Comments on: Civil liberties are so damn difficult

By: prclarke

prclarke — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:19:50 +0000

This looks pretty useful:

http://www.terrorismlaw.info/index.php?id=1

By: Shine is Coming off the Chrome – Week Without Google Day 2-3 | Benjamin Ellis

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:39:34 +0000

[...] someone should tell Merrill Lynch that (see Paul Clarke’s post on Civil Liberties) – Google Street map seems able to publish pictures that I’m not even allowed to [...]

By: Denny

Denny — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:46:56 +0000

“When can I be searched? Who is authorised to do what? – and so on.”

And so on, indeed. The answer to that one is quite extensive, as there are a number of ‘powers’ (bits of legislation) that the police can use as a reason to stop and search you.

A quick search threw up this handy guide:
http://www.wombles.org.uk/article2008081902.php

Note that with most powers, the police must have ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion’, but this isn’t a requirement for section 44 of the Terrorism Act – which is the one that’s being misused a lot in London lately. (Section 60 is quite rare, usually only found in place at large protests, dodgy football riots, etc)

I help run a site called Police State UK, we’ve run some articles about the misuse of stop and search in the past, although not specifically about photographers. Matt Wardman’s list of photographer harassment is worth a read on that front.

By: Janet E Davis

Janet E Davis — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:25:33 +0000

On my recent visit to London, my father phoned to tell me to be careful about taking photos. He was quite concerned that I might get arrested. I told him that I would not stop taking photos in public places for fear of officious people getting daft ideas into their heads. I tried reassuring him that it is perfectly legal to photograph anything from the public highway and that if any police tried arresting me, they would look silly.
He was genuinely concerned – possibly more so when my reaction was that this sounded like a challenge to make a point about civil liberties and commonsense.

I have been reprimanded in a station buffet at Peterborough for taking a camera out of my bag. It was the Eastern European woman serving teas who came and snapped at me. I thought it strange that just the sight of a small, compact camera (I was not taking photos with it) caused such a sharp reaction. There are always men in anoraks with cameras at every mainline railway station.
I discovered later that railway stations ‘official’ policy is that they like people taking photographs because they consider it aids security.

I have been stared at by people in the street when even carrying an SLR/DSLR camera. 11 year old boys have called me “cool!” Teenage girls have suspected that I must be someone ‘official.’ Council groundsmen have been very suspicious of a middle-aged woman taking photos of tree bark in a park with no children in it.
People have always regarded my habit of taking photos as weird or suspicious.
My work has always involved taking photos or commissioning or encouraging other people to take photos for public purposes. During the past 10 years, I have done a lot of work on getting historical and contemporary images online for the public. What is legal/illegal therefore has been of crucial importance to my work.
English Heritage had major problems some years ago with its Images of England project when a houseowner objected to a photograph of his house (taken from the public highway) appearing on their web site. He complained to the newspapers. He reckoned that a burglary had been aided by that photograph. The data proved that nobody had ever accessed that specific photo online so no burglar had used it to help plan a break-in.
Unfortunately, it made most of the public cultural heritage organisations extremely twitchy about photos. Most don’t have the money to pay to defend themselves in similar situations.
I strongly believe that taking photos and putting them in a publicly-accessible place is more likely to help our society to be a safer place. I am sure that most photographers would, like me, be only too happy to let security services have copies of the original, detailed photos at any time, should they be helpful to them.

Incidentally, I was amused to note that my taking photos in London caused people to stop and look at what I was photographing. I was looking at things that they had never noticed before. I enjoyed that mostly silent dialogue between myself, others, and the urban environment.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:15:20 +0000

I used to have a link to a guide to photographers rights… And I just found on my (other) blog!

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:44:15 +0000

Will be interested to see how this turns out. When taking photos (on a public street) I have had run-ins with Merrill Lynch security staff who have come out to “talk to me” – Let’s just say “heavy” and well beyond fair and even handed in their approach – to the point where I now have a very negative view of Merrill Lynch and would not become a customer or allow any of my business to be customers.

By: Public Strategist

Public Strategist — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:28:01 +0000

Which reminds very indirectly of this post by Will Davies: the police are available in order that they not be required most of the time - it is largely their existence which matters, not their presence.

By: Leanne Tritton

Leanne Tritton — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:28:20 +0000

I think one of the key issues here is the role that private security guards (civilians) play in dictating the ‘law’ for other civilians. The police in the City respond to possibly hundreds of call outs by security guards to investigate ‘suspicious or hostile’ behaviour from photographers. As I understand it, the ‘I am a photographer, not a terrorist’ campaign has found out that not one single call-out has ever resulted in an arrest. Why are we not questioning why private security keep using police time for spurious purposes? The police should be saying to these companies – we can’t keep coming to your calls simply because you don’t like photographers.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:46:10 +0000

This is a really interesting issue. So often, people are arrested or charged not for the possible crime, but for how they react to questions from police or other authorities.

It isn’t fun being stopped and questionned by the police – especially if one is doing something as innocent as taking photographs in the street!

When this happened to me, it was very hard not to get angry or sarcastic – especially when I felt furious.

One of the most irritating things was the feeling that anyone wanting to undertake illicit surveillance of a building could do so easily: they probably wouldn’t be standing there with a big SLR and bundle of lenses hanging around their neck. Would I have been stopped if I had been sketching a building – or just looking intently?

Equally annoying was the impression I was given by the officer stopping me that I “couldn’t be a tourist” because I am clearly English. (I was on a visit to London from Edinburgh at the time – and I was genuinely being a tourist!)

I have been curious to see whether there has been a noticeable relaxation of attitudes towards photographers.

FUndamentally, I feel the use of stop-and-search against photographers as allowed by anti-terrorism laws is an infringement of my civil liberties to go about my perfectly legal business. And its use naturally pisses me off…

By: tacitus

tacitus — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:19:51 +0000

“…there’s always been a normal, civil expectation of basic cooperation when police ask straightforward questions.”

hmmm – that’s all fine – however there is still no need to require someone to identify themselves (or an obligation on the part of the person to do so). “What’s your side of the story” – fine, but how does “identify yourself” help?

..and detaining someone because they refuse to identify themselves as the result of an allegation of a third party is certainly not okay either.