Know Your Rights – A follow-up & a very disturbing video
Are you a photographer hell-bent on striking terror into your community?
One of my very first posts here on DPS was called “I’m a Photographer Not a Terrorist – How to Shoot in Public With Confidence“. Since the induction of Section 44 The Anti-Terrorism Act, photographers allover Britain have been treated like criminals by PCSOs and Police Officers.
There are loads of alarmist videos and blogs on the internet and I don’t get worked up about them all. But then this morning, there was this video from The Guardian of a man who filmed his own arrest under suspicion of anti-social behaviour. You can hear the officer claim that it was ‘the way in which he was holding his camera’ that caused the public and the officers to question his motives. When asked for his details, he denied them as a matter of principle and was then arrested.
This video has really shaken me up. It could happen to any of us. And did you see the little point and shoot he was using? Nothing close to the size of my 7D with 200mm lens! I don’t even own a point-and-shoot so I would certainly be questioned under this same suspicion. I was followed by three officers in Winchester last year while taking this photo of rhubarb. I doubt the fruits were feeling particularly terrified by my suspicious activity.
Please get in on this conversation and tell us: have your rights as a photographer ever been contravened?
222 Responses to “Know Your Rights – A follow-up & a very disturbing video” - Add Yours
February 26th, 2010 at 6:43 am
Extremely timely! I’ve been following the progress in the House of Lords of the Digital Economy Bill and tweeting updates (without being too annoying). Although it relates specifically to Orphan Works, coupled with ICO’s new code for personal information online there is room a plenty for all kinds of rights abuse.
The ICO one is tricky as it refers back to the Data protection Act itself where there is a loophole where photography in public places of people without express consent can be considered a violation of privacy.
What’s terribly embarrassing is that both of these came to my attention from photographers in the U.S.!
Read more about UK Gov nationalises orphans and bans non-consensual photography in public. It’ll make your head hurt!
February 26th, 2010 at 6:52 am
I have never been personally affected by the anti-terroism act living in the US but this issue is real and potentially will affect every photographer who chooses to photograph public places.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:04 am
That’s not a ‘point and shoot’ he’ s holding, it’s a Leica, which is a fully manual, interchangeable lens camera.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:11 am
Really, truly, not trying to start trouble, but as a Libertarian at heart here in the US, I’ve been astounded at the numerous stories of the rapidly eroding rights of citizens of the UK. Between the street cameras following your every move, to the heavy handed approach of self-defense rights, and now into the realm of photography, it makes me wonder how the citizens have allowed the government there has taken such giant bites out of basic freedoms.
Not that I necessarily always agree with our version, but is there a version of our ACLU over there that may legally assist photographers who have been apprehended for no good reason?
February 26th, 2010 at 7:13 am
I don’t see the issue here. All the police officers involved were very polite and did everything they could to avoid arresting this guy until he became completely uncooperative. All he had to do was say, “My name is so-and-so, I live at this address, and I have nothing to hide so please clear me so I can continue taking pictures.”
I guess I was raised with the value that people in authority, especially law enforcement, are to be trusted and obeyed unless evidence suggests otherwise. Why wouldn’t this guy give his “details?” If you have nothing to hide, then don’t act like you’re hiding something. Had he given the information the police wanted so he could be cleared, he could have enjoyed the rest of his day photographing whatever he wanted without incident.
I work at a military installation and get asked frequently to see my camera passes to take pictures where I need to. I don’t buck against the guards who ask. I give them my info, they remind me of Operational Secucrity guidelines (which I have memorized anyway) and let me on my merry way. Now, I know that my situation is different than someone taking photos in a public place, but I’ve found that if you are cooperative and polite, most of the time the authorities will reciprocate and there won’t be any problems.
I think this guy needs a serious “check up from the neck up” because he comes off to me as an anti-authority rebel who believes his “rights” are being violated just because the cops want to make sure everything is OK. Remember, people, in this post-9/11 era, we all must suffer some minor yet temporary surrender of certain rights in order to maintain public safety. Just ask anyone who lived through World War II what they think about this incident, and I’d bet 99% of them would say this guy was being a jerk.
BTW, the cops never once asked to see his photos or ordered him to shut off his video camera (other than, “please don’t film me”), so, really, what rights were violated? Only his right to be a dork…IMHO…
February 26th, 2010 at 7:20 am
@bumfan: You’re very right that it would have been easy for him to give his details. But out of principle, he denied the police the right to request such details without an ‘articulable, reasonable suspicion’. They did not have the right to ask him for such details and then it wasn’t until the second (or third?) officer that it was ever mentioned that they believed the ‘manor in which’ he was taking his pictures was anti-social which was clearly made up, otherwise that would have been the issue from the get-go. And had he not exercised his right to question their authority, this wouldn’t have happened and we wouldn’t be any-the-wiser about our rights as photographers.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:54 am
I totally agree with Elizabeth on this one. I thought that the anti-social behavior was made up. I also can understand why Bumfan would need to show ID and camera passes on a military base, in which I would expect high security standards. But these two men were on a PUBLIC street taking photos.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:05 am
As much as I agree that the police had no real evidence of his behavior being “anti-social”, I do not agree with the photographers methods of making his point. Based on some of the things he says as he’s being arrested, leads me to believe he knew exactly what he was doing. Yes, he should have been able to go about his business, but when push came to shove, he decided to shove back; maybe not in violence, but definitely in defiance. By not providing the information, he was inviting the idea of suspicion upon himself. If I were a cop, and this was the response I got, I’d push harder too.
Keep in mind, the police officer might not necessarily agree with the law either, but they are tasked to uphold it. The arresting officer was doing his job as he saw fit, which is to ultimately protect the other citizens in the area. Maybe the photographer isn’t a terrorist, but what if he was some sort of pervy pedophile? All the officer knows is that the guy was taking photos of kids and families that were not his own and perceived the possibility of a threat. If I saw some random guy taking photos of my kids, I’d probably knock his teeth with his camera if he had this kind of response.
Why would you want to hassle with the cop when the result will ultimately not get you what you desire? If he really wants to stand up for his rights, he should write a letter to his political representative (not sure how it works in the UK) or start a petition to abolish the rule. Instead, he gets 15 minutes on the news, a bunch of bloggers cheering him on for taking a stand, and then 48 hours later, nothing has changed.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Here’s a follow up question, namely for the folks in the U.S., because I’m not sure how this works in other countries.
If you’ve been pulled over by a police officer, whether you committed a traffic violation or not, did you ever deny the police officer a request to see your license and registration?
Chances are you didn’t because 1. that’s just how it works, and 2. you want to get past the situation as quickly as possible, hopefully without a citation or being arrested.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:18 am
I came across this link as well today:
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=836675
Its old, but its got some interesting points on the issue.
Incidently that “point and shoot” is a Leica M series rangefinder, i’m guessing it’s digital so either the M8 or M9. So its a bit more expensive than your average point and shoot.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:21 am
I think that a lot of people make a similar misunderstanding. Police are NOT people in authority. They have some power and authority over real criminals, but none of the law-abiding public.
When are people going to put their foot down about things like this. Why aren’t the police in this film being disciplined? There was clearly no reason to arrest this man.
If I was approached by police officers, like this gentleman, I would politely decline to give up my rights. Yes, it’s easy to give into their “authority”, but then you’re giving them the authority that the power-tripping officers wish they had.
This is absolutely disgusting. These police officers should do some reading about the laws, and peoples’ rights.
If you are one of the sheep in this world, and don’t mind these people exercising authority over you and ignoring your rights, then fine, go ahead and give them your information. You’ll just be contributing to the problem though.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:32 am
Bottom line is this: There was no probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. Since when is taking a photograph in a public square where there is not reasonable belief of privacy an anti-social behavior?
Bumfan, when you enter the military compound to work you tacitly agree to searches and inquisitions, not so in public.
And by the way how do you point a camera in an anti-social way?
Here in the States we have let the Patriot Act go too far and in doing things like this have given in to the terrorists.
I am a former police officer and I will tell you this man got hassled. They didn’t like having the law used against them.
If I were him I would get the best civil rights attorney I could find and sue for countless millions.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:33 am
‘And did you see the little point and shoot he was using?’
A photography blog describes a Leica as a ‘point and shoot.’
Sigh.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:58 am
Your article used to be something I agreed with 100% Now, your article makes me mad.
If the person that was asked what he was photographing answered the question that the PCSO asked, that would have been the end of it… “Here, look at my photos” …Yeah, sure, breach of his personal privacy – but we’ve watched this escalate to something that we’re talking about all the time… In Britain it’s not about section 44 any more, it’s not about terror… it’s a war between photographers and police and both sides are hell bent on winning.
What did “I’m a photographer, not a terrorist” achieve? nothing – diddly squat. …I didn’t go and in fact I was quoted by the BJP as saying “Why don’t we have a big BBQ in Trafalgar Sq and invite the Police along for a group portrait shoot” …It would have done as much good.
If we stop writing these articles and start being HUMAN again – a bit of common decency toward fellow man… we’re going to get along SO much better
“I was taking photos of Santa – here, have a look” –Job done! Instead it ends up in the Guardian (Again, hell bent on escalation of this issue for news’ sake)
ridiculous.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Bumfan, I support Navy shipbuilding programs. When we take pictures on the ship or in the shipyard, it has to be done with an authorized camera by one of a few specific people who is authorized to use it. Obviously, you don’t see these rules being applied to public photography– imagine if you couldn’t hand your camera over to your sister or significant other because she wasn’t authorized to use it! Your attempt to draw a parallel between street photography and photography on the military base truly falls short. As you acknowledged, it’s a totally different set of circumstances and a different set of rules, so I’m not sure what your point was.
I feel sorry for the “good cops” like the previous commenter. Police who step beyond the boundaries of what’s reasonable and professional are the reason law enforcement has such a bad reputation.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Don’t you have to identify yourself to police in the UK if they ask you to do so? In most countries, police can check everybodys ID if they want I think.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Would you want to board an aircraft with a passenger behaving like this? I suppose he thinks he has the right to leave an unattended package wherever he wants as part of his “rights”.
If we cannot respect the efforts of our own societies police force to prevent terrorists should we get rid of them, and the government and the armed forces along with anybody else that’s trying to make it safe to live our lives.
I have been taking photographs of the public for 52 years
(BUT NEVER FROM BEHIND A COAT OR HIDING IN A SHOP DOORWAY)
I have also asked dozens of pretty girls if I could take some photographs of them and have never been stopped from doing so. If I was I would give my name and address and continue on my way, as any responsible person should.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Hold on! There’s something fishy going on here! He wants the right to film in public, but then he refuses to have his face shown in the video? Seems like rank hypocrisy to me!
February 26th, 2010 at 9:51 am
In a world with Google earth, street view, video cameras etc, it is really a joke to think that someone taking snaps on the street is a risk to the public, this is just another erosion of our rights which are unfortunately being placed in the hands of uneducated, albeit, well meaning (in some cases) Police.
The cops are being used to ‘soften’ up the public to show they are doing their part in the ‘terrorism’ mantra orchestrated by big Government.
Human decency works both ways, yes the Police were polite that is their MO, showing your pictures is again bowing to their demands (and what if they decide a picture is sus,where to from there?) This harassment will escalate if we bow to tugging the forelock every time the authorities ask us to answer to their ‘suspicions’.
Just read my post sounds, a bit paranoid, but in retrospect hard fought rights are difficult to win back once they are gone.
Cheers,
john
February 26th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Hmm, sure this guy didn’t have to give his name or address, but does that mean you should deny doing so? I’m getting a bit tired of people reading a bit of law on the web, and then think they shouldn’t do anything there a not obliged to do.
This – You have no right to stop me doing that, so poop on you – mentality. What happen too friendliness? I’m not saying you should give up all your rights to be friendly or anything else for that matter. And I think it is very important knowing your rights if something more seriously happens. But this? Come on.. All he had to do was give up his name, and there was no harm in doing so, and he could happily continue taking pictures. He would have suffered no violation, the police would be happy and he wouldn’t have to spend 8 hours in detention. Call me lacy, but that just isn’t worth it.
Now the police could definitely have handled this way better –the manner in which you hold your camera is anti-social – What? That’s one of the biggest loads of BS I heard for a long time. And there was absolutely no reason arresting the guy. But if I was a cop I would get pretty tired of listening to that guy too. I thought he was quite annoying, and somewhat suspicious by being so unwilling to cooperate.
Regards,
Anders
February 26th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Taking images in a public place is considered ‘anti-social behaviour’. Every photojournalist should be worried. how long before covering police brutality, or a protest is considered anti-social behaviour.
Simon – Picking the easy way and just giving up your details is fine, however every time you do that you give up more personal freedom. They do not have Authority above the law, these two men were well within their rights to withhold their details.
While in public you have no right to privacy, while they cannot sell the photographs, the photographers are free to photograph anyone and anything viewable from a public space. The ONLY way a photographer could possibly be asked to stop is for Harassment, even then a few snaps does not qualify. The anti-social behaviour (under the police reform act) used in this way, is a twisting of the law to suit this officer. It is not up-to individual officers (no matter their rank) to interpret laws.
This started out as a request under the terrorism Act – Military installations, even some government building I can understand but a town square – its use to collect information on people simply for taking a photo starts us on a very slippery slope.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:14 am
I have to say, I’m with Simon on this one. Too many people making trouble where there need be none.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Excellent that DSP have decided to run a piece like this.
I’ve been following this issue and it really shows that the ‘war on terror’ and the anti-terror laws aren’t just unfairly targetting Muslims, but all of us and an excuse to curtail our rights, especially if you’re seen to be critical of the powers that be. This is seen through many of my friends in the UK being particularly targeted for taking photos at protests or demonstrations.
Even in Australia when police have been hostile to protests, I’ve been asked to not take photos or delete photos already taken. This is so photographers like us can’t keep the powers accountable if they do dodgy things.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:23 am
@bumfan – “If you have nothing to hide, then don’t act like you’re hiding something.”
Tyrants, both petty and powerful, love people who espouse this nonsense.
“…we all must suffer some minor yet temporary surrender of certain rights in order to maintain public safety.”
It’s unlikely that such measures will be temporary unless people fight against such “surrender”. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:34 am
I Live in Philadelphia in the US. I was out taking pics of septa trolleys that were going to be destroyed for my husband. He’s a transit fanatic and loves pics. The septa police came over and said no picture taking on our property, we were standing on the edge of the driveway of the depot. We moved off their property and took a couple more because I know it’s legal to shoot transit. Police returned wanted all our info, drivers licenses, even asked my husband how much he weighed. He never asked me to delete them. We left and the next day I got a call from the FBI. They wanted to know what the pics were for, what organizations we belong to and some other info. I also know there are pics all over the web so it’s not like we’re taking anything that can’t be gotten on the net. New York has had law suits where photographers sued over photographing transit because they’re told it’s against the patriot act and it’s not. They always win!
February 26th, 2010 at 10:57 am
The photog in question was incredibly pleasant. I commend him for his patience when being presented with a clearly absurd situation. The idea that someone should surrender their rights in the name of convenience is cowardly. Remember folks, public servants answer to you, not vice versa.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:59 am
I experienced something of this kind a few months ago. I was trying to take pictures of a bridge connecting Dartmouth NS to Halifax NS in Canada when i was told i could not get on the bridge with my camera and tripod by a wanabe cop/tool boot officer. I was told the bridge was private property and i had no righht to shoot it without written permision that i could get during normal buisness hours but i was trying to capture a night shot. I stepped off the bridge onto an empty lot on the side and was again questioned by anothe wanabe cop asking what was my buisness there and if i were with the media. I refused to answer and was told they were going to call the police if i continued. I went down to the edge of the water to try to capture the bridge again. I was stopped by two MP because there is a Canadian Naval base near by and they were affraid i was a spy. What is there to spy in Halifax with the Canadian navy( wer have used Diesel subs and a fleet of 10 fregate WOW.) I finally moved on and did capture the bridge from the parking lot of a super market a few blocks away with my 300mm lens. The shot came out good but not the way i first intended it to be.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:06 am
I’ve watched this video and others and think the people tyring to protect our country are being set up by these photographers who in my opinion are cocky! If they advised their purpose at the intial stages then all would probably be OK but they continually refuse to do so in a way that antagonises the security and police oficers and that is bloody annoying.These people are here to protect us so don’t go round setting them up..
February 26th, 2010 at 11:14 am
I appreciate everyone’s comments and feedback to my comments, and this forum is supposed to focus on photography and not politics. I just have a couple comments in reply.
First, the only correlation I was trying to make between me working at a military base and photographing in public is that, in this day and age, we can expect to be questioned about our credentials and motives. I don’t think it would be such a hardship and a “violation of my civil rights” to offer the information the officers requested. The people who buck up against such requests are the same people who think their rights are being violated for having to go through all the rigamarole at the airport.
Second, the point I was trying to make about my perception of the police trying to NOT violate this guy’s rights was that they were very amicable and polite about questioning him. To me, a rogue cop hell-bent for a power trip would have just ran over and tackled the guy, ripped his memory card out of the camera and smashed it to bits on the pavement, and THEN arrested him for “looking suspicious.” I still stand on the belief that the police did everything short of brute force to make sure this guy wasn’t doing something “anti-social.” C’mon, people, this wasn’t like the U.S. government rounding up every Japanese-looking person in 1942 and sending them to internment camps out in the middle of nowhere for years.
Put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let’s just suppose that this guy was in fact a terrorist, and he’s out shooting photos of their next target. He refuses to give the police any information, they let him go without question, and a week later a bomb goes off in that same area and kills several people. Then what would your response be? I can hear it now…”Oh, the cops weren’t tough enough on this guy and look what happened. Our police are just a bunch of sissified tweety birds who are too incompetent to catch a guy taking pictures.”
One final note, to Greg who quoted Benjamin Franklin – with all due respect, Ben Franklin never envisioned global war with America under constant threat of attack, nor did he foresee the advances in technology that make living in a world of modern conflict much more dangerous that it was in the 18th century. They didn’t have to worry about radio messages getting intercepted, or airborne bombing raids in the middle of the night because there were no such things as radio or airplanes. I’m sorry, but I live on the west coast and both my grandparents had to deal with having a lights-out-and-silence curfew every night for fear that some Japanese spy would get information that could lead to attack on their city. With at least two military operations nearby, there was a constant threat of a Japanese attack. And you know what, if you talk to them 65 years later, they are still grateful that the government “curtailed their rights” for a few years to keep them safe.
I’m done here.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Thankfully I haven’t had issues yet. But I live in Southern California and usually the officers don’t care unless you’re causing an obstruction for the general public.
That’s quite the point and shoot camera that guy has. I’d love to get my hands on a Leica =)
February 26th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Sorry, but the guy was being an ass. He knows the rules, he knows that with the way things are over there ANYONE and EVERYONE will be asked for their info and yet he still denied it. Does he deserve any sort of commendation from the photographic community? NO! Look, i dont believe in the post 9/11 hoopla but things have changed, and not for the best but are you really going to let a situation like this get to this point and the cry about it? All he had to do was give his info and walk. Did they say he had to delete anything on his camera? No! Did they say he had to leave the area? No! He was being and ass and his “calm” but also condescending voice spoke volumes about what he was trying to do, and that was to get reaction from teh police. He knew this would go no where good yet he kept prodding it. If I had someone talking to me like that, you can surely bet that he would get a punch to the face. He was being a snarky, know-it-all, asshole and got what he deserved.
If you dont agree with the law then do something to change it, LEGALLY. Dont try to change it by getting sypmathy from getting your head smashed in and saying the law is wrong
Bash me all you want, i dont care. There are probably a ton of grammatical errors so it may be entertaining actually.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:56 am
I can certainly say I have strong feelings about this, though I’ve never had any specific experiences. I know what it’s like taking pictures out in public, for some people It’s probably really uncomfortable, partially due to the fact that you don’t actually want people to know that you’re taking a picture of them becasue well you want to get a candid. A person who knows little or nothing about photography wouldn’t really think about that and would just think that it was odd and maybe even suspicious. Whether or not it’s true I feel that these officers were in a situation where they weren’t going to just let him go without getting at least something from him, I personally would be afraid of what could potentially happen if they did get my name and information and in any way attempted to connect me to something terrorist related. I think we have the rest covered, he was in public that’s really all that needs to be said. and to what simon said, It doesn’t matter if there’s going to be an endless fight we’re not gonig to just give up our rights there are a lot of things out there like that but as photographers we have rights. We’re humans arguing is a part of what we do sometimes we’ve got the law behind us other times we don’t.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Guess it is bad in advanced countries. India is not bad, but then you could get caught by an ignorant one too!
It is getting more difficult everywhere with the terrorist activity giving the authorities little chance of doing otherwise! I guess it is best practice not to shoot people you do not know and being a little more aware of what you are doing and where!
February 26th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
This topic needs to be addressed. We need public debates like this and we need to engage those who question our rights to photograph in public places. We need to engage them in the press, we need to engage them when they question us.
Perhaps Google should turn over information on everyone who uses their mapping services with satellite pictures because they might be looking for their next target. What would our response be if the bad guys used the same tool we use to find our way to the pizza joint?
See here for another article on this topic:
http://photomusings.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/no-more-running/
February 26th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
While I do find the global erosion of civil liberties since 9-11 disturbing, it is important to remember that there are always two sides to a story and more than one way to accomplish a task. I’ve been questioned by police when shooting in public a few times, and every time I’ve been polite and cooperative and been left alone to finish my shoot. As for “a matter of principle” you might have right of way at a traffic light but the car that runs a red will still kill you. You can be right and dead, or be smart and stay alive to fight injustice through other means tomorrow.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
He could’ve answered some simple questions and this wouldn’t be a subject here. The principle here, Elizabeth, is he felt he had a right to be an a-hole. that’s a given.
