Pavel+
Established
How beautifully like Chamberlain. Or did that "the meek shall inherit the earth" saying from the Bible inspire you? So they are not coming to get you, eh? (said mostly tongue in cheek, but still to make my view clear)
Your word sound reasonable.
History, over and over, shows what happens to reasonable men, in the company of the unreasonable. That is a shame, but like crossing the road without looking, it is better to err on the side of paranoia. Yes, sometimes the buss IS coming.
wgerrard
Veteran
You've illustrated my point about hysteria.
Thousands, probably tens of thousands, of people use cameras every day of the year in London. A very, very, very few are hassled by the police. That those few are hassled is deplorable, but certainly not a sign of the apocalypse.
I've said what I think is going on, and how to remedy it. If you think you have evidence to support your knee-jerk view, present it.
And, no, it is not better to err on the side of paranoia.
Pavel+
Established
Evidence. I have a few personal experiences. One of my favorite happened about three years ago. I'm the photographer for my states education dept.
I bought a lens (300 f 2.8) for personal use. It was winter time so by the time I leave work it is dark. So after a few days of bad weather and no time to test this new investment out I walked over to the parking garage across the road. I parked at the top level at that time and sat in the back of my pickup truck eating my sandwich and I spent about ten minutes of that time taking shots of a firehydrant thirty feet away at various aperture as well as doing the same in the other direction, of my licence plate.
about two weeks later (how speedy is this???) I get a knock at my office door from my secratary. The door open two plainclothes investigators push on by. I sat at my desk and noticed that cop number one had his hand on his gun. What? Some kind of technique? My secretaries eyes were about to pop out of her head. They told me that I had been reported taking pictures. Ummm ... yeah? Can you be more specific. Now they started being slightly fidgety. I guess they didn't think about having to reveal exactly WHICH case of my taking pictures it was. Wouldn't want to give state secrets, I guess? So finnaly about a minute later they described where it was. I happened to still have kept my test shots and just happened to have them on my work computer by chance.
Here is the part that struck me as keystone cops like. So these guys are out hunting terrorists with 300mm lenses. Ok. Civil liberties just like under the Communists. I'm used to it. Except it is not in ANY law here that photography is illegal. A precept is that if it is legal ... you are not supposed to get harassed. My ex-wife was an attorney and I know a bit all of this. Do the same thing to someone who is not unpopular as photographers and middle-Eastern people are right now and the would be a possible law suit and outrage in the press.
But I digress. I'm like Kafka's writing and so this amused me at the time it was happening. What was strange was that when the two,very hostile and over the top police detectives was me fire up Photomechanic they said "oh, I see your a photographer" and didn't want to pursue anything anymore. The last shoot was a portrait session and that is what came up when I launched Photomechanic. They did no see the photos that proved that what I shot up on the deck was only a fire-hydrant and license plate. So ... if you shoot pictures of a pretty girl ... you can't be a terrorist - when everyone knows that terrorists use Nikon 300 F2.8s?
I'm paying tax money for this kind of investigative brain-power?
So satisfied they started to leave, leaving me perplexed as to why they didn't even follow fully up on their urgent mission. Half way out the door the tough guy (now really friendly) said ... "oh ... do you mind looking at this". He pulled out a poster of what looked like a bank robber taken over the shoulder of a bank teller - except it was outside somewhere. He apparently didn't rob anyone but seen taking pictures in the vicinity of a bank. They thought that I might know this guy ... since I was a photographer too.
I get harassed all the time. Good intentioned parents, cops, you name it. I'm tired of it. If you want to harass people - make what they are doing illegal. Make photography unlawful, except inside of one's residence. I don't care. But until that is the case, don't harass me. why do these folks not get suspicious of those with cell phone cams?
It is kind of absurd. What else is absurd are the photographer types who are condoning worse and worse treatment and the tacit support of turning the police into laws unto themselves - through silence.
Sorry to be so blunt, but my opinion is that these photographers are sticking their head in the sand because they are underneath all the reasonable sounding phrases ... just a bunch of chicken-you know what's.
