USA ain't much better, man. You can be harassed for taking pictures of facilities like hospitals, sports arenas, or other "high-value targets."
My dad got hassled by a hospital security guard a few years ago for taking a picture of the front of the facility for the local Chamber of Commerce. He didn't actually get arrested - but it was close!
The whole point of such laws is twofold.
#1: To give the police the authority to bully the public and generally treat people as less than proper citizens, so that they will eventually get used to such treatment.
#2: To promote a general feeling of fear, as if those laws are necessary, because the "Terrorists" are going to attack again, any minute and kill us all.
It's just a general softening up for then they decided to unleash another false flag attack, then they will declare martial law and drag us to the FEMA camps.
That is pretty disgusting to be honest. Granted everyone was being very polite, but there was, in my mind, no reasonable cause for the police to arrest that man, assuming that he was behaving as any other photographer would do at any similar event.
I think they just wanted his details (which as was made clear, many people would have just given, even though they are not obliged to under the flim flam law that they were requested under), and when he declined to give them to the police, they made up a load of crap to get him under a law which requires a person to give their details up.
warpcrafter wrote:The whole point of such laws is twofold.
#1: To give the police the authority to bully the public and generally treat people as less than proper citizens, so that they will eventually get used to such treatment.
#2: To promote a general feeling of fear, as if those laws are necessary, because the "Terrorists" are going to attack again, any minute and kill us all.
It's just a general softening up for then they decided to unleash another false flag attack, then they will declare martial law and drag us to the FEMA camps.
In the cases I have read about the charges are always dropped because they are complete nonsense and wouldn't stand up in front of a magistrate for five minutes. The 'perp' still has the fun experience of spending a few hours in the cells, and gets his DNA on the database.
(I mean, think about it. What policeman would want to actually go on the witness stand and accuse a person of having filmed a Christmas Parade in an anti-social manner. Or that he was taking pictures of drain gratings in a suspiciously terrorist methodology. The copper would be laughed out of court.)
It's illegal for the police to confiscate the cameras, film, SD cards or to delete photos, however it has been known to occur especially when the photographer is sufficiently intimidated to allow the police to do it.
Some police have even arrested photographers for taking pictures of policemen beating them up, on the grounds that it is terrorist behaviour.
London Police have had to be officially reminded they are legally obliged to wear their ID numbers all the time to allow members of the public to identify them. That is where we have got to.
warpcrafter wrote:The whole point of such laws is twofold.
#1: To give the police the authority to bully the public and generally treat people as less than proper citizens, so that they will eventually get used to such treatment.
#2: To promote a general feeling of fear, as if those laws are necessary, because the "Terrorists" are going to attack again, any minute and kill us all.
It's just a general softening up for then they decided to unleash another false flag attack, then they will declare martial law and drag us to the FEMA camps.
Exactly. Welcome to 1984 with a smiley face. As long as there is crap being pumped into the living room through the TVs and hot chicks on the internet we're all willing prisoners in our own countries.
Something like the end of V for Vendetta is needed where everyone shows up with cameras.
warpcrafter wrote:The whole point of such laws is twofold.
#1: To give the police the authority to bully the public and generally treat people as less than proper citizens, so that they will eventually get used to such treatment.
#2: To promote a general feeling of fear, as if those laws are necessary, because the "Terrorists" are going to attack again, any minute and kill us all.
It's just a general softening up for then they decided to unleash another false flag attack, then they will declare martial law and drag us to the FEMA camps.
You know, what I've never been able to figure out about this NWO stuff is the motivation. Not for belief, that's easy enough to understand, but the motivation for enacting any sort of NWO. Historically, violent coups are enacted by people who consider themselves to be marginalized, or oppressed, not by shadow governments that already possess nearly limitless power via anonymity.
dogma wrote:You know, what I've never been able to figure out about this NWO stuff is the motivation.
Perhaps it depends on how they look at humans? Are we physical beings with spirit or spiritual beings that have taken on a physical form? They don't call it the occult for nothing. Apparently, the NWO types are heavy heavy into that stuff.
The "NWO" following for the most part is a bunch of nutters who believe that there's a "Shadow Government" that is behind ALL of the other governments, and trying its hardest to bring us in line with their Master Plan.
Sure, some of them bring in the Lizardpeople from Beta Centauri-8, but most just think idiotic things like Bush planned 9/11 so that he could pave the way for Obama to take over and establish an international World Order with Bush Sr. in place at its head.
He was arrested for failing to provide details when asked.
His mate was released after co-operating
As I understand it, an officer is entitled to approach anyone they deem to be acting suspiciously.
but they cannot just take your camera or confiscate the images.
I remeber when at the public libray doing an experiment videotaping it a couple of kids ran through the shot. We then were forced to delete the shot. Aprently you can video tape kids in the librarey. They wernt even part of the experiment. there parents were. A guy with the group even got his house a visit because he was stupid enough to apply for a card that day.
garret wrote:I remember when at the public library doing an experiment. When we were videotaping it a couple of kids ran through the shot, we then were forced to delete the shot. Apparently you can't video tape kids in the library. They weren't even part of the experiment, their parents were. A guy with the group even got his house a visit because he was stupid enough to apply for a card that day.
I fixed that to be more comprehensible for you Garret, but I'm not sure what the last part is meaning to say...
The guy got a visit from the police because he applied for a library card after filming children in a library?
How old was he? Your age or younger? Older than 18?
Because there's a possibility that someone figured him as doing scouting for kidnapping or child pornography.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
loki old fart wrote:People go on about Islamic countries having less freedoms. But if this is our response to terrorism. WHY bother fighting, because they've already won.
You do realize that there's a very, very, very good reason to detain someone who's taking photographs of potential targets...right?
And you do also realize that Al Qaeda and its similar organizations no longer restrict themselves to using 'just' Middle Eastern males 20-45 with traditional beards, right?
Welcome to the ever-evolving world of counterterrorism. The enemy isn't what you think you know.
No we were 17. all of us. But im just taking that guy at face value. idk if its true.
But even the lidrary knew that we were doing an experiment. they could have told them that.
And it wasnt the police. it was an lady who child was with the group.
garret wrote:No, we were 17(all of us). But I'm just taking that guy at face value. I don't know if it's true.
But even the library knew that we were doing an experiment, and they could have told them that.
It wasn't the police, it was a lady whose child was with the group.
Still not sure what you're talking about either way. The woman came to the camera operator's house because her child walked into the video during the experiment?
What the heck were you doing for an experiment that required you to film in a public library anyways?
We were taping peoples reaction to people playing loud music in the library. It is and experiment in breaking a social norm.
And i was the operater. He was one who played the music.
This will help explain it.
First--much better spelling and grammer. Still some problems, but much much easier for me to read and not want to make corrections to. We'll make you a literary icon soon enough. *highfive*
Second--Was the child whose mother came to the house one of those whose reactions were filmed for the experiment or what?
Because if you filmed their reactions and didn't TELL the child afterward, there's a pretty big issue due to the fact that you just videotaped someone without their consent.
I dont know. We wernt paying attention. Besides it was public. Why should we have to get consent. Also the children wernt part of the experiment. We just were in the child part of the library to vido tape the adults that were thr..... Ohh. know I get it. Crud. Oh well just what happned. it was like 4 month ago. not that big of a deal anymore. What were we thinking.
Yes I face palm myself. But luckily it wasnt my idea. I didnt plan the experiment at all.
Oh well its all over. nothing happened.
can we close this topic know and get back on to the OP post.
The "NWO" following for the most part is a bunch of nutters who believe that there's a "Shadow Government" that is behind ALL of the other governments, and trying its hardest to bring us in line with their Master Plan.
Sure, some of them bring in the Lizardpeople from Beta Centauri-8, but most just think idiotic things like Bush planned 9/11 so that he could pave the way for Obama to take over and establish an international World Order with Bush Sr. in place at its head.
Dogma said he couldn't figure out their motivation. I mentioned that these guys are into the occult. All the secret societies that tend to come up with the NWO are into spiritual occult activity on some level. Bohemian Grove is a pretty good documented example. As for the "nutters", at least they aren't taking what the government and media are dishing out at face value. If one can't see, or doesn't want to see behind the lies, that's up to you. The evidence is out there in the streets: people have less freedom and are less free than they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s. The Constitutions of most Western countires aren't worth the paper they are written on.
The "NWO" following for the most part is a bunch of nutters who believe that there's a "Shadow Government" that is behind ALL of the other governments, and trying its hardest to bring us in line with their Master Plan.
Sure, some of them bring in the Lizardpeople from Beta Centauri-8, but most just think idiotic things like Bush planned 9/11 so that he could pave the way for Obama to take over and establish an international World Order with Bush Sr. in place at its head.
Dogma said he couldn't figure out their motivation. I mentioned that these guys are into the occult. All the secret societies that tend to come up with the NWO are into spiritual occult activity on some level. Bohemian Grove is a pretty good documented example. As for the "nutters", at least they aren't taking what the government and media are dishing out at face value. If one can't see, or doesn't want to see behind the lies, that's up to you. The evidence is out there in the streets: people have less freedom and are less free than they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s. The Constitutions of most Western countires aren't worth the paper they are written on.