It also amazes me how Brits are always using their energy going after officers who are paid to enforce the laws written by lawmakers. Perhaps if you used that energy against your politicians, the abuse of your rights may be over.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
There’s lots to say about this, but I’ll only point a couple of things.
1) As someone pointed out, he was using a Leica M-series rangefinder. The street photographer’s camera. The “shoot from the hip” camera. He most likely was shooting in “suspicious” ways, though nothing remotely illegal.
2) I don’t believe it’s been shown that photography has directly lead to acts of terrorism. Maybe it has, but I don’t see how asking for “details” is going to solve anything. If a terrorist is out on the street photographing potential targets, they will be clean and they will cooperate with police in the fullest. This nonsense only serves to needlessly restrict the rights of free people. And, no, bumfan, I won’t say, “Oh they weren’t hard enough.” There’s no magic; you can’t prevent everything without removing all rights to freedom. The Franklin quote *is* relevant.
3) If it were I, sure, I would probably give my information and go about my business. But people seem to be missing something. Supposedly the law says (and I’ve seen this from videos in the States too) you aren’t required to provide these “details.” However, apparently, if you *don’t* provide them then you are even more suspicious and then detained for not providing details that were never required to provide. That’s not a political problem, that’s a police problem. *If* the details are not obligatory given the circumstances, then not giving them should be the end of the story. Of course they *are* obligatory in practice as we’ve all seen and heard. And of course if you try to quote the law, the response is, “Are you an attorney? Do you work in the field?” Apparently if the answer is no then you have no justification for citing your rights about anything.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I’m with Elizabeth on this issue. It never ceases to amaze me how many people think that surrendering your rights like this guy was eventually forced to do is fine, if it’s in the name of protection from “terrorism”.
The guy in this film knew his rights. He did NOT have to provide any information to the police. Simple. The fact that they were polite about asking is irrelevant. They had no right to ask in the first place.
It’s been suggested that photographers are actively engaging in this cat-and-mouse game with the police. I have to agree, and more should. If the police are allowed to continually harrass innocent photographers exercising their rights to shoot in public, what next? I shudder to think…
To those who think we should leave the poor overworked police alone, we’re only “going after” the police officers who are ABUSING their powers. The ones who simply police our streets and neighbourhoods whilst obeying the laws they enforce, we support.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
@daveconrey – Of course I would/have showed my license and registration. Why? Because those are both requisite for driving a vehicle. They show that I’ve passed appropriate driver’s test, my vehicle is insured and that I’ve paid my taxes. There is no such requisite for walking around in public and any notion that there should be is insane.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
All the people that are on the side of the police here should stop and think for a moment. If this goes any further, someone in a uniform could walk up to anyone they want and demand “papers!”. Sound familiar to anyone?
Where does it stop? With people like this nice guy photographer that knew his rights, that’s where. Without people like this, it will just go further and further.
Rights are there for a reason. It’s unreasonable to expect people to give up their rights on the whim of a power-tripping police officer.
Besides – there was no reasonable reason to harass this guy for simply taking pictures in a public place – and escalating it when he was standing by his rights.
This has to stop. Police are using this terrorism thing to exercise their desire for power.
If he had submitted and given his name, how would this help fight terrorism?
February 26th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
@derdache – Actually, that’s not entirely true, at least from my experience. You are required to have some form of identification, whether it’s a drivers license, military ID, passport or even a basic identification card. Say, for instance, an officer stops you on the street for something like loitering or jaywalking. They can ask you to produce your ID merely for those reasons. I know this is the case because I have had both happen to me.
February 26th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
i once stopped my car on the side of a street to take a picture of a building when two security guards came and tried to get me to stop
February 26th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
@daveconrey – you seem to be fond of providing examples of situations of breaking the law to justify providing something when you are *not* breaking the law.
If you were just walking down the street with your “significant other” or a group of friends, and a cop walked up and demanded to see your identification, what would your response be?
February 26th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
i stopped my car on the side of a street to take a picture of a building when two security guards came and tried to get me to stop. one of them threatened to take my camera away from me and the other tried to intimidate me by going to my car with a phone to check my licence plate number.
i was standing in a public street in a busy city. i held my ground, got my pictures and left.
unfortunately, this kind of thing happens to me too often — but i’m not in the u.s. or england and i feel that if the situation ever escalated, i would not have protection under the law.
and people trampling on my freedom really makes me angry.
i’m really dumbfounded by people who are willing to cite 9/11 as an excuse to give up their rights.
‘they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ – benjamin franklin, 1775.
February 26th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
I definitely agree with the comments above stating that the photographer in question should have just given the police his ‘details’. The police are trying to keep the streets safe, and it is within their rights to get your name and address. I think that denying the police of this information automatically makes you look guilty, something that you don’t want. It would have been much easier to simply give the poilice the required information, and be on their way.
February 26th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
@daveconrey There is no federal law requiring an individual to identify themselves in the US. It is a state issue. 24 states have such laws in effect, each one unique. For example in the my state, Ohio, you are only obliged to tell an officer your name, address or DOB. You are not required to carry or show an ID. The requirement to identify yourself is also only applicable under certain scenarios:
2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.
(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
(2) The person witnessed any of the following:
(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;
(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;
(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
Effective Date: 04-14-2006
February 26th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
@Duluk – You assume I actually did break the law, and wasn’t stopped by the cops under false pretenses, not unlike the situation here. I never said I was jaywalking or loitering, but I was stopped for jaywalking and loitering and never cited, but it didn’t stop the cop from asking to see my identification. I should also mention that this happened over 20 years ago, so it’s not new development.
@Derdache – Section A1 of 2921.29 seems to be saying pretty much the same thing as the officer in the video, asking for information based on suspicion the photographer is about the commit criminal activity.
The one thing no one is really talking about here is the officer’s perspective on the photographer’s behavior. We don’t get the officer’s side of the story, but the photog could truly have been acting in a suspicious manner. We immediately demonize the police officer because their charged with upholding a bullshit law, when ultimately, it’s their job to protect citizens. No one here can say what the officers was really thinking or what their intent was, but should we automatically believe the photographer’s side of the story? Obviously it was important enough for them to continue questioning the photographer.
Also, is it entirely possible he was provoking this whole interaction and only playing a victim for his video? One other thing to note is this video was started from the very moment the female officer came up to them, as if the photographer knew that an altercation was imminent. Could it have been planned? I’m not sure, but it’s just as much a possibility as the police were overstepping their bounds.
I will say this about the Brit cops; they’re way more polite than the cops here in California. If these guys pulled this in Long Beach, it wouldn’t have gotten this far. They would have been face down on the hood of the police cruiser much sooner, and our cops carry guns.
@toomantribbles – I was once told by a building security officer that I couldn’t take photos of a building because it was “intellectual property” of the property owner. I researched it, and technically, he was correct, but still pretty lame. It’s not like I was going to sell pictures of the building.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
I have a t-shirt that says “photography is not a crime” I think I’ll wear it tomorrow. These guys were really articulate. Impressive.
I lived in Tokyo for six years in the 00s, and only one time in my street photography experience was I ever spoken to by the police who told me it was impolite to take photographs of people on the street, which was preposterous because it’s done by Japanese themselves all the time. Otherwise, I photographed train stations, train conductors at length, never drew any attention at all.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Yeah, you’re right daveconrey, that guy should feel lucky that he was wrongfully arrested and detained by such swell guys, not like in big, bad California.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
@Derdache, you invalidate your arguments with your cynicism.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Everyone who is saying that he was being an ass and should have just given his name and address are completely missing the point the guy is trying to get across. That being: Where does it end? Once freedoms are taken away, it will only be a matter of time before more are taken away. And if we sit by and just give up our details (or anything of the sort) for no reason whatsoever, then we open the door and invite governments to come on in and take more rights.
This guy did absolutely nothing wrong. He acted well within his rights, stayed calm, and made very valid points in his defense. Now I do think he did it on purpose to prove a point and make a video for the press. But that’s how you bring awarness of these types of civil violations. This guy did nothing wrong and acted 100% within the law. How do I know this? He was released 8 hours later WITH NO CHARGES FILED! This is simply police harrassment under an overbearing law.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
My cynicism doesn’t change the fact that there’s a distinct difference between identifying yourself by name, address or DOB and carrying/furnishing a form of ID.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
The point A LOT of people are missing is that he asked the police officers what their “reasonable, articulable suspicion” for stopping was. The officers needed a CONCRETE reason to stop him. The could not provide any other adverb besides suspicious to descrive his photograpy. Well, what about his photography was suspicious? I believe they think public shooting is suspicious in general… too bad for them that isn’t against the law.
The dude got hassled and stood his ground. Police officers don’t like being beat at their own game. He knew his rights and didn’t give them up. He should be applauded.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
I agree with the need to have article 44, however I think the community police officers here are abusing it. I completely agree with his actions and would not give me name/address to the police unless I was legally obliged to.
He clearly was not taking photographs for terrorist reasons, what terrorist would attack a small town in lancashire! The community office didn’t like the fact he was taking photos and wanted to stop him, and her sargeant simply invoked a different law to force him to hand over details.
Given the rise in police harrasement cases, and the abuse of police power at demonstrations in the UK its no wonder that he started recording when they arrived at the scene. How else would be able to prove the events in court at a later date?
February 26th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
@daveconrey, you are wrong about the need to show identity in the UK. Under the circumstances for which they stopped him he is fully entitled under the law to not give his details as at that point no crime is believed/indicated to have been committed. This was made clear just the other month by the head of either the met or the ACPO. This is abuse of law and it’s no surprise it was jobsworth community support officers doing it as they have little knowledge of the law.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Did you just mention full frame Leica (more expensive than Nikon and Canon full frame) the guy holding in the video as Point and shoot or … You don’t have point and shoot camera?
February 26th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
I totally agree with bumfan.
The photographer was being a bit silly if you ask me, all he really had to do was show the officer the images he had taken and all-would had been resolved. (you would do it on Flickr or Facebook)
I spoke to an officer of the law recently and all he said was ” if they see you taking photos in a suspicious manner, then they have the right to stop you and see what photos you have been taken and they have the right to take your details if needed.
If you have just taken some random pics of people and buildings etc… then there is not a problem and they will let you go, but if there is photos of a police indecent or things that could be seen as a security risk then the photos need to be deleted, reviewed or you need to be questioned” Common sense needed here guys!
Security risks are cctv camera’s (why would you want to photograph these there horrid) Government buildings but at a close distance, 100m away where you can launch an rpg in to is fine. lol
The Police have gone a bit over board with this photography shit but they may have been things that have happened that we haven not seen in the news thats why they shit them selves about all this.
We need to respect the law and do what they need from us, because one day you may be in trouble and need them. who would you call if there was a robbery in your house and all your equipment was gone!? they are there to protect and serve. They are there to look after you! if you saw a robbery happening and a police officer done F-all you would have some thing to say then? yes?
My advice as a professional photographer is to go out there and take as many photos as you can, if the police are there and they ask you to show the images, then do so as you will probably be posting them online for the world to see, but if they ask you to delete it, ask why then do it!!!! if its a stupid answer the image you took was then there is software that can retrieve your image’s the next one could be that much better pic never worrie about the photo before.
The photos the guy took were shit, if he went to the pcso and said “look here are the photos i have taken” im sure things would have been resolved alot quicker.
cooperation is all you need. Remember they might be a pain some times but they only there to help and they are only human just like you.
What do you think?
February 26th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
It would be entertaining to hear from the one side as to what their different theories are in regards to why photographers in public are being ‘singled out’. Is it simply, as some have said, police officers abusing their authority…and why? To go home at the end of their shift and say, “Honey, guess what I did today? I hassled some photographers.”…”I’m so proud of you, I’m going to make you your favorite dinner!” Or, is it something much more sinister? A secret ‘Illuminati’ type society run by oil painting supply manufacturers and Crayola executives, hell bent on ridding the world of our evil cameras and to drive up the stock prices and demand for their products? Or, are there aliens living among us whose true identity is only revealed by camera sensors? I mean, it can’t be as simple as them doing what has to be a very tough job in the state of the world today. A world where at any given moment, an individual can walk into a group of innocent men, women and children and blow them up. You want to know what I’m doing? Sure, I’m taking photos of this event or whatever. My name? Sure, it’s….thanks, and you have a great day, too. I go back about my business and so do they. Seems simple enough.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
I read all the arguments for and against this photographers rights …… and I still of the same opinion that I would not volunteer my name to any policeman should I be in the same position.
If a terrorist wanted to film a potential site then I honestly think that they would do it in circumstances that would not attract attention not as in this case.
There is an erosion of human rights in the UK of that there can be little doubt,however a fair amount of this erosion is based on the assumption that we are going to be attacked sometime soon ….I thought that is why are troops are being killed daily in order to keep the terrorists away.
It is easy to be complacent …… but every right lost,will never be regained no matter how hard we try.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
OK, my point of view is different – I live in a country you are issued ID card at 15 and you are required to show it to the police whenever they feel like it. As aside – I am nearing 40 and was never asked to (except when stopped driving car). You show here ID to get bank account, to get work, to enter some buildings…
And the other side of the story – I understand some may feel uncomfortable, even threatened when they notice this “suspicious” behavior of the photographer. The same for the police. The people usually don’t understand what are you doing.
I am not fond of accusing police when the problems lies with law. You need to change the law. I am as uncomfortable as anybody here to be suspect simply being photographer, but if all it takes to avoid confrontation with the police are few seconds to give my identity, I will do it when politely requested. I would probably jab and ask what I can do next time to avoid being suspicious other than stop taking photos
February 26th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
I still don’t get why it is a violation of his rights, and why he is giving them up by cooperating….
As far as I know, there is no law stating that he SHOULD NOT give his name and address. The police just don’t have the right to force him to do so.
So this initial police officer asking him for name and address is just going beyond her job to make sure everything is alright. He wouldn’t be giving up any rights by complying; he would just help the police to make sure there’s no terrorists, creepy pedophiles or other people none of us want out there.
Don’t deny that some people out there are using their camera, to take pictures that we don’t want them to take.
To stop them, you have to ask a lot people doing nothing wrong. Like the police stopping hundreds of cars, to get the few procent driving drunk.
Whats the harm in that??
February 26th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I definitely agree with David Ford and Andre. “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” Benjamin Franklin.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
All the Ben Franklin fans: There is a HUGE difference between “an essential liberty” and giving your name and address to a police officer. Do some study and find out what the man was really talking about before you go misusing his words.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
I´m surpised how many people here are willing to add their names and adresses willingly to a file where innocent people are listed as security risks.
Unbelievable.
What you think they´ll do with your data after the incident?
I´m not paranoid, taking pictures in public area is a negligable point of their job.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Sorry about that I didn’t notice the make/model of the camera in the split second it was shown.
I’m not a camera enthusiast, I’m a photograph enthusiast. I own a camera and I use it to take pictures. Please don’t assume that is a reflection on DPS on the whole.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
The police officer who initially stopped these 2 made a subjective, judgment call that they were acting suspiciously. After watching an edited video, how can I say she was wrong?
February 26th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
@bumfan
My english is horrible so i will just quote :
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Franklin
February 26th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
I’ve been in a similar situation, although in my case I was taking photographs on a beach and the concern was that I might be shooting children. I basically had 2 choices: show the ploics officer my pictures of seagulls – which took me under a minute – or get taken down the station for several hours for the same effect. So I showed the pictures and then carried on.
Pragmatism should rule the day. If you are approached by a police officer, be polite and comply with any reasonable requests. If you want to make a point about rights, then write to your MP. By getting arrested, all you do is make things difficult for yourself and make yourself look silly.
Tom.
February 27th, 2010 at 12:07 am
@Tom: I really really do understand the issue of child protection. And as a parent, I appreciate it. But this was so so different. I would be completely happy to submit to questioning if it were in the interest of child protection.
February 27th, 2010 at 12:29 am
To Elizabeth: Personally I fail to see any security implications in a photograph of a child building a sand-castle on the beach. But, I know how touchy people have become so I tend to avoid photographing children even though it is perfectly legal to do so in a public place such as a beach. The point I wanted to make is that a reasonable attitide will resolve both situations without you getting arrested. As someone else mentioned, potential terrorists really do scout their targets out and the occasional police query isn’t too much of an issue. The next time that comes up for me I will simply give them one of my business cards and hopefully that will be the end of it.
February 27th, 2010 at 12:41 am
I agree it would have been much more convenient for the photographer simply to provide the information. He appears to have a desire to make a PR stunt with this. Reminds me of when kids in school and refuse to turn an offensive t-shirt inside out because of free speech reasons
I don’t think people realize the vast differences between US and British law/rights. You have much less rights in Britain than in the US. Either way, the law is the law. While I don’t think that this guy was posing any harm, I’m not a police officer and I trust their judgment. They clearly didn’t seem to be singling the guy out and were simply acting under the direction given to them by the law.
February 27th, 2010 at 12:43 am
I too have been asked to “move on” christmas 2008 in bolton town center whilst taking shots of the international market on the town hall square – when I refuised to move on I was warned quote dont be surprised if one or two of my colleages turn up as we have folloewd you on video for 40 mins!
second time – I was asked to leave the new shopping mall in kingston upon thames – I was taking shots of the roof structure [abstract shots] not even people!! I was escorted out of what I consider to be a public place by two security men
we live in very strange and worrying times
February 27th, 2010 at 12:44 am
It’s truly shocking how many people here (mostly from the US I note) think members of the public should just bend over and take it whenever challenged by an authority figure.
You seem to think living in a police state guarantees your freedom, when you’ve already allowed your freedom to be taken away.
The UK police simply do not have the right to stop and search people. It doesn’t matter if the guy is ‘acting like a dick’. Your basic rights do not change depending on your attitude and personality.
Right don’t disappear overnight. They are slowly eroded away because people are too afraid or complaisant to stand up and say ‘Enough!’
February 27th, 2010 at 12:48 am
I think that this article IS about photography. Because photography is not only a camera, it’s the person behind the lens and what’s in front of the lens.
@Elizabeth your not recognising a camera model does not make you less of a photographer, or reflect badly on you. Or DPS. What it says is you saw something else you thought we should talk about as photographers and people. And you and DPS were right! Just look at the response!
I agree that the chap was likely pushing buttons and if he was “shooting from the hip” then he had a moral responsibility to explain that to the officers. He was within his legal rights but it could have ended with a little cooperation.
But his moral and legal rights are only a small aspect of the same rights in dispute that photographed the G20 Riots and documented use of excessive force.
The point being that rights are for ars*holes, idiots and trolls as well as upstanding citizens, yellow journalists, respectable press, shutterbugs and officers of the law. And until we get it sorted, and start treating each other with respect (and not the thinly disguised politeness that passed for communication by all parties in the video accompanying this article) then we need to talk about it, think about it, and make our own decisions how we will deal with it when our turn comes. And every photographer taking photos in a public place will have their turn. Always have, always will.
February 27th, 2010 at 1:04 am
A couple of years ago, on a particularly foggy night, I was taking photos in the fog. I set my tripod on a parking lot just off of the sidewalk so as to not be in the way of passers-by. It wasn’t but about two-three minutes that the company’s security people came by and told me to leave the parking lot. Granted, I was on their property so I readily agreed. I reset my tripod on the sidewalk… “No! You aren’t allowed to take pictures of the building.”
What? I’m on a public sidewalk in the middle of town and am not allowed to take pictures of things I can see from that vantage point? A new one to me. But I had fun anyway… I folded up my tripod and spent the nexst 10-15 minutes walking around on the sidewalk keeping the security guy occupied. : ) While I wasn’t arrested, it was the only time I’ve ever been questioned about taking pictures. I’ve shot near train tracks, factories, bridges, busy highways, downtown areas, in large crowds… just about everywhere with no other comments at all. For a college project, I even had a police officer pose for a photo or two of him looking official, talking on his radio. He gladly cooperated.
dlm
February 27th, 2010 at 1:20 am
The officers were just doing their jobs. All they wanted was their name and address to double check if they have nothing to do with terrorism. Why can’t they just give it to the officer and go home, unless they have something to hide.
February 27th, 2010 at 1:59 am
I have to say that the photographer came across as uncooperative, and was responsible for his own arrest. Although he may not have agreed with the law, it appears that the officers had the right to ask for his name and address. I could understand if they were arresting him for taking pictures, but he became even more suspicious to the officers for not answering simple questions. It is obviously a gray area, but why make trouble for yourself?
I was once taking pictures at an airport in Florida, which is perfectly legal. The airport police came and asked me for ID. They said that they like to know if somebody is taking pictures around the airport. Although I had every legal right to be there, the appropriate thing to do was give my ID. One minute later, I was taking pictures again. I could have argued the point, which would appear suspicious, and them I could have been detained. I did not make it difficult for them, and they didn’t make it difficult for me.
In this world where terrorism is real, why would we make trouble for those people who are trying to protect the public? Even if it’s a gray area of the law, let’s just try and make things easier for the police, not more difficult.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:07 am
Is anonymity in a public place an essential liberty?
I don’t think a reasonable person would expect the same level of privacy in a public place as in their home or personal studio. I also think there are a lot of photographers who “violate” the privacy of others by taking pictures without asking permission or in the case of property, getting proper consents, all along the same lines of thinking. ~ What’s really private in public?
The cop asking for basic ID in a public place is very different than one asking for it at your front door. There is no worry about one leading to the other because personal space is well respected by the courts and protected by a great deal of legal precedent. One could argue that constitutional protection regarding search and seizure also applies to one’s person in public, however there’s the issue of what constitutes a search. Is asking for basic ID, a search under the constitutional meaning? I’d say no, but I’m not a constitutional lawyer. By contrast, taking your camera, confiscating or erasing your memory, looking at your pictures, asking to see your pocket, purse or camera bag contents, etc….. very different and all most definitely protected under constitutional regulations with plenty of supporting case law.