And they probably get outraged at race profiling, or things like the Rodney King type beatings that would have never come to light except by a rare chance. Was Rosa Parks an extremist? Could she not simply have been more reasonable?
What is common today in England, the USA and other self serving champion states of freedom would have been unthinkable thirty years ago. What will come in fifteen years if this continue is unthinkable today. What a shame there is not MORE outrage. That is the reasonable response. The condoning of this status quo is not reasonable to the point of immoral.
But keep hiding.
I bought a lens (300 f 2.8) for personal use. It was winter time so by the time I leave work it is dark. So after a few days of bad weather and no time to test this new investment out I walked over to the parking garage across the road. I parked at the top level at that time and sat in the back of my pickup truck eating my sandwich and I spent about ten minutes of that time taking shots of a firehydrant thirty feet away at various aperture as well as doing the same in the other direction, of my licence plate.
about two weeks later (how speedy is this???) I get a knock at my office door from my secratary. The door open two plainclothes investigators push on by. I sat at my desk and noticed that cop number one had his hand on his gun. What? Some kind of technique? My secretaries eyes were about to pop out of her head. They told me that I had been reported taking pictures. Ummm ... yeah? Can you be more specific. Now they started being slightly fidgety. I guess they didn't think about having to reveal exactly WHICH case of my taking pictures it was. Wouldn't want to give state secrets, I guess? So finnaly about a minute later they described where it was. I happened to still have kept my test shots and just happened to have them on my work computer by chance.
Here is the part that struck me as keystone cops like. So these guys are out hunting terrorists with 300mm lenses. Ok. Civil liberties just like under the Communists. I'm used to it. Except it is not in ANY law here that photography is illegal. A precept is that if it is legal ... you are not supposed to get harassed. My ex-wife was an attorney and I know a bit all of this. Do the same thing to someone who is not unpopular as photographers and middle-Eastern people are right now and the would be a possible law suit and outrage in the press.
But I digress. I'm like Kafka's writing and so this amused me at the time it was happening. What was strange was that when the two,very hostile and over the top police detectives was me fire up Photomechanic they said "oh, I see your a photographer" and didn't want to pursue anything anymore. The last shoot was a portrait session and that is what came up when I launched Photomechanic. They did no see the photos that proved that what I shot up on the deck was only a fire-hydrant and license plate. So ... if you shoot pictures of a pretty girl ... you can't be a terrorist - when everyone knows that terrorists use Nikon 300 F2.8s?
I'm paying tax money for this kind of investigative brain-power?
So satisfied they started to leave, leaving me perplexed as to why they didn't even follow fully up on their urgent mission. Half way out the door the tough guy (now really friendly) said ... "oh ... do you mind looking at this". He pulled out a poster of what looked like a bank robber taken over the shoulder of a bank teller - except it was outside somewhere. He apparently didn't rob anyone but seen taking pictures in the vicinity of a bank. They thought that I might know this guy ... since I was a photographer too.
I get harassed all the time. Good intentioned parents, cops, you name it. I'm tired of it. If you want to harass people - make what they are doing illegal. Make photography unlawful, except inside of one's residence. I don't care. But until that is the case, don't harass me. why do these folks not get suspicious of those with cell phone cams?
It is kind of absurd. What else is absurd are the photographer types who are condoning worse and worse treatment and the tacit support of turning the police into laws unto themselves - through silence.
Sorry to be so blunt, but my opinion is that these photographers are sticking their head in the sand because they are underneath all the reasonable sounding phrases ... just a bunch of chicken-you know what's.
And they probably get outraged at race profiling, or things like the Rodney King type beatings that would have never come to light except by a rare chance. Was Rosa Parks an extremist? Could she not simply have been more reasonable?
What is common today in England, the USA and other self serving champion states of freedom would have been unthinkable thirty years ago. What will come in fifteen years if this continue is unthinkable today. What a shame there is not MORE outrage. That is the reasonable response. The condoning of this status quo is not reasonable to the point of immoral.
But keep hiding.
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
It's usually a mistake to extrapolate a broad conspiracy from anecdotal experience.
