Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The original post?

Pshaw.

It's typical tinfoil brigade reactionism.

"Oh my God, they're taking our rights away! Who cares if there's some kind of logic behind it! WE NEED OUR RIGHTS JUST IN CASE!"

Kanluwen wrote:Um what, Khornholio?

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.

Khornholio wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Um what, Khornholio?

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?

Well of course you are, it's the mind-control juice they've slipped into our Kool-Aid.

You cant take pictures in a shopping centre here.

While they video camera you.

I hereby demand a tinfoil hat orkmoticon to deal with the slew of ridiculously paranoid folks we seem to have.

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.

On a lighter note. YAAAAAWEEEEH!

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!

Kilkrazy wrote:

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?

However, they have no right to know, under the laws of the land.

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!

LuciusAR wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

SilverMK2 wrote:

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).

LuciusAR wrote:

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"?