Knowing your rights is one thing, having the ability to apply the law and protect them appropriately is another. The cop who violates your rights knows exactly what they’re doing and where the lines are; be smart and pick your battles. Do what it takes to minimize the damage during a confrontation, when it’s done educate yourself, and then if you still want to you can take it up with his/her CO, your ombudsman or the media, properly armed with relevant facts and details.
Things to consider before you file a legal complaint:
- were you on public or private property?
- what was the domain of your subject?
- could your picture compromise someone else’s well being or protected rights?
- did you act responsibly and with due consideration?
- did the offending officer actually behave in manner outside regulations?
- can you provide specific examples of his/her violations? …with legal precedents?
- do you have any supporting evidence or witnesses?
Defending rights also means taking responsibility. We photographers have to conduct ourselves responsibly in accordance to all laws and regulations to be taken seriously and as a legitimate artistic institution.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:17 am
If you want to know what your rights are in th UK and what the Police can and can’t do under the powers of the Terrorism Act, have a look at these links:
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
http://www.photo-forum.org/photo-forum-know-your-rights-special
http://photographernotaterrorist.org/bust-card/
If and when you are stopped under the ubiquitous section 44, remember:
* You do not have to give your name or address.
* You do not have to explain why you are there.
* You are not allowed to flee the search, but you are not required to be actively compliant.
* The police can only give you a pat down, remove outer clothes, search your bags and ask you to empty your pockets.
* There is no permission to collect DNA data during the search and you do not have to comply with any attempt to photograph or record you.
* Moreover, you are entitled to be told why the police are stopping and searching you.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:36 am
Papers, please.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:57 am
Showing ones details because “I have nothing to hide.” is not a valid argument. Prob 99% of people have nothing to hide.
See a review of this argument and how it’s flawed.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
February 27th, 2010 at 3:06 am
It’s pretty clear that this whole situation arose out of “contempt of cop” – i.e.; that they cops escalated the incident and made up excuses to harass and arrest the guy simply because he wouldn’t do what they wanted. From the time I spent in the UK, (before all the terrorism BS), I always perceived the police there as being more reasonable than the cops in the US, (if this had been in the US, the guy and his friend would have been proned out and, possibly, tasered just to teach him a ‘lesson’). Apparently, this is not the case anymore.
What is ‘anti-social’ behavior as referenced in this video?
In the US, Title 42 of the United States Code, section 1983, et seq provides for a civil cause of action when the police, or any other government agent, deprives you of your civil rights under color of law [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html]. There are some criminal statutes that govern false arrest by citizens and police officers which carry criminal and civil penalties, (depending on the jurisdiction). Photography is a 1st amendment, (freedom of expression), constitutional right. I mention these when confronted with this nonsense. Usually, it causes cops to stop and think.
I don’t get the ‘filming’ in public part… I mean, I can go on Google, enter any address and get a picture of whatever is at the address. Thousands of people were in the streets. The cop had no idea how many of them were taking pictures. Why was this one guy singled out? Just because the cop felt like hassling someone?
February 27th, 2010 at 3:41 am
It is clear that this “innocent photographer” (who, by the way, does not want his photo shown) baited and set up this whole situation to show “poor little innocent photographer being harassed. What a jerk. His rights do not trump my protection. If he would have just answered the question “identify yourself” he would have been on his way. But, No he has to be a jerk and waste all of the authorities resources on his little tantrum. What a jerk.
Had he complied with the authorities and still been harassed, then maybe I could understand his contempt, but no HE escalated the incident by refusing to cooperate, not even reveling his name. What did he expect? I will tell you, he WANTED this…… As if there is not enough insanity there in England, you have to add this crap?!
Your “Free speech” that allows radical Islam to threaten all of you, kill every last one of you infidels and you have the gull to play this game?
You poor photographer…..shove that camera up where the sun don’t shine
February 27th, 2010 at 4:12 am
some thing missing from the topics of these posts……. a very large number of terroist who have been killed or captured since the begining of the war on terror have had a great number of pictures taken of government buildings, public places (malls) air ports , and the likes. these have been found in the caves of afganistan, the phillipens, africa, ect… does this mean that we should give up our freedoms to take candid shots of people or of some of the magnificant structures that inspire us as photographers? no. but with the enemy who are detemand too kill us for nothing more then living the lifestyles that we do. we should consider the results of not stopping people whom are deemed suspicios.
i don’t think the anti- social tag should be given as resone (wouldn’t that make us all suspect?) for a check as to what we are doing. i do how ever know that a officer needs no resone to ask you for your information (here in the usa). this is not new or a result of the patriot act. it has been a law for longer then i’ve been alive.
i agree that we (photographers amitur/ pro alike) should have respect for our laws. it is not giving up your freedoms to cooperate with the officers. most people whom do find they have no issues.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:16 am
Of course the man could have just handed oevr his details but as there was no legal requirement for him to do so and as he had infact done nothing wrong to begin with I find it disturbing that the police then started making up excuses about antisocial behaviour just so that they could take matters further (presumably because they were not happy with his attitude, which last I checked a bad attitude was not illegal).
Wheater or not you agree with how the police or the man handeled the situation the fact remains that the situation should never have arose in the first place.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:26 am
I’d just like to point something out to all those who think the photographer was baiting the police:
He was leaving the area when we was finally arrested.
He and his friend had walked away from the scene after exercising his right to anonymity twice. That’s when the third officer (accompanied by the second) came trotting up behind them to, once again – illegally – demand their information. As someone else pointed out, they were released without charge.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:32 am
This is an important issue but I find this photographer lacking in credibility. This video was obviously a set up to capture what he intended to capture. Either this guy is the most calm, level headed individual around or he had planned the event. The way he rattles of legal information and maintains composure certainly give the appearance that he had rehearsed his responses. I certainly don’t get the impression of a layman out taking photos and being shocked and surprised by the police attention. His commentary (while remaining hidden) about just being a law abiding citizen innocently out taking pictures that day just does not ring as genuine. As for holding his camera in an anti-social manner, if he did plan the event, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to imagine him deliberately taking photos in a weird way just to catch the eye of the police.
I totally agree that individuals should not allow their rights to be eroded by overbearing police action. I just don’t see this video as anything other than a preplanned event by an equally zealous individual.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:47 am
I agree with most of what j miller has just said, and the common consensus of this thread. This guy was a prat, jerk, dick or whatever you want to call him and yes it does seem like he set up this little incident. He DERSERVED to get arrested but unfortunately there is no law about being a jerk and therefore the police had no RIGHT too.
If an officer wants to stop you and ask you a couple of questions about what you are doing I say bring it on! How else are they meant to prevent crime or are you just wanting the coppers to wait until its already happened despite a quiet word normally will stop the minor crimes.
February 27th, 2010 at 5:08 am
@bumfan
“C’mon, people, this wasn’t like the U.S. government rounding up every Japanese-looking person in 1942 and sending them to internment camps out in the middle of nowhere for years.”
This is the most racist thing I’ve heard in a long time.
Oh, by the way, the US Supreme court held that what the US government did under the Alien Enemies Act was unconstitutional and illegal. All persons held under the act received compensation from the government for the violation of their rights.
“Ben Franklin never envisioned global war with America under constant threat of attack, nor did he foresee the advances in technology that make living in a world of modern conflict much more dangerous that it was in the 18th century.”
Read your history, in the 1700′s a fledging United States was up against the English – arguably the only superpower of the era – who controlled vast portions of just about every significant land mass in the world. A power that shipped people off to penal colonies for political crimes. A power that, routinely, used terror as a weapon against colonists and indigenous people. Any rational person realizes, in the context of the times, the English were much more dangerous than today’s terrorists.
If you are/were in the military, you were fighting to preserve citizens’ rights. Do you really want to fight and die for something, only to have it denied with caprice by the cops? What’s the point of ‘fighting’ to preserve freedom on one hand and then immediately surrendering those rights?
@rolling stone
“It also amazes me how Brits are always using their energy going after officers who are paid to enforce the laws written by lawmakers. Perhaps if you used that energy against your politicians, the abuse of your rights may be over.
The politicians did not pass laws to allow the police to treat him they way did. The cops acted outside of the law. They acted outside of the scope of their employment. They are not paid to illegally harass citizens for no good reason. How do you ever expect to get people to respect the law when cops make it up as they go along?
The chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is less than one in a million. Personally, something that happens that infrequently is not worth giving up ANY of my rights over.
@daveconrey
“You are required to have some form of identification, whether it’s a drivers license, military ID, passport or even a basic identification card.”
Unless you are ‘under investigation,’ according to the US Supreme court, you do not have to provide any information to the cops.
“I was once told by a building security officer that I couldn’t take photos of a building because it was “intellectual property” of the property owner…”
Interesting, but entirely untrue. If this were true then remembering what you looked at would be a violation of intellectual property rights. Whatever is in public can be photographed, you are not copying it. If this weren’t true, Google would be getting sued left and right. Furthermore the issue of abuse of someone’s intellectual property rights is a civil, not criminal, matter.
@Mike Frendt
I spoke to an officer of the law recently and all he said was ” if they see you taking photos in a suspicious manner, then they have the right to stop you and see what photos you have been taken and they have the right to take your details if needed.
Of course this is what the cops say. They aren’t interested in expressing an opinion that limits their perceived authority. Cops don’t make the laws, they don’t even get to interpet the laws, (that’s the courts’ job), and they sure don’t get the right to bend the laws to their liking.
“We need to respect the law and do what they need from us, because one day you may be in trouble and need them. who would you call if there was a robbery in your house and all your equipment was gone!?”
Sounds like you’re saying that, unless you want them to not respond to calls for help, you have to let them abuse your rights.
“if the police are there and they ask you to show the images”
Forgetting for a moment that this a massive violation of your rights, the cops didn’t ask to see his images. It is naive that the cop would have been happy just looking at his images – the cop could see everything the photog could.
@Elizabeth Halford
“really really do understand the issue of child protection. And as a parent, I appreciate it. But this was so so different. I would be completely happy to submit to questioning if it were in the interest of child protection.”
You publish photographs of children on your web page. What if some cop decided that your images are ‘child porn’? What or isn’t child porn is entirely subjective. What if I am offended by your images or suspect you, deep down, are a pedophile, do I get to violate your rights? If the cops think you are making child porn, they have the responsibility to establish probable cause and get a warrant. Forcing you, under color of law, to show them your pictures when they are on a fishing expedition is an illegal search. They can see whatever it is that you can, there is no probable cause…
@r melanson
“Is anonymity in a public place an essential liberty?
I don’t think a reasonable person would expect the same level of privacy in a public place as in their home or personal studio. I also think there are a lot of photographers who “violate” the privacy of others by taking pictures without asking permission or in the case of property, getting proper consents, all along the same lines of thinking. ”
There is a huge difference between a reasonable expectation of privacy in public, (you don’t have a lot), and anonymity. The US Supreme court has held that you have the right to be anonymous in public. You don’t have to identify yourself, ever, unless you are under ‘investigation’ and that is subject to reasonableness and probable cause.
If you assert that a photog has no reasonable expectation of privacy in public and can harass ad nauseam, why do the people who don’t like their pictures being taken have any reasonable expectation of privacy? You can’t have it both ways. You don’t need consent to photograph people in public places.
February 27th, 2010 at 5:23 am
@nathan – he baited them AND If he didnt go out that day with that purpose, he certainly decided when confronted teh first time that he would test the waters and see what he could get away with. As for him getting arrested when he was leaving? He antaganized the police to the point of breaking and he got what he deserved. if you keep poking someone and poking them and poking and then stop, would be surprised if that person clocked you on the side of the face? He was being passive-agressive and its annoying and rude i might add.
As far as people not understanding the anti-social behavior reason for being approached, I just dont understand you dont get the reasoning behind it. The man was taking pictures of random people. People he doesnt know, and people who did NOT give him permission to take their picture. I find it incredibly creepy if someone were to start taking my picture without my consent and I would never do that to someone else without their permision first. Doing something that is NOT a social norm, generally accepted or puts people at un-ease is considered ANY-SOCIAL! If you want that picture, then ask and shoot away with their permision. If you did NOT get it, move on to your next subject and repeat. Im pretty sure that if the police would have seen that behavior in teh first place, he wouldnt have even been approached.
What i dont understand about the views on here is the aversion to having to show a form of identification or even supplying your name to anyone of authority and why you consider it a violation of your rights. Why is it such a big deal to have to show ID while out doing something that is KNOWN to be a cause for questioning? What right are you exactly using when denying this info? Right to privacy? Or just your right to piss off someone and then cry when called out on it? Everyone always cries that this is an erosion of freedoms and that its downfall of mankind and yada yada. What do you want to be able to do? Walk around and do what ever you want? I also think its rediculous that you dont think you have to show ID for ANY reason. If the police want your info, then they most likely have a reason to ask, doesnt mean you are in any trouble in ANY way. It may help you get out of trouble! haha…maybe.
Anyway, I do enjoy reading both sides of this argument. Its proven to be a good thread! Thanks everyone!
February 27th, 2010 at 5:45 am
being a police officer here in the states, i have two views. as an ofc., i do have a duty to investigate suspicious behavior in which, by law, the subject i’m investigating has to provide me with certain details that i require, in this instance. as i photographer, i have been questioned several times as to the purpose of what and why i was photographing a particular subject, in public. in the 2nd instance, due to my knowledge of the law and my knowledge of common sense, it was easier for me to just give the officer the information he wanted so i can go along with my shoot. as for the 1st instance, an officer does have right to investigate what they believe is a disturbance whether or not an individual believes the stop is unlawful. in my opinion, the photog in this video was arrested for a common sense violation by passively taunting the officers. in final word, if you know that you’re not doing anything illegal and you’re stopped by the police, just give them the info that they’re asking for so you can leave, free, and go about photographing your passion instead of getting arrested for your stupidity.
February 27th, 2010 at 5:55 am
@robert:
There’s an entire discipline in photography known as “street photography,” which consists primarily of taking photos of people whom you don’t know in public venues. It captures the beauty of every day life (and the Leica he was carrying is the preferred tool of choice for this). Photojournalists also take pictures of people in public whom they don’t know.
Just so you know, if you’re in public (at least in the US), you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. As creepy as this may seem, without it, common citizens (and photographers) would not be able to document things like police brutality, riots, human suffering and a plethora of other social issues.
It’s unfortunate you equate “exercising your rights” with “testing the waters.” He was WELL within his legal rights to deny giving them information, as they had no reasonable cause to require it – particularly after they left the area. If you hear what he says at the end, he has good reason for this denial, too: “I do not consent to having my information put in any database.”
What exactly do you suppose a government that monitors every citizens’ move via CCTV will do with that information? I find it incredible how many people are so trusting of Orwellian governments and will lay down every right they have as long as they’re promised “safety” – which is something no government can ensure.
You cannot document life as it is if people are aware they are being photographed. The moment someone sees this, they act differently. You’re espousing that we rid the world of candid shots… which would be such a shame, since there are so many good ones.
And if taking photographs in public is anti-social, then I’m a troglodyte.
February 27th, 2010 at 6:59 am
@Mr. virgo
“being a police officer here in the states, i have two views. as an ofc., i do have a duty to investigate suspicious behavior in which, by law, the subject i’m investigating has to provide me with certain details that i require, in this instance.”
Too bad the Supreme court doesn’t agree with you. “Suspicious behavior” is not probable cause to stop and search. Whether it is reasonable to stop and frisk is another story. I am sure that all the blacks, hispanics and minorities that police stop and frisk for no good reason have a very good case that it isn’t reasonable. Furthermore, cops tend to stop and frisk minorities much more frequently, and for no reason, than they do whites. Given your attitude, you probably think this is justifiable – again, even though the courts don’t. The LAPD is operating under a consent decree just because they unjustifiably stop and frisk minorities way out of proportion to white and for their ‘aggressive’ stop and frisk activities.
“as i photographer, i have been questioned several times as to the purpose of what and why i was photographing a particular subject, in public. in the 2nd instance, due to my knowledge of the law and my knowledge of common sense, it was easier for me to just give the officer the information he wanted so i can go along with my shoot. as for the 1st instance,”
What you know about the law is frighteningly myopic as it seems to only serve your ends. If you choose to give up your rights, fine. Don’t expect everyone else to be as stupid as you are.
“an officer does have right to investigate what they believe is a disturbance whether or not an individual believes the stop is unlawful. in my opinion, the photog in this video was arrested for a common sense violation by passively taunting the officers.”
Obviously, you think that it is acceptable, and legal, to arrest someone for ‘contempt of cop’. There is no evidence in this posting that the subject ‘taunted’ the officers by insisting they respect his rights. Arresting people for ‘contempt of cop’ is illegal, no matter what fairy tale you invent to justify it.
“in final word, if you know that you’re not doing anything illegal and you’re stopped by the police, just give them the info that they’re asking for so you can leave, free, and go about photographing your passion instead of getting arrested for your stupidity.”
You are really scaring me. Being stupid, or acting stupid, is not a crime. The fact that you have a badge and a little bit of authority does not justify you depriving me of my constitutional rights. You’re simply a bully who thinks that they can cow people into giving up their rights when it pleases you. Tell me where you work so I can inform your superiors of your arrogance and illegal activities. You’re a walking violation of 42 USC 1983…
February 27th, 2010 at 7:31 am
“Too bad the Supreme court doesn’t agree with you. “Suspicious behavior” is not probable cause to stop and search.”
He said nothing about search.
February 27th, 2010 at 7:42 am
i agree with Sime.. dude was doing enough to raise the suspicions of people around him and even the police. they just asked a couple basic questions. he should have answered them and everyone could have gone about their merry way. is it really doing you any harm to give your name and a little info? hell, i give out that much information to strangers i meet everyday. my emails are signed with it, i greet people on the phone with it.. this is a lame concern.
February 27th, 2010 at 7:53 am
I don’t understand why some photographers think its okay to take somebody’s picture (aka: take and record someone’s information, the information being their image) WITHOUT that person’s consent or knowledge.
THEN can turn around to cry foul when the police, doing there job, ASK a photographer to provide their information, name and address. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? The police want the photographers name and the photographer wants a picture of my kid. The difference is the police ASK and the photographer TAKES.
Some photographers argue that people lose their right to privacy when they are in a public place.
And to that I counter ~ Right back at ya! A photographer should lose his right to privacy because he too is in a public place.
There is a fine line between ‘Right to Privacy’ and (what I’ll call) ‘Right to what is in Public View’ which I sense many “Shoot-from-the-Hip” photographers have no problem crossing depending on what suits them. (As evidenced by DPS Forum’s =Capture a stranger street style= Thread)
As for Franklin, if he lost his precious son to violence or warfare he would have never penned such an idiotic idea.
February 27th, 2010 at 8:41 am
I think there is a whole lot missing from this video, for one, we have no idea how the photographers were actually standing, what they were doing or what they were really taking pictures of. The article is fully biased from the point of the photographers, saying they were doing nothing out of the ordinary, however since there is no video of them prior to being approached, we are simply taking their word. Four four officers to stop you and question you I suspect there is more to the story than what is being shown by the photographer. Second it would appear that from the comments by the photographer to the police they were purposefully trying to push the police to the point of making the arrest in order to get a story. Suddenly reciting parts of the act and refusing consent are not the normal responses from someone simply walking up the street taking photos.
February 27th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Many commenters here have made good arguments and I won’t rehash those.
A few points though:
1. @Nathan said: “Just so you know, if you’re in public (at least in the US), you have no reasonable expectation of privacy”
Quite right, and this applies to the photographer as well. As you’re waking around shooting candids of people (possibly making them uncomfortable, BTW) you also have no reasonable expectation of privacy. There is no violation of constitutional rights for a law enforcement officer to request your name and other basic information. You might not like it, but being photographed makes some people uncomfortable. Law enforcement officers may not be aware of the artistic merits of “man on the street” style candid shots, and he or she is approaching you for that reason. Being hostile and confrontational isn’t going to help, particularly if you are being glib and dismissive about the discomfort your photography is causing others. Your rights end where other people’s rights begin. Why is it so odious for a photographer to understand this, and in the name of courtesy, be reasonable and take 30 seconds to answer a couple of questions? The photographer’s own actions set him or her apart from the surrounding public, voluntarily mind, and only someone being intentionally obtuse would deny that they will draw attention.
2. @Doc Holiday: the supreme court has also ruled that it is constitutional for police officers to approach members of the public and request names and to see identification. They are not violating rights simply by approaching someone, according to the supreme court. Reasonable suspicion is not required to simply approach and speak to someone. By being a citizen at large, you are tacitly agreeing to the social contract to present your identity truthfully. Your identity is not a protected asset, and requesting your identity does not constitute a search or seizure. What happens from there may or may not be a violation depending on the circumstances.
3. In the US at least, your ID card belongs to the state, not to you. If you read the form you sign at the DMV, you will probably see a clause that states this fact. Many states have statutes on the books stating that any law enforcement officer can request your state issued (and owned) identification, and you must present it if one has been issued. These cases usually do require reasonable suspicion. However, also note that the officer is not always legally obligated to explain to the individual precisely what the reasonable suspicion was, only in cases where a reasonable person would conclude that they have been detained. The supreme court has provided greater leeway for general questioning (walk and talk) based on suspicion than for an arrest or traffic stop, where the officer must advise the individual of the reason and have probable cause.
