Yet another Invasion of Photographers Rights

The complainant isn't a public official undertaking a public role, the Police Officers are.

Yes I do think bills like this make things worse for the general public. I do find it amazing that, having lived through the actual terror threat the country was faced with during the 70s and 80s which we got through without the need to introduce numerous pieces of legislation curtailing people's rights and civil liberties, you think measures such as these are a good thing and necessary for protecting the public.

In all honesty if you think that giving the Police the powers and authority to stop people on a whim and demand they hand over their details or face the consequences is a good idea then I am worried about the direction society is heading in. I also worry that you seem to be of the view that you either have to lock yourself away at home to retain any sense of privacy or go outside and be willing to provide anything asked of you by anyone in authority, are you really unable to see a middle ground between the two? Yes, going out in public entails the loss of some privacy, simply by the virtue that others can observe you and what you are doing, but I don't see that being outside your home means you should lose all privacy or right to refuse to provide your details.

Not really, no. As BLC has already pointed out it's a different situation to the one referred to in the article, but either way I'd still consider it an abuse of power if they decided to take the details of, and check out, anyone photographing/filming a School play/sports day/event.

The problem is the Police don't have the power or authority to stop people for no reason and demand they hand over their details. They are currently doing so by abusing other powers that have been given to them, unwisely in my opinion, and that is wrong. People should not just accept that the Police can do what they like and should stand up for their rights. It has nothing to do with having anything to hide or any illusion of superiority, it is simply about taking a stand against the misuse of powers and erosion of rights/liberties.

How is harrassing photographers undertaking a completely legal activity doing their job? Or something that we should help them achieve?

 

Is there really any need for that? Abuse/debate my arguments if you will - that's what debate is about - but not me.

 

I did, and got a movie scene for my trouble! I had one laugh out of it though, when I told him my name his face was a picture, he then demanded my proposed ID. There were 3 other officers there, all looking at the guy like he'd gone mad, especially when he ejected me from the train station. Very few coppers go out looking for confrontation, & some situations I've observed (not tv) show many have the patience of saints. Like you say, they have a job to do, & like the rest of us just want to do it well & go home. The few that I know personally are decent people, not KGB!

 

They still have the same right to having their facial features obscured, just not the numbers on their uniforms. They are still people. I wouldn't be surprised if he is also sexist & underrates the role of the girl who spoke to him first but can't actually say that or his credibility would be on the floor.

Yes, I do. Before, it was just pure plain stripsearch & a kicking for dissent around the corner with no legislation whatsoever & nobody really knew what their rights were. This scene, in which we only see what the photographer wants us to see, shows only courteous officers in the course of a specific & finite interaction. It could so easily have been the former, with the cameras & camcorder wiped. Been known to happen, & in a lot of countries still does. It really is not so bad here at all. Civil disobedience is a chargeable offence, & you'll note he hasn't come out complaining about being rolled up in a carpet & kicked for 10 minutes, denied food or drink etc. His human rights have not in any way been breached. How has your life become worse? what's happened to you?

Then be afraid. There is so much conflicting legislation & in conjunction with our national & foreign policy at all levels we are wide open to far too much abuse of "civil liberty". No legislation will ever take away the risk of a timed nailbomb in a costa carton or a bunch of guys deciding to lay waste to a high-street during a public event with automatic weapons. But we can't solely apply our rules to the "bad people" or this makes the security forces completely ineffective. If you honestly think the police can be effective simply by sitting in their offices waiting for crimes to happen & someone to call then go catch the bad guys, then I wish you luck finding that particular utopia. Bear in mind many people view it as an affront to have the police patrolling their streets. Personally, I'm in the "offer them a cup of tea" bracket of the community. & if the security services are reading my emails & internet traffic, can they please filter out all my spam cos there's loads of it & my spam filter is useless!

