UK Police Tell Photographers To Carry ID's

[chris000]

If Section 44 allows UK police to stop and search without suspicion, what rationale do they, in fact, use in deciding which photographer is confronted and questioned?

It seems to be mostly based on what type of camera you use. If you are using a P & S or a mobile phone it seems that you are less likely to be challenged - apparently terrorists won't be seen out with anything less than a DSLR.

There are examples of a photographer with a 'proper' camera being stopped when surrounded by others photographing the same subject with a 'phone camera who are left alone.

London certainly seems to be worse than anywhere else but it is happening in other locations too.

 

[Fujitsu]

The question is, what makes some photographers suspects and a million others - including the hordes of tourists - not?

 

[Iridium]

Big Brother is watching YOU!

In April 2009 a Greek photog/tourist was arrested in London tube for taking a picture of a girl (amongst other people) and then he was brought to the court with charges that he MIGHT have caused “public harassment, alarm or distress”. In the trial he was cleared on grounds of lack of evidence.

More @ 1, 2

1984 is gettin' closer n' closer...George Orwell is coming to town..:angel:

 

[dfoo]

Out of control. Those are the only words that adequately describe this entire situation.

 

[Fujitsu]

 

[gb hill]

However, people are not being stopped and arrested for that. They're being stopped and arrested for shooting routine photos in public.

and that's what is so stupid...especially since digital cameras are the craze & nearly everyone has one.

 

[johannielscom]

Fujitsu, you mind posting a bit additional info on the situation that shot was made in? This might as well be a police training session if nothing else is known.

All in all, I think we can conclude terrorists are interested in buildings and structures. So, taking pictures of people is the smarter thing to do 😀

 

[Michael Markey]

No problem on the streets of Manchester today despite lots of street protests and lots of police.

 

[FS Vontz]

This is very concerning, but the "I'll follow you around if you want" comment still raised a laugh

 

[peterm1]

Maybe we need a police force made up of people who understand that they need to have probably cause to confront anyone, even those belonging to the "sub-species." Government answers to the people, not the other way around!

Too true. It is absolute bedrock of our system of justice (and democracy) that police cannot arrest anyone arbitrarily and not only that, they cannot stop, question and search anyone arbitrarily. By "our" of course I mean all western democracies. Otherwise the system becomes open to abuse (including ultimately political abuse by unscrupulous politicians who want to close down public debate on any subject and sew the seeds of fear in the community. ) It is also, as we have seen here, open to that everyday abuse that comes when some police officer who does not understand his job well enough does it because just he can and more to the point because he regards anyone who asserts their rights as being "uncooperative." These police may sincerely believe that they are doing a good job and that its a small price to pay for security to have this "minor" infringement of liberty (the usual justification) . But such infringements are cumulative and over time have the habit of becoming oppressive.

In a very minor way I have experienced this sort of thing . A few years ago whilst still using film cameras when passing thu an airport making a transit I asked that my film and equipment be physically examined instead of x-rayed. Having paid thousands for a holiday of a life time there was no way I wanted its memories to be ruined by an overzealous official and a poorly calibrated x ray machine. There had been a lot of press given to such things recently.

It was a polite request but it was still the trigger for a diatribe from the security person on the gate - terrorism terrorism terrorism bombs bombs bombs blah blah blah. Followed by the feverish statement that she hoped "I never had to suffer the consequences of my foolishness." (Whatever that meant.)

I just pointed out that it was her duty to make the physical examination and my right by law to ask her to do so. She complied but how much harder this might have been if the terror laws had been in force and the official had not been an over zealous and probably under trained security guard but instead a police officer threatening to bring down upon me the whole apparatus of state law enforcement.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I've got no problem with photographers being scrutinized, since I can see reasons why terrorist planners would need reliable photos of their target's infrastructure and also how the security forces respond to casual lingering people operating obscure equipment in proximity to a target. If I come into a subway with some strange contraption, I hope I'm questioned -- if only they had questioned the guys who spread Saren Gas on the Tokyo subway as to why they had plastic sheeting, fans, and gas masks for instance. The Mumbai Hotel terrorist planner posed as a photographer... there are likely plenty of other instances as well.