...
There's "what's behind the lies", "between the lines" and then there's taking a minor inconsistency and running with it in the complete opposite direction of logical and sane.
And mind you, this is coming from a guy who spends his weekends scoping out supposedly haunted locations and every so often going UFO watching.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And by the by--the occult has NOTHING to do with the "New World Order" movement.
The occult deals with supernatural elements, most famously the spiritualist movers and shakers of the early 20th centuries like Edgar Kaycee and Alistair Crowley and moving on to Hitler and his ilk's obsession with it.
Khornholio wrote:
The evidence is out there in the streets: people have less freedom and are less free than they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s. The Constitutions of most Western countires aren't worth the paper they are written on.
I'm having a hard time thinking of even a single freedom which has been restricted, at least in the United States, within the last 40 years. Maybe gun control?
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:He was arrested for failing to provide details when asked.
His mate was released after co-operating
As I understand it, an officer is entitled to approach anyone they deem to be acting suspiciously.
but they cannot just take your camera or confiscate the images.
He was not under English law (Terrorism Act) required to give the details asked. So the community support officers arrested him on suspicion of anti-social behaviour. In other words they switched charges because they wanted to arrest him for something.
All he was doing was filming the Christmas lights and parade.
KK wrote:All he was doing was filming the Christmas lights and parade.
He was doing it suspiciously though...
As the officers were obviously making a judgment call of some kind, I would have a hard time saying they didn't make a pretty strange decision. It almost seems like they arrested him for knowing exactly what they were able to do.
I agree with Kanluwen and Dogma here. I don't think there's anything too shady going on here, there's no big bad behind the scenes shadow government trying to take away our cameras because the cameras steal our souls and the NWO wants our souls for themselves.... OH SNAP! IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!
All he was doing was filming the Christmas lights and parade.
Maybe so. But what was behind those lights and parade. If I were going to film something for pre-op planning and didn't want it known, I'd find some public event near my target and take my pictures then, ostensibly of that event. Of course, we all know that the bad guys don't plan ahead................... And of course, they never tell their people what laws to use to avoid questioning or arrest. Nope, we've never found pamphlets that those bad guys printed out detailing what they should do if questioned, arrested, etc. Not at all.
Don't want to be hassled, give them your frikkin' name! Not doing so would make me suspicious too. Along the lines of, so what are you trying to hide?
I was nearly arrested when taking picture of concrete delapidation for a degree module on Architectural Photography. I was shooting Great Portland Street police station at the time and as soon as the copper came up to me I realised what a Div I was being, having not actually asked permission in the first place [not required, just a good idea!]. A short talking to by one of the Mets finest and a quick run through of what I was doing and I was on my way.
I should point out that this was in 1999 and we only had the good old fashioned terrorism when a cranky paddy would blow up a dust bin after a lengthy warning and everyone went home for tea and crumpets.
The differance between these two fellas and me is that when asked I had the where with all to understand my actions these two seemed to want to act like TFG of Photography-camp and refuse to identify themselves.
You have the right to not answer questions/remain silent in any situation [at least here and in the US I believe], but if the Fuzz are suspicious enough to want to talk to you in the first place then you clam up then, naturally it is cuff time. They have little other leverage.
No conspiricy here, just two tw@ts following RAW and not helping the police out with there inquiries. Sorry boys tin foil can go back in the cupboard until the next story in the papers.
Some police officers illegally conceal their identity while detaining or arresting people.
Other police officers demand the identity of people they don't like the look of, without legal authority, and detain them on specious charges when they do not comply.
It isn't the NWO but it certainly is the police abusing their position, whether by design or incompetence.
Sorry, but if I were on patrol and spotted someone who was acting suspiciously like someone who's either casing a place for a potential robbery or doing what strikes me as incredibly close to recon work for a potential terror attack...I'd haul their ass in too.
ESPECIALLY if they refused to do something as simple as give me their name.
However, the point is that under the terror laws, you are not required to give your details to police. They can ask you for your details, but you do not have to give them.
The problem has and is that police are abusing this law to obtain peoples details, and when it fails, they are charging people with such things as anti-social behaviour (a charge which forces you to give your details to police or face the possibility of arrest) despite there being, arguably in most cases, no justifiable reason for bringing the charge.
"If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" is all very well, but if you have done nothing wrong, you should not be subjected to interigation by police or obliged to give your details to them.
Kanluwen wrote:Sorry, but if I were on patrol and spotted someone who was acting suspiciously like someone who's either casing a place for a potential robbery or doing what strikes me as incredibly close to recon work for a potential terror attack...I'd haul their ass in too.
ESPECIALLY if they refused to do something as simple as give me their name.
You'll have a very busy time if you come to the UK then.
Lots of people take lots of pictures here.
I went and took some pictures of the Houses of Parliament, and there were about a hundred other people doing it too, any of whom might have been terrorists planning an attack.
Kanluwen wrote:Sorry, but if I were on patrol and spotted someone who was acting suspiciously like someone who's either casing a place for a potential robbery or doing what strikes me as incredibly close to recon work for a potential terror attack...I'd haul their ass in too.
ESPECIALLY if they refused to do something as simple as give me their name.
This is half the problem. Taking a photograph is a perfectly innocent act which in no way calls for harassment from the police. That you choose to automatically view someone with a camera as 'suspicious' says it all really. And you call the rest of us paranoid!
Kanluwen wrote:Sorry, but if I were on patrol and spotted someone who was acting suspiciously like someone who's either casing a place for a potential robbery or doing what strikes me as incredibly close to recon work for a potential terror attack...I'd haul their ass in too.
ESPECIALLY if they refused to do something as simple as give me their name.
This is half the problem. Taking a photograph is a perfectly innocent act which in no way calls for harassment from the police. That you choose to automatically view someone with a camera as 'suspicious' says it all really. And you call the rest of us paranoid!
It's not someone with a camera that leads to the suspicions.
It's all about the way that person is conducting themselves.
Are they standing away from the rest of the crowd?
Are they doing their level best to ignore the people around them?
Are they checking to see if they are being watched?
Are they evasive when confronted by an authority figure?
Are they taking pictures of public utilities? (This is a big one. Why the feth are you taking pictures of sewer grate entrances/exits? Why are you taking pictures of the phoneline junction box or the transformer out in front of a public building?)
Those are things that set off warning bells.
Not "Hurp durp he has camera! Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrorist!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:However, the point is that under the terror laws, you are not required to give your details to police. They can ask you for your details, but you do not have to give them.
The problem has and is that police are abusing this law to obtain peoples details, and when it fails, they are charging people with such things as anti-social behaviour (a charge which forces you to give your details to police or face the possibility of arrest) despite there being, arguably in most cases, no justifiable reason for bringing the charge.
"If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" is all very well, but if you have done nothing wrong, you should not be subjected to interigation by police or obliged to give your details to them.
If you're flatout refusing to even identify yourself?
Expect hostility from police.
This isn't that fething hard to understand. Cooperate with authorities and they're happy to be your best friend.
Act like a total douchenozzle and expect to be treated like one.
Khornholio wrote:
The evidence is out there in the streets: people have less freedom and are less free than they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s. The Constitutions of most Western countires aren't worth the paper they are written on.
I'm having a hard time thinking of even a single freedom which has been restricted, at least in the United States, within the last 40 years. Maybe gun control?
If that's the case, then I don't think you've been paying attention...Recent US legislation (particularly the so-called "Patriot Act") and Supreme Court decisions have allowed the US government to:
Arrest anyone who isn't carrying an ID card on their person
Enter private residences and conduct a secret search without notifying the owner
Make warrantless searches of residences
Demand information from public libraries about your reading habits
Those are just the first few off the top of my head. I can come back to this topic after I get off of work and can give a more exhaustive list of how our rights have been and are being restricted. If you want more info for the time being, check at the ACLU website.
Kanluwen wrote:Those are things that set off warning bells.
Not "Hurp durp he has camera! Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrorist!"
The problem here is that many photographers, amature and pro, including myself, do many of those things. I hate my pictures to have people in so will often go where people are not. I will ignore the crowd as I will be looking for good places to set up, or things to take pictures of. I will be ignoring the crowd because I will often be on my own, or as mentioned before will be looking for places/things to take pictures of. It doesn't have to be beautiful for someone to have an interest in taking a picture of it.
And you have every right to your privicy if the law dictates that you do not have to give your information. They have no more right to demand to know who you are, where you live and what you are doing than anyone else, unless they delare you have broken a law which gives them powers to demand answers to those questions, which the terror laws do not. The problem has been that in the past officers have broken the law when trying to get people to give their information, or have called on other laws in order to get them to do so (such as I have previously mentioned, anti-social laws).
If you're flatout refusing to even identify yourself?
Expect hostility from police.
This isn't that fething hard to understand. Cooperate with authorities and they're happy to be your best friend.
Act like a total douchenozzle and expect to be treated like one.
So, if you were happily sitting there and a police officer came over and demanded to know who you were, where you lived and what you were doing there, you would just blindly let them know?
