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.

Commissar Molotov wrote:

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.

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.

Please be that kind of cop, Kanluwen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest

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.

Just make sure they know you got your eyes on them...

Got to keep that psychological edge, without looking like a fool.

dogma wrote:

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?"

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.

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.

So? The police were hassling the man. It would have taken less than a second to answer the question, and it was a valid question.

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.

FITZZ wrote:

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 think that's the key right there.

What is the Police Reform Act?

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.

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.

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.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=buckingham+palace&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&hq=Buckingham+Palace&hnear=Buckingham+Palace,+Westminster,+London,+UK&ll=51.501043,-0.141728&spn=0.003319,0.009645&t=h&z=17

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...

As I said:

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.

Wrexasaur wrote:http://maps.google.com/maps?q=buckingham+palace&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&hq=Buckingham+Palace&hnear=Buckingham+Palace,+Westminster,+London,+UK&ll=51.501043,-0.141728&spn=0.003319,0.009645&t=h&z=17

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Dronze wrote:...definitively facist.

Can we have your definition of that term?

Authoritarian does not automatically presuppose a fascistic nature. I respect the officers, but not the actions that they chose to take.

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.

don_mondo wrote:

loki old fart wrote:

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.

Dronze wrote:

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.

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?

Well he's right, Frazz.

I judge people based on their faces.

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!