Illegal to photograph a police officer now?

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by fallen_nemesis

I'm genuinely pretty disgusted with the government for this one. Not even press photographers? Fuck . Right. Off.

This has serious potential to be abused by the police. The general press photographer taking pictures of protest is unlikely to be a terrorist or use said photos for said purpose.

I can see this catching tourists off guard too.

It's getting to the stage where individuals ponder on whether every piece luggage left in a train station is a bomb, or whether every passenger sitting next to them on the tube is a suicide bomber. I think people need to get a grip with the government leading by example.
If they'd perhaps spend some of the money they do on passing worthwhile terrorist legislation on community events and diversity campaigns then perhaps Joe public wouldn't be scared stiff and supporting such drivel. (Speaking of which, they seem to have put this one through Parliment on the fly, or did I just miss this entirely? )

But back to the point, if someone is going to commit a real terrorist act or gather intelligence they'll find a way regardless. All this is doing is penalizing the majority and wasting everyone's time.

/rant

Having a press pas doesn't grant you any reights over a freelance photographer, it just means you might be allowed into an event.

[Potatojunkie]

Originally Posted by endless psych

I could be wrong but I seem to recall a similar thing being trumpeted when folks were coming up with ways to bugger up the CCTV network using data protection (or similar) law...

There's an exception in the DPA covering processing of data undertaken with a view to journalistic or artistic publication.

[Kenny Everett]

Originally Posted by fallen_nemesis

It's getting to the stage where individuals ponder on whether every piece luggage left in a train station is a bomb, or whether every passenger sitting next to them on the tube is a suicide bomber. I think people need to get a grip with the government leading by example.
If they'd perhaps spend some of the money they do on passing worthwhile terrorist legislation on community events and diversity campaigns then perhaps Joe public wouldn't be scared stiff and supporting such drivel. (Speaking of which, they seem to have put this one through Parliment on the fly, or did I just miss this entirely? )

But back to the point, if someone is going to commit a real terrorist act or gather intelligence they'll find a way regardless. All this is doing is penalizing the majority and wasting everyone's time.

/rant

what exactly is "worthwhile" terrorist legislation in your opinion?

Years have been spent raising public awareness about unnattended bags and the like, for the good reason that they've been effective in bombings in the past. The harder you make it for a potential terrorist the better, the attitude of "if they really want to do it they will" sickens me to the core. Would you rather sit back and wait?

[fallen_nemesis]

Originally Posted by Kenny Everett

what exactly is "worthwhile" terrorist legislation in your opinion?

Years have been spent raising public awareness about unnattended bags and the like, for the good reason that they've been effective in bombings in the past. The harder you make it for a potential terrorist the better, the attitude of "if they really want to do it they will" sickens me to the core. Would you rather sit back and wait?

No I wouldn't rather sit back and wait, I fail to see however how this law is going to accomplish huge amounts in this joke of a 'war on terror'.

The press photograher scenario was also only used as an example Shannowchops . It was however the first example that sprung to mind as it's going to make press coverage of events a pain in the arse. There are however countless other scenarios too this will affect.

[Kenny Everett]

I'm n ot getting into the "war on terror" angle at all, but the fact remains that this country has been and continues to be a target for extremist groups. I'm genuinely curious to what you and other think would be worthwhile and acceptable measures?

[fallen_nemesis]

Originally Posted by Kenny Everett

I'm n ot getting into the "war on terror" angle at all, but the fact remains that this country has been and continues to be a target for extremist groups. I'm genuinely curious to what you and other think would be worthwhile and acceptable measures?

I'm mulling that one over at the minute by having a read at some of the government's freely available legislation and reports on the topic.

I will get back to you though after some suitable pondering time Monsier Everett, fear not.

It's not that I believe what it's done up until now is particularly bad per se, more that scenarios where police gun down innocent men on the underground and take away the rights of people with cameras hint that there are better ways to deal with said problem.