One of my favorite happened about three years ago. I'm the photographer for my states education dept.
I bought a lens (300 f 2.8) for personal use. It was winter time so by the time I leave work it is dark. So after a few days of bad weather and no time to test this new investment out I walked over to the parking garage across the road. I parked at the top level at that time and sat in the back of my pickup truck eating my sandwich and I spent about ten minutes of that time taking shots of a firehydrant thirty feet away at various aperture as well as doing the same in the other direction, of my licence plate.
Sorry. Never happened to me.
That's the point It isn't common. It's deplorable and shouldn't happen once. But, it isn't common. Otherwise, every cop in the UK would be assigned to the South Bank to chase down the thousands of camera-carrying tourists walking there every day.
You give no indication that you've read this thread or what I've said earlier in it. In the end, the "Terrorists Are Coming! Stop the Photographers!" hysteria is no more dangerous than "The Police State Is Coming! Stop The Bureacrats!" hysteria.
emraphoto
Veteran
"Sorry. Never happened to me".
See now when I read something like this... Oh never mind.
See now when I read something like this... Oh never mind.
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
I think what scares me the most is that there's no outcry that I've heard from NON-photographers that are worried that this art form may vanish...the average Joe is becoming so uncultured that as long as they have their Xbox and HD TV they won't even notice that street photography dies.... maybe 100 years from now when society wonders why there's no artistic pictures of every day life... just the trillions of crappy P&S drunken bar shots and flash blown family snaps, people will look back and be sad.... but hind sight is a b*tch...
newspaperguy
Well-known
I knew I had this someplace. Found it in the glovebox of my truck.
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/08/rights.pdf
It's a white paper prepared for the NPPA by an international law firm.
Print out a copy for yourself (5 pages) but remember where you put it. :bang:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/08/rights.pdf
It's a white paper prepared for the NPPA by an international law firm.
Print out a copy for yourself (5 pages) but remember where you put it. :bang:
wgerrard
Veteran
What would you have me say instead? I've consistently said this kind of thing shouldn't happen. I've offered my own analysis of why it does (something other than "cops are bullies") and suggested ways to make it stop. I've condemned the UK laws that seem to be behind all this, the practice of using volunteer amateur cops, and questioned the professionalism of police managers. Would you prefer I instead engage in irrational histrionics?
I asked the poster for evidence of a conspiracy to deprive photographers of their rights. He responded with a single anecdotal report. That's not evidence of a conspiracy. The fact that I've never been hassled for taking pictures is not evidence of the lack of a conspiracy, but it is as relevant as his anecdotal memory.
larmarv916
Well-known
The way I see it the real effort is to make it so no one can document any event that show physical oppression by the authorities. Also the people who are forcing these new laws down our throats are the "public protectors" so that any embarrassing photo of a politician can not be published! This is about blocking freedom of expression. The internet is a big threat as anyone can put up a video or photo and the authorities are stuck chasing around trying to get it down. The Lawyers..started with the gimick that they were protecting "trademarks" but that did not fly. Hollywood wants these laws as they do not want anyone to catch them in a unflattering or stoned moment.
This comes back to the distorted concept that everyone who ends up in a photo should somehow deserve to get paid! And that is I think at the root of most complaints...so all the other is just distraction...phony public "do gooders" pretending to protect the public..give me a break.
So I would say that there needs to be an international ad or media program that should start on the internet. By photographers commenting on is photography going to become a crime? Is this photo illegal? That sort of program. It needs to start now and then push for legislation to protect photographers artistic access to not just street photography but also any public domain subject. Landmarks, Oceans, Buildings, People, a wide sweeping program that makes all major subjects in public domain as untaxed and unrestricted access for artistic purposes.
If not pushing back hard and fast we are about to get locked in a box.
All the best....Laurance
This comes back to the distorted concept that everyone who ends up in a photo should somehow deserve to get paid! And that is I think at the root of most complaints...so all the other is just distraction...phony public "do gooders" pretending to protect the public..give me a break.