4. You folks do know that slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy, right? Just because y is further along the spectrum from than x, does not mean that y must follow x in all cases. A society built upon rational thought and policy can avoid slippery slopes, we do it every single day, all day. Also, overblown hyperbole does not convince reasonable people who have a difference of opinion. A clear case of baiting does not equate to Nazi Germany, and the “papers please” convinces me of nothing other than the writer lacks perspective and historical frame of reference.
February 27th, 2010 at 10:05 am
So basically what I get out of this story is since I live in Canada I really don’t want to travel to England. As a tourist there with my camera I could be classified as a terrorist. I wonder how many other people see this as I do?
One of Canada’s major industries is tourism. If our lawmakers were to be this strict I am sure the tourist industry would be up in arms.
I wouldn’t give my name to the police either. Who knows what Big Brother will do with your name. Does your name go on a suspected terrorist list, when you go through security at an airport is Big Brother alerted because you have been stopped for taking pictures.
February 27th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
@doc holiday.
terry vs. ohio.
i spoke of nothing concerning probable cause, but i can stop someone that i deem to be acting suspicious due to REASONABLE SUSPICION. no one spoke of minorities and why you brought that up eludes me. i want you think about what would happen if police didn’t investigate suspicious activities, use common sense in this instance so you can go about your business. as an officer i’m not your friend, and i keep my neighbor hood safe, my felony arrest record speaks for itself. tell that to my superiors with your VAST knowledge of the law….
February 27th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
The police have every right to request identification from anyone at any time, and to refuse to present ID when asked is not only an arrestable offense, it leaves the officers no choice; if they release someone who turns out to be wanted (have warrants), and who subsequently commits a serious crime, the police can be held liable and sued for negligence because they failed to ID him and take him off the street.
The fact that the photographer refused “on principle” left the police with no choice but to arrest him, ironically, while attempting to exercise his rights of privacy and free speech.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
This issue has little to do with the rights of the photographer.
The police have every right to request identification from anyone they have probable cause to ask for it. To refuse to show ID and answer basic questions when asked is not only an arrestable offense, it leaves the officers no choice; if they release someone who turns out to be wanted (have warrants), and who subsequently commits a serious crime, the police would be held liable and sued for negligence because they failed to ID him properly and take him off the street.
So ironically, the photographer got himself arrested by standing on “principles” while unknowingly violating the law.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Got my Sony Alpha out at Waterloo station for some shots whilst waiting for a train and all I can say is; if you want some space at a crowded rush hour station, that’s a sure fire way of doing it!
Thought I was going to get lynched.
I’m half seriously thinking of getting an armband that says ‘photographer’ on it.
February 27th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
It’s a good thing 3rd world countries aren’t as strict with photographers. I hope this gets a peaceful revolution before it reaches us.
February 28th, 2010 at 4:20 am
I am an amateur photographer in Blackpool and I often take photos of the beach and along the promenade. I once had a rather angry person approach me demanding i delete the photographs i had just taken of a beach scene because the photo had included his two young children. I must also add, the photo also included several hundred other people and the children on the beach and in no way focused on his children or anyone in particular.
The guy was ranting and raving calling me all sorts of names. he was making such a fuss that it did not take long to attract the attention of the police.
One of the officers took me to one side and took the guy to the other side. I explained to the policeman my side of the story, that I had taken a photograph and the guy had taken acception to it and was demanding i delete it. Or as i put it, “destroy my property”. I told them some of the names that i had been called and that the guy was acting quite offensive.
The other policeman came over after hearing the other persons point of view and was less than reasonable. He started by demanding that i show him the photos on my camera. His attitude rubbed me up the wrong way, so I refused to show him the content of my memory card. I told him that he has no right to demand to see the content of the memory card, and if he wished to see the content of the card he would need a warrant.
it was at this point the policeman informed me that he had the right to stop and search me under section 44 of the antiterrorism act or detain me under section 41 of the anti terrorism act. My back was really up at this point. so my heals were well and truly dug in. I again told him, that i was not going to show him my photographs without a warrant, and if he was going to arrest me under section 40 of the antiterrorism act that he would find himself out of a job and on the wrong end of a wrongful arrest disciplinary / compensation case.
He eventually backed down, so i explained to the other police officer that as the accusation from the other guy related to me taking photos of his kids and nothing to do with terrorism then to arrest me or search me under anti terrorism laws was illegal. I also informed him that an alert must be in place relating to a particular location for the stop and search under section 44 of the anti terrorism act to be applicable.
I then went on to show the other police officer the photographs i had taken that day. While doing so, i informed the police officer of my rights as a photographer and my rights as a private citizen to be allowed to carry on in my lawful rights as a photographer, and that its a policeman’s duty to protect my rights from those who illegal try to prevent me from carrying out my lawful activities.
I got am apology from both the irate farther and the now more well informed police officer.
the key to it all is to remain calm and to know your rights. Its not entirely the policemen’s fault, they are ill informed about the laws they are set to enforce and its also the general public’s fault by allowing the gubberment to bring in these laws that have eroded away our rights.
within 30 years we will be living in a police state.
February 28th, 2010 at 6:02 am
“So basically what I get out of this story is since I live in Canada I really don’t want to travel to England.” — That’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read.
Little bit of less dramatic common sense people?
February 28th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Karl: You seem to think living in a police state guarantees your freedom, when you’ve already allowed your freedom to be taken away.
Our rights aren’t taken by police officers who enforce the law. Thay are taken away by politicians who write the law. We Americans know this.
February 28th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
This is nothing but a silly liberal anti-government play. Fact is he had a memorized speech of what to do if someone in authority questioned him and then went out looking for a chance to use it. All the other guff that’s being spread here is just that guff.
While I disagree with the rule and the work around is silly when I go to Union station again I’ll carry a monopod and stop at the security office if I want to spend an hour or so shooting around the station instead of acting silly and garnering attention I neither need nor want. Oh I’ll still jump a fence for a shot but I’m a grown man and know if I get in trouble I made that decision. Idiots like the one in this film will continue to goad and push until they get caught and then whine like my 3 year old when they get caught. As for the people bemoaning the loss of freedoms I suggest to you that you grow up and take a closer look.
Seriously folks, just look around and you will find tons of these reports/videos now and it’s not because the police are stepping up enforcement. It is, instead, because people like this nit seek out and cause the confrontations.
February 28th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Marie and James: it’s okay to take pictures of anyone in a public setting, without their permission… and the same applies to the photographer – they can have their picture taken by anyone else in that public setting – including the CCTV cameras that have been set up to surveil an entire citizenry. It may not be nice, it may seem inappropriate, but it’s absolutely legal, and it’s not the same as getting someone’s name, address, date of birth, etc.
As for Mr. Franklin – author, politician, scientist, inventor, soldier, diplomat, Revolutionary War hero, and founding father – I’m quite certain that he was familiar with people meeting an untimely demise when he penned his “idiotic idea,” that’s served the US as a guiding principle until the past several decades. And, I’m inclined to believe he gave it a little bit of thought before printing it himself.
I think we can all agree that the photographer could have ended this confrontation much earlier by simply capitulating to the officers’ request. However, listen for the answer that the first officer gives him when he asks if he is obliged to give her his information…. the answer is “no.” Which begs the question: if he’s not legally obligated to give her his information, and he’s not being detained, then why would he offer his details to her? He’s not legally bound to do so. The second officer dodges the question, but the tacit answer is the same. It’s not until the third one trots up behind him that they have some type of pretense where he would be legally required to give his information.
@James: “Papers, please,” was meant to be a humorous, satirical comparison. I understand the historical context, as well as where this analogy falls short (as all eventually do). I’ll be sure to put a smiley near it next time.
And kudos to you, Marty Jones: I’d say that yours is an excellent example of a photographer who knows his rights and is able to handle the situation with exceptional diplomacy – maintaining your rights and avoiding jail. This kind of flies in the face of david patton’s comment, “Suddenly reciting parts of the act and refusing consent are not the normal responses from someone simply walking up the street taking photos.” It’s the response of a well-informed photographer.
All this being said, if something like this finally happens to me, I think I’ll just hand the officer my card and ask if he’s interested in some family portraits. And here’s the smiley for you, James: =)
March 1st, 2010 at 8:05 am
I think the most important thing here to learn is not “know your rights” its, “tell the authorities BEFORE you film what you are doing”. Communication is a two street and we need to be more communicative than ever before. This whole mentality of I can do what I want, when I want. I am not suspicious and stop harassing me mentality needs to stop. Whenever I am confronted by the police I am ALWAYS forthcoming, I never hold anything back and I am cooperative 100%. Unless I have something incriminating in my camera which I doubt then what do I have to hide? We need to stop being cold and start working together.
March 1st, 2010 at 7:53 pm
@Marty Jones: Nice one!
There’s definitely a fear-fuelled ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide’ mentality prevailing here, and I notice it is overwhelmingly from U.S. members. Most of them don’t seem to realise that while it may be OK for the police in the US to stop you and demand ID (not sure if it is, but I don’t live there), the police in the UK simply do not have that right. And as your case, and this video, so clearly show is that the police either do not know, or do not care about your rights, so it’s vitally important that people exercise what rights they still have, because if they don’t, it’s only a matter of time before they’re gone forever.
But given the complacency of the general population, I think 30 years is being optimistic.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:02 am
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:20 am
Paranoia in the UK – update -
I would like to bring this story to your attention:
Dad Branded A Paedophile Over Pic Of Son – read here:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Man-Suspected-Of-Being-A-Paedophile-For-Taking-A-Photo-Of-His-Own-Son-While-Out-Shopping/Article/201002415560029
especially the comments. Poor Brits. But wait, in Germany we´ll get the same nannystate..poor us.
March 5th, 2010 at 2:46 am
Proposed no working day for photographers and media camera ‘persons’ !
UK ‘No Photography Day’ – 26th March 2010
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10150094573735716
March 5th, 2010 at 2:58 am
Is Mr. Patefield aware of what is happening around the world today? He was being arrogant, sarcastic, and difficult – suspicious. All he was asked for was his name and address. Sorry – he deserved 8 hrs in jail.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:08 am
As a former database administrator and amateur photographer, I would l like to make a point about giving out your personal info to authorities. Once you give up your personal info, you run the risk of having it dumped into a poorly designed, poorly maintained government database (U.S.) with few if any checks for data validity. This is how you end up with children, well known politicians, and celebrities labeled as terrorists and placed on no-fly lists. Translation: giving out your info to a bunch of government screw ups is liable to come back and bite you in the bum.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:23 am
The photographer is a total plonker in my opinion. The police are entitled to ask for his name and details if they so require under the legislation enacted. It is done for a genuine reason and not to suppress the public. He could have avoided half the trouble if he wasn’t such a smart a$se. I wouldn’t have any sympathy for him whatsoever. The police were cordial and polite to him. Isn’t he lucky that he lives in England. Some eastern European police forces would have been as gentle with him. Not condoning their behaviour either but he is one serious plonker.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:28 am
This is sad that they went too far on this issue. Normal tourists could be taking photographs of the area and end up being arrested. Its amazing how close minded this world is
March 5th, 2010 at 3:30 am
A few rebuttals:
“I don’t believe it’s been shown that photography has directly lead to acts of terrorism.”
No, but it is extremely important for planning those acts–the 9-11 bombers did a lot of photo surveillance as did your UK subway bombers. Those engaging in the photography try to appear as simple street photographers or tourists so observers cannot tell what they are really interested in photographing. While it is true that a “smart” terrorist would probably try to draw no attention to themselves, many have proven to be less sharp. If the officers don’t intervene when they have a suspicion and a terrorist attack occurs, there will be a lot of finger pointing. Just letting people know they are out there and watchful is a deterrent. Better safe than sorry the adage goes.
“I beg to differ sir. In the United Kingdom, our rights have been eroded away at a disgusting rate in the name of the fight of war on terror.”
That’s what the terrorists want–they don’t expect to topple your country, only hamstring it economically and socially so you stop interfering in the Middle East–which of course you cannot while you still need the oil. So according to you, they appear to be winning in the UK then. The police took no right away from him at all–they just asked for identification which doesn’t seem to be a big deal to me. When fishing, I have to show my ID and license to a warden when asked. When traveling I have to show ID to the airline and security. When driving I have to show ID, License, insurance proof when asked. When using a credit card I sometimes am asked for ID. I don’t see why it is such an affront to freedom.
BTW try acting like him in Jerusalem and see what happens–he got off easy in the UK. But if his belligerent stance prevails, police will simply stop detaining people at all and you’ll all be less safe when they are less attentive. Maybe 999 out of 1000 stopped and questioned are innocent, but isn’t simply identifying yourself to a public safety officer a minor inconvenience and a small price to pay to avoid another event? I would think so.
I think a lot of the anger here is due to other issues and people are venting on this one as a proxy. It really seems a tempest in a tea cup.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:32 am
There are dozens, sometimes hundreds of fixed cameras recording us all day long. They’re in the grocery and the corporate office; they’re on the highways and in the gas stations. Nobody ever raises an eyebrow. But put that camera in the hands of a human, and suddenly the police (read government) are in an uproar. When will we make the point that as private citizens of any community, carrying a camera deters crime – it doesn’t champion it. How many times have photographs been used in courts to prove (or disprove) someone’s innocence? How many times has the notice of photography “These premises are under 24 hour video surveillance” deterred criminal activity? Law enforcement should welcome photographers.
@daveconrey, you’re reaction is to kick the teeth in of a photographer taking your child’s picture? What if that photographer caught on film, the face (or license plate number) of a person abducting your child? Taking someone’s photo, doesn’t cause any harm. It doesn’t steal your soul. Let’s celebrate the beauty of life, and photograph every inspirational moment we can in order to preserve that moment in time.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:33 am
my my this is a big thread now!
my two pence worth….
the police have no right whatsoever to demand his details in that situation
he is not required to carry identification in the UK
this always seems to happen in small towns in the UK and NOT the major cities…also, the police clearly didnt know their job since photography (or the suspicion that photography is being used for terrorism) actually falls under section 43 and NOT section 44 if the wanted to do it properly
clearly, the police in this instance didnt know their job
but really, my point is this
i’ve been photographing on the streets of london for three years, five days/nights a week. on quiet days i always have a mooch around looking for things to photograph be it in westminster or the city. i carry a D3 on my shoulder when i walk and a bag with a couple of lenses/strobes etc.
not once have i been hassled by the MET, never, not even outside paliament. not during protests. not at 5am
and not at midnight.
i’ve chatted pleasantly with them, talked a few who were interested in photography through my kit and even photographed them in some situations but not once have i been approached in the manner that this guy was.
infact, considering the amount of time i spend in our nations capital (in supposed high risk areas) with a big camera on show, i find it hard to believe i havent been stopped when you consider what the media reports. maybe i’ve just been lucky. i’d actually go as far to say that only on one occasion was i asked for my press pass, and that was only so i could get behind a police cordon on NYE.
i think when you consider the number of people around with cameras and the number of stop and searches on photographers, this, whilst i dont belittle the plight of the photographer and his/her rights, isnt as big a problem as people make out.
none of the photographers i work with have ever had this issue but then, we dont work in small towns where maybe the police dont have anything better to do.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:33 am
Stop all of this PC crap, call a spade a spade, treat the muslim terrorist for what they are. Understand that if the simple act of public photography is ‘suspect’ and failing to give details is reason for arrest, then you will have to agree that Hitler’s ‘spy on your neighbor for the good of the Nazi party’ program was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Speaking of bread; you want two loaves, why do you need two loaves when most people only need one? Sir, would you PLEASE step over here and answer a few questions. Sir, I’ll have to arrest you for anti-social behavior (excessive consumption), PLEASE don’t resist!!!
March 5th, 2010 at 3:35 am
Personnally I am tired of photogs who won’t cooperate with law enforcement. While you may be technically right you don’t need to provide your details there was no reason they shouldn’t have. It’s like motorcycle riders who may be in the right in driving down the road and proceding through a uintersection after stopping properally at a stop sign but if they get hit by that car that choose not to stop or didn’t see them it really doesn’t matter when they are dead. Law enforcement has a hard job and the balance is difficult to achieve – it isn’t our job to make it hard for them.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:55 am
I would be very concerned about giving my info to any officer if I haven’t done anything wrong. As one woman stated, she gave her info and then was contacted by the FBI.
However, both groups could have been more explicit in their intentions.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:56 am
I have been subjected to a Section 44, and it has nothing to do with not co-operating with authority, the fact is that you are stopped (and often publicly humiliated and treated like a criminal) often for no other reason that being in possession of a SLR or tripod, and being in a public place – both of which are perfectly legal. Whilst I would support an officer stopping someone who was acting suspiciously, this is often not the case, and is done in a very aggressive manner by young officers and PCSOs brought up on a diet of the Sweeney and The Bill, this escalates the problem right away and puts the photographer on the defensive and in a position of ‘guilty until you prove yourself right’. In the old days this would have been handled more sensitively, and an officer would likely have just engaged you in a friendly chat until he’d quietly sussed out your intentions, and you’d have then gone away thinking what wonderful police we have in this country. Now we get glorified traffic wardens who are little more than uniformed bullies, and you can’t argue with them (however politely), even if you are right and they’re wrong, because their attitude is one of “I have a uniform so I am always right, and argue with me and I’ll find some exuse to get you nicked!”.
It isn’t just the public who feel this though, just today the government’s own anti-terror watchdog ‘Lord carlile’ has publicly stated that the police are damaging comunity relations with their actions, and the stops do little or nothing to prevent terrorism. Check out the full article at: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23811968-scrap-stop-and-search-law-says-terror-watchdog.do
I’ve certainly lost al trust in the police over the way I was treated, as a middle-aged, law abiding photographer of some 30+ years this was never the case before Section 44 was introduced and became a licence for legalised bullies to harrass the public. The IRA and Al Qaeda never stopped me from enjoying my right and freedom to take pictures (and never would), it’s only the police and the trendy wendys in New Labour that have done that. My late Father and the hundreds of thousands of other troops who fought and died to protect our freedoms in World war Two would not have approved of our rights being abused in the way they have in the last few years.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:57 am
For those of you without facebook, i just posted the following on the UK “no photography day” page…
A no photograph day will probably have little or no effect. photo journalists get paid for photographs and will not give up a days pay, a wedding photographer will not give up his days pay….
What will have a better effect… and will have more impact is a national photography day… get everyone to go out and take photos…Get the general public en mass all taking photos of the city centre, parks places of work everything…. arm them all with knowledge of their rights to confront the Hitler Youth (PCSO’s) with.
Get everyone to upload the photographs to a website and with the help of a sponsor give away some camera kit to a photo that encapsulates the theme of the protest..
I would be willing to set up a national photograph day if a few other people are willing to help out ….
March 5th, 2010 at 4:18 am
It isn’t just in the UK that people are harassed for taking pictures. About two years ago, while I was taking pictures of local landmarks for an online photo contest – the subject was “My Hometown” – I was stopped for taking pictures of the Orange County Government Center, an award-winning building in Goshen, NY. Two security guards demanded identification, saying they were concerned about terrorists attacking the building (in tiny Goshen???). I did not refuse to give them ID. Since I take photos for local publications on a free-lance basis, I had a press ID card, which is what I gave them. Despite this, they recorded my name and address, telling me that you can’t be too safe in the present environment.
March 5th, 2010 at 4:26 am
This is just some excerpts ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes) from this but defiantly something worth reading – not sure how this works in other countries but in some pleaces it looks like you could be considered Obstructing a police officer which is arrestable. It would be advidsable for all of us to know but not neccisarrily be nasty about our knowledge towards peace officers.
Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that require persons detained under certain circumstances to identify themselves to a police officer.[1]
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that such laws did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court understood the Nevada statute to mean that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name.[2]
In the United States, interactions between police and citizens fall into three general categories: consensual (“contact” or “conversation”), detention (often called a Terry stop, after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)), or arrest. “Stop and identify” laws pertain to detentions.
Different obligations apply to drivers of automobiles, who generally are required by state vehicle codes to present a driver’s license to a police officer upon request.
[edit] Consensual
At any time, a police officer may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the officer also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack “specific and articulable facts”[3] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify herself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[4] Police are not usually required to tell a person that she is free to decline to answer questions and go about her business;[5] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?”[6][7]
Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[9] However, many states have “stop and identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to a police officer, and in some cases, provide additional information.
Before Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to identify himself. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,[10] and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.[11] In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that a Nevada “stop and identify” law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court’s opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name. Some “stop and identify” laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest.
As of January 2010, the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name.
It is not clear whether a “stop and identify” law could compel giving one’s name after being arrested, although some states have laws that specifically require an arrested person to give her name and other biographical information,[15] and some state courts[16][17] have held that refusal to give one’s name constitutes obstructing a public officer. As a practical matter, an arrested person who refused to give her name would have little chance of obtaining a prompt release.
States with “stop and identify” statutes
There is no federal law requiring that an individual identify herself during a Terry stop. Hiibel merely established that states and localities have the power to require people to identify themselves under those conditions.
“And in any state, police do not always follow the law, and refusing to give your name may make them suspicious and lead to your arrest, so use your judgment. If you fear that your name may be incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, and if you are arrested, this may help you later.[21] Giving a false name could be a crime.”
[edit] Obligations under “stop and identify” laws
The laws that govern a person’s obligations in a state or local jurisdiction with a “stop and identify” law may not be obvious. Hiibel’s conviction depended on two different laws:
Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) §171.123(3), which requires a person to identify himself, but does not provide a penalty for failure to do so.
NRS §199.280, which provides a penalty for a person who “… willfully resists, delays or obstructs a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office …”
The Justice Court of Union Township, Nevada, determined that Hiibel’s refusal to identify himself[22] constituted a violation of NRS §199.280, the offense of which he was convicted.