I would first politely ask them why they wanted to know, and then under what authority they were demanding said information, and under what obligation I was under to supply it. If I was not obliged to give them the information, I would not supply it, as I do not have to and I would rather retain my privicy.
If they continued to push the matter, I would take their police number and details and inform them that under the laws they were questioning me under, I had no obligation to supply the information they were requesting.
Under no conditions would I be rue or hostile towards the police, or other agents of the law. I would not, as the person in the film does, constantly ask if he is free to go, nor attempt to put the police on the spot, I would simply passively resist their attempts to gain my information.
If they then decided to bring in other laws under which to obtain my information, I am not sure what I would do, it would depend on how they went about it. I may allow myself to be arrested, or I may just supply my information but inform them that I was doing it under duress and that I would be filling and offical complaint with the police on the issue, being sure to ask the police person for a written account of why I was being questioned, etc, if possible, or recording it myself on camera/etc if possible.
Kanluwen wrote:Those are things that set off warning bells.
Not "Hurp durp he has camera! Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrorist!"
The problem here is that many photographers, amateur and pro, including myself, do many of those things. I hate my pictures to have people in so will often go where people are not. I will ignore the crowd as I will be looking for good places to set up, or things to take pictures of. I will be ignoring the crowd because I will often be on my own, or as mentioned before will be looking for places/things to take pictures of. It doesn't have to be beautiful for someone to have an interest in taking a picture of it.
And you have every right to your privicy if the law dictates that you do not have to give your information. They have no more right to demand to know who you are, where you live and what you are doing than anyone else, unless they delare you have broken a law which gives them powers to demand answers to those questions, which the terror laws do not. The problem has been that in the past officers have broken the law when trying to get people to give their information, or have called on other laws in order to get them to do so (such as I have previously mentioned, anti-social laws).
Then that's a problem with the officers, NOT the laws.
It really sounds like you Brits need to get your crap together and start actually hiring police who aren't morons or psychopaths on powertrips.
Gonna respond to your first part with the next.
SilverMk2 wrote:
If you're flatout refusing to even identify yourself?
Expect hostility from police.
This isn't that fething hard to understand. Cooperate with authorities and they're happy to be your best friend.
Act like a total douchenozzle and expect to be treated like one.
So, if you were happily sitting there and a police officer came over and demanded to know who you were, where you lived and what you were doing there, you would just blindly let them know?
I would first politely ask them why they wanted to know, and then under what authority they were demanding said information, and under what obligation I was under to supply it. If I was not obliged to give them the information, I would not supply it, as I do not have to and I would rather retain my privacy.
If they continued to push the matter, I would take their police number and details and inform them that under the laws they were questioning me under, I had no obligation to supply the information they were requesting.
Under no conditions would I be rue or hostile towards the police, or other agents of the law. I would not, as the person in the film does, constantly ask if he is free to go, nor attempt to put the police on the spot, I would simply passively resist their attempts to gain my information.
If they then decided to bring in other laws under which to obtain my information, I am not sure what I would do, it would depend on how they went about it. I may allow myself to be arrested, or I may just supply my information but inform them that I was doing it under duress and that I would be filling and official complaint with the police on the issue, being sure to ask the police person for a written account of why I was being questioned, etc, if possible, or recording it myself on camera/etc if possible.
If an officer is asking "where you live", then they're doing it wrong or they believe you're a minor who should be in school.
The other two questions are perfectly legitimate.
Asking for their badge number and "informing them" about the laws they're enforcing isn't going to go over well. Period. That's the equivalent of pulling a gun on someone during a robbery. It sets a completely hostile tone to any potential conversation, when you could have just FETHING TOLD THEM WHO YOU ARE AND WHY YOU ARE THERE.
And guess what? If you do the latter part, you also get a bonus...
Credibility in later circumstances when you might be questioned in a similar manner AND the potential to build a rapport with a patrol officer who might run into you photographing at another location and the potential to have a patrol officer who can vouch for you to other officers.
They will ask for your name and address in order to a) confirm who you are by doing a radio check, and b) ensure they have your details on file if something happens - they can then go back and check everyone who was recorded as having been in the area between certain dates, etc.
I would not ask them for their police number, it should be clearly displayed on their uniform. And the police know they cannot obtain information from you under the terror laws, there have been countless memos on the subject as well as briefings, etc. They are well aware of what information they can get from you as well as what they cannot. If they continued to push for information using the terror laws as a means of obtaining my details, I would just inform them that I am not obliged to give them.
And yes, I could have just "FETHING TOLD THEM WHO YOU ARE AND WHY YOU ARE THERE" but then I should not and do not have to.
I am sure as an American you feel the need to "protect" your home, family, car, spare light bulbs, etc with a gun. If the police came up to you and said that because you were "behaving suspiciously" you had to hand over all your weapons, you would not take it well and would politely inform them that under the law, they were not entitled to do that.
And guess what? If you roll over and give them what they want every time, there is no guarantee that they will leave you alone, and there is the danger they will get used to being able to obtain whatever they want from you whenever they want.
If the police ask you to "surrender all your weapons", you damned well do it if you're not a moron. Just like if you have a concealed carry permit or a weapon you keep in your glovebox and get pulled over, you ensure you declare it to the officer beforehand and keep your hands away from it for both their safety and yours.
And frankly, yes you should tell the police who you are and your purpose in being at a location doing something like y'know...photographing public structures or crowded locales.
Things like that ARE suspicious and you damned well better get used to being hassled if you're going to continue doing it.
And the "if you do it you're giving MORE POWER TO THE MAN!" idea is so overblown you must be fifteen to think that it's going to matter if your "sticking it to the man!" actions are going to do anything other than get your ass locked up for a day for being a twit.
Kanluwen wrote:
And frankly, yes you should tell the police who you are and your purpose in being at a location doing something like y'know...photographing public structures or crowded locales.
Things like that ARE suspicious and you damned well better get used to being hassled if you're going to continue doing it.
Sorry but I do not accept that public photography is a suspicious activity worthy of police attention. If there has ever been a case where a terrorist has been caught in advance because they where taking photos of their target I'd be interested to hear about it.
If it’s legal for me somthing with my own eyes I see no reason why it should not be legal for me to take a photograph of it.
SilverMK2 wrote:They will ask for your name and address in order to a) confirm who you are by doing a radio check, and b) ensure they have your details on file if something happens - they can then go back and check everyone who was recorded as having been in the area between certain dates, etc.
I would not ask them for their police number, it should be clearly displayed on their uniform. And the police know they cannot obtain information from you under the terror laws, there have been countless memos on the subject as well as briefings, etc. They are well aware of what information they can get from you as well as what they cannot. If they continued to push for information using the terror laws as a means of obtaining my details, I would just inform them that I am not obliged to give them.
And yes, I could have just "FETHING TOLD THEM WHO YOU ARE AND WHY YOU ARE THERE" but then I should not and do not have to.
I am sure as an American you feel the need to "protect" your home, family, car, spare light bulbs, etc with a gun. If the police came up to you and said that because you were "behaving suspiciously" you had to hand over all your weapons, you would not take it well and would politely inform them that under the law, they were not entitled to do that.
And guess what? If you roll over and give them what they want every time, there is no guarantee that they will leave you alone, and there is the danger they will get used to being able to obtain whatever they want from you whenever they want.
IN THE US the police have a right, after crossing a very minimum legal boundary, to stop you and inquire to your ID and business. In general you are required to provide a correct name, and potentially residence (I'm more fuzzy on that). You are not required to provide why you are about the place, if you invoke your 5th Amendment privileges. But any information you do provide can be held against you. False information provided can definitely be a crime or evidence thereof to support a charge, or further evidence to support a raised suspicion which hikes what the authorities can do in the areas of searches and seizures of your person.
I'm not getting all thi "hand over your weapons" stuff you're talking about. This ain't 1880, people aren't walking about with arsenals (except me of course, sticks with nails have so many uses).
Kanluwen wrote:
And frankly, yes you should tell the police who you are and your purpose in being at a location doing something like y'know...photographing public structures or crowded locales.
Things like that ARE suspicious and you damned well better get used to being hassled if you're going to continue doing it.
Sorry but I do not accept that public photography is a suspicious activity worthy of police attention. If there has ever been a case where a terrorist has been caught in advance because they where taking photos of their target I'd be interested to hear about it.
If it’s legal for me somthing with my own eyes I see no reason why it should not be legal for me to take a photograph of it.
$20 says that any case where a potential terrorist has been caught while doing recon, there were was more to it than *just* the photo recon.
And once again, since you seem to gloss over this point I guess:
It's not the photography itself that is suspicious. It's the manner in which it's being done and the photo subject itself.
Or are you going to tell me you have a legitimate reason to be taking photos of a sewer grate which connects to a public courthouse?
It is obvious from the original report and other reports of similar cases that a lot of police in the UK have got the idea that any photography in public is dubious and the photographers should be questioned.
Since there are no laws against photography in public, and it is a legitimate hobby and business which many people engage in, this has naturally led to friction as the police try to do what they mistakenly see to be their duty.
The solution to this problem is better education of the police in what the law is and that they should not try to circumvent it by using other bits of legislation.
