wgerrard
Veteran
I really question the value of Google photography to wannabe terrorists. Not nearly detailed enough.
UK Police Tell Photographers To Carry ID's
- Thread starter wgerrard
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 71
- Views 9K
I really question the value of Google photography to wannabe terrorists. Not nearly detailed enough.
peterm1
Veteran
I think I will carry mine in the form of a large sign around my neck saying "I am not a terrorist" and on my camera I will hang another sign saying ""And this is not a bomb."
If that does not get me shot or arrested, nothing will.
Actually so far the cops in Oz are pretty good and touch wood I am yet to be confronted by one. We are a laid back bunch in general.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
No it wasn't. Sez I.
dws21uk
Member
It's quite disturbing the first time it happens to you and you're not expecting it. I was cornered by two security guards within 5 minutes of taking the photo below. I was politely told that they did not allow photography and it was private land, although a public shopping centre. I know my rights and theirs, so didn't argue. I've since been back several times with my R2A and had no problems, I guess a DSLR must force them to take action.
Handy link for a printable guide of UK photographers rights: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/
Handy link for a printable guide of UK photographers rights: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Wrong...As a non-digital camera user I use and buy film (a consumable item that can ony be used once)
Once the digital shooter buys their equipment they no longer contribute to capitalism...😉
George S.
How many is enough?
Uh, no. In the U.S., Probable cause is only needed for an arrest. Reasonable suspicion is the standard needed to stop and question someone or to frisk them for weapons. And only weapons. It is suspicion that a "reasoanble officer" is able to "articulate". Leaves a lot of doors open, espcially when you factor in our Patriot Act.
Last edited:
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Now their hidden agenda becomes clear; critics armed with the power of arrest!
Rob
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I'm always thinking of things in the long-term, historic view. For instance, I wonder if, looking back upon it, say 100 years from now (assuming humanity has survived, there being no guarantees), whether we'll view unbridled street (i.e. public) photography as an exception to the otherwise normal ken of human social behavior.
I realize the medium has only been around since the 1830s or so, and before that many of its intended purposes were fulfilled by artists working in the medium of painting and sketching; but there must be someone here who can lend us an historic perspective on the role of illustration in public media prior to the invention of image capture via silver salts. My uneducated guess is that such artists were under much political scrutiny, and that this scrutiny has continued unabated up to the present. Image-making possesses a power within an image-conscious culture, and those who wield power must also wield control over the creation of imagery.
It's not what we want to hear, but perhaps having free reign to photograph uninhibited in public is not an activity that, going forward, global capitalist governments are willing to put up with in the long view; the last, say, 80 years of street photography being an abnormality rather than the long-term historic norm.
I'll also make the observation that many of us so-called "street photographers" find our self-image to be distinctly separate from that of the paparazzi, whom we'd like to think of as some sub-species, entirely different from our own makeup. I would argue that the paparazzi operate firmly within the tradition of street photography, and that whatever ill-will they have earned we must also assume for ourselves. They are us.
I also have this theory pertaining to our existence within a Surveillance Society, wherein the act of public photography, while thought of by us as a harmless, creative pastime, could be thought of by Authorities as uncontrolled, renegade surveillance, a kind of parallel, competing activity which They find, somehow, threatening to their continued Authority.
Democracy (which is always more of an ideal in theory rather than in actual practice) relies on some kind of reverse surveillance by the rabble against Authority itself; it cannot exist in practice outside of this presumption. Hence the need for a truly Unimbedded Media, a self-aware public of scrutinizers willing to surveill the surveillers. This is Street Photography's highest ideal. Those in authority are more aware of this, I fear, than are photographers themselves.
~Joe
I realize the medium has only been around since the 1830s or so, and before that many of its intended purposes were fulfilled by artists working in the medium of painting and sketching; but there must be someone here who can lend us an historic perspective on the role of illustration in public media prior to the invention of image capture via silver salts. My uneducated guess is that such artists were under much political scrutiny, and that this scrutiny has continued unabated up to the present. Image-making possesses a power within an image-conscious culture, and those who wield power must also wield control over the creation of imagery.
It's not what we want to hear, but perhaps having free reign to photograph uninhibited in public is not an activity that, going forward, global capitalist governments are willing to put up with in the long view; the last, say, 80 years of street photography being an abnormality rather than the long-term historic norm.
