wgerrard
Veteran
Amateur Photographer reports (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/police_photographers_should_carry_identification_news_292902.html?aff=rss ) that UK police have told them photographers should carry ID's in case they are confronted by police in London.
It's unclear if the police are talking about a drivers license or passport, or some sort of ID linking the holder to photography. But, the advice seems especially inane. How many people walking about London do so without some sort of ID in their pockets?
However, the police apparently continue to see some connection between photography and terrorism. Since photography is perfectly legal, perhaps the police should take a look at the threat from people engaged in other legal activities, like riding the Tube and using cellphones. After all, terrorists have been seen doing those things, too.
Photos of something in clear public view deliver little or no added value to a would-be terrorist. Police should spend their time looking for people, for example, taking closeup shots of power and water delivery systems, or strolling around Heathrow looking for breaks in the fence.
i hope an MP in the UK raises this issue at PM's Question Time. UK citizens need to know why carrying a camera brings them under suspicion.
It's unclear if the police are talking about a drivers license or passport, or some sort of ID linking the holder to photography. But, the advice seems especially inane. How many people walking about London do so without some sort of ID in their pockets?
However, the police apparently continue to see some connection between photography and terrorism. Since photography is perfectly legal, perhaps the police should take a look at the threat from people engaged in other legal activities, like riding the Tube and using cellphones. After all, terrorists have been seen doing those things, too.
Photos of something in clear public view deliver little or no added value to a would-be terrorist. Police should spend their time looking for people, for example, taking closeup shots of power and water delivery systems, or strolling around Heathrow looking for breaks in the fence.
i hope an MP in the UK raises this issue at PM's Question Time. UK citizens need to know why carrying a camera brings them under suspicion.
sjw617
Panoramist
You make it sound like they held a press conference or something. They answered a question and the magazine is tyring to sensationalize it.
Is that considered a serious magazine?
Steve
Is that considered a serious magazine?
Steve
wgerrard
Veteran
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.
On the one hand, we hear and see reports that the UK police have been ordered to refresh their memories about the right to photograph, and on the other we see reports like this.
Ducky
Well-known
This is a tiresome subject.
chris000
Landscaper
I don't understand your response, the title of the thread was pretty transparent about the subject so why read it if you are not interested?
The issue is big news for photographers in the UK and rightly so, indeed as an attack on personal freedoms non-photographers should be concerned too.
Amateur Photographer is a serious magazine and is doing more than most to achieve clarification of the law and to preserve the freedoms that should be our birthright.
Lilserenity
Well-known
Hear hear!
GMcD
Established
See this in today's Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-special-branch-terror-suspect
martin s
Well-known
martinsmith99
Established
Then don't read it.
Sparrow
Veteran
looked like bit of a set up to me, not that that's wrong
every time one of these crops up i get a mental image of a scene from one of those old british WW2 films, where the SS officer demands to see the heroes "Papers!!" on some smoky railway station platform before tricking into saying "cheerio old chap" with some typically English phrase
and what does the D stand for in ID card anyway
Last edited:
Matus
Well-known
Well, as far as I know it is obligatory to have your ID (personal identity card or passport) ALWAYS with you ... or ?
Sparrow
Veteran
no I'm not, the police must carry ID and as an innocent citizen they must explain themselves to me not the other way round
martin s
Well-known
Not even in Germany you have to. You have to have one, but not with you at all times.
martin
bmattock
Veteran
In the US, citizens are not required to carry an Identification Document (ID) with them, or even to have any. If you drive a car, you are required to have a valid Driver's License with you when driving on public roads. If you leave the country and then return, you are required to present a valid Passport upon entry. Otherwise, there is no legal requirement that any citizen have ID or present it.
That tradition is slowly changing as we move towards a universal identity card. I never had a Social Security card, for example, until I got my first paying job at 13. Now they issue them to newborns at that hospital. My social security card said on it "Not to be used for identification;" now they are considered a form of valid ID.
However, for the moment, citizens of the US do not have to prove who they are to anyone if they are inside the US.