The wording of both “stop and identify” laws and “obstructing” laws varies among the states that have enacted such laws. For example, New York’s “stop and identify” law[23] allows a police officer to demand that a suspect identify himself but does not explicitly require the suspect to comply, and its “obstructing” law[24] apparently requires physical rather than simply verbal obstruction.[25] Laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts. For example, California’s “stop and identify” law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording[26] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973) , 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require “credible and reliable” identification that carries a “reasonable assurance” of its authenticity. Using this construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law to be void for vagueness in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).[27]
Some “stop and identify” laws, such as Colorado’s,[28] require a person detained to provide additional information, including an address and written identification if it is available. The wording of the Colorado law is similar to New York’s in that it does not appear to impose a duty on the suspect; likewise, a violation of the Colorado “obstructing” law appears to require use or threat of use of physical force. However, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Dempsey v. People, No. 04SC362 (2005) (PDF) that refusing to provide identification was an element in the “totality of the circumstances” that could constitute obstructing a police officer, even when actual physical interference was not employed.[29] As of January 2010, the validity of a law requiring that a person detained do anything more than state his name has not come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
March 5th, 2010 at 4:28 am
This wasn’t a police incident but it was pretty scary nonetheless.
I was on a business trip in irvine and was staying at a hotel that is pretty close to John Wayne Airport. In fact, it is right by the approach path. I am a major aviation nut, so I was standing outside my room taking pictures of the planes as they were coming in for a landing. So anyways, I was taking these pictures:
http://michiganexposures.blogspot.com/2009/07/planespotting.html
Down in the parking lot was a guy arguing with his girlfriend and occasionally I would look down because I would catch glimpses of her looking up. After about 15 minutes, the guy storms up the stairs and starts to ask me what I was doing. I told him that I was taking pictures of the planes. He then said, “Were you taking pictures of us?” I said, “No” and he kepting ranting at me. Finally I showed him the pictures I took on my camera (It was towards the night, so I just had the night planes). He said that you could barely see them and after some more talking and I was giving him probably the death glare and he left with, “Are you eye fucking me?” To which I said, “No” and probably gave him a confused look. Gah.
March 5th, 2010 at 4:47 am
Personally, I think the person in the video was wrong. Why not give your name? Why not in this day and age would someone not want to co-operate with the authorities. I would rather co-operate 100 times that have someone or myself harmed because of a terrorist act. I think this person was deliberately confrontational and wanted an incident. I recently travelled from Canada to the U.S. and got “patted down” at airport security and guess what? It never bothered me at all. Why??? Because I would rather be patted down with everyone else that die due to a terrorist act. Since 911, our world has changed. Maybe not the whole world, but definitely in North America.
I admit that being stopped and asked for I.D. or being patted down or having to be at an airport hours before departure can be “annoying”. BUT will it kill us. NO. But lack of these actions can…and I am sure would.
March 5th, 2010 at 4:53 am
While candid street photography is an established art form it doesn’t mean it is accepted by the general public.
Many of the people responding this are over-dramatizing the the whole event.
From my point of view the guy must have been doing something to attract attention, maybe not neccesarily from the police officer but as people have said a guy with his family might think his behaviour is suspicious, a lady wearing a skirt might be suspicious, an employee of a bank nearby etc. There are a whole list of people who might see him in a public crowded place and have questions of his motives especially if he was trying to attract attention. Secondly in my view the gentlemen in question made a point of raising their voices and the implied tone was one of confrontation. I got the impression he was acting very aggresively towards a quite soft spoken police woman. His direct quote of the statutes shows this was planned. All this video shows is contempt for the police. Most of the comments susbstantiate the point, other photographers weren’t being hassled, they probably weren’t even asking any other photog for ID. Its not about rights, its about a guy trying to push someones buttons just to prove a point. God forbid someone got shot or killed in this area while he wasting police resources. I would definitely call his behaviour public mischief and irresponsbile. If you look for trouble it will find you.
I have only been asked not to take pictures once in a building that was posted and I didn’t see the sign. I left and wasn’t hassled at all. Most of it boils down to respect and I don’t expect I will ever be arrested for taking photographs but being an disrespectful ass in public…..
March 5th, 2010 at 4:55 am
Two things that I observed after reading the article are: first, the female police officer indicating that the photographer was doing something antisocial. Photography in itself is not an antisocial behavior unless you are doing it in preparation for doing a criminal activity in the future; second, the photographer not cooperating with the police officer’s request for information about his activity, I think is a show of intransigence.
The terrorists who caused explosions that killed many people in England surely exercised their rights to photograph freely and were not hampered by any police authorities. Should any aspiring terrorists be allowed to repeat the process? The police was probably trained to prevent that crime from happening again. Now that they are putting that training to use, they are being demonized. I did not see any actual quote of a law that says that the police does not have the authority to ask for details about a person’s activity. So if a person refuses to convince the police that he is not a terrorist type, then he deserves to be treated in the way the police did.
This article only showed one side of the issue, the photographer’s and is therefore incomplete and biased towards the side of the photographer. This world is much different after 9-11 and to think that you can live the way it was before is living in a fantasy world. I was traveling the past few months in the southwest U.S. and did not have any problem photographing in any location but they were mostly uncrowded environment. But if I were approached by police to ask questions while photographing in a more populated environment, I would not have any hesitation to comply and I will not feel that my rights are sharply curtailed. All I have to remember are the results of terrorists’ activities in the U.S., Great Britain, Spain and many others.
March 5th, 2010 at 5:13 am
Only just got this article from a friend of mine, so apologies if some of my comments here seems naive. From looking at the video, it looked like a marching band, and the town center was quite busy with lots of people… I’m sure in that scenario, there were likely others walking around with cameras shooting. I’m curious what caught the attention of the first officer about this guy.
March 5th, 2010 at 5:41 am
i’ve read similar stories. i’ve also ready about non-photographers who were videoing/photographing festivals and having security rough them up for no reason at all …and all caught on video…and this was in the USA – the place where ‘freedom’ is supposed to be the norm. no longer. our freedoms are slowly being taken away whether we are photographers, natives, immigrants, or whatever… the use of brute force in our society is making a come back despite some who claim it is ‘bad’ – they are the ones participating. and forget about ‘legalities,’ these will not hold up if the “whole” is infiltrated by corrupt officials who condone it.
“watch your back” is all i can say.
March 5th, 2010 at 5:59 am
I took a tour of China in 2008 and took hundreds of pictures – Tienanmen Square, the Great Wall, the Bund in Shanghai, slum areas, the Three Gorges Dam, AND shots of private citizens and soldiers. No one ever stopped me or gave me a second glance. Does this suggest that the arm of the state is now longer in the U.K. than in Communist China? In my own country – Canada – I have taken pictures of passers-by by secreting my camera under my coat. No one stopped me or even noticed. Once I was talking rapid-fire shots of a running dog in an exercise yard in a park and a girl hurried over and called out,”Don’t take any pictures of me!” I told her I was getting action shots of the running animal. I nearly told her I was taking pictures of the other dog, but I didn’t. This was the only time someone objected. Officials? – never.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:06 am
@James
“4. You folks do know that slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy, right? Just because y is further along the spectrum from than x, does not mean that y must follow x in all cases. A society built upon rational thought and policy can avoid slippery slopes, we do it every single day, all day. Also, overblown hyperbole does not convince reasonable people who have a difference of opinion…”
Thank you! Reading through the comments and finding many good comments on both sides of the argument – this was the thing that was driving me nuts. Slippery slope arguments annoy me.
Personally, in Canada…I’d give the officers my name and number and probably a business card. Yes, I know I’m not required to give it up. They are allowed to ask, and I’m allowed to answer. I’m not going to say “I have nothing to hide so…” because I hate that argument too. I shouldn’t have to give up my rights – I argue against this all the time.
But complying with a reasonable request, to me, is ok. And if you (the royal, all encompassing you, not any singular individual deciding to take offense at my comment) choose not to comply, and get arrested? I’ll defend your right to anonymity. I’ll probably still think it’s a douche move though.
Sime has a solid point. Most cops are trying their best to do a tough job. We don’t have to give up our essential civil liberties to friendly and helpful. We need to defend our liberties, lest they be wrested from us – but that also shouldn’t stop us from being reasonable citizens in reasonable situations. Being a dick promotes dickiness in return. I’d rather just be civil. But that’s just me.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:10 am
As someone from the United States, I have to ask the question, “What constitutes ‘antisocial behavior’ in the United Kingdom?” Also, what is the difference between the Police and a Police Support Community Officer?
March 5th, 2010 at 6:24 am
If taking pictures of “anything” in public is or can be misconstrued as a terroristic act then a law should be enacted to stop it period. Since there is no law, then nothing about the act of photographing public things in public places should be a concern for a police officer. If I wanted to wear a black coat with a black hood and black sunglasses and a black camera and look as stereotypically suspicious to a police officer as that type of dress would make me then I have the full and unconditional right to do that under the law. Any information a terrorist might want to obtain about a potential target which would probably be a large public place could easily be obtained down at the local public library anyway. No self respecting terrorist would be so foolish as to put him or herself in jeopardy of being caught in public photographing such places. What is happening here is that public servants such as the police are just bored kids with uniforms on who love nothing more than to piss in other peoples corn flakes just because they can. What if I called up a thousand people and asked them to meet in the town square and handed them all disposable cameras? Would we be having a “Terrorist” convention? I think not. They just don’t teach common sense at the Academy I guess…Leave me alone I’m minding my own business and not anybody elses…
March 5th, 2010 at 7:02 am
Sime, Chris from Canada is not at all alone in his feelings. I am Canadian, and have done many photo classes with many other Canadian photographers. And no, the bulk of us are NOT generally interested in travelling to a country with a bazillion cameras shooting everyone on the streets! And now with this video, shared by Elizabeth? Sorry, it is just too unpalatable to those of us who are used to being relatively free, and being able to enjoy the freedoms of photography generally, and street photography more specifically.
The violation of a photographer’s (or anyone’s) rights is never okay. Never.
And yes, 30 years is a naive estimate, judging from the percentage of sheeply willing to hand over their personal freedom and rights on a platter.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:04 am
Took a picture outside the gates at my sons graduation from navy boot camp. Wow…..we were told to immediatly delete those pics and had to do it in front of the guards. Ok. No problem. We go in and followed directions that no pictures were to be taken inside. Ok, No problem. Go through graduation and then order a book to remember the day by. Go home. Several weeks later we get the book. The first page has a picture of the front gate (probably better than the one we took) and pictures on the base. Go figure. Go google and you can even get great view of the whole layout. STUPID!!!!!
March 5th, 2010 at 7:12 am
I took photos (as a tourist) years ago in both Taiwan and Egypt and both times was approached by an officer of the law and asked to stop taking photos or they would take my camera. Both of these countries had big fears about their neighbors and as an American citizen I respected their laws as I had no idea what my rights were in this situation. I certainly was not behaving suspicously. I think the above video is very disturbing when it happens in a safe and secure country where freedoms are valued.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:24 am
Wow! This video has really opened up my eyes and has astonished me! It seems the basic rights are really being trampled on in the name of suspicion of terrorism. I will definitely me more mindful when i visit these countries that are targets of terrorist activities.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:06 am
I can imagine feeling picked on or unjustly singled out if questioned about my intentions for photographing, However, I appreciate the police scrutinizing based on concerns them may have. I can imagine you same cry babies questioning the police’s work ethic if they were found to ignore something or someone they thought may be plotting an attack if an attack actually occured. You can’t have it both ways.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:37 am
I’m amazed at the calmness of the police. This guy was begging to be arrested with his constant questioning and refusal to give basic information – Basically he is a trouble maker.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:16 am
I think someone has daddy and authority issues.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:26 am
In answer to David C Smith on March 5… it is my considered view that to potentially allow “an attack” is far preferable to the actual abrogation of the rights of citizens. The aftermath of “an attack” may be traumatic and problematic FOR A FEW but this slow erosion of the basic rights of everyone threatens the fundamental freedom of ALL.
I’m astonished and appalled by the fear-based cowardice of British political and police authorities. It’s clear to me that amongst the many fundamental flaws in the human character lies a “bully” gene – give some of those with it even a inch of “authority” over others and they’ll invent rationale to support an effort to make that “inch” a “mile.” The British have made an art of appearing genteel, polished and sophisticated while, in reality, they’re amongst the most blood-thirsty and brutish of all societies.
Citizens of the UK and everywhere else these bully tactics by police are allowed by law – ACT NOW to take back your country from the fascist authoritarians or get used to being treated this way. Your choice.
Of course, most citizens are too ignorant (of the law and their rights) and too cowardly to stand up for them. When police and other “authorities” are allowed and enabled by their gutless political masters in governments to behave in this manner against their own citizens, the country involved is already a POLICE STATE…. and all is lost.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:28 am
This guy was being a crap stirrer through and through. While I’m not familiar with the laws in the UK, I am intimately familiar with US law. And being a retired police sergeant, I can tell you matter of factly that those guys would have been wearing the bracelets about 90 seconds into this whole charade had they pulled that stunt in the USA. I think we have many more freedoms in the USA, but a police officer here can stop anyone he deems to be suspicious, and he does not have to articulate his suspicions to the person stopped. And you are required to identify yourself when requested. I would have asked nicely once, maybe twice, but the third time would not be a request it would have been a command, and I would have told them if they didn’t reply it would be at their own peril. Citizens have the right to petition the government to redress grievances, but much like on this forum, on the street is not the proper forum to do so. I know back in the 1950′s, if they pulled that on a NYC cop, he would have likely brained the guy with his own camera. The police were not at all being unreasonable.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:35 am
I think a lot of people are missing the point here, the guy wasn’t upset at being stopped, he was upset at anti-terror legislation being used against him, which was not only uneccesary, but goes against the police’s own rules as well. Section 44 is a special power which should only be used in exceptional circumstances when there is a very reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in terrorism. The PCSO could just have easily approached him and asked him what he was doing, or used any number of other powers available to her, but instead chose to use an ‘exceptional’ power (a PCSO is only supposed to use this power if a ‘proper’ policeman is present, and in an area under ‘authorisation’). I live near to Accrington and it’s small Lancashire mill town, not the centre of London, and the guy was filming the Christmas lights there. The real complaint here, and the one that is getting up peoples noses is not being stopped by the police, it’s being stopped using a law that can be used on people doing things that are legal and without ‘reasonable suspicion’ of any wrongdoing, in other words on an innocent person doing nothing wrong and not behaving suspiciously. The police say the man was using his camera in an anti-social way, but refuse to explain what that means, but in what way is that an exuse to use terror legislation against him when there are sufficient non-terror laws to deal with that situation?
This is not an isolated case or paranoia, you’ll find that most if not all of the photographers involved support the police and are decent law abiding people, it’s the misuse of the act that is worrying us as you can be pulled for no other reason that they don’t like the look of you, that’s a very slippery slope to go down.
Check out the ‘Amateur Photographer’ magazine news pages and you’ll see that this is not an isolated incident, and that many of the situations when this law was used didn’t justify it most cases. As I said, this is an exceptional law, and there are many others laws available such as Section 2 or Section 43 available if required. The fact is that these poorly trained ‘plastic policemen’ called PCSO are not real policemen, and are just on the streets to make it look as if there is a police presence, and many of them don’t understand the law properly, and in many cases escalate situations by using it when they shouldn’t do, and when other ways would have been more appropriate:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/
If the goverment’s own terror watchdog and the European Court of Human Rights think it’s being misused, and the Association of Chief Police Officers says that some officers are misuing it, it ain’t our imagination or paranoia at work here, so those of you who think we’re beefing about nothing are way off, it’s a good job that some of us are prepared to stand up against this and not be bullied into silent acceptance!
Below is a copy of the letter sent out to all forces by ACPO, and I can only assume that either it hasn’t yet reached deepest, darkest Accrington, or that some PCSOs can’t read. The final paragraph is quite clear on this matter:
Section 44 Terrorism Act and Photography
Adverse media coverage of the police service use of Section 44 powers, when dealing with issues relating to photography, have recently hit the headlines again and suggests that officers continue to misuse the legislation that is available to them. The evidence also suggests that there is confusion over the recording requirements of ‘Stop and Account’ and the actual police powers of ‘Stop and Search’. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the legislation and guidance in relation to these matters.
Stop and Search
Section 44 gives officers no specific powers in relation to photography and there is no provision in law for the confiscation of equipment or the destruction of images, either digital or on film.
On the rare occasion where an officer suspects that an individual is taking photographs as part of target reconnaissance for terrorist purposes, then they should be treated as a terrorist suspect and dealt with under Section 43 of the Act. This would ensure that the legal power exists to seize equipment and recover images taken. Section 58A Counter Terrorism Act 2008 provides powers to cover instances where photographs are being taken of police officers who are, or who have been, employed at the front line of counter terrorism operations.
These scenarios will be exceptionally rare events and do not cover instances of photography by rail enthusiasts, tourists or the media.
The ACPO/NPIA Practice Advice, published in December 2008, is again included with this letter and specifically covers the issues surrounding photography. The guidance also includes the need for clear briefings on the use of Section 44 and it may be appropriate to include photography issues within those briefings.
Stop and Account
Encounters between police officers and PCSOs and the public range from general conversation through to arrest. Officers need to be absolutely clear that no record needs to be submitted to cover any activity that merely constitutes a conversation.
Only at the point where a member of the public is asked to account for their actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of an item, do the provisions of the PACE Act apply and a record for that ’stop and account’ need to be submitted. Even at that point, such a discussion does not constitute the use of any police power and should not be recorded under the auspices of the Terrorism Act, for example.
Officers should be reminded that it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs of a public building and use of cameras by the public does not ordinarily permit use of stop and search powers.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Trotter OBE QPM
Chief Constable
Head of ACPO Media Advisory Group
March 5th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Lots of controversy here. But imagine for a moment that YOU were the photographer, just doing what photographers do. I do what these fellas were doing all the time. With a huge lens and a huge camera. So, I can imagine how outraged I would be if police officials kept harassing me. Knowing full well that, in my city, sixty thousand cameras are taking pictures of me and everybody else for the government all day long… I find that suspicious to be honest. But there’s nothing I can do about it. Yet, in a persistent effort not to lose face, the police officials in this story were determined to escalate the incident – provoking the photographer and in fact fabricating some sort of a charge so that they could save face and prevail. It is despicable and anti-democratic. It would have been very easy to have simply given his name and address. True. But certainly here in Australia that can lead to all kinds of police intelligence reports being logged permanently against a person and one day when the circumstances appear less benign you could suddenly find yourself on your way to Guantanamo Bay… We have a duty to protect our rights more than ever since 9/11. It is quite possible for public officials, including police officials to be irrational and obtuse. “Authority” is not always right – and “we” are not always subordinate.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:38 am
I can’t believe the attention this story is getting. Number one if he was shooting with that Leica, then to the average person who doesn’t understand cameras, he would have looked suspicious. If he didn’t look suspicious, that means that every tourist would be getting pulled up by the police for looking that way but we don’t see that happening do we. By holding back his details he was giving the police more cause for their suspicion, meaning they had to waste their time and tax payers money to follow him around the streets and finally arrest him. Remember, the first officer let him go fairly quickly. It was the second who first told him that he looked like he was taking photos in a suspicious manner. If he had just queried her on that right at that moment, rather than continue to ask if he was being detained it would have been over more quickly. It was not about the photography for him, he was more worried about winning in the face of authority. If you remember, the police were quite clearly focussed on the manner of his photography. He was just being a jerk for jerks-sake.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:43 am
And yes, my natural inclination would also have been to smile and hand the police officer my business card. Despite the fact that the principles are all wrong.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:53 am
The fact that this guy was accosted by the police three different times and then arrested for absolutely nothing is very disturbing. The police could give no valid reason for asking for his name and address (I don’t believe the “antisocial behavior” theory they dreamed up), and obviously he did nothing wrong, as they eventually let him go without any charges, even after he had refused to identify himself. But, being in law enforcement myself, they may have had another reason to be suspicious that they could not actually tell the photographer.
Personally, I would hate to be accosted for taking photos in public because, to me, that would be the ultimate in censorship and going even further than say, stopping your freedom of speech.
I do believe that the police were acting very proper and the request for his information was not unreasonable, whether they had a good reason for asking or not. It is imperative that they know who they are talking to, before things go any further. If he had just been more cooperative, this whole thing could have been avoided. I believe that people need to pick their battles, and this guy picked a loser. Rather than to be uncooperative, he could have resolved the whole thing by giving his name and then fighting it out in a civil suit at a later time if he was so inclined.
The police still allowed him to film, even up to the point of the arrest, so what right was violated? In this Country (United States) they would have busted your head and your camera both, before they dragged you off to jail.
I was standing thirty feet inside my front yard one day taking pictures of my neighbor’s illegal activities while they were on their front porch, and they called the police on me, who promptly ordered me to stop filming. I could have done the same as this guy, but to what end? Sometimes you just have to do what you have to, in order to get through the day. I’m sure the police in my case were just trying to prevent an escalation between me and my neighbor, and my arrest would not have been a pleasant experience for me, even if I did have the 8 hours to kill.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:57 am
What a tool !!
If he had someone taking photos of him or his family do you think that his response would be the same ?
All that the Officer wanted was to be able to identify someone who COULD be a threat/perv, whatever. If he has done nothing wrong, and an edited video doesn’t show us the full story, then why not give your details ? Who cares if they have them or not, at the end of the day we all want to feel safe & if one Policeman can do that by getting a few details then I’m fine with that. Why does there have to be such an US & THEM mentality when everybody should help & look out for each other. By the way, if he is so indignant about rights, why didn’t he respect the Officers request not to be filmed ? The lame ” I’m not filming you, just your body” excuse he gave would probably get him locked up had it have been anyone else.
