a little substance that will leave them feeling ill in a few hours time - they aren't planning on being about in a few hours time tbh).

While the impact with buildings / streets / public locations is equally high as the baby's bottle, the risk of a photographer being the cause of a major catastrophe by taking and/or publishing such images is extremely low. In reality if you work in a financial services center anywhere in the world you accept a risk that someone who has extreme tendencies may wreak havoc through bad deeds and stopping every photographer in the world from photographing your building will not prevent it. They have easier ways of doing this if the have ill intentions.

I've yet to hear a rational argument as to preventing people from photographing locations being a success factor in stopping people doing bad things. I won't point it out here but there are far easier ways of getting detailed plans and imagery of locations and its already in the public domain.

Photographers for the main part are responsible people and if a rational argument existed, then I have no doubt that they would respond by respecting such an argument and the likely consequence. We just need to hear valid rationale.

Paulw

You do have to laugh though .... how many terrorists are going to take out an SLR to take picts of a building? :rolleyes:

These guys are actually clever. They'll use anything they can - google maps, street view, FlickR, google images, etc before they'd ever need to use a camera to take a pict.

Even then, they're going to use a P&S or even a camera phone, to be less visible.

Even in NI, with all the troubles, voilence, bombings, shootings, etc, photography was never banned.

getz

Paulw wrote: »

You do have to laugh though .... how many terrorists are going to take out an SLR to take picts of a building? :rolleyes:

These guys are actually clever. They'll use anything they can - google maps, street view, FlickR, google images, etc before they'd ever need to use a camera to take a pict.

Even then, they're going to use a P&S or even a camera phone, to be less visible.

Even in NI, with all the troubles, voilence, bombings, shootings, etc, photography was never banned.

i take it then you have never read the evidence on the terrorist raids in bradford, leeds ? photos were found of the targets and maps,

Paulw

getz wrote: »

i take it then you have never read the evidence on the terrorist raids in bradford, leeds ? photos were found of the targets and maps,

Please re-read what I said. I never stated that photography wasn't used, but just that anyone who is going to use photos is going to gather that information in a much smarter way than standing out on the street with an SLR and taking picts where they can be clearly seen.

DaireQuinlan

getz wrote: »

i take it then you have never read the evidence on the terrorist raids in bradford, leeds ? photos were found of the targets and maps,

*gasp* ... MAPS ! You're right. Disable Google ! Block Flickr ! Don't allow people to buy maps (or "terrorist directions" as I like to refer to them) !! !!!!

Ludicrous alarmism. It's as anCatDubh says, its all about perception. IE that whole stupid "terrorist assembling liquid bomb on plane" scenario has been comprehensively debunked at this stage, and yet we're still restricted at airports.

Paulw

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

*gasp* ... MAPS ! You're right. Disable Google ! Block Flickr ! Don't allow people to buy maps (or "terrorist directions" as I like to refer to them) !! !!!!

Ludicrous alarmism.

Yeah, imagine ... ban maps, cameras (all types, including camera phones, camcorders, etc), never mind all the information in the local authority and on the interweb thingy. There's just way too much information out there already.

getz

Paulw wrote: »

Please re-read what I said. I never stated that photography wasn't used, but just that anyone who is going to use photos is going to gather that information in a much smarter way than standing out on the street with an SLR and taking picts where they can be clearly seen.

thats true the firm i worked for dident allow visitorsto bring a camera on site,then i pointed out to the management that mobile phones take pictures,but because it was company policy, it would just have to stay that way untill the american bosses say different,but checking out the web,as far as i can see no one has been arrested and charged with taking random photos of buildings, only with taking photos of children,8 years ago i was in the yorkshire dales [near ripon] and i stopped my car to take a photo of a large sat/dish in a field within 5 minutes of stopping, a american jeep pulled up and one police car,to check on me,seems it was some sort of early warning system that no one was to know about ,but everyone did ,but me.

Paulw

I've no idea where you're getting your information from, but it's not illegal to take photos of children.

DaireQuinlan

getz wrote: »

thats true the firm i worked for dident allow visitorsto bring a camera on site,then i pointed out to the management that mobile phones take pictures,but because it was company policy, it would just have to stay that way untill the american bosses say different,but checking out the web,as far as i can see no one has been arrested and charged with taking random photos of buildings, only with taking photos of children,8 years ago i was in the yorkshire dales [near ripon] and i stopped my car to take a photo of a large sat/dish in a field within 5 minutes of stopping, a american jeep pulled up and one police car,to check on me,seems it was some sort of early warning system that no one was to know about ,but everyone did ,but me.