The weapon remark was not meant as "any weapons you are carrying", but as "any weapons you own". It was meant to demonstrate that the police have certain powers under certain laws.
For example, if you are "behaving suspiciously", I would be rather shocked if the police could then confiscate all the weapons that you owned.
In the same way, if police stop you under the terror laws for taking pictures, they cannot, by law, force you to give your details or delete any images that you have taken on your camera.
@ Kanluwen - I can take pictures of pretty much anything I want (with the exceptions of army bases, airports, etc). Who is to say wat is a "legitimate" reason and what is not?
I may want a picture of a sewer grate which happens to connect to a public courthouse because it has an interesting pattern of light and shade, it may have some interesting moss/grass growing on it, I may be doing an article on litter (and thus take a picture of a litter clogged drain), etc.
There are a million and one reasons I would want to take a picture aside from "I want to blow something up".
However, the point you are failing to grasp over and over is that under the current UK terrorism act (section 44), you are not obliged to give your personal details, reason for being where you are, or where you plan to go next.
Because of this, the police have been moving onto other laws by trumping up charges (such as behaving in an antisocial way) in order to obtain those details, or just ignoring the limitations of the TA s44, and demanding peoples details, and on some occasions arresting them for enacting their right not to supply their details under the TA s44.
An alternative solution is for photographers to quit being dicks to police who are trying to act with the safety of the general public in mind.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there some mass protest by amateur photographers in the UK not too long ago claiming that even to be questioned was "violating their rights"?
Kilkrazy wrote:The solution to this problem is better education of the police in what the law is and that they should not try to circumvent it by using other bits of legislation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there some mass protest by amateur photographers in the UK not too long ago claiming that even to be questioned was "violating their rights"?
I think it was more about the fact that you should not be seen to be some kind of terrorist just for taking pictures...
SilverMK2 wrote:The weapon remark was not meant as "any weapons you are carrying", but as "any weapons you own". It was meant to demonstrate that the police have certain powers under certain laws.
For example, if you are "behaving suspiciously", I would be rather shocked if the police could then confiscate all the weapons that you owned.
I'd say it depends on your behavior, if they feel you're an imminent threat and if they suspect you of previously being a convicted criminal--in which case they can seize any weapons you own and throw your ass in prison(because y'know...convicts are prohibited from owning weapons).
In the same way, if police stop you under the terror laws for taking pictures, they cannot, by law, force you to give your details or delete any images that you have taken on your camera.
I'd be very very surprised if they can't tell you what images to delete images. And not giving them your details is just being uncooperative, in which case--I don't give a rat's ass who you are, you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult. It's like the little skateboard rats who film themselves giving security guards who're asking them to move along off private property crap, in my mind.
@ Kanluwen - I can take pictures of pretty much anything I want (with the exceptions of army bases, airports, etc). Who is to say wat is a "legitimate" reason and what is not?
I may want a picture of a sewer grate which happens to connect to a public courthouse because it has an interesting pattern of light and shade, it may have some interesting moss/grass growing on it, I may be doing an article on litter (and thus take a picture of a litter clogged drain), etc.
There are a million and one reasons I would want to take a picture aside from "I want to blow something up".
Then show them the bloody picture and say that it was just something that caught your eye as an interesting photo study?
However, the point you are failing to grasp over and over is that under the current UK terrorism act (section 44), you are not obliged to give your personal details, reason for being where you are, or where you plan to go next.
Not obliged to, but refusing to makes you look all the more suspicious to an already edgy officer.
Because of this, the police have been moving onto other laws by trumping up charges (such as behaving in an antisocial way) in order to obtain those details, or just ignoring the limitations of the TA s44, and demanding peoples details, and on some occasions arresting them for enacting their right not to supply their details under the TA s44.
I'm willing to bet that any cases where the police have been "moving onto other laws by trumping up charges" it's very similar to a situation where an officer in the states hauls someone in for speeding.
It's not a crime they generally care enough to arrest you for, but if you give them enough crap and waste their time--they're bloody well going to waste yours with a trip to jail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there some mass protest by amateur photographers in the UK not too long ago claiming that even to be questioned was "violating their rights"?
I think it was more about the fact that you should not be seen to be some kind of terrorist just for taking pictures...
Except you've even gone so far as to say that it's not the fact that you're being seen as "some kind of terrorist".
You're seemingly upset about the fact that they're doing something as simple as making sure they have information on file, just in case.
It's not like they're building up a database of photographers to execute some kind of mass raid on your computers. Having a reference database makes all the difference in figuring out what might be as routine as a local photographer(with a rough description attached) who may have found himself an interesting photo study--and what could be someone planning some kind of strike.
While yes, that does state that they cannot make an arrest based on it--reasonable suspicions CAN lead to probable cause, which in turn can lead to an arrest.
Rather than have a long quote-y post, I will condense all my answers into a single bit of text.
Regards our overall differences in attitude towards the subject at hand, (and I hate saying things like this, a I generally feel they are a bit of a cop out) I honestly don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this matter as I think we are coming at this from totally different directions.
I am not sure on American law, so I am going to just do a bit of "suppose" here. If an officer stops you under the TA s44 because you are "acting suspiciously" and asks for your name and address so they can a) check you are who you are, b) get you on file as having been in the area if something happens, and c) run whatever other checks they want on you just because they can, you do not have to give that information.
Say you then refused, as is your right, to supply that information they then inform you that you are now being stopped for something else... such as antisocial behaviour, and the laws which govern this dictate that you now have to give your details to the officer, despite you not actually having done anything illegal, or even "wrong".
You can continue to refuse, in which case the officer can arrest you for failing to give your details, or you can give in and allow the police to have your details. At which point they may let you go, or continue to detain you (for whatever reason).
The problem here is not that you failed to give your details, the problem here is that police are using other laws to circumvent the limitations put in place upon the act under which they initially stopped you, limitations which were put in place for a reason.
Refusing to give your details is not illegal and as much as you might be considered "more suspicious", you are doing nothing wrong. And I have never seen an "edgy" policeman confronting a photographer before. Perhaps if the photographer were 8ft high and had tats everywhere they might be
As KK has noted, there are no laws against photography in public (aside from a very few resticted sites, which are usually all well marked, and taking pictures of certain officials) and the link between "photographer" and "planning a terrorist attack" is a dubious one, and one which the police seem to have gone after quite heavy handedly. I have no idea why they have done so. I don't think I have ever seen anyone taking a picture suspiciously.
Fair play to them if they actually do see someone behaving oddly while taking pictures (or doing anything else for that matter). If they genuinly believe that they are a terrorist under TA s44, they can stop and search them (see below for requirements of stop and search), however, they still can't obtain the persons details (as far as I am aware) using section 44 alone.
From a home office circular regards the matter:
Important: Section 44 does not prohibit the taking of photographs, film or digital images in an authorised area and members of the public and the press should not be prevented from doing so in exercise of the powers conferred by section 44.
Regarding deleting images, as far as I am aware they are not allowed to delete, or request you to delete any images. You are free to offer to show them the images you have taken, and if they decide to use their search powers, you are obliged to.
From the same circular:
Digital images may be viewed as part of a search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images are of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism.
The camera, film or memory cards may be seized where a camera is found and the officer reasonably suspects it is intended to be used in connection with terrorism. For example - He or she reasonably suspects photographs are being taken for the purpose of reconnaissance or targeting for terrorist activity.
Officers do not have the power to delete images or destroy film.
If they actually suspect you are a terrorist, they should use Section 43.
If you want to read the whole act, feel free to take a look. I have linked to section 44 here.
The officer will also require permission to search you from an officer of at least the rank of commander as well. Section 47 defines the act of commiting an offence regards section 44. Section 44 makes no mention of having to give your details. It is a stop and search power only.
Regards your last point: Yes, I object to having my details taken if I have done nothing wrong. I also object to having "extra" details kept on me that should not really be required for the task at hand (not just talking about the police, but shops, eateries, etc).
Even if I was happy for my details to be know to anyone who wanted them, the police cannot, or at least should not, be using (or abusing) their powers in the way that they have been, and using whatever laws they feel like in order to carry out their misconceived notion of duty.
Yeah, I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on the matter no matter what angle we try to come from(short of blackjacking each other and brainwashing )
So let's sit back and enjoy some delicious tea, shall we?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sidenote: After skimming it, it LOOKS like the constables are utilizing S47:1(C) as a follow-up to people who're uncooperative when they invoke S44:3.
Commissar Molotov wrote:
Arrest anyone who isn't carrying an ID card on their person
This is false. The Supreme Court ruled in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court that states could make it illegal to refuse to identify yourself to a police officer, that isn't the same thing as requiring the carriage of an ID at all times.
Commissar Molotov wrote:
Enter private residences and conduct a secret search without notifying the owner
I had forgotten about that, though it must be noted that Rule 41 did not strictly regulate the time at which the property owner must be notified of the search.
Commissar Molotov wrote:
Make warrantless searches of residences
That's been legal since the passage of FISA in 1978, and was extralegal, rather than illegal, prior to that date. Note that the 4th amendment does not require that searches be conducted under the auspices of a warrant.