[pANDAS Radio]

Originally Posted by Kenny Everett

what exactly is "worthwhile" terrorist legislation in your opinion?

the attitude of "if they really want to do it they will" sickens me to the core.

Would that still count if terrorists took covert pictures of the police positions at parliament, planned a campaign and successfully executed it? Or would you admit that telling Joe Public what they're not allowed to photograph didn't work?

Every phone released these days has a camera on it, you don't have to be poncing about like David Bailey to take a photograph that can be used to plot "enemy positions". Or should mobile phones not be used in public places in case it's really a terrorist taking pictures with the shutter sound turned off? I took some harmless photos in London 2 years ago, but i bet this legislation would class them as illegal. Here are 2 examples....

Harmless picture of a discoloured police van, or was i plotting it's location?


Side view of parliament that happens to show the positions of the cops guarding parliament.


So are those pictures breaches of national security? Naw, I took some boring pictures in London.

[crazydiamond85]

Originally Posted by Shannow

You press the button and say 'sorry, what?'

see now thats the kind of attitude that makes me hate photographers.
If people don't want you taking there picture then you should be bloody taking it

[pANDAS Radio]

Originally Posted by crazydiamond85

If people don't want you taking their [ed] picture then you should be bloody taking it

Freudian slit, slut, slot, slip.

p.s. What part of "not against the law" don't you get? If the couple under the umbrella-ella-ella-eh-eh-eh had told me to delete the photo I posted in the post above then should i have?

[crazydiamond85]

note to self, no more typing until im actually awake

What I'm saying is if someone, and indeed anyone asks you not to take theri picture then you shouldn't take it.
ok yeah sometimes they happen to be in the backround, these things happen.
I was meaning press photographers, they are in my opinion the scum of the earth.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by Kenny Everett

what exactly is "worthwhile" terrorist legislation in your opinion?

Years have been spent raising public awareness about unnattended bags and the like, for the good reason that they've been effective in bombings in the past. The harder you make it for a potential terrorist the better, the attitude of "if they really want to do it they will" sickens me to the core. Would you rather sit back and wait?

The laws over unattended bags are sensible and unobtrusive, but do you really think that the harder we make it for potential terrorists the better? To the point of destroying civil liberties and enacting preposterous laws like this?
That's a more terrifying attitude than terrorism. I'd far rather live with the tiny risk of terrorism than live in a police/surveillance state.

[Semprini]

Originally Posted by crazydiamond85

What I'm saying is if someone, and indeed anyone asks you not to take theri picture then you shouldn't take it.

If you ever get arrested, try that line of argument when they're taking the mugshots and see how you get on.

[fallen_nemesis]

Originally Posted by crazydiamond85

note to self, no more typing until im actually awake

What I'm saying is if someone, and indeed anyone asks you not to take theri picture then you shouldn't take it.
ok yeah sometimes they happen to be in the backround, these things happen.
I was meaning press photographers, they are in my opinion the scum of the earth.

aye, cos you get followed by the press all the time, don't you!

It has it's time and it's place. Without press photographers you wouldn't have had the 2 photos that are pretty much accepted as having stopped the Vietnam war taken (the one of the little girl who's covered in napalm, and the soldier being executed ) . That's just one example of positive press photography. Not every press photographer sits outside big Amy Wino's house

[AWESOMEUS MAXIMUS]

The way I read that is they can make an arrest if they think there might be a problem with the photograph/photographer being involved in dodgy dealings......meaning they don't need to prove anything to lift you at the time, they just need to read you the "charge"...meaning this gives them free reign to lift anyone with a camera in their vacinity. It's a catch all so they can disperse crowds gathering filming brutality and ill treatment. "YOU ALL BETTER MOVE OR ILL SECTION XYZ the LOT OF YOU". Same as section 60.

They can film and photograph you all they want for fuck all reason.
This is a joke.

[Largest of Als]

Originally Posted by crazydiamond85

.
I was meaning press photographers, they are in my opinion the scum of the earth.

I think you need to differentiate between 'press photographers' and 'paparazzi'

Not the same thing...



Al