1. make vague unfounded assertions
2. get debunked
3. post long meaningless rambling stream of consciousness in which somewhere its implied that taking pictures of kids is somehow illegal
4. ???

-edit- snap :-) -edit-

Tallon

The only danger you need to watch out for is people carrying this type of thing

Anouilh

Paulw wrote: »

I've no idea where you're getting your information from, but it's not illegal to take photos of children.

While I agree that this is so, there is an astonishing amount of negative emotion among some younger parents about who may take photos of children and in what context.

People seem to be be more trusting of a woman with a camera (Heaven knows why) and there is that ongoing sense of paranoia in relation to the lone male street photographer which lead to a rather strange ad being put up not so long ago by the British authorities... along the lines of what if one of the photographers you see on the street is "odd".

I have many photos of street events with pesky kids waving from the top of carousels. (I was tring to get the artistic outlines of the wheel and,being short sighted did not notice my enthusiastic models at the time.)

Would I put them on the Internet?
You must be joking...

Paulw

Anouilh wrote: »

While I agree that this is so, there is an astonishing amount of negative emotion among some younger parents about who may take photos of children and in what context.

Would I put them on the Internet?
You must be joking...

Why would you not??? I'm curious.

I have no problems of taking picts of kids (where appropriate), and I wouldn't have a problem with putting them online, or having them printed.

In fact, many times when I'm out, especially at events, you get kids coming over -"hey mister, will you take a picture of me??".

Again though, this is all digressing from the OP's post/topic.

Anouilh

Paulw wrote: »

Why would you not??? I'm curious.

I have no problems of taking picts of kids (where appropriate), and I wouldn't have a problem with putting them online, or having them printed.

In fact, many times when I'm out, especially at events, you get kids coming over -"hey mister, will you take a picture of me??".

Again though, this is all digressing from the OP's post/topic.

I'm not a very confident street photographer at the best of times as contributions to this thread will show:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055564779

In fact, I started the thread in order to encourage myself to try a wider canvas.

The thought that somebody might not like finding a photo of their child in a public space on the Internet is enough for me to be cautious (which is my usual nature). Getting a model release and engaging with people on the street and asking for various permissions would be so offputting that I would probably just stop trying candid shots forever.

Funnily enough, people have approached me and offered to pose for photos. Really the moment is everything on the street.

I mostly like the entertainers and this is one of my favourite photos of all:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/3072229428/sizes/o/

The fact that street entertainers enjoy what they are doing and don't mind having their photo taken puts me at ease.

Anouilh

Slidinginfinity wrote: »

Given the state of thing these days, I can only see this being the standard of the future.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/12/british-cops-deliver.html

Just on a more cheerful note, I had a nice chat with an attendant in Heathrow on my way through recently. I was looking at some photos in my camera as I walked along and, in a very friendly manner, he advised me that the security area might be a bit tense if I tried to take photos. Really, it's a question of learning the protocol when travelling.

Some people have run into real difficulties in Britain, as in the case of a grandparent who was almost arrested while taking a photo of a grandchild in a shopping mall. It became international news and is the sort of story that send me back to table top photography of flower macros, using a tripod.

AnCatDubh

Ok folks - This thread needs to be brought back on topic please. Were deviating beyond what would be reasonable and useful to the OP.

The original post which you are replying to is;

Slidinginfinity wrote: »

Given the state of thing these days, I can only see this being the standard of the future.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/12/british-cops-deliver.html

Thank you.

Anouilh

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Ok folks - This thread needs to be brought back on topic please. Were deviating beyond what would be reasonable and useful to the OP.

The original post which you are replying to is;



Thank you.

Already done... (see above).

Basically this is about social control and it looks as if everybody is going to have to get used to a lot more intrusions into what were once taken for granted civil liberties.

getz

Paulw wrote: »

Why would you not??? I'm curious.

I have no problems of taking picts of kids (where appropriate), and I wouldn't have a problem with putting them online, or having them printed.

In fact, many times when I'm out, especially at events, you get kids coming over -"hey mister, will you take a picture of me??".