March 5th, 2010 at 10:51 am
It was mentioned “Section 44 is a special power which should only be used in exceptional circumstances when there is a very reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in terrorism”. Do you think a terrorist would give away his name. No. He’d probably used every trick he knows (and has probably been taught for that very purpose) to get out of giving his details.
Also, I’m pretty sure you can actually hear the very first officer mention that someone had said he looked suspicious. He was more interested in whether he was being detained or not and not in the fact that someone had actually made a complaint. It is mentioned twice in his own video.
Sorry but if he was acting like that towards me, my first reaction would be “He’s got something to hide. Why is it so difficult to just say his name”. If they let him get away with that, it advertises to terrorists “ok all you have to do is not give your name and you’re free”. And if it turned out that he was a terrorist and they hadn’t followed it through like they did, then what? They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I don’t envy the work of a law enforcement officer. At the end of the day the laws are in place to protect people like him and you and me.
Before I knew anything about cameras, if I had seen someone using a camera in the way described in that video, I would have been concerned too. Ok we live in a terrible world where terrible things happen and terrible people everywhere want to take out their frustrations on innocent people – Seriously, how hard is it to give your name.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:41 am
photoman022 asked the following question, which deserves an answer, as it may explain a few things to non-UK readers:
Comment:
As someone from the United States, I have to ask the question, “What constitutes ‘antisocial behavior’ in the United Kingdom?” Also, what is the difference between the Police and a Police Support Community Officer?
A PCSO is not a policeman, they have no powers of arrest, and are in fact more like glorified traffic wardens, dressed up to look like ‘real’ policemen. They were dreamt up by the current government as a way of fooling the public into thinking that there is a police presence on the streets and to reassure them, and to do much of the minor work that stops the real police from dealing with more serious crimes. In fact the opposite seems to have happened, the lower educational requirement and lower standard of training has produced a great many incidents like the one being discussed, and to the gentleman who said “Why aren’t we seeing things like this, or tourists being harrassed all the time”, well we are, you just haven’t heard about all the incidents like many of us over here have, just go and ask the Austrian tourist and his son, who left Britain vowing never to return again after they were ‘forced’ to delete pictures they’d taken of a London Red Bus (iconic symbol of London to most tourists), even though it was illegal to force them to do this, since if they’d committed a crime that would be tampering with evidence, and if they hadn’t then it’s criminal damage to their property (images could only be deleted if a court order is produced ordering it to happen). Many tourists have fallen foul of the PCSOs ignorance, check YouTube, there are videos of a number of incidents on there showing the attitudes of some of them. The real police are generally less of a problem and many of them are alright and will give you no problems, though there are always a minority of bad ones who take great delight in throwing their weight around and bullying innocent photographers. There is something seriously wrong when people are less scared of coming to the UK in case of terror attacks, than they are of being arrested for taking pictures, we had IRA terror attacks here for over 30 years and nothing like that ever happened!
Anyway, back to the PCSOs, it can’t be coincidence that many of the problems have been caused since their arrival, and since the introduction of Section 44 (steamrollered through parliament in spite of the many warnings of the poorly drafted legislation which would be open to abuse we have seen happen). Poor training is one problem, plus giving them power is another, there is a certain section of any society that once given a uniform and a bit of power will instantly turn in facists and want to invade Poland, they seem to be attracted to jobs like Traffic Wardens and PCSOs. I not condemning them all though, and some are excellent at their jobs, but I doubt a real policeman would have handled the situation the way the PCSO on the film did (or in many of the other cases), that is a good example of a lack of proper training and use of common sense:
Below is an extract taken from the Staffordshire Police website explaining what the differences are, you’ll note that harrassing photographers is not in the job description!:-)
The key role of Police Community Support Officers (PCSO) is to develop community-based problem-solving approaches to resolving local issues. Public demand for visible patrols has never been greater, with PCSOs helping us to meet this demand and deliver the service our communities expect and deserve.
Work as a PCSO is interesting and varied, with each day bringing new challenges. You will be involved in tackling a range of crime and anti-social behaviour, for example:
* contributing to the regeneration of local communities
* increasing public safety
* dealing with truants, graffiti, abandoned vehicles, litter, missing person enquiries
* helping to support crime victims
* stopping vehicles for the purpose of a road check
* the early intervention of PCSOs can often deter people from committing offences, and certainly stops minor problems getting worse
You must be good on your feet
PCSOs spend much of their time on foot patrol, and are a visible, anti-crime presence in communities throughout England and Wales. Because they are so visible, members of the public feel comfortable approaching them with questions or worries about anti-social behaviour or crime.
You must be able to communicate effectively and calmly in difficult situations, and to offer comfort and reassurance to the public in order to succeed as a PCSO.
Lots of responsibility
Work as a PCSO is demanding, and brings with it a great deal of responsibility.
A set of 20 standard powers for PCSOs came into affect in all forces in December 2007. This will ensure that PCSO’s minimum responsibilities are consistent across the country and will help them to deal with day-to-day neighbourhood policing and low-level anti-social behaviour.
The powers are to:
* request the name and address of a person who is believed to have committed a relevant offence
* request the name and address of a person acting in an anti-social manner
* issue fixed penalty notices for littering
* issue fixed penalty notices for cycling on a footpath
* request a person to stop drinking in a designated public area and to surrender containers of alcohol
* confiscate alcohol from young people
* confiscate cigarettes and tobacco from young people
* require removal of abandoned vehicles
* seize vehicles used to cause alarm and distress
* enter a premises to save life or limb or prevent serious damage to property
* stop vehicles for purpose of a road check
* maintain and enforce a cordoned area established under Section 36, Terrorism Act 2000
* seize drugs and require name and address for possession of drugs
* photograph people away from a police station
* stop pedal cycles
* control traffic for purposes other than escorting a load of exceptional dimensions
* require name and address for road traffic offences
* place signs
* stop and search in authorised areas under supervision of a Police Constable
* issue fixed penalty notices in respect of offences under dog control orders
Personal qualities
All PCSOs need certain attributes, for example:
* be confident, level-headed and mature
* have experience and confidence in dealing with difficult people and complex situations
* have good communication skills
* work well as part of a team
* have the stamina for long stretches on foot patrol
* exhibit excellent communication skills
* be patient in dealing with all types of people, some of whom may be drunk or hostile
The difference between a PCSO and a police officer
PCSOs do not have powers of arrest, cannot interview or process prisoners, cannot investigate crime and do not carry out the more complex and high-risk tasks that police officers perform.
I should explain this one further:
* stop and search in authorised areas under supervision of a Police Constable
A Chief Constable can issue an ‘authorisation’ to an area or place under Section 44, but they won’t tell the public where these areas are, though in general all railway stations and certain ‘sensitive’ areas may be included. I doubt that there was a Section 44 Authorisation in place in the centre of Accrington, which is another reason why the PCSO should not have used that power to stop the photographer, though of course the Catch 22 is that we don’t know if there was or not because they won’t tell us!
==========
As for anti-social behaviour, this covers a number of things, vandalism, public drunken behaviour, graffiti etc. Repeat offenders may have an Anti Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) issued against them, which prohibits them from entering certain areas etc. The Home Office have a page and video devoted to this, but even that may not give you a full idea, I’ve certainly never heard of photography being anti-social before, unless perhaps you tried to hit someone over the head with your Monopod or take out of focus pictures of them!:-)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anti-social-behaviour/
Hope that clears things up a bit (or maybe makes it even more confusing)!:-)
March 5th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I’m not sure what the laws are in the UK, but here in Australia taking photos in a public place of anyone or anything is fair game. Even if the photo is of something that is private as long as it was taken from a public place its OK to do. The only issue is that photographing a train station is off limits but photographing a train from a public place is OK. The situation as mention could have been avoided simply by providing the information the Police required, however, if the photographer felt he posed no threat or was not acting in a suspicious behaviour, then the proof lies with the Police. They just cannot single out anyone and start harassing them and then to continue only showed they had a bug up their arse and wanted to prove a point.
All photographers and especially street photographers will need to carry the laws in their bags and bring it out so the police can point out the infraction against the photographer. Bottom line the police were just using bully tactics.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
This guy exhibited a clear disrespect for authority. His behavior only inflamed an otherwise normal transaction. Those members of our society who have the responsibility to protect us do the best they can under appallingly difficult situations. Had he given his details, he could of freely gone about his photography the rest of the evening.
He gave the rest of us a black eye. Now he wants to stir the pot and create an attitude of bitterness in the photographic community. His eight hours of detention should have been a lesson. He can ride his black horse, “Rebellion,” to the pit. As for me, I will give thanks.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Hi Jon, You (or anyone else) can download a copy of the UK Photographer’s Rights article in printable .pdf format, I always carry a copy around with me. I’ve noticed that they now also have links to websites giving US and Australian Photographers Rights as well, might be useful for comparing what the differences are:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/
They make for interesting reading, a lot of similarities, in theory at any rate!:-)
March 5th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Personally I would have given them my details and then made a complaint of misuse of Section 44 afterwards, although that particular law doesn’t require you to give your name and address if you don’t want to. The problem is that many members of the public have never had any dealings with the police and overreact when something as heavy as anti-terror laws are used on them. It’s easy to be wise afterwards, but when indignity and adrenalin are involved common sense often goes out of the window. I felt rightly put out the first time I was nabbed for doing nothing, but I held my tongue even though I was fuming inside, I would handle things very differently if it happened again though.
People are judging this whole issue by one incident when there are a whole raft of them involving people who didn’t overeact, this was not an isolated event. Quite a nice collection of them listed here:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photography_climate_echoes_wartime_Britain_update_news_293020.html
Not my favourite one though, this really takes the cake, film companies havev to get prior permission and a licence first anyway:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/26/kids-tv-presenters-terror-laws
And not forgetting the Austrian Tourists of course:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/police-delete-tourist-photos
Or the very embarrassing cock up over the Royal Christmas shoot:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1238827/Royal-watchers-stunned-Sandringham-officers-swoop-seize-cameras.html
March 5th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
A great story to assist us all in understanding basic rights, not only as a photographer but as a human being. I really appreciate stories like this!
Since everyone has virtually said everything there is to say, perhaps i could give my two cents worth..
1. Is it me or are most of the replies here over-zealous in one way or another? As a person involved in the Legal field, i would rather not overly-commit myself until i am familiar with all the facts at hand. And i think most if not all are not aware of this.
2. The video made was clearly manipulated to show only one-side of the story, the photographer’s. I’m not saying the photog did anything wrong or not. I’m just saying that we can’t tell at all. And most seem to be quite pleased with themselves to sprout legal jargon and statutes without awareness of the full factual details.
3. I agree with Civil Rights, and I also agree with *volunteering* information to the authorities to assist them in any query they might have. I agree with not causing trouble unnecessarily. While I am an activist, i will not stomp the faces of coppers asking questions on their beat. If someone wandered into my house, i think i have the right to at least ask him what he’s doing.. LOL (tongue-in-cheek, don’t crucify me)
4. Many have shared their own personal experiences. Thank you all for that. But all these shared experiences clearly indicate that the actual facts of the situation are more relevant than ever. The photog’s behaviour is relevant; the officer’s reasons for reacting are relevant; the photog’s reaction to the query is relevant; the officer’s reaction to the photog’s response is relevant, etc., etc.
5. Why do some of you think that by cooperating with the authorities, you’re surrendering your civil rights and are promoting a police state? It is by arrogance or upbringing that some of you feel such a strong need to fight authorities at every avenue? Most of us, if put in the job of ‘running things’ we’d probably muck up since many of us clearly support a ‘chaos theory’ whereby the authorities need cold hard evidence before they are able to *ask questions* (we havent reached the part about detention or charges yet, only questions, so Figurative Nazis, stay away!).
6. Another thing? Leave the coppers alone if they’re just doing their job. Whether we like it or not, if we do 70 mph at a 60 mph stretch(which they can p), they the can issue us a ticket. We cannot argue in our defence,
that we were ‘merely’ going 10 mph over.
In my country, there is much injustice, especially from the Police Authorities. But yet, i value security. If liberty brings chaos, then none of us are really free, innit?
March 5th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
Benjamin Franklin
March 5th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
A few months after 9/11 i was stopped from taking video of some firemen standing around a fire truck in New York City. For security reasons, they said. I came back later and shot with a zoom lens from a distance and they never knew they had been filmed.
At the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City I was stopped from taking video of a general entranceway — nothing but a blocked street — to general events areas. For security reasons, someone said. I could also have shot this area from a distance with my zoom lens, as could any tenant in nearby apartment houses.
In neither case was there even a remote security issue. Can security personnel be so simple-minded as to not realize that terrorists would use telephoto lenses if they needed to shoot some really sensitive area?
More recently, in New Orleans, I was shooting from the sidewalk into an open bar area where some entertainers were performing. A singer stopped singing to tell me I couldn’t shoot. A bouncer came out to stop me, but I kept shooting until he got close and then just walked away.
It has always been my understanding in the United States that I can shoot just about anything I can see from a public area. Because of the reputation of some police officers in New Orleans, however, I wisely chose not to make a legal issue of my rights. Besides, I had already shot the footage I wanted.
Bob Koenig
March 5th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Two things. First, I’m happy to comply with LAWFUL requests by law enforcement officers, but I’m really not keen to have my information put in a police database simply on the whim of an officer, and if I’m not required to, you can bet I won’t be giving any personal information to them. This guy choosing to not sacrifice his rights when so many others would does not make him a jerk. Here in the US, you are legally allowed to take pictures of anything that is in plain view from public property (sidewalk, parks, etc…). This leads me to my second point.
I’m a little bothered by the “Perv” and “think of the children” comments that have been posted. Taking pictures of children in public settings does not make one a pedophile or a pervert, and pictures taken in that setting almost by definition would not meet the standard for child porn. Several years ago, I was in Chicago on business, and decided to check out Millennium Park. There is a great fountain there, and as it was mid August, a number of kids were playing in the fountain, and it was just too adorable. I snapped a few pics of the kids stomping around in the puddles. No one seemed to mind, but if a parent had approached me, I would happily have shown them the pictures I had taken, and even offered to email them a copy if they desired. Back then, I was a bit naive, so if they had demanded I delete the photo, I probably would have complied. But that wouldn’t have made their demand right, and my taking pics of the kids playing in the fountain doesn’t make me a pedophile or a pervert.
March 5th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
I used to live in a comunist county and this is very similar act.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
During 2007 I was arrested for the same thing.
I was detained for 6 hours in the police cells.
The case never went to court because the prosecutor thought it was rediculous to be arrested for taking pictures.
I lodged a civil clain against the police and won the case in February 2010.
The court awarded me R20 000.00 (South African) and the police also has to pay my legal fees.
Anybody living in a country with a constitution has the fundemental right to freedom.
The police does not have the absolute power to infringe that right.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
I think the guy was asking for trouble and nothing more than a smartass. The police were incredibly reasonable and only doing their job whilst he was been nothing more than totally annoying and putting them through un-needed stress.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Thanks God I live in Switzerland!
March 5th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
I was taking photos a while back of my two children as they were sliding from a hang-slide rig that was set up by a private company who rented the stand at our local shopping mall for the holidays. An over confident security guard approached me telling me that I was not allowed to take pictures there. I was furious cause I could not see any harm done in photographing my own kids so we started arguing about safety and security matters but at that time I did not know my rights as photographer. I was using my Nikon D50 at the time with a 200mm lens and while we were arguing he kept starring at it as if it was a weapon of mass destruction, the guard had no problem with the other parents snapping away on their camera phones. The owner of the rig came to my rescue and chased the guard off his rig and apologized to me on his behalf. That was my very first encounter with “the law” so when I got home I Googled to find out what my rights as photographer were. I found that I was acting fully in my rights that day, actually the law is on my side in 99% of any public shooting. From that day I walk around with my DSLR as if I own the place
, but I always respect the privacy of others especially children and really sensitive subjects such as fuel depots etc. but as you said I’M A PHOTOGRAPHER NOT A TERRORIST!!! – SOUTH AFRICA
March 5th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Hi Carin
That is exactly the irony!
Photographers with “big” cameras vs cell phone cameras etc.
I never ran into trouble when I took photos with my cell phone or a smaller camera.
It appears as if you only become a threat when you bring out the big rigs.
That is exactly why I won the case because other people were snapping away with cellphones and other smaller cameras. I was there with my Nikon D90 thereby drawing attention with the “big” ca,era. The cop also said in court that he would propably not have arrested me if I stood further away with a zoom lens. Now I ask you??!!, what is more suspicious, me in plain sight with a camera, or me several meters away with a zoom lens?
March 6th, 2010 at 4:24 am
I was in the SFO airport recently and decided not to take any photographs because I didn’t want to be taken to a back room and interrogated and miss my flight for suspicious behavior.
In the late 70′s, I went to the ice to photograph the slaughter of Harp seals. I was in the airpoprt in Calgary and had made the mistake of wearing a Greenpeace T-shirt. I was taken to a back room and interrogated until I missed my flight. During the interrogation my ticket was confiscated. At the end it was returned. When I was released an hour later, with no charges, I went to the gate to find my flight had already left, and the envelope that had held my ticket was empty. I had to retrace my steps and find my interrogators to get my ticket back.
Those with any kind of “authority” can and do whatever they want, whenever they want.
Wayne Christensen, United States Citizen
March 6th, 2010 at 5:02 am
It’s interesting how quickly people will blame the victim. It’s not the photographer’s fault he was exercising his rights, end of story. The fact that so many jump to the defense of a system that allows this kind of behavior is sad and frightening. Look, we all know not all cops are bad people and that a lot of them just do their job, but this should be unacceptable to any thinking person that cares about the fragile rights they have (and are losing) and that others don’t. For them I recommend a little refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
March 6th, 2010 at 5:55 am
Saying he had a clear disrespect for authority is really just an argument for the idea that we should all have not only a reactionary respect for authority figures (something very popular under authoritarian regimes), but that when your rights are violated, it’s your fault. Maybe he just wasn’t trying hard enough to appease them? And, of course, the police did nothing wrong. They were just operating under these “appallingly difficult” circumstances where they unnecessarily harassed a citizen, then arrested him for doing the right thing in what’s left of a free society. By the way, I wouldn’t exactly call that very convincing for most people who understand the profound importance of civil liberties.
I also notice you unsympathetically mention the 8 hour detention and the so-called lesson he should learn. Not the fact that, on top of his abuse, he wasted 8 hours of his life in fear that your beloved authorities would abuse their power again and charge him with something equally as bogus as his initial arrest. It’s not as if they actually thought he was any sort of serious threat. I’m just using conjecture here, but my guess is, like the notorious Chicago Police Department where I live, they simply didn’t like that he didn’t cower in fear like most people would. I’m absolutely stunned. At what point for you is it acceptable to stand up for yourself and it’s not your fault for doing so? Do we actually have to get to the point of totalitarianism or is this really just a “normal transaction” to you?
March 6th, 2010 at 5:56 am
thmchenry,
Saying he had a clear disrespect for authority is really just an argument for the idea that we should all have not only a reactionary respect for authority figures (something very popular under authoritarian regimes), but that when your rights are violated, it’s your fault. Maybe he just wasn’t trying hard enough to appease them? And, of course, the police did nothing wrong. They were just operating under these “appallingly difficult” circumstances where they unnecessarily harassed a citizen, then arrested him for doing the right thing in what’s left of a free society. By the way, I wouldn’t exactly call that very convincing for most people who understand the profound importance of civil liberties.
I also notice you unsympathetically mention the 8 hour detention and the so-called lesson he should learn. Not the fact that, on top of his abuse, he wasted 8 hours of his life in fear that your beloved authorities would abuse their power again and charge him with something equally as bogus as his initial arrest. It’s not as if they actually thought he was any sort of serious threat. I’m just using conjecture here, but my guess is, like the notorious Chicago Police Department where I live, they simply didn’t like that he didn’t cower in fear like most people would. I’m absolutely stunned. At what point for you is it acceptable to stand up for yourself and it’s not your fault for doing so? Do we actually have to get to the point of totalitarianism or is this really just a “normal transaction” to you?
March 6th, 2010 at 6:30 am
This is such a ride the fence issue for me. I’m from the States in rural Wisconsin. Pre-911 I was stopped in a public place for taking pictures. I even called up the powers to be and asked for rights to continue to take pictures for my college project. I was denied. I’m for rights as a photographer for sure. However, these days I work in a school and find that photography can be a truly tricky situation. People being photographed also have rights. Even children.
March 6th, 2010 at 6:36 am
I attended the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this past January. I was taking a few photographs opening day with a Canon Vixia HG 20 video camera of some 3D TV displays at the Samsung venue when some guy hired to work the show came up and told me I could not photograph the display. Even though dozens of other people around the same area were clicking away with their cameras. I said fine and walked away, only to come back the next day and shoot to my hearts desire. That was the only place the entire time I was there, that gave me any grief about photographing something on display. Some people just can’t resist abusing a little power as they suppose they have.
March 6th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
The photographer stepped over his bounds by not cooperating with the law. The police officers are there to protect the public against any potential threat. The police were within their rights and the photographer clearly had created the situation he got himself in.
March 6th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Let’s use some common sense here, people! What part of being totally uncooperative doesn’t this guy understand? If I’m on the street taking pictures & an officer tops me & asks politely “what are you doing” where the hell is my right to act like a street thug. Uncooperative isn’t really the word here. I think the guy was an ass. The police are paid by us to protect us ALL!! Not just one or two of us, but all of us. And in this case, I think the photographer (although I hesitate to call him that) is acting suspiciously when he starts with that obnoxious :am I being detained?” line. Throw his but in jail & teach him some manners. A real photographer would be polite & courteous to someone who appears to be trying to be civil like these police officers.