Commissar Molotov wrote:
Demand information from public libraries about your reading habits
Long possible via subpoena, the issue here is not one of capability, but of secrecy, as subpoenas are public record.
Commissar Molotov wrote:
Those are just the first few off the top of my head. I can come back to this topic after I get off of work and can give a more exhaustive list of how our rights have been and are being restricted. If you want more info for the time being, check at the ACLU website.
Most of the restrictions you've discussed thus far are not restrictions so much as the codification of formerly extralegal procedures.
Kanluwen wrote:Sidenote: After skimming it, it LOOKS like the constables are utilizing S47:1(C) as a follow-up to people who're uncooperative when they invoke S44:3.
However, s44 is a stop and search power, and s43 is an extension of those search powers if you are deemed to be a terrorist (or likely of being one). You are still not required to give your details under the act.
I am not a lawyer, and I have to admit to only really skimming the act itself. However, I am lead to believe by the analysis of the act that if you are stopped under s44 (as most people apparently are), you are not required to give your details.
To be honest, I don't see what the hell S44 has to do with anything as S44's wording makes me think it's dealing with obtaining warranted searches rather than stop & searches.
S43 makes FAR more sense to be used either way, since it deals with warrantless stoppages/searches.
Kanluwen wrote:An alternative solution is for photographers to quit being dicks to police who are trying to act with the safety of the general public in mind.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there some mass protest by amateur photographers in the UK not too long ago claiming that even to be questioned was "violating their rights"?
Another alternative is for police to quit being dicks to photographers who are going about their lawful business and trying to act with the safety of the general public in mind.
Kanluwen wrote:Another alternative is for the police to taser everyone in sight and ride Velociraptors into crowds.
And I really don't consider amateur photography "lawful business" when it's done in a public setting or near public utilities/works.
Yes, you have a right to do whatever hobbies you want. But you do also have to consider how your hobby appears to authorities/the public at large.
You don't see people playing Airsoft in the middle of a public park without getting permits beforehand or anything like that.
Your opinion is not the law, and the law says amateur photographers may go out and take pictures.
The law also says that they can stop and question you for suspicious behavior.
It further goes to say that refusals to cooperate can result in being arrested.
That pretty much ends the statement.
And by the by: If my opinion was the law, the world would be such a better place.
Really. It would, I promise.
You don't see people playing airsoft in the park in the UK because it is illegal.
I didn't say the UK, now did I? Here in the States you can get permission to use a public park to play airsoft, provided you get permits(which you're required to fill out a buttload of paperwork and information for).
I don't see how that's any different from some schmuck taking photographs of public utilities/works and looking suspicious being required to give his information to the police "just in case".
Kanluwen wrote:An alternative solution is for photographers to quit being dicks to police who are trying to act with the safety of the general public in mind.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "
-Benjamin Franklin
Kanluwen wrote:An alternative solution is for photographers to quit being dicks to police who are trying to act with the safety of the general public in mind.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "
-Benjamin Franklin
Oh boy, you can quote Benjamin Franklin!
Do you have anything actually useful to add or do you just want to keep quoting hypocrites?
So, shouldn't the conclusion be that we've never been anywhere near as 'free' as was believed? I mean, ultimately freedom isn't governed by the law, but by the presence of a responsible state and observant public; both granted reasonable levels of tolerance.
Kanluwen wrote:An alternative solution is for photographers to quit being dicks to police who are trying to act with the safety of the general public in mind.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "
-Benjamin Franklin
Oh boy, you can quote Benjamin Franklin!
Do you have anything actually useful to add or do you just want to keep quoting hypocrites?
I would, If I felt the need to argue with a facist.
The police are there to protect the masses, not to step on the rights of individuals. If an officer cannot act in this capacity, within these bounds, then he should be, by all means, publically stripped of his badge.
And what does that have to do with this thread, at all?
It was a J. Edgar Hoover initiative. Hoover was a partially insane, racist, xenophobic hatemonger.
Or are you saying that has anything to do with the 2000 Terrorism Act in the UK?
You just seem to have a very quaint and naive trust of law enforcement...And I wanted to make sure you understood that sort of trust has frequently been abused.
Kanluwen wrote:I don't see how that's any different from some schmuck taking photographs of public utilities/works and looking suspicious being required to give his information to the police "just in case".
'Looking suspicious', is a completely opinion based interpretation. As long as there are no guidelines, it serves as a way for police to both enforce their personal interpretation, along with subtly harassing anyone who decides to know what they are capable of doing. I have seen no evidence that the police were within their authority, when asking for the man's information.
You would be hard pressed to convince me that this man was actually acting in a manner, in which he could be construed as a threat of some kind. Your approach to this issue, makes you seem like a hard-line, black and white kind of guy TBTH. I understand that the police need to have some flexibility when it comes to dealing with the public, but there does need to be reason for them to do so. Free reign for cops to harass anyone with a camera, sounds like a recipe for bullying, and pissing contest, between the police and the public at large.
The man was taken to jail, and released, due to the fact that the police had no grounds to actually hold him. I would be interested to hear the cops reasoning on why they invested so much time into this particular man. In a world with camera phones, and microcams, it seems a silly thing to harass an amateur photographer, who is being obvious about their actions, none of which would appear malicious to me personally (within this story).
Yeah, but it's that trust of the law that prevents North America and Europe from being places like old school Soviet bloc countries, where seeing police generally meant you were about to get MESSED UP!
No police force, whether municipal, provincial, or federal wants to suppress the masses, otherwise we'd already be in prison camps. Yeah, you have cops who are douches, and are on big power trips. But that's what happens when you give a man power, he goes on a BIG trip.
And what does that have to do with this thread, at all?
It was a J. Edgar Hoover initiative. Hoover was a partially insane, racist, xenophobic hatemonger.
Or are you saying that has anything to do with the 2000 Terrorism Act in the UK?
You just seem to have a very quaint and naive trust of law enforcement...And I wanted to make sure you understood that sort of trust has frequently been abused.
Call it eternal optimism and the fact that I'm planning on going into law enforcement then.
Frankly, if someone starts giving me an attitude when all I'm doing is asking them:
A) Who they are
B) Why they're photographing a public facility
Well. Fully expect to be watched for the rest of your time in my vicinity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
loki old fart wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:And I really don't consider amateur photography "lawful business" when it's done in a public setting or near public utilities/works.
Yes, you have a right to do whatever hobbies you want. But you do also have to consider how your hobby appears to authorities/the public at large.
Yes your right. That man with a camera could be a terrorist,
And that man playing with toy soldiers in a room full of children.
Could be a paedophile.
But lets error on the side of safety, and assume they are just enjoying their hobbies.
There is a HUGE difference between an all ages hobby (the local group that I know of, for example has members from 10-62) and someone who is standing out in a public place, off to the side by themselves very intently taking photographs of something that has potentially been identified by a police force as a target for a terrorist attack.
As an aside, I'd love to know what specific buildings these photographers are documenting when they get arrested. I have my hunches, but I'd like to know for a fact.
Dronze wrote:
I would, If I felt the need to argue with a facist.
The police are there to protect the masses, not to step on the rights of individuals. If an officer cannot act in this capacity, within these bounds, then he should be, by all means, publically stripped of his badge.
Wow, you really love your hyperbole, don't you? At what point did it become a fascist notion to suggest that people should treat police with decency?
Kanwulen wrote:Frankly, if someone starts giving me an attitude when all I'm doing is asking them:
A) Who they are
B) Why they're photographing a public facility
Well. Fully expect to be watched for the rest of your time in my vicinity.
I consider that type of action, to be completely appropriate.
When you start to harass people, without substantive reasoning, you begin to look like a TV cop on a power trip.
Monitoring a civilians actions, by keeping a close eye on them, is not tantamount to harassment. As such, I feel it an appropriate reaction, to a 'gut instinct'.
And frankly, if the police in the original UK incident had done just that - hover around and keep a careful eye on the photographers - it would have been a total non-incident.
Patefield and his friend declined to give their details, as they are entitled to under the act. The police then appeared to change tack, saying the way the men were taking images constituted "antisocial behaviour". Patefield, who is in his 40s, was stopped three times before finally being arrested.
I consider this to be blatant harassment, just to be entirely clear. Perhaps if they had not let him go the first... and second time, I wouldn't feel that way.
Paranoia, and poor judgment, seems to have gotten the better of these authority figures.
Commissar Molotov wrote:And frankly, if the police in the original UK incident had done just that - hover around and keep a careful eye on the photographers - it would have been a total non-incident.
Dronze wrote:
I would, If I felt the need to argue with a facist.
The police are there to protect the masses, not to step on the rights of individuals. If an officer cannot act in this capacity, within these bounds, then he should be, by all means, publically stripped of his badge.
Wow, you really love your hyperbole, don't you? At what point did it become a fascist notion to suggest that people should treat police with decency?
I've got no issue treating the police with decency, however, as Molotov put it...
Commissar Molotov wrote:And frankly, if the police in the original UK incident had done just that - hover around and keep a careful eye on the photographers - it would have been a total non-incident.
