MickH
Well-known
So, are they going to arrest or harrass Google for photographing gawd knows what now that they have the "street view" of so many of our fine cities?
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
I agree. For whatever reason people in the first world are very insecure these days.
The paradox is that they publish increasingly more personal information (and images) about themselves through the internet (facebook etc.).
I guess the difference is that if they feel in control of their personal image if they publish it. This of course, couldn't be more wrong when the medium is the net.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Ha! I'm sure if I was as wealthy as Google, the British government would let me photograph wherever I wanted.
But on a similar note. Surely 'Street View' is a (imaginary) terrorists dream?
Sparrow
Veteran
edit
But on a similar note. Surely 'Street View' is a (imaginary) terrorists dream?
Yep, but only if you look on it in a rational manner, from the Führerbunker in the home office well......
szekiat
Well-known
actually, i think they just did. Didn't google just pulled the plug on street view in london?Ha! I'm sure if I was as wealthy as Google, the British government would let me photograph wherever I wanted.
But on a similar note. Surely 'Street View' is a (imaginary) terrorists dream?
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
No, a handful of people complained they were photographed doing 'sidewalk pizzas' and a few frames were pulled.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
There must be some kind of camera maker consortium that we photographers can delegate this problem to.
Canon, Casio, Fuji, Leica, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Ricoh, Samsung, Sigma and Sony!
They sell us billions of $$ worth of gear and then we get harassed or jailed for using their equipment.
Like on a pack of cigarettes, there should also be warning signs in camera shops and on internet sites that say:
Warning! Using this camera in public could have you arrested or detained by the police.
Canon, Casio, Fuji, Leica, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Ricoh, Samsung, Sigma and Sony!
They sell us billions of $$ worth of gear and then we get harassed or jailed for using their equipment.
Like on a pack of cigarettes, there should also be warning signs in camera shops and on internet sites that say:
Warning! Using this camera in public could have you arrested or detained by the police.
Sparrow
Veteran
We could disable their cars
Last edited:
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Google Street View no longer has a photo of Whitehall as it passes Downing Street. Even though it is photographed many of thousands of times a day by tourists.
The British newspapers are also reporting that Tony Blair's home in Connaught Square has been deleted by request - however if you look at the photos there is one house in that square with armed police outside.
Heck, there's even a photo on Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamessnape/697140431/
The British newspapers are also reporting that Tony Blair's home in Connaught Square has been deleted by request - however if you look at the photos there is one house in that square with armed police outside.
Heck, there's even a photo on Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamessnape/697140431/
Last edited:
mr_phillip
Well-known
Street view catch
Street view catch
My fave Street View catch is this one which not only photographs the police (shock horror!), but it's a shot of the police car that was pulling over the Google camera car to bust them for driving down a 'bus & taxi only' lane.
Re the dumb anti-terror photography law, well it's hard to know where to start. Most worrying of all perhaps is that its wording runs contrary to the most basic tenets of UK law: that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This legislation, however, places the burden of proof on the accused. It states that all suspects should be considered guilty until they can provide a 'reasonable' excuse as to why they are taking photographs (although how the hell you define 'reasonable' in law is beyond me).
Street view catch
My fave Street View catch is this one which not only photographs the police (shock horror!), but it's a shot of the police car that was pulling over the Google camera car to bust them for driving down a 'bus & taxi only' lane.
Re the dumb anti-terror photography law, well it's hard to know where to start. Most worrying of all perhaps is that its wording runs contrary to the most basic tenets of UK law: that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This legislation, however, places the burden of proof on the accused. It states that all suspects should be considered guilty until they can provide a 'reasonable' excuse as to why they are taking photographs (although how the hell you define 'reasonable' in law is beyond me).
Spoks
Well-known
Still nobody within the British police force has been held responsible for the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes on July 22. 2005 by plainclothes antiterrorist police at the Stockwell tube station. What a scandal! Now they don't want their pictures to be taken. Embarrassing!
JohnL
Very confused
As an aside, Bruce Schneier is also an internationally recognised authority and technical author on cryptography, another activity which tends to upset the authorities, because terrorists and criminals also use it, just like they use aircraft, motor vehicles, communication devices of all types, and weapons ... but not, apparently, cameras - at least not very much. Maybe we should ban air travel, surface travel, all forms of communication etc etc.
Sparrow
Veteran
Thoughtcrime IS death
just because they're after you doesn't mean you can't be paranoid, I wonder if we are a bit lower down the priority list
just because they're after you doesn't mean you can't be paranoid, I wonder if we are a bit lower down the priority list
Last edited:
Larky
Well-known
Well, if it is actually true then I'll be in prison for about 9 thousand hundred years for shooting hundreds of Police at the G20 protest. Hope nick grub is better than I've heard.
Druid
Member
You can see why they want to be able to stop people photographing them though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
You'll note the officer has his face covered ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
You'll note the officer has his face covered ...
Sparrow
Veteran
And the copper bravely waited until he turned his back and walked away, before assault him from behind
StefanJozef
Well-known
I hope this man's family get some kind of justice but I'm I'm not confident they will.
Sparrow
Veteran
No need to worry, there’s going to be an independent investigation into that incident by the City of London police, not to be confused with the Metropolitan Police
The Met will probably do the independent investigation into why the 3rd year Med student who attended him was prevented from continuing treatment and moved on by the Police as he lay dying
hawkeye
steve
I am reminded about a report on China. In China there are a lots of laws, laws about traveling out of your town, laws about what you can't photograph etc etc.and what people know is that at any moment they can be arrested.
The fear of being arrested for a behavior you didn't know was illegal is a great way to control masses of people.
Look at the British law. Photographing a member of the intelligence services is illegal but how do you know who is a member of the intel service? Implicitly it is a take no pictures ever law.
And it builds the paranoia that is the result of the "war" on terriorism. Isn't that the issue. The terrorist have won if the police are afraid of being photographed.
Hawkeye
The fear of being arrested for a behavior you didn't know was illegal is a great way to control masses of people.
Look at the British law. Photographing a member of the intelligence services is illegal but how do you know who is a member of the intel service? Implicitly it is a take no pictures ever law.
And it builds the paranoia that is the result of the "war" on terriorism. Isn't that the issue. The terrorist have won if the police are afraid of being photographed.
Hawkeye
anabasis
Established
It's a feel-good, knee-jerk reaction to a threat that they can't really counter on the street. Honestly, everyone carries a camera with them these days. Look at all the mobile phones with 2-3 MP cameras in them (with video).
A terrorist doesn't need anything as obvious as even an RF (although if you really want to be harassed, start carrying around an SLR with a f2.8 zoom) to get the images they want, their phone will do just fine.
The end result is that the public is paranoid and reports everyone with a camera and innocent photographers get harassed for no reason whatesoever.
JCA
A terrorist doesn't need anything as obvious as even an RF (although if you really want to be harassed, start carrying around an SLR with a f2.8 zoom) to get the images they want, their phone will do just fine.
The end result is that the public is paranoid and reports everyone with a camera and innocent photographers get harassed for no reason whatesoever.
JCA