March 6th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
So, the opinion here is the guy was an asshole. Yeah, probably, but being an asshole is not against the law.
Did the guy engineer the situation? Yeah, probably, but how else can you get on film the police abusing their authority.
Could the guy have done it better? Definitely yes.
There are comments from all over the world regarding the video, but with all due respect, a lot of the comments from our colonial cousins from across the pond are forgetting that this us UK law and that US law is not applicable in this country.
In the UK, the police do not have the right to demand your name, address and date of birth. If they are detaining you regarding an alleged crime then they can ask you for your details. They can stop and search you only if they have reasonable grounds. Although this is very often abused. You only have to match the description of someone that has been reported to have committed a crime or acting in a very suspicious manor. Even then, they can only demand you tell them your identity if they find anything incriminating on you.
In the UK, taking photographs on the street is perfectly legal from public areas. There are rules about what you can publish. For example, any photographs used for marketing or publication that has a person or people as the focus of the picture must have a signed consent form from each of the subjects. This does not apply if the picture is of say, a beach with hundreds of people on it, or the crowd at a football match.
In the UK, it is now against the law to photograph or film a police officer in the line of duty. Personally, I think that is wrong. The law was introduced to protect policemen’s identity from terrorists or any other person wishing to attempt to corrupt or blackmail a police officer. (there were already laws in place to protect against this) The problem now arises that somebody filming a police officer breaking the law is also breaking the law. The overall result will be ‘withdraw your allegation and we will drop the charges against you’
In the UK, you can take photographs on private property unless you have been told you are not allowed to. If you take photographs on private property and the owner or the agent of that property asks you not to, you must stop. They do not have the right to insist you delete the pictures. Even if there are signs saying “no photography please”, if you do take photographs, they do not have the right to tell you to delete them. They do have the right to tell you to leave the property and id you do not leave straight away, then they can call the police and have you arrested for trespass. So, if you are in a private shopping centre, for example the Arndale centre in Manchester, and the security guard tells you your not allowed to take photographs, you must stop. If you are in the middle of Church Street in Liverpool nobody can tell you to stop taking photographs. The police can ask you to move along if you are causing an obstruction.
For the police to stop you under section 44 or 43 of the anti terrorism act, first of all, the chief Constable must have declared an area or building as a potential target. Then you must be acting in a manner that arouses suspicion that you may be acting in a way that you are performing a task to aid in the planning of a terrorist act. The police do not have to identify what area or building has been declared a potential target under the anti terrorism act. But if you are arrested and held under the anti terrorism act sections 44 or 43 and later released without charge, and it is clearly obvious that you were not plotting a terrorist act then you have a clear case for wrongful arrest and should be suitably compensated as such.
If you are not under arrest, and the police take your camera to look at the photos, then depending on the circumstances you may have a case for compensation for an illegal search.
If the police delete any of your photographs then this is an act of criminal damage. If they delete any of your photographs after you have been arrested, then they are committing a crime of tampering with evidence. They also cannot force you to delete your pictures. This adds an extra layer of at least abuse of power if they threaten you with arrest if you fail to delete the photographs, again we are back to wrongful arrest.. it may even spill over to blackmail.
All this apart..
If you are stopped by the police for taking photographs in a public place, keep calm, talk quietly and controlled (protect against breach of the peace). If you are using a Tripod, fold it up. (protect against causing an obstruction). Comply with any reasonable requests, you don’t have to, but if they ask to see your pictures show them, if they ask for your name address etc, you don’t have to but its better if you do. (later on, it shows that you were compliant). 999 times out of 1000 the police will then just let you carry on with your lawful act of street photography. In the event that you are approached by the police and you have been as compliant as what is reasonable, and they are obstructing you in your lawful activity, then its time to quote laws at them. But still remain calm and in control. It is important not to give them any grounds to arrest you other than for why they originally confronted you.
Ultimately, if they arrest you, smile and think of the new piece of expensive glass you are going to get for your camera from the compensation!!!!
until you are actually stopped, read up on the laws, make sure you know what is legal and what is not. The chances are that you will have a better understanding of the law than the police officer who is harassing you.
March 6th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
In the eighties we had “Maggies Stormtoopers” and now we have “Gordons Gestapo”. Scary!!
March 6th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
It is illegal to take photos in public in the UK. Whether or not it’s right is one thing, but the police did have a right to approach him and ask for his information. He was breaking the law.
In a country that still has some kind of monarchy and has always relied on their government to manage many of the details of their lives, can you really be that amazed that such a law exists? That is not a statement of judgment. I’m just pointing out the difference in mentalities.
As far as change goes, sometimes it takes a little civil disobedience to make it happen.
March 6th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Excuse me, I meant it is essentially illegal. There are so many funky rules about taking photos, that it may as well be.
March 7th, 2010 at 1:56 am
Isn’t it amazing how many “subservients” rush to support the “authorities” JUST SO LONG AS IT’S NOT THEIR OX THAT’S BEING GORED.
I wonder how many of the sheep posting here, whose only reply to a demand to “jump” from authority is “how high,” will still be so quick to comply when it’s THEIR fundamental right to enjoy freedom of speech and the liberty to live their lives as they see fit that is being dismissed by some officious, numbered functionary outfitted with 2-way radio and handcuffs?
This business of claiming “for security reasons” is bogus bullshit 99% of the time. But our backbone-free political masters have seen fit to put such vague and groundless laws into place that clearly trample all over our right to freedom, mainly because, along with the other “motherhood & apple pie” issues, it’s so politically correct to do so. No one will fault you for wanting to protect the “citizens.” It never dawns on folks to ask “at what cost?”
In this day and age he who has the gun is deemed correct, by default. It’s not fair, of course, so the only recourse for the average citizen is either to become compliant and subservient (become one of the bleating sheep), or to become even better at lying and being sneaky, cunning and underhanded than the “authority” is. This is usually not too difficult for any reasonably intelligent person but I must admit that as time passes, “authority” makes gains. Even bullies improve their tactics.
(Aside #1) – interesting how it is deemed an OFFENCE to LIE TO AUTHORITIES but it’s not an offence for authorities to lie to us. Question: how much trust would YOU put in someone you know in advance is allowed to lie to you by law? Answer: NONE… unless you’re a complete idiot.
(Aside #2) – interesting to learn that the millions of dollars’ worth of cameras installed in Vancouver to provide “security” for the recent Olympics, WILL REMAIN IN PLACE. Like we couldn’t see this one coming. Won’t be long before all Canadians will be under the kind of surveillance as their UK friends now enjoy.
This world where we’re “allowed” to be free only so long as some authority says so, is beginning to suck, BIG TIME. I’m sure glad I’m closer to the end of life’s journey than the beginning. I can’t fight them but I sure will never join them. If the nouveau-gestapo ever come for me they’d better have an iron-clad case… otherwise, I’m going to be a rich old dude from the court-awarded proceeds. (Of course, I won’t live long enough to get paid – they’ll just keep obstructing justice (as they’re experts in doing) until I’m dead.)
March 7th, 2010 at 5:02 am
Years ago i was shooting the No Pants Subway ride in NYC. This was the year where people started freaking out and the cops ended up getting called. I knew it was not illegal for me in anyway to be taking pictures of what was going on, and that photography in the subway was allowed, but as soon as they started hassling the other photographers and videographers i started to get nervous and put my camera back in it’s bag.
No one told me to put it away, but once they started asking for press passes (which i do not have) it was just more of a head ache to argue with the cops over my rights at the moment.
I missed some great moments though…
March 7th, 2010 at 5:08 am
Questioning and/or suspecting a fundamentally honest person is definitely frustrating and unfair for the individual, however, given the harsh reality of today’s world I believe that cooperating with authorities is the most reasonable approach even having a clear understanding that some of the very basic rights may be at risk of getting eroded and abused – after all there is no way of actually differentiating between an innocent act and a totally antisocial one if both individual are behaving the same way (at least in this instance and at this stage).
March 7th, 2010 at 5:46 am
Sorry, but I feel for the cops. Being in law enforcement, I certainly consider this guy’s attitude as being non-cooperative-especially for being contacted by LE three times. If there is no problem, why create one? I think he deserved a better explanation from the contact officers, but still, he made his choice.
March 7th, 2010 at 6:18 am
I’ve had two “section 44″ tickets so far. However last week the police took my camera and deleted an image I had taken because I had refused to delete it on scene.
This has clearly got out of hand, this is not a law used – but abused
March 7th, 2010 at 7:06 am
Some of you guys and girls seem rather angry. Here is the deal, and I hope I can word it in such a way that you don’t think that I’m just a “shill” for the man. If you are walking down the street minding your own business, and a cop walks up to you and demands ID. I would say you have every right to ask what the inquiry is about, and if he or she doesn’t explain the situation to your satisfaction, then you have the right to ask to speak with his supervisor. But let me say this: if you happen to match the description of some person of interest to the police, getting plucky with them will likely get you arrested as well. Now, walking down the street with a camera, and photographing various buildings, could be deemed suspicious. Right after 9/11, they caught a Muslim taking photographs of a large insurance company building in Newark, NJ. It turned out that the guy had Al Queda ties and was photographing the building to help plan an attack. Let’s go back to the two crap stirrers. If they had produced ID (which the police can legally ask you for) and said that the one dick just got a new camera and was trying it out, that would likely have been the end of the whole mess. Most cops embrace the “KISS” principle (Keep It Stimple Stupid.) In other words, if they guy’s camera looked new and he said he was trying it out, it would sound plausible enough to the cop that he or she would buy the story. It may not be so simple if you are photographing government buildings or buildings that could be terror targets. For comparison, photographing a “Brownstone” apartment building in NYC would not draw much attention, but photograph the Empire State Building or a court house, and you are inviting probing questions from the authorities. I’m pretty good at reading people, and I would bet a month’s salary that my assessment of the demeanor of the all of the police officers in the UK incident was one of interest and concern. They weren’t breaking balls. But the crap stirrers WERE.
March 7th, 2010 at 7:09 am
ilya wrote, in part: “I knew it was not illegal for me in anyway to be taking pictures of what was going on, and that photography in the subway was allowed, but as soon as they started hassling the other photographers and videographers i started to get nervous and put my camera back in it’s bag.”
And this is my fundamental point. What the police – OUR hired and paid “protectors” – are clearly doing is, in my opinion, illegal INTIMIDATION of citizens. If you or I decided to “intimidate/threaten/hassle” a neighbor, WE’D be arrested. If we did it, we’d be likely to at least have a valid reason to do so. The Police don’t need a reason – on a whim, at any time, any place – they can “intimidate/threaten/hassle” you. Sure, you can object, call a lawyer, take them to court… and maybe even win. But most people won’t – too costly – too time consuming – and there’s the very real fear that if they do win, the police will REALLY be on their case forever more.
We need SEVERE and PERSONAL penalties for “authorities” who are found guilty of such behavior. Right now, except where they’ve been caught on video with their “pants down,” the police close ranks and bury the whole thing in “internal affairs.” The shut out the public – because they can – and simply outwait complainers – because they can. Even in the rare case where officers are found guilty of assault or whatever, THEIR defence fund and fines are paid by US (which includes those who they assaulted). Sure they may lose their jobs but that’s not much of a penalty for the crime of “intimidating/threatening/hassling and even outright beating” of citizens. Why such laws are not on the books is beyond me.
And to naco – clearly “cooperating with authorities” will get us off the hook much of the time and is the route that most of us take, most of the time. BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO BECOME A PARTICIPANT IN YOUR OWN INTIMIDATION to avoid arrest and detention. And every time we allow “authorities” to get away with such ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR only increases the chances that they’ll do it again to the next “suspect.” Why not, if it works? And the only reason it works is because we let it by being gutless, cowering sheep. Those who behave like beaten weaklings only invite further abuse. Enjoy.
March 7th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Ok! Perspective people. THEY ASKED HIM FOR HIS NAME!!!!. They also told him why they had approached him in the first place.
To all these people getting agro on the forum about violated rights and intimidation tactics – did you even watch the video? These cops were not harrassing him, I certainly didn’t find them to be intimidating and they asked a simple question.The police were calm and polite in the face of a difficult person.
And to the person who thinks all of us who think this way are sheep, stop being so paranoid to think that everyone in authority is out there to make our lives difficult.
March 7th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
I can understand the man’s frustration in being approached by police for innocently going about his business, and it’s always a good thing to be informed of your rights. However, I also think the police have a really difficult job dealing with the general public – a public who has, for the most part, lost all respect for authority – in a world full of huge acts of violence and devastation.
If I were in this situation, and I knew I had the right to refuse the information requested by the police, I would still choose to give it. I think it just makes the current hypo paranoid situation much worse when one acts like they are hiding something. If you don’t have anything to hide, then I believe we should try to work with the police to make their very difficult job as easy as we can. Imagine if the photographer had been a terrorist, or some type of anti-social person, and the police let him go on his way because he knew and applied his rights. People would have been abusing the police up hill and down dale!!! And they certainly wouldn’t have been saying, ‘Well, yeah, he turned out to be a terrorist, but he does have his rights, you know!’
March 7th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
The only reply I can give to those who say “well, if you have nothing to hide” or ” I have nothing to hide”, Well then yes, today or tomorrow you may not have,
But next week or the week after when all of your rights have been taken away because people did not protect those rights you will have somthing to hide. like your political opinion, your freedom of speech (nearly gone now anyway) freedom of religeon,
This current govenrment is doing its best at the moment to take away your rights as a free person small steps at a time. a little bit here and a little bit there, they get you used to giving up a right, then take it away by law …
Has anyone looked at the current digital rights act that is currently getting rushed through parliment? If it goes through, and proberbly will, then when the next time MPs abuse the expensis the newspaperswill not be able to publish the leaked paperwork. If they do, as the copyright holder, they will strong arm the Hosting company to take the site down without a court order. They have done this by making the service provider responsible for the leagl fees of the copyright holder in relation to getting a court order for a take down notice. Service providerswill just cave in to save the legal fees….
March 8th, 2010 at 12:19 am
Marty… you and I are wasting our bandwidth on many of these “compliants.” They’re all like the frogs in the example: Drop a frog in hot water and it will immediately jump out. Put a frog in a pot of cold water then SLOWLY heat the water. The frog will notice things are getting warmer but by the time he/she decides “hey, this is too warm!” it’s too hot for them to move and they die.
Same with these “sheeple.” Their individual right to live free according to their own desires and capabilities is slowly being withdrawn and they, like the frogs, just don’t have the vision to foresee their own doom. Marie calls me “paranoid.” Well, Marie… it isn’t paranoia when “they” are ACTUALLY AFTER YOU. And if you can’t see what’s happening to your rights – if you can’t recognize authoritarianism when it stares you in the face with example after example, or don’t have the sense to care, then you’re about to get what you deserve.
Yup… terrorists exist. But it’s quite a stretch of anyone’s imagination to ask us to buy that a terrorist would deliberately wave a camera in front of a bunch of paranoid police and then further inflame their delicate sensibilities by refusing to “cooperate.” It is ridiculous to consider this photographer either anti-social or suspect him of terrorism. If you want a demonstration of paranoia, Marie, the police just gave you a video of paranoia in action.
So Marie – and all the rest of you who think as she does – let us know when you think you’ve given up enough freedoms and the right to be left alone in return for the “protection” offered by “authorities.” Just how much freedom are you willing to give up to PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM? Your every move in public is being filmed and scrutinized. I wonder how long it will be before “it’s illegal to scratch your crotch in public legislation” will be on the books and enforced? Think that’s ridiculous? No more than to be detained by police because you’re photographing a public building.
Whoever told “authorities” they have ownership of some cache of “rights” and some God-given permission to dole them out to us as they see fit? It is fundamental to me: I HAVE RIGHTS because I am a human being. NO ONE “gives” me rights – I OWN THEM, outright and irrevocably, from the day I was born to the day I die. They are, as they say, INALIENABLE. Period.
But when faced with legions of armed, lead-headed “authorities” who, whenever they wish, are clearly physically able to overpower my right to being left alone, I do agree with many here that it is foolish to keep poking at the bear with a stick. The only way to intelligently deal with today’s “authorities” is to AVOID THEM – learn their ways intimately, and then stay out of their way. It’s a David and Goliath thing – and you know who won that one.
I used to strongly disagree with Americans and their love affair with guns – “Right to Bear Arms” – but I’m well on my way to understanding what their founding fathers apparently knew about “authority.” Allow politicians/bureaucrats/police a little power over you and they’ll eventually find plausible reasons to take more and more until they have all the power and you have none (or at least, none that matters to them). Perhaps when “authority” knows you’re not simply a harmless patsy sitting duck target, and that you likely have a few “teeth” (guns at home) left, there’s at least the potential to slow the takeover.
When police stop you for running a red light or arrest you ON EVIDENCE you are planning to, or have committed, a criminal offense is one thing. To be able to invade your privacy and detain you ON A WHIM (and that’s what the harassing/detaining/intimidation in this video is – a “whim”) is simply not acceptable to me.
March 8th, 2010 at 5:00 am
Does anyone know how many actual crimes are stopped by the police while in progress? Virtually none. The idea that cops are roaming around the streets, protecting citizens and arresting criminals committing crimes in progress in a big city are laughably absurd; outside of the anecdotal. Other than crimes that take place and involve undercover work, there’s no immediate arrests (if any) nor is there a need for cops to roam around the streets because all they wind up doing is provoking and harassing people. I personally NEVER feel safe when cops are riding around my neighborhood (and it’s not a very nice one). I’ve gotten so much needless harassment and have seen so much of it, I feel like these thugs riding around “fighting crime” are the real threat because most of them will do whatever they want, whenever they want. That’s my personal opinion, sure, but it’s not for no good reason.
I live in Chicago in the states and the police are as notorious as they come. Just 3-4 or so years ago it was discovered by an internal investigation that the CPD tortured hundreds, if not thousands of confessions out of people. Of course the statues were too old so there were no prosecutions. What a beautiful system. Wrongful convictions are a known problem here. A few years ago the governor of Illinois pardoned EVERYONE on death row because so many people had already been killed by the state when they were innocent.
Tell me that’s not frightening.
And for those who give convoluted reasons for, as Richard Earl put it, jumping when the police tell you, why don’t you just say what you mean: I’ll give up my liberty for (so-called) security.
If you think terrorism will be stopped by handing over your rights to take pictures, you simple don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Find an intelligence officer that will tell you that’s the best way and I’ll find you 100 more that disagree. If you know even a shred of history you’d know this is the way freedom dies. Not terrorism, not taking pictures, but people willingly giving up their rights for some vague notion of security the state has concocted to enact laws that basically toss your rights in the trash. Educate yourselves, it’s not rocket science.
March 8th, 2010 at 5:31 am
So some of you folks think that being nice and compliant with the officer who has just stopped you for doing nothing wrong or illegal, and by misusing an extreme anti-terror power that even their own bosses say should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and then giving them your name and address when requested (something you are not compelled to do under Section 44), that is the end of the matter and you are on your way – wrong, that is only the start of your troubles. Apart from your name being radioed into HQ where it will end up on the police computer and the Special Branch/Home Office Database, which is shared with the FBI/CIA/NSA, and may well come back to haunt you the next time you go to the USA on holiday and those nice folks from Customs and Homeland Security haul you in to be ‘interviewed’ because there is something on your record about ‘terrorism’ – even if it has the word ‘anti-’ before it (just ask the hundreds of British tourists who have had this treatment about it), we must also remember the full body and bag search which they will likely carry out in full view of the public on the high street or shopping area where you have been pulled up that acccompanies it. Yes that feels very nice when you are a law abiding person who has done nothing wrong doesn’t it? If you think that sort of embarrassing and humiliating experience is nothing to worry about because the nice in uniform folks are just doing their very difficult and well paid job then you are kidding yourself!
There is a term called ‘Police Creep’ which is used whenever a new law is brought in, and certain members of the force will try to see how far they can push that law, usually the point where the public get up in arms (as we now are) is the point where it stops and then the police know what they can and can’t get away with after that. The current creeping point of Section 44 is a long way over the line at the moment.
To those of you who think we should be obedient and respect authority and the uniform I would suggest you Google the words ‘Guilford Four’, ‘Birmingham Six’ and ‘Stefan Kiszko’ to name just a few. No one gets my respect unless they earn it, uniform or no uniform. In God we may Trust, but everyone else has to earn mine.
From what I’ve been reading some of you seem to think this whole issue is about one guy who overreactedf a little when ’44ed’, it isn’t he is just the latest in a very long line of incidents going back over a number of years, and most did behave in the right way when stopped, but still got the ‘treatment’ (a minority of officers actually enjoy making you squirm, they aren’t all nice and honest bobbies!). If you folks come to England on holiday and get treated like that when you photograph Buck House or the London Eye I don’t think you will be going home thinking our bobbies are wonderful!:-)
March 8th, 2010 at 5:41 am
@Richard Earl
You make a good point about rights. Something almost no one understands is that the state doesn’t create rights, they allow you to use the rights you already have, often called “natural rights”, or take them away as they please. Your rights exists and are regulated by a corporate state (such as here in the good ole USA), and when that corporate state can — often with the help of some cowardly/confused/afraid citizens — take them from you whenever the political climate allows with anti-terror legislation, Stalinism, or some other fear mongering, they will. The fact that this debate is even taking place should show us all something about the state of “democratic’ societies. Living in the US this is just what we deal with. It’s doesn’t happen everywhere, but it happens in any of our hundreds of cities all the time.
Again, for those unfamiliar with history I’d recommend something simple as a refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
March 8th, 2010 at 7:55 am
Whew! Thanks to Alan Gale and Jason for adding a “here, here” to my posted views. I was beginning to think I really am “anti-social,” whatever the hell that means. The weird part of this, for me, is that I am educated to Master’s level in Social Work! I’m supposed to just “love” people and rush to their aid at the drop of a tear.
Well, after many years “in the field,” my respect for and love of MOST people is all but gone. Maybe I just ran into all the wrong examples, but my conclusion is that MOST people that I’ve had the misfortune to deal with lack any ability to critically analyze situations, plan strategy, or, frankly, to do much else but adhere to whatever “party line” makes them LESS DIFFERENT from those around them. MOST people’s greatest fear is that they will stand out in a crowd. As I said before… SHEEPLE. Baaaaa.
March 8th, 2010 at 9:48 am
I stand with the photographer. Both sides have argued well. I have watched our freedoms being lost for aver 50 years, now. It is always done because there is a “bad” element someone must be protected from. I had to have blood tests before my baby was born even though my husband and I both had negative blood–because some women cheat on their husbands. I had to have drug tests for many employment opportunities because others do drugs. –Minor inconveniences compared to the blatant harrassment of the photographers. Will it stop? I doubt it. Those who think we answer to any authority without question, should remember we all answer to a Higher Authority.
March 8th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Oh damn, kathy… I was with you right up to “we all answer to a Higher Authority.”
Intimidation is intimidation no matter what level of “authority” it comes from, or even if that “authority” is real or imaginary.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
I guess this is what we over here in the States have to look forward to while we sit on our hindquarters watching Dancing With The Stars, Americas Got Talent, & American Idol. From what I’ve read in the papers, in the cities the cameras are already going up keeping a watch on the people and we don’t do anything about it. Oh yeah! I forgot, it’s for our own safety.
March 9th, 2010 at 12:14 am
I have to be honest…I share much of the same sentiment of those who feel this guy was out of line and going too far with his ‘bent against authority’. While I whole heartedly support the need for our rights as photographers, I am also very aware of how and why police react the way they do in these times. Let’s face it people…it’s “not like it used to be”!! With a world full of terrorists, pedofiles, etc…the police have a right to at least question what we’re doing from time to time.
I have on one occasion, been questioned by authorities exactly as this fellow was. I saw no immediate need to be combative or uncooperative, so I chose to be respectful, but cautious and answered the questions that were asked of me. Believe me…being polite and cooperative went a long way. The thanked me for responding and sent me on my way…and…in the process, I was allowed to shoot a photo of one of the officers!! It was as simple as that!
Trust me people…in many circumstances, we catch more flies with honey!
March 9th, 2010 at 6:55 am
It was last spring at a mall near our home in Ill. I was talking photos of my grandson and his friend, they were both a 1.5 yrs old, so cute and sweet in their sailor outfits. I was shooting with a Canon 20D & a 200 mm lens, so I was getting close ups of their sweet expressions, that’s when an officer from the mall walked up to me and told me that I could not take photos in the mall. He gave me the lowdown about “after 911 the restircitions are….” I did attempt to show him what I had captured to assure him that I was taking photos of my 2 guests but he wouldn’t have anything to do with my explaination or my viewing screen on my camera. So I did listen and put my camera away, but what bugged me about this occurrence was there were other parents in that play area taking photos with their “point and shots” that this officer did not even approach. Yikes!
March 9th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Some more interesting reading here for you folks that think we’re all just paranoid:
http://www.bindmans.com/index.php?id=672
From the latest EPUK Newsletter:
* The shooting party’s over
The Sunday Times on the dangers of daring to take a photograph in public
- and the Oxford Mail reports on the ex-RAF amateur photographer stopped
by police under terrorism legislation
Sunday Times: http://tinyurl.com/yfp5cho
Oxford Mail: http://tinyurl.com/yjvcqj9
EPUK: http://www.epuk.org/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/photoblog/2009/12/in_the_eyes_of_the_law.html
Essential reading, do visit this site or join their Facebook group:
http://photographernotaterrorist.org/
And finally, if planning a visit to the UK do print out a ‘Stop & Search’ card first, this will inform you of your rights (the Police don’t seem to know what they are, so you better had!):
http://photographernotaterrorist.org/bust-card/
“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things” – Winston Churchill.
March 9th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Oh, c’mon now, Benjamin Brown:
“With a world full of terrorists, pedofiles, etc…the police have a right to at least question what we’re doing from time to time.”
First of all, the “world” is NOT “full of terrorists, pedofiles, etc.” (however the two get connected in your view is way beyond my ability to understand). Yes, there are SOME – a FEW – a VERY FEW – “terrorists” hell bent on mayhem. But since when is it imperative that the VAST MAJORITY give up their rights to privacy and freedom from random hassle by police on the possibility the authorites will catch a “terrorist?” To me that is an EXHORBITANT COST for a questionable result.
And lastly, your assumption that the “police have a right to at least question what we’re doing from time to time” is, in my view, nonsense. Sure, if I’m breaking into a store or committing an armed holdup or beating up an old lady – THEN they have a right…. But if I’m just walking down the street taking a few pictures they have NO right to question me, Section 44 or no Section 44! If I’m not COMMITTING an offence, then I do not accept that I am accountable for my actions to any “authority.”
Those who think I’m anti-social or a shit-disturber or have a “bent against authority” are not only incorrect but are missing the point. I have NO ARGUEMENT when “authority” is coming down hard on the “bad guys.” However, if “authority” can’t tell the difference between a law-abiding citizen and a bad guy without walking all over my fundamental right to be free from their intimidation and other tactics – THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM, and I will not allow them to make it so – not without a fight, anyway.
March 9th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Richard, thanks for the hilarious posts. I was having a bad day at work until I saw them.
First of all, I find it ironic that you go on and on about peoples fundamental rights, however you then turn to name-calling and belittling when people don’t agree with you. How about our fundamental rights to our own oppinions and beliefs. You are being nothing but a cyber bully.
Secondly, you aren’t really looking at this objectively. They asked his name and told him why they were asking. I am commenting on my view of this video attached to this article. Thats it. I am not commenting on every single issue that has ever happened in the history of man as I don’t feel that this article was meant to be a debate about human rights in general. You know nothing of my beliefs on other issues so to make assumptions about how I react to authority in general is just ignorance on your part.
Name call all you like – I’ve made my point and I’m done.
March 10th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Thanks, Marie… always nice to have one’s thoughts/opinions laughed at… especially by a poster who is so paranoid herself that she doesn’t even give her full name in the box that says “required.” I wonder how those wonderful, friendly, police would react when they stop her and ask for her name and be told “Marie?”
How about my fundamental right to MY opinion?
And it’s not bullying when the “victims” have a clear choice to IGNORE the bully.
And finally… you miss the point entirely when you go on about the police just asking his name. Either I assign the right to “authority” over me, (you assign the right to “authority” over you), or SOMEONE ELSE JUS TAKES IT. I do not remember assigning my right to privacy and autonomy to ANYONE. Just because some other self-appointed “authority” chooses to dictate which rights I can have and which I can’t, doesn’t mean I must agree or comply. As I said before I am not on this planet to do someone else’s bidding… or to do chores, for that matter. But that’s another issue.
And you’re wrong about what I understand about your “beliefs.” You’ve revealed PLENTY about what you believe. You are a COMPLIANT. Just to support the notion that we all should automatically comply with a command from a police officer to give our name whenever an officer chooses to ask clearly puts you in the category of SHEEPLE.
Disagree if you wish. But please answer my question:
“Just how much freedom are you willing to give up to PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM?”
We already know you’re willing to give up your right to remain anonymous whenever “authority” asks. So tell us… just where do YOU draw the line?
Is it OK with you that police can review your phone calls and bank balances whenever they wish?
Is it OK with you that police can come to your door any hour, day or night, and interrogate you?
Is it OK with you that your every move in public is photographed and recorded?
They can do all this and a whole lot more without your permission or knowledge. Is this the kind of police state in which you want to live? How loud are you going to holler when it’s finally YOUR OX that’s being GORED?
My entire point is: I don’t think the one-in-a-million chance “authority” might find a terrorist on these fishing expeditions is sufficient reason to trade my right to privacy and freedom for “authority’s” right to invade it and detain me, at least without sufficient evidence and a court order. If you think it is, given its the nature of authority to continually press for more and more power, the end result can be nothing more than you lose ANY RIGHT to live your life in peace and privacy and freedom. Sure, it’s not there yet… but with your compliance, it will be – bet on it.
Like you… “I’ve made my point and I’m done.” Unless someone comes up with something new I’m finished regurgitating my views and opinions on this forum. Thanks for your patience.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:54 am
Another statement on this issue today from the government’s anti-terrorism minister:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Stop_and_search_and_photographers_Anti_terrorism_minister_issues_statement_news_295778.html
Quote from the article:
“During the meeting Austin Mitchell (MP who has been campaigning for photographers rights) called for a ‘strengthening’ of the ACPO and Home Office guidelines on photography that were issued last year.
He told the minister: ‘We think it’s appropriate to strengthen these circulars [to police officers] to assert the fact that photography is a right. Photographers need to feel confident and not inhibited. The circular could emphasise that.’
Amateur Photographer staff relayed photographers’ ongoing concerns that their right to take photographs in public has yet to be sufficiently communicated to police officers on the ground, despite ACPO, Home Office and Met Police guidelines.
Mitchell urged the Home Office to improve the training of Police Community Support Officers who many photographers have reported as the predominant abusers of anti-terror laws”.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:48 pm
In my opinion, this is all kind of like the reality tv that so many people seem to like so well here in America.. Everybody wants their 15 minutes of fame. Otherwise, why not just tell them your name…big deal! Get a life! Yes, I was a bit disturbed as I was watching the vid.
#1…we don’t see where or in what manner the photog was shooting his pictures. We only see the argument with the officer(s). Also ..#2…Stating one’s name seems like such a small thing to me when compared with spending EIGHT HOURS with the Po Po!
Come on people….You can be right..You can also be DEAD right, if you are killed in a traffic accident when you didn’t stop for the car running the red light just because YOU had the “right of way”.
We are a selfish society. We all want to exercise our “rights”. God has the “right” to strike us with lightning when we commit selfish acts of stupidity against each other too. Instead He lets us continue in our selfishness and never with holds His Love from us.
The photog kept saying the officer wouldn’t answer his “simple question” if he was being detained…well, he wouldn’t answer her “simple question” of his name either.
Yes, I have been hassled several times for taking pictures in public places. Never by the police, but by people who really have no authority..three times by security guards, and once by a man who asked me what I was taking pictures of in my own neighborhood, who then promptly took a picture of me w/o my permission. So whose rights were at stake here? Who cares! I’m going out now to take pictures in public places!
March 24th, 2010 at 12:55 am
Photographers express caution after talks with anti-terror minister (update)
23rd March 2010
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographers_express_caution_after_talks_with_antiterror_minister_news_296194.html
March 24th, 2010 at 7:19 am
Yes, bumfan, it used to be this way… ” I guess I was raised with the value that people in authority, especially law enforcement, are to be trusted and obeyed unless evidence suggests otherwise.”
I could go on for pages but I won’t. I just want to leave you with this one FACT. Remember it always.
YOU MAKE A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHEN YOU ASSUME THAT THOSE SET IN AUTHORITY OVER YOU… KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE DOING!
I assume you understand what “fundamental error” means.
Either the citizens of a country are in charge, or the “authorities” are. If you’re OK bowing down to “authority” like a conditioned Pavlovian dog, then, boy, you’re going to fit right in with the NEW WORLD ORDER. Hope you enjoy it.
But I won’t be with you. Either I am free to enjoy what I wish to enjoy on this planet (without harming or interfering with others) or I’d rather be dead. I’m sure as hell not here to do someone else’s bidding or to work my ass off for half a year or more to pay taxes so “authorities” can waste it as they see fit, or, frankly, to do chores. If you are.. it’s all yours.
March 24th, 2010 at 8:12 am
@Bumfan
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” – Ben Franklin
March 30th, 2010 at 6:38 am
@bumfan
> Why wouldn’t this guy give his “details?”
Well, I see it like this. If you live in a free country then you don’t have obey “Papers please”. And if you get arrested for being “suspicious” if you don’t do it, then you are actually not allowed to disobey “papers please”.
And then you live in a de facto police state. It’s very Kafkaesque.
I’ve never been bothered by the police here in Sweden. Only a security guard who threatened me. Fortunately a policeman was nearby to let them know that “He can take photos of whatever the f- he wants”.
April 12th, 2010 at 3:23 am
Last year i was trying to take pictures for a panoramic shots of the downtown skyline, when a cop came to me and asked me to delete all the pics I had taken in the last few mins. At that time i did not know about my rights so i complied, but it was really disturbing since :
a) im not a professional photographer
b) i was in high school and only using a point and shoot.
April 16th, 2010 at 2:07 am
I just photograph stuff for fun. I don’t travel much so mostly I just try to take pictures of every day places and buildings etc in downtown Toronto from interesting angles (I try, anyway).
I’ve never been hindered by anyone though I admit I feel a little awkward walking around with my modest Nikon D60 with a kit lens and a telephoto zoom lens…reason is I wear the hijab (the Muslim headscarf). So even though I take pictures just because it makes me happy, a hesitation creeps in when I am in a very busy area because I assume that people might feel a little disturbed seeing a girl in a hijab photographing this building and that building
I’d be pretty sad if I am told some day not to take pictures / delete pictures I have taken of any regular old building or plant.
April 16th, 2010 at 8:00 am
Yes, zaaviyah, most of us raised in the western culture (I’m a Canadian born white, anglo-saxon, protestant WAS-P) (I put the “P” aside since it stands for Protestant – a sect of Christianity – a religion I do not belong to.) When I was growing up and taking education I do not recall EVER being taught anything about Muslims or any other “group” outside of the Judeo-Christian scene.
And until 911 Muslims were people “over there” and I had no reason whatever to interact with them. There may have been Muslims in Toronto, where I grew up, but I never saw or spoke to one that I know of.
I think most who were raised as I was are still ignorant about your culture. We don’t understand some of your ways and beliefs – they are foreign to us. And as with all other cultures, a few of the “other” people around is a curiosity and interesting – certainly not a threat. But when hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands “invade” your space, FEAR raises it’s ugly head and the trouble begins.
I mean… just imagine if a few hundred thousand WASPs (English, Irish, American… whatever) arrived as RESIDENTS in Mecca and started up nightclubs and bars, with the women in miniskirts, etc. There would be hell to pay!
So you, standing on a WASP street, in a hijab, stand out like a flashing red light. It’s going to take many generations to sort this out, I’m afraid.
Bye for now, zaaviyah (sorry, I can even pronounce your name). (We have several non-WASP news broadcasters on Canadian radio and TV – and when they say their non-WASP names, I have no idea how to spell them or pronounce them. As the saying goes – It’s Greek To Me! I’m sorry, I’m not about to overhaul my culture to accommodate yours any more than the Muslims in Mecca would allow us to set up shop with our sacreligious, infidel ways. Isn’t it just a lot easier on everyone if we all just stayed where we belong?)
April 16th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Richard, thanks for your post
Girls in hijabs are a pretty common sight on Toronto streets these days. So I don’t think it’s my hijab that makes me stand out (such is the beauty of Toronto with its hordes of different faces), but I just feel a little awkward when I am trying to photograph in a busy spot.
Appreciation for beauty around us and the desire to capture it in our minds or in pictures is a universal concept. I don’t think it requires any one to overhaul their culture or anything else. With so much variety, diversity and beauty in the world, I think we would all be better off if we explored beyond our comfort zones.
Cheers
April 17th, 2010 at 12:44 am
Well, zaaviyah, I left Toronto in 1973 and have briefly visited only twice since. I do not know or recognize the city of my youth. I feel no connection to it. It is no longer a place of my culture or where I feel comfortable. And because I did not feel comfortable I guess I missed the “beauty” that you see. I saw only unfamiliar chaos and all I wanted to do was leave.
Yes… I guess I resent the HUGE changes that have come upon my country. I like to VISIT the new and unfamiliar and different. I enjoy new experiences. I’ve travelled the world – Australia, Philippines, China, Japan… and more. But that doesn’t mean it’s my desire to be immersed in changes not of my making or understanding.
So I left Toronto for Vancouver. And until those in authority in that city decided to remake Vancouver into a “World Class City” with Expo 86, it was a wonderful place to live. Now, in 2010, it is known as “Hongcouver”- hundreds of thousands of Oriental, non-English speaking people have moved there and changed MY CITY into something I didn’t recognize, or want, or feel comfortable in.
So it’s happened to me twice. So now I live 70km from any city on an acreage. I figure that at my age (retired) there’s a pretty good chance that I’ll be dead by the time some foreigners decide to buy up all the land around me and bring their country and customs once again into mine. But I don’t think it’s fair that I should be the one that always must move to regain my “comfort zone.”
As you said… exploring beyond our comfort zones makes us all better off. I mostly agree but such drastic change cannot be forced upon anyone without serious repercussions. I think I have a right NOT to change or accommodate change IN MY OWN COUNTRY if I so wish. If I moved to Mecca I would expect to change MY ways to meet local expectations. This includes my behavior, my dress, my food, my language and perhaps even my religion (if I had any). But the millions who’ve moved to Canada bring their country with them and it seems to me they expect Canada to change to meet their expections.
But anyway… if you find “beauty” in Toronto… or anywhere else… great! It’s all yours now.
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:50 pm
not exactly to do with photography but is related to the discussion here as it is the police assuming powers they don’t have..
today I was contacted by the police regarding a facebook group I am a member of. The page is in regards to a Joshua Bacon who was convicted of manslaughter. The details were that he shook his 7 week old baby daughter, Caitlyn Smith, to death in a hospital. I among others are disgusted that he only got a 30 month prison sentence.
I was contacted by the police and told to not post any more comments on the group.
the reason for the ban was that a few days ago, while a discussion was in progress regarding the judge, we decided that someone should write to the judge asking for an explanation of the sentencing. The guy who set up the group said ” I will sort it”.
somebody reported this to the high courts in London as a “veiled threat” towards the judge or Joshua bacon. The result was that they have increased security at the high courts and the prison that Joshua bacon is serving his sentence in…
the end result, the high courts are applying for a removal of the facebook group and I have been told by the police to not make any further posts on the group.
My problem is that I agree with the group and that the sentence was ridiculous, I also hate the fact that the police with no authority have told me to not exercise my right to freedom of speech. On the other hand, I have a busy life and can do without having the police and/or the high courts on my back. Its a no win situation… do I stand and fight and put my own liberty and family at risk, or get on with my life?
well I will be at the life for a life protest march and rally in London 3rd May 2010 in support of justice for families…
April 24th, 2010 at 9:10 am
If I were you, Martin, I’d hire an attorney and refer any calls from police to him/her. If you’re counselled to “go along” and “comply” I’d be making plans to move to another country with the greatest of haste because the one you’re living in is an unliveable police state.
Leaving is the only feasible way to turn your “no win” situation into a “win-lose” situation. You win by leaving. They lose your contribution to society, as relatively small as it might be, it is still their loss. It doesn’t matter that they don’t care about losing you. What matters is that you care enough about yourself and your loved ones to leave.
As for protest marches – absolutely useless in a police state. Unless the group is large enough to storm and take the bastille you will be ignored.
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:27 pm
I’m from Italy and last week I was visiting London. One evening I got out from my guest house in Ealing to take pictures at a nearby church, seeing that (finally!) the sun had appeared. After the church I kept on shooting photos around to document the place where I was living – as I usually do when travelling, also because the light was really good and there were some interesting buildings like a nice pub, some typical British cottages and shops. I was going back to my guest house when a man came out from a shop asking me why I was taking pictures.
Is not that question a weird one? As if the mere act of photographing is considered not natural anymore… I could see from his face and accent that he was not English, and that to me was even more strange. He said he was the owner of the building where the shop I had photographed was and that it was forbidden to take photographs of it. He went on saying that he was worried because in that building lived several families… at that point I understood that he suspected me to be a terrorist – oh gosh! I replied calmly that there were no motives that he should worry because I was a tourist and I was taking pictures just as a souvenir, but he insisted in his tough line repeating over and over that it was forbidden. I said that I was in a pubblic street and so I could take as many pictures as I want. He became even more threatening saying that I had to delete the photos… I don’t know if my reply was a wise one but I told him that if he was worried he should call the police. Then I turned away and came back home but I really feared that he could assault
me.
I wonder how the police would have considered my position…
February 18th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
I think it’s crazy that the photographer wouldn’t give the officer his name. Unfortunately, terrorism is a reality. It is being planned everyday against innocent people who are unaware of what these terrorists are doing right under our their noses. Don’t blame officers for this, blame the terrorists who have made it difficult for police officers to believe that if a citizen is photographing something, it has no tie to planning the next large terror attack. If I have to give my name to an officer who is trying to do his job and protect citizens, I’ll do it.
February 19th, 2011 at 3:06 am
@tan – can you site one example of how giving an officer your name, will stop a terror attack?
Public photography is not a crime. If he were planting bombs or acting in a suspicious manner, then the police shoudl absolutely get involved.
Would you think differently, if somehow terrorism was connected to shopping and every time you walked into a store, you were detained by police and needed to show proof of identification?
February 22nd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
@jonsable
Photography is not a crime; I’m aware of that. However, all police officers have been trying to do is take notice of acitvities that at first glance do not seem like they are terorism-related, but when paired with other suspicious activity reported, a plan is revealed. It has happened and ever since 9-11, a lot of countries have started taking this approach. Unfortunately, some innocent people are affected at times.
By the way, shopping for certain items is actually considered to be suspicious, such as bomb-making materials. Can those same items be used for something other than that…of course. But, sometimes, if we just wait around to see what they are used for, it’ll be too late. I just think we should all look at the bigger picture.
Leave a Reply