I hate to be a bore...
... and I hate to sound as though I'm defending one more installment in a stream of odious and stupid policy decisions - but it's not illegal.
Taking photos of policemen that may be useful to terrorists, with the intention that they be useful to terrorists, is.
There's a big difference.
There's been a lot of very bad law passed in the last few years in the name of security. But if one's going to oppose it, one should at least get the right targets.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 12:45,
Reply)
But surely, the law as it stands
just leads to profiling?
Coppers making judgements based on someone's appearance to decide whether the person is acting like a terrorist.
(
Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 12:48,
Reply)
What Enzyme Said
^
If you take a photo of a copper beating the crap out of someone and posting it on the Net, that isn't illegal.
If you take a picture of where he lives, that is.
Cheers
(
Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 12:56,
Reply)
From The Telegraph
Whereas in the past the police have not had the power to prevent photographs being taken of them, from today they have. Under the new Counter-Terrorism Act it is an offence to take pictures of officers "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". This is such a catch-all measure that it can be used – and, in view of recent trends, will be used – to prevent photographs to which the police object merely by invoking counter-terrorist requirements. While it is important for officers involved in such operations to maintain anonymity, many photographers fear these powers will be abused.
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4632459/Why-cant-we-take-pictures-of-policemen.html
(
beaubodor blogless, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 13:05,
Reply)
from experience
and study.. it more often the case that the letter of the law is enforced, yet the spirit is not.. while there is, by way of implied limitation, exceptions to being able to photograph officers, in practice the actual law will be enforced wherever and whenever anyone wants to use it. All it requires is for an officer to justify it anyway s/he likes.
examples of this are with the anti-terrorism laws being used to punish litter louts by local councils
your country is becoming more and more a police state
(, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 13:29, Reply)
A major problem is that most people don't know the law or their own rights well enough.
Therefore, when a police officer tells someone to do something or makes demands for which compliance is voluntary, they tend to do as bidden, even though they don't need to. This is even more likely when done in what could be perceived as a threatening manner as experienced by many photographers in the last few months (see links throughout this thread).
(
elephant rider property shark sighted!, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 13:42,
Reply)
i've experienced misconceptions myself
taking some pictures in a park local to here, i was verbally abused by a woman that wanted me to delete all the images from my camera because i was "taking pictures of kids".. i was taking pictures of plants, flowers and a squirrel i saw (for a project)..
she stopped short of calling me a perv, though did threaten to call the police..
she didn't believe me when i told her it's a film camera..
the odd thing that struck me, was that she had crossed halfway across the park to shout at me, leaving her two kids and a pushchair alone over 100yards away
a lecturer here told me a should wear a dayglo jacket to look official..
i can only imagine this kind of misguided and misinformed nonsense will be on the increase.. police are just as human as the public
(, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 15:49, Reply)
oh and as i was about to add
this police state you are getting is being implemented under the guise of anti-terror and public safety.. when it's nothing of the sort
(, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 15:52, Reply)
But what's to stop
the violent copper from deciding that you could be a terrorist who just happens to be taking photos of him while he's beating the shit out of someone?
There's a piece on this issue on theregister.co.uk which points out that
"In line with the model used in related laws, the offence itself is "strict liability": it is the gathering of information that will be deemed to be the offence, and a defence that the person had a "reasonable excuse for their action" is only allowed after the offence has been charged."
(
mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 14:59,
Reply)
guilty
until proven innocent, in direct contravention to human rights and public law (unless someone better informed can put me aright)?
(, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 15:54, Reply)
and my target is?
I thought that might be plain from the text at the start and end of the video.
Putting such vague laws in place which are so open to interpretation (and without any guidance to or restrictions on implementation) is definitely worth noting. And it is surely worth mentioning those who proposed and put the law into effect.
Furthermore, past behaviour by some members of the constabulary shows that this law is open to abuse.
So, please tell me who you consider to be the correct target as you imply I have so clearly got it wrong.
As for your qualification/clarification/put-down - Of course you are correct. I was obviously not intending to deceive but lmited by space and by my own laziness to type an explanatory extract of the act into the headline field when I posted.
(
beaubodor blogless, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 13:01,
Reply)
The issue is the purposeful ambuiguity under the guise of terrorist threat
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/12/photographers-anti-terror-laws
(
elephant rider property shark sighted!, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 13:13,
Reply)