So I would say that there needs to be an international ad or media program that should start on the internet. By photographers commenting on is photography going to become a crime? Is this photo illegal? That sort of program. It needs to start now and then push for legislation to protect photographers artistic access to not just street photography but also any public domain subject. Landmarks, Oceans, Buildings, People, a wide sweeping program that makes all major subjects in public domain as untaxed and unrestricted access for artistic purposes.
If not pushing back hard and fast we are about to get locked in a box.
All the best....Laurance
Arjay
Time Traveller
Germany's not much different from Italy
Germany's not much different from Italy
Interestingly, there is practically no German photo forum left that allows showing street photography pictures for fear of vulture lawyers who make a fast Euro threatening photographers and forum operators with lawsuits.
Another relevant point is that there is a lot of legal uncertainty as German laws are quite fuzzy in their definition as to what is clearly illegal and what isn't. On the other hand, judges in German courts are notorious for their lack of understanding of how the internet works, and thus have produced a number of rulings that are devoid of any technical logic (see the case against Flickr which led Yahoo to impose certain measures for German users that look a lot like the censorship imposed to "protect" Chinese internet users), but will remain in force until challenged by someone who has enough dedication, money and time to do so.
But again, the law is parrochial, and if I host my pictures outside of Germany, the case for German lawyers becomes complicated and uncertain.
Then there's public opinion: I have been doing street photography for many years, but it's fairly obvious that the current hysteria about terrorism and child abuse is forging the public's opinion about photographers. Harrassment of photographers by self-appointed anti-photographer vigilantes has increased substantially in the past two years, and IMHO is a much bigger problem than police action in Germany.
So - yes, we shoud fight back. But I think this is a situation that does not just call for each photographer's individual determination. This is also a political question - one that calls for a public campaign to protect photography as an art form.
I better stop now, as this could develop into a lengthy rant ...
Germany's not much different from Italy
For the record, the situiation is very similar in Germany. You are allowed to take pictures of crowds, or of people that are "subjects of contemporary history" (meaning people that play a role in a sports event or in other public, newsworthy events). Anything else, you may take a picture, but you may not publish.
Interestingly, there is practically no German photo forum left that allows showing street photography pictures for fear of vulture lawyers who make a fast Euro threatening photographers and forum operators with lawsuits.
Another relevant point is that there is a lot of legal uncertainty as German laws are quite fuzzy in their definition as to what is clearly illegal and what isn't. On the other hand, judges in German courts are notorious for their lack of understanding of how the internet works, and thus have produced a number of rulings that are devoid of any technical logic (see the case against Flickr which led Yahoo to impose certain measures for German users that look a lot like the censorship imposed to "protect" Chinese internet users), but will remain in force until challenged by someone who has enough dedication, money and time to do so.
But again, the law is parrochial, and if I host my pictures outside of Germany, the case for German lawyers becomes complicated and uncertain.
Then there's public opinion: I have been doing street photography for many years, but it's fairly obvious that the current hysteria about terrorism and child abuse is forging the public's opinion about photographers. Harrassment of photographers by self-appointed anti-photographer vigilantes has increased substantially in the past two years, and IMHO is a much bigger problem than police action in Germany.
So - yes, we shoud fight back. But I think this is a situation that does not just call for each photographer's individual determination. This is also a political question - one that calls for a public campaign to protect photography as an art form.
I better stop now, as this could develop into a lengthy rant ...
Last edited:
Pavel+
Established
Oh btw, I get harassed pretty much every time a cop sees me with a camera (an evil slr ... so perhaps that is it .. if its big .. yer a terrorist) so if it does not happen much to someone what does that have to do with it.
I can just imagine a modern scenario. HItler in 2009 after he invades polland. "Well he didn't invade me, says the Brit" "so you must be over-reacting!"
Perhaps the point is better put by another example. You are out doing something perfectly legal - you go shopping. The cops pull you aside, check you papers while holding you up for ten minutes and threaten to take your yougurt
- because it is well known that there is a rumour that Osama Bin Laden ate it once.