That tradition is slowly changing as we move towards a universal identity card. I never had a Social Security card, for example, until I got my first paying job at 13. Now they issue them to newborns at that hospital. My social security card said on it "Not to be used for identification;" now they are considered a form of valid ID.
However, for the moment, citizens of the US do not have to prove who they are to anyone if they are inside the US.
wgerrard
Veteran
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? As applied, the policy is equivalent to a random search policy, i.e., any photographer, in even the most innocuous circumstances, is as likely to be challenged as the next person.
One common thread in many of these reports is that a private security guard initially confronted the photographer and then summoned the real police. The UK police can issue orders and guidance to their members to back off hassling photographers, but who is going to issue new orders to the thousands of private security people in the UK and the U.S.? These security employees typically assert that the photographer is violating some vague (and invisible) anti-terror regulation. The guard cited in the Guardian story alleged that taking photos of something other than the top of the Gherkin is considered a terror threat. Even if we are to accept that as true, how is a photographer to know that?
For those who read the Guardian piece and are wondering why a photo of a pickle stirs up such a fuss, here's a snapshot of the Gherkin taken from across the river. Good thing you can't see the bottom of it.
One common thread in many of these reports is that a private security guard initially confronted the photographer and then summoned the real police. The UK police can issue orders and guidance to their members to back off hassling photographers, but who is going to issue new orders to the thousands of private security people in the UK and the U.S.? These security employees typically assert that the photographer is violating some vague (and invisible) anti-terror regulation. The guard cited in the Guardian story alleged that taking photos of something other than the top of the Gherkin is considered a terror threat. Even if we are to accept that as true, how is a photographer to know that?
For those who read the Guardian piece and are wondering why a photo of a pickle stirs up such a fuss, here's a snapshot of the Gherkin taken from across the river. Good thing you can't see the bottom of it.
Last edited:
gb hill
Veteran
I wonder how many terrorist take photos of their target before they blow it up? Do they take a photo of the store before they park the car bomb in front of it? Does the terrorist go into the nightclub to take photos days before strapping a bomb to his a$$.I think the police watch too many movies IMO. Besides if I was a terrorist & needed to take photos I think I would use my cell phone camera instead of a DSLR or even a P&S.
BTW I guess we are now on the Homeland Securitys Data Base for suspected terrorist for talking about this subject & the FBI will be kicking our doors down soon!
Be sure you get a photo of them as they come in the door.
BTW I guess we are now on the Homeland Securitys Data Base for suspected terrorist for talking about this subject & the FBI will be kicking our doors down soon!
Be sure you get a photo of them as they come in the door.ronnies
Well-known
Since the original post said 'London' can we take it that this is the policy of the Metropilitan Police and not other police forces in the UK since I have never once been hassled taking pictures in Edinburgh?
Ronnie
Ronnie
DennisPT
Well-known
Propaganda? Or a distraction of something that is cooking.
aldobonnard
Well-known
I never experienced this in the UK, in reality, having recently taken many pics of the house of parliament all around, but the principle of allowing any control any time is annoying, by nature. With regards to the picturial rights & regulations, it's not so bad in the UK, as it's very bad in France. The new law (thanks to the stupid current president) is quite restrictive. However tourists in France will never encounter any problem, except in dodgy areas like anywhere else. You will not find any problem taking pictures of the Tour Eiffel or the Grand Palais.
I think that the next time I'm going to London, usually for work, I'll deliberately bring my gear and conspicuously wander around
I think that the next time I'm going to London, usually for work, I'll deliberately bring my gear and conspicuously wander around
wgerrard
Veteran
In other threads people have pointed to press reports indicating that, at least in some instances, terrorists did photograph their targets. Whether a photo provides useful information to a terrorist depends, I'd think, on exactly what the terrorist wants to do. I don't see much added value could be gained from the kind of images that photographers seem to be shooting when approached by police. On the other hand, if someone wanted to tamper with the water feeding into a building, for example, then they might be very interested in detailed close shots of the pipes. Likewise, someone inside a building who entered a closet, opened an electrical panel and took pictures of it might draw legitimate attention.
However, people are not being stopped and arrested for that. They're being stopped and arrested for shooting routine photos in public.