dave lackey
Veteran
"On the 16th of February, the U.K. Government passed a law (in the Counter Terrorism Act) making it illegal to take a photograph of a police office, military personnel or member of the intelligence services—or a photograph which 'may be of use for terrorism.' This definition is vague at best, and open to interpretation by the police—who under Home Secretary guidelines can 'restrict photography in public places.' " (From The Online Photographer blog)
Has the U.K. now succumbed to terrorism?
Has the U.K. now succumbed to terrorism?
.ken
I like pictures
a link from in-public.com indicates that its true. there was a large crowd of photographers outside the police station for a day and they were taking photos of police as they passed by as a sign of protest.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
This is a interesting video that touches on this subject.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4024663011008894776
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4024663011008894776
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Has the U.K. now succumbed to terrorism?
I think it's something more akin to McCarthyism.
RF-Addict
Well-known
The UK must be one of the worst places to live if you are a photographer.
alecto
Member
It certainly isn't a good state of affairs but I must admit I have never been approached by a copper for taking photos, nor has anyone ever confronted me directly over taking candids in public. I think the general public are a pretty tolerant bunch; it's the government who I don't see eye to eye with.
Sparrow
Veteran
The insidious part of this is the police and government will not expect to ever get a conviction through the courts.
This is a crowd control and secrecy thing, the police can remove the photo press now as and when they wish using this law as a fig leaf.
This is a crowd control and secrecy thing, the police can remove the photo press now as and when they wish using this law as a fig leaf.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
"On the 16th of February, the U.K. Government passed a law (in the Counter Terrorism Act) making it illegal to take a photograph of a police office, military personnel or member of the intelligence services—or a photograph which 'may be of use for terrorism.' This definition is vague at best, and open to interpretation by the police—who under Home Secretary guidelines can 'restrict photography in public places.' " (From The Online Photographer blog)
Has the U.K. now succumbed to terrorism?
I'm not sure that's quite right. My understanding is that it's illegal to take such photos if they might (not are!) useful to a terrorist. Clearly this is a very fine disctinction as in practice th epolice will be making the initial assessment, but none the less, it does mean that it is not inherently illegal to take a pictureof a police officer.
Mike
Peter_Jones
Well-known
The law covers armed forces as well. I think it was put in place to prevent possible terrorists gathering intel on people with sensitive jobs (royal or politican protection, for example) at their homes/places of work etc. for use in acts of terror. As with many laws the wording is open to interpretation and creates a huge fuzzy grey area open to abuse. Whether this was intentional or not depends on your view of politicians and where we are heading.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not exactly true, but so vague that it might as well be. And with the UK paranoia about photographers, anything is possible.
I have been approached twice by the police for taking pictures, neither time with terrorism in mind, but once at the behest of McDonalds: the manager thought I had been taking pictures of his (her? dunno) alleged hamburger joint. The copper was entirely civil. The conversation went something like this:
Copper: "We've had a complaint from McDonald's that you may have been photographing their shop."
Me (smiling): "Tough. I'm in a public place. They have no right to stop me."
Copper (also smiling): "True enough, sir. But would you mind telling me, purely personally, what you are photographing? Purely out of curiosity?"
Me: "Of course I will tell you, because you have asked politely. I write for the photographic press, and I have just received four lenses for test..."
I then went and took a picture of McDo, which I had not previously bothered to do, with the copper smiling sweetly (she was quite an attractive young woman), though not in shot.
The Metropolitan Police Association are on record as being on the photographers' side, knowing full well that the tiny minority of coppers who are dim enough and arrogant enough to cause grief with this new law are going to bring the vast majority into disrepute.
This is one reason I left the UK...
Tashi delek,
R.
I have been approached twice by the police for taking pictures, neither time with terrorism in mind, but once at the behest of McDonalds: the manager thought I had been taking pictures of his (her? dunno) alleged hamburger joint. The copper was entirely civil. The conversation went something like this:
Copper: "We've had a complaint from McDonald's that you may have been photographing their shop."
Me (smiling): "Tough. I'm in a public place. They have no right to stop me."
Copper (also smiling): "True enough, sir. But would you mind telling me, purely personally, what you are photographing? Purely out of curiosity?"
Me: "Of course I will tell you, because you have asked politely. I write for the photographic press, and I have just received four lenses for test..."
I then went and took a picture of McDo, which I had not previously bothered to do, with the copper smiling sweetly (she was quite an attractive young woman), though not in shot.