You are buying food. Terrorists have been fully documented, caught red handed EATING! This doesn't look good. Better give your name and number and hope that you don't wind up on some secret service list. Cause we cops are making sure of our freedom.
Why do you have to eat yogurt anyways? Hmmm? Are you trying to cause trouble? Don't you know how to be reasonable?
I can just imagine a modern scenario. HItler in 2009 after he invades polland. "Well he didn't invade me, says the Brit" "so you must be over-reacting!"
Perhaps the point is better put by another example. You are out doing something perfectly legal - you go shopping. The cops pull you aside, check you papers while holding you up for ten minutes and threaten to take your yougurt
- because it is well known that there is a rumour that Osama Bin Laden ate it once.You are buying food. Terrorists have been fully documented, caught red handed EATING! This doesn't look good. Better give your name and number and hope that you don't wind up on some secret service list. Cause we cops are making sure of our freedom.
Why do you have to eat yogurt anyways? Hmmm? Are you trying to cause trouble? Don't you know how to be reasonable?
wgerrard
Veteran
You continue to misconstrue and misrepresent what I and others have said here. At this point, I have to assume it is deliberate.
No one here has suggested ignoring what is happening to some photographers. But, it is a fact that I, and I suspect most others, have not been confronted by police when photographing. Saying that in no way diminishes or disregards the experiences of others. It simply reflects reality and the inconsistent and seemingly random behavior of the police.
If you wish to confront and reverse a wrongheaded public policy, you need to be familiar with the truth, and not leap to conclusions rooted in fear and bad information. In doing that, you become a victim of the same hysteria that generated this problem in the first place.
Steve M.
Veteran
I wouldn't worry about what Parr believes may or may not happen in the UK five years from now. It wasn't that long ago I believed in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Christianity (or the deity of your choosing). Now I don't.
None of has a clue what will be beyond this instant, or where we will be five years from now, or what we will so fervently believe in at some time in the future. If you look at known history it's all one enormous swing one way, then an over correction the other way, and on and on.
It's all so bizarre anyway, where you have a society that is so intent on spying on itself, but is also destroying itself by splitting it's citizens into two camps, those who do the spying and those who are spied upon. Much like an episode of The Prisoner. Pretty comical if you ask me, and absolutely bonkers. Just bonkers.
None of has a clue what will be beyond this instant, or where we will be five years from now, or what we will so fervently believe in at some time in the future. If you look at known history it's all one enormous swing one way, then an over correction the other way, and on and on.
It's all so bizarre anyway, where you have a society that is so intent on spying on itself, but is also destroying itself by splitting it's citizens into two camps, those who do the spying and those who are spied upon. Much like an episode of The Prisoner. Pretty comical if you ask me, and absolutely bonkers. Just bonkers.
Last edited:
George9
-
New World Order.
Divide and conquer.
You should all be watching more Alex Jones.
Divide and conquer.
You should all be watching more Alex Jones.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Unlike Bill, I have been questioned by the police in the UK for taking pictures. Only twice that I can remember, but that is twice too often. No-one should be stopped and questioned for doing something legal. Ever.
But I agree that vigilantes/crazies/security guards and 'concerned parents' are a far more common problem.
Cheers,
R.
But I agree that vigilantes/crazies/security guards and 'concerned parents' are a far more common problem.
Cheers,
R.
wgerrard
Veteran
I expect that if I'd spent a comparable amount of time in the UK, I'd have been approached, as well.
In my exchange with Pavel, I was trying to convey two points. One, that the fact that many photographers are not challenged only illustrates the arbitrary and capricious nature of this business, something that weakens its legitimacy and effectiveness as a law enforcement technique. This behavior is clearly driven by a mix of hysteria and ignorance of photography. The hysteria about terror and child molesters motivates the amateurs and the private guards, and it provides the political cover allowing the real police to get away with it. Ignorance about cameras and their capabilities seems to be behind the apparent targeting of people with SLR's.
Two, that hysteria on our side is counterproductive.
No one should be stopped for using a camera. To make that happen, we need to think clearly and set real objectives, not just stomp our feet in anger.