Owning fertilizer and diesel fuel is not a crime, and millions of farmers do just that, but if I'm observed wheeling a couple of drums into your apartment building's parking garage, shouldn't there be a mechanism in place for the security people to question me about it?

These laws have to be broad enough to accommodate new, odd potential threats. That the local cops and guards go out of their way to hassle a clean-living photographer is unfortunate -- but it's more a matter of political correctness. If they only stopped 20-yr old swarthy males then they'd be guilty of stereotyping. Just like our Grannies have to undergo these ridiculous airport searches, it's a more a matter of the police practicing performance art than it is at rooting out real terrorists.

I say leave the security laws in place, just hire some police and guards with some common sense.

 

[35mmdelux]

The cops are the least of my worries.

 

[sjw617]

Doesn't anyone read anymore?

I said the police told the magazine. I said nothing about a press conference. You may characterize the magazine's report as an attempt to sensationalize, but I read it as a straightforward story targeted to its readership.

Yes I do read, I see your title for the thread as a bit sensational. The magazine story also makes me question the seriousness of the magazine itself, but apparently is is a serious photo magazine.

Steve

 

[peterm1]

While on the subject of the insanity of modern life, this sign confronts me whenever I get on a bus in my home city. Its been added since the advent of security scares over terrorism and is strategically located above a storage area in the bus designed specifically for the placement of unattended baggage while people take a seat. Speaks volumes for the bureaucratic mind.

EDIT: Afterthought....perhaps the sign would work better if it read "Terrorists, please do not leave your baggage unattended." Hmmm now there's a thought.

 

[johannielscom]

Modern terrorists do not use film cameras to photograph their targets.

They use Google Earth and Google Street.

Which by the way are not banned, because they are about money.

Photographers with film cameras do not spend money on modern equipment. They do not contribute to the economical well-being, to capitalism.

To renounce capitalism is to renounce society. Ergo, you must be a terrorist. Because they renounce society as well.

If you agree with this, click here

--- This post has a 😉, but the reasoning still is valid for some 😱 ---

 

[Roger Hicks]

Many years ago -- in the 90s or even late 80s -- I was threatened with arrest by a brain-dead L.A. cop at LAX for shouting 'Careful!' as my M4-P went through an X-ray machine, bouncing on steel rollers (the viewfinder window was cracked as a result). He screamed "I could arrest you for shouting at me!"

Which was of course complete crap but I had a 'plane to catch.

Intellectually underprivileged cops existed well before September 11th.

Cheers,

R.

 

[peterm1]

Eloquently stated.

In my haste to post above, I used "probably" instead of "probable," as in probable cause. I guess I'm toast for that job with the Arizona Supreme Court!

Thanks

With reference to your Supreme Court chances....that's probable so ;^)

 

[wgerrard]

Yes I do read, I see your title for the thread as a bit sensational. The magazine story also makes me question the seriousness of the magazine itself, but apparently is is a serious photo magazine.

Steve

>>"Photographers should carry identification where possible and be prepared to answer questions about why they are taking photographs, if they are asked."

That's the quote from the City of London police statement printed in the magazine. You'll need to tell me how I sensationalized that, and why you can't take the magazine seriously.

 

[George9]

UK Police Tell Photographers To Carry ID's

How do you carry your ID's?

1. Wrist stap.
2. Neck strap.
3. In your pocket.

 

[wgerrard]

I've got no problem with photographers being scrutinized, since I can see reasons why terrorist planners would need reliable photos of their target's infrastructure and also how the security forces respond to casual lingering people operating obscure equipment in proximity to a target.

I agree with the "obscure equipment" part of that statement, but question the inclusion of cameras in that category. Few police officers or private security guards would fail to identify a camera.

However, I disagree with the first assertion. Everything that can be photographed can be seen. If it can be seen, it can be remembered. The BBC photographer was detained for taking a bog standard picture of St Paul's from across the river. It defies imagination to see some intelligence value in that shot for a wannabe terrorist.

No doubt circumstances exist in which photography would assist a terrorist. But those being harassed and detained seem to be shooting ordinary cliche-ridden photos.

In any case, it is perfectly legal to take pictures in public. If the UK or American authorities believe photography poses a threat, they should change the law, declare certain public buildings off limits for photography, publish the list, and detain anyone who violates that law, including every tourist with a cellphone or a p&s.