No, they'd just get the kit confiscated & wiped of any images of other peoples children. Not sure if it's law, but schools around here don't allow it anymore, nor do the schools where my sister lives, in Southampton

"Reason" is subjective. What about stopping drivers at random for a safety check, vin check, breathalyzer check? same thing. Acting in a suspicious manner, causing a disturbance, dissent, anti-social behaviour (which could be getting in the way of the parade in order to get a good photo). It's all a bit too convenient, anyone I've ever heard of or seen complaining about being stopped comes across pretty much like the guy in the video. & I do believe theres some real worth in the old quote "the lady doth protest too much" & all it implies. The only guys I've ever known personally to accuse someone of being "racist" have themselves been practicing racism, for example.

Again, there's a lot that may have gone on during that day. I'd like to see the CCTV of them (I'm sure it exists). And, er, were they commissioned to do the work by the event organisers? I can't imagine they were the only people taking pictures, so they must have done something to attract attention.

 

I know you're not replying to my post, and I'm not going to try and address all your arguments, but the point that I - and probably others - am trying to make is that photographers get singled out and treated with suspicion because they are taking pictures in a public place, when that act alone does not warrant suspicion. They don't have to do anything to attract attention or raise suspicion other than be seen taking pictures.

There are far too many instances of this for me to remember, or cite. It not only hampers their rights/freedoms, but can impact their professional life. Photographers have been stopped for taking pictures of public buildings and had their equipment confiscated or pictures wiped; if they are freelance and get paid for the pictures they produce, that can represent a loss of income. I can't name any other profession where the police can directly cause loss of earnings and justify it on the tenuous and legally dubious grounds of "acting suspiciously". It's not just professionals either; amateurs are going to be discouraged, even though they would be breaking no laws. Then there's the whole issue around public perception of anyone with a camera - "They're taking pictures in the street so they must be doing something wrong". I realise that this is not what happened in this case, but all these cases are symptoms of a bigger problem.

 

I just watched through the whole video.

Seemed to me that this guy was looking for a confrontation and was intentionally antagonizing the officers.

I'm all for personal privacy, but why make things more difficult for everyone including yourself? Giving the details would have taken two minutes, not doing so cost him 8 hrs and he comes of looking like a jerk.

Maybe he didn't deserve to be arrested, but I feel no sympathies for this guy.

If in his position, I would have just looked for the path of least inconvenience.

 

Oh boy, I hope that officer got a dressing down when that one came to the attention of his superiors.

It seems like many police officers forget why they have the powers they do. Like those in office they forget that it is they who serve the common man and not the other way around. You can't justify going around asking people to identify themselves in a so called free country. That's getting closer to police states and dictatorships.

As for terrorism, they're doing what they can but you're never safe, not completely. That's the point. The best way to survive it is to not get paranoid and clamp down, that's precisely the aim of terrorism in the first place. Knee jerk reactions like the anti terrorism powers are precisely what shouldn't happen. It results in miscarriages of justice and an increase in Napoleon complexes in those who are awarded the power.

This particular case, you could argue that the man was unhelpful but that in itself is no reason for any copper to get their knickers in a twist. It would be better to test the police force and those that have lost their sense of humour, their ability to not deal with people as objects to organise and "urge" to comply, are given some time off and perhaps, in serious cases, let go. They do more damage than good.

Of course that would lead some to believe that this would weaken the force but realistically if you've got coppers who are more concerned with their own pride than the law and justice then they're more of a hindrance than a boon. They are, in essence, poor employees the same as help desk people who are tired with "idiots" phoning up and become snippy.

I don't know why people attribute special leniency to policemen and politicians but they are just like everyone else. That means they need the leeway we all enjoy and also the same disciplinary measures.

The man may have been less than helpful but the PC was just exercising the chip on his shoulder by taking it any further than a quick word in the guys ear. 8 hours in detainment? Ridiculous.

 

This is utter ********. The fact that he was being obstinate and rude is not cause for further action. Politeness is not a legal requirement. The police have to deal with whatever lack of respect the public throw out - it's their job. Unless it's threatening or abusive or antisocial, a person's attitude is not legally objectionable. Ever.