Last edited:
Pavel+
Established
Bill, I don't take comfort in the fact that not every black person in Mississippi in 1918 was lynched. I don't think I should. I don't think those few that did suffer injustice make the fact that some were unharmed a reason to think all is fine. An outraged public was what brought slow change. Funny how being unreasonable is often the only way to eventually gain reason. HOWEVER, at this point there is no call to any acts of extremism. You are making a paper tiger.
The arbitrary and capricious nature indeed. Yes. But how does that it is such mitigate the severity? In fact one of the definitions of terrorism is - unpredictability and arbitrariness.
THe government as a bully - now theres an uncomfortable thought. THe CIA, KGB, the sheriff or the police force having rogue, out of control or misinformed members. Uncomfortable isn't it? At what point should one respond? Well, that as it is being discussed here is not the question. Nobody seems to be suggesting anything radical. Only the acknowledgement of a problem which is undeniable, unreasonable and possibly growing. We need to acknowledge this as an issue and be outraged. Outraged enough to be watchful and so we have a rational argument and defense for both joe average and the bully that you yourself may meet one day while conducting your dangerous hobby.
Breeding hysteria? If standing up for ones rights as in the law is over-reacting in any way, than I just don't get the shirker mentality and I guess you and I won't see eye to civil eye.
Bill, you and the few like minded souls inside of the photographic community, seeking appeasement via this brand of reasonable are - part of the problem. The fact that it is not really in and of itself very important (I mean it is a hobby for most and a job for some - but not up there with serious problems) means we can go for a drink after we finish arguing. But the principle of your inclination; calling every and any measure to push back unreasonable, while belittling the gravity of this encroachment against civil liberties - make me really perplexed.
The police are gaining power. You know that when you stand a chance of being arrested or feel threatened by the possibility, if ever you question their actions that there has come a change. Britain, the US and other democracies used to feel so proud of their citizens rights. Whereas in Russia the goverment and police used to control the people, we used to feel justifiably proud that it was the other way around here. It is still that way but marginally less. Few are so uncomfortable with the wrong done to photographers without wondering where this is leading to. The state of affairs is not the problem - it is the worry about where this will all lead to - if left unchecked, unprotected.
The attention of this issue in a forum, to bring it to light and to ostensibly galvanize the community to be more watchful - How could that be called extremism?
Bill, you said "It's usually a mistake to extrapolate a broad conspiracy from anecdotal experience." ... and then follow up with "sorry ... hasn't happened to me". Ummm, for the uninitiated - that statement of yours is anecdotal, as is the first part about anecdotal issues.
So where is the unreasonable aspect here? suggesting that some cops are bullies?
Have I missed the thread which suggests that photographers mass in the streets and attack officers? Is that what brings you concern about extremism?
Show me somewhere where you see photographers being full of hysteria. Are there riots somewhere?
And please tell me, why one should not protest when wrong is done, even if it has not happened to you personally. Indignation against indignation and outrage against outrage - IS the reasonable response, especially when protest is still ensconced as a right.
There is a bigger picture here that some recognize. That this is not about photography.
The arbitrary and capricious nature indeed. Yes. But how does that it is such mitigate the severity? In fact one of the definitions of terrorism is - unpredictability and arbitrariness.
THe government as a bully - now theres an uncomfortable thought. THe CIA, KGB, the sheriff or the police force having rogue, out of control or misinformed members. Uncomfortable isn't it? At what point should one respond? Well, that as it is being discussed here is not the question. Nobody seems to be suggesting anything radical. Only the acknowledgement of a problem which is undeniable, unreasonable and possibly growing. We need to acknowledge this as an issue and be outraged. Outraged enough to be watchful and so we have a rational argument and defense for both joe average and the bully that you yourself may meet one day while conducting your dangerous hobby.
Breeding hysteria? If standing up for ones rights as in the law is over-reacting in any way, than I just don't get the shirker mentality and I guess you and I won't see eye to civil eye.
