Illegal to photograph a police officer now?

[pANDAS Radio]

The relationship between photographers and police could worsen next month when new laws are introduced that allow for the arrest - and imprisonment - of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.

The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. 'Who is to say that police officers won't abuse these powers,' asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week.

Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.

According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis 'shouldn't have taken that photo, you were intimidating me'. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallee.

Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers' Association. 'The incident lasted just 10 seconds, but you don't expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from your neck,' Tallis tells BJP.

Full story @ http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=836675

[DoNotResus]

I saw Chris T-T mention this on twitter. It's pretty crappy stuff.

[Shannow]

This country wide or England only? Either way, this can get right to fuck.

[pANDAS Radio]

Yeah, that's where I got the link.

I suppose this would also make it illegal to photograph any government buildings, they've usually got quite a few cops outside.

This country wide or England only? Either way, this can get right to fuck.

Probably country wide as it's anti-terrorist.

[crazydiamond85]

good stuff
Photographers are the scum of the earth

[endless psych]

Would I be right in the assumption that any private citizen has the right not to have their photo taken and such? And indeed that such a law would extend to police officers?

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...

[Dec]

Too bloody right, you're a commie loving beatnik if you think you've got the right to photograph our nation's finest. This law will stop crazy Osama from blowing up more of our children.

[Kenny Everett]

There you go.........



76 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc

(1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—
“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc

(1) A person commits an offence who—

(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—

(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,

(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or

(iii) a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) publishes or communicates any such information.

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;

(b) on summary conviction—

(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

(4) In this section “the intelligence services” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).

(5) Schedule 8A to this Act contains supplementary provisions relating to the offence under this section.”.

(2) In the application of section 58A in England and Wales in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) the reference in subsection (3)(b)(i) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

(3) In section 118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (defences), in subsection (5)(a) after “58,” insert “58A,”.

(4) After Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 insert the Schedule set out in Schedule 8 to this Act.

[Dec]

The government are heavy lol merchants with their wacky laws. They're like Peter Sellers in The Pink Panther, just bumbling along hilariously.

[Shannow]

Would I be right in the assumption that any private citizen has the right not to have their photo taken and such? And indeed that such a law would extend to police officers?

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...

No, if you're in public, anyone can take your photo without asking.

[triggerhappy]

No, if you're in public, anyone can take your photo without asking.

But if you ask and they say no then you can't.

[endless psych]

But if you ask and they say no then you can't.

What if you take someones photo, or appear to be about to, and they ask you not too?

EDIT:- Not that I nessecarily agree or disagree with any lulz based photography laws, just I though that if you didn't want someone taking your picture you were in the right to stop em?

[Lynnie]

Anyone getting a sudden urge to take pictures of the police? Never even considered it before. Would be fun. What would you get charged for exactly?

[Shannow]

What if you take someones photo, or appear to be about to, and they ask you not too?

EDIT:- Not that I nessecarily agree or disagree with any lulz based photography laws, just I though that if you didn't want someone taking your picture you were in the right to stop em?

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

[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