You're all acting as if his bad personality made it okay for the officers to abuse the law to arrest him. It wasn't. The point of rules is that they're consistently applied, and for their self-evident purposes only. The officers here didn't pursue the matter because they actually thought his photography was antisocial in nature; they pursued it out of personal affront and egotism and malleated the law to achieve it.

What you basically have, the guy's irritating nature aside, is officers disingenuously abusing the law for their own gratification or 'triumph'. Someone try and tell me that that's acceptable. I dare you.

edit -
holy ****, this one is just unbelievable:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/dec/15/police-terrorism
Racism, yay!

 

I have now watched the video in full... Let's ignore for a moment the exchanges on the street and go straight to the police force's statement on the issue: they stated that he was taking photographs in a suspicious manner - the reason for it being deemed suspicious was that he was placing his camera in a position that could be construed as being anti-social.

What? How can using a camera be construed as anti-social? Was he using it at waist-level? Even if he was, that's not exactly anti-social - it's a completely valid photographic technique. I've taken photographs while I've been lying on my back; I wasn't trying to be anti-social, I was trying to get a more interesting shot.

As I've mentioned before; it sounds like this guy was well-aware of the treatment that photographers get (maybe experienced it himself) and had armed himself with the appropriate knowledge. I don't think the police were expecting resistance and mis-interpreted it as being uncooperative.

He might have been deliberately trying to make a statement by capturing the exchanges on video camera, but it's a statement that needs to be made and made more often. I'd like to think I'd have the cojones to do the same when faced with that situation, but in reality I would only go so far; I would probably capitulate when threatened with handcuffs. Bravo, sir, I say.

 

Is to me.

 

Benjamin Franklin called, he says **** you and the freedom you rode in on.

 

Great argument. Insightful.

When I've got squaddies camped out in the bushes watching me through my kitchen window & tearing through my rubbish, I'll have cause for complaint. In the meantime, if I tell a customs official I have a grenade shoved up my rear I expect to get the full exam for taking the mince. And if I dissent a copper for simply asking my name, I expect to get a lesson in manners. Respect for authority, not a lot to ask for when we're on almost permanent amber alert.

 

That video is disgraceful and the officer knows what he's doing is wrong. You only have to look at his partner's face and body language to see he wants absolutely nothing to do with it.

What really pissed me off about the video (aside from the off-camera 'arrest' which sounds more like an assault) was how the PCSO tried, very crudely I might add, to twist everything she said even though it was quite obvious English was her second language. Then when all else fails he resorts to writing her up on some ******** cycling infraction, which I'm sure made him feel like a real tough guy.

Some people seem far too willing to steadily give up small freedoms thinking that it will somehow help anything. Terrorism will always exist. At some point in the future England will be attacked. People will die. Unfortunately that's the world we live in and no removal of any amount of small civil liberties will not stop it from being true. Maintaining the integrity of our society before, during and after attacks is what defines us. We're British, we've dealt with devastation and bloodshed on our soil before, this is nothing new to us. Lets stop acting like we're amateurs.

Oh and if the government has it their way, we'll be at amber alert forever as it deflects attention away from other important matters and keeps the population focused on an 'enemy'.

 

I deliver.

I really don't think desperate times merit sacrificing professionalism. Terrorists are giving police more to worry about, therefore police officers can abuse their position? I don't see the logic. This was an abuse of the law. The police are not authority figures. Not in this country. They're civil servants: the clue is in the name. We don't fear them.

And the day we do, the day they become manners police who can act based on personal dislike, is the day I stick pencils up my nostrils and start kneecapping them with a bat - because frankly, if the whole country can go mad and foresake its principles, so can I.

