what is it with the brits and DSLR cameras?

[briansquibb]

I would imagine that all countries have the same problems

i read a lot of english, german and italian photo magazines.

the london police (london security) obviously has the most issues with photographers as it seems.
just take a look at "amateur photographer" magazine of last year. i think they have 20 reports about it.

and as there is a group especially for this topic it shows that it IS an issue, not something people make up.

http://photographernotaterrorist.org/

Nothing more than the press looking for a story - issues with the police stopped last year. The British are very vocal about their rights so even a minor issue with officialdom with get in the press. I am sure that if you researched the press from any country you would find the same.

I guess as I live here I would tend to know if it is a major issue - and no, it is isolated incidents being blown out of all proportion. Rather like the light leak on th 5D3

[KeithR]

and as there is a group especially for this topic it shows that it IS an issue, not something people make up.

As others have said, it's not an "issue".

It's an infantile, massive overreaction to a tiny number of examples of police/security guards (and in fact usually "plastic police", Police Community Support Officers), getting carried away and misapplying the relevant laws - there's nothing wrong with the laws themselves, but some jobsworths simply stretched their use way beyond their spirit.

For clarity, I make my living advising one of the largest UK government Departments on the correct application and implementation of UK information and privacy laws, so I'm not exactly uninformed about this.

This whole thing is nothing but an utter non-issue, blown up out of all proportion by a noisy and completely unrepresentative minority with an agenda and a convenient soap-box to shout from.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[Canon-F1]

you guys live in london or a different part of the UK?

i travel around europe a lot... and as i wrote in my first posting, nowhere i felt more unwelcome by the authorities.

For clarity, I make my living advising one of the largest UK government Departments on the correct application and implementation of UK information and privacy laws, so I'm not exactly uninformed about this.

i really don´t care how your laws are.. im not an law expert for any country i visit.
it may be that the laws are fine as they are... but i care about what i experience.

if a security guard or officer in a foreign country approaches me im cautious. 

[KeithR]

i really don´t care how your laws are.. im not an law expert for any country i visit. it may be that the laws are fine as they are... but i care about what i experience.

What's your point?

I'm telling you that - if you were hassled - it's a rare, out of the ordinary thing, and my point about my knowledge of the law of the land (which incidentally, is in response to someone else's posting) is in no small part intended to counterbalance the stupidly inflammatory sweeping statement that is the title of this thread.

[suburbia]

To be fair it has been a very specific issue in this country over the past several years that had some high profile complaints and protests, causing some embarrassment to the country:

2009 Police delete tourists photos:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/police-delete-tourist-photos

It was down to the interpretation of  a specific piece of anti-terrorist legislation (section 44 of the 2000 anti terrorist act (we all know why) that was obviously too vague and was causing civil rights issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Section_44

The most commonly encountered use of the Act was outlined in Section 44 which enables the police and the Home Secretary to define any area in the country as well as a time period wherein they could stop and search any vehicle or person, and seize "articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism".[12]

Unlike other stop and search powers that the police can use, Section 44 does not require the police to have "reasonable suspicion" that an offence has been committed, to search an individual.[13]

In 2009, over 100,000 searches were conducted under the powers, but none of these resulted in people being arrested for terrorism offences. 504 were arrested for other offences.[14]

In January 2010 the stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights


That specific anti-terrorist legislation has been recently removed but I guess it takes time to unwind something like that, some officers may still over step the mark as anti-terrorism paranoia is still there to an extent. I think a wider more specific issue is of jobs worth private security personnel who are looking to make themselves seem important. The law in this country is very specific that private security personnel have no authority on public land and there are no laws against taking photos from public land. This may need further clarification as over the past 20 years the amount of privately owned publicly accessible land in the UK has ballooned.

The Met (London) police have to issue guidelines to police officers and soothe the photographing public on the matter:
 
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Quoting from their website:

Freedom to photograph/film

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

....................

However I also agree that if you consider how many tourists are in the UK photographing everything and how popular photography has been here for over 100 years, to stumble across a police office who mis-interprets anti-terrorist legislation or an over-zealous private security person would be bad luck rather than the norm.

[suburbia]

The issues about shooting from public land have been cleared up - the government and the police have  issued with clear instructions that photographers have full rights to take pictures

Police are not even allowed to demand to see the pictures you have taken, nor confiscate your camera. They are however allowed to take your details if your are for example taking pictures of a military base that could be construed as possible terrorist information gathering.

To walk around London taking 'tourist' pictures should be totally free of interference although there seems to be some issues around the Olympic sites where there is heightened security.

I would imagine that all countries have the same problems

Somewhere in one of the articles they said that you were specifically not allowed to use a tripod, but could hand hold.

Someone on this forum mentioned that there is a new law in NYC that bans the use of a tripod...

Does this strike anyone else as odd? And maybe a little unconstitutional?

