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.

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.

The police do not have the power to demand personal information or question the motives of anyone going about their legal day to day business.

If they are overstepping their boundaries then it’s only to be expected that people will not cooperate.

Actually they do, Lucius.

It's called "reasonable suspicion" here in the United States.

Link for the tinfoil hat brigade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

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.

From the link:

"Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law..."

See the little flag next to Lucius' username? That ain't Old Glory.

I'm well aware of that, smartass.

He didn't say it had to be the British police

The precedent is set, and I'm fairly certain that other countries have a similar precedent but refer to it as "justifiable grounds".

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.

I would rather just have the scones, so help yourself to the tea

I have Sunkist and cold pizza.

You can keep your doily food!

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.

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.

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.

Kanluwen wrote:Another alternative is for the police to taser everyone in sight and ride Velociraptors into crowds.

I'd pay good money to see that. I'd pay more money to do that.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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

Dronze wrote:

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 wonder if Kanluwen is at all familiar with COINTELPRO?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Yeah Molotov, we have? But that was the 60's.... When apparently, people stated we were more free... Kind of funny, eh?

Well, COINTELPRO officially ended in 1971...

...Officially.

Commissar Molotov wrote:I wonder if Kanluwen is at all familiar with COINTELPRO?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

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?

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.

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:

Dronze wrote:

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

Commissar Molotov wrote:I wonder if Kanluwen is at all familiar with COINTELPRO?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

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.