The Metropolitan Police Association are on record as being on the photographers' side, knowing full well that the tiny minority of coppers who are dim enough and arrogant enough to cause grief with this new law are going to bring the vast majority into disrepute.
This is one reason I left the UK...
Tashi delek,
R.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
I was for taking this.
I was told that I shouldn't take a picture of the flower pots as they were part of on on-going investigation (vandalised flowers as I recall).
I (trying very had to act serious) said that I couldn't see the problem, but gave her my card and said that I'd be more than happy to give her copies of the prints if she thought it would help with the case. At which we parted ways.
The whole episode was nonsense. She was clearly miffed at being photographed in a situation that she found embarrassing. I dread to think what these sorts of coppers will do with anti-terrorism legislation to fall back on.
She never called - shame I like a woman in uniform.
Sparrow
Veteran
I see, so the next time they “unintentially” arrest an 82-year-old activist at the Labour party conference we won't be disturbed by the pictures
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Roger:
You have got it so wrong.
There are three ways to test lenses:
Photo of your cat.
Photo of a brick wall.
Some MTF and lpmm stuff that nobody understands.
Photos of Micky Dee's do not count.
Does Leica know that you 'test' their loan lenses at hamburger joints?
sooner
Well-known
Roger, I dare say that you left the UK because you could go to France! I lived in Bordeaux for the first six months of 2007, and I still miss it.
As for the UK law, we Americans prefer our laws to be more spelled out and less subject to the vagaries of the police. I think this law gives you no protection if the police choose to bash you with it. From my very limited experience with British police, they won't care unless you are using the camera to crush an old lady's skull right in front of them, but gambling on an individual policeman's work ethic for your rights is hardly ideal.
As for the UK law, we Americans prefer our laws to be more spelled out and less subject to the vagaries of the police. I think this law gives you no protection if the police choose to bash you with it. From my very limited experience with British police, they won't care unless you are using the camera to crush an old lady's skull right in front of them, but gambling on an individual policeman's work ethic for your rights is hardly ideal.
beezerc15
shep
its all part of comrade gordons big plan?
Michael Markey
Veteran
I am afraid that the present administration legislates at the drop of a hat and the consquence is often that the resultant law is often less than clear. I know as ,before I retired from gov service , I had ensure compliance in respect of certain legislation. When you add into the mix any provisions that the EU may have, it can be even more confusing. I think that I am safe in saying that.......oh wait a minute there is a knock at the door !
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
Mike Johnston on UK photography laws.
Giving Us a Power We Don't Have
"I am stunned to learn, from a comment written by Peter Adamski to the previous post, that
To say this is a huge blow to freedom is an understatement. It is antithetical to the ideals and practices of a free people, and illustrates that the creep of totalitarianism continues apace in the West."
An excellent essay by Bruce Schneier on this topic.
"What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all terrorists, or does everyone just think they are? Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harrassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.
Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.
Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?
Because it's a movie-plot threat."
Full article here
Giving Us a Power We Don't Have
"I am stunned to learn, from a comment written by Peter Adamski to the previous post, that
"On the 16th of February, the U.K. Government passed a law (in the Counter Terrorism Act) making it illegal to take a photograph of a police office, military personnel or member of the intelligence services—or a photograph which 'may be of use for terrorism.' This definition is vague at best, and open to interpretation by the police—who under Home Secretary guidelines can 'restrict photography in public places.' "
To say this is a huge blow to freedom is an understatement. It is antithetical to the ideals and practices of a free people, and illustrates that the creep of totalitarianism continues apace in the West."
An excellent essay by Bruce Schneier on this topic.
"What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all terrorists, or does everyone just think they are? Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harrassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.
Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.
Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?
Because it's a movie-plot threat."
Full article here
Last edited:
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
It is not permitted to photograph on the London tube system.
After the London tube bombs the police asked for any photographs taken on the tube that morning to assist in their enquiries.
There is no joined-up-thinking here.
After the London tube bombs the police asked for any photographs taken on the tube that morning to assist in their enquiries.
There is no joined-up-thinking here.
btgc
Veteran
Whole world is going towards total control, unfortunately.
I think, current recession is additional mean to make people more willing to go under control in exchange for privilege to keep shade of current living level. I mean, under fear of being left without work and homes, people will be happy to give away all freedoms they have until now.
I think, current recession is additional mean to make people more willing to go under control in exchange for privilege to keep shade of current living level. I mean, under fear of being left without work and homes, people will be happy to give away all freedoms they have until now.