The only issue of tripod work in the UK is that there is a law about obstructing a public highway eg public access on a pavement so if you plonk a massive tripod down in the middle of a pavement and force people to walk into the road then you can be asked to remove it.

[D.Sim]

Personally, I think if we think about it, if it keeps us safe, can we really complain?
No doubt it will be annoying... but if that one terrorist is stopped.... its done its job

[wtlloyd]

Who decides whether it is a simple abuse of power, or a true security concern.

Perhaps citizens would best be kept confined somewhere, so the machinery of the state can proceed on its business unimpinged.

Personally, I think if we think about it, if it keeps us safe, can we really complain?
No doubt it will be annoying... but if that one terrorist is stopped.... its done its job

[stringfellow1946]

i travel around europe a lot... and as i wrote in my first posting, nowhere i felt more unwelcome by the authorities.

Then DON'T come back, SIMPLES

[BillyBean]

Personally, I think if we think about it, if it keeps us safe, can we really complain?
No doubt it will be annoying... but if that one terrorist is stopped.... its done its job

This type of attitude is incredibly dangerous.

If you go down this path, you are basically trusting that the police will always have your best interests at heart (easy to assume in England, but don't forget 1930s Germany).

You are also assuming that the safety justifies anything and everything, which is a bizarre, unbalanced view of the world. How would you like to be strip searched every time you went to the airport?

There is a balance in these things that we have spent the last 800 years trying to codify. Don't throw all this away because you trust the state - this is not about trust, it is about freedom and the law.

Next time, the state may decide YOU are the terrorist. Don't say it cannot happen - it already has - the law just makes it harder in England.

[gary]

I am amazed by some of these posts which seem to be by people many of whom have never been to the UK or lived in London. I now live in Los Angeles moved from London recently, having lived in london for the vast majority of my 56 years. London, its visitors and residents have been subjected to terrorist attacks from the IRA, various Palestinian groups, Animal Rights groups and more recently Al Qaida. Many many people have died as a result, so excuse the residents of London if they wish their Police to ask people what they are doing, your minor inconvenience is a small price to pay. Perhaps I am being a bit blunt but as someone who has a friend who lost limbs in an IRA explosion and was within one train of a bomber on the 7/7 attacks I am not really concerned that you suffered some minor inconvenience.
P.S, My daughter is a professional photographer who lives and works in London, she never complains.   

[briansquibb]

I worked in Fleet St in the 1970s and 80s when the IRA were bombing central London. It was quite normal to hear bombs going off. We just carried on working as normal

I was working for Citigroup on 9/7 when our building was taken out.

Am I going to get upset about due diligence by the cops? You only have to look at the US to see the extra security that has been put in place since 9/7 - makes the UK look very low key.

[rpt]

I worked in Fleet St in the 1970s and 80s when the IRA were bombing central London. It was quite normal to hear bombs going off. We just carried on working as normal

I was working for Citigroup on 9/7 when our building was taken out.

Am I going to get upset about due diligence by the cops? You only have to look at the US to see the extra security that has been put in place since 9/7 - makes the UK look very low key.

+1000

Try being in the cops shoes before complaining.

I live in India and we have also known "terrorists" since before they were called that.

Give the cops a break. They are on your side - unless you want to "terrorize" them...

(I apologize for my spellings - these days I am not sure I should spell one way or another...)

[briansquibb]

I worked in Fleet St in the 1970s and 80s when the IRA were bombing central London. It was quite normal to hear bombs going off. We just carried on working as normal

I was working for Citigroup on 9/7 when our building was taken out.

Am I going to get upset about due diligence by the cops? You only have to look at the US to see the extra security that has been put in place since 9/7 - makes the UK look very low key.

+1000

Try being in the cops shoes before complaining.

I live in India and we have also known "terrorists" since before they were called that.

Give the cops a break. They are on your side - unless you want to "terrorize" them...

(I apologize for my spellings - these days I am not sure I should spell one way or another...)

I agree being confrontational to the cops is not the right way. As their employers we need to ensure that they are doing the right thing in the right way.

[Tcapp]

Personally, I think if we think about it, if it keeps us safe, can we really complain?
No doubt it will be annoying... but if that one terrorist is stopped.... its done its job

This type of attitude is incredibly dangerous.

If you go down this path, you are basically trusting that the police will always have your best interests at heart (easy to assume in England, but don't forget 1930s Germany).

You are also assuming that the safety justifies anything and everything, which is a bizarre, unbalanced view of the world. How would you like to be strip searched every time you went to the airport?

There is a balance in these things that we have spent the last 800 years trying to codify. Don't throw all this away because you trust the state - this is not about trust, it is about freedom and the law.

Next time, the state may decide YOU are the terrorist. Don't say it cannot happen - it already has - the law just makes it harder in England.

Yes. +10