 

Lets just forget about what we could legally stop the police from doing, and forget about what they can legally do, think about what is best for society.
Helping the police, or being a pita

Police aren't harrassing photographers, they asked nicely, but both the photographer and the schoolgirl gave them attitude - the photographers made something out of nothing = really stupid people. Defending thier pathetic attitude towards the police is something i'd expect a rebellious teenager to do, which might explain what's going on here

If your child's school put on a show, somewhere public, you would want the police to question anyone with a camera, even you! A mature parent should be very happy to see that the police are doing a thorough job, and inform the police that thier child is playing over there, and happily give thier details. The last thing a good parent wants to do waste the police's time, so that they can get on with checking everyone else out.

Just imagine that building got attacked in the next day or two, and you had seen the girl filming all the entrances, cctv, foundations, etc, and had also seen security walk right past her, without a word...

Try to imagine that you own that building, and you see that girl filming everything like that
Wouldn't you expect your security officers to check her out? Or just let it slide?

How about if you see someone standing outside your house, for 15 minutes or more, filming everything he can, and taking lots of photos What would you do? Call the police, because that's completely different! It's your house!!!

 

Respect is earnt not given just because the person is wearing a uniform I'll respect the position of limited authority that the policeman holds due to the nature of his job however the moment he or she opens her or his mouth and starts sprouting rubbish about anti-social photograph talking my only three comments will be "Am I under arrest?" "Am I free to Leave" "Goodbye" and to be honest even the third one is unlikely. what you're describing isn't respect but fear of a bully.

and to be fair lets just quote Andrew Trotter. Chief Constable who is Head of ACPO Media Advisory Group concerning Section 44 Terrorism Act and Photography

The Bold tag and underlining were added by me and were not part of the original quote

Seems pretty clear cut to me the police are over stepping the mark and even they admit it

 

They just wanted to be involved in another of those "high profile cases" that the Guardian mentions, IMHO.

 

First, I'd like a show of hands: how many people here are actually photographers - amateur or professional - or have an interest in photography? I most certainly am, and although I have not personally received this treatment, I personally know people who have and have read a great deal about this subject. It is also the reason that I stay away from candid street photography and stick to landscapes/abstract

(if anyone from the Photograpy forum is wondering why I haven't posted my shots yet, it's because I'm waiting to get some darkroom equipment to develop my film!)

This is not about assisting the police or what we can legally stop them from doing, though it certainly is about civic duty: the duty of the police to the public. It is about what the police are legally allowed to do in the first place and what reasons/circumstances they are allowed to justify it with.

I agree with the need for protection against terrorism. I was reluctant to bring this up at first, because it could easily be construed as me making an argument from authority, and I loathe fallacious arguments. However, pretty much my whole family has a military background: my father served in Northern Ireland and the Falklands, one of my uncles served in both Gulf Wars and Afghanistan, one grandfather served in WWII, the other grandfather served in Borneo and Korea, one of my partner's family members is in Afghanistan right now... I could go on. I therefore understand the need to protect our country and it's citizens against aggressors in any form: open warfare, terrorism, etc. But protection against terrorism and aggressors aims to protect our liberties, freedoms and way of life. This is a point that many others in this thread have made, but what good is this protection if it erodes our freedoms and way of life?

Are you basing this only on the two videos that have been posted here? The police may always come across initially as polite, but the point is that they had no right to approach the photographers with the reasons they gave. It has nothing to do with either the attitude of the police or the photographers being questioned; the issue at hand is that the police cannot carry out these actions under the banner of Section 44. The Anti-terrorism legislation was introduced in 2000 and I can find reported cases of this dating back four years. If this behaviour is systematically occurring over a long period of time, all over the country, then it amounts to nothing other than harassment of photographers. In every single case I have read about, there has been no further action against the photographer - no charges brought, no prosecutions. Perhaps time spent in the police station, but certainly no criminal record.