Bill, you and the few like minded souls inside of the photographic community, seeking appeasement via this brand of reasonable are - part of the problem. The fact that it is not really in and of itself very important (I mean it is a hobby for most and a job for some - but not up there with serious problems) means we can go for a drink after we finish arguing. But the principle of your inclination; calling every and any measure to push back unreasonable, while belittling the gravity of this encroachment against civil liberties - make me really perplexed.
The police are gaining power. You know that when you stand a chance of being arrested or feel threatened by the possibility, if ever you question their actions that there has come a change. Britain, the US and other democracies used to feel so proud of their citizens rights. Whereas in Russia the goverment and police used to control the people, we used to feel justifiably proud that it was the other way around here. It is still that way but marginally less. Few are so uncomfortable with the wrong done to photographers without wondering where this is leading to. The state of affairs is not the problem - it is the worry about where this will all lead to - if left unchecked, unprotected.
The attention of this issue in a forum, to bring it to light and to ostensibly galvanize the community to be more watchful - How could that be called extremism?
Bill, you said "It's usually a mistake to extrapolate a broad conspiracy from anecdotal experience." ... and then follow up with "sorry ... hasn't happened to me". Ummm, for the uninitiated - that statement of yours is anecdotal, as is the first part about anecdotal issues.
So where is the unreasonable aspect here? suggesting that some cops are bullies?
Have I missed the thread which suggests that photographers mass in the streets and attack officers? Is that what brings you concern about extremism?
Show me somewhere where you see photographers being full of hysteria. Are there riots somewhere?
And please tell me, why one should not protest when wrong is done, even if it has not happened to you personally. Indignation against indignation and outrage against outrage - IS the reasonable response, especially when protest is still ensconced as a right.
There is a bigger picture here that some recognize. That this is not about photography.
wgerrard
Veteran
Pavel, I have not said "all is fine." I've repeatedly said it's a problem and should not be allowed to happen. Am I "outraged"? No, I don't have that kind of personality, and this kind of behavior does not surprise me. Does that mean I don't care? Of course not.
Standing up for your rights is not hysteria. (Can you show me where I've given any indication that photographers should not stand up for their rights?) But, spinning tales of rogue CIA and KBG people comes close in my estimation.
Nor have I ever indicated any inclination to "appeasement". I have not called "every and any measure to push back unreasonable, while belittling the gravity of this encroachment against civil liberties...". I've said stomping our feet won't do any good, because it won't. In regards to the behavior of the police, this is a political problem that requires a political solution. In regards to the behavior of ordinary people and private guards, this is an emotional and social problem characterized by unreasoned fear and ignorance. As such, it is a much more difficult issue. Giving a choice between assuaging their fear and/or protecting their children or standing up for a photographer's rights, few will choose the latter.
In truth, few, if anyone, in this thread has offered specific ways to counter this threat, other than vague demands that we all stand up for our rights. We can stand up for our rights all we want, but until we find a way to change the laws that either call for or allow this kind of police behavior, nothing will change. And changing laws is always a political issue. I do not believe expressions of outrage or protest are effective political tools.
Changing the behavior of ordinary people motived by fear is likely almost impossible.
This isn't happening because the police crave power and seek to oppress people. It's happening because people are scared. Whether you or I think they have a reason to be scared is irrelevant. That fact is that they are scared. That fear is the reason rent-a-cops chase down photographers in shopping malls and city streets. It's the reason parents see any photographer as a potential child molester. And, it's the fear that nourishes the legislation that empowers and motivates the real police to hassle photographers.
I have never said people shouldn't protest this (although I doubt its effectiveness as a tactic). I don't think "Indignation against indignation and outrage against outrage " is either a reasonable or an effective response. Legitimate? yes. Effective? No. Winning counts for more than feeling good.
Standing up for your rights is not hysteria. (Can you show me where I've given any indication that photographers should not stand up for their rights?) But, spinning tales of rogue CIA and KBG people comes close in my estimation.
Nor have I ever indicated any inclination to "appeasement". I have not called "every and any measure to push back unreasonable, while belittling the gravity of this encroachment against civil liberties...". I've said stomping our feet won't do any good, because it won't. In regards to the behavior of the police, this is a political problem that requires a political solution. In regards to the behavior of ordinary people and private guards, this is an emotional and social problem characterized by unreasoned fear and ignorance. As such, it is a much more difficult issue. Giving a choice between assuaging their fear and/or protecting their children or standing up for a photographer's rights, few will choose the latter.