Again though, this is all digressing from the OP's post/topic.

the irish are so trusting,in this age there are a lot of paedophiles on the streets,[just check out the numbers of reg sex offenders in you area] if i ever see a stranger taking photos of young children i would probobly report it, that is what the school children are told to do in the uk,but i dont know why i need to explain this to the irish boardies, have you all ready forgot the child abuse scandals in the republic ?

DaireQuinlan

getz wrote: »

the irish are so trusting,in this age there are a lot of paedophiles on the streets,[just check out the numbers of reg sex offenders in you area] if i ever see a stranger taking photos of young children i would probobly report it, that is what the school children are told to do in the uk,but i dont know why i need to explain this to the irish boardies, have you all ready forgot the child abuse scandals in the republic ?

Ah, but you've ALREADY displayed an almost fanatical level of alarmism with regard to imagined threats so I'm not surprised this is how YOU would react. Others are more sensible, and realistic.

Paulw

getz wrote: »

there are a lot of paedophiles on the streets

They're not only on the streets. They're also in your place of work, your neighbours houses, the public transport, etc .... potentially. There's a word that comes to mind when I read your posts - paranoia. :eek:

getz wrote: »

if i ever see a stranger taking photos of young children i would probobly report it

Report what? Someone using a camera? Again, it isn't against the law to take photos, not even of children in a public area.

I'm unsure how you can equate taking photos of children to the child abuse cases. Was photography the cause of that, or do you have some other insight?? :cool:

getz

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Ah, but you've ALREADY displayed an almost fanatical level of alarmism with regard to imagined threats so I'm not surprised this is how YOU would react. Others are more sensible, and realistic.

my last word ---disappeared of the face of the earth by jim cairns--about a young girl from laios

AnCatDubh

This is the second 'in thread' warning to keep this back on topic as quoted above. Please observe this warning as infractions are the likely outcome of persisting to nit pick at each others posters.

Thank you.

Paulw

Thankfully, photographic conditions in Ireland are very different to those in the UK. The same can be said for attitudes towards photography.

It's still refreshing to see that the Irish have more common sense, and can see the bigger picture.

It is a shame when people let paranoia take over. "1984" is closer to reality in the UK than it has even been, and it continues to evolve. With the number of CCTV systems around, you are photographed more in the UK than any other country in the world.

And yet, they seem to worry about a single individual with a camera.

mloc

The real problem is legs. Most terrorists have been found to be using legs both during the planning and staging phases of attacks. If we banned the use of legs I think it would have a huge impact on terrorism. Especially around buildings of importance.

I think it would be irresponsible NOT to ban legs within a 500m radias of important or government buildings.

Edit:

I'm not referring to tripods, incidentally.

DaireQuinlan

Paulw wrote: »

Thankfully, photographic conditions in Ireland are very different to those in the UK. The same can be said for attitudes towards photography.

It's still refreshing to see that the Irish have more common sense, and can see the bigger picture.

OTOH we do seem to have a tendency to adopt stuff from across the water, shops, football teams, fashions, fads etc etc. So far though I think we've shown admirable self restraint in this. Maybe we're just that little bit more relaxed

Tallon

Just another instance I found while stumbling

http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/

Ricky91t

Burnt wrote: »

google maps, google earth, street level, google image search, flickr, GIS from various planning authorities, OS photographic maps, etc... the amount of freely available information , you could find pretty much anything you wanted to know with out leaving the house.

The main reason for stopping people taking photos is they can then use the images to pin point wher CCTV cameras are etc,Google maps won't show you this and AFAIK the UK isn't yet on street view?

Paulw

Ricky91t wrote: »

AFAIK the UK isn't yet on street view?

A lot of the UK is already on Google Street View.

As for CCTV - the UK has more CCTV cameras per sq ft than any other country. There's very little space that doesn't have some camera watching you, in any UK urban area.

Tallon

Ricky91t wrote: »

AFAIK the UK isn't yet on street view?

Yes they are

Ricky91t

Paulw wrote: »

A lot of the UK is already on Google Street View.

As for CCTV - the UK has more CCTV cameras per sq ft than any other country. There's very little space that doesn't have some camera watching you, in any UK urban area.

Oh cool,Didn't know that!Cheers for that.

AS for the CCTV,Maybe they started with one camera,Put another one up to watch that camera so vandals couldn't get it and it went from there..:pac: