I'm a photographer, not a terrorist

[Ash]

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=839021

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=836675

http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=1104

I'm not sure how many UK members here will be able to attend.

I was tempted to take along my SWC and shoot some super-wide shots of the probably small crowd of people, but thinking more I might try my best to take along the Razzle if I can find enough film in time.

Not really in the mood to shoot 5x4 instants, but it might come to that if I don't have enough film left!

Nice to know the freedom to take a photo in a public place is being destroyed piece by piece though.

[cobalt]

Not meaning to get political here, but the UK is beginning to seem quite similar to the U.S.

[Allen in Montreal]

Everyone is using every angle possible to restrict the the press, here in Canada we are facing the same type of rubbish.
politics
It will soon be illegal to insult a police officer in Montreal! No joke.
My guess, if that legislation (municipal) passes, it will soon be extended to city officials and to other levels of government.

This is not a political statement in the sense of one party vs another etc, it is clear fact with big business and the new generation of politicians.
The fact is, our governments want newspapers to publish the material they are given by said governments without question.
Don't laugh too quickly, it has been slowly brewing for a long while and the noose tightens with every year that passes.

Free Press is on its last legs, speak now or forever hold your shutter!
Soon tourist snap shots will be all that is permitted in the streets.
All the while, the real "risks" and left unaddressed.

[BradS]

didn't read the whole thing but...my immediate question has to do with the qualifying phrase "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". Have they defined anywhere what is likely to be useful? or is it left up to a judge to determine if a photo is likely to be useful....??? Seems that, unless it is fully defined, the law is open ended and dangerous (to basic liberty). All too easy to apply subjectively and with ill will.

[Allen in Montreal]

.......... the law is open ended and dangerous (to basic liberty). All too easy to apply subjectively and with ill will.

I have posted in the past about Quebec's privacy law that restricts publication of certain street images depending on the context and newsworthiness of the image. The massive distortion of this land mark barbaric ruling has turned into scenes where police now tell people it is illegal to shoot in the street without permission from everyone on the streets, in advance and they can be arrested!
That is of course a very large load of dog doo, but they sure do manage to chase a lot of people with cameras away when then need (want) to.

[John Kasaian]

Sheesh!

I made some of my best night photographs in Quebec back in '76 with a 35mm Canon and Ektachrome. I went to Montreal and it was midnight and pouring rain. The first open store I came across once I'd left the bus station was an adult bookstore run by a couple of very ill tempered dwarfs who objected to me dripping water in their shop---or maybe they were trying to close up shop for the night
---I don't know. I can't understand french!

[dsphotog]

If the intent is to eliminate anything that might be helpful to the bad guys.....
Yahoo earth comes to mind......or maybe even the whole web!

[Archphoto]

Thank God we don't have these laws here in Brazil.......

What everybody seems to forget is that with all the security measures they took in London they could not prevent the bombings.
What will hapen now is that it is no longer allowed to take pic's with a Hassy or RB, and that the REAL terrorist will take the pic's they need with a compact or cellphone.

In the early 80's I went to Eastern Germany many times with a Linhoff Master: nice, big and the security forces could see what I photographed, never had any problems.
I did not dare to take a Minox with me: the larger the better.

The UK, the US and many more states in the "free" West will become worse than Eastern Germany with these laws: bye bye "freedom" ..........

Peter, Goiânia, Brazil

[DJGainer]

I have posted in the past about Quebec's privacy law that restricts publication of certain street images depending on the context and newsworthiness of the image. The massive distortion of this land mark barbaric ruling has turned into scenes where police now tell people it is illegal to shoot in the street without permission from everyone on the streets, in advance and they can be arrested!
That is of course a very large load of dog doo, but they sure do manage to chase a lot of people with cameras away when then need (want) to.


I had no idea when I took this shot last March...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3367/3272076722_0116310451.jpg

[Nathan Potter]

Funny thing about harassment of photographers. In Nazi Germany Goebbels was very successful in limiting the use of photography in public places where the image might reflect poorly on the government. Pre WW II the threat of terrorism was minimal but paranoia was at an all time high. Sounds familiar.

But I have noticed another phenomena in the US. When I was much younger doing photography I was frequently harassed by the police and others while set up with a tripod (actually once beaten upon by railroad workers with shovels, and chased by a 90 year old lady with a broom). But as I got older the harassment decreased and now that I look much older I have essentially no trouble doing the same kind of photography. But now, for me, any public place is game for photography, this is my mantra of free speech and I'll die for the constitutional right. Of course it helps to be old enough so you don't care quite as much about dying.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Allen in Montreal]

I had no idea when I took this shot last March...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3367/3272076722_0116310451.jpg

The gates on Grand Allee! A very nice old B+Bs just around the corner, great city!
The issue her now is publishing faces without permission, the exemption is where the public's right to know supersedes the individual's right to privacy!

The very lose and liberal interpretation by police at their convenience is alarming.
But in more and more places around the world, we see the use of fear of X or Y as a method to gain public support for the restrictions of rights. It really is brilliant and the masses buy into it. Today I walked into a train station where a near riot broke out yesterday over train delays and heavy handed private security forces holding people back, two private security followed me around for a half hour just waiting to see if I would take a picture of massive lineups of commuter delays. The train station restrictions were design to prevent structural details from being analyzed for bad intent, not 10 angry commuters venting their issues with a train system falling into ruins!

Sad, the only people protected by restricting the press today were the inept bosses of the public transit system.

[Allen in Montreal]

Funny thing about harassment of photographers. In Nazi Germany Goebbels was very successful in limiting the use of photography in public places where the image might reflect poorly on the government. Pre WW II the threat of terrorism was minimal but paranoia was at an all time high. Sounds familiar.
............ But now, for me, any public place is game for photography, this is my mantra of free speech and I'll die for the constitutional right. Of course it helps to be old enough so you don't care quite as much about dying.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

More people need to be this passionate about their right to photograph in the streets and public spaces!

[Ash]

I had no problems in Brazil, but then again I was more conscious of my possessions because I was a tourist.

We'll see what happens on Monday. You might see me in the paper with the Fuji FP-UL!

[walter23]

Everyone is using every angle possible to restrict the the press

Yes, that seems to be exactly what this is really about. It's about restricting the activities of the press.

[Allen in Montreal]

Yes, that seems to be exactly what this is really about. It's about restricting the activities of the press.

Walter,
we all know legislation like this is not born out of a desire to restrict the press.
But the ambiguity in the wording of such legislation leads to daily abuse on the ground.

No one doubts the need for security measures, but end the ambiguous wide sweeping loose legislation. A good law is a clearly defined law that equips law enforcement with the tools they need to do the job to protect the population but also protects the rights and freedoms of the citizens. Laws such as the one proposed in the UK do not do that.

The law to protect an individual's right to privacy pertaining to the publication of a person's image out of context (in the Quebec ruling) is a decent concept that was very, very, poorly executed and abused on a daily basis to the point that it has made street photography (which include people), almost impossible.

End the ambiguity in legislation and be mindful of the rights and freedoms taken away in the name of security is the heart of the issue at hand.

best regards,

[John Kasaian]

I had no idea when I took this shot last March...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3367/3272076722_0116310451.jpg

That's one beautiful photo! Quebec is magical, isn't it?

[harrykauf]

Nobody bothered me in China....but when I first tested my new large format camera
in the back of a supermarket in london I got stopped by a trained monkey.

[Noeyedear]

Nobody bothered me in China....but when I first tested my new large format camera
in the back of a supermarket in london I got stopped by a trained monkey.

It's not photographers and cameras that are the problem it's Rucksacks, Who the hell has ever been blown up by a camera. Do we seriously think the bus bombers made a photographic study of the bus route. If photography is essential to terrorism do the authorities think with all the cameras in the world a law will stop it. I doubt there is anyone here on this site that does not have the ability to photograph something in public and no one be aware the picture has been taken.
What makes me laugh is that I shoot aerials, I can't think of anything in the country I could not get to if it was essential. If I was a terrorist and needed photography to plan my campaign on a building or person, would I let a law stop me? of course not. I'm sure there is a law somewhere that says you should not let bombs off in public, hell the fiends ignored that one too. What a load of hot air nonsense these laws are, the only people they will effect are law abiding citizens which have no intent to cause any harm. A map is more of a terrorist weapon, will they become unavailable to the public also?

Kevin.

[Noeyedear]

Not meaning to get political here, but the UK is beginning to seem quite similar to the U.S.

....or Russia maybe.
I thought all these wars we are fighting was to uphold our freedom, if it isn't then tell me why.
Kevin.

[Ash]

There was a very big turnout today.

See also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm

Sadly I'm not in the frame.

[Gordon Moat]

I am reminded of T-shirts that many skateboarders wear in California, which state simply "Skateboarding is not a crime". Maybe it's time we adopted such shirts:

Photography is not a Crime

[Ash]

See this link for my Stereo photographs from the day.

http://www.geocities.com/mrab1500/scotyard.html

[tombob]

See this link for my Stereo photographs from the day.

http://www.geocities.com/mrab1500/scotyard.html

very nice, probably the most unique work produced down there today.

[cobalt]

That's one beautiful photo! Quebec is magical, isn't it?

Yes, it is...

[Ash]

or maybe:


SKATEBOARDING
PHOTOGRAPHY
RACISM

Only one of these is a crime

Maybe add 'Terrorism' and put "only two"

[Allen in Montreal]

There was a very big turnout today.

See also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm

Sadly I'm not in the frame.

I bet the RCMP in Vancouver BC wished they had this law in place when they were caught on film (video) tazering, to death, a mentally disturbed man on a rant while he was lost and searching for his mother at the airport.

The idea of being able to arrest someone who sits near a police station and photographs everyone who enters and leaves the station is one thing, or outside a court house and photograph police after they testify or ask for a warrant, or the idea behind protecting the secret service and the anti terror squad from being filmed and images sent to "head office" to make up a hit list is fine, but to arrest a news photographer for taking pictures of a cop beat the $#@ out of someone while arresting them is another, and it is not far away I assure you!! :mad:

[Ash]

Allen it was obviously too little too late, I think once more (like previous protests by NUJ) the idea is to show the difference between a terrorist and a photographer.

[Ash]

Dakotah I hope that was flippant.

[Pete Watkins]

Ash,
You've done good. The sheer original thought to do stereo images on a demo is brilliant.
Well done and thanks for hilighting the problem.
Pete.

[Ash]

Thanks Pete, I am quite fond of the stereo experience. Maybe it's greed wanting two of everything ;)

[Allen in Montreal]

Allen it was obviously too little too late, I think once more (like previous protests by NUJ) the idea is to show the difference between a terrorist and a photographer.

Ash, at least you guys stood up and made some noise. Bravo.
Here, we just apologize for being alive while we get kicked in!

I get so upset as it is a daily issue for me, in the streets with my gear (2 canon digi, not LF), the harassment, the comments, the stares, the paparazzi cat calls, the way cops give you a double take as if you are a petty thief as you stand waiting to cross the street at a light and they drive by slowly looking you up and down.

It made the national news here, this is from CBC radio.


http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/asithappens/20090216-aih-2.wmv

[EdWorkman]

*About New York: No Photo Ban in Subways, Yet an Arrest.
>
> *By JIM DWYER, NY Times, February 17, 2009
>
>
> In the map of New York’s most forsaken places, it would be hard to
> top the Freeman Street stop on the No. 2 line in the Bronx, late on a
> February afternoon. Around 4:30 last Thursday, Robert Taylor stood
> on the station’s elevated platform, taking a picture of a train.
>
> “A few buildings in place,” he noted. “Nice little cloud cover
> overhead. I usually use them as wallpaper on my computer.”
>
> Finished with his camera, Mr. Taylor, 30, was about to board the
> train when a police officer called to him. He stepped back from the
> train.
>
> “The cop wanted my ID, and I showed it to him,” Mr. Taylor said. “He
> told me I couldn’t take the pictures. I told him that’s not true,
> that the rules permitted it. He said I was wrong. I said, ‘I’m
> willing to bet your paycheck.’ ”
>
> Mr. Taylor was right. The officer was enforcing a nonexistent rule.
> And if recent experience is any guide, one paycheck won’t come close
> to covering what a wrongful arrest in this kind of case could cost
> the taxpayers.
>
> Twice in the last five years, the Metropolitan Transportation
> Authority proposed a ban on photography in the subways as an
> antiterrorism measure. And in 2007, the city proposed severe
> restrictions on filming in the city streets, but retreated when
> visual artists and activists gathered 26,000 signatures on petitions
> of opposition within a few weeks.
>
> Both times that the transportation authority tried to ban
> photography, it, too, dropped the idea because of opposition. Even
> so, people taking pictures in the subways are regularly stopped by
> the police and asked to let the officers see their images or to
> delete them.
>
> “They don’t have to do that, and it’s completely unlawful to ask them
> to delete them,” said Chris Dunn, a lawyer with the New York Civil Liberties
> Union. “But it comes with the explicit or implicit threat
> of arrest. It’s a constant problem.”
>
> Mr. Taylor — a college student and an employee of a transportation agency
> that he did not want to identify — said he had been stopped before when taking
> pictures, but without problems.
>
> Not this time.
>
> “I said, ‘According to the rules of conduct, we are allowed to take
> pictures,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “I showed him the rules — they’re bookmarked
> on my BlackBerry.”
>
> Rule 1050.9 (c) of the state code says, “Photography, filming or
> video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except
> that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may
> not be used.”
>
> Then a police sergeant arrived.
>
> “He tells me that their rules and the transit rules are different,”
> Mr. Taylor said. “I tell him, ‘If you feel I’m wrong, give me a
> summons and I’ll see everyone in court.’ The sergeant told them to
> arrest me.”
>
> In handcuffs, Mr. Taylor was delivered to the Transit District 12
> police station, and a warrant check was run. “They were citing 9/11,”
> said Mr. Taylor, whose encounter was described on a blog by the
> photographer Carlos Miller. “Of course, 9/11 is serious. I said:
> ‘Let’s be real. We’re in the Bronx on the 2 train. Let’s be for real
> here. Come on.’ ”
>
> Before he was uncuffed, he got a batch of summonses.
>
> The first was for “taking photos from the s/b plat of incoming
> outgoing trains without authority to do so,” abbreviating “southbound
> platform.” It cited Rule 1050.9 (c).
>
> The second was for disorderly conduct, which consisted of addressing
> the officers in an “unreasonable voice.”
>
> And the third was for “impeding traffic” — on a platform that is
> about 10,000 square feet. “I don’t know if you can impede traffic
> with 15 people per hour coming on the station,” Mr. Taylor said.
>
> LAST year, the city settled a lawsuit with a medical student who was using
> his vacation to photograph every subway stop. He got through
> five before an officer handcuffed him and detained him for about 20
> minutes. With legal fees, the cost to the city was $31,501 — more
> than $1,500 a minute.
>
> In the case of Mr. Taylor, the “officers misinterpreted the rules concerning
> photography,” said Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s
> chief spokesman. “The Transit Adjudication Board is being notified
> that summons was issued in error, resulting in its dismissal.”
>
> However, the police will press on with charges of impeding traffic
> and unreasonable noise, Mr. Browne said.
>
> For his part, Mr. Taylor said he was late meeting his girlfriend: “It
> wasn’t a pleasant sight. I said, ‘I’ll make it up to you.’ What else
> could I say?”
>
> Thanks to the police, they might end up with more than a nice dinner
> or two — at taxpayer expense.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/nyregion/18about.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=subway&st=cse

[colker]

Thank God we don't have these laws here in Brazil.......

What everybody seems to forget is that with all the security measures they took in London they could not prevent the bombings.
What will hapen now is that it is no longer allowed to take pic's with a Hassy or RB, and that the REAL terrorist will take the pic's they need with a compact or cellphone.

In the early 80's I went to Eastern Germany many times with a Linhoff Master: nice, big and the security forces could see what I photographed, never had any problems.
I did not dare to take a Minox with me: the larger the better.

The UK, the US and many more states in the "free" West will become worse than Eastern Germany with these laws: bye bye "freedom" ..........

Peter, Goiânia, Brazil

Yeah... but then we have no LAW in Brasil. It's a little too corrupt.
btw... during the dictatorship era (20 yrs?) we could not take pics in so many places. Plus you would be arrested w/ no explanation.
So it's not exactly a freedom haven.

[wentbackward]

Unfortunately you'd have to subscribe to read the story but the gist is that the photographer had some type of permission to cover a highly sensitive political story, yet still turned away.

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=3fd77a996c98f110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=China&s=News

As a threat to a nation does mean any threat to it's leadership. Does this mean that democracy is terrorism and voting for the opposition to the current party in POWER is perhaps an act of this terror?

[Allen in Montreal]

And this ad will do lots to help the situation!

The local cops have started to subpoena all the media's digifiles and tape after big murder's riots etc, turning the media into police informers by force, so then the crowds turn on the media and smash our cameras....and smash us!

Paranoia is running high. Rights grabs via society's fear of everything is blank cheque these days.
This is going to spin out of control and get worse, guaranteed!





http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1903/photogterrorist.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Ash]

That ad has been around for more than a year (maybe two?) it caused a protest or two already :)

[Allen in Montreal]

That ad has been around for more than a year (maybe two?) it caused a protest or two already :)

Sorry Ash, just making the rounds on this side of the pond now :(

Do the cops there get court orders to take your film/files after riots etc as they do here?

[Ash]

I'm not the best person to ask, I'm not hugely into PJ as I should be. As far as I'm aware the pigs have no rights to even touch the camera (tamper with evidence).

[Pete Watkins]

Come on Ash, don't wind the buggers up by calling them Pigs. You're degrading yourself. If you want to wind the plastic plod (CSO's) up get a bleedin' great LF camera out on a tripod and get a mate (preferably one who hasn't got an excess of tatoos or body piercings or even a silly haircut) to video/film the incident from a distance. Using a large format camera in a public place could always be described as "performance art". The Houses of Parliment from the South Bank sounds good to me. I've been made redundant to-day (it's not a supprise or a problem, I ain't going for the sympanthy vote) but my son lives "down the Smoke" so I might be down there somtime soon. I've got the 11x14 if you can raise a video team I'll bring the camera. If we all get nicked I could always sue ya :-)
Pete