It is not a needed thing for the police to approach and question someone without definitive and justifiable cause and/or the individual posing an immediate threat to the health or safety of themselves or others. Sorry, but anti-social or not, I'm not going to give my information to police unless it is needed, and if an officer on the law thinks that the "To Protect And Serve" on their badge gives them justification to stop a citizen and question them without a damn good reason, they can lick the salty soles of my boots.
Frankly, I see no issue with what the officers did.
Especially in that second part, when someone says "stop filming me"--you're supposed to stop filming.
The comment "I'm not filming you, I'm filming your body" to a female officer also warrants a kick in the 'nads.
Although, I would also say that his 'polite and proper way' of doing it was obnoxious as all hell, especially to an officer who's working a patrol around Christmas.
Kanluwen wrote:Frankly, I see no issue with what the officers did.
Your opinion.
Especially in that second part, when someone says "stop filming me"--you're supposed to stop filming.
The comment "I'm not filming you, I'm filming your body" to a female officer also warrants a kick in the 'nads.
He was allowed to film, because the officers obviously had no say in whether he could do so or not. His choice of words may have been poor, but I doubt that he was being sexist in his remark, as the officer was in full gear. You seem to be overreacting a bit here.
Although, I would also say that his 'polite and proper way' of doing it was obnoxious as all hell, especially to an officer who's working a patrol around Christmas.
I simply don't follow what you are saying. His demeanor struck me as respectful throughout, and what exactly is the alternative? Actually being obnoxious, instead of maintaining your initial complaint, through sustained reasoning?
It would have been better if the photographer had a mobster accent though, that I will admit. "No way copper, I ain't gunna show you my I.D., see?"
Kanluwen wrote:I don't know if we were watching the same video then.
"So are we free to go? So are we free to go?" pretty much nonstop.
Asking if one is free to go about their business is "obnoxious"?
Really?
To be perfectly honest,I don't really see how detaining people for taking photos is going to "prevent terrorism",I'd wager that very few,if any "terrorist" have been twarted by some cop detaining them while they were taking pictures.
IMO it's just another "illusion" of "safety",if a terrorist wants to blow somthing up,cops stopping photographers isn't going to prevent it.
Kanluwen wrote:I don't know if we were watching the same video then.
"So are we free to go? So are we free to go?" pretty much nonstop.
Yes, we appear to be watching different clips then.
From what I saw, the second time being stopped, he asked whether he was being detained, in the region of six times without any answer. The first request, brought rolling eyes, and a dissatisfied expression from the officer. All the other requests, were ignored almost entirely, as the officer appeared to be calling for back-up. From a quick guess, the officer may have felt intimidated, and ignored the question so the police could outnumber the men.
We see the officer from the second stop in the third stop, in which there may have been as many as 4 police officers. At one point during the third stop, the photographer asked a similar question as repeated in the second stop. This request was again ignored, and quickly the conversation led to arrest. I saw little process to the third stop, aside the officer actually thinking that they had the right to the photographers information, right then and there. The photographer was arrested after little more than 2 minutes into the third stop, perhaps less.
Remember that he was released without charge, and so far as I know, he never gave them any information, although I imagine they have ways to find that out while he is in the station. Detailed photos were likely taken while in custody, none of which the police seem to have a right to. I also assume that his identity was discerned, at least in some fashion, with or without his approval.
Kanluwen wrote:I don't know if we were watching the same video then.
"So are we free to go? So are we free to go?" pretty much nonstop.
Asking if one is free to go about their business is "obnoxious"?
Really?
To be perfectly honest,I don't really see how detaining people for taking photos is going to "prevent terrorism",I'd wager that very few,if any "terrorist" have been twarted by some cop detaining them while they were taking pictures.
IMO it's just another "illusion" of "safety",if a terrorist wants to blow somthing up,cops stopping photographers isn't going to prevent it.
Except they're not detaining them for taking the photos.
They're asking them for their information, so that they can check it over the radio(which would take maybe all of a minute or two tops--more if you have some kind of criminal record where you taking photographs puts them on the alert).
When the photographers are refusing to give their information, THAT is when they're being detained/"hassled".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also:
It looks like they're going after people who seem to have far more expensive looking equipment, rather than your average joe schmoe with a camera or a 'professional' photographer wearing a press badge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
They were stopped a third and final time when returning to their car. This time the officer was accompanied by an acting sergeant. "Under law, fine, we can ask for your details – we've got no powers," he said. "However, due to the fact that we believe you were involved in antisocial behaviour, ie taking photographs … then we do have a power under [the Police Reform Act] to ask for your name and address, and for you to provide it. If you don't, then you may be arrested."
I get what your saying Kanluwen,but my original point stands.
How is stopping people(suspicious or otherwise) and demanding information ,honestly going to prevent terrorism?
How many "terrorist have been "rounded up" in this manner,as opposed to cops wasting citizens (and their own) time?
It's been several years since 9/11 and I don't see much more than an illusion of saftey concerning "anti-terror" tactics,hell not 2 weeks ago some guy flies a plane into an IRS building....was he taking pictures of it the week before?
Government/Police parinoia and strong arm tactics against it's own citizens dosen't "combat terrorism",it breeds contempt.
How do we KNOW that nobody has been stopped this way? They're not going to say "Oh, well we caught soandso doing photographic recon of XXXX site". They're going to say "Soandso was caught in the planning stages of an attack against XXXX site."
And the IRS attack wasn't on their radar, frankly, because it was(comparatively) absolutely nothing.
Or are you going to say that intelligence agencies need to start catching school shootings before they happen too?
warpcrafter wrote:It's just a general softening up for then they decided to unleash another false flag attack, then they will declare martial law and drag us to the Homeland Security camps.
FYP.
Also, what I've never understood is why TSA uniforms are blue, like Navy, Police, and AF. They should be brownshirted and jackbooted.
Kanluwen wrote:Another alternative is for the police to taser everyone in sight and ride Velociraptors into crowds.
And I really don't consider amateur photography "lawful business" when it's done in a public setting or near public utilities/works.
Yes, you have a right to do whatever hobbies you want. But you do also have to consider how your hobby appears to authorities/the public at large.
You don't see people playing Airsoft in the middle of a public park without getting permits beforehand or anything like that.
Your opinion is not the law, and the law says amateur photographers may go out and take pictures.
You don't see people playing airsoft in the park in the UK because it is illegal.
Police! Arrest that man now!!! He could be plotting to assassinate the Queen.
Yep, and I could use this photo and a series of others, high, low, to the sides, different times, etc, to plan an op aginst this target. Did I ever mention that I'm an Imagery/Geospatial Analyst by trade? So while you certainly may take pictures, the police/security personnel certainly have reason to be nevous about anyone that seems to be acting a bit odd, as in "I don't have to tell you who I am so I'm not going to." odd. Al Qaida, etc, train their operatives in our laws, so that they can make exactly that sort of statement. They tell them if detained, immediately start claiming abuse, and so on and so on and so on. That's why we don't like to broadcast our Rules Of Engagement and such. But anyways. The photographer wanted to be an donkey-cave, so be it.
Have we ever caught someone in the planning stages of an op because they were taking pictures? Don't know. I don't work that area.
I don't see your point, don_mondo. Are you saying that Buckingham palace should be blocked from view? I could find better photos than I could take, from professional photographers. There is very little reason that any terrorist would even need to take photos themselves.
All this action by the police seems to promote, is a false sense of security, as FITZZ noted. There is little to no reason, to pick people out of the crowd, without articulable reasoning. Why would one tourist be more suspect than any other? What could possibly give the impression of 'suspicious behavior', in the setting of Buckingham palace, one of England's most memorable landmarks.
They seem to be picking out people who are acting either by themselves or in two to three person groups. They also seem to be targeting people who are using high end camera equipment and not wearing press badges(and if the photographs of the suspects are anything to go by--they're also picking the most average looking persons you can imagine. Which makes a genius kind of sense, since if you're running a covert surveillance/recon operation--you don't want someone who will stand out.)
Dronze wrote:
I've got no issue treating the police with decency, however, as Molotov put it...
I wasn't making a comment on whether or not treating police with decency is an issue. I was making a comment on your use of the word fascist in reference to Kanluwen's comment.
I don't see your point, don_mondo. Are you saying that Buckingham palace should be blocked from view? I could find better photos than I could take, from professional photographers. There is very little reason that any terrorist would even need to take photos themselves.
All this action by the police seems to promote, is a false sense of security, as FITZZ noted. There is little to no reason, to pick people out of the crowd, without articulable reasoning. Why would one tourist be more suspect than any other? What could possibly give the impression of 'suspicious behavior', in the setting of Buckingham palace, one of England's most memorable landmarks.
Here is a better photo BTW...
No, my point is the photoprapher should not have been an ass when there is a legitimate secrurity concern.
Kanluwen wrote:They seem to be picking out people who are acting either by themselves or in two to three person groups. They also seem to be targeting people who are using high end camera equipment and not wearing press badges...
Often, these people are known as tourists.
(and if the photographs of the suspects are anything to go by--they're also picking the most average looking persons you can imagine. Which makes a genius kind of sense, since if you're running a covert surveillance/recon operation--you don't want someone who will stand out.)