In truth, few, if anyone, in this thread has offered specific ways to counter this threat, other than vague demands that we all stand up for our rights. We can stand up for our rights all we want, but until we find a way to change the laws that either call for or allow this kind of police behavior, nothing will change. And changing laws is always a political issue. I do not believe expressions of outrage or protest are effective political tools.
Changing the behavior of ordinary people motived by fear is likely almost impossible.
This isn't happening because the police crave power and seek to oppress people. It's happening because people are scared. Whether you or I think they have a reason to be scared is irrelevant. That fact is that they are scared. That fear is the reason rent-a-cops chase down photographers in shopping malls and city streets. It's the reason parents see any photographer as a potential child molester. And, it's the fear that nourishes the legislation that empowers and motivates the real police to hassle photographers.
I have never said people shouldn't protest this (although I doubt its effectiveness as a tactic). I don't think "Indignation against indignation and outrage against outrage " is either a reasonable or an effective response. Legitimate? yes. Effective? No. Winning counts for more than feeling good.
Last edited:
Pavel+
Established
Bill "In truth, few, if anyone, in this thread has offered specific ways to counter this threat, other than vague demands that we all stand up for our rights." ... I gotta agree with you there - and I'm not sure what a reasonable, reasonable with expectations of some small success, is possible. Perhaps the would be the constructive direction of this thread - not where we've taken it to.
Time for a pint.
Time for a pint.
wgerrard
Veteran
I can think of a few suggestions.
1. In the UK and other states that have given their police these "stop and search without reason for suspicion" powers, every incident involving a photographer should be given as much publicity and media attention as possible. The slant should not be on the photography, but the fact that anyone, with or without a camera, can be stopped and searched at the apparent whim of the police.
2. Police should be pressured, especially in court, to explain why one person with a camera can be targeted out of dozens or hundreds of other people with cameras. Getting this issue in court means some photographers are going to need to be arrested and find a way to get their cases to trial.
3. When challenged by police, photographers should engage in exemplary behavior. When photographers have been detained or arrested, they appear to have been charged with violations that grew out of their behavior following the challenge, not the photography. If you're in public and clearly within your rights, don't give the police any reason other than use of a camera to detain you. Every media story should portray an innocent and harmless photographer who did nothing to provoke the officer.
4. Photographers might volunteer to deliver presentations to local police personnel explaining and demonstrating the real capabilities of cameras, especially SLR's and long lenses. Few non-photographers have any experience with such equipment. Judging from events, many people overestimate their capabilities.
5. Targeted political and media pressure to change legislation and police directives.
Frankly, I don't expect things to change until a few highly publicized court cases go against the police.
1. In the UK and other states that have given their police these "stop and search without reason for suspicion" powers, every incident involving a photographer should be given as much publicity and media attention as possible. The slant should not be on the photography, but the fact that anyone, with or without a camera, can be stopped and searched at the apparent whim of the police.
2. Police should be pressured, especially in court, to explain why one person with a camera can be targeted out of dozens or hundreds of other people with cameras. Getting this issue in court means some photographers are going to need to be arrested and find a way to get their cases to trial.
3. When challenged by police, photographers should engage in exemplary behavior. When photographers have been detained or arrested, they appear to have been charged with violations that grew out of their behavior following the challenge, not the photography. If you're in public and clearly within your rights, don't give the police any reason other than use of a camera to detain you. Every media story should portray an innocent and harmless photographer who did nothing to provoke the officer.
4. Photographers might volunteer to deliver presentations to local police personnel explaining and demonstrating the real capabilities of cameras, especially SLR's and long lenses. Few non-photographers have any experience with such equipment. Judging from events, many people overestimate their capabilities.
5. Targeted political and media pressure to change legislation and police directives.
Frankly, I don't expect things to change until a few highly publicized court cases go against the police.