Here are some more links on the subject; I haven't read all of these, but they are reporting on exactly the same subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/dec/11/photographs-police-anti-terrorism-laws
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7000835.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8476318.stm

And bear in mind that not all incidents will be reported in the press; there are bound to be instances where a photographer has been questioned by police, under Section 44, and had complied because they were not aware of their legal position, or were intimidated by the use of "anti-terrorism" language.

if a show was being performing in the street, then you cannot reasonably class that as private unless you have a designated separate area and have some kind of entry/admission control. Otherwise, it is a public event. In such circumstances it would probably be wise of the photographer to ask for permission from parents, and many responsible photographers do - even to the point of carrying round documents for parents to sign. Asking for police support and running background checks on all attendees would be rather heavy-handed however. Even if the police started questioning people with a camera at such an event, whether they had asked permission from the parents or not, then they would have a justifiable right to do so: the protection of children. They would not be able to justify it using Section 44 of the anti-terrorism legislation, which is exactly what we are discussing. If they had no permission from the parents, then the police could make a reasonable case for taking further action. This is why most people would stay away from this kind of photography unless it was properly organised.

However, if someone in the crowd was taking photographs using their mobile phone, that would not necessarily draw attention; even though they may be able to get very high quality images. That person could also have malicious intent. A serious photographer always stands out because of the equipment they use; it would tend to be an SLR camera, possibly with a flash gun, and the removable lens would stick out a mile. The fact is that photographers are not necessarily bogeymen. Just because he has gear that is of above average quality, that does not mean that he is interested in exploitation of his subjects. If people really wanted to take pictures of children for their own gratification, then the sad truth is that there are many, many more covert and subversive ways of doing that - even in a public place with lots of other people around. In fact, you don't even need to leave your house to get at images of children, all you need is an internet connection.

For a start, she wouldn't be able to film the foundations without gaining entry to the premises and the permission of the owner.

The private security firms may well be obliged to intervene and even call the police, according to the owner's wishes/directives. However the police do not have the power to question her, ask for personal details, ask her to cease, view footage or confiscate equipment under the anti-terrorism laws - which is exactly what happened in the video that boiled_elephant linked to. The owners of the building may well request that she stop filming, and have the police make this request on their behalf. If that were the case, then this is a civil matter - nothing to do with anti-terrorism legislation, and the police could not use Section 44 to justify their actions. The owner does not have the right to request that the footage be turned over to them or destroyed, and the police would have no right to order her to do so.

Again, you would call the police and they would have the right to intervene; again, your garden and your house are not public places. You absolutely do have the right to expect privacy in your premises and the law supports this. However when the police intervened, they would not be able to use Section 44 or any part of the anti-terrorism legislation to do so! If I were taking photographs of someone in their home and the police questioned me under Section 44, I'd tell them where to get off; however if they questioned me under privacy laws, I'd be caught red handed and would have no justifiable defence.

 

Totally unrelated to photography but related to the resources used to fight terrorism.

Now I don't know the amount of money spent in fighting terrorism but I imagine it's a lot. Again I don't know the amount of money spent to fight gun or knife crime but I imagine it is no where near what is spent in anti-terrorism.

Also, knife and gun deaths are insanely high compared to deaths from terrorism or the potential for deaths from terrorism.

I personally would rather money was better spent in preventing knife/gun/violent crime rather than terrorism. I think the chance of someone being caught in a violent crime is much higher than the chance of being caught in a terrorist act.

I find instances like the links provided throughout this thread an alarming waste of police resources considering the arrest rate. I think the whole point of anti-terrorism laws is to make people feel safer as they clearly haven't resulted in increased arrest , does anyone actually feel safer knowing the police have these powers? I certainly don't.

 

No I wouldn't. Tourists all over the world undoubtedly have lots of photos of me as a child. Unless **** is publicized or spread, I don't give a toss who's got a photo of who in their private collections. It doesn't infringe on my rights. You don't have a right not to be photographed, so quit being such a ****ing Native American about it.

No, a paranoid Daily Mail-reading hypersensitive overprotective parent would be happy to see as much.