I really don't follow the reasoning here. If we were talking about a specific place, that was neither a landmark, nor a town plaza, in which there was an explicitly vulnerable building (to terrorism); in this I could easily follow your assertions. As we are talking about everyday police officers, dealing with everyday happenings (thousands of photos may be taken daily, within this town plaza associated with the arrest), none of this strikes me as particularly genius. Rather, it appears to be grossly inefficient, and unproven as an effective anti-terrorism tool.
Just because I can't prove that peanut butter is effective against terrorism (in some subtly genius way), doesn't mean it isn't effective against terrorism.
don_mondo wrote:No, my point is the photoprapher should not have been an ass when there is a legitimate secrurity concern.
I didn't feel he was being offensive, and his points at the end of the clip (as to him not resisting arrest in any fashion, though disputing it), seemed to present a different picture than you profess. I am really not sure why him trying to go about his day, while fully observing the entirety of his rights, was so grossly rude in any fashion. He was certainly tenacious though, that is indisputable.
Dronze wrote:
I've got no issue treating the police with decency, however, as Molotov put it...
I wasn't making a comment on whether or not treating police with decency is an issue. I was making a comment on your use of the word fascist in reference to Kanluwen's comment.
I'm not a huge fan of encouraging unwarranted submission to the police when they harass a citizen acting within their rights. Kanluwen has been taking a stance of "Do everthing the police say, even if their actions are outside of their legal bounds", which, in my opinion, is completely wrong, and, in this particular case, definitively facist.
Call it eternal optimism and the fact that I'm planning on going into law enforcement then.
Frankly, if someone starts giving me an attitude when all I'm doing is asking them:
A) Who they are
B) Why they're photographing a public facility
Well. Fully expect to be watched for the rest of your time in my vicinity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there in one statment, We have what is wrong with law enforment.
If your stupid enough to think that a terrorist, Would be overtly filming public places, Instead of covertly using a mobile phone. And maybe google earth.
Are you the right type of person to be in the police?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
loki old fart wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:And I really don't consider amateur photography "lawful business" when it's done in a public setting or near public utilities/works.
Yes, you have a right to do whatever hobbies you want. But you do also have to consider how your hobby appears to authorities/the public at large.
[b]Yes your right. That man with a camera could be a terrorist,
And that man playing with toy soldiers in a room full of children.
Could be a paedophile.
But lets error on the side of safety, and assume they are just enjoying their hobbies.
There is a HUGE difference between an all ages hobby (the local group that I know of, for example has members from 10-62) AND theres the point! someone outside the hobbie percieves the 62 yr old as a threat. And calls the police
and someone who is standing out in a public place, off to the side by themselves very intently taking photographs of something that has potentially been identified by a police force as a target for a terrorist attack.
Like the local carnival as the person in the video was. OMG The jihadists are going to crash a plane into a charity float.
As an aside, I'd love to know what specific buildings these photographers are documenting when they get arrested. I have my hunches, but I'd like to know for a fact.
THEN WATCH THE VIDEO and check out the links.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You protect the masses. By protecting the rights of every individual, who makes up the masses
Kanluwen wrote:Call it eternal optimism and the fact that I'm planning on going into law enforcement then.
Frankly, if someone starts giving me an attitude when all I'm doing is asking them:
A) Who they are
B) Why they're photographing a public facility
Well. Fully expect to be watched for the rest of your time in my vicinity.
And there in one statement, We have what is wrong with law enforment.
If your stupid enough to think that a terrorist would be overtly filming public places instead of covertly using a mobile phone. And maybe google earth.
Are you the right type of person to be in the police?
Google Earth gives you a tiny snapshot of a location on a specific day. It doesn't tell anywhere near enough for planning any form of operation, terrorist or even a simple day trip. The fact that you think it's wrong that police are ASKING photographers' details is some kind of example of fascism or stupidity.
You're aware of the fact that the police, military, and intelligence agencies run planning exercises to figure out what would be a good target for a potential terrorist attack, right? And that in pretty much every case when it comes down to the opfor running recon it is always with expensive camera equipment, not some scrub with a camera phone, right?
loki old fart wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:And I really don't consider amateur photography "lawful business" when it's done in a public setting or near public utilities/works.
Yes, you have a right to do whatever hobbies you want. But you do also have to consider how your hobby appears to authorities/the public at large.
[b]Yes your right. That man with a camera could be a terrorist,
And that man playing with toy soldiers in a room full of children.
Could be a pedophile.
But lets err on the side of safety, and assume they are just enjoying their hobbies.
Once again:
If what you're photographing has been deemed a potential target and you're acting suspicious--don't be surprised when they ask for your information to at least confirm your identity, and at most have it on record in case something does happen.
Look at any form of terrorist attack that has been happening in Iraq or Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and its affiliate groups have moved from 'symbolic' targets to just trying to rack up as high of a body count as they possibly can. If they were to plan any form of operation in the West, it wouldn't be another 9/11. It would be another 7/7 or Madrid bombing. The time of detonation for both incidents suggested a high degree of recon done prior, to find the 'best' time to detonate to cause the most panic and most casualties. The fact that they also switched from plain old fashioned high explosive to nail/shrapnel bombs also suggests that the intention was to do as much possible damage to the people present, even if they survived the blast itself.
loki old fart wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:There is a HUGE difference between an all ages hobby (the local group that I know of, for example has members from 10-62)
AND theres the point! someone outside the hobby perceives the 62 yr old as a threat and calls the police
If you see a 62 year old who's in a setting like a hobby shop(which is owned by a third party and has CCTV cameras) as a threat, I don't know what to tell you.
Now, if your comparison had been "This 62 year old invites children to his house without their parents to play Warhammer", you'd have had a point.
loki old fart wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
and someone who is standing out in a public place, off to the side by themselves very intently taking photographs of something that has potentially been identified by a police force as a target for a terrorist attack.
Like the local carnival as the person in the video was. OMG The jihadists are going to crash a plane into a charity float.
7/7.
You don't need to crash a plane into anything, you twit. An area with lax security and high population/volumes of traffic(and even better--on a holiday traditionally associated in the Western world with peace and love) would be a dream comet rue for a jihadi.
If he could pull it off.
loki old fart wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:As an aside, I'd love to know what specific buildings these photographers are documenting when they get arrested. I have my hunches, but I'd like to know for a fact.
THEN WATCH THE VIDEO and check out the links.
You are aware that this has happened more than once, RIGHT? And that not every case was documenting a public event, RIGHT?
Or hey, why don't you just stop posting here since it seems all you want to do is badmouth police because of some bad experience you've had(and judging by your attitude towards authority figures--I'm not surprised) with law enforcement.
loki old fart wrote:
You protect the masses. By protecting the rights of every individual, who makes up the masses
You protect the masses by working off of reasonable suspicions and common sense.
Not listening to people who pratter on about how they think the police are stupid or abusing their power.
Kanluwen wrote:An alternative solution is for photographers to quit being dicks to police who are trying to act with the safety of the general public in mind.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "
-Benjamin Franklin
Oh boy, you can quote Benjamin Franklin!
Do you have anything actually useful to add or do you just want to keep quoting hypocrites?
I would, If I felt the need to argue with a facist.
The police are there to protect the masses, not to step on the rights of individuals. If an officer cannot act in this capacity, within these bounds, then he should be, by all means, publically stripped of his badge.
Modquisition on.
Calling people fascists on this board violates Rule #1. Quit it now or face appropriate disiplinary proceedings. Call someone a communist will result in the same if I am made aware of it. This is a public warning to all.
Non modquisition side note. Is it me or is it quite humorous to call someone a fascist but spell it incorrectly?
Kanluwen, I just like to say here that you clearly regard terrorists as very stupid. Why?
Well, if I was a terrorist, and I knew that police looked for people who hung around on their own, looked dodgy, and carried £4000 cameras, guess what I wouldn't do? All of the above.
Not only that, if I'm a terrorist, and a policeman comes up to me and demands my name, what do you think I'm going to do? I can
a) give my real name.
b) give a false name-since it's false, they'll be no criminal record or anything attached, and I will, as you put it, put the officer at ease so he goes away quicker.
c) Start quoting laws to the policeman and hacking him off so he possibly drags me in for questioning, which is what I don't want.
I'm pretty damn sure I'd go for B on this one.
Then, when he enquires what I'm doing with my camera, and asks to see the images I can
a) Say I'm plotting a terrorist attack.
b) Say I'm a photography student (studying the subtle play of light on the lichen on the manhole cover leading to the main building?)
c) refuse to give any info or show my pics to the cop, thereby hacking him off and making him suspicous.
Erm......If I were a terrorist, I think I'd go for B again.
The ones who start trouble with the police are probably the ones least likely to be terrorists, as terrorists don't want to draw attention to themselves!
I'm well aware of how terrorists intend to operate, thanks.
The point of asking for your name/address isn't so that they automatically can find out "THIS MAN IS A TERRORIST". It's a measure so that they can correlate data later. They don't just look at one simple thing in regards to counterterrorism.
This measure is, in my opinion, set up to build a database of suspicious activity that when looked at against other things, as an example:
So we have this Steve Rogers character who was spotted photographing the Parliament building.