I'll also make the observation that many of us so-called "street photographers" find our self-image to be distinctly separate from that of the paparazzi, whom we'd like to think of as some sub-species, entirely different from our own makeup. I would argue that the paparazzi operate firmly within the tradition of street photography, and that whatever ill-will they have earned we must also assume for ourselves. They are us.
I also have this theory pertaining to our existence within a Surveillance Society, wherein the act of public photography, while thought of by us as a harmless, creative pastime, could be thought of by Authorities as uncontrolled, renegade surveillance, a kind of parallel, competing activity which They find, somehow, threatening to their continued Authority.
Democracy (which is always more of an ideal in theory rather than in actual practice) relies on some kind of reverse surveillance by the rabble against Authority itself; it cannot exist in practice outside of this presumption. Hence the need for a truly Unimbedded Media, a self-aware public of scrutinizers willing to surveill the surveillers. This is Street Photography's highest ideal. Those in authority are more aware of this, I fear, than are photographers themselves.
~Joe
bmattock
Veteran
I like the way you think.
Turtle
Veteran
I recommend ignoring the police. Do what you wish to do within the law. Be polite and helpful but let them deal with you. I had this issue in london a few years back and continued shooting as the sun dropped, answering their questions (they checked me against the PNC etc as I shot, explaining that I would lose the light otherwise. The whole incident was pathetic, but this is what we now face. I will Just keep on enjoying my hobby and if have my drivers license with me fine, if I don't, are they really going to take me down the station? Seriously? I think I would find it quite amusing assuming I had time in the day. The only problem comes when you have a particularly dim cop on a power trip. Then it tends to get a little tense.
arseniii
Well-known
At the end of the day they do what they've got to do... It's better to present your ID a couple of times rather than to be bombed once... During my last visit to Moscow it was even more ridiculous but c'mon UK is not Russia!
P.S. I still think this is an idiotic law that violates human rights, and a freedom of speech!
P.S. I still think this is an idiotic law that violates human rights, and a freedom of speech!
Sparrow
Veteran
Take a look at the moral, political and satirical drawings of William Hogarth from the 18th century and you may revise that particular bit, that’s not to invalidate the rest of the post I understand the context thing
(Hogarth’s book The Analysis of Beauty is also an interesting read, but not in this context)
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
First, the complaint here is that they are doing what they do not have to do.
Second, not being forced to carry 'ID' or to explain yourself to the authorities, at their slightest whim, is one of the hallmarks of a free society.
Cheers,
R.
G
George9
Guest
Sparrow
Veteran
They a typically French solution, there one must have an ID card but are not required to carry with you iirc
G
George9
Guest
I frequently travel in France and ID must be carried at all times.
Routine ID checks on the street are not uncommon and always friendly, ending with a "have a nice day sir".
Same while driving. Routine checks for ID, drivers license, insurance, breathalyser tests etc. You are often asked to open the trunk too.
Sparrow
Veteran
Then I’m mistaken, it hasn’t ever happened to me, but then I don’t go that often
I stand corrected
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear George,
I believe you may be correct in theory but (in typical French fashion) not in practice. As for routine ID checks on the street being 'not uncommon', I've never had one in 7 years of living here nor in all the visits over the 30 years or so before, and I've had one check in 7 years for drivers' licence, etc. -- which, of course, suffices as ID.
Actually I have no great problem with carrying ID, because my driving licence lives in my wallet anyway, and if I'm outside the village where I live, I'm normally carrying my wallet.
It's not so much carrying ID that worries me, as being asked for it illegally. Which it almost always will be in the UK, where in any case, you are not obliged to carry any.
Maybe they stop you for looking offensively foreign? (Insert smiley of choice).
Cheers,
R.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
The old charge of Looking Irish When We Need A Suspect seems to have fallen out of fashion, so perhaps conspicuous photography is just filling the hole it left?
G
George9
Guest
Well you can hardly call your back of beyond village as typical to the situation. Try frequenting the hot quarters of the major cities - that would resemble more closely the situation we are comparing to the London Metropole.
Please leave out any racism. How can one look "offensively foreign" in a multi cultural society? Land of the "Droite de L' Homme"?
Similar threads
- Article