He claimed to be a photography student, but when asked--we got no records of Steve Rogers as a student anywhere. He was very cooperative...in fact, almost too cooperative(Police tend to get a bit suspicious when you seem to be trying to put them on their way as fast as possible).
And now, in addition to that we have bin Laden claiming there will be an attack to make Britain quake. There could be a connection worth pursuing there.
I would also like to point out that the vast majority of terrorists we're seeing these days are idiots. It's pretty clear that Al Qaeda and its siblings are reaching pretty down in the pot and trying to keep the 'smart' terrorists safe, while sending the fanatics out there as often as they can.
Which brings up a whole new set of problems, because the fanatics tend to do targets and attacks of opportunities, rather than specifically planned strikes.
I don't see your point, don_mondo. Are you saying that Buckingham palace should be blocked from view? I could find better photos than I could take, from professional photographers. There is very little reason that any terrorist would even need to take photos themselves.
All this action by the police seems to promote, is a false sense of security, as FITZZ noted. There is little to no reason, to pick people out of the crowd, without articulable reasoning. Why would one tourist be more suspect than any other? What could possibly give the impression of 'suspicious behavior', in the setting of Buckingham palace, one of England's most memorable landmarks.
Here is a better photo BTW...
No, my point is the photoprapher should not have been an ass when there is a legitimate secrurity concern.
There wasn't a legitimate security concern. It was a couple of 'rent-a-cops' acting out.
Thanks to their ignorance of the law they used the wrong Act, then stalked the civilians for a couple of hours and picked them on a completely different pretext. The second charge was also specious, as proved by the fact that the arrested man had to be released without charge.
Authoritarians do not seem to understand is that telling people to do stuff 'just because', only works on authoritarian minded people. If you want to get the co-operation of the general public it is best to do it by being polite and reasonable and explaining things.
The kind of behaviour demonstrated by the CPOs is completely counter-productive.
And you STILL wouldn't get the cooperation of the general public due to the fact that the general public is a bunch of braindead loons who seem to think anytime the police do something it's to cover their asses.
Kanluwen wrote:And you STILL wouldn't get the cooperation of the general public due to the fact that the general public is a bunch of braindead loons who seem to think anytime the police do something it's to cover their asses.
Kilkrazy wrote:A lot of the time the police do do things to cover their arses.
There are some well documented cases involved in UK anti-terrorism law enforcement, the most obvious being the De Menezez shooting.
Except in this case it IS NOT the police doing things to cover their arses.
It's simple, I've explained it multiple times but you lot seem to want to keep arguing that the police are in the wrong yaddayaddayadda.
Also: I find it funny that the guy feels 'so persecuted by the police for being an amateur photographer' that he doesn't want his face/name known...but has no problems airing videotape of the officers giving him a talking to.
Kanluwen wrote:Except in this case it IS NOT the police doing things to cover their arses.
Yup, you're right. They aren't. They're harassing a citizen... There's a massive difference. It doesn't make it any less wrong, but it's a massive difference nonetheless.
It's simple, I've explained it multiple times but you lot seem to want to keep arguing that the police are in the wrong yaddayaddayadda.
They WERE in the wrong, it doesn't matter if the guy was being a spanker or not, he was acting within his rights. You've explained that, if you take the authoritarian view of things, the cops won't bother you so much, which is really quite obvious, as the workings of a superiority complex WON'T target those who are cowed into submission by the presence of a shiny badge.
Also: I find it funny that the guy feels 'so persecuted by the police for being an amateur photographer' that he doesn't want his face/name known...but has no problems airing videotape of the officers giving him a talking to.
I dunno, having evidence to back one's claims seems like it lends credability to the gentleman's complaint.
Kanluwen wrote:Except in this case it IS NOT the police doing things to cover their arses.
Yup, you're right. They aren't. They're harassing a citizen... There's a massive difference. It doesn't make it any less wrong, but it's a massive difference nonetheless.
Harassment would be if they pulled him off the street the first time he mouthed off, or stood in front of his camera the entire time he was filming because of some perceived slight they concocted for no reason.
Refusing to give information and the ability to be able to quote a law back at an officer, while having no press badge makes you an immediate suspect--especially if you refuse to cooperate and just sit there filming the entire conversation.
Dronze wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:It's simple, I've explained it multiple times but you lot seem to want to keep arguing that the police are in the wrong yaddayaddayadda.
They WERE in the wrong, it doesn't matter if the guy was being a spanker or not, he was acting within his rights. You've explained that, if you take the authoritarian view of things, the cops won't bother you so much, which is really quite obvious, as the workings of a superiority complex WON'T target those who are cowed into submission by the presence of a shiny badge.
His rights are to stop filming when an officer says "she doesn't want to be filmed". No matter who you are(cop, private citizen, furry extraordinaire), if you say I DO NOT WANT TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED OR FILMED--you have to fething stop then and there.
And as I've said, repeatedly:
If you're going to be a dick and refuse to do something as simple as give a name/address so they can check fast--you're going to get treated like a suspect.
That's how it works.
(By the by: if you take the tinfoil hat brigade view of things, the police can be stopped by shouting "FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH!")
Dronze wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Also: I find it funny that the guy feels 'so persecuted by the police for being an amateur photographer' that he doesn't want his face/name known...but has no problems airing videotape of the officers giving him a talking to.
I dunno, having evidence to back one's claims seems like it lends credibility to the gentleman's complaint.
What credibility? That he's a spanker?
Yeah, he's got that down pat. Along with a persecution complex that rivals Perez Hilton's.
Kanwulen wrote:What credibility? That he's a spanker?
Yeah, he's got that down pat. Along with a persecution complex that rivals Perez Hilton's.
I am having an awful hard time taking you seriously now, Kanwulen. You seem to have spiraled into name-calling, against the photographer as your main argument. You have also made it clear that you have little regard for the man's actual rights, and anyone who is not instantly obedient, is a moron of some kind; which still falls within the realm of name-calling as before.
...if you say I DO NOT WANT TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED OR FILMED--you have to fething stop then and there.
You have said this two or three times now, and I am still quite sure that you are simply incorrect. In a public place, people can be filmed and/or photographed without their permission. I am sure there are some complications when it comes to using the images for profit, but I am not very well versed in those rules.
In short, no... you almost definitely do not have to stop filming. The officer could have arrested him right there, if that were the case. He acted within his rights, and you appear to take great offense to that, seemingly by authoritarian mindset alone. Public officials have to deal with all kinds of nonsense, this guy was the least of their problems in reality.
Kanwulen wrote:What credibility? That he's a spanker?
Yeah, he's got that down pat. Along with a persecution complex that rivals Perez Hilton's.
I am having an awful hard time taking you seriously now, Kanluwen. You seem to have spiraled into name-calling, against the photographer as your main argument. You have also made it clear that you have little regard for the man's actual rights, and anyone who is not instantly obedient, is a moron of some kind; which still falls within the realm of name-calling as before.
I've "spiraled into name-calling against the photographer" because I've made the point, repeatedly.
The law is sound, the way officers are enforcing it seems to have issues.
It doesn't give John Q. Public the right to badmouth officers or act surprised that the officers take offense when they talk back.
Wrexasaur wrote:
...if you say I DO NOT WANT TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED OR FILMED--you have to fething stop then and there.
You have said this two or three times now, and I am still quite sure that you are simply incorrect. In a public place, people can be filmed and/or photographed without their permission. I am sure there are some complications when it comes to using the images for profit, but I am not very well versed in those rules.
In short, no... you almost definitely do not have to stop filming. The officer could have arrested him right there, if that were the case. He acted within his rights, and you appear to take great offense to that, seemingly by authoritarian mindset alone. Public officials have to deal with all kinds of nonsense, this guy was the least of their problems in reality.
In a public place, yes. But when you're focusing on one person in particular(as he was)--you DO need their permission, especially if you then air the tape.
Commissar Molotov wrote:Great, another "wanna-be" cop who doesn't understand how the law works...
What, you just wanna drive fast and shoot people?
PROTECT and SERVE.
Notice which one comes first.
"Protect". The police have to put the public's safety first, not the capacity to serve them.
Kanwulen wrote:In a public place, yes. But when you're focusing on one person in particular(as he was)--you DO need their permission, especially if you then air the tape.
Not exactly what I am finding, but you may have some point to your assertion.
As far as I can tell, the photos have to fall under the assumption of harassment, which would include paparazzi style hawking (the one handed, crane fist photo of doom), and/or stalking. I saw neither of these occur in definitive terms, at any point during the OP's clip. There was no charge of any kind, following that he was required to stop filming in the first place. Frankly, I just don't believe you.
The law is sound, the way officers are enforcing it seems to have issues.
It doesn't give John Q. Public the right to badmouth officers or act surprised that the officers take offense when they talk back.
It seems that you are again, taking offense to the simple questions that were asked, simply because they were asked. I am no fan of being treated like a child by authority figures, and I would submit that is exactly what you are promoting.
I would like to see the actual quote, in which the photographer 'badmouthed' the officers BTW.
What do you mean by '...or act surprised